Applicants will have to pass the language tests. More changes coming soon.
Backgrounder — New minimum language requirements for immigrants under the Provincial Nominee Program
New minimum language requirements for immigrants under the Provincial Nominee Program
Starting July 1, 2012, most Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) applicants for semi- and low-skilled occupations that fall under National Occupational Classification (NOC) Skill Levels C and D will have to undergo mandatory language testing and achieve a minimum standard of Canadian Language Benchmark (CLB) 4 in English or Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens (NCLC) level 4 in French across all four categories: listening, speaking, reading and writing.
National Occupational Classification Skill Levels
The NOC is the nationally accepted reference for occupations in Canada. It organizes over 40,000 job titles into 500 occupational group descriptions.
NOC Skill Levels C and D occupations include semi- and low-skilled workers in the trades, primary and manufacturing industries, sales and services, as well as certain clerical and assistant categories. For more information, please consult the Human Resources and Skills Development website at http://www5.hrsdc.gc.ca/NOC/English/NOC/2011/AboutNOC.aspx.
Canadian Language Benchmark Language Standards
As of July 1, 2012, most applicants for semi- and low-skilled occupations under the PNP program will be required to first take a language proficiency test and obtain a minimum standard of CLB 4 across all four categories: listening, speaking, reading and writing.
The CLB is the national standard used in Canada for describing, measuring and recognizing the English language proficiency of adult immigrants and prospective immigrants for living and working in Canada. It provides a descriptive scale of communicative proficiency in English as a second language, expressed as benchmarks or reference points.
The NCLC are used for assessment of French language proficiency.
CLB 4 is considered “Basic Proficiency” and means that an individual being tested who “meets” CLB 4:
can communicate basic needs and personal experience;
can follow, with considerable effort, simple formal and informal conversations;
can read a simple set of instructions, plain language; and
can write short messages, postcards, notes or directions.
Applicants must provide valid results from a language test administered by a designated testing agency to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The acceptable tests are:
the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) General Training;
the Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program (CELPIP-General); and
the Test d’évaluation de français (to test proficiency in French).
No other evidence of language proficiency will be accepted.
One-Year Exemption for Certain Temporary Foreign Workers
As temporary foreign workers (TFWs) often make the transition to provincial nominees, there will be a one-time exemption for TFWs in NOC C and D occupations who arrived in Canada on or before July 1, 2012, and who are subsequently nominated in employer-driven PNP streams no later than July 1, 2013. This ensures that all individuals who arrived as temporary foreign workers under the previous regime, when no minimum standards existed, will not be disadvantaged.
Showing posts with label Canada immigation policy language testing skilled workers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada immigation policy language testing skilled workers. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
CONSTRUCTION GROUP SUPPORTS IMMIGRATION CHANGES
Large construction group supports changes that will encourage immigration of more trades, better and more suitable skills that can adapt to the economy. The changes make sense and are essential to the economy.
Canadian Construction Association supports immigration reform – Daily Commercial News
March 6, 2012
Canadian Construction Association supports immigration reform
OTTAWA
The Canadian Construction Association (CCA) is pleased with the proposed reforms to Canada’s immigration system, as outlined recently by Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
“Canada’s current immigration system does not adequately address the needs of the Canadian construction industry or the projected growth of the Canadian economy,” said Michael Atkinson, president of CCA.
“On the surface, the reforms outlined sound like they would go a long way to addressing the challenges that employers currently face to bring in skilled workers, which would ultimately contribute to a more competitive Canadian economy.”
With the projected growth in the Canadian economy, particularly in resource-oriented sectors, the need for an efficient construction industry will remain paramount in order to sustain Canadian competitiveness. This also includes building and maintaining the critical core infrastructure required to support those sectors.
Projections currently indicate that the Canadian construction industry will experience a shortfall of 325,000 workers by 2019.
At the same time, demand for construction services in Canada is expected to continue increasing throughout the decade, elevating Canada’s construction market to fifth-largest in the world.
DCN NEWS SERVICES
Canadian Construction Association supports immigration reform – Daily Commercial News
March 6, 2012
Canadian Construction Association supports immigration reform
OTTAWA
The Canadian Construction Association (CCA) is pleased with the proposed reforms to Canada’s immigration system, as outlined recently by Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
“Canada’s current immigration system does not adequately address the needs of the Canadian construction industry or the projected growth of the Canadian economy,” said Michael Atkinson, president of CCA.
“On the surface, the reforms outlined sound like they would go a long way to addressing the challenges that employers currently face to bring in skilled workers, which would ultimately contribute to a more competitive Canadian economy.”
With the projected growth in the Canadian economy, particularly in resource-oriented sectors, the need for an efficient construction industry will remain paramount in order to sustain Canadian competitiveness. This also includes building and maintaining the critical core infrastructure required to support those sectors.
Projections currently indicate that the Canadian construction industry will experience a shortfall of 325,000 workers by 2019.
At the same time, demand for construction services in Canada is expected to continue increasing throughout the decade, elevating Canada’s construction market to fifth-largest in the world.
DCN NEWS SERVICES
Friday, November 25, 2011
ARCHITECT DID NOT SHOW ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF DUTIES IN SKILLED WORKER APPLICATION
It seems that the evidence before the visa officer was not completely satisfactory to show that this Architect performed all the duties of that profession. Application preparation is key. The Federal Court refused to quash the decision of the visa officer.
Tabanag v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Between
Bryan Cabrera Tabanag, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
[2011] F.C.J. No. 1575
2011 FC 1293
Docket IMM-1932-11
Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario
Mosley J.
Heard: November 2, 2011.
Judgment: November 10, 2011.
(28 paras.)
________________________________________
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
1 MOSLEY J.:-- Mr. Bryan Cabrera Tabanag applied for permanent resident status as a skilled worker indicating that he had work experience as an Architect in Manila, Philipines. In a decision dated March 2, 2011, a service delivery agent at the respondent's Centralized Intake Office in Sydney, Nova Scotia assessed that Mr. Tabanag was not eligible for processing in the skilled worker category.
2 Mr. Tabanag seeks judicial review of that decision under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 26. For the reasons that follow, the application is dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
3 The position of "Architect" bears the National Occupation Code (NOC) of 2151 in the standardized classification system used by the respondent to assess skilled worker applications. NOC 2151 describes the tasks and duties of an architect in these terms:
• Architects conceptualize, plan and develop designs for the construction and renovation of commercial, institutional and residential buildings. They are employed by architectural firms, private corporations and governments, or they may be self-employed.
• [...]
• Architects perform some or all of the following duties:
• * Consult with clients to determine type, style and purpose of renovations or new building construction being considered
• * Conceptualize and design buildings and develop plans describing design specifications, building materials, costs and construction schedules
• * Prepare sketches and models for clients
• * Prepare or supervise the preparation of drawings, specifications and other construction documents for use by contractors and tradespersons
• * Prepare bidding documents, participate in contract negotiations and award construction contracts
• * Monitor activities on construction sites to ensure compliance with specifications
• * Conduct feasibility studies and financial analyses of building projects.
• Architects may specialize in a particular type of construction such as residential, commercial, industrial or institutional.
4 Mr. Tabanag holds a bachelor of science in architecture. He worked for more than 20 years for a developer in Manila, Design Coordinates Inc., which develops high rise buildings in that city. In submitting his application for permanent residence, he followed the instructions in a document provided by the respondent for such applications from Manila. Attached as Appendix A to the instructions was a checklist of the steps to be completed and information to be provided ("the Manila checklist").
5 Item 7 of the checklist completed by the applicant required him to submit employment certificates from present and past employers setting out, among other things, the positions held and "full details of your main responsibilities and duties in each position". A note in bold advised applicants that if they could not provide employment certificates they were to provide a written explanation and other documentation that would support their claim to such employment.
6 According to a certificate issued by his employer and submitted with the application, the applicant held the position of Construction Project Architect. However, there is no description of the tasks and duties performed by the applicant in the certificate. Nor is there any evidence of a written explanation or other documentation submitted by the applicant in the Certified Tribunal Record to support his claim that he performed the duties of an architect; other than a letter from a government official addressed to him as "Architect Bryan Tabanag, Site Safety Health Officer/Assistant Construction Project Manager" inviting the applicant to participate in a discussion on the implementation of a construction safety and health program.
7 The agent was not satisfied that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence that he had performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation or performed a substantial number of the main duties of the occupation as set out in the occupational description of the NOC. The application was thus denied.
8 In this proceeding, Mr. Tabanag has filed his affidavit attesting to his employment responsibilities and the affidavit of an immigration consultant, Rosalinda Ong, who prepared the skilled worker application on his behalf. Ms. Ong deposes as to information she received from the applicant respecting the work that he performed for his employer that would qualify him under NOC 2151. She deposes further that in response to a request for a certificate of Mr. Tabanag's employment containing particulars of his duties, hours and wages the employer returned a letter without that information. Ms. Ong and Mr. Tabanag state in their affidavits that this is because employers in the Philippines are reluctant to be specific about such matters for fear of lawsuits and union problems.
9 The respondent objected to the introduction of evidence that was not before the agent when the decision was made. At the hearing, I noted the objection and indicated that I would deal with it in rendering a decision on the merits of the application.
ISSUES:
10 The parties have raised a number of issues with respect to the manner in which the skilled worker application was assessed. They can be reduced to the following questions:
• a. Is the applicant's fresh affidavit evidence admissible?
• b. Was the decision of the agent reasonable?
ANALYSIS:
Standard of Review:
11 The applicant raises procedural fairness considerations and questions of law. To the extent that such questions arise in this case no deference would be due the decision maker: Sketchley v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 404 at paras 52-53. Otherwise, the parties submit and I agree that the standard of review for decisions on permanent residence under the federal skilled worker class has been satisfactorily determined in the jurisprudence to be reasonableness: Oladipo v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 366 at para 23; and Kaur v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1189 at para 17.
12 Apart from any question of law or of natural justice, the decision in this case is factual in nature and discretionary. Deference is thus owed to the decision-maker. A reasonable decision is one that falls within a range of possible and acceptable outcomes which are defensible with respect to the facts and the law: Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para 47.
Is the applicant's affidavit evidence admissible?
13 As a preliminary issue, the respondent objects to the introduction of paragraphs 4 to 9 of the applicant's affidavit and paragraphs 8 to 14 and 19 of Ms. Ong's affidavit on the ground that they contain statements concerning the applicant's employment duties and responsibilities and explanations for why he did not provide additional evidence in his skilled worker application that were not submitted to the agent.
14 It is trite law that the scope of the evidence on an application for judicial review is restricted to the material that was before the decision-maker: Lemiecha et al. v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 72 FTR 49 at para 4; and Walker v Randall (1999), 173 FTR 161). Additional evidence may be submitted on issues of procedural fairness and jurisdiction: Ontario Assn. of Architects v Assn. of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, [2003] 1 FC 331 (CA), leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused.
15 The impugned evidence is not admissible in this proceeding to bolster the applicant's claim that he met the requirements of the NOC classification when he submitted his skilled worker application. In particular, the applicant may not rely on the assertions in the affidavits regarding his employment duties or the practice of employers in Manila to be shy of certifying such duties. The affidavit evidence is admissible solely for the limited purpose of supporting his argument that the manner in which his application was assessed was unfair.
Was the decision reasonable?
16 The applicant acknowledges that he bears the onus of satisfying the agent under ss.11 (1) of the IRPA and that the burden of proof upon him was the balance of probability: Hilewitz v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 57 at para 58. He submits that the agent applied a standard of proof which was too high and misapplied s.80 (3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (hereafter the Regulations) and the NOC 2151 statement of duties to the facts before him.
17 The applicant argues that he met the evidentiary standard with regard to the lead statement in NOC 2151. He was trained as an architect and he was employed as an architect. Once prima facie evidence of this was provided to the agent, he submits, the officer had a duty to inform the applicant of his doubts, if he had any, which would prevent the issuing of a visa: Hussain v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] FCJ No 1570 at paras 34-35.
18 Paragraph 80 (3) (b) of the Regulations requires an officer to consider whether or not the applicant has performed a substantial number of duties found in a NOC. Courts have interpreted that paragraph as meaning that an officer needs to be satisfied that an applicant has performed one or more of the main duties: A'Bed v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 1027 at para 12; Noman v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 1169 at para 28; and Dahyalal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 666 at para 4.
19 The applicant submits that use of the checklist oversteps the powers of the Minister under paragraph 80 (3) (b) of the IRPA. He argues that the word "including" in that provision limits the directions that the Minister can issue to the subject matter listed in the subsection, that is to a "substantial number of the main duties of the occupation...including all the essential duties". The checklist goes further, he says, by requiring "full details of your main responsibilities and duties in each position."
20 I do not accept the applicant's argument that the use, in itself, of the Manila checklist is unfair. The checklist provides notice to an applicant that he or she must put their best foot forward and that the onus is on him or her to provide all relevant documents: the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, ss.75 (2) (3) and 80 (3); Lam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 152 FTR 316, [1998] FCJ No 123 at para 4; Chen v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 171 FTR 265, [1999] FCJ No 1123 at para 26; and Kaur v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 442 at paras 10-14.
21 The respondent's agents may not interpret and apply the Manila checklist in a manner that exceeds the scope of the Minister's authority. "[A]ll exercises of public authority must find their source in law": Dunsmuir, above, at paragraph 28; Stemijon Investments Ltd. v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FCA 299 at paragraphs 24-25. There may be instances where strict application of the checklist by officials will go beyond the Minister's statutory and regulatory authority and will also result in a breach of natural justice. I do not consider it necessary in the circumstances of this case to comment on whether the checklist requirement to provide "full details of your main responsibilities and duties in each position", certified by the employer, exceeds the regulatory authority.
22 Here, there was no evidence before the agent to establish that the applicant had performed any of the duties required to satisfy the occupational classification. It is not sufficient for an applicant to provide evidence that he or she has the academic qualifications, bears a job title and is addressed by that title in correspondence. They must provide evidence that they have actually performed "a substantial number of the main duties of the occupation". Here, the applicant did not provide that evidence either through the employer's certificate or alternate documentation. The information submitted fell short of establishing a prima facie case, as the applicant contends.
23 As stated by Justice Rothstein in Lam, above at paragraph 4, while an officer can not be wilfully blind in assessing an application and must act in good faith, he does not have a duty to follow up on an application when the evidence is insufficient. See also Ramos-Frances v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 142 at paragraph 16; and Ahmed v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] FCJ No 940 at paragraph 8.
24 In the result, I am satisfied that the agent's decision that there was insufficient evidence to establish performance of the duties set out in the classification was reasonable and the application must be dismissed.
Certified Questions;
25 The applicant has proposed that I certify two questions:
• Given that the Manila checklist both contemplates and requires a level of supporting documentation on a mandatory level which contemplates an exactitude that is akin to an evidentiary standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, does such a checklist conflict with the standard of proof required by Section 11 (1) of the IRPA, whether that checklist was imported by policy or by prescription?
• Secondly, does the Court have the ability to apply administrative efficiency as a charge to defeat the plain meaning of Section 11 (1) of the IRPA?
26 The respondent is opposed to the certification of either question and does not propose any alternative.
27 In Zazai v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FCA 89 at paragraph 11, the threshold for certification was articulated by the Court of Appeal as whether the question would be dispositive of an appeal. In Boni v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FCA 68 the Court of Appeal added that a certified question must lend itself to a generic approach leading to an answer of general application. That is, the question must transcend the particular context in which it arose.
28 Here, neither of the proposed questions would be dispositive of an appeal in this matter nor would they lead to an answer of general application. The questions presume findings of fact and law that were not made in these proceedings and are not based on the admissible evidence in the record.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No questions are certified.
MOSLEY J.
Tabanag v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Between
Bryan Cabrera Tabanag, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
[2011] F.C.J. No. 1575
2011 FC 1293
Docket IMM-1932-11
Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario
Mosley J.
Heard: November 2, 2011.
Judgment: November 10, 2011.
(28 paras.)
________________________________________
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
1 MOSLEY J.:-- Mr. Bryan Cabrera Tabanag applied for permanent resident status as a skilled worker indicating that he had work experience as an Architect in Manila, Philipines. In a decision dated March 2, 2011, a service delivery agent at the respondent's Centralized Intake Office in Sydney, Nova Scotia assessed that Mr. Tabanag was not eligible for processing in the skilled worker category.
2 Mr. Tabanag seeks judicial review of that decision under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 26. For the reasons that follow, the application is dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
3 The position of "Architect" bears the National Occupation Code (NOC) of 2151 in the standardized classification system used by the respondent to assess skilled worker applications. NOC 2151 describes the tasks and duties of an architect in these terms:
• Architects conceptualize, plan and develop designs for the construction and renovation of commercial, institutional and residential buildings. They are employed by architectural firms, private corporations and governments, or they may be self-employed.
• [...]
• Architects perform some or all of the following duties:
• * Consult with clients to determine type, style and purpose of renovations or new building construction being considered
• * Conceptualize and design buildings and develop plans describing design specifications, building materials, costs and construction schedules
• * Prepare sketches and models for clients
• * Prepare or supervise the preparation of drawings, specifications and other construction documents for use by contractors and tradespersons
• * Prepare bidding documents, participate in contract negotiations and award construction contracts
• * Monitor activities on construction sites to ensure compliance with specifications
• * Conduct feasibility studies and financial analyses of building projects.
• Architects may specialize in a particular type of construction such as residential, commercial, industrial or institutional.
4 Mr. Tabanag holds a bachelor of science in architecture. He worked for more than 20 years for a developer in Manila, Design Coordinates Inc., which develops high rise buildings in that city. In submitting his application for permanent residence, he followed the instructions in a document provided by the respondent for such applications from Manila. Attached as Appendix A to the instructions was a checklist of the steps to be completed and information to be provided ("the Manila checklist").
5 Item 7 of the checklist completed by the applicant required him to submit employment certificates from present and past employers setting out, among other things, the positions held and "full details of your main responsibilities and duties in each position". A note in bold advised applicants that if they could not provide employment certificates they were to provide a written explanation and other documentation that would support their claim to such employment.
6 According to a certificate issued by his employer and submitted with the application, the applicant held the position of Construction Project Architect. However, there is no description of the tasks and duties performed by the applicant in the certificate. Nor is there any evidence of a written explanation or other documentation submitted by the applicant in the Certified Tribunal Record to support his claim that he performed the duties of an architect; other than a letter from a government official addressed to him as "Architect Bryan Tabanag, Site Safety Health Officer/Assistant Construction Project Manager" inviting the applicant to participate in a discussion on the implementation of a construction safety and health program.
7 The agent was not satisfied that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence that he had performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation or performed a substantial number of the main duties of the occupation as set out in the occupational description of the NOC. The application was thus denied.
8 In this proceeding, Mr. Tabanag has filed his affidavit attesting to his employment responsibilities and the affidavit of an immigration consultant, Rosalinda Ong, who prepared the skilled worker application on his behalf. Ms. Ong deposes as to information she received from the applicant respecting the work that he performed for his employer that would qualify him under NOC 2151. She deposes further that in response to a request for a certificate of Mr. Tabanag's employment containing particulars of his duties, hours and wages the employer returned a letter without that information. Ms. Ong and Mr. Tabanag state in their affidavits that this is because employers in the Philippines are reluctant to be specific about such matters for fear of lawsuits and union problems.
9 The respondent objected to the introduction of evidence that was not before the agent when the decision was made. At the hearing, I noted the objection and indicated that I would deal with it in rendering a decision on the merits of the application.
ISSUES:
10 The parties have raised a number of issues with respect to the manner in which the skilled worker application was assessed. They can be reduced to the following questions:
• a. Is the applicant's fresh affidavit evidence admissible?
• b. Was the decision of the agent reasonable?
ANALYSIS:
Standard of Review:
11 The applicant raises procedural fairness considerations and questions of law. To the extent that such questions arise in this case no deference would be due the decision maker: Sketchley v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 404 at paras 52-53. Otherwise, the parties submit and I agree that the standard of review for decisions on permanent residence under the federal skilled worker class has been satisfactorily determined in the jurisprudence to be reasonableness: Oladipo v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 366 at para 23; and Kaur v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1189 at para 17.
12 Apart from any question of law or of natural justice, the decision in this case is factual in nature and discretionary. Deference is thus owed to the decision-maker. A reasonable decision is one that falls within a range of possible and acceptable outcomes which are defensible with respect to the facts and the law: Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para 47.
Is the applicant's affidavit evidence admissible?
13 As a preliminary issue, the respondent objects to the introduction of paragraphs 4 to 9 of the applicant's affidavit and paragraphs 8 to 14 and 19 of Ms. Ong's affidavit on the ground that they contain statements concerning the applicant's employment duties and responsibilities and explanations for why he did not provide additional evidence in his skilled worker application that were not submitted to the agent.
14 It is trite law that the scope of the evidence on an application for judicial review is restricted to the material that was before the decision-maker: Lemiecha et al. v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 72 FTR 49 at para 4; and Walker v Randall (1999), 173 FTR 161). Additional evidence may be submitted on issues of procedural fairness and jurisdiction: Ontario Assn. of Architects v Assn. of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, [2003] 1 FC 331 (CA), leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused.
15 The impugned evidence is not admissible in this proceeding to bolster the applicant's claim that he met the requirements of the NOC classification when he submitted his skilled worker application. In particular, the applicant may not rely on the assertions in the affidavits regarding his employment duties or the practice of employers in Manila to be shy of certifying such duties. The affidavit evidence is admissible solely for the limited purpose of supporting his argument that the manner in which his application was assessed was unfair.
Was the decision reasonable?
16 The applicant acknowledges that he bears the onus of satisfying the agent under ss.11 (1) of the IRPA and that the burden of proof upon him was the balance of probability: Hilewitz v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 57 at para 58. He submits that the agent applied a standard of proof which was too high and misapplied s.80 (3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (hereafter the Regulations) and the NOC 2151 statement of duties to the facts before him.
17 The applicant argues that he met the evidentiary standard with regard to the lead statement in NOC 2151. He was trained as an architect and he was employed as an architect. Once prima facie evidence of this was provided to the agent, he submits, the officer had a duty to inform the applicant of his doubts, if he had any, which would prevent the issuing of a visa: Hussain v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] FCJ No 1570 at paras 34-35.
18 Paragraph 80 (3) (b) of the Regulations requires an officer to consider whether or not the applicant has performed a substantial number of duties found in a NOC. Courts have interpreted that paragraph as meaning that an officer needs to be satisfied that an applicant has performed one or more of the main duties: A'Bed v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 1027 at para 12; Noman v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 1169 at para 28; and Dahyalal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 666 at para 4.
19 The applicant submits that use of the checklist oversteps the powers of the Minister under paragraph 80 (3) (b) of the IRPA. He argues that the word "including" in that provision limits the directions that the Minister can issue to the subject matter listed in the subsection, that is to a "substantial number of the main duties of the occupation...including all the essential duties". The checklist goes further, he says, by requiring "full details of your main responsibilities and duties in each position."
20 I do not accept the applicant's argument that the use, in itself, of the Manila checklist is unfair. The checklist provides notice to an applicant that he or she must put their best foot forward and that the onus is on him or her to provide all relevant documents: the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, ss.75 (2) (3) and 80 (3); Lam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 152 FTR 316, [1998] FCJ No 123 at para 4; Chen v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 171 FTR 265, [1999] FCJ No 1123 at para 26; and Kaur v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 442 at paras 10-14.
21 The respondent's agents may not interpret and apply the Manila checklist in a manner that exceeds the scope of the Minister's authority. "[A]ll exercises of public authority must find their source in law": Dunsmuir, above, at paragraph 28; Stemijon Investments Ltd. v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FCA 299 at paragraphs 24-25. There may be instances where strict application of the checklist by officials will go beyond the Minister's statutory and regulatory authority and will also result in a breach of natural justice. I do not consider it necessary in the circumstances of this case to comment on whether the checklist requirement to provide "full details of your main responsibilities and duties in each position", certified by the employer, exceeds the regulatory authority.
22 Here, there was no evidence before the agent to establish that the applicant had performed any of the duties required to satisfy the occupational classification. It is not sufficient for an applicant to provide evidence that he or she has the academic qualifications, bears a job title and is addressed by that title in correspondence. They must provide evidence that they have actually performed "a substantial number of the main duties of the occupation". Here, the applicant did not provide that evidence either through the employer's certificate or alternate documentation. The information submitted fell short of establishing a prima facie case, as the applicant contends.
23 As stated by Justice Rothstein in Lam, above at paragraph 4, while an officer can not be wilfully blind in assessing an application and must act in good faith, he does not have a duty to follow up on an application when the evidence is insufficient. See also Ramos-Frances v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 142 at paragraph 16; and Ahmed v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] FCJ No 940 at paragraph 8.
24 In the result, I am satisfied that the agent's decision that there was insufficient evidence to establish performance of the duties set out in the classification was reasonable and the application must be dismissed.
Certified Questions;
25 The applicant has proposed that I certify two questions:
• Given that the Manila checklist both contemplates and requires a level of supporting documentation on a mandatory level which contemplates an exactitude that is akin to an evidentiary standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, does such a checklist conflict with the standard of proof required by Section 11 (1) of the IRPA, whether that checklist was imported by policy or by prescription?
• Secondly, does the Court have the ability to apply administrative efficiency as a charge to defeat the plain meaning of Section 11 (1) of the IRPA?
26 The respondent is opposed to the certification of either question and does not propose any alternative.
27 In Zazai v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FCA 89 at paragraph 11, the threshold for certification was articulated by the Court of Appeal as whether the question would be dispositive of an appeal. In Boni v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FCA 68 the Court of Appeal added that a certified question must lend itself to a generic approach leading to an answer of general application. That is, the question must transcend the particular context in which it arose.
28 Here, neither of the proposed questions would be dispositive of an appeal in this matter nor would they lead to an answer of general application. The questions presume findings of fact and law that were not made in these proceedings and are not based on the admissible evidence in the record.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No questions are certified.
MOSLEY J.
Friday, November 11, 2011
REPORT: CANADA MUST FAVOUR SKILLED IMMIGRANTS
The best path to Canada to follow in immigration policy, change the immigration mix to favour skilled workers, entrepreneurs and investors.
Canadian HR Reporter - Article - Immigration policy must favour skilled workers: IRPP
Immigration policy must favour skilled workers: IRPP
Immigrants entering Canada under Federal Skilled Worker program see highest earnings
Since skills-assessed economic immigrants have had consistently higher earnings than other classes of immigrants, the government of Canada should work to reverse the decline in the number of immigrants admitted into the skilled worker category, according to a new study published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP).
“Canada cannot afford to be complacent in seeking to attract and retain skilled workers,” said the report.
In Do Admission Criteria and Economic Recessions Affect Immigrant Earnings? the authors examine the annual earnings outcomes in the first decade of four categories of immigrants — skills-assessed economic immigrants, other economic immigrants, family class immigrants and refugees — who arrived as permanent residents in 1982, 1988 and 1994.
Immigrants entering under the Federal Skilled Worker program had the highest median annual earnings among the four categories in all three arrival groups, found the report. The median earnings of this group exceed the earnings of other groups by as much as 56 per cent, in some cases.
While refugees initially had low earnings, over their first 10 years in Canada male and female refugees in all three arrival groups consistently had the highest earnings growth rates. The authors recommend that the level of refugee immigration should be restored to the levels of the past 30 years — around 10 to 15 per cent of annual permanent resident immigration
Canadian HR Reporter - Article - Immigration policy must favour skilled workers: IRPP
Immigration policy must favour skilled workers: IRPP
Immigrants entering Canada under Federal Skilled Worker program see highest earnings
Since skills-assessed economic immigrants have had consistently higher earnings than other classes of immigrants, the government of Canada should work to reverse the decline in the number of immigrants admitted into the skilled worker category, according to a new study published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP).
“Canada cannot afford to be complacent in seeking to attract and retain skilled workers,” said the report.
In Do Admission Criteria and Economic Recessions Affect Immigrant Earnings? the authors examine the annual earnings outcomes in the first decade of four categories of immigrants — skills-assessed economic immigrants, other economic immigrants, family class immigrants and refugees — who arrived as permanent residents in 1982, 1988 and 1994.
Immigrants entering under the Federal Skilled Worker program had the highest median annual earnings among the four categories in all three arrival groups, found the report. The median earnings of this group exceed the earnings of other groups by as much as 56 per cent, in some cases.
While refugees initially had low earnings, over their first 10 years in Canada male and female refugees in all three arrival groups consistently had the highest earnings growth rates. The authors recommend that the level of refugee immigration should be restored to the levels of the past 30 years — around 10 to 15 per cent of annual permanent resident immigration
Friday, October 21, 2011
CITIZENSHIP APPLICANTS BEWARE: GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES LANGUAGE TESTING
See Notice of Intent published by the Government of Canada. Language testing is coming, and it is inevitable.
GOVERNMENT NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
CITIZENSHIP ACT
Notice requesting comments on a proposal to require applicants to furnish upfront evidence of language ability showing achievement of at least Canadian Language Benchmarklevel 4 in speaking and listening with their citizenship application
Summary
The Citizenship Act (Act) requires that applicants for an adult grant of citizenship demonstrate that they have an “adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada” (paragraph 5(1)(d) of the Act). Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is inviting written comments from all interested parties on a proposal to amend the Citizenship Regulations (Regulations) which would introduce a requirement for applicants to provide evidence that they meet this legislative requirement when they submit their application for citizenship. This proposed measure would apply to all adult citizenship applicants who must meet the language requirement. Currently, those between the ages of 18 and 54, representing approximately 134 000 applicants per year, must meet the language requirement. All such applicants would be impacted by the proposed requirement and would be asked to provide evidence showing that they have achieved at least Canadian Language Benchmark (CLB) level 4 with their citizenship application. The proposal would not increase the language level required for citizenship but would provide citizenship officials and judges with objective evidence of an applicant’s language ability.
Background
The acquisition of citizenship is a significant step in the integration process for newcomers to Canada. Given the vital importance of newcomers’ language abilities in their successful settlement and integration, the Citizenship Act (Act) requires that applicants for an adult grant of citizenship demonstrate that they have an “adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada” (paragraph 5(1)(d) of the Act).
Under the current system, language is largely assessed through a multiple choice written test which also assesses an applicant’s knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship (a separate requirement under paragraph 5(1)(e) of the Act). The written test is an inadequate proxy for assessing language as it does not adequately assess listening and speaking skills, which are the essential language skills for effective communication with fellow Canadians and for effective integration. If an applicant fails the written test, or if concerns about their speaking or listening ability are flagged following oral interactions with a citizenship official, the applicant is referred for an interview with a citizenship judge. This is inefficient for citizenship processing and does not provide good client service as the processing fee has been paid and there can be a substantial time delay between submission of the application and a subsequent hearing for language. Interviews in these cases contribute to processing pressure and application inventories.
This Notice of Intent is to signal an intention to add a regulatory requirement for applicants to include evidence of compliance with the official languages criteria when submitting their application. The objective of the proposed regulations would be to require applicants to meet the language requirement when they file their application, thus strengthening the integration of newcomers by improving language outcomes and encouraging their full participation in Canadian society. This proposed requirement would also make the application process more efficient and reduce administrative burden by enabling CIC to return applications with the complete fee and a letter advising the applicant that they have not submitted satisfactory evidence of compliance with the official languages requirement. Furthermore, requiring evidence of language ability would provide citizenship judges, who are the decision-makers on citizenship applications, with additional objective evidence on which to base their decisions.
Along with the proposal to introduce a regulatory authority to require that evidence of language be submitted with an application, CIC is also proposing a specific amendment to the Regulations to establish clearer language assessment criteria that align with the established CLB 4, which is the current required level for citizenship. The CLBs are the nationally accepted benchmarks to measure the proficiency of adult immigrants in both official languages as a second language. Moreover, clarifying that the language skills required are listening and speaking would enable greater transparency and consistency in language assessment. These proposed changes would not increase the language level required for citizenship.
Description
Citizenship and Immigration Canada proposes to introduce amendments to section 3 of the Regulations to require applicants to furnish evidence of language ability with their citizenship application. Such evidence could include third-party language tests or alternative evidence. Administrative guidelines would provide a list of preferred language tests which are correlated with the Canadian Language Benchmarks, such as tests which are currently accepted for immigration purposes to Canada. Alternative evidence could include completion of secondary or post-secondary education in French or English or achievement of a certain level in a language training course like the federally funded Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC).
It is proposed that tests previously done by the applicant and accepted for other purposes, such as immigration to Canada, would also be considered acceptable for citizenship purposes. It is expected that the majority of citizenship applicants would already have evidence that they could submit with their application. Therefore, the requirement is not anticipated to pose a burden on the majority of applicants who would already have available to them the evidence of complying with the official languages requirement.
It is also proposed to amend section 14 of the Regulations to provide the ability to assess speaking and listening skills and to capture the key elements of CLB 4 descriptors, such as the ability to take part in routine conversations about everyday topics, use basic grammatical structures and tenses, have sufficient vocabulary for routine oral communication and follow simple instructions and directions.
Finally, the proposed amendment to section 14 of the Regulations would also remove the current requirement that questions be prepared by the Minister, thereby allowing the use of external evidence.
Comments
Any person (including citizenship lawyers, stakeholders, provincial, territorial and municipal governments, interested groups, and the general public) may, within 30 days of the publication of this notice, provide their comments on this Notice of Intent, in writing, to the person named below at the address provided.
Comments would be appreciated on the proposed regulatory amendments to require that applicants provide up-front evidence of language ability showing achievement of at least CLB 4 level in speaking and listening with their citizenship application.
Questions and requests for additional information, as well as comments regarding this Notice of Intent, may be directed to Mary-Ann Hubers, Acting Director, Citizenship Legislation and Program Policy, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 180 Kent Street, 6th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1L1, 613-998-1756 (telephone), 613-991-2485 (fax), mary-ann.hubers@cic.gc.ca (email).
NICOLE GIRARD
Acting Director General
Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch
GOVERNMENT NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
CITIZENSHIP ACT
Notice requesting comments on a proposal to require applicants to furnish upfront evidence of language ability showing achievement of at least Canadian Language Benchmarklevel 4 in speaking and listening with their citizenship application
Summary
The Citizenship Act (Act) requires that applicants for an adult grant of citizenship demonstrate that they have an “adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada” (paragraph 5(1)(d) of the Act). Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is inviting written comments from all interested parties on a proposal to amend the Citizenship Regulations (Regulations) which would introduce a requirement for applicants to provide evidence that they meet this legislative requirement when they submit their application for citizenship. This proposed measure would apply to all adult citizenship applicants who must meet the language requirement. Currently, those between the ages of 18 and 54, representing approximately 134 000 applicants per year, must meet the language requirement. All such applicants would be impacted by the proposed requirement and would be asked to provide evidence showing that they have achieved at least Canadian Language Benchmark (CLB) level 4 with their citizenship application. The proposal would not increase the language level required for citizenship but would provide citizenship officials and judges with objective evidence of an applicant’s language ability.
Background
The acquisition of citizenship is a significant step in the integration process for newcomers to Canada. Given the vital importance of newcomers’ language abilities in their successful settlement and integration, the Citizenship Act (Act) requires that applicants for an adult grant of citizenship demonstrate that they have an “adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada” (paragraph 5(1)(d) of the Act).
Under the current system, language is largely assessed through a multiple choice written test which also assesses an applicant’s knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship (a separate requirement under paragraph 5(1)(e) of the Act). The written test is an inadequate proxy for assessing language as it does not adequately assess listening and speaking skills, which are the essential language skills for effective communication with fellow Canadians and for effective integration. If an applicant fails the written test, or if concerns about their speaking or listening ability are flagged following oral interactions with a citizenship official, the applicant is referred for an interview with a citizenship judge. This is inefficient for citizenship processing and does not provide good client service as the processing fee has been paid and there can be a substantial time delay between submission of the application and a subsequent hearing for language. Interviews in these cases contribute to processing pressure and application inventories.
This Notice of Intent is to signal an intention to add a regulatory requirement for applicants to include evidence of compliance with the official languages criteria when submitting their application. The objective of the proposed regulations would be to require applicants to meet the language requirement when they file their application, thus strengthening the integration of newcomers by improving language outcomes and encouraging their full participation in Canadian society. This proposed requirement would also make the application process more efficient and reduce administrative burden by enabling CIC to return applications with the complete fee and a letter advising the applicant that they have not submitted satisfactory evidence of compliance with the official languages requirement. Furthermore, requiring evidence of language ability would provide citizenship judges, who are the decision-makers on citizenship applications, with additional objective evidence on which to base their decisions.
Along with the proposal to introduce a regulatory authority to require that evidence of language be submitted with an application, CIC is also proposing a specific amendment to the Regulations to establish clearer language assessment criteria that align with the established CLB 4, which is the current required level for citizenship. The CLBs are the nationally accepted benchmarks to measure the proficiency of adult immigrants in both official languages as a second language. Moreover, clarifying that the language skills required are listening and speaking would enable greater transparency and consistency in language assessment. These proposed changes would not increase the language level required for citizenship.
Description
Citizenship and Immigration Canada proposes to introduce amendments to section 3 of the Regulations to require applicants to furnish evidence of language ability with their citizenship application. Such evidence could include third-party language tests or alternative evidence. Administrative guidelines would provide a list of preferred language tests which are correlated with the Canadian Language Benchmarks, such as tests which are currently accepted for immigration purposes to Canada. Alternative evidence could include completion of secondary or post-secondary education in French or English or achievement of a certain level in a language training course like the federally funded Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC).
It is proposed that tests previously done by the applicant and accepted for other purposes, such as immigration to Canada, would also be considered acceptable for citizenship purposes. It is expected that the majority of citizenship applicants would already have evidence that they could submit with their application. Therefore, the requirement is not anticipated to pose a burden on the majority of applicants who would already have available to them the evidence of complying with the official languages requirement.
It is also proposed to amend section 14 of the Regulations to provide the ability to assess speaking and listening skills and to capture the key elements of CLB 4 descriptors, such as the ability to take part in routine conversations about everyday topics, use basic grammatical structures and tenses, have sufficient vocabulary for routine oral communication and follow simple instructions and directions.
Finally, the proposed amendment to section 14 of the Regulations would also remove the current requirement that questions be prepared by the Minister, thereby allowing the use of external evidence.
Comments
Any person (including citizenship lawyers, stakeholders, provincial, territorial and municipal governments, interested groups, and the general public) may, within 30 days of the publication of this notice, provide their comments on this Notice of Intent, in writing, to the person named below at the address provided.
Comments would be appreciated on the proposed regulatory amendments to require that applicants provide up-front evidence of language ability showing achievement of at least CLB 4 level in speaking and listening with their citizenship application.
Questions and requests for additional information, as well as comments regarding this Notice of Intent, may be directed to Mary-Ann Hubers, Acting Director, Citizenship Legislation and Program Policy, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 180 Kent Street, 6th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1L1, 613-998-1756 (telephone), 613-991-2485 (fax), mary-ann.hubers@cic.gc.ca (email).
NICOLE GIRARD
Acting Director General
Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
LANGUAGE TESTING FOR CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS INEVITABLE
According to reports, language testing would be a feature of a new citizenship policy. This has been a long time coming and makes eminent sense, as long as it is applied with common sense. Speaking an official language is an essential citizenship feature and evidence of integration. The government should not, however, apply this policy in a blanket fashion to be seen as "politically correct": its makes no sense to test those who are English-speaking or have received university level education in Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, or any other English speaking country. Testing those who are educated in English is nothing but stupidity. We now have a bizzarre situation with applicants for permanent residency, where the government, in its zeal to appear even handed and ethnic neutral, demands that people born and educated in the US, UK, and Ireland be tested. That is a waste of time, money, and resources. Test those who do not speak English as their first language or have not received education in English at a post-secondary level. Test sponsored relative applicants ( now exempt), but please do not test everyone willy-nily!
Citizens must speak official languages: Feds Canada News Toronto Sun
Citizens must speak official languages: Feds
By Kris Sims ,Parliamentary Bureau
First posted: Monday, October 17, 2011 08:46 PM EDT Updated: Monday, October 17, 2011 08:53 PM EDT
OTTAWA - Immigrants who want to become Canadian citizens could soon face tougher testing.
The federal government is considering tighter rules on language proficiency, insisting Canadian citizens speak either English or French or both.
“Some people, believe it or not, have been able to take translators with them into an oral test, with citizenship judges. What's the point, exactly?” Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said Monday. “I have met too many citizens that don't speak English or French. That never should have happened. Under this new system that's not going to happen any longer.”
Currently, Canada requires potential citizens between the ages of 18 and 54 to communicate in one official language, but they are not objectively tested by a third party. A new plan would change that, also needing proof of graduation from secondary school in English or French.
The opposition is considering the idea, but says caution is necessary until they have examined the proposals.
“In general, I am in favour of any measure that encourages people to become more proficient in English or French, otherwise they can become quite isolated,” said NDP immigration critic Don Davies. “We have to be somewhat careful about this because there are some categories of obtaining citizenship where requiring too high a standard could present a barrier, such as sponsored parents.”
Currently, the language portion of a citizenship test is written. Proposed changes would include speaking and listening skills.
Citizens must speak official languages: Feds Canada News Toronto Sun
Citizens must speak official languages: Feds
By Kris Sims ,Parliamentary Bureau
First posted: Monday, October 17, 2011 08:46 PM EDT Updated: Monday, October 17, 2011 08:53 PM EDT
OTTAWA - Immigrants who want to become Canadian citizens could soon face tougher testing.
The federal government is considering tighter rules on language proficiency, insisting Canadian citizens speak either English or French or both.
“Some people, believe it or not, have been able to take translators with them into an oral test, with citizenship judges. What's the point, exactly?” Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said Monday. “I have met too many citizens that don't speak English or French. That never should have happened. Under this new system that's not going to happen any longer.”
Currently, Canada requires potential citizens between the ages of 18 and 54 to communicate in one official language, but they are not objectively tested by a third party. A new plan would change that, also needing proof of graduation from secondary school in English or French.
The opposition is considering the idea, but says caution is necessary until they have examined the proposals.
“In general, I am in favour of any measure that encourages people to become more proficient in English or French, otherwise they can become quite isolated,” said NDP immigration critic Don Davies. “We have to be somewhat careful about this because there are some categories of obtaining citizenship where requiring too high a standard could present a barrier, such as sponsored parents.”
Currently, the language portion of a citizenship test is written. Proposed changes would include speaking and listening skills.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
SKILLED WORKERS: ILLEGAL WORK EXPERIENCE NO LONGER COUNTED
This will end the uncertainty in Skilled Worker applications: if you work illegally in Canada, that experience will not be counted.
No more credit for illegal work experience Canada News Toronto Sun
No more credit for illegal work experience
By Brian Lilley ,Parliamentary Bureau
First posted: Monday, October 03, 2011 07:32 PM EDT Updated: Monday, October 03, 2011 07:37 PM EDT
OTTAWA - The practice of letting foreign lawbreakers reap the reward of citizenship was cancelled after the contradiction was reported on by QMI Agency earlier this year.
Last January QMI Agency revealed a decision by bureaucrats to allow illegal work experience to count as a credit for those who were attempting to gain citizenship in Canada. In one e-mail, obtained through access to information, a civil servant questioned whether there was a difference between illegal work experience in Canada and illegal experience outside the country.
In another e-mail, a senior bureaucrat was straightforward: breaking the law can pay.
"We can count illegal work for PNP (provincial nominee program), but at the same time we need to have a confirmation of the illegal work," wrote Jacqueline Desjardins, senior analyst at Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
But after the policy was exposed, it was denounced by the office of immigration minister Jason Kenney as an outrage.
In a new batch of e-mails obtained by QMI Agency, officials appear to have reversed course, at least when it comes to illegal work in Canada.
Jennifer Castronero, a senior program officer, advised colleagues that a person with illegal work experience in Canada could put the experience on their application but that the applicant "could ultimately be found inadmissible to Canada ... on the basis of having worked in Canada without authorization."
Castronero was responding to a question about an applicant who had been working in the United States illegally since 1997 and wanted to immigrate to Canada.
Castronero said, "The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (is) silent on this issue," adding, "I have not addressed this issue before."
No more credit for illegal work experience Canada News Toronto Sun
No more credit for illegal work experience
By Brian Lilley ,Parliamentary Bureau
First posted: Monday, October 03, 2011 07:32 PM EDT Updated: Monday, October 03, 2011 07:37 PM EDT
OTTAWA - The practice of letting foreign lawbreakers reap the reward of citizenship was cancelled after the contradiction was reported on by QMI Agency earlier this year.
Last January QMI Agency revealed a decision by bureaucrats to allow illegal work experience to count as a credit for those who were attempting to gain citizenship in Canada. In one e-mail, obtained through access to information, a civil servant questioned whether there was a difference between illegal work experience in Canada and illegal experience outside the country.
In another e-mail, a senior bureaucrat was straightforward: breaking the law can pay.
"We can count illegal work for PNP (provincial nominee program), but at the same time we need to have a confirmation of the illegal work," wrote Jacqueline Desjardins, senior analyst at Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
But after the policy was exposed, it was denounced by the office of immigration minister Jason Kenney as an outrage.
In a new batch of e-mails obtained by QMI Agency, officials appear to have reversed course, at least when it comes to illegal work in Canada.
Jennifer Castronero, a senior program officer, advised colleagues that a person with illegal work experience in Canada could put the experience on their application but that the applicant "could ultimately be found inadmissible to Canada ... on the basis of having worked in Canada without authorization."
Castronero was responding to a question about an applicant who had been working in the United States illegally since 1997 and wanted to immigrate to Canada.
Castronero said, "The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (is) silent on this issue," adding, "I have not addressed this issue before."
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
THE IMMIGRATION EXPERIENCE AND SATISFACTION
This is interesting, although not surprising. The study appears to be highly subjective, yet it confirms that language barriers, poor economic performance, are drivers in the dissatisfaction gap.
‘Satisfaction gap’ hinders the immigrant experience - The Globe and Mail
Pawel Dwulit For The Globe and Mail
Economy Lab
‘Satisfaction gap’ hinders the immigrant experience
frances woolley
Globe and Mail Blog
Posted on Monday, September 26, 2011 10:12AM EDT
A recent working paper by Peter Burton and Shelley Phipps of Dalhousie University studies the life satisfaction of youth who immigrated to Canada as children, plus immigrant parents. They used data on thousands of recent immigrants and Canadian-born families collected through the Canadian Community Health Survey from 2002 to 2008.
Immigrants’ lower satisfaction comes down, in part, to economics. The immigrant families Burton and Phipps studied had incomes approximately one third lower than those of comparable Canadian families. These income differences explained more than one quarter of the satisfaction gap between Canadian-born and immigrant youth. For parents, the loss of life satisfaction due to low income was even greater, perhaps because parents make sacrifices to shield their children from economic hardship.
Yet no one expects immigration to be easy. Coming to a new country, not speaking the language, and being separated from family and friends is hard. For girls in particular, ethnicity and language appear to explain a significant portion of the satisfaction gap between immigrants and non-immigrants.
Language and ethnicity are important to parents too. Burton and Phipps found that 43.5 per cent of the gap in satisfaction between immigrant and Canadian-born mothers could be explained in terms of language and ethnicity differences, with East Asian and Black parents (but not South Asian ones) experiencing lower levels of life satisfaction.
But does it get easier over time?
Burton and Phipps answered this question by looking at people’s sense of belonging, how they answered the question ““How would you rate your sense of belonging to your local community?”
Immigrants felt less of a sense of belonging than the Canadian-born. For youth, feeling like you don’t belong is a better predictor of being less satisfied with life than being an immigrant. Indeed, once Burton and Phipps controlled for people’s sense of belonging, the gap between immigrant and comparable non-immigrant youth went away. (That was not true for parents, however -- even immigrant parents who felt like they belonged to their local communities were still less satisfied than non-immigrants).
But is feeling like you belong just a matter of time, something that builds the longer you’re in Canada? For parents, the answer is yes: the longer immigrant mothers and fathers live in Canada, the more they feel like they belong to their local communities.
For teenage girls, however, the answer is no -- girls who have been in Canada for longer are less likely to feel a strong sense of belonging to their local community.
After reading Burton and Phipps’ paper, three things struck me.
The first was the sheer magnitude of the satisfaction difference between immigrant and Canadian-born mothers: 22.9 per cent of immigrant mothers -- those who have been in Canada 17 years or less -- are very satisfied with life, compared to 48.5 per cent of Canadian-born mothers. I wonder: are there policies that would reach out directly to immigrant mothers, getting people involved in the local community, whether that’s coming to meet the teacher nights, or joining school councils? Or is it just economics: immigrant mothers are shouldering the burden of making ends meet.
The second thing that struck me about Burton and Phipps’ was the pain of not belonging. How will immigrant girls who find themselves caught between different sets of cultural expectations sort it all out?
Finally, it’s not all bad news for immigrants. Immigrants are, on average, more likely to be in excellent health than the Canadian born. Researchers call this the healthy immigrant effect, and attribute it to diet. Immigrants are also more likely to live in two-parent families. By making good lifestyle choices, like instilling healthy eating habits, immigrant parents may be building the foundation for future life satisfaction.
‘Satisfaction gap’ hinders the immigrant experience - The Globe and Mail
Pawel Dwulit For The Globe and Mail
Economy Lab
‘Satisfaction gap’ hinders the immigrant experience
frances woolley
Globe and Mail Blog
Posted on Monday, September 26, 2011 10:12AM EDT
A recent working paper by Peter Burton and Shelley Phipps of Dalhousie University studies the life satisfaction of youth who immigrated to Canada as children, plus immigrant parents. They used data on thousands of recent immigrants and Canadian-born families collected through the Canadian Community Health Survey from 2002 to 2008.
Immigrants’ lower satisfaction comes down, in part, to economics. The immigrant families Burton and Phipps studied had incomes approximately one third lower than those of comparable Canadian families. These income differences explained more than one quarter of the satisfaction gap between Canadian-born and immigrant youth. For parents, the loss of life satisfaction due to low income was even greater, perhaps because parents make sacrifices to shield their children from economic hardship.
Yet no one expects immigration to be easy. Coming to a new country, not speaking the language, and being separated from family and friends is hard. For girls in particular, ethnicity and language appear to explain a significant portion of the satisfaction gap between immigrants and non-immigrants.
Language and ethnicity are important to parents too. Burton and Phipps found that 43.5 per cent of the gap in satisfaction between immigrant and Canadian-born mothers could be explained in terms of language and ethnicity differences, with East Asian and Black parents (but not South Asian ones) experiencing lower levels of life satisfaction.
But does it get easier over time?
Burton and Phipps answered this question by looking at people’s sense of belonging, how they answered the question ““How would you rate your sense of belonging to your local community?”
Immigrants felt less of a sense of belonging than the Canadian-born. For youth, feeling like you don’t belong is a better predictor of being less satisfied with life than being an immigrant. Indeed, once Burton and Phipps controlled for people’s sense of belonging, the gap between immigrant and comparable non-immigrant youth went away. (That was not true for parents, however -- even immigrant parents who felt like they belonged to their local communities were still less satisfied than non-immigrants).
But is feeling like you belong just a matter of time, something that builds the longer you’re in Canada? For parents, the answer is yes: the longer immigrant mothers and fathers live in Canada, the more they feel like they belong to their local communities.
For teenage girls, however, the answer is no -- girls who have been in Canada for longer are less likely to feel a strong sense of belonging to their local community.
After reading Burton and Phipps’ paper, three things struck me.
The first was the sheer magnitude of the satisfaction difference between immigrant and Canadian-born mothers: 22.9 per cent of immigrant mothers -- those who have been in Canada 17 years or less -- are very satisfied with life, compared to 48.5 per cent of Canadian-born mothers. I wonder: are there policies that would reach out directly to immigrant mothers, getting people involved in the local community, whether that’s coming to meet the teacher nights, or joining school councils? Or is it just economics: immigrant mothers are shouldering the burden of making ends meet.
The second thing that struck me about Burton and Phipps’ was the pain of not belonging. How will immigrant girls who find themselves caught between different sets of cultural expectations sort it all out?
Finally, it’s not all bad news for immigrants. Immigrants are, on average, more likely to be in excellent health than the Canadian born. Researchers call this the healthy immigrant effect, and attribute it to diet. Immigrants are also more likely to live in two-parent families. By making good lifestyle choices, like instilling healthy eating habits, immigrant parents may be building the foundation for future life satisfaction.
Friday, July 30, 2010
EXCELLENT EDITORIAL IN TODAY'S GLOBE AND MAIL
As I wrote in this Blog yesterday, this policy is stupid and discourages precisely the type of immigrants we need. Instead, we should require language tests from spouses in the family class and from approved refugee claimants before granting them residency, as they represent the weak link in the labour force and the economy. Enough political correctness already! Don't treat all applicants equally bad. Reward the best and cast away the rest. Let common sense prevail! the Globe and Mail seems to agree with me.
Arbitrary language test defies common sense - The Globe and Mail
Globe Editorial
Arbitrary language test defies common sense
If immigrants already speak English or French, and that can be easily verified, they should not have to spend hundreds of dollars proving it, as a new Canadian policy demands.
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published on Thursday, Jul. 29, 2010 8:00PM EDT
Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 29, 2010 8:02PM EDT
Canada's immigrants should have the desire to learn one of Canada's official languages, or know English or French already, when they apply to be immigrants. If they already speak it, and that can be easily verified, they should not have to spend hundreds of dollars proving it, as a new Canadian policy demands.
The federal government will now make every new prospective immigrant in the Skilled Worker and Canadian Experience categories take a test to demonstrate their knowledge of English or French; the previous rule allowed them to demonstrate their proficiency in writing. A government spokesperson justifies the decision by saying “the use of written submissions as a tool for assessing language proficiency is unreli-
able, inefficient and more easily subject to fraud.”
The government should show, however, a little common sense, which is lacking in the cases of Sara Landreth and James Brooke-Smith. Surely graduates of American PhD programs in English literature, both of whom learned English as a first language, are proficient in English.
Knowing that, it is ludicrous to insist that they take a rudimentary language quiz, and incur the $280 cost involved. It smacks of needless bureaucracy and it degrades the immigration system. It also sends the wrong message to potential future skilled immigrants. Many speak English or French as a mother tongue, and the growing share that don't have often been educated in English or French.
Other countries have crafted policies around language and immigration that are worth considering. Australia gives automatic partial language points for skilled immigrants who hold passports from one of five other predominantly English-speaking countries. Britain recently revised its rules to require immigrants from non-European countries coming to join or marry their partners to take an English language test. New Zealand allows applicants to demonstrate their knowledge of English by providing evidence of schooling in English.
Language, citizenship and participation in larger society are inextricably linked. Canada's official languages are English and French. We should expect immigrants to demonstrate proficiency in one or both of them, and those who don't should endeavour to learn it.
But the government should not go out of its way to torment those whose grasp is manifest by submitting them to arbitrary testing.
Arbitrary language test defies common sense - The Globe and Mail
Globe Editorial
Arbitrary language test defies common sense
If immigrants already speak English or French, and that can be easily verified, they should not have to spend hundreds of dollars proving it, as a new Canadian policy demands.
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published on Thursday, Jul. 29, 2010 8:00PM EDT
Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 29, 2010 8:02PM EDT
Canada's immigrants should have the desire to learn one of Canada's official languages, or know English or French already, when they apply to be immigrants. If they already speak it, and that can be easily verified, they should not have to spend hundreds of dollars proving it, as a new Canadian policy demands.
The federal government will now make every new prospective immigrant in the Skilled Worker and Canadian Experience categories take a test to demonstrate their knowledge of English or French; the previous rule allowed them to demonstrate their proficiency in writing. A government spokesperson justifies the decision by saying “the use of written submissions as a tool for assessing language proficiency is unreli-
able, inefficient and more easily subject to fraud.”
The government should show, however, a little common sense, which is lacking in the cases of Sara Landreth and James Brooke-Smith. Surely graduates of American PhD programs in English literature, both of whom learned English as a first language, are proficient in English.
Knowing that, it is ludicrous to insist that they take a rudimentary language quiz, and incur the $280 cost involved. It smacks of needless bureaucracy and it degrades the immigration system. It also sends the wrong message to potential future skilled immigrants. Many speak English or French as a mother tongue, and the growing share that don't have often been educated in English or French.
Other countries have crafted policies around language and immigration that are worth considering. Australia gives automatic partial language points for skilled immigrants who hold passports from one of five other predominantly English-speaking countries. Britain recently revised its rules to require immigrants from non-European countries coming to join or marry their partners to take an English language test. New Zealand allows applicants to demonstrate their knowledge of English by providing evidence of schooling in English.
Language, citizenship and participation in larger society are inextricably linked. Canada's official languages are English and French. We should expect immigrants to demonstrate proficiency in one or both of them, and those who don't should endeavour to learn it.
But the government should not go out of its way to torment those whose grasp is manifest by submitting them to arbitrary testing.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
UNIFORMITY TAKEN TO RIDICULOUS LEVELS
As of June 26,2010, every immigration applicant in the Skilled Worker or the Canada Experience Class categories must take a language proficiency test, either IELTS for English or TEF for French, no exceptions. This is ridiculous , as highlighted in the story from the Globe and Mail below, published today, where American PhDs in English teaching as professors of literature at a Canadian university are requested to take a language test.
This situation is the result of political correctness taken to its highest level of stupidity. Why? How did this ridiculous result cam about? Here is why:
Language proficiency for immigrants is a MUST. Evey single study shows that lack of language proficiency impairs immigrants' abilities to adapt to society and integrate into the labour force, as employers demand appropriate speaking, reading and writing skills. That is beyond any question and is a laudable goal. It is also a key building block of society. But why require US, UK, or French -born and educated people to do this? Isn't this ridiculous? Yes, but the bureaucrats, in their wisdom, decided not to make exceptions. presumably due to fear of being accused to favour immigrants from certain countries to the detriment of those who are not English or French speaking.
It would be very easy for the government to create a list of countries whose citizens, as long as they are born, educated and living there, should be exempt from the language tests. Obvious examples are those born in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc,. who are born and educated in English , or those born and educated in France or other officially French-speaking nations. Where the sticking point lies is in how to deal with those who are born in countries where English or French are not the official language, but then migrate to other countries to be educated or work in English or French, often their language abilities are somewhat below average, particularly if they study or work in subjects where language is not a critical component (i.e computer science, math, chemistry, etc). The other area of concern are those who come from countries where, although English or French are official languages, the education level is so poor that their language abilities are substantially below par: some countries in the developing world fit that description.
Having said all this, there has to be a better and more common sense way to deal with this problem, other than requiring US, French and UK citizens to take the test. Common sense must find a voice in the immigration process. While the government demands language tests from all skilled workers, the real problem is the lack of language ability by sponsored relatives and refugees, which imposes an unacceptably high cost on taxpayer-funded language classes and has long-term financial consequences for the migrants, who have a hard time finding jobs and integrating into the labour force. That is the real crux of the problem, but governments do not wish to deal with that due to the potential political fallout.
English profs not amused by Canada’s immigration pop quiz - The Globe and Mail
English profs not amused by Canada’s immigration pop quiz
Sara Landreth and her husband, James Brooke-Smith, teach English literature at the University of Ottawa. Both have doctorates in English literature, but Canada's immigration rules require each of them to take a $280 test proving they are fluent in the language. Brigitte Bouvier for The Globe and Mail
New rules require a $280 language test, even if you hold a PhD in literature
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published on Wednesday, Jul. 28, 2010 10:30PM EDT
Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 29, 2010 12:24AM EDT
She has a PhD in English literature. She has been hired to teach English literature to Canada’s budding scholars. Yet her application for immigration will not be processed unless she submits to a $280 English language test, thanks to a ministerial instruction signed by Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney last month.
“It certainly strikes me as ridiculous and a bit ludicrous,” Dr. Landreth said. “The irony of someone who’s immigrating to Canada to teach English being asked to take an English test is probably not lost on most people.”
It might seem no more than a bureaucratic hassle, but critics say the decision runs roughshod over immigration law, which states that applicants don’t have to write the test if they can provide other evidence, in writing, of their proficiency in an official language. In response, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration said that in the past, written submissions had to be evaluated by immigration officers; an independently administered test will help prevent fraud and ensure a fair and transparent method of evaluation, a spokeswoman said.
Dr. Landreth, 30, has a tenure-track position at the University of Ottawa, where she has worked for the last year on a temporary permit. She is American by birth and moved to Canada after finishing her PhD at New York University. Her husband, James Brooke-Smith, a British citizen who also holds a PhD in English literature, has been working as a lecturer in Ottawa and will also have to take the test.
“What struck me was the complete inflexibility, that there’s just no way I can waive this,” she said. “That there was no clause for professional capabilities or mother tongue seemed very strange. The reality is it just creates unnecessary red tape.”
David Matas, an immigration lawyer in Winnipeg, said what disturbs him about the change is the way it was enacted. Section 79 of the regulations of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that skilled worker applicants may choose to submit to a language test or provide written evidence of their proficiency. Last month, Mr. Kenney issued a ministerial instruction, effective immediately, that said only applicants who write a test will be considered.
“What he’s doing is taking a power over processing and using it, in effect, to amend the law,” Mr. Matas said. “Frankly [it] gives me a good deal of concern and isn’t just about language testing or immigration. It’s the sort of power that, if accepted, would wreak havoc with all our laws.”
He went so far as to call it an abuse of the system. “If it goes without comment, I think we’re just going to see more and more of it, not just in this field but in others,” Mr. Matas added.
Toronto lawyer Cathryn Sawicki has launched a legal challenge to the new rules in Federal Court.
Mr. Kenney referred questions on Wednesday to Kelli Fraser, a departmental spokeswoman, who said the change was made through ministerial instruction to speed processing before a formal regulation change is enacted.
Ms. Fraser said that, in making the decision, the government referred to research that found official language literacy had a significant impact on immigrant earnings, and that where literacy matched that of Canadian-born citizens, there was almost no gap in earnings for immigrants. Since non-native English or French speakers often used the documentation option, visa officers found it difficult to assess their abilities, Ms. Fraser said.
“We felt that going to a language test option was the most fair, transparent, objective, consistent and accurate way to evaluate different applicants’ language skills,” she said.
This situation is the result of political correctness taken to its highest level of stupidity. Why? How did this ridiculous result cam about? Here is why:
Language proficiency for immigrants is a MUST. Evey single study shows that lack of language proficiency impairs immigrants' abilities to adapt to society and integrate into the labour force, as employers demand appropriate speaking, reading and writing skills. That is beyond any question and is a laudable goal. It is also a key building block of society. But why require US, UK, or French -born and educated people to do this? Isn't this ridiculous? Yes, but the bureaucrats, in their wisdom, decided not to make exceptions. presumably due to fear of being accused to favour immigrants from certain countries to the detriment of those who are not English or French speaking.
It would be very easy for the government to create a list of countries whose citizens, as long as they are born, educated and living there, should be exempt from the language tests. Obvious examples are those born in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc,. who are born and educated in English , or those born and educated in France or other officially French-speaking nations. Where the sticking point lies is in how to deal with those who are born in countries where English or French are not the official language, but then migrate to other countries to be educated or work in English or French, often their language abilities are somewhat below average, particularly if they study or work in subjects where language is not a critical component (i.e computer science, math, chemistry, etc). The other area of concern are those who come from countries where, although English or French are official languages, the education level is so poor that their language abilities are substantially below par: some countries in the developing world fit that description.
Having said all this, there has to be a better and more common sense way to deal with this problem, other than requiring US, French and UK citizens to take the test. Common sense must find a voice in the immigration process. While the government demands language tests from all skilled workers, the real problem is the lack of language ability by sponsored relatives and refugees, which imposes an unacceptably high cost on taxpayer-funded language classes and has long-term financial consequences for the migrants, who have a hard time finding jobs and integrating into the labour force. That is the real crux of the problem, but governments do not wish to deal with that due to the potential political fallout.
English profs not amused by Canada’s immigration pop quiz - The Globe and Mail
English profs not amused by Canada’s immigration pop quiz
Sara Landreth and her husband, James Brooke-Smith, teach English literature at the University of Ottawa. Both have doctorates in English literature, but Canada's immigration rules require each of them to take a $280 test proving they are fluent in the language. Brigitte Bouvier for The Globe and Mail
New rules require a $280 language test, even if you hold a PhD in literature
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published on Wednesday, Jul. 28, 2010 10:30PM EDT
Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 29, 2010 12:24AM EDT
She has a PhD in English literature. She has been hired to teach English literature to Canada’s budding scholars. Yet her application for immigration will not be processed unless she submits to a $280 English language test, thanks to a ministerial instruction signed by Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney last month.
“It certainly strikes me as ridiculous and a bit ludicrous,” Dr. Landreth said. “The irony of someone who’s immigrating to Canada to teach English being asked to take an English test is probably not lost on most people.”
It might seem no more than a bureaucratic hassle, but critics say the decision runs roughshod over immigration law, which states that applicants don’t have to write the test if they can provide other evidence, in writing, of their proficiency in an official language. In response, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration said that in the past, written submissions had to be evaluated by immigration officers; an independently administered test will help prevent fraud and ensure a fair and transparent method of evaluation, a spokeswoman said.
Dr. Landreth, 30, has a tenure-track position at the University of Ottawa, where she has worked for the last year on a temporary permit. She is American by birth and moved to Canada after finishing her PhD at New York University. Her husband, James Brooke-Smith, a British citizen who also holds a PhD in English literature, has been working as a lecturer in Ottawa and will also have to take the test.
“What struck me was the complete inflexibility, that there’s just no way I can waive this,” she said. “That there was no clause for professional capabilities or mother tongue seemed very strange. The reality is it just creates unnecessary red tape.”
David Matas, an immigration lawyer in Winnipeg, said what disturbs him about the change is the way it was enacted. Section 79 of the regulations of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that skilled worker applicants may choose to submit to a language test or provide written evidence of their proficiency. Last month, Mr. Kenney issued a ministerial instruction, effective immediately, that said only applicants who write a test will be considered.
“What he’s doing is taking a power over processing and using it, in effect, to amend the law,” Mr. Matas said. “Frankly [it] gives me a good deal of concern and isn’t just about language testing or immigration. It’s the sort of power that, if accepted, would wreak havoc with all our laws.”
He went so far as to call it an abuse of the system. “If it goes without comment, I think we’re just going to see more and more of it, not just in this field but in others,” Mr. Matas added.
Toronto lawyer Cathryn Sawicki has launched a legal challenge to the new rules in Federal Court.
Mr. Kenney referred questions on Wednesday to Kelli Fraser, a departmental spokeswoman, who said the change was made through ministerial instruction to speed processing before a formal regulation change is enacted.
Ms. Fraser said that, in making the decision, the government referred to research that found official language literacy had a significant impact on immigrant earnings, and that where literacy matched that of Canadian-born citizens, there was almost no gap in earnings for immigrants. Since non-native English or French speakers often used the documentation option, visa officers found it difficult to assess their abilities, Ms. Fraser said.
“We felt that going to a language test option was the most fair, transparent, objective, consistent and accurate way to evaluate different applicants’ language skills,” she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
