Originally Posted by Andrew Miller

And as the only factor that can be managed is pass mark then raising it will reduce number of applicants and processing times, lowering it will raise the number of applicants and processing times will get longer. Simple. Low pass mark creates larger demand, supply (quotas) remains constant thus waiting gets longer.

Originally Posted by GOBLIN

Hello Amy

I don't agree with most of your comments, here's why:

1) I know how desperate some people can get to obtain visas. I have heard about the "paper marriages" in order to get immigration benefits. Thesse are isolated incidents and I know they happen in one northern state in particular. The family class I don't know much about, the thread topic here is processing times for skilled economic workers application times. So family class is totally irrelevant here, dont you think? And saying that 65% of all skilled applicants from India are frauds is totally freakin wrong!!!

2) i know that there are many more reasons why poeple from India choose to go abroad if you read my post attentively, you will see that I made the point myself.

3)Corruption is everywhere, even in Canada.( See the links in my previous posts). I agree that India has higher corruption levels than western nations. But hey don't you stigmatise all Indians by calling India a corrupt country!! we are a nation of hardworking people who have been struggling and sticking against all odds and guess what. Today we are seeing results . Standards of living are much higher than what they were in the last decade and there has been tremendous improvement. People are actually combatting corruption in the metros and corruption levels are very slowly but surely going down(ex Telgi Case) and it is just a matter of time before this spreads from the Metros to other parts of the country. I agree that India has it's share of problems (maybe more than it's fair share) but everyone including NRI's( Non Resident Indians) is working hard and actually doing something to enable the changes instead of just sitting on their buttocks whining and complaining.

4) No infrastructure!! I am very curious to know which part of India you are from and how long have you been gone from here. Presently, even tribals in the most remote villages have internet access and cellular phones.

5) I am not an MBA but have still well paying job and a very good standard of living as per Indian standards. It did not happen instantly and i had to work hard & smart to achieve it. it may be difficult but definitely achievable. There are lot's of problems that we face. even I hate a lot of things and wish they would change immediately. I hate driving through heavy traffic, all the crowd in the city and lots of other things, but we cannot just wish them away. it takes efforts from all levels of society to bring about changes and that is what India is has been undergoing. If you have'nt visited recently, please do so and you will see the drastic improvements for yourself. even I have my reasons for migrating to a different country but wherever I go in the world to settle down I will be Identified by the place I was born and brought up in. Tell you what, inspite of all the problems, we have come really really far in just 57 years since independence from being a colony to becoming one of the fastest growing economies on the planet and a land that continues to produce lot's of doctors, it professionals, entrepreneurs, artists etc who have made their mark not just in India but all over the world. India gives me a lt to feel proud of and no matter where I go, i will always be proud to be Indian.

6) if you have the will and are hard working, you can achieve your dreams in India. so many successful Indian professionals, industrialists, entrepreneurs are evidence of that. If one person complains of not getting a well paying job, is it the Indian system that is a failure or the individual?

7) As is pretty obvious you are acting as a mouthpiece for someone else( you may not admit it but it is apparent)but please don't malign the country where you were born and brought up and made competent enough to be where you are today.

GOBLIN

Originally Posted by Ibraheem

I don't think that would be a solution either, I remember when the pass mark was 75, it was almost impossible to qualify unless you have a relative in Canada or a job offer, and both neither give equal opportunity (based on qualification) nor are taking in consideration the benefit of Canada, a better way in my opinion is either revolutionise the whole system or going back to the profession list, this will allow selecting those individuals with specific qualification for the benefit of Canada and in the same time result in much faster processing time. Finally I think the way CIC are processing applications is not efficient regardless of the quotas or the number of applications, simply they seem to stick to a very old method

Originally Posted by Andrew Miller

Please don't be offended but solution for whom? Impossible to qualify by whom?

With 75 points pass mark number of qualified applicants was still above annual targets, thus there was no reason to lower pass mark from the perspective of benefits to Canada and/or management of immigration program.

Canadian immigration program is designed to benefit Canada and Canadian economy, not to make immigrants happy. Once you understand that simple concept you will see it differently. Immigration to Canada is not a given right, it is a privilege one must qualify for.

What is not efficient in processing applications? Annual targets are exceeded each year, thus there is nothing wrong with efficiency, it is better than required. Again - look at it from the perspevtive of immigration program, not from the perspective of immigrant. It doesn't matter how much money, how many processing officers, etc. will be added to resources - it will not change processing times as annual quotas will remain at the level they are with just slight increase each year. Once we reach the target ratio of immigrants equal to 1% of population in next 2 years the annual increase (if any) will be around 1% or 2%. It will have no impact on processing times, especially in visa posts where number of applications is 500% or more of annual target.

Originally Posted by Ibraheem

Where is the benefit of the economy if a high percentage of immigrants qualify only because they have a relative in Canada?
If the target is met each year this does not make the the process efficient, because the quality of the immigrants as well as the quality of the process is important, if you get large number of immigrants with pour quality hard to enter the work force this is not efficient, if the successful immigrant receive his visa after 5 years of his application this is not efficient , may be his qualifications/language ability have changed by that time anyway.

Originally Posted by Andrew Miller

You just made my case - low pass mark results in more less qualified immigrants. And it has nothing to do with relatives in Canada. Majority of those who can now easy reach 67 points pass mark have a simple, basic Bachelor's degree and are not very profficient in English - it puts them at disadvantage when looking for jobs, thus making their chances for success in Canada rather weak.

Statistics show that those with better degree and married have succeeded faster to establish themselves in Canada and that the highest failure rate is among those who immigrated as single and with lowest degree.

Originally Posted by JAJ

Andrew
Perhaps the real problem is that Canada's federal selection grid does not make any kind of occupational distinctions between:

- occupations that are in demand in Canada and those that are not; and
- those with qualifications that are acceptable in Canada for that occupation (subject to some minor conversion/upgrading) and those that are not.

In Australia we looked with interest at the way Canada moved towards a more 'general' approach of assessing immigrant skills, as opposed to Australia's 'specific' approach.

However it seems to have put Canada in a quandary - if the pass mark is high it will exclude many immigrants that Canada needs, but if it's low the overall number of applications will exceed supply of visas.

Jeremy

Originally Posted by Andrew Miller

Jeremy - this is exactly what Canadian immigration program was before IRPA. We had General Occupations List which was intended as a management tool and adjusted as needs of economy change. Unfortunately it was never used that way and with years passing the unchanged GOL was benefiting those who had no chance to find jobs in Canada anyway. This is why IRPA abandoned GOL in favour of floating pass mark that doesn't float anymore after being changed once to ridiculously low level.

Originally Posted by JAJ

Wasn't the real problem under the old system the fact that CIC never adjusted the pass mark? (just like now).

Australia's system is much more sophisticated than that. There is a Skilled Occupations List - equivalent of the GOL - which doesn't change much but it's not supposed to, as it looks to the longer term, structural needs of the Australian economy.

Occupations which require specific training (eg accounting, engineering, trades) get more points than more generalist occupations. A key difference is that in Australia, it's compulsory to have your skills assessed against the Australian standard for that profession if you wish to immigrate on that basis. Without a skills assessment it's not even possible to apply for general skilled migration.

There is a shorter term skills list where applicants get extra points, plus processing priority, and this changes every 6-12 months. Plus, those sponsored by employers can avoid the points test entirely.

Australia has also found that it's much easier to control the migration program when processing is brought onshore. Almost all Australian skilled migration processing is done in Australia, with overseas missions now doing integrity checking. The process of setting up these global processing centres has also brought employment back to Australia.



So the original complaint is valid. Processing times are ridiculously long. I think what you're saying is that if and when CIC moves to solve this (possibly under a new government), the solution will not please everybody.

Jeremy

Originally Posted by Andrew Miller

Nobody should count on other than raising pass mark quick and temporary fix. IRPA is just 3 years old and no government will try to change it so quickly after implementation, especially when it so far hasn't been used as intended. And if any government will try to work on new immigration law it will take many years - with minority governments that are here to stay most likely for long time such law may never be passed before being pronounced dead on paper.

Originally Posted by JAJ

Even if the pass mark was fixed under the old law, wasn't there a 'demographic factor' or something in the selection grid that the Minister was free to change?

As for the current system, I would have thought that it would be possible to make quite significant changes to the detail of the system through Regulations, without touching IRPA itself.

Although I'm not expert on IRPA, well drafted legislation in an area like immigration should give the Minister enough power to tweak the system through Regulations without needing to come back to Parliament all the time.

It may well be that the sort of changes you are speaking about will need to wait for a change of government.

An open question is whether the backlog will be so big by that point that CIC will have to do what New Zealand did - close the system down and ask everyone to reapply under new rules.

Jeremy

Originally Posted by PMM

Hi



Demographic points were never changed in 18 years.

PMM

Originally Posted by Scouse

This may probably come out the wrong way, but the commonly held belief is that many qualifications from India have been found to be forgeries, hence the CHC will probe the validity of such qualifications very closely...which takes time.

Whether the facts support the belief is immaterial....the CHC will do their utmost to make sure that they only accept the people they want, wherever the source.