Allos: A case for a Parliamentary Immigration Officer

Seeing more calls for an immigration ombudsman or this call for an officer of parliament, given ongoing policy and operational problems at IRCC.

Personally, not convinced that adding another layer will result in any significant improvements. IRCC is accountable before the courts, there is an active ecosystem of lawyers, academics and activists that are effective in raising issues. Periodically, the OAG conducts program specific audits and IRCC conducts program evaluations that I have found substantive.

In terms of the concerns raised on retention rates, tax filing data is providing insights. Given that tax filing data is linked to immigration files, it should be possible to assess retention rates by category, gender, country of citizenship etc, recognizing that there are, like all data, some limits. StatsCan also conducted a recent study that indicated about four million Canadian expatriates, higher than the APF number some 10 years ago (the APF included Permanent Residents, StatsCan included correctly only Canadian citizens).

So while better data on retention rates and undocumented migrants is of course needed, IRCC could start including this information in the annual report on immigration, as CIMM could and should press for, particularly in the context of a minority government:

Immigration is a vital sector and dynamic of the Canadian Economy. Immigrants keep the growth of our economy on the proper trajectory. Their numbers in the workforce keep the Canadian Pension Fund afloat.

Immigration levels are always a source of debate: too many; not skilled enough; too old; no net benefit or a drain on our social programs. But regardless of what your position is on immigration,  Canada’s declining birth rate aging population and labour shortage crisis reveal that immigration is an integral part of Canada.

The federal government’s 2022 immigration target is 431,000. Whether this number is based on any performance criteria is another matter. However, there is no independent Parliamentary Officer to track the functioning of the department for the House of Commons and for the Canadian public.

For example, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) does not disclose retention rates, so the public doesn’t know whether the recruitment is efficient (recruits or approved “ideal numbers”) or effective (success rate measured by the numbers who strive to contribute to the country once landed). Knowledge of these retention rates is especially important for decision-makers looking to build support for one immigration stream or another.

How do we know that there is a retention problem? In 2019, the Munk Centre published a summary of all existing literature and numbers on retention. The report details how Ottawa “estimates” and “lowballs” the retention rates and numbers while agreeing that, as of 2011, there were at least 3.0 million Canadians living abroad,

The Munk Report acknowledges that nothing much has been written on the subject since a 2011 report by the Asia Pacific Foundation.

There are several immigration streams. Knowing which stream has higher retention, would give the government direction on where to focus immigration policies. Streams with low retention rates tend to muck up the system with higher backlogs.

While IRCC can provide annual intake [landed] numbers for all streams, it does not provide any “exit”  (naturalized Canadians and immigrants leaving Canada) numbers. There is no audit of the “net numbers” (those landing as immigrants vs those leaving Canada). Crudely put, there is no analysis of “people in, people out,” and no measurement of performance outcomes.

Two problems immediately come to mind. First is the number of naturalized Canadians who leave Canada annually – effectively abandoning the investment made in going through the process of immigration. Estimates based on a study by Statistics Canada in December 2018, suggest annual numbers in the 200,000 range.

If this is the case, is IRCC obligated to inflate the annual landing targets to 431,000 just to cover the economic loss of 200,000 Canadians leaving Canada? If that many are leaving, of what value are IRCC’s policies?

The second is the scope of illegal/undocumented workers in Canada. Again, the estimates vary but the numbers fall in the one million range. If there are over one million undocumented workers in Canada, again –  how effective are IRCC’s policies?

Immigration, Refugee, Citizenship Canada (IRCC) publishes annual statistics of immigrants landing in Canada whether they are immigrants under different immigration programs, refugees and work permit visas. However, IRCC does not publish numbers of naturalized Canadians (immigrant, refugee, foreign workers) who leave Canada annually; we do not know if those numbers are tracked. In addition, there are no formal numbers of foreign workers who choose to stay beyond the expiration of their work permit visas.

IRCC has never published data on Canada’s retention rates for immigrants and refugees. The data is essential to audit the government’s immigration policies and optimize them. Being able to know how each immigration stream performs and retention rates for each stream will enable the government to emphasize one stream over another. Immigration streams that has low retention rates should be scrapped and give way to streams that have higher retention rates. IRCC will have to keep increasing the immigration quota to compensate for those who are leaving the country. The higher the immigration quota, the higher the backlog will be.

As for undocumented workers, Ottawa does not deny the issue. A Parliamentary Standing Committee studied the problem. Some MPs have quietly provided the one million number. But there has been a political/bureaucratic/media/industry/union consensus to not publicly acknowledge it as a problem. 

How do government Agencies like the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and Statistics Canada treat “retention numbers” or “undocumented workers?” Do CRA or Statistics Canada have reliable data on “retention numbers?”

In a word – no, they deny having reliable data. If there is no data, there is no problem. It is ironic to have several millions of citizens/Immigrants leave Canada, while one million undocumented workers remain in Canada. It is proof of how flawed IRCC’s selection process is.

It is time to create an independent body to oversee IRCC. A body that provides independent audit and analysis of the IRCC’s different immigration streams, retention numbers, backlogs, as well as any other data that can help the government improve Canada’s immigration system. A Parliamentary Immigration Officer is needed, now more than ever, to ensure that IRCC operates in an efficient and effective way to ensure program integrity.

Rabea Allos is the co-founder and member of the executive committee of the Catholic Refugee Sponsors Council. Rabea has advocated for refugees since 2005, particularly for Christians and other vulnerable minorities from the Middle East. He has appeared a few times in Canadian Parliamentary Committees, including Foreign Affairs and Citizenship & Immigration.

Source: A case for a Parliamentary Immigration Officer

Ottawa cheated 107 Iranians out of a fair shot at their Canadian dream, judge finds

Yet another example of IRCC struggles to manage demand and took a shortcut that was justifiably called out for by the court. Kudos to the lawyer involved, Pantea Jafari:

The Federal Court has ordered Canada’s immigration department to reconsider the cases of 107 Iranian immigration applicants who were turned down en masse.

The court also ordered the immigration department to pay the litigants a total of $50,000 in costs — one of the highest amounts ever awarded in an immigration case.

In what he called “an unusual circumstance of litigation,” Justice Henry S. Brown said he had no difficulty finding immigration senior management made “a deliberate and calculated decision” that “reduced” the rights — and fairness — for the applicants.

The issue arose after the files of the applicants — all Iranians who were seeking to come to Canada under the self-employed category of economic immigrants — were moved from a backlogged visa post in Ankara, Turkey, in March 2018 so they could instead be processed in the office in Warsaw, Poland.

There, the applications were all refused for failing to demonstrate the ability and intent to become self-employed in Canada.

At issue was whether the “mass” refusals made in “haste” — according to the applicants’ claim — were the direct result of an effort to clear a backlog, allegedly “at the cost of violation of legal principles.”

The judge was sympathetic to the applicants’ cause.

“Those whose applications are filed before a decision-maker institutes material changes in procedure are entitled to have notice of and be given an opportunity to refile or otherwise so as to comply with the new procedures,” Brown wrote in a 76-page decision last Friday. 

“Failure by a decision-maker to provide an applicant with notice of the case to meet constitutes a breach of procedural fairness.”

Rokhsar MousaviNezhad, a Persian carpet designer and maker, said she and other litigants — who initiated the suit in 2018 — were happy with the decision.

“We were treated unfairly and the court understood what happened,” said MousaviNezhad. “It restored our faith in the Canadian judicial system.

“We hope immigration is now going to act on our applications” according to the court instructions, she said.

The self-employed immigration program is meant to lure exemplary athletes, artists and farmers. The Iranian applicants in this program had been processed by the Ankara visa office, but 479 files in this category were transferred to Warsaw on March 7, 2018, due to backlogs in Turkey.

The court heard that the success rate of self-employed applications by Iranians plummeted from around 80 to 85 per cent between 2015 and 2017, when they were processed by Ankara, to less than 50 per cent when processed by the Warsaw office.

It identified a number of problematic procedural issues when immigration officials in 2016 “purported” to replace an operational manual that had been in place for at least eight years with a new one to guide visa officers in processing applications under the self-employed class.

The older manual referred to the possibility of interviews with applicants and actually instructed visa officers that formal business plans should be “discouraged” where they “would entail unnecessary expense and administrative burden” to the applicants. 

Under the old guideline, officers were also “expressly” advised that if they had “concerns about eligibility or inadmissibility, the applicant must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict those concerns” in compliance with the procedural fairness requirements.

“It seems to me this language strongly tends to require visa officers to deal with these concerns through procedural fairness letters, or possibly even through interviews,” wrote Justice Brown.

“The entirety of this procedural fairness-focussed provision was eliminated … Its wholesale removal cannot be seen as other than a deliberate, significant and material reduction in the legitimate expectations of procedural fairness.”

The court was told officials in Ankara always adhered to the practice of asking for supplementary documents, accompanied by a detailed checklist of other documents for additional information required to support a self-employed application, which Brown said was necessary, given lengthy immigration backlog and delays. 

However, he said, officials in Warsaw not only ended the practice of sending supplementary document requests, but made “material change” in assessing an applicant’s business plans and evidence of the person’s intent and ability to establish in Canada.

Given that Ankara had regularly approved Iranian self-employed applications without going into a great deal of specifics in the business plans, the judge said that also gave rise to justified expectations among applicants about the level of detail expected of the business plans they submitted for assessment.

“This legitimate expectation was not carried over to the Warsaw visa post, which rejected a great number of Iranian SE applications based in whole or part on perceived inadequacies of business plans filed in support of ability and intent,” Brown pointed out.

“This resulted in claims being dismissed without the applicants knowing the case they had to meet or having a full and fair chance to respond.”

Although it’s within immigration officials’ authority to replace operational manuals and change procedures, the judge said they did not notify the litigants in the system or prospective claimants, nor did they provide an opportunity to refile to meet “these significantly different requirements.”

Given the lack of notification, the court ruled that only those Iranian self-employed applicants whose cases were filed within six months (when represented by legal counsel) or nine months (if self-represented) after the new operational manual was introduced in 2016 and the applications were moved to Warsaw should be given a chance for reconsideration.

Due to the different timelines of the litigated cases, the judge only sent the eight lead cases back for reconsideration under the old rules and procedures, while asking immigration officials to review the rest and determine which ones meet the timeline and should be reopened.

Pantea Jafari, lawyer for the litigants, said the remaining 99 cases will be examined and those that meet the timeline under the court order will be automatically reopened and resolved, while the rest would be further adjudicated either by negotiation or by a further court order, if necessary.

She said Brown’s decision has a significant implication in the administrative law in the immigration context.

“Essentially, any time where an instruction set to officers or clients from the respondent has been persistent for a prolonged period of time — in our case, eight years — people can argue that created a legitimate expectation that would be followed,” said Jafari.

“Where the respondent makes significant changes to forms, processes, things like that, it is now under the purview of requiring some sort of notice of that or it will be deemed reasonable for people to have relied on the old versions within six or nine months.”

Source: Ottawa cheated 107 Iranians out of a fair shot at their Canadian dream, judge finds

Que se passe-t-il avec les demandes de visa pour le Canada? [sigh…]

Another are of problems at IRCC. Surprising in one sense as visitor visas have been one of the programs that has advanced the most on AI, and thus should be reaping benefits of faster processing for most cases. Requiring applicants to resubmit applications is not, needless to say, good service practice:

En contradiction avec l’information affichée sur son site Web, le gouvernement fédéral demande à certains visiteurs de déposer une seconde demande de visa pour le Canada si leur première a eu le malheur de se retrouver dans la pile des dossiers non traités lors de la pandémie. Une « file d’attente » au sort incertain qui cause bien des maux de tête.

« Si vous devez voyager au Canada en ce moment, veuillez noter qu’une nouvelle demande devrait être soumise. »

L’avocat spécialisé en immigration Denis Girard a été surpris de la réponse que lui a envoyée le bureau des visas de Dakar le 13 décembre 2021, alors qu’il se questionnait sur l’important retard dans la délivrance du visa de visiteur d’une de ses clientes originaires du Mali.

Celle-ci voulait venir visiter sa fille et ses petits-enfants au Canada, un voyage pour lequel elle fait une demande le 25 juillet précédent. Mais voilà que dans ce courriel, que Le Devoir a consulté, on demandait sans explication à la dame de refaire le processus. C’est qu’un événement important est survenu entre-temps : le Canada a rouvert ses frontières aux voyageurs vaccinés venant au pays pour des raisons non essentielles.

Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada (IRCC) en a profité pour balancer toutes les demandes de visa effectuées avant cette date dans un étrange purgatoire bureaucratique où sont coincés des milliers de dossiers sans que leurs auteurs en soient informés. Cela a eu pour effet de faire gonfler les statistiques d’attente pour l’obtention d’un visa dans certains pays.

Sur son site Web, IRCC recommande aux personnes qui ont soumis une demande de visa de visiteur avant le 7 septembre 2021 d’en soumettre une nouvelle si leur situation a changé. Une consigne qui a rendu perplexe Me Girard. « Une nouvelle demande de visa ne semble pas requise [pour ma cliente], si on se fie aux représentations d’IRCC, représentations qui se révéleront être fausses », souligne l’avocat, qui note une contradiction entre la directive envoyée par courriel et ce qui se retrouve sur le Web.

Sa cliente a finalement déposé une nouvelle demande, sans remboursement, pour un visa qui a été produit 16 jours plus tard.

Le Devoir a tenté d’obtenir des explications d’IRCC concernant l’exigence de dépôt d’une nouvelle demande. À cinq reprises, IRCC a refusé de dire quelle était sa recommandation pour les personnes sans nouvelles de leur dossier et dont la situation n’a pas changé, hormis l’impatience de l’attente. Le ministère recopiait chaque fois la procédure pour les personnes dont la situation a changé.

Manque d’informations

Ce manque de clarté cause beaucoup d’incertitude. Originaire d’Haïti, Michelet Joseph a déposé une demande de visa de visiteur en août 2021. Il fit face à un dilemme : la refaire, ou pas ? « Je n’ai pas envie de retirer ma demande sans être remboursé. Je la maintiens, mais cette dernière n’est pas traitée », laisse-t-il tomber.

IRCC souligne qu’« il n’y a pas de garantie de remboursement » si une nouvelle demande est déposée.

Celui qui travaille comme journaliste à Port-au-Prince, où « il gagne très bien sa vie », souhaite venir au Canada pour rencontrer des artistes de son pays qui se produisent en terre canadienne. « J’ai besoin de les connaître pour pouvoir parler d’eux, dit-il. J’hésite à renvoyer une demande parce que j’ai déjà soumis plein de documents et je ne sais pas s’ils les reçoivent ou s’ils les mettent de côté. C’est frustrant. »

« Je ne sais pas quoi faire », indique également Natasha, qui préfère témoigner sous un nom d’emprunt par crainte de répercussions sur son propre dossier d’immigration. « Si je dépose une nouvelle demande, est-ce qu’on va l’abandonner de nouveau et encore nous dire les mêmes choses ? »

L’étudiante haïtienne à Montréal tente de faire venir sa mère (qui vit toujours en Haïti, mais qui est une habituée des voyages au Canada) pour sa cérémonie de collation des grades au mois d’août. Le Devoir a confirmé que la demande de visa a été enregistrée avec un an d’avance, le 27 août 2021, mais Natasha n’a eu aucune nouvelle du dossier depuis 11 mois. Les délais de traitement pour un visa demandé depuis Haïti sont pourtant estimés à 91 jours, selon le site Web d’IRCC.

« L’information, honnêtement, n’est pas claire du tout. Personne n’est joignable », témoigne celle qui ignore toujours si elle doit ou non déposer une nouvelle demande pour la visite de sa mère.

Petite histoire d’une file d’attente

Trois sources diplomatiques contactées séparément ont confirmé que l’arriéré des demandes de visa pose un problème aux ambassades canadiennes. Deux d’entre elles affirment que des responsables d’IRCC, le ministère qui gère de manière autonome les dossiers d’immigration, leur ont carrément fait savoir que les demandes déposées avant le 7 septembre 2021 ne seraient jamais traitées.

Officiellement, le ministère dit continuer à examiner ces vieilles demandes. Mais par la même occasion, il présente un portrait peu rassurant pour ceux qui attendent leur visa depuis près d’un an.

D’abord, le ministère a suspendu le traitement des demandes non urgentes entre avril et juillet 2020, tout en permettant le dépôt de dossiers. « Ceux qui ont demandé à voyager au Canada pour des raisons non essentielles pendant cette période ont vu leur demande placée dans la file d’attente », explique la porte-parole d’IRCC, Julie Lafortune.

Ensuite, et durant les 14 mois qui ont suivi, les fonctionnaires ont traité principalement les demandes de visiteurs exemptés des restrictions de voyage. « Un arriéré de demandes de visa de visiteur s’est accumulé », admet sans détour un document du ministère.

Finalement, lorsque les restrictions de voyage ont été assouplies, le 7 septembre 2021, IRCC a décidé que les demandes déposées avant cette date tomberaient dans cette malheureuse « file d’attente », qui a pour caractéristique d’imposer un traitement beaucoup plus lent. Le ministère invoque la « complexité » des dossiers, comme des documents périmés ou l’évolution des circonstances.

IRCC soutient par ailleurs toujours suivre un modèle du « premier entré, premier sorti », soit le traitement des plus vieilles demandes de la file d’attente avant les plus récentes ; le ministère se permet toutefois de traiter d’abord des dossiers moins complexes.

Seulement en 2021, près de 250 000 demandes qu’IRCC n’est pas arrivé à traiter se sont ajoutées à la file. La majorité des demandes déposées en 2022 ont, elles, été traitées.

Source: Que se passe-t-il avec les demandes de visa pour le Canada?

Visa denials denounced at Montreal AIDS conference, federal minister cancels speech

Of note. Wonder whether the organizing committee (and the Canadian government when agreeing to host it) foresaw the visa difficulties and the extent to which other international conferences in Canada have encountered similar visa issues or not:

The International AIDS Society will re-evaluate how it organizes international conferences as a result of visa denials by the Canadian government, the organization’s president said Friday in Montreal.

The comments came as International Development Minister cancelled a planned appearance at the conference.

Adeeba Kamarulzaman told attendees at the opening ceremony of the AIDS 2022 conference that she is “deeply upset by the high number of denials and pending visas that prevented many registered delegates, including IAS staff and leadership, from entering Canada.”

She said the International AIDS Society, the association of HIV/AIDS professionals that organizes the conference, wants to ensure its conferences include the communities most affected by HIV.

“We know that underlying the difficulty experienced by many attendees of AIDS 2022 to enter Canada, lies a broader problem of global inequity and systemic racism that significantly impacts global health,” she said. “HIV, in particular, has always disproportionately affected the most marginalized.”

Other speakers had strong criticism for Canada’s visa policies. Activist and writer Tim McCaskill told attendees that if countries like Canada aren’t up to allowing “all stakeholders” to attend, “then we need to hold these conference in places that are.”

At one point during the opening ceremony, a group of protesters took the stage, condemning the visa denials and inequalities in the global response to HIV. “No more AIDS conferences in racist countries,” one woman said as she made a short speech.

Sajjan had been scheduled to speak at the conference opening, but he cancelled and was not replaced by another Canadian government representative.

Sajjan’s office said “operational issues” prevented him from attending. “We remain steadfast supporters of UNAIDS, the Global Fund and our trusted partners,” Haley Hodgson, a spokeswoman for the minister, said in an email.

Omar Sharif Jr., the master of ceremonies of the opening event, said Sajjan had notified organizers of the cancellation “a short while ago,” drawing boos from the crowd.

Winnie Byanyima, the executive director of UNAIDS, said she was “sad the government of Canada isn’t here.”

In her speech, she called for a more just world, where everyone has access to quality health care and where those living with HIV don’t face stigma, “including a world where people from the global south are not denied entry into wealthy countries to bring their expertise,” she added.

The conference, which draws researchers, medical practitioners, activists and people living with HIV, focuses both on scientific progress in the fight against AIDS and the need for increased funding for HIV response.

UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, has said that millions of lives are at risk due to disruptions in HIV care caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and declining funding for HIV response.

“As new infections are rising in many regions and access to treatment is slowing, how can it be right also that funding is declining?” Byanyima said to reporters earlier on Friday.

One of the messages of the conference is that if treatment has rendered the viral load undetectable, the virus is no longer transmissible.

That applies both to sexual partners and to pregnant HIV-positive women who could pass the virus on to children, said Maurine Murenga, the director of the Lean on Me Foundation. Her Kenyan organization works with adolescent girls and young women living with HIV or affected by tuberculosis.

“When I was diagnosed with HIV 20 years ago, I was given six months to live because there was no treatment. I didn’t know I would live long enough to come to a point where people living with HIV, on effective treatment, cannot pass HIV to our partners,” she told reporters.

The conference runs through Tuesday, and more than 9,000 delegates are expected to attend in person, with another 2,000 registered to participate remotely.

Source: Visa denials denounced at Montreal AIDS conference, federal minister cancels speech

Noël: Quand les gouvernements trébuchent [call for policy and program modestly]

Echoes the calls by others but nevertheless important.

Money quote: “le gouvernement fédéral devrait probablement modérer ses ambitions dans ses propres sphères de compétence, en adoptant des objectifs plus réalistes en immigration par exemple, afin d’éviter les échecs récurrents de gestion.”

Je n’étais pas en avance, c’est vrai, mais au début juillet, tard en soirée, je faisais des réservations pour un séjour de camping à Terre-Neuve et en Nouvelle-Écosse. Les réservations pour le traversier entre les deux provinces, opéré par Marine Atlantique, une société d’État fédérale, se sont avérées plutôt simples, tout comme celles pour des parcs provinciaux dans chaque province. Mais pour réserver des sites au parc national du Gros-Morne et à celui des Hautes-Terres-du-Cap-Breton, c’était un peu plus stressant. Avant de pouvoir réserver, il fallait créer une « CléGC (Service de gestion des justificatifs du gouvernement du Canada) », avec un nom d’utilisateur (toutes les variantes de mon nom ont été refusées), un mot de passe, et des réponses à une panoplie de questions. Pas un obstacle majeur, mais un processus un peu lourd pour une si petite tâche. À Ottawa, les missions les plus simples semblent souvent devenir complexes.

Tout ne va pas mal au Canada. Une étude parue à la fin juin dans le Canadian Medical Association Journal montre que, pour les deux premières années de la pandémie, le pays s’est classé parmi les meilleurs pour le nombre de cas, le taux de vaccination et la mortalité excédentaire, avec un bilan économique somme toute satisfaisant. Au Canada, ce sont les provinces atlantiques et le Québec qui ont connu les plus faibles taux de mortalité excédentaire.

Mais quelque part sur l’interminable voie de sortie de la pandémie, le bilan du gouvernement fédéral s’est détérioré. Cafouillage dans l’émission des visas et des passeports, congestion dans les aéroports, délais inacceptables à l’assurance-emploi, accueil difficile des réfugiés, traitement déficient des dossiers d’immigration, les échecs semblent s’accumuler.

Tout ne va pas nécessairement mieux dans les provinces. Il y a même des domaines où les ratés sont habituels, voire pérennes. La gestion des soins de santé constitue un cas patent. Mais dans ce cas, c’est largement une question de ressources. En 2019-2020, les soins de santé représentaient 41,4 % des dépenses de portefeuilles des provinces, comparativement à 31 % en 1981-1982. La même année, la contribution fédérale, par le biais du Transfert canadien en matière de santé, était tombée à 22,4 %. Si les provinces ne font pas mieux en santé, c’est largement parce que d’une année à l’autre elles doivent faire plus avec moins.

Dans d’autres domaines, comme en environnement, il s’agit plus clairement d’un manque de volonté politique. Si le ministre de l’Environnement du Québec « avait les convictions, la volonté, le courage et l’autorité morale nécessaires pour relever le défi de l’urgence climatique », écrivait récemment le chroniqueur Michel David, François Legault ne l’aurait pas choisi pour ce poste.

Mais émettre des visas et des passeports, acheminer des prestations d’assurance-emploi, traiter des demandes à l’immigration ? Le gouvernement fédéral a sûrement les ressources pour accomplir ces tâches et il devrait même être capable de marquer des points dans des secteurs qu’il contrôle depuis toujours, qui sont visibles et significatifs pour les citoyens et ne demandent pas des ressources faramineuses. « Il ne fallait pas être un génie », déplorait récemment l’ancien greffier du Bureau du Conseil privé Paul Tellier, « pour prédire qu’il y aurait une hausse des demandes de passeport » au sortir de la pandémie.

M. Tellier attribue les difficultés du gouvernement Trudeau à la centralisation excessive de la gestion autour du premier ministre et à la méfiance qui en découle entre élus et fonctionnaires. D’autres auteurs blâment le jeu politique, qui amène les élus à négliger les conseils et les actions des fonctionnaires.

Plus plausible, à mon avis, est le constat de l’ancien haut fonctionnaire Ralph Heintzman selon lequel le gouvernement fédéral se désintéresse des services aux citoyens depuis au moins trente ans. Dans la fonction publique fédérale, le prestige est associé aux conseils et à la stratégie, pas à la gestion compétente des programmes en place. Une carrière ascendante se caractérise par des sauts rapides d’un ministère à l’autre, pour appliquer à des niveaux supérieurs des méthodes de gestion largement indifférenciées. Consacrer trop d’années à maîtriser un domaine d’intervention gouvernementale semble manifester un manque d’ambition. Les hauts fonctionnaires voient ainsi les choses de haut. Quant aux élus, ils préfèrent annoncer des programmes plutôt que de veiller à leur bon cheminement.

Mais pourquoi ces travers semblent-ils plus prononcés à Ottawa ? Pour le comprendre, il faut considérer le fonctionnement de la fédération canadienne. Un rapport récent de l’Institut sur la gouvernance rapporte les propos d’un haut fonctionnaire qui note que « nous ne sommes pas un pays cohésif. Nous sommes une grande fédération ». On pourrait interpréter ce constat comme un appel de plus à davantage de collaboration entre les ordres de gouvernement. Mais il semble plus juste d’y voir une caractéristique structurelle, une condition d’existence du Canada.

La figure 1 ci-dessous montre bien pourquoi la gestion quotidienne de services aux citoyens n’est pas le fort du gouvernement fédéral.

Figure 1 : Dépenses du gouvernement fédéral et du gouvernement du Québec, 2021Sources : Comptes publics du Canada ; Comptes publics du Québec

Le gouvernement fédéral est un animal particulier, plus habitué à émettre des transferts aux individus, aux entreprises et aux gouvernements, et à énoncer des normes associées à ces transferts, qu’à livrer des services à la population. L’année 2021 exagère un peu le trait, puisque la pandémie a engendré son lot de transferts exceptionnels. Mais la logique générale ne change pas. Il y a plus de vingt ans, le rapport de la Commission sur le déséquilibre fiscal faisait état de proportions assez semblables.

Les difficultés actuelles du gouvernement Trudeau ne sont donc pas si exceptionnelles. Le gouvernement fédéral demeure principalement une machine à récolter et à distribuer des ressources fiscales et il a tendance à se perdre quand il s’agit de gérer des programmes concrets.

La solution réside donc moins dans une réforme additionnelle de la fonction publique fédérale que dans une meilleure compréhension du fonctionnement de la fédération. En premier lieu, il faudrait améliorer l’équilibre fiscal en laissant davantage de ressources propres aux gouvernements provinciaux, dont la tâche principale consiste justement à livrer des services à la population.

Ensuite, pour des raisons évidentes, il conviendrait de prendre avec un grain de sel les volontés de leadership fédérales sur des questions de compétence provinciale. Notant dans une formulation bien à lui qu’en santé « ce n’est pas juste pitcher de l’argent vers le problème qui va le résoudre », M. Trudeau invitait récemment les provinces à des « conversations » afin de réduire les délais d’attente. Compte tenu de l’état de ses services, il devrait se garder une petite gêne.

En fait, le gouvernement fédéral devrait probablement modérer ses ambitions dans ses propres sphères de compétence, en adoptant des objectifs plus réalistes en immigration par exemple, afin d’éviter les échecs récurrents de gestion.

Mais les difficultés actuelles ne sont pas nouvelles, et elles ne se résorberont pas facilement.

Source: Quand les gouvernements trébuchent

Saskatchewan seeks the same autonomy on immigration that Quebec already enjoys

More ambitious than Ontario’s demands (largely focussed on expanded Provincial Nominee Program numbers) and accordingly unlikely to be met given immigration is shared jurisdiction and Quebec’s situation is different than other provinces.

But the interesting political twist is the reference by the Minister Harrison to backlogs: “By transferring selection of all immigrants to our province, including in the family class, the federal government can focus on addressing the outrageous processing times for admissions that are causing such issues for hundreds of thousands of potential new Canadians.”

Saskatchewan is pushing for Quebec-style autonomy over immigration with its Saskatchewan Immigration Accord.

Jeremy Harrison, the province’s Immigration and Career Training minister, met with federal and provincial immigration ministers earlier this week to put forward “a detailed proposal” that would give Saskatchewan similar authority over immigration that has already been guaranteed to Quebec.

The province announced Thursday that the accord would give Saskatchewan “sole authority” to nominate newcomers moving to the province, including control over the family class of immigration.

The plan includes “a transfer of federal resources for settlement services to the Province of Saskatchewan” and a guaranteed provincial allocation of nominees each year that would be proportionate to the population of Saskatchewan within Canada.

“Saskatchewan requires more autonomy and flexibility over immigration in order to meet its economic needs and address gaps in the labour market,” Harrison said in a news release Friday.

“Canada should be focusing its efforts on reducing processing times for applications and let the provinces select immigrants and ensure their effective settlement.”

The Quebec Accord grants that province the sole responsibility for the selection of economic immigrants, while Canada bears responsibility for admission based on national security.

While Quebec manages economic immigration to the province — a power other provinces and territories in Canada do not have — the federal government is responsible for family reunification and the admission of refugees, which represents close to half of newcomers to Saskatchewan every year.

“When it comes to immigration Saskatchewan expects the same deal as Quebec. Immigration is a key component of our government’s plan to grow the province to 1.4 million people and create an additional 100,000 jobs by 2030,” Harrison said.

“Provincial governments are in the best position to respond to local labour market needs with new Canadians. The provinces should not be limited by economic categories or caps on provincial nominee programs set by the federal government.”

Speaking to journalists about health-care staff shortages, NDP Leader Carla Beck said immigration could be a part of the solution.

“They seem to want to emulate Quebec. We want to have very clear criteria. I don’t think this is something that should be hidden from the people of Saskatchewan,” Beck said.

“That criteria should be fair to people who are looking to relocate here to Saskatchewan. It’s on any government to show that our immigration system is fair and doesn’t doesn’t contain any discrimination.”

The government expects to exceed its current cap of 6,000 under the Saskatchewan immigrant nominee program this year, and seeks a proportionate share of national immigration at a “minimum 13,000 positions allocated to the province in 2022.”

The transfer in settlement funding, according to the release, would translate to approximately $42 million transferred to the province annually.

“As Canada’s longest serving Immigration Minister, I have long maintained that the transfer of these authorities makes sense from the perspective of the provincial and federal government – and most significantly – for new immigrants coming to Saskatchewan,” Harrison wrote.

“Simply put — we know our province’s needs and labour markets better than the Government of Canada. By transferring selection of all immigrants to our province, including in the family class, the federal government can focus on addressing the outrageous processing times for admissions that are causing such issues for hundreds of thousands of potential new Canadians.”

Source: Saskatchewan seeks the same autonomy on immigration that Quebec already enjoys

Douglas Todd: Why China’s woes matter to Canada

While China’s numbers have largely recovered to pre-pandemic levels, they have declined as a share of total immigration, compared to India in particular. And not convinced that attracting the “ultra-rich” will benefit Canada and Canadians (part from Realtors, luxury car dealerships etc):

China is in turmoil.

The once-roaring housing market of the world’s second-largest economy is collapsing.The regime’s harsh zero-COVID restrictions are causing bitterness and anger.

Beijing’s stepped-up quest for “common prosperity” has many worried their savings and assets aren’t being treated as actually theirs — and could be confiscated by Communist party rulers in the name of equality.

More people, especially the rich, want to escape.

In the past 30 years, Canada has been one of the top destinations for people from China seeking a financial haven and more stable lifestyle. China has long been Canada’s second-largest source country, after India, for new immigrants.

And the country’s recent outbreaks of both financial and social chaos are igniting more desire to get out. A global investment migration consultancy, Henley & Partners, estimates 10,000 to 13,000 ultra-wealthy residents of China are seeking to pull $48 billion out of the country this year.

Canada is a big draw. The Migration Policy Institute found two years ago that Canada was the third most-popular choice for Mainland’s China’s migrants. That was before this summer, when China’s real-estate sales dived by 59 per cent compared to 12 months earlier.

Now, the 2022 Hurun Report, which surveys the desires of high-net-worth Chinese, has found their No. 1 choice for a country to move to is Canada.

But there’s a problem. The people of China, population 1.4 billion, face increasingly strict homegrown barriers to starting a new life abroad.

The Hurun Report, which each year measures the desires of rich people from China, found that this year that Canada had risen to become their No. 1 destination for immigration. (Source: 2022 Hurun Report)
The Hurun Report, which each year measures the desires of rich people from China, found that this year that Canada had risen to become their No. 1 destination for immigration. (Source: 2022 Hurun Report)

That’s even while there is an emerging term for the exit-minded phenomenon in China — “run-ology.” It’s used widely online to capture both the desire to leave the country and tips on how to do it.

While many Chinese are no doubt happy to stay in their country of birth, many are seeking another shore because of intense frustration over the country’s COVID-19 restrictions.

And that’s not all. A deeply felt mistrust of Chinese leaders came to the fore his month when video emerged of tanks blocking the entrances to some banks in China, ostensibly to stop people from withdrawing their money.

While debate ensued between official Chinese media and Western news outlets over the exact purpose of the tanks, few disputed that China’s police have crushed mass demonstrations after depositors’ funds were frozen as banks have been investigated for fraud.

The backdrop to the bank-savings anxiety has been President Xi Jinping’s stepped-up efforts to develop a patriotic “common prosperity.” It’s already lead him to crack down hard on, among others, the country’s more than 600 billionaires.

One of many notorious cases centres on billionaire Xiao Jianhua, a Canadian passport holder who disappeared after being abducted in Hong Kong five years ago. He is now apparently facing a secret trial in China

China doesn’t recognize that Canada has any diplomatic influence in regard to Xiao. Even though Xiao gave up his Chinese passport because China does not allow dual citizenship, China is still treating him, roughly, as one of its own.

In a related move, Beijing has announced strict 2022 curbs on all “non-essential” overseas travel, purportedly because of COVID. In the face of a spike in outbound trips, leaders have cut the number of travel passports and visas it will issue to a fraction of previous levels.

It’s also harder to get money out of the country.Canadian legal specialist David Lesperance, who specializes in migration for the rich, says he’s receiving three times as many requests from China that he had last year. And Jenga, a firm that handles international money transfers, reports it has seen demand from China double in 12 months.

That’s especially worrying for China in light of its troubled economy. The mammoth speculative bubble that was China’s real estate market, which accounts for an incredible 30 per cent of the nation’s GDP, has been bursting.

China’s Evergrande, the world’s most indebted real-estate developer, is on the verge of bankruptcy. Construction on its new residential towers has halted. China’s housing crisis has wiped a trillion dollars off the value of the sector.

The U.S. Federal Reserve has expressed concern the dramatic downturn in China’s housing market will spillover into Western economies, as many Chinese citizens’ debt grows and an economically weakened China is forced to retrench. The vacancy rate in major Chinese cities is now 15 to 35 per cent, according to the journal Foreign Policy.

Many Chinese nationals who have held onto their assets and wealth are looking elsewhere to invest, even as their leaders make it a challenge. China is talking tougher about enforcing its foreign exchange controls, which allows citizens to send offshore only US$50,000 a year.

But Canadian mortgage broker Ron Butler is among those who share the “growing belief that more capital from China will flow out to other countries’ real estate.”

Yes, we are hearing capital controls are running hot in China. But we know that a workaround is always found and tightness eventually slackens.”

In addition, people from China who obtain foreign residency or citizenship can move money out of their country more easily. Immigration lawyers and consultants say that’s a prime reason for the attractiveness of Canada, which already has 1.8 million people of Chinese ancestry, about half of whom are from China, mostly living in greater Toronto and Metro Vancouver.

Ottawa has long generally welcomed outside money, which typically goes into real estate rather than other businesses. B.C., through its foreign-buyers tax, beneficial ownership registry and speculation tax, is now one of the only provinces trying to monitor such offshore wealth.

Last year, Canada approved 31,005 individuals from the People’s Republic of China as permanent residents. While by no means are all well-off enough to immediately buy a dwelling, that was a jump from 16,525 migrants in the pandemic year of 2020. It was similar to 2019. The pace of immigration from China in the first half of 2022 appears more rapid than ever.

Meanwhile, others from China who want to put money into Canadian real estate, but don’t want to give up their Chinese citizenship, have been opting for Canada’s popular 10-year multiple-entry visas, which permits them to live here six months at a time. Although the Immigration Department didn’t provide the latest figures, Canada had previously issued more than three million 10-year visas to Chinese nationals.

Whichever way you look at it, recent developments confirm that what happens in China matters to Canada.

Source: Douglas Todd: Why China’s woes matter to Canada

Canadian immigration ministers agree on multi-year PNP levels plan

Good initiative. Now the haggling over multi-year levels can begin :).

Seriously, same planning logic that led feds to multi-year planning to assist settlement agencies and others also applies at the provincial level:

The Forum of Ministers Responsible (FMRI) for Immigration met in Saint John, New Brunswick on July 28 to discuss a host of major immigration policy issues.

Topics on the agenda included Canada’s Immigration Levels Plan, a more agile economic immigration system, regional economic immigration, settlement, and refugees resettlement.

The big takeaway is that Canada’s immigration ministers agreed to develop a multi-year Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) allocation plan. Currently, even though Canada sets its permanent residence targets over a three-year period, PNP allocations are determined on an annual basis. Moving forward, the ministers agreed that PNP allocation targets will also be set on a three-year basis. The ministers agreed to determine the multi-year PNP plan by March 31, 2023.

The FMRI is comprised of Canada’s federal, provincial, and territorial immigration ministers. They meet each year to discuss immigration issues of national importance. The FMRI is a decision-making body with the goal of supporting a flexible, timely, and effective immigration system for Canada.

Canada’s Immigration Minister Sean Fraser added in the post-meeting press conference that there is no certainty at the moment on the precise numbers on the increased PNP allocations for each province and territory. The reason, he said, is the federal government needs to have follow-up conversations with provinces and territories to ensure they have the settlement capacity necessary to welcome more newcomers.

The rationale for a multi-year PNP plan is similar to why Canada re-introduced a multi-year Immigration Levels Plan back in 2017. The rationale for the Immigration Levels Plan 2018-2020, and subsequent plans, has been to allow stakeholders including government, the settlement sector, and employers the ability to plan in advance for higher immigration levels. Canada is now guided by the Immigration Levels Plan 2022-2024 and Minister Fraser is set to table the 2023-2025 plan by November 1st of this year.

At present, Canada’s PNP targets over a three-year period are contained in the levels plan. However, each province and territory’s PNP allocation is set on an annual basis. The federal immigration minister sends a letter to their provincial and territorial counterparts each year with their respective allocation, typically in the first quarter of the calendar year.

However, the country’s immigration ministers have now agreed that by the end of March 2023, the federal minister will inform each province and territory of their PNP allocation over a three-year period. This will allow each province and territory to plan ahead, including identifying how to best use their allocation to achieve their economic development goals, as well as to identify what operational steps they need to take to be able to process PNP applications as efficiently as possible. As a province or territory’s PNP allocation increases, they need to ensure they have enough staff and the requisite technology in place to process higher PNP volumes within their service standards.

The PNP has grown in prominence since it was introduced in 1998 to promote a broader distribution of immigration across Canada. Prior to its introduction, most immigrants settled in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, which made it challenging for the Atlantic and Prairie provinces to support their economic development through immigration. The PNP only contributed to about 400 new immigrant arrivals in 1999, but it is now set to welcome over 80,000 new immigrants in 2022 and over 90,000 by 2024. The PNP, next to the federal Express Entry system, is among the two major pathways for economic class immigrants to land in Canada.

The post-meeting press release noted the immigration ministers also discussed assisting Afghan refugees, supporting Ukrainians, improving application processing times, taking steps to strengthen public support for immigration in Canada, among other topics.

Source: Canadian immigration ministers agree on multi-year PNP levels plan

Uganda’s loss is Canada’s gain

Good reminder of a good program, one that has benefited both the refugees and Canada:

On Aug. 5, 1972, within two years of overthrowing the elected Ugandan government of Milton Obote, General Idi Amin Dada made the following decree: “All British Asians numbering about 80,000 will have to be repatriated to Britain—they must leave within 90 days. Non-citizens of other nationalities (other than Uganda) must also leave within three months.”

Although Amin’s decree supposedly targeted only British and other non-Ugandan South Asians, the reality was that it affected all South Asians; citizens as well as non-citizens. Random incidents of harassment, robbery, arbitrary imprisonment, and intimidation targeted the entire South Asian community—regardless of their status or citizenship. In effect, South Asians in Uganda—who were long-settled and included Hindus, Muslims, Sikh, and Christians—became stateless. While many of the Asians carried British passports, and therefore were the responsibility of Britain, others needed to find countries to accept them.

Canada responded. On Aug. 24, 1972, then-prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau announced Canada’s intervention and the expeditious dispatch of a Canadian mission to Kampala with the following statement: “For our part, we are prepared to offer an honourable place in Canadian life to those Uganda Asians who come to Canada under this program. Asian immigrants have already added to the cultural richness and variety of our country and, I am sure that those from Uganda will, by their abilities and industry, make an equally important contribution to Canadian society.”

A Canadian team was quickly assembled and sent to Kampala under the leadership of Roger St. Vincent, whose instructions stated: “Your Mission is to proceed to Kampala and by whatever means undertake to process without numerical limitations those Asians who meet the immigration selection criteria bearing in mind their particular plight and facilitate their departure for Canada. Your mission must be accomplished by November 8.”

From Sept. 6 to Nov. 7, 1972, Canadian officials worked non-stop to process, interview, carry out medical exams, arrange transport, and grant visas to more than 6,000 South Asians.

Those families who were unable to gain acceptance by any state were assisted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and transported from Uganda into refugee camps in Europe including Austria, Sweden, Italy, and Malta. Subsequently, more than 2,000 of these refugees were accepted by Canada.

On Aug. 24, 1972, then-prime minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau announced Canada’s intervention and dispatched a mission to Uganda that granted visas to more than 6,000 South Asians by the end of the year. 

In the end, between 1972 and 1974, Canada accepted more than 8,000 South Asian Ugandans, many of whom were Ismaili Muslims and Goans, as they were mostly Ugandan passport holders. Fearing what happened in Uganda, many South Asians from Kenya, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of Congo subsequently immigrated to Canada.

Beyond the obvious humanitarian relief it provided, Canada’s response in the Ugandan South Asian exodus holds important political and historical significance. Although Canada had responded to many refugee movements in the past, this was the first time that it responded to a large-scale non-European refugee crisis, and it came on the heels of the adoption of Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy in 1971.

The successful integration of the Ugandan South Asian community over the last 50 years has been a testament of this policy, which supports linguistic, ethno-cultural, and ethno-racial pluralism.

Today, the Ugandan South Asians, most who fled their homeland with virtually the clothes on their backs, are well represented in all walks of Canadian life due to their pursuit of education, tradition of self-reliance, business acumen, and strong work ethic. After five decades, the community’s social and cultural integration may be explained, in part, by an ongoing reference and dedication to the values of the country which gave it asylum and a permanent home.

In the corridors of Parliament, Senator Mobina Jaffer was the first South Asian woman appointed to the Upper House in 2001, and Liberal Arif Virani has served as Member of Parliament for Parkdale–High Park, Ont., since 2015 and is currently the parliamentary secretary to the minister of international trade. In Alberta, the Honourable Salma Lakhani was installed as Alberta’s 19th lieutenant governor in August 2020, and in the Canadian foreign service, Arif Lalani has served as Canada’s ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

In the world of news media, Omar Sachedina, whose parents fled Uganda, is a well-known national affairs correspondent and also serves as a fill-in anchor on CTV National News. After working on Parliament Hill for a number of years, Farah Mohamed went on to be a founder of G(irls)20, and previously served as the CEO of the Malala Fund.

One of the world’s largest transportation engineering software companies is co-founded and led by Milton Carrasco. Dax Dasilva, whose parents also fled Uganda, founded Lightspeed Commerce, which is one of Canada largest publicly traded technology companies in Canada.

In business-philanthropy, Pyarali and Gulshan Nanji and their children have exemplified giving back to Canada, including significant donations to many hospitals. Recently, to mark the 50th anniversary of the South Asian exodus from Uganda, the Nanji Family Foundation announced that it would be providing university scholarships to 50 young refugees across the world with a $1-million family donation to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

In opening its doors to the Ugandan Asians in 1972, Canada gained a community, which has since become renowned for both entrepreneurial enterprise and community service. The process of their settlement and integration has left an indelible mark upon the conscious of the community, including civic responsibility, pride in culture and community, ethically compassionate, and pursuing the public good. Uganda’s loss was Canada’s gain.

Michael Molloy was a member of the team that travelled to Kampala and arranged for 6,000 Ugandan Asians to come to Canada in 1972. He was subsequently involved in redesigning Canada’s refugee-resettlement system and was senior co-ordinator of the program that brought 60,000 Indochinese refugees to Canada in 1979-80. Salim Fakirani is a senior lawyer with the Department of Justice. Fakirani’s family fled Uganda when he was two years old. His family immigrated to Canada after spending almost a year in a refugee camp administered by the UNHCR in Italy.

Source: Uganda’s loss is Canada’s gain

With more than 2.4M immigration applications in Canada’s backlog, many here and overseas feel lost – Excerpt Need for race-based data

Not convinced by the additional value of obtaining race-based data given that country of citizenship provides enough information in most cases to assess trends and impacts.

It would, of course, be interesting, particularly with USA and European immigrants, given that many of those may be visible minorities.

The practicality of how it would be collected (visible minority definitions, ethnic ancestry or other?) is another is another issue. More tick boxes on an already long form and process?

A higher priority, IMO, is to have regularly monthly updates on backlogs, broken down by citizenship (IRCC used to provide updates on “inventory” but this stopped with the shift to monthly data):

Many applicants raised concerns about IRCC taking longer to process their applications based on their country of citizenship.

CBC News obtained data from IRCC breaking down more than 2.4 million applications by country of citizenship.

Of more than two million temporary and permanent residence applications, nearly a million came from India.

“In the case of India, country-specific restrictions during the pandemic made it harder for individuals to submit documents, obtain medical appointments, provide us with their biometrics and for us to finalize applications,” IRCC said.

Aside from France, Ukraine and the U.S., the 30 countries with the most pending applications are in the global south.

India also has the most temporary residence applications in the backlog with 430,286, followed by Ukraine at 329,920.

“There’s systemic racism and discrimination within IRCC,” Amir Attaran, professor of law at the University of Ottawa, said.

Toronto-based immigration lawyer Lou Janssen Dangzalan said the department lacks transparency and accountability. He said since many countries have very diverse ethnic and racial demographics, “collecting race-based data is very important.”

A report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration released in May recommended that IRCC collect race-based data.

Source: With more than 2.4M immigration applications in Canada’s backlog, many here and overseas feel lost