[Brandon716]

Maybe the new Canadian Experience Class isn't bullshit afterall, I've been spending the past two days reviewing documents and I've found a cheaper alternative to going to York U for 2 years.

According to the law as it states today, if you "graduate from a post-secondary institution" with a minimum of 8 months of consistent coursework, you are eligible for an unlimited Canadian Work Permit, which means you can work for any employer at any location/business save for Quebec, for 8 months after graduation. And you are eligible to file for a work permit while going to school after 6 months.

That means I could get involved in a certificate program at a college like George Brown, Centennial, Seneca, Humber, or Sheridan, it would be a 1 year/8 month program.

This would likely be far cheaper, and I could actually find financing, and after 6 months I could become eligible to work outside campus.

So I would have to find independent living expenses to cover 6-8 months, plus finance the coursework (which still isn't cheap because its paid at international rates instead of Canadian rates).

But the thing is that it would not take 8 months to find any kind of employment, and once you are employed the work permit can be renewed for another year or two and once the experience is stacked its automatically qualifying for permanent residency.

So I think I've found a new pathway to Canadian residency in the past two days. I don't recall reading in any historical documentation that it only takes 8 months to get an unlimited work permit, so that is definately a perk of the new Canadian Experience Class.

Isn't easy, and I'll be taking useless coursework because I don't feel comfortable trying an expensive 2 year program to finish up at York even if its cheaper than UofT. There is no way I can find the $50-60k in financing required.

I'll be able to go back to university after I become a resident at local rates.

YAY, at least its a viable plan.

I think I could afford two semesters of coursework toward a certificate at a college so that I could merge into the Canadian system.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/study/work-postgrad-who.asp

The rule clearly states a post-secondary program of at least 8 months, it does not state it even requires a 2 year college diploma. So a one year certificate program maybe my pathway, this was not available before.

The danger is if the rules change mid-game, because fi these rules are changed before the plan can be carried out its as good as nothing. There is real potential for that to happen after watching what happened last year.

 

[Brandon716]

I'm not even eligible for a student loan, according to OSAP.

https://osap.gov.on.ca/eng/not_secure/App_elig_req_123.htm

So its not looking viable unless I can find significant private financing.

I calculate even if I do a 1 year certificate program, the cost will be $11,180 for the actual certificate program (mind you its only $1,000 for a native born citizen or permanent resident), and it will be another $5,400 in living costs for the year to live in a dorm.

So that's over $17,000 I will need, although I do have some personal resources that could bring that number down somewhat. But these costs don't include books or living costs throughout the year, and I can't work outside campus for a whole 6 months because of the work permit issue, only after 6 months can I apply for a work permit and work for my own paycheck off campus.

...so if I can find $17-20k I think this fall I might do this.

 

[kEiThZ]

Brandon,

This is exactly why I have argued that some of these changes are positive. Sure, students are not the largest intake group right now, but the government has made statement that this would be good group to expand in the future. And I agree with that vision. The UK and the US take in tons of foreign students every year, educate them and boot them. Imagine if Canada could capture even some of that talent. Why bother working to recruit foreign professionals when we can educate foreign students here to become Canadian professionals? It's a win-win. Young people get a path to residency in Canada that they normally would only attain in their late 20s to early 30s. Canada gets better integrated and more suitably educated migrants. And our universities, of course, get unsubsidized students. In the UK, in fact, foreign students have even become the main source of revenue ahead of government grants. And they don't even give them residency afterwards! I sincerely hope they grow this program over time.

One of the big differences between the CEC and the old FSWP was the fact that skilled workers often ended up having to leave Canada to seek residency. Under the new system, they get to stay in country while their application for residency is being processed and in all likelihood, somebody who's here and gainfully employed is not likely to get rejected. It's not ideal that they raised the experience requirement to 2 years. However, not getting kicked out of the country while your application is being processed is surely a big plus.

I wish people would stop being so cynical about these changes. I could see the Liberals making the very same changes and then everybody would singing the praises of immigration reform. Conservatives undertake them and all of a sudden there's evidence of their hidden agenda. Our system was getting out dated. It was time that some changes were made. I could care less which party was in power, as long as they put effort into improving the process so that we could continue to attract the best migrants. There's no doubt more needs to be done to tackle the backlog. But in the meanwhile, we can't drop the ball on keeping those migrants who are in Canada for work or studies from leaving.

 

[Brandon716]

Since you want to talk about party politics again, my opinion is that the Conservative plan that was put into action isn't that impressive. A lot of these ideas (such as an Experience Class) were proposed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada before the Conservatives ever stepped foot in office, however the Conservatives are the cause of reducing the categories to only 38 job titles (which is still pathetic, no matter how you put it). I still think reducing skilled worker immigration to such a small amount in exchange for a better experience oriented immigration category isn't that perfect. I could have immigrated under the old system without looking for $20,000 in funds to go to school for a year.

So far as student immigration in concerned, here's the only benefit. It used to be that you needed a minimum of a 2 year college diploma to qualify for a work permit that really worked off campus, now you can qualify after spending 8 months/2 semesters and getting a certificate and its unlimited, meaning you can choose any employer in any business or non-profit (or even government).

The thing is that the change was not that significant, I think you are still overstating the positives of Conservative policy. They still limited immigration for most people around the world. It is much better to spend only $20,000 for one year of studies and be eligible as opposed to spending $40-60,000 for two years of study to become eligible though.

I've just found a new opportunity, but I don't agree with your comments that international students should be used to fund the education system.

I'm in luck, because I just found out after contacting the financial aid office today that US federal student loan programs work with Canadian schools. I may even be able to get a grant up to $5,000 USD. It looks like I may be in the GTA this fall afterall, albeit under a different circumstance. So in this regard Americans do have a leg up on other people, but its only because of the US federal government programs... I don't know of any other foreign government running a program to make their grants and loans compatible with another nationality. I just learned of this program today...

So instead of using OSAP I'll be able to file a FAFSA form here in the US and just use the codes for the Canadian colleges in the GTA. I hope I can qualify for a large enough Stafford loan and Pell Grant.

I just hope the Canadian dollar holds at $1.30 exchange rate, that means I have 30% lower costs. Luckily I opened an account with RBC when I was in Toronto back in February and already have started to save in CAD funds.

 

[Brandon716]

As the saga continues... US Pell Grants are not eligible outside the country; however, US Dept. of Education Stafford Loans are eligible. So that cuts down my potential funding to $10k USD, no more. So that (right now) is roughly $12,000 CAD.

 

[afransen]

Since you want to talk about party politics again, my opinion is that the Conservative plan that was put into action isn't that impressive. A lot of these ideas (such as an Experience Class) were proposed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada before the Conservatives ever stepped foot in office, however the Conservatives are the cause of reducing the categories to only 38 job titles (which is still pathetic, no matter how you put it). I still think reducing skilled worker immigration to such a small amount in exchange for a better experience oriented immigration category isn't that perfect. I could have immigrated under the old system without looking for $20,000 in funds to go to school for a year.

So far as student immigration in concerned, here's the only benefit. It used to be that you needed a minimum of a 2 year college diploma to qualify for a work permit that really worked off campus, now you can qualify after spending 8 months/2 semesters and getting a certificate and its unlimited, meaning you can choose any employer in any business or non-profit (or even government).

The thing is that the change was not that significant, I think you are still overstating the positives of Conservative policy. They still limited immigration for most people around the world. It is much better to spend only $20,000 for one year of studies and be eligible as opposed to spending $40-60,000 for two years of study to become eligible though.

I've just found a new opportunity, but I don't agree with your comments that international students should be used to fund the education system.

I'm in luck, because I just found out after contacting the financial aid office today that US federal student loan programs work with Canadian schools. I may even be able to get a grant up to $5,000 USD. It looks like I may be in the GTA this fall afterall, albeit under a different circumstance. So in this regard Americans do have a leg up on other people, but its only because of the US federal government programs... I don't know of any other foreign government running a program to make their grants and loans compatible with another nationality. I just learned of this program today...

So instead of using OSAP I'll be able to file a FAFSA form here in the US and just use the codes for the Canadian colleges in the GTA. I hope I can qualify for a large enough Stafford loan and Pell Grant.

I just hope the Canadian dollar holds at $1.30 exchange rate, that means I have 30% lower costs. Luckily I opened an account with RBC when I was in Toronto back in February and already have started to save in CAD funds.

Backdoor head tax?

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't see what the big deal is about attracting more international students. If they bring in the income to grow Canadian universities that would be great. Canadian universities after all is said and done are still far cheaper (on international fees) than their counterparts in other western countries. CAD 15k is a bargain compared to what a foreign student pays at most American or European universities (many of which are not on par with good schools in Canada). Cost of living tends to be higher in Europe as well. I absolutely disagree that its a bad practice to use international students to raise funds for universities. Education has a market just like everything else. Why not cater to it, if it helps us achieve our goals? Universities get a boost in funding and Canada gets more potential migrants.

But there are so many other benefits other than income. A more diverse class. Imagine having a discussion on developing world economics with a Bangladeshi national in the room. Or improved reputations for Canadian universities. Everybody knows UCLA or Harvard or Oxford or Cambridge all over the world. How many people really know about U of T or York? Spreading a few more international grads around the world will help to improve Canada's reputation and influence immensely.

The best part of all this is that Canada is offering something that other countries are not, a path to residency and citizenship, not just an education for those who seek that. In return Canada gets a migrant who won't have that pesky 'Canadian experience' problem. They will be Canadian educated and trained and ready to work the day they graduate.

If there's a downside here I don't see it. Immigration programs exist first and foremost to feed our labour markets. In seeking skilled workers, what could be better than training them ourselves?

 

[Brandon716]

The United States is vastly different from Canada in that tuition at state sponsored or owned universities and colleges is only low for the people of a given state, once you cross state borders you have the same fees as an international student. This is why I was painfully locked into attending Tennessee institutions back in the day as that's where I graduated high school and grew up.

For example, for Pennsylvania residents its $12,832 to attend the University of Pittsburgh:

http://www.ir.pitt.edu/tuition/pghpafirst.htm

However, if you are out of state (say you live in Youngstown, OH, a metro of nearly 500,000 people just 50 miles away), you must pay $22,480 to come here to Pittsburgh and go to school.

http://www.ir.pitt.edu/tuition/pghosfirst.htm

There are usually programs where grads of high school districts on the state borders of local universities get in state rates, like people who go to high school in New Castle, PA just on the border with Youngstown can go to Youngstown State University for cheaper in-state rates, but it stops there.

Its considerably different than education in Canada, I think even residents of Ontario could go to BC and get local rates if they wanted.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Yes and no. There are some schools in some provinces which charge different rates for out of province students. Quebec universities are the obvious example. Further to that some school even bias admission to where the student is from. Universities in northern ontario tend to favour students who are from or intend to stay in northern ontario. Likewise for schools on the Rock.

 

[Brandon716]

^ Yes and no. There are some schools in some provinces which charge different rates for out of province students. Quebec universities are the obvious example. Further to that some school even bias admission to where the student is from. Universities in northern ontario tend to favour students who are from or intend to stay in northern ontario. Likewise for schools on the Rock.

Something tells me that happens a lot in any system. I was pre-accepted at the university in the hometown I grew up in, because I went to the local high school. They hadn't even received my high school transcript and I had not even graduated when I applied, yet was accepted. And no, it wasn't a 2 year college, it was a full fledged state university. They basically had a program where they accepted anyone who graduated from the local high school, regardless whether qualified or not. Mind you they didn't have financial aid for us... My family made too much to get any grants, so I had to wait until after I was 23 before I was eligible for any assistance. Hence why I ended up not finishing in part, just wasn't enough money and I hated living at home and couldn't wait and do the program after I turned 23. (23 being the age you can claim to be independent on our FAFSA forms and get federal grant money indpendent of parent's income).

Where high selectivity and location-favorite games don't happen is purely private universities that just want money, no matter what source its from. There are a lot of low-quality private universities in the United States that aren't anything like the Harvard or Yales, but accept anyone who can claim enough loan and grant money to get the "university" a good income base.. And usually bankrupt the student in the process.

A lot of those private universities have programs that are barely worth the paper the diploma would be printed on, but you get the point. Education is an industry in America as much as its education for many schools.

There are also a lot of intensely religious schools that somehow get accredited in the United States and I wonder how the hell they qualify. Although I don't know if Liberty University, home of Jerry Falwell's religious evangelical revival campaign, is accredited or not.

The discrimination is so bad that they basically have a litmus test that you must proclaim your love of the evangelical, protestant God and reject abortion before you're allowed in. Only in America can such an institution be called a "university" in name.

 

[afransen]

Brandon,

This is exactly why I have argued that some of these changes are positive. Sure, students are not the largest intake group right now, but the government has made statement that this would be good group to expand in the future. And I agree with that vision. The UK and the US take in tons of foreign students every year, educate them and boot them. Imagine if Canada could capture even some of that talent. Why bother working to recruit foreign professionals when we can educate foreign students here to become Canadian professionals? It's a win-win. Young people get a path to residency in Canada that they normally would only attain in their late 20s to early 30s. Canada gets better integrated and more suitably educated migrants. And our universities, of course, get unsubsidized students. In the UK, in fact, foreign students have even become the main source of revenue ahead of government grants. And they don't even give them residency afterwards! I sincerely hope they grow this program over time.

One of the big differences between the CEC and the old FSWP was the fact that skilled workers often ended up having to leave Canada to seek residency. Under the new system, they get to stay in country while their application for residency is being processed and in all likelihood, somebody who's here and gainfully employed is not likely to get rejected. It's not ideal that they raised the experience requirement to 2 years. However, not getting kicked out of the country while your application is being processed is surely a big plus.

I wish people would stop being so cynical about these changes. I could see the Liberals making the very same changes and then everybody would singing the praises of immigration reform. Conservatives undertake them and all of a sudden there's evidence of their hidden agenda. Our system was getting out dated. It was time that some changes were made. I could care less which party was in power, as long as they put effort into improving the process so that we could continue to attract the best migrants. There's no doubt more needs to be done to tackle the backlog. But in the meanwhile, we can't drop the ball on keeping those migrants who are in Canada for work or studies from leaving.

Freshly graduated students are also probably the ideal immigrant group, socially. They have just finished the period of their life where they impose a significant cost on their host society (schooling, mainly), and have 35 or 40 working years ahead of them before they draw pension benefits and see increased health care costs.

 

[kEiThZ]

Freshly graduated students are also probably the ideal immigrant group, socially. They have just finished the period of their life where they impose a significant cost on their host society (schooling, mainly), and have 35 or 40 working years ahead of them before they draw pension benefits and see increased health care costs.

Exactly. And in this case, they are largely picking up the tab and imposing a lower burden (no language training, foreign credentials worries for example). Like I said earlier, I hope the government expands this group significantly. I have no issues with U of T or York charging 20k for students (15k USD), paying for the students spot and making 5k profit to subsidize some poor canuck. The way I see it Canada is well behind the rest of the developed world in tapping this pool of talent and income.

I don't see changes like these as partisan. Giving students who graduate in Canada a path to residency just makes sense.

There is the quibble of reducing job categories. However, I suspect that this is no different than the old system where you got more points for having an in-demand occupation. Again, I don't see the complaint here. Our immigration system has always discriminated in favour of migrants who fulfill our labour market needs. So how is it discrimination if the system is geared toward getting more cooks if we need more cooks? That's exactly what we did before. Only these days, instead of cooks we'll ask for anyone who has experience working in a kitchen.

Ultimately, the only way we'll be able to tell if these policies were really partisan is if immigration levels start dropping during the good years....2009 will be an anomaly after all because of the recession. As it stands, I just don't think the Conservatives would go that far. It would be political suicide for a party that's already on thin ice. Were it not for the perception of the Conservative party as anti-immigrant, the CPC would be attracting the immigrant votes in droves because the values of the CPC tend to align with most immigrants. I honestly think the Conservatives will continue to try hard to attract immigrants to the fold. Attracting immigrants after all is a double blow to the Liberals. One more for the Cons and one less for the Libs. If I were a CPC strategist, immigrants would be one of my foremost target groups.

 

[afransen]

They are. That is what Jason Kenney has built his career on.

 

[Brandon716]

Keith, you might as well be a CPC strategist because you are about the most blue "Liberal" I've ever met. You are more apologetic and supportive of Harper policy (across the board, not just immigration) than virtually anyone I meet. Everything you say is "why not give Harper a chance" or something to that effect. I've said it once, I'll say it again, this isn't about party politics for me personally. Its about my life. This is the one issue that directly effects my life in regards to Canadian policy, for the time being, and once I'm legal I can worry about other policies more in the future.

This discussion is like a revolving door, it keeps going around in circles. How many times do I have to say that I'm proud the new Experience Class has helped reduce some of the requirements, such as now an 8 month/1 year school program making someone eligible for a work permit for 8 months after getting a certificate.

But my point was that if the old, more fair rules on skilled workers were being implemented then I wouldn't have to waste $20k on an unnecessary program.

I've already got a 3 year Associate Degree and invested many thousands into it, more than the $20k I am going to be spending on this one year program if it works out.

I spent 7 years working toward the 3 year degree and 4 years of work experience, just to be turned down on the permanent immigration app when I qualified under the old system.

There is no need to repeat it, while I'm happy this opportunity has opened up on the education front, it isn't fair immigration to me personally or the hundreds of thousands of people who will be rejected unfairly who can contribute to Canadian society and integrate fully with no problems under the old rules, and spent YEARS of our lives working toward that goal.

We get it that you think the new immigration system is fantastic, but just because actual immigrant numbers won't be going down (there are too many applications for numbers to go down), does NOT mean this system is more fair.

The height of executive mismanagement in the CIC is when former Minister Diane Finley, and now Jason Kenney, put everyone's application in total limbo last year. Anyone who applied after February 27, 2008 was judged by the new rules, but the rules didn't even come out until nearly December only a few months ago!

How can an entire ministry whose purpose is immigration screw up an entire year's worth of applications? I don't think you realize how many people were rejected that applied last year thinking their apps were going to be based on the old system of rules. Then we're told "oh, apps received after Feb 27th are judged differently."

They should have applied the new rules only to apps submitted after the new rules actually CAME OUT.

SURE, a Liberal government could have messed it up and done the same thing theoretically speaking. But the point is they didn't. They weren't in charge when this mess happened. The only thing that can be blamed on the Liberals when they had power is that the queue got big, but the system was still fundamentally more fair as everyone got a chance to be reviewed. This new system rejects people before they are fully reviewed. How hard is that to understand??

The new immigration system wasn't implemented smoothly, its been a hectic switch for EVERYONE (both the applicant and the reviewing officers who didn't know what to do with the apps so they just put them in files and held onto them for most of 08), and they are discriminating job categories for the purpose of speeding up immigration instead of hiring new officers to review applications. I don't care what anyone says, or any justifications used, no advanced 1st world nation should be limiting their skilled worker applicants to a pool of only 38 job titles. Its just not healthy.

Besides, just the executive mismanagement of how this new program was implemented is an embarrassment to this government. An entire year's worth of applications in limbo is more than a mistake, its a national disgrace in the face of the international community that is directly effected by immigration policy.

It certainly hasn't helped Canada.

That's the bottom line.

P.S. As far as my personal feelings, I want you to realize something keith. Despite my feelings about the Harper government, I deeply respect the Canadian system and trust the Canadian people more than my own home country. Perfect? No, never will be perfect. In my perfect world Harper wouldn't be leader of Canada... But that isn't the point. Despite the fact that the United States has a leader I actually agree with more than disagree, and is part of a party I worked for and supported for many years, it still does not deter my interest in Canada. My beliefs move beyond politics, and my respect for the Canadian system is beyond its government.

 

[kEiThZ]

Brandon,

With all due respect you can't complain about us talking about conservative immigration policy on a thread titled 'Conservative Immigration Policy'. I was not the one who brought up any discussion about your personal situation or experience. You have brought up that subject and then translated your experience to say that immigration is in decline. There is no evidence that we are allowing less people in.

I can sympathize that there will be many, many people in your shoes who will suffer as a result of a changeover in rules. That could happen under any government. When my family moved here, our papers at the Canadian embassy were destroyed as a result of the invasion of Kuwait. Following that, we had to wait month to reprocess all the paperwork. Just as we were finishing, new rules came into effect which necessitated redoing some of the medicals. In all, my family ending up spending a year in limbo not knowing what part of the world they were going to live in. However, living in limbo in the middle east in the early 90s with kids is far, far worse than having to live in Pittsburg...you'd understand if you knew about perennial visa issues in the Gulf. So I do sympathize with the problems you and many other folks will have.

However, policies are made for the betterment of this nation, not for the benefit of those seeking to come here. And when I discuss the changes they are making, I look at it through that lens. Is it beneficial to Canada if we get cooks a PR card in 6 months if cooks are needed today? Yes. Is it beneficial if we can convince as many students as possible to choose Canada as the place to get their education and then as a place to live thereafter? Sure it is.

I also recognize the problem of resources (seeing firsthand being in government myself). It is a difficult task to process the amount of applications Immigration Canada gets every year. However, keep in mind that the backlog grew and started under the Liberals. Their efforts to increase family class migration brought in more applications, but the government of the day decided not to add the resources to process them. In fact, Immigration Canada suffered the same cutbacks as all the other government departments in the 90s despite policies increasing their workload.

This brings us to today. Should the Conservatives throw resources at the problem? Absolutely. However, the issue for me, is how do you prevent the most qualified migrants from being discouraged while the backlog is being hacked away? If an engineer has to wait 5 years for a visa to Canada he'll choose Australia or New Zealand instead. I know this first hand. I have family members who have made those decisions. I applaud the government for making exceptions to first come, first serve. In the context of attracting talent, that's a ridiculous notion. An immigration policy is meant to meet Canada's needs first and foremost. Discouraging the most qualified migrants just to be egalitarian is a ridiculous policy.

And if they are raising the bar, so what? Countries tailor immigration policies as per their needs. If we need folks with post-grads, then that's what we need and as a taxpayer and citizen that's the kind of migrant I expect the government to seek out. It is unfortunate if when standards are raised, some folks lose out, but that's life. Have a look at migration standards for the UK fpr some perspective. Our recently changed standards are still nowhere as tight as most of the countries in the world. We are still far easier to migrate too than Australia, the US, the UK, New Zealand and all of Europe.

Finally, you constantly state that these changes are a threat to immigration. Prove it. Put up a single statistic that says the number of applications is dropping or that the number of migrants Canada is taking in are going to be curtailed.