Immigration Forum / Canada / August 2008

Immigration Minister Diane Finley argues that the Harper government is
promoting its new immigration bill because of a commitment to reducing
the backlog of some 900,000 applicants for Canadian permanent
residence and reduce wait times.

She also claimed in a recent letter to FP (May 16, 2008) that Canada
welcomed 429,000 “newcomers” last year, the highest number in history.
This is incorrect. Newcomers, even in the government's own literature,
are comprised of only permanent resident visa holders. The number
429,649 includes approximately 195,000 temporary permit holders,
including study visas and work visas.

Current immigration levels, moreover, are actually lower than they
were in the early 1990s as a percent of population. Ms. Finley is the
first to lump all three categories into one statistical measure. Why
would she do this?

More important, the immigration backlog she refers to is grossly
exaggerated and highly misunderstood. Here is why. The 900,000 backlog
is largely derived from countries where the government intentionally
allocates insufficient resources. Each year, the immigration
department informally establishes quotas and staffs government offices
so that its missions cannot process more visas than its established
quota.

For example, the overall annual quota, expressed by the government as
“target numbers” of visas, for the Buffalo, N.Y., office is about
24,500. The Buffalo mission currently has an inventory of
approximately 45,000 applicants. On the other hand, the Canadian
mission in New Delhi, India, has an annual quota of only 10,500
against a pending inventory of approximately 135,000 cases.

At missions in India, China, the Philippines, Pakistan and Syria,
processing delays of 4 to 8 years exist. These are clearly the "under
performing" missions. They are under performing because their
resources are strategically allocated by Ottawa to ensure
underperformance.

Aside from the underperforming missions, most visa offices process
applications in about 18-24 months. Most applicants outside the
underperforming offices do not complain of long processing delays.
Applicants who are highly motivated can come to Canada sooner by
making use of the Provincial Nominee Program and the federal Temporary
Foreign Worker program if they are being sponsored by a Canadian
employer.

Current immigration legislation also provides ample authority for the
government to establish limits on the number of applications that may
be processed or approved in a year, the number of visas that may be
issued in a year, and the measures to be taken when that number is
exceeded. There is therefore no valid reason to provide the minister
with highly discretionary power to select immigrants.

Furthermore, the rule changes cannot possibly address the backlog of
skilled workers because the new law will only take effect from
February 28, 2008, onwards.

The system needs fixing. But Canadians should be concerned with the
federal government's claim that it aims to reduce the backlog. The
credibility of this department is highly dubious.

In 2003, in the leading federal court decision of its time, the
department's most senior bureaucrat was admonished for misinforming
Parliament on the effects of new legislation. The following year, a
former immigration minister came under fire over her office's decision
to approve a Canadian permanent residence application ahead of the
queue to a Romanian stripper who volunteered on her re-election
campaign.

Last week, the majority (Liberal, Bloc and NDP) members of the
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration proposed that
implementation of the new immigration rules be delayed pending further
study “with a view to finding a consensus on preferred alternative
means on addressing identified challenges”.

Canadians should be asking: Why is this government trying so hard to
convince us that it must pass such a controversial law without any
meaningful study of its purposes and possible effects?

In law, when the government exercises a discretionary authority
legally delegated to it by Parliament, no one can question the
rationale for its decision making. Who knows what thinking will
influence policy makers in the future? I have no evidence for this,
but such authority could give a party in power a valuable tool at the
grass roots level. Party organizers could approach ethnic groups in
Canada's largest immigrant communities and hold out the promise that
the federal immigration minister will be able to quickly bring their
family and friends to Canada, ahead of others in the queue at the
under performing missions.

Logic and reason dictates that further meaningful study must be
conducted before an important legislative initiative of this magnitude
takes hold--especially since the stated objectives will not be
achieved through these reforms.

Colin R. Singer is immigration counsel for www.immigration.ca.