|
|
| Subject: RE:Potential change in government #2 |
|
|
|
I don´t know friends who just like to attack others. We r all in the same boat and the will sink or go with us all, so let us just discuss and figure out what options do we have in all scenarios.
Sharon, is doing a tremendous job and she is Canadian and fully aware of her countries system. Some times I contradict with her views especially when she just blindly defends Canada´s policy even if it is totally wrong.
No doubt that rules will change sooner or later but when the pass mark was lowered back in Sept 2003 it was effective immediately and that is worrying me. Retroactively is not fair here at all and can´t be justified by any mean. it is just like tying hands behind and throwing applicants in the middle in of the sea and now order them to SWIM :)::.
My final word, let us discuss what options do we have without attacking each other. We r all here for one reason so let the boat go on.
Regards all
[04-12-2005,08:22]
[**.201.219.246]
Romantic Warrior |
|
(in reply to: RE:Potential change in government #2)
Sharon wrote: "BTW Typo... what side am I on - help me- I have no idea how I am going to vote in January. "
The non-Liberal one. (LOL)
ps: I´m the non-Tory one.
[04-12-2005,10:40]
[**.229.237.142]
typo |
(in reply to: RE:Potential change in government #2)
To Romantic Warrior and all others who have been saying a change in the passmark will affect their applications:
You are quite right, when the passmark was last lowered, it was effective immediately. What you perhaps might not be aware of is that when the changes took effect, there was a dual assessment put in place. This meant that if you failed to qualify using the new regulations, you would automatically be assessed with the old ones.
Again, as I said in my previous post, there are legal implications of changing rules midstream, and no political party will dare risk a court battle on this.
[04-12-2005,12:22]
[**.229.237.142]
typo |
(in reply to: RE:Potential change in government #2)
TYPO, I hope your thoughts will be true and mine will be wrong. It is really tellible if mine will be right. What do Canadians do will choose which way politcal party will choose and this what makes us like Canada. In our contriese what ever peopl want, government do the contrary :):)) NO JOKE THERE.
Regarsd,
[04-12-2005,12:51]
[**.201.219.246]
Romantic Warrior |
(in reply to: RE:Potential change in government #2)
RW... what happens if they lower the points! You are assuming points will go up to shorten backlogs. I don´t think that is going to happen. I could be facing total disproval here but it makes no sense to raise the criteria.
We have 6.4% unemployment. That is the lowest in 30 years. we need more people not less. However we need the RIGHT kinds of people. Given the disaster of the Roze??? lawsuit I think the goverment will get creative in how they do this. I suspect they will add some categories rather than squeeze the current ones. We need to find ways for bricklayers, master carpenters, gas fitters, heavy machinery operators - to gain access into Canada so we can move our economy forward. Our current system does not even make provision for those sorts of skills and we desperately need them - now
that is my humble opinion on the subject.
Typo... I am a social democrate and fiscal conservative. what to do!
[04-12-2005,15:28]
[***.20.170.23]
Sharon |
(in reply to: RE:Potential change in government #2)
Truly, I wouldn´t worry too much about a significant change in government, as it´s highly unlikely that the Conservatives will win a majority election... (we will probably end up with either a minority Liberal or minority Conservative gov´t).
Furthermore, even if the Conservatives do take majority power, would it really be in their best interests to re-visit legislation that took years to re-write, so soon after its implementation? I just don´t think they will have the political will to re-vamp something that is in its infancy, especially when it doesn´t directly affect most Canadian voters (i.e., most Canadian citizens don´t perceive the IRPA as having an impact on their day-to-day lives). Typically, these types of things are done either at the end of a party´s term in office, or after they have won a second term.
[04-12-2005,15:55]
[**.144.140.136]
Dennis |
(in reply to: RE:Potential change in government #2)
Dennis... I think you have formal CIC involvement. Can you see them finding some additional creative ways to deal with our skill shortage. Adding those skills and putting those folks at the ends of the current backlogs would not solve anything We don´t need bricklayers in 5 years we need them now!
what do you think?
[04-12-2005,16:01]
[***.20.170.23]
Sharon |
(in reply to: RE:Potential change in government #2)
Sharon - I´m a little confused by your reply, as there are programs in place to expeditiously meet skill shortages that are "geographically-localized" or industry-specific (e.g., temporary work permits and Arranged Employment). In fact, it´s funny that you should mention bricklayers, as I have spoken with the local bricklayer´s union here (southern Alberta), and they confirmed that there is a shortage of bricklayers in Calgary but not Edmonton. Consequently, they are reluctant to "sanctify" any HRSDC LMO´s for Calgary because Edmonton and Calgary are so close, geographically speaking, to one another. However, an AEO would still succeed (provided all other criteria were met), as AE´s are outside of the union´s scope of concern/interest.
Now, I am reasonably certain that you know these things, as you are obviously well-informed on these matters. So, perhaps I am missing the point to your posting???
Also, please note that, aside from the brief training I received regarding the Immigration Act whilst I was trained by Canada Border Services (i.e., Customs) in 1997, as well as the ensuing work I did as a "frontline" officer working at a POE until 1998, I currently have no formal involvement with CIC. Although, I do work for a lawyer, and we do help with CIC applications (which I think you also know). Is this what you meant by "formal involvement"? In any case, I just wanted to clarify things.
Lastly, because you asked, I don´t, unfortunately, foresee any creative solutions coming from CIC within the next year, or so (as you said - the gov´t works at a snail´s pace; especially during an election year, when the pace of the snail is apparent cessation - lol). However, I would hope that the gov´t would continue to improve the existing system, especially when it comes to recognizing foreign credentials. Yes, I do think it´s important to (temporarily???) get more bricklayers, carpenters, etc. into the country during this time of economic/construction boom [case in point: some Calgary homebuilders are charging (tens of???) thousands of dollars more for stucco siding these days, as the skilled laborers required to do the work are simply not available], but I think it´s more important to cultivate and maximize the existing skills of those already here, so that we can all benefit from what´s already been invested.
Please reply, as I am interested in your opinion.
[04-12-2005,17:38]
[**.144.140.136]
Dennis |
(in reply to: RE:Potential change in government #2)
I assumed your credentials were as you offer. (or something similar)
CIC or someone else needs to do a better job of getting information out about skill shortages, opportunities and how to take advantage of it. There should be a huge page on the CIC website that talks about this stuff. We are so hung up in jurisdictions and red tape and the Calgary/Edmonton scenarios that buy the time everyone works out the politics of this stuff we will be in a fine mess. (makes me crazy)
I look at the last generation of immigrants that did so well. They were trades people. hard working, happy to be given a chance to earn money, build a home,take a holiday, send their kids to school, vote, collect a pension. After 30 years some of them still speak poor english- but they have made a great life here. I would really resist the US style HB1 where they string workers along for years and then never let them call the country home. Not fair. If someone is prepared to pack up and move here to improve their life and support our economy (bricklayer, truck driver, IT worker - I don´t really care)- I think they need to be given opportunity to call us home. IMO.
I think we have blow it!
[04-12-2005,18:07]
[***.20.170.23]
Sharon |
(in reply to: RE:Potential change in government #2)
Well, I agree that we should grant opportunity for permanent residency to those who invest their time here, especially since so much of the average taxpayer´s taxes go towards social spending (something that many of us need in our retirement; i.e., after devoting our lives to working for an income and, consequently, paying all those taxes).
I also agree that CIC needs to better inform its clients, if for no other reason than the fact that Canada is competing with other nations for the planet´s skilled workers (yes, other supporting reasons do exist; I´m simply making this statement to underscore the benefit this change would offer to all parties - CIC/Canadian gov´t included). Perhaps, in light of this global competition for human capital, CIC will see the error of its ways insofar as treating applicants like an infinitely-renewable resource, which can be squandered without consequence (i.e., if Australia keeps processing its applicants in months, whereas we take years, we may see a change in processing timelines once Canada recognises that the "cream of the crop" is being skimmed by those down-under).
However, because of Canada´s vast size and socio-economic differences, in combination with its sparse population, the geographically-determined differences in Canada´s implementation of bureaucratic policy is, unfortunately, a necessary evil (IMO). After all, would it be fair to the local tradespersons in St. John´s to allow the same (unfettered???) influx of carpenters, drywallers, electricians, plumbers and bricklayers that Calgary, Vancouver Island, and BC´s interior so desperately need? Of course, the reality would be that most foreign workers would end up where the jobs are, but not all would (e.g., if Mr. and Mrs. Smith of Gander NL lost opportunities to support their families b/c some temporary foreign workers decide they like the East Coast greater than the West Coast, you can bet that our MP´s would get an earful from the media; deservingly so).
Point is - the gov´t needs to better promote Canada through improved client services that will facilitate the temporary and permanent entry of much-needed skills to the regions that are in demand, while also protecting impoverished regions from increases to unemployment. Perhaps the best way to resolve this is give the provinces absolute power over immigration. But, that just wouldn´t be Canadian, eh?*
___________________________
*Note: Under Canada´s constitutionally-determined Federalism, the division of powers sees the Federal government as overseer of immigration. In light of the last 138 years of Canadian history, I seriously doubt that the feds will ever generously relinquish this, or any other, power to the provinces - although, it may be a nice thought...
[04-12-2005,19:11]
[**.144.140.136]
Dennis |
(in reply to: RE:Potential change in government #2)
well said - I could not agree with you more. Didn´t they just announce a deal with Ontario that gives them more controls - similar to Quebec?
Provincial control over immigration... my mind wanders :)
[04-12-2005,19:41]
[***.20.170.23]
Sharon |
|
