[afransen]

As a filter, I think selecting 38 job categories and throwing every application missing experience in these areas in the trash is an extremely ham-handed approach. A better way to reduce the backlog would be to expedite these applications and have a large application fee ($5000?) for applications outside these categories. That ought to pay for any cost in evaluating the application (assuming an analyst can process two applications a month, that'd be $120,000 a year, hopefully enough for their salary and benefits and a bit of their boss's, too). The steep fee would also tend to dissuade people who think they have a low probability of success from applying. It's not that unreasonable, since many immigrants pay consultants thousands of dollars as it is.

 

[Brandon716]

It already costs over $1,000 to apply between the application fee and the landing fee, so immigrants basically pay for their application to be processed as it stands. There is very little subsidization going on. One GOOD thing about the new Harper rules is that when you get rejected, you get rejected quickly, and you get your application fee back. When I was rejected in February, my $550 cheque refund from the Canadian government arrived the last week of March. That didn't happen in the old system, it would have taken 6 months. But that doesn't mean its alright, because my application would have most likely been approved under the old system, because I had every qualification met. So getting that money back quickly wasn't a consolation prize.

And getting back to the list of 38, which is the core of the problem with the Harper immigration program, that's pretty much it. That list needs to be gotten rid of after they come up with a program to hire a few more processing agents at high-traffic consulate offices where apps are processed.

That, and Canada should consider increasing the amount of immigrants coming in to 500,000 new residents per year instead of it being stuck at 200-250k per year.

The United States has over 1 million new legal immigrants every year, illegals notwithstanding. Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0516/p01s02-ussc.html

Canada would be well served if it increased its rate to bringing in 500k per year, just to compete if anything else. Again.. Canada is bigger than the US and only has 35 million people.

My solution to Canada's "problem" is that if an immigrant wants to earn the right to live anywhere in Canada start a program where immigrants are more easily passed if they agree to do sponsorship work in remote regions for a few years. Go to Newfoundland, towns in Manitoba or Sasketchewan, New Brunswick. Start a government program similar to Americorp in the United States, but instead of using Canadian nationals, use immigrants to feed the poor, build housing for the homeless and earn points by giving to Canadian society. Maybe potential immigrants could work in a program at remote Canadian health centres and hospitals as support staff to relieve the Canadian Health system of some cost concerns, then that real world Canadian experience could help them get a job after being approved as their immigration goes through. After a 12 month program is completed, you essentially "graduate" from the program and can become a Canadian resident and move wherever you wish.

This could do wonders for rural infrastructure, health, and aboriginal concerns. An entirely new version of outreach where the Canadian economy benefits greatly.

Earned citizenship could be a new category. I would gladly work abroad in Canada's smaller communities for a year or two if I could earn the right to residency and live anywhere I wanted.

Note, Americorp isn't an immigration program, i'm just using that domestic model in the USA for US youth and apply it to an immigration program that could theoretically work well as a new idea.

 

[kEiThZ]

Well it depends what your goals are. Many on the left were upset at the steep landing fee put on by the Liberals. Now the Conservatives have brought that down. The problem however is that the fee applies just to those who land, not those who apply. So there's nothing to keep people for re-applying often or to keep those who have marginal cases from applying and clogging up the system.

Though, a 5k fee for application processing might be a tad excessive....

 

[afransen]

I consider it a whole lot fairer than a flat 'no'.

I'm not sure what it should matter how many people work in immigration, if user fees can pay for the bureaucracy.

 

[kEiThZ]

That, and Canada should consider increasing the amount of immigrants coming in to 500,000 new residents per year instead of it being stuck at 200-250k per year.

The United States has over 1 million new legal immigrants every year, illegals notwithstanding. Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0516/p01s02-ussc.html

Canada would be well served if it increased its rate to bringing in 500k per year, just to compete if anything else. Again.. Canada is bigger than the US and only had 35 million people.

500k? That's nuts. The target (which has not changed under the Conservatives) is 1% of the population per year. We have trouble meeting that target while maintaining quality. And of late we've had trouble meeting quality. We have immigrants following further and further behind. Increasing immigrants to those levels would simply overwhelm our settlement programs.

The size of Canada is irrelevant. Canada is bigger than the US. But you'd be hard pressed to find many migrants willing to settle in Nunavut.

 

[kEiThZ]

I consider it a whole lot fairer than a flat 'no'.

I'm not sure what it should matter how many people work in immigration, if user fees can pay for the bureaucracy.

hmm Fair enough. I could agree with that. Though, I dare say you'd have a difficult time convincing most of our politicians and our immigrant communities of that policy.

I am honestly curious to know what the Liberals would have done about the backlog had Martin remained in power. They've been fairly silent about these changes. The only one they opposed in any sincerity was the change about Ministerial powers. And that was largely optics...the Minister already had powers to refuse entry. The change comes to rejecting groups en masse. And it's unlikely that any minister would reject a group en masse. Though I could see that power being used to admit a group en masse. Yeah, I'd like to see what the Liberals would have done about the backlog and what they'll do about immigration once they do get re-elected.

 

[Brandon716]

500,000 people per year is 1.5% of the Canadian population, which is not a huge increase. I'm not sure how "nutty" an idea that could possibly be. Canada will soon be 40 million people and 500,000 per year is less of a percent at that point.

 

[kEiThZ]

My solution to Canada's "problem" is that if an immigrant wants to earn the right to live anywhere in Canada start a program where immigrants are more easily passed if they agree to do sponsorship work in remote regions for a few years.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/English/immigrate/provincial/index.asp

Depending on the province it's actually quite easy to get a provincial nomination.

 

[Brandon716]

Anyway, I'm ready to go to bed soon.

We've ventured all around this topic in every direction. I've proposed ideas just to be a little innovative, and to show you there are other/better ways than reducing categories to 38.

Canada can do all kinds of things: increase the landing fees marginally, maybe back up to $1000. Canada can create an earned residency pathway for immigration, working in remote regions and building Canada's infrastructure from health to construction to water purification in aboriginal communities. After a 12 month program you could use those skills to apply for other jobs in Canada and earn your immigration application. Canada could simply hire more immigration review officers in addition to all these steps.

There are all kinds of innovative ideas immigration can work around, something far more productive than limiting jobs down to a tiny list of 38 groups.

 

[Brandon716]

http://www.cic.gc.ca/English/immigrate/provincial/index.asp

Depending on the province it's actually quite easy to get a provincial nomination.

That is not any easier than regular immigration keith. I know, I've tried. I've sought employers in Sasketchewan for crying out loud... You know, that place rumored to have a job for just about anyone??

That isn't the kind of program I thought about in my idea, you still have to get an employer to sponsor you (the biggest hurdle).

My idea is essentially government placement and sponsorship, and you earn your immigration status through a government program that helps Canadian society.

But again, these are all theoretical ideas. Anything is better than 38 jobs being the only pathway as a skilled worker.

 

[kEiThZ]

500,000 people per year is 1.5% of the Canadian population, which is not a huge increase. I'm not sure how "nutty" an idea that could possibly be. Canada will soon be 40 million people and 500,000 per year is less of a percent at that point.

I don't think even the NDP supports that high an annual intake. It would certainly be unprecedented as an absolute amount in our history (save for the immediate aftermath of WWII maybe). It's not that anyone would be opposed to taking in that many migrants per se. The problem would be settlement resources. We have enough problems paying for all the settlement programs now. Doubling those resources would be prohibitively expensive. Lastly, that level of migration could overwhelm some of our major cities. Toronto and Vancouver for sure would have a tough time staying afloat with intakes that high.

 

[kEiThZ]

Anyway, I'm ready to go to bed soon.

We've ventured all around this topic in every direction. I've proposed ideas just to be a little innovative, and to show you there are other/better ways than reducing categories to 38.
....
There are all kinds of innovative ideas immigration can work around, something far more productive than limiting jobs down to a tiny list of 38 groups.

It's not that I am wedded to those 38 categories. I am not arguing just to be a prick. In the absence of better ideas (other than to simply throw money at the problem...which won't solve anything...just generate new applications), I think the government is right to impose some kind of screen to go for exactly the immigrants it wants. If the numbers from statscan say that's where the shortages are so be it....perhaps you have a bone to pick with the statisticians who say we don't have significant shortages elsewhere in our economy. People forget that a good bulk of these policies are designed by policy analysts not politicians. It was some desk officer at Immigration and a guy from statscan who probably put this list together. Ministerial direction was probably something to the effect of: 'make me an immigration system that's more responsive to the job market."

I'll concede, however, that more innovation and ideas are needed. And that's why we debate these things.

 

[Brandon716]

I thought we had been over this before, the immigration minister when Harper came into power was Diane Finley. The Conservative plan was to give the minister power to reject applications before they came to a full review in order to reduce backlog.

The goal was to give the minister sweeping power to reject applications in a pre-screening process, not to help the Canadian job market.

So the directive given to the desk stats workers was probably far different than what you characterize, but I'm not going to speculate quite that far.

For crying out loud, the Conservative government admits they wanted the power to reject applications without giving them a full review. Whether they still admit that is up for question, because PR is important and they probably fall back on "we wanted to be responsive to Canadian industry and the economy" but originally, back in 2008 you'd regularly find articles where Conservative politicians were openly supporting the idea to reject applications before getting a full review as the way to reduce backlog.

The goal in and of itself was a good goal: reduce the awful backlog. The method of getting to that goal is what I disagree with. Giving the minister the power to reject applications before they get to a full review isn't good, and yes I do support hiring more review officers before rejecting apps before they get fully reviewed.

But C-50 passed and the rest is history.

 

[Brandon716]

You know, I'm rather exhausted on this issue. I've already applied to go to college in Canada this fall, and I'm seeking financing to see if its viable. If it works, it works. If I get to go to school for a full year that should give me the new pathway I'm looking for to attain residency in the next 2-3 years, while simultaneously studying and working in Canada starting this year.

I don't have the energy to discuss immigration policy anymore.

 

[afransen]

The backlog problem is only partially the rate at which applications are processed. The other part is the accelerating rate of new applications.

I think that just about the only way to slow the rate of applications would be to institute a significant application fee. An application fee makes more sense than a landing free, really. Even refunding the application fee once applicants gain PR would seem reasonable to me.