Why haven’t we seen a drop in unemployment rates for certain groups of job-seekers – recent graduates, new immigrants, aboriginals, the unemployed?

Why aren’t wages increasing, even in high demand occupations?

Why don’t people move from one part of the country to another for a job?

The answer to all of these questions, at least in part, can be found in Canada’s increased reliance on temporary foreign workers. This is especially the case when it comes to workers in lower-wage jobs.

Over 330,000 foreign workers were admitted to Canada in 2011 and this is more than double the number that were admitted just six years ago. The majority of these foreign workers filled low-wage positions.

Consider that more than 20% of net new jobs created in Canada since 2007 have gone to temporary foreign workers, while during the same period the jobless rate for low-skilled workers went from 8.3% to 10.5%. What’s more, it’s hard to argue with the program’s many critics who claim that foreign workers depress wages.

So why does the government persist with bringing in ever-larger numbers of workers from abroad? The knee-jerk response is that the Conservatives lie down with big business and the latter prefers its workforce to be vulnerable and compliant. Maybe that’s the case, but I suspect there is more at play here.

The vast majority of voters are unhappy, to say the least, with the idea of foreign workers competing with locals for Canadian jobs. The decision-makers in Ottawa are anything but dumb and are acutely aware of voters’ feelings. Turning off the tap on foreign workers is simple enough, but then what? Do we let workers’ wages rise to the point where the people in Canada agree to be hired?

What happens, for example, to the price of a cup of coffee at Tim Horton’s when we replace the low salaries of foreign worker counter attendants with the higher salaries demanded by Canadian workers? Voters having to pay more in their everyday lives are voters who look for a change. This is not lost on the powers-that-be.

When it comes to the processing of citizenship applications, however, the same government department is far less effusive with self-praise. And with good reason. Not that long ago, a routine citizenship application would move through the system in about one year. Today, the average processing time on a run-of-the-mill application is 23 months – even longer in some parts of the country. Keep in mind, the option to apply only arrives after three years of permanent residency status.

Worse still is the plight of anyone whose case is not routine. About twenty percent of applicants fall into this category and they are required to complete a ‘residence questionnaire’ to demonstrate that they have actually been residing in Canada. Supporting documents such as pay stubs, tax returns and airline tickets must be submitted as evidence of time spent in Canada. Fair enough, I suppose, if there is a suspicion of misrepresentation. After all, people have been known to scam the system and pretend to have resided in Canada when in fact they have not.

The problem is not in vetting citizenship applications, but rather in the time it is taking to complete the verification. The processing time for these more complicated applications is approximately five years from the date of initial submission, which makes it about nine years from the time the individual first landed in Canada.

No surprise that these would-be Canadians are angry and frustrated. Who wouldn’t be if they had worked, paid taxes and did all the things that Canadian citizens are expected to do but yet are not afforded the full rights and benefits of Canadian citizenship? If the government is truly committed to creating a ‘faster, more flexible’ immigration system, this undertaking should not cease once newcomers settle in Canada.

Canada has become a magnet for young unemployed and underemployed workers from Ireland. The Murphys of the world and their countrymen have seen a dramatic rise in their fortunes when it comes to Canadian immigration. They are among the beneficiaries of Canada’s International Experience Class (IEC) of immigration. Under the program, Irish citizens below the age of 36, can come and work in Canada for up to two years, without a prearranged job. After one year of skilled work in Canada, they can apply for a Canadian permanent resident visa.

What was once the domain of backpackers looking for a working holiday has become an easy pathway to Canadian citizenship for down-on-their-luck Irish engineers, lawyers, and tradespersons. There is no doubting the popularity of the IEC visa program. This year’s allotment of 6350 free passes was scooped up in a couple of days. But despair not Irish readers, next year our Immigration Minister plans to raise the quota to 10,000, which will mark a 100% increase from 2011.

Contrast the foregoing with the likely Canadian immigration experience of someone named “Sharma”. For one thing, there is no program that allows citizens of India to come work in Canada without an arranged job offer from a Canadian employer. Even with a genuine offer of employment, it is hit or miss as to whether Canadian visa officers will issue a work permit. As likely as not, the work permit application will be refused because it is felt that the applicant will not leave Canada when the visa expires, on the grounds of “insufficient ties to the home country” and “poor prospects for employment in the home country”.

In essence, it is much easier to come work and then immigrate to Canada, without a job offer, from Ireland than it is to come work and then immigrate to Canada, with a job offer, from India. It does seem to smack of unequal treatment. Why would our officials think that an unemployed Irish national without an arranged job offer in Canada is more likely to leave Canada when his/her visa expires than the employed citizen of India with a job waiting in Canada?

On a related matter, it strikes me as quite unfair to put out the welcome mat for thousands of Europe’s “poor and huddled masses” while at the same time terminating the permanent resident applications of almost 300,000 individuals from Asia and Africa, who followed the rules and waited patiently, year after year, for a chance to come to Canada.

The lawyers who appeared before Justice Rennie on behalf of the applicants were my co-counsel Mario Bellissimo as well as Lorne Waldman, Rocco Galati, Matthew Jeffery and Lawrence Wong. I commend all of them for their demeanor and persuasive presentations.

Each lawyer attacked the government’s position on separate grounds but with the common goal of striking down the legislation that permits the Immigration Minister to toss out the applications before assessing them. Bear in mind that some applicants have been waiting in line for more than seven years.

Mr. Bellissimo’s main argument, put forth on behalf of our clients, is that the enabling legislation, subsection 87.4 (I) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) violates subsection 15 (I) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter).

It is submitted that the manner in which Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) processes applications for permanent residence leads to discrimination on the basis of an applicant’s national origin, an enumerated ground under subsection 15 (I) of the Charter. This is so because applicants may only submit their application to specified visa offices for processing, depending upon either their country of legal residence or their country of citizenship.

Processing times at different visa offices vary greatly and as a result an individual’s national origin will determine the rate at which his or her application is processed. CIC prioritizes certain visa offices – and thus certain nationalities – over others and therefore termination of applications at this stage will disproportionately affect those applicants who submitted to visa offices not prioritized by CIC. Consequently, it is argued that subsection 87.4 (I) is contrary to the Charter and should be struck down as having no force or effect.

To support his position, Mr. Bellissimo relied upon statistics which indicate that visa offices in the Americas and Europe managed to process approximately 90% of their backlogged applications while visa offices in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia only processed about 40% of their backlogged inventory.

To be fair, it should be noted that the Immigration Minister, through counsel, has responded to all of the arguments raised by the applicants and has asserted the right of Parliament to pass legislation it deems proper in the circumstances.

Now we await Justice Rennie’s decision. Even that may not bring this saga to an end, as the losing side will have the opportunity to appeal.

Sabreena Shabdeen is in a precarious position through no fault of her own. She is a 17 year-old with significant autism and resides with her parents in Paterson, New Jersey. Her parents have an appointment with US immigration authorities in the coming days and face the prospect of being deported to Sri Lanka, their country of nationality. They have decided that, given the circumstances, Sabreena would be better off if she were to return to Canada, the country of her birth.

Canadian authorities are aware of all the relevant facts and, while they don’t deny Sabreena’s right to live in Canada, have done precious little to assist her.

Ontario Youth Services advised that there was nothing they could do until Sabreena makes her way into the province. How she gets there is not their problem.

The Department of Foreign Affairs, tasked with assisting Canadians in distress abroad, was just as dismissive. They suggested Sabreena apply for a Sri Lankan passport.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) refused to allow Sabreena’s parents permission to enter Canada temporarily for the purpose of participating in Sabreena’s psychological assessment and the establishment of a Life Plan by an accredited Ontario health service provider. They did this even though the health service provider advised that it was essential that the parents participate in the process because Sabreena, for the most part, does not communicate in a meaningful way.

CIC’s decision to refuse entry to Sabreena’s parents is based, in part, on the belief that they will not leave Canada at the end of their temporary stay. In the past, they had made an unsuccessful asylum claim in Canada. CIC’s decision is, in my opinion, a red herring because there are enforcement provisions in the law that would allow CIC to remove Sabreena’s parents, if they fall out of status.

The decision to refuse entry is now being challenged in the Federal Court, but is not likely to be heard and decided for a number of months.

Sabreena’s case underlines the challenges faced by Canadians with disabilities. As if life itself isn’t tough enough.

You can read more about this story in a recent Globe and Mail article.

The alternative to prayer, patience, and dialysis is to locate a live donor, who is a suitable match and willing to part with one of his or her renal organs. Needless to say, these kinds of people don’t grow on trees, especially if they are not a close relative of the recipient.

You can imagine the joy in the Serrano household when, after a long search, a distant relative in El Salvador offered to donate one of his kidneys. The excitement intensified when preliminary medical tests indicated that he could be a potential match. So far, so good.

You might think this story has a feel-good ending, but it doesn’t. The would-be donor applied for a visitor’s visa at the Canadian Embassy in Guatemala City and was denied, not once but twice. And this, notwithstanding the fact that he had letters of support from the Toronto General Hospital’s renal transplant team and the Serrano’s local Member of Parliament.

The family is, to say the least, extremely disappointed at the lack of compassion shown by immigration authorities. Who can blame them? For its part, the immigration department, through a representative, declared that after careful consideration it was determined that the donor might not leave Canada when his good deed was completed. So in essence, after taking into account the good possibility that Vilma’s life could be saved by admitting the donor and weighing this against the possibility that the donor would not voluntarily depart Canada, the government came down on the side of callous indifference.

While I’m on the subject, there is something else that bothers me about Vilma’s predicament. It’s quite apparent that had her relative, the donor, been from a country like Ireland, or Israel, or any other visa-exempt country, he could have simply flown to Canada and potentially to her rescue. He would not have needed a visitor’s visa. It’s just one more example of two-tiered Canadian citizenship.

At this point, the only way that Vilma’s would-be donor is going to enter Canada is if the Minister of Immigration intervenes. Vilma’s daughter has launched a ‘Save our Vilma” online petition at http://vilmasfriends.wordpress.com to support the cause. If you live in Canada, I encourage you to lend your support.

The new regulation applies to spouses or common-law partners, who, at the time they submit a sponsorship application, have been in a relationship of less than two years and have no children in common.

As of October 25, 2012 these sponsored spouses and common-law partners will be required to cohabit in a conjugal relationship with their sponsors for two years from the day they receive their permanent resident status in Canada. The permanent resident status may be revoked if the obligation is not met. Exemptions exist if the sponsored spouse or common-law partner can demonstrate that they have been the subject of abuse or neglect, or in the case of the sponsor’s death.

It is important to keep in mind that any system the government puts in place is subject to abuse. Unfortunately, that is the nature of the beast. Prior to the new regulation, the government shouldered the responsibility for preventing fraud of this kind by utilizing the considerable investigative and enforcement resources at its disposal. Additional responsibility fell upon the sponsor, who was (and still is) liable to repay the government for any financial assistance their spouse or common-law partner may receive for three years from the date that spouse or common-law partner becomes a permanent resident.

Under the new regulation, the government is abdicating its responsibility, or at the very least making its job a lot easier by shifting the burden of preventing abuse of the system onto the victims, be it the duped sponsor or the abused sponsored spouse.

Now, if the sponsor advises CIC that the relationship has fallen apart within the first two years in Canada, the assumption is that it was a marriage of convenience and the sponsored individual is subject to removal from Canada. Yes, the assumption can be overcome but the onus will be on the sponsored spouse to clearly demonstrate abuse or neglect by the sponsor. This is a serious shift in the burden of proof from the government onto the sponsored spouse or common-law partner.

As Janet Dench of the Canadian Council for Refugees has pointed out, the government’s efforts to deter marriage fraud are likely to have unintended negative consequences. More particularly, the new regulation will force innocent victims of domestic violence into staying with a domestic partner in order to maintain permanent resident status. Newcomers are often unaware of their rights and may not speak either of Canada’s official languages. They may be reluctant to get out of an abusive situation if their permanent residency ultimately rests on whether an immigration officer believes their story. Moreover, forcing a female divorcee to return home, depending on where home is, could negatively impact her social status.

Furthermore, the new rule fails to take into account that sometimes legitimate relationships, even between Canadians, just don’t work out. It’s not right to label a marriage as one of convenience just because it didn’t last for two years.

A few months ago, the government announced that Canadian Permanent Residents who were sponsored as a spouse or common-law partner cannot become a sponsor themselves until they have been a Permanent Resident for 5 years. Maybe we ought to leave it at that.

All things considered, it should remain the responsibility of the government to prove that a marriage is one of convenience. As for the Canadian sponsor…caveat emptor – buyer beware.

In the last few weeks I have come across more than one newspaper article, which told of the disappointment felt by a Canadian family upon learning that a beloved grandparent, living abroad, could not attend a special family event because Canadian visa officers refused a request for a visitor visa. In one case, a grandmother living in a Middle Eastern country was denied the opportunity of attending her granddaughter’s wedding in Montreal.

What a shame, I thought – to deny a grandmother and her Canadian offspring the joy of sharing the granddaughter’s wedding.

What is wrong here is that we have a system in place that effectively creates two classes of grandparents and by extension, two classes of Canadian families. The first-class Canadian families have grandparents (or parents for that matter) who live in countries like those in Western Europe, from which Canada allows visa-free travel. A German grandmother may, on a whim, board a plane and visit her Canadian family members any time she wishes to.

The second-class Canadian families have grandparents in countries like India, China, and the Philippines, from which Canada requires a visitor visa before travel. Too often these tourist visas are refused, and for reasons that are discretionary at best. How many missed family milestones? How many disappointed Canadian grandchildren? There should be only one class of Canadian families. It isn’t fair and it isn’t right.

I’ll tell you how this ties in with Canadian immigration.

During the course of the last few years and especially more recently, the Canadian government has become much more selective in whom it permits to submit an application for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) program. In the not so distant past, if you were between the ages of 18 and 49, had a decent education, fairly good English language skills and a few years of skilled work experience, you could try your luck by submitting an FSW application. The end result was that there were way more applications in queue than there were visas to be issued. This led to processing delays of 8 or 9 years at Canadian visa offices in some countries.

Those days are gone and very likely will not return. In the last set of the Immigration Minister’s Instructions, the FSW application door was only open to a maximum of 10,000 individuals with work experience in a limited number of occupations. The limit was reached in early May and then the FSW door was slammed shut unless an applicant could come up with a Canadian job offer.

There was much anticipation as this past July 1st approached because on that date the Immigration Minister was expected to let the world know what it would take to be eligible to submit an application under the FSW program during the ensuing 12 months. To the disappointment of many would-be applicants, the only announcement the Minister made was of a temporary pause in the FSW program while it underwent major revision.

The government has now published the regulations for the new FSW program, which will come into effect on January 1st, 2013. Once again, there is great anticipation. I’m afraid, however, that some potential applicants will yet again be disappointed. While the pass mark will remain at 67 points, achieving that score may be challenging. For one thing, there is a greater emphasis on language proficiency and attaining a minimum level of fluency (Canadian Language Benchmark 7) will be an absolute requirement.

In addition, educational credentials will no longer be accepted at face value. They will have to be assessed for their Canadian equivalence, and this requirement will eliminate some otherwise well-qualified candidates. And don’t forget that points will now be deducted for applicants above the age of 35. Finally, while the Minister of Immigration has indicated that there will not be a limit/cap placed on specific occupations it is certainly expected that an overall cap on FSW applications will be put in place and at this time we do not know what that number will be. Even if someone is fortunate enough to be eligible to submit when the door finally opens, that door may very well close again, before a full application can be completed and submitted, because caps/limits will have been reached.

Aside from the FSW program, most of the other Canadian immigration programs require a job offer from a Canadian employer in order to qualify…not an easy task to accomplish. There is one notable exception and that is the Quebec Skilled Worker (QSW) program. If an individual’s field of study/area of training is among the 111 that appear on the Quebec list then he or she may be eligible to submit an application.

The QSW is a points-based program and points are awarded for such factors as age, education, work experience and English/French language abilities. For many potential applicants, one way to increase their point total is to acquire some speaking and listening French language skills; reading and writing are not required. Quite often achieving low- or high-beginner ability in French is sufficient to make someone eligible to apply. Online French language training courses, such as Rosetta Stone, are available to make learning some French convenient even for busy individuals juggling work and family responsibilities.

No caps, no limits, no need to find a Canadian employer…just make an effort to learn some French and you have a good chance of coming to Canada.

Some people are pleased to learn that they will be eligible to submit an application under the QSW program by just taking on some French language skills. They are happy to take advantage of the opportunity presented to them. Others however, respond in a different way. They optimistically anticipate that they might be eligible at some time in the future to submit an application to the evermore selective FSW program.

I guess for them it’s all about the birds in the bush.

That same year, Canada enacted legislation empowering the Immigration Minister to limit the intake of new applications and by all accounts these measures have had their desired effect. Today, average processing times for FSW category applications submitted since 2008 have been cut in half. As of April 2012 there were just over 135,000 post-2008 FSW applicants and their dependents in the queue.

Seeing as how these newer applications are being refused at a rate of about 50 percent, we can expect that approximately 67,500 people will be receiving visas. Now, consider that the total CIC operational target for the FSW in 2012 is 61,000 visas and you will conclude, as I did, that there is essentially no backlog of FSW applications, except that…

There is still the issue of the FSW applicants who submitted their applications before February 28, 2008. This group includes about 85,000 principal applicants and their dependants, for a total of 280,000 people.

As followers of this blog are aware, the Canadian government has passed legislation that would terminate these older FSW applications and return the government processing fees paid by the applicants. Given the paucity of newer applications, wouldn’t it be more equitable to set aside a certain portion of the FSW quota for pre-2008 applicants? At the end of the day we are not talking about that many people. Some of these individuals have certainly moved on with their lives and are no longer interested in Canadian immigration. Add to this a rejection rate of about 50 percent and the number shrinks even more. We could be talking about 100,000 visas at the end of the process and you would think that number of newcomers could be accommodated over the next 4 or 5 years. However, my guess is that the government won’t process the pre-2008 FSW applications, at least not unless the Federal Court orders them to do so.

We have already filed Class Action proceedings on behalf of about 200 of our clients. If you feel that you may be affected by CIC’s plans to terminate pre-2008 FSW applications and wish to join or learn more about the Class Action court proceedings, please visit the following link: www.canadavisa.com/online/classaction/