加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

[tony9721]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

自227以后，这个坛子就冷清一些，626后，就更冷清了，91版面很少更新就是明证。

但也不一定新政后坛子就更冷清，因为毕竟加拿大每年计划吸收的技术移民人数没减少，这就注定了中国申请人也不会少。

呵呵，没有永恒不变的，
都是波动变化的，没有不冷清，何来的冷清？

 

[tony9721]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

并没有明确说年底推出啊，有的报道说是later this year,是“今年晚些时候”，那么71也属于“今年晚些时候”。

当然，也可能是年底推出；也可能在71至年底前暂停。

我认为还是最可能是今年71推出，没有必要等到年底的，
因为既然都是决定的事情，越早的解决越好，
这样肯尼也能多搞点政治资本啊

 

[熊宝宝2010]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

更正一下：经仔细研究国会常务委员会的报告，积案是指91以前的案子，31万4千人，以及227的案子，约有14万人，共45万多人。

请问一下，对于227积案多达14万 ，那目前2月集中发放了2010年5月及6月申请者的ME，已经拿到ME的，会受波及影响吗？
另外2012的技移的配额是1750，和目前227、626、71的积案数能配比吗？如果不能配比，是不是意味着即使ME了也可能遇上变法然后被切？

 

[anxioustogetmoving]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

处理30万（其实是45万）的旧案，是破旧；强调年轻和语言以及技能，是修订选择技术移民的标准，是“立新”。

加拿大要想“立新”，就得先“破旧”，这叫“不破不立”，否则无疑于戴着脚镣跳舞。而如何“破旧”，目前形势尚不明朗，比如“组合拳”，比如“休克疗法”，比如旧案“一风吹”等，本贴将就移民部会如何“破旧”试图进行分析。

“立新”是CIC即将要做的，已经吹风很多次了； “破旧”是CIC不得不作的。 对联邦技术而言，是否“立新”必先“破旧”，我看未必。以联邦投资为例：160新例算是“立新”吧，80算是旧吧，事实是，“立新”并未以“破”旧为前提。

更关注“立新”的应该是中介业者和would-be的申请人。已经入表的申请人对如何“破旧”的关注远远大于对“立新”的关注，家园论坛里面目前好像就是这个样子的。

期待杏花春运兄分析CIC当如何“破旧”。

 

[anxioustogetmoving]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

请问一下，对于227积案多达14万 ，那目前2月集中发放了2010年5月及6月申请者的ME，已经拿到ME的，会受波及影响吗？
另外2012的技移的配额是1750，和目前227、626、71的积案数能配比吗？如果不能配比，是不是意味着即使ME了也可能遇上变法然后被切？

如果POOL即将成真，那么这个问题目前可能VO都无法回答。有一个说法是截至新政开始生效之时未ISSUE出VISA的申请无论到走到一步都算是BACKLOG，那就都有可能被一刀切（CUT OUT）。

 

[anxioustogetmoving]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

呵呵，没有永恒不变的，
都是波动变化的，没有不冷清，何来的冷清？

再说了，“冷清”和“不冷清”的标准没有被确定前，这个有些相对主义味道的问题根本就不能成立。“不冷清”未必就是发言的人多，而潜水围观者或更多也说不定。

 

[anxioustogetmoving]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

个人认为今年的会有变化，不变是不可能的，
从趋势来看
227 38专业，不限制人口
626 29职业，每个最多1000 TOTALLY 20000
71 29职业，每个最多500 TOTALLY 10000

如果按照evolution来说， 今年71 还可能是20职业，每个最多300都有可能 （纯粹瞎猜的）
如果要是这么样的话，那么堵住了申请的源头，

上面都可以被叫做控制新增流量，前面的如果作用不大，后面就加大微调，从227至626到71思路是一脉相承的，做法也是连贯的。我一直坚持的一个看法是，控制新增流量对减少积案根本是扬汤止沸，因为，不管怎样控制，新增流量都优先用掉当年的绝大多数的VISA QUOTA，余下的菜才分给旧案的申请人，杯水车薪。 因此，这种控制新增流量的做法对处理积案几乎没有作用。换言之，CIC给国会的年度报告中“积案已经减少xx %”的说法根本就是障眼法。 事实是，积案不动，尾大不掉。

另外，如果上面说的是小变化的话，
那么然后在立法砍掉91，或者227的积案，那么 在现在明显没有增加申请申请新的类别的情况下，每年20W的移民目标不就实现不了了嘛，
这个我不理解。
这个我也不理解。

提高语言或者限制职业或者年龄，其实只是个表象，
目的就是现在申请的源头，只要是限制不住源头，就会有持续不断人涌入，
个人认为71的措施其实已经限制住了源头，最起码技移的已经限制住了，那么提高语言和年龄的意义又是什么呢，难道为了这样让91的被废掉心理平衡吗（果真如此，那CIC就真算得老谋深算高深莫测了。），不解了，
思路有点乱，望春雨老师和各位高手点播

杏花春雨兄对CIC如何解积案的分析才是吸引我们一路追随的原因。期待下文！！！！

 

[anxioustogetmoving]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

其实，227不是康尼的杰作。部长指令的机制是由2008年初由时任部长范茵莉提出，2008年6月18日经国会批准修改相关《移民与难民保护法》而生效的，而康尼是2008年9月份才上台。


因为第一个MI没有限制申请数量，造成227至626期间，有大约14万的积压。

所以，部长指令(MI)法理上是没有任何瑕疵的，除非国会重新修订《移民与难民保护法》。 所以，康尼可以发布一个又一个MI来干任何他希望干的事情。问题是，康尼现在希望POOL，或者希望一刀砍，或者其它，这个有人知道吗？

康尼2008年11月28日发表讲话，宣布38项的措施，同时宣布该措施回溯到2008年2月26日至。于是38项从2月27日开始实施，史称227新政。现在突然想到一个问题：为什么单单回溯到2008年2月26日，而不是2008年1月31日或者2008年4月7日或者其它任何一个在2006年9月1日至2008年11月28日之间的随便那一个日子？是不是以2008年2月26日为界，积案数量和CIC未来几年的处理的总体进度估算之间存在着某个CIC认为合理的积案数量/时间配比关系？ 而第一个MI没有限制申请数量造成227至626期间有大约14万的积压又大大扰乱了CIC对前面合理的配比关系的预先估算？于是才导致后面一招接一招（626限制名额再到后来名额减半再减半），还是希望达到那个合理的配比关系？ 2008年2月26日到底是个什么日子？这个日子又和呼之欲出的新政之间有哪门子关系？康部长到底想把积案以怎样的方式去处理呢？

 

[changtong]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

所以，部长指令(MI)法理上是没有任何瑕疵的，除非国会重新修订《移民与难民保护法》。 所以，康尼可以发布一个又一个MI来干任何他希望干的事情。问题是，康尼现在希望POOL，或者希望一刀砍，或者其它，这个有人知道吗？

康尼2008年11月28日发表讲话，宣布38项的措施，同时宣布该措施回溯到2008年2月26日至。于是38项从2月27日开始实施，史称227新政。现在突然想到一个问题：为什么单单回溯到2008年2月26日，而不是2008年1月31日或者2008年4月7日或者其它任何一个在2006年9月1日至2008年11月28日之间的随便那一个日子？是不是以2008年2月26日为界，积案数量和CIC未来几年的处理的总体进度估算之间存在着某个CIC认为合理的积案数量/时间配比关系？ 而第一个MI没有限制申请数量造成227至626期间有大约14万的积压又大大扰乱了CIC对前面合理的配比关系的预先估算？于是才导致后面一招接一招（626限制名额再到后来名额减半再减半），还是希望达到那个合理的配比关系？ 2008年2月26日到底是个什么日子？这个日子又和呼之欲出的新政之间有哪门子关系？康部长到底想把积案以怎样的方式去处理呢？

看你说那么多，以为你知道很多呢

2月26是个特别的日子，你仔细查查就知道了，是关于新政发布的公告日。新政的具体内容直到11月底才公布，但是有效期是从2.26开始的，即2.26以后的申请都要按新政的政策来执行。

 

[杏花春雨]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

我仔细研读了PDF文件的25-18页（对应的文件正文时15-18页），对于积压现象最严重的技术移民，该报告并未提出具体的建议，只是希望政府多听取公众对解决积压的提议，然后找出最有效的方式减压。这部分内容可能真的是烫手山芋，职业政客们在报告中也只是打了一下太极，没人做出任何铁口直断式的行动建议。

联邦技术移民的核心部分内容的语焉不详，导致烫手山芋又像击鼓传花般的被从国会委员会丢回给部长。民主政治的游戏代价是移民申请人的利益。

杏花春雨兄上面谈及的具体的做法在报告中并未直接提及。但是这并不妨碍我对杏花春雨兄的推论在逻辑上地合理性的大体赞同。同时我也说出我不太一样的看法。绝非挑战，实乃请益。请兄斧正。您回应我就很感激，切勿被我影响到您的思路。因为我实在想看到您的思路，而我同时坚信不同的看法才更具参考价值。谢谢。

报告中关于处理技术移民积案的建议在第三条，但只是陈述了不同人的不同建议，整理列出来，递给政府，作为政府决策的依据。我们从里边不难看出，其中有的建议是相左的，有的建议是经不起推敲的，可以说是“鸡一嘴鸭一嘴”。我在前贴中对于报告作了总结，以帮助童鞋们阅读理解。

以下是建议三的全文，重点部分我作了强调。

RECOMMENDATION 3:
The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada evaluate
the different options to deal with the Federal Skilled Worker backlog
put forward by witnesses. The Government should then proceed to act
in a timely manner to implement whichever recommendation(s) are
determined to be the most effective at reducing the backlog in the
Federal Skilled Worker program.

1. Federal Skilled Worker Program

Witnesses were generally supportive of the Government’s action to reverse the legal obligation to process all new applications and curtail the intake of Federal Skilled Worker applications to better align with the Immigration Levels Plan. They called the 2008 legislative amendment that introduced Ministerial Instructions “politically courageous”, “a great leap forward,” and “a bold step”.
However, some suggested that alternative methods of limiting Federal Skilled
Worker intake would be preferable to the Government’s approach of permitting
500 applications without arranged employment from each listed occupation. One witness suggested instead a two-stage approach, where the Government could select from a pool of applicants that met initial eligibility criteria.23 Another suggested that charging higher processing fees could be a means to slow intake.24 Finally, another witness suggested that the Government adjust the pass mark required for Federal Skilled Workers, the mechanism provided in IRPA for regulating intake.25 Others suggested that the Government amend the points system to favour young immigrants proficient in English or French to both slow intake and improve labour market outcomes for immigrants26.

The Action Plan for Faster Immigration and Ministerial Instructions streamlined Federal Skilled Worker intake. There remains, however, a backlog of Federal Skilled Worker applications that formed prior to February 2008, which numbered 314,000 as of July 2011. There is a second backlog of Federal Skilled Worker applications received under the first Ministerial Instructions of November 2008, estimated to comprise an additional 140,000 persons. These applications are slowly being drawn from to meet annual Federal Skilled Worker targets. A couple of suggestions were made to address these existing backlogs ― one witness proposed adding more processing resources27, while another suggested that people in the backlog should be able to apply for a work permit and work in Canada while the processing on their permanent resident applications is concluded28.

The Committee heard that applications received under MI-2 (cap of 20,000 without arranged employment) and MI-3 (cap of 10,000 without arranged employment) were placed directly into processing.29 The remainder of the Federal Skilled Worker target is met through backlogged applications received under MI-1 and backlogged applications from pre-February 2008, the cut-off date for the first Ministerial Instructions.

Witnesses from an organization informed the Committee of the disappointment of applicants under Ministerial Instructions 1 who expected, based on publicity surrounding these Ministerial Instructions, to receive a final decision within a year.30 These witnesses told the Committee that the expedited processing was only a reality for 4.7% of their clients applying under Ministerial Instructions 1. Further, they reported that applicants with occupations in demand who applied under Ministerial Instructions 1 felt it was somewhat unfair that they should wait in a backlog while those with similar occupations who applied later, under Ministerial Instructions 2 and 3, are processed first.

Numbers provided by two CIC missions brought this issue into clearer focus.
The Immigration Program manager from New Delhi reported that his mission has the largest inventory of pre-February 2008 Federal Skilled Worker cases.31 While the mission reduced this backlog by 15% in 2008-09, it still stands at 119,500 persons and applicants faced processing times of 79 months in 2010. Further, the program manager stated “Due to the large number of new cases submitted under Ministerial Instructions, we processed few old-inventory cases in 2010. At the present time we are devoting all available resources to the quick processing of new cases received under the 2nd and 3rd set of Ministerial Instructions.”32 Similarly, the immigration program manager at the
Manila mission reported that they have been successful at processing the majority of Federal Skilled Worker applications under MI-2, many of those lodged under MI-I, and only a few in the pre-February 2008 inventory.33

How many Federal Skilled Worker applications from each source ― the old
backlog, the backlog under Ministerial Instructions 1, and new applications received under recent Ministerial Instructions ― should be processed in a given year to meet the target was an issue raised by witnesses. Advice on the appropriate balance between processing old backlogged applications and new applications was varied, with most witnesses recognizing the Government’s legal obligation to process all applications. （看，多数与会者认为政府对所有积案有处理的法律义务，所以，康尼怎么会逆潮流而动，冒天下之大不韪，置百万人的生活于不顾，而蛮干，而一刀切捏）One witness suggested that this legal obligation was not accompanied by a timeframe for processing and urged that the Government prioritize Federal Skilled Workers currently in demand by the Canadian labour market, such as applications lodged under Ministerial Instructions.34

Another witness made the opposite argument, suggesting that the Government should restrict new applications under Ministerial Instructions for the short term and process primarily backlog applications. He argued that eliminating the backlog quickly is important because the backlog has negative effects on Canada's reputation, the operation of the immigration system, and the labour market, as well as on immigrants themselves.

He referenced research showing that younger immigrants have better labour market outcomes, saying “This implies that if an individual sits in the queue for three, four, or five years, there's a simultaneous deterioration in that person's ability to integrate into the Canadian labour market, and it reduces that person's lifetime earnings profile”.35


The Committee is sympathetic to those with applications in the backlog, some of whom have been waiting for years to receive a final decision. The oldest and largest backlog, that comprised of pre-February 2008 Federal Skilled Worker applications, has been reduced significantly in just over three years. The Committee is satisfied with this progress and urges the Department to continue processing these files as expeditiously as possible. We commend the Government for reducing the pre MI-1 backlog by 50%. This reduction was made two years ahead of schedule.

With regard to backlogs formed under Ministerial Instructions, some witnesses have suggested that the Government of Canada take all the applications received under Ministerial Instructions 1 that are in occupations eligible under MI-2 and MI-3 and process them on a first come, first-served basis. Since the Department learned how to control intake more successfully under MI-2 and MI-3, backlogs under Ministerial Instructions should only pose a temporary problem. Others have stated that we can dissolve the existing backlog by sending applicants a letter informing them that they can withdraw their application, and receive a refund.

 

[杏花春雨]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

个人认为今年的会有变化，不变是不可能的，
从趋势来看
227 38专业，不限制人口
626 29职业，每个最多1000
71 29职业，每个最多500

如果按照evolution来说， 今年71 还可能是20职业，每个最多300都有可能 （纯粹瞎猜的）
如果要是这么样的话，那么堵住了申请的源头，

另外，如果上面说的是小变化的话，
那么然后在立法砍掉91，或者227的积案，那么 在现在明显没有增加申请申请新的类别的情况下，每年20W的移民目标不就实现不了了嘛，
这个我不理解。

提高语言或者限制职业或者年龄，其实只是个表象，
目的就是现在申请的源头，只要是限制不住源头，就会有持续不断人涌入，
个人认为71的措施其实已经限制住了源头，最起码技移的已经限制住了，那么提高语言和年龄的意义又是什么呢，难道为了这样让91的被废掉心理平衡吗，不解了，
思路有点乱，望春雨老师和各位高手点播

对于技术移民，先修改移民资格和打分标准，这个应该是板上钉钉的事实了。

对于如何“一劳永逸”从体制上解决积案，目前正是康尼和政府正在考虑的问题。小的动作是继续实行MI4,大动作嘛，就是新行新西兰的EOI了。关于新西兰的EOI如何能从体制上根本解决积案问题，敬请等等我的下贴。

以上两条是“立新”。但是，“立新”必须“除旧”，尤其是积案100万、技术移民45万的大背景下。如何“除旧”，就大有学问，大有变数了。本贴以下的内容，就是分析联邦政府及康尼将如何除旧。

 

[杏花春雨]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

我认为还是最可能是今年71推出，没有必要等到年底的，
因为既然都是决定的事情，越早的解决越好，
这样肯尼也能多搞点政治资本啊

还有很多问题没有决定啊，比如，如何处理积案。

 

[杏花春雨]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

请问一下，对于227积案多达14万 ，那目前2月集中发放了2010年5月及6月申请者的ME，已经拿到ME的，会受波及影响吗？
另外2012的技移的配额是1750，和目前227、626、71的积案数能配比吗？如果不能配比，是不是意味着即使ME了也可能遇上变法然后被切？

已在审理的，就不能称做积案了。

配比的问题很有趣，但可惜没有准确答案，每个OFFICE会根据它本身的积案情况，自行确定新旧案的比例。

嫩的担心不会发生，对于已ME的案子，不管如何变，都不会受影响的。

 

[anxioustogetmoving]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

看你说那么多，以为你知道很多呢

2月26是个特别的日子，你仔细查查就知道了，是关于新政发布的公告日。新政的具体内容直到11月底才公布，但是有效期是从2.26开始的，即2.26以后的申请都要按新政的政策来执行。

我还以为你回答了问题，原来你根本就没有理解问题。

为什么2.26是个特别的日子？ 特别在那里？为什么特别的日子不是1.21或3.17或其他？

 

[杏花春雨]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

“立新”是CIC即将要做的，已经吹风很多次了； “破旧”是CIC不得不作的。 对联邦技术而言，是否“立新”必先“破旧”，我看未必。以联邦投资为例：160新例算是“立新”吧，80算是旧吧，事实是，“立新”并未以“破”旧为前提。

更关注“立新”的应该是中介业者和would-be的申请人。已经入表的申请人对如何“破旧”的关注远远大于对“立新”的关注，家园论坛里面目前好像就是这个样子的。

期待杏花春运兄分析CIC当如何“破旧”。

对“[FONT=宋体]对联邦技术而言，是否[/FONT]“[FONT=宋体]立新[/FONT]”[FONT=宋体]必先[/FONT]“[FONT=宋体]破旧[/FONT]”[FONT=宋体]，我看未必。以联邦投资为例：[/FONT]160[FONT=宋体]新例算是[/FONT]“[FONT=宋体]立新[/FONT]”[FONT=宋体]吧，[/FONT]80[FONT=宋体]算是旧吧，事实是，[/FONT]“[FONT=宋体]立新[/FONT]”[FONT=宋体]并未以[/FONT]“[FONT=宋体]破[/FONT]”[FONT=宋体]旧为前提。”作一答复：[/FONT]
[FONT=宋体][/FONT]
[FONT=宋体]事有必至，理有固然，量变引起质变。很多的问题，“起于青苹之末”，但却不以人的意志为转移，“遂成燎远之势“[/FONT][FONT=宋体]，这在中国历史上的例子太多了，就不列举；最近的例子，就是“韩寒”事件。[/FONT]
[FONT=宋体][/FONT]
[FONT=宋体]联邦积案，根源是移民法，发展至此，其弊端已使移民体系陷于瘫痪状态，技术移民，投资移民，省提名，父母团聚移民，难民，每类移民都有一本难念的经，造成积案100万，再不改，这个车子就转不动了。[/FONT]
[FONT=宋体][/FONT]
[FONT=宋体]联邦涨价的事情，只不过是局部的修修补补，根本没有触及到项目的实质性问题，涨价没有限制人数，于是71新政限制700案/年，然而数小时内一抢而空，并且全部由中国中介递件，使联邦投资移民项目很受诟病。[/FONT]
[FONT=宋体][/FONT][FONT=宋体][/FONT]
[FONT=宋体]所以康尼这次放风，说要借鉴新西兰经验。――新西兰的EIO，不单适用于技术移民，更适用于投资移民，[/FONT][FONT=宋体]这在以下将有专贴分析。[/FONT]

 

[杏花春雨]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

所以，部长指令(MI)法理上是没有任何瑕疵的，除非国会重新修订《移民与难民保护法》。 所以，康尼可以发布一个又一个MI来干任何他希望干的事情。问题是，康尼现在希望POOL，或者希望一刀砍，或者其它，这个有人知道吗？

这个接下来偶就会分析了。

 

[Hill3]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

更正一下：经仔细研究国会常务委员会的报告，积案是指91以前的案子，31万4千人，以及227的案子，约有14万人，共45万多人。

谢谢春雨老师解答！

喜欢这样严谨而有逻辑的文章。坦率的说，加拿大的移民政策很多不足之处，康尼不管是为了国家利益还是个人政治资本的积累都想有所作为，难就难在，解决这100万的积案绝非易事！打开大门增加名额看似容易，加拿大人不一定愿意看到那么多移民涌入，而不增加名额，则这100万就只能像个庞大的包袱。

今年各个visa office配额的提高，也许是cic为了把626和71，以及91和227中符合29项职业的申请尽快解决吗？（北京配额的减少，是不是因为北京626处理的非常快，而71本身的申请人就非常少有关呢？）总之，一切只能猜测。

等着看老师的分析了！

 

[sob1976]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

FSW (post-C50): 163,855
FSW (pre-C50): 308,694
All Others: 550,387
Total as at Sep 30, 2011: 1,022,936

 

[anxioustogetmoving]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

报告中关于处理技术移民积案的建议在第三条，但只是陈述了不同人的不同建议，整理列出来，递给政府，作为政府决策的依据。我们从里边不难看出，其中有的建议是相左的，有的建议是经不起推敲的，可以说是“鸡一嘴鸭一嘴”。我在前贴中对于报告作了总结，以帮助童鞋们阅读理解。（必须注意还有一个事实：法理上康胖部长并不必需按照报告来行事。）

以下是建议三的全文，重点部分我作了强调。

RECOMMENDATION 3:
The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada evaluate
the different options to deal with the Federal Skilled Worker backlog
put forward by witnesses. The Government should then proceed to act
in a timely manner to implement whichever recommendation(s) are
determined to be the most effective at reducing the backlog in the
Federal Skilled Worker program.

1. Federal Skilled Worker Program

Witnesses were generally supportive of the Government’s action to reverse the legal obligation to process all new applications and curtail the intake of Federal Skilled Worker applications to better align with the Immigration Levels Plan. They called the 2008 legislative amendment that introduced Ministerial Instructions “politically courageous”, “a great leap forward,” and “a bold step”.
However, some suggested that alternative methods of limiting Federal Skilled
Worker intake would be preferable to the Government’s approach of permitting
500 applications without arranged employment from each listed occupation. One witness suggested instead a two-stage approach, where the Government could select from a pool of applicants that met initial eligibility criteria.23 Another suggested that charging higher processing fees could be a means to slow intake.24 Finally, another witness suggested that the Government adjust the pass mark required for Federal Skilled Workers, the mechanism provided in IRPA for regulating intake.25 Others suggested that the Government amend the points system to favour young immigrants proficient in English or French to both slow intake and improve labour market outcomes for immigrants26.

The Action Plan for Faster Immigration and Ministerial Instructions streamlined Federal Skilled Worker intake. There remains, however, a backlog of Federal Skilled Worker applications that formed prior to February 2008, which numbered 314,000 as of July 2011. There is a second backlog of Federal Skilled Worker applications received under the first Ministerial Instructions of November 2008, estimated to comprise an additional 140,000 persons. These applications are slowly being drawn from to meet annual Federal Skilled Worker targets. A couple of suggestions were made to address these existing backlogs one witness proposed adding more processing resources27, while another suggested that people in the backlog should be able to apply for a work permit and work in Canada while the processing on their permanent resident applications is concluded28.

The Committee heard that applications received under MI-2 (cap of 20,000 without arranged employment) and MI-3 (cap of 10,000 without arranged employment) were placed directly into processing.29 The remainder of the Federal Skilled Worker target is met through backlogged applications received under MI-1 and backlogged applications from pre-February 2008, the cut-off date for the first Ministerial Instructions.

Witnesses from an organization informed the Committee of the disappointment of applicants under Ministerial Instructions 1 who expected, based on publicity surrounding these Ministerial Instructions, to receive a final decision within a year.30 These witnesses told the Committee that the expedited processing was only a reality for 4.7% of their clients applying under Ministerial Instructions 1. Further, they reported that applicants with occupations in demand who applied under Ministerial Instructions 1 felt it was somewhat unfair that they should wait in a backlog while those with similar occupations who applied later, under Ministerial Instructions 2 and 3, are processed first.

Numbers provided by two CIC missions brought this issue into clearer focus.
The Immigration Program manager from New Delhi reported that his mission has the largest inventory of pre-February 2008 Federal Skilled Worker cases.31 While the mission reduced this backlog by 15% in 2008-09, it still stands at 119,500 persons and applicants faced processing times of 79 months in 2010. Further, the program manager stated “Due to the large number of new cases submitted under Ministerial Instructions, we processed few old-inventory cases in 2010. At the present time we are devoting all available resources to the quick processing of new cases received under the 2nd and 3rd set of Ministerial Instructions.”32 Similarly, the immigration program manager at the
Manila mission reported that they have been successful at processing the majority of Federal Skilled Worker applications under MI-2, many of those lodged under MI-I, and only a few in the pre-February 2008 inventory.33

How many Federal Skilled Worker applications from each source the old
backlog, the backlog under Ministerial Instructions 1, and new applications received under recent Ministerial Instructions should be processed in a given year to meet the target was an issue raised by witnesses. Advice on the appropriate balance between processing old backlogged applications and new applications was varied, with most witnesses recognizing the Government’s legal obligation to process all applications. （看，多数与会者认为政府对所有积案有处理的法律义务，所以，康尼怎么会（怎么就不会？）逆潮流（当下的潮流是收紧！）而动，冒天下之大不韪（这是情绪化的说法。哪个天？申请人的天是希望快速通过；CIC 的天是依法行政；加国目前的天是收紧移民社会向右转，康胖子的天是忽悠政绩。），置百万人的生活于不顾（法理上他没有必然要顾的义务。我的说法或许生硬，可那是事实。），而蛮干，而一刀切捏）(这个可不太象是技术派的说法。可以肯定地是，杏花春运兄对这个问题的解读和认知是站在一个比较乐观的角度上。) One witness suggested that this legal obligation was not accompanied by a timeframe for processing and urged that the Government prioritize Federal Skilled Workers currently in demand by the Canadian labour market, such as applications lodged under Ministerial Instructions.34

Another witness made the opposite argument, suggesting that the Government should restrict new applications under Ministerial Instructions for the short term and process primarily backlog applications. （解决的思路还是发布新的MI和更新的MI一个接一个的MI来限制新增流量，障眼法地使用积案一词。而积案怎么办，根本不说！！ MI使我不禁想起几个歇后语：乌龟的屁股规定：乌龟翻跟头一个规定接着一个规定：乌龟背上一个小乌龟上面又有新规定。）He argued that eliminating （eliminate 的意思大约包括：丢弃 get rid of； 拒绝：reject； 抹去：remove； 排除使不包括在内 exclude。这就是说要赖帐了。）the backlog quickly is important because the backlog has negative effects on Canada's reputation, the operation of the immigration system, and the labour market, as well as on immigrants themselves.

He referenced research showing that younger immigrants have better labour market outcomes, saying “This implies that if an individual sits in the queue for three, four, or five years, there's a simultaneous deterioration in that person's ability to integrate into the Canadian labour market, and it reduces that person's lifetime earnings profile”.35


The Committee is sympathetic to those with applications in the backlog, some of whom have been waiting for years to receive a final decision. The oldest and largest backlog, that comprised of pre-February 2008 Federal Skilled Worker applications, has been reduced significantly in just over three years. The Committee is satisfied with this progress and urges the Department to continue processing these files as expeditiously as possible. We commend the Government for reducing the pre MI-1 backlog by 50%. This reduction was made two years ahead of schedule.

With regard to backlogs formed under Ministerial Instructions, some witnesses have suggested that the Government of Canada take all the applications received under Ministerial Instructions 1 that are in occupations eligible under MI-2 and MI-3 and process them on a first come, first-served basis. Since the Department learned how to control intake more successfully under MI-2 and MI-3, backlogs under Ministerial Instructions should only pose a temporary problem. Others have stated that we can dissolve the existing backlog by sending applicants a letter informing them that they can withdraw their application, and receive a refund.

某种意义上，见仁见智的问题通常是撕扯不清楚的，撕扯的意义也不大。积案尾大不掉，所以技术移民规则才不改不行，致力于解决积案的规则才是意义所在。如果以修订的提高门槛后的技术移民规则对所有的积案一刀切，那是法理赖账，是耍无赖，牺牲者是积案申请人。为什么要将复杂变简单呢？因为复杂容易使人迷失，只有简单化后才利于人们理解和操作。 剃刀原则：简单的就应该是被采信的。我的核心观点：CIC要赖帐，怎样让赖帐看起来更合法、更合理，民意抵触更小，才是目前康胖子想的。百万积案申请人的利益他才懒得管呢！我希望我想错了也说错了，我也是积案。可是，耳畔边另一个声音分明在说：你想可能是对的！案子依然积着，纠结。 看杏花春雨兄的帖子在过去几个礼拜成了我每天的日常工作之一。开心。

 

[杏花春雨]

回复: 加拿大技术移民规则，不改不行了

[FONT=宋体]事情正在起变化之二：康尼究竟说了什么[/FONT]


[FONT=宋体][FONT=宋体]加拿大时间[/FONT]2012[FONT=宋体]年[/FONT]3[FONT=宋体]月[/FONT]7[FONT=宋体]日[/FONT][FONT=宋体]，康尼参加了加拿大经济俱乐部（[/FONT]Economic Club of Canada[FONT=宋体]）的研讨会，出乎意料地大谈积案问题，并指出他及联邦政府正在考虑解决积案的具体方法。需要说明一下，出乎意料是出乎我本人的意料，具体原因，请看下面的《事情正在起变化之[/FONT][FONT=宋体]我为什么说“事情正在起变化”》。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]这个消息，我是[/FONT]3[FONT=宋体]月[/FONT]9[FONT=宋体]日早先从家园网里获得的。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]家园网的标题是“移民局要蛮干：一刀切作废百万积案”（http://www.iask.ca/news/canada/immigration/2012/0308/122634.html）。这个标题让我大吃一惊，因为作为家园网的忠实一员，我对家园网的感情自不待言，因此对这个消息的真实度不会轻易表示怀疑。然而，粗读一遍，我就表示严重质疑了。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]首先，百万积案指的不单是技术移民，还有投资移民、父母类团聚移民、难民等，成份复杂，是自[/FONT]2002[FONT=宋体]年以来长期积累下来的“历史遗留问题”，解决起来没有万全之策，如果一刀切，岂不是天下大乱？[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]其次，如果百万“一刀切”，那么任何人都可以一眼看出，这是一个“蛮干”；蛮干的意思是任性、不讲理、一意孤行，试问，移民部可能做出这种愚蠢的动作吗？[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]再者，从技术层面上，即使要切，也得一刀一刀地切，怎么能可能不分青红皂白，一刀切了呢？这个刀，得要多快多大的刀，才能切得下？无论是曹操的刀，杨志的刀，还是青龙偃月刀，金丝大环刀，恐怕都不行。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]第四，即使移民局想一刀切，他也不可能凌驾于法律之上为所欲为，还必须要通过立法的程序进行解决，而这期间自然会有很多的变数，因为很多人，当然包括我本人，认为加拿大对于积案负有审理的法律义务，提案能否通过还很不好说，所以现在下结论为时尚早。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]再详细看看内容，没有从任何地方读出来，康尼有对百万积案一刀切的表示，通篇说的是政府目前正考虑处理经济类移民，包括技术移民积案的各种方案，并将会通过法律的程序来实现；而对于父母团聚类和难民类积案，康尼却只字未提，这一点也让反动党所诟病。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]所以，家园网的这个标题属于[/FONT][FONT=宋体]“标题党”，实在有点大而无当，说严重点是众危言耸听；与其说“移民局要蛮干”，勿宁说“家园网在蛮干”。虽然家园网注明来源于《明报》，但在这个节骨眼上，家园网轻率采用此标题并作为首发，拨动广大积案移友脆弱的神经，是很不严肃的举动，实在是难辞其咎。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]那么，康尼在这个会上究竟说了些什么呢？我当然不能相信家园网的一面之辞，更何况它的标题已经失去了我的信任，虽然它的内容还是比较全面和客观；我需要多方求证，力求还原真相，并通过真相来试图追出康尼的真正意图。[/FONT]
[/FONT]