Mulroney's Legacy on Immigration in Canada

Post Reply New Topic

Canada: worst immigration system in the world

Diane Francis Sep 6, 2011 – 8:37 AM ET | Last Updated: Sep 6, 2011 12:36 PM ET

A recent study by two academics states the obvious: Immigration should fluctuate with economic conditions.

Its analysis showed how poorly most of Canada’s newcomers have fared and blamed recessions. But the blame is Canada’s badly devised immigration system dating back to 1986.

The fix is simple, but politically perilous which is why it hasn’t tackled by any federal government. It’s time it was.

Immigration Canada should return to Manpower and Immigration Canada which is how it operated for the decades between the Second World War and 1986. And refugees should be handled separately because they are a humanitarian issue which every civilized nation should lend a helping hand to alleviate.

Under Manpower and Immigration, newcomers would be recruited based on economic conditions, or job needs, at the time in Canada. That resulted in fluctuations in numbers. One year, 60,000 or so would be admitted based on their skills and demand in the Canadian marketplace for them. The next year may leap to 120,000 or so because of greater demand and the availability of a pool of appropriate workers.

Before 1986, immigration applicants would have to prove their credentials. There was a point system, color and racially blind, based on education, the ability to speak English or French, skills and professional standing. These were matched to what Manpower determined was needed in the country.

If they had the requisite points, they were personally interviewed, their health and financial information was gathered and scrupulously examined.

The result was that those lucky enough to qualify and got the green light, entered a Canadian labor market that needed what they had to offer. They found employment or, in many cases, were coming here to a job that had already been organized for them.

Then in 1986, the Mulroney government drove Immigration off the rails.

In the spirit of free trade, it decided that Canada needed 250,000 immigrants annually. This quota was unprecedented and was totally decoupled from manpower needs in the economy.

The bureaucracy couldn’t process that number so the points system was more or less abandoned and to make the requisite numbers, the family reunification category was opened wide. The result is that for the past 25 years, more than half of those admitted into Canada have come in his way and would never have qualified before. So it’s little wonder their outcomes have been so abysmal, recession or no recession.

The 250,000 number was crazy and equivalent to a CEO telling his Human Resources Department to go out and hire 250,000 people in 12 months whether or not there was work or a need for their skills. Of course, many of the 250,000 are minors and elders but this has also imposed an enormous financial burden on Canada, notably its principle immigrant destinations of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.

Allowing people into a sophisticated economy they are not suited to participate in is unfair to them and unfair to the country. For instance, last year some 250,000 immigrants or relatives were allowed into Canada and temporary work permits had to be issued to another 150,000 skilled workers to do jobs that the immigrants couldn’t fill.

Refugees are an entirely different issue which is why a separate department would be in order. These are people in dire circumstances who must be bootstrapped when they arrived. Unfortunately, that’s not always been the case and thousands have taken places as refugees who should have been evaluated properly instead as immigrants.

Canada cannot be indifferent to the need to reform its recruitment policies around the world. Currently, unemployment is a respectable 8% nationally, but the real unemployment and under-employment situation for newcomers is shockingly high in cities like Toronto, double or worse.

A more appropriate study should be to do a cost-benefit analysis of the past 25 years of immigration from health care and education to housing, welfare and other expenses.
And another cost-benefit analysis of the previous 25 years when the government responsibly insured success for newcomers by matching them to existing and future marketplace conditions.



http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/09/06/canada-worst-immigration-system-in-the-world/


I find this to be highly ironic. For decades our country had a perfectly good immigration system. Thanks to the Conservative government under Brian Mulroney we currently have serious problems. Modern day conservatives in Canada are quick to blame the Liberal Party for their pro-immigration policies however looking at the actual policy evolution you can see that from the time of the post-World War II era, the Liberal policy on immigration, while letting in considerably fewer immigrants, was based entirely upon relevant economic needs, and was far superior and ensured greater integration. Thanks to the unrealistic quota set by the Conservative government people come to our country without necessarily having a future lined up for them. And the end result is Conservative voters continue voting Conservative based on the false assumption that Liberal policies are at the root of this problem. Mulroney is still causing our country problems decades after he left office

What, you mean the Liberal vs. Conservative rhetoric and blame games happen north of the 49th as well??

That's a depressing article. And it explains why I've met some very well educated immigrants driving cabs in Toronto. Or those who are forced back to school to get their PhD's because they can't get a job. And once they graduate with PhD in hand, they still can't get a job.

It's funny, you know. During Toronto's mayoral candidate debate, one candidate said that Toronto shouldn't be accepting any new residents; we needed to take care of those who are already here before we take on anyone else. Very much like the pre-1986 immigration policy. But he was ripped to shreds in the media - they said he was "anti-immigration." Even though it had nothing to do with Canada's national immigration policy. It had to do with controlling growth in the existing urban boundaries. (I should note that this was the most conservative candidate running.)

Mulroney's policy is likely seen to be relic from a backwards Liberal government because it is exactly what one would expect from a well meaning, bleeding heart liberal. It's stereotypical, even.

A typically facile assessment. I would not be at all suprrised to see the hand of Martin Collacott in it.

The argument that the "family reunification category was opened wide," is true, but it omits a salient point--in 1992 the door was firmly shut on courier parents (parents sponsored by their Canadian child who would bring all of their never married children as accompanying dependents and then return to their country of origin). From 1992 forward the Family Class was limited to spouses (who's going to say no to immigration for spouses of Canadians?), fiancé(e)s (eliminated in 2002), children, parents, children intended to be adopted (severely curtailed by international convention, now) and a very narrow exceptional category for a Canadian sponsor with no eligible relatives (including those already in Canada). Hardly "opened wide."

And when we look at that list, what is wrong with any of it? If refugees are a humanitarian exception, why are family members? We have medical inadmissibility standards to deal with the risk presented by elderly parents, and we have undertakings to deal with the risk presented by welfare claims. (The fact that provinces were slow to act on collecting on undertakings is not immigration's fault).

The analysis of the point system is utterly wrong. The 1986 reforms did not do away with the point system--if anything it entrenched it far too deeply. All independent and assisted relative category processing was predicated on a "demand list" that created a wildly artificial system in which a dentist could not qualify for immigration, but a denturist could. Secretaries had a relatively high score on the "occupational demand" factor until reforms in late 90s (comparable with engineers) because government wanted more female principal applicants. Occupational demand factors were set in year 0, based on year -2 statistics, which locked in eligibility assessments conducted in year +3 or later. The 1986 system was designed to be responsive to the labour market. The Skilled Worker class that replaced it in 2002 was far stronger, focussing on the issues that really matter in the job market: education, language and age.

I notice that the most egregious failures of the Mulroney immigration reforms are nowhere touched on here: the entrepreneur and investor categories. (I'll leave off an assessment of the utterly silly "self-employed" category). Apparently courier parents were bad for Canada, but the astronauts were fine. It's an egregious failing to bring denturists, engineers, secretaries and systems analysts to Canada, but selling immigrant visas for $250,000 a pop is perfectly accpetable.

This is an anti-immigrant screed dressed up as commentary which doesn't belong in any national newspaper--even The National Post (or as we still refer to it in my family, The Daily Tubby).

[/rant]

I was expecting somebody to claim this was an anti-immigration commentary; though I disagree on this, as that is really not the purpose of this article. As cave_canem pointed out what this [1986 system] really results in is people coming here and not filling in jobs that they are trained/qualified for. They're not saying people should stop immigrating to Canada but that Canada's system needs an overhaul. Regardless of whether you are in total agreement with this author's points [which I am not either] it is evident that reform is needed.




This is why I found this article interesting. It is an ironic picture indeed

But only a person who knows nothing about the immigration system would pretend that the 1986 system did this. Anyone with any experience in a visa office (I have 8--how many do you have?) would know that the lag between market conditions and immigrant arrivals has existed long before the 1986 Act.

Consider the timeline: in 2011 we have a shortage of tool and die makers. Businesses report their unfilled job vacancies in regular Statistics Canada reports.

Late in 2012, StatsCan publishes the 2011 Labour Market Data (more likely 2013, but lets be generous). Supposing that Citizenship and Immigration is quick off the mark, the occupational demand list will reflect the labour market situation that prevailed about 12 to 18 months ago.

So, Joe Immigrant in, say, Bangalore, looks at the new occupational demand list when the High Commission puts it on the website, and says, "Aha! I am a tool and die maker, I will apply for immigration!" So he spends about six months getting his paperwork in order, putting aside the fees and submits his application--which is now 18 to 24 months behind the occupational demand measured by Stats Can.

Suppose that there is no significant queue at the visa office. [chortle] Joe Immigrant will get paperscreened within about 4 weeks, and called in for an interview within, say, six months. If he passes the interview, he then has to do a medical exam, which fixes the last date on which he can arrive in Canada. Another two months for that. We are no looking at an arrival date in Canada no earlier than 26 months after the labour shortage that Stats Can identified.

For tool and die makers, an occupation in perennial short supply, this is all well and good. But there are myriad occupations which run in cycles, where bringing in an immigrant two or three years from now is of no damn use. The tools to address immediate gaps in the labour market are the temporary worker program (using work permits) and the post-secondary education system. (You can train a tool and die maker faster than you get a new immigrant into Canada).

The 2002 reforms went a long way towards putting immigration onto an even keel. The Minister has considerable scope to "manage the mix," moving targets for the different categories. The introduction of the "Canadian experience" category was another significant step forward.

Immigration is a huge step for a family to take, and it should not be taken lightly, or quickly. Anyone who believes that they can laterally transfer from a professional position in their country of origin to a comparable position in a destination country (any destination country, not merely Canada) is dreaming in Technicolor (tm). Immigrants, in my experience, know this and are prepared to make that sacrifice in order to get their children in. It's the second generation that are the real gain from immigration policy.

Of course there was lag. You cannot 100% accurately predict market predictions. If it were that simple we would not be having this discussion. Additionally the "argument from experience" is irrelevant in this context. You could be anyone; I generally do not consider "personal experience" in the context of anonymous conversations with strangers on the internet relevant as the chances of you lying are equal to the chances of you telling the truth. No offense or personal insult intended, sir, but I think you can understand my skepticism of people that state "I did this for x years therefore n" while I have no way to actually verify their claim.



That's an interesting example, thank you. However my intent with sharing this article is to show how unrealistic a minimum quota of immigrants is. This example if anything reinforces my support for this. We jump from less than 100,000 per year that fluctuates based on employment demands, to a minimum of 250,000 per year. You state that the 1986 immigration policy is not to blame, then name off two different post-1986 acts that improved upon the original (thereby implying it was flawed to begin with...). But it does not seem to me that you are providing me with anything to show that the 1986 act is not to blame. Of course it is not "solely" to blame but it seems to have played a huge part. Anyway I appreciate your input

I was mostly interested in this article because the 250,000 quota was set by a Conservative government yet it seems to be the majority of people complaining are Conservative voters who somehow associate this policy with "bleeding heart liberals"

You'll find me in the back issues of Canadian Representatives Abroad available from the Protocol Division of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. I can scan my old diplomatic passports for you if you're really keen.

But suffice it to say that Ms. Francis demonstrates enormous gaps in knowledge. Even the stupid assertion about Manpower and Immigration Canada is manifestly incorrect, because immigration continued to be housed with Employment and Immigration Canada until Kim Campbell's reorganization of 1993 when she created the appalling "Public Security Canada." It was the Chrétien government that put Immigration and Citizenship together in the same department.




There is not now, and never has been a "quota" for immigration. There is a target which was originally set at 1% of the Canadian population, annually, and which was roughly held to be about 250,000 new arrivals. Visa offices never get a quota, and their targets are not visas issued--their targets are final decisions, whether they are approvals, refusals or withdrawals.

The Minister can drop the target tomorrow. He has all of the legislative authority he needs to stand up in the House of Commons and table an immigrant target of 0. Or 100,000. Or 1,000,000. Neither reform of the immigration system nor even legislative amendment is required. And what's more, Ministers had this authority under the 1986 Act. And the 1993 Amendments. And the 1976 Act.

The reality is that without net immigration (we lose about 50,000 residents annually), we would have virtually no population growth. And as much as we might look at the present labour market and be worried, the reality is that immigration is a long-range policy, and we need to be looking 25 years out--when you and I are depending upon the next generations to be generating the economic productivity that will keep our country functioning.

Last edited by visagrunt on 08 Sep 2011, 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

I wasn't asking you to prove anything, only pointing out the futility of the argument from experience in the context of [more or less...] anonymous internet interactions. It is not safe to put your details out publicly. Suffice to say your well thought out and researched posts give you credibility with me, I don't want you to compromise yourself in any way just to prove a point




Okay, so "quota" was a poor choice of words. The author of this article is obviously not that well informed so thank you for pointing out the major flaws with her argument. However I still do not consider setting a target a good thing, especially given the example you provided, this seems to provide even more inconvenience to new immigrants. I'm not looking at this from an anti-immigration standpoint (which is very, very far from my views I can assure you), it just seems nonsensical to me that there is a specified number (~1%) annually for immigration when there is not necessarily a certain guarantee that the immigrant, after the long process of getting here, will even be able to succeed in a given field. I live in an area with a lot of immigrants and I have spoken to many of them who are overqualified for the jobs they have. As you stated it is unrealistic that they would come here with the expectation of having a "perfect" job with equal pay or benefits as to back home, but the fact remains that there is an arbitrary number that the government "targets" to let in annually. Immigration is a necessary, long range policy, but I actually worry about how things will look 25 years out. Look at the U.K. riots. They have huge populations of young people of immigrant descent without opportunity. It isn't that improbable that something similar could happen here in the long term. The proportion of immigrants lacking gainful employment is greater than that of non-immigrant Canadian citizens. If they raise a second generation of children in these conditions it is just going to create social problems down the line, not economic productivity. We are already sadly seeing very low income immigrant communities popping up, frequently rife with crime. There has to be something here for them guaranteed otherwise we're just "filling quotas" and not actually "reaching targets". Immigrants deserve better from our country

Now we're into a meaningful discussion.

First things first--what's the goal of an immigration policy? To grow the domestic population. There are other incidental benefits, such as the development of strong trade links, but first and foremost immigration is about growth.

Now, do we need population growth? Personally, I think that the answer is an unqualified, "yes." We face huge infrastructure challenges in this country that impose uncompetitive price challenges on Canadian business and consumers. Why are our telecommunications costs so much higher that those in the United States? Because we have got one tenth of the population spread across a ribbon 200 km wide and and 5000 km long. We also need to ensure that we have a productive workforce that is large enough to maintain our economy when the boomers have all retired.

If we need population growth, and our birth rate is not achieving it, then what's the best way to bring in immigrants? Here's where the long term policy comes into play. If your economic cystal ball is telling you that we need a geometric mean intake rate of 1% then for every lean year where you drop the number you need to correspondingly boost the number in fat years. But that presupposes two things: 1) that you have got enough cases in the hopper to actually take in 350,000 or more in a fat year, and 2) you have the processing capacity to actually move those cases through.

Experience tells us that moving 350,000 or more with existing resources is near as damnit impossible. During the 90's--an ongoing series of "fat" years with very high immigrant demand from Hongkong (where I was posted in the early 90's), we never met targets for landings. Part of the trouble is that "fat" years in Canada also tend to be "fat" years around the world. When times are good, a person is less likely to want to pull up stakes, disrupting family and decamping for a whole new country. Counterintuitively the best time to recruit immigrants is during lean years--when things aren't so good at home, people are more open to the idea of a change for the better.

A second--and crucially important--factor is that when you try to blitz cases to bump up your numbers, processing gets sloppy. That's when officers take shortcuts on security screenings, and when file reviews become more cursory. Bigger numbers means less program integrity.

Yes, a target of 1% of the population in today's economy might seem dramatic. But if we take into account the availability of interested applicants, the processing capacity of the government, and the capacity of the economy to absorb new arrivals, I believe that a steady influx is a much safer approach than a too dynamic one.

If we are really concerned about social disruption arising from a generation raised in circumstances of marginal employment, perhaps we should turn our attention to aboriginal communities, first. Immigrant communities are thriving in comparison to many First Nations communities in this country--to our ongoing shame.

For Mulroney, the alpha and the omega for him is how to service rich people. This has been how he has been in every guise he has assumed. He worships rich people and everything he does revolves around that.