The federal government courted controversy last month when it introduced new language-testing rules for skilled immigrant applicants.''
The changes extended testing requirements to native English and French speakers, who previously could submit written evidence of their proficiency in either of Canada’s official languages instead.
That’s no longer an option, a move drawing sharp criticism from immigrants already fluent in English or French who now must incur delays and come up with the fee to take the test.
In defending the change, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told the web site canadianimmigrant.ca that it would make the assessment process fairer, particularly since some applicants used someone else’s writing samples to back up their claims of proficiency as part of their submissions.
Requiring the test, he noted, will also speed up application processing times since officials can rely on the results rather than going through the written materials.
Kenney’s arguments are fair, but the change is still an unnecessary bureaucratic imposition on immigration applicants who speak English or French as a first language.
It makes no sense, for example, to have someone with post-secondary education from an English-speaking country take a language-proficiency test, particularly when they may have already been working here on a visa and are now applying for permanent residency under the Canadian experience class.
It’s a waste of time and resources, especially for applicants who have clearly demonstrated their ability to function in Canada and now find themselves going through the same process as would-be immigrants from other countries.
In tackling the issue the last time it came up in 2008, the Canadian Bar Association addressed many of Kenney’s concerns with a series of recommendations for dealing with people who speak English or French as a first language or who are otherwise obviously proficient in either one.
Its submission noted provisions for dealing with the issue in countries such as Britain, which allows for exemptions from language testing for nationals of 16 countries, including Canada.
Summarized below are the CBA’s suggestions in 2008 for alternatives to requiring the language test:
• Have completed secondary school or resided for 10 years or more in and be a passport holder or permanent resident of any country whose national or official language is English or French.
• Hold a university degree from any country whose national or official language is English or French.
• Have a degree from an accredited university in Canada.
Two years later, the CBA’s recommendations seem to be a reasonable way to handle the issue while addressing Kenney’s concerns. Let’s hope the government reconsiders the latest changes.
The changes extended testing requirements to native English and French speakers, who previously could submit written evidence of their proficiency in either of Canada’s official languages instead. That’s no longer an option, a move drawing sharp criticism from immigrants already fluent in English or French who now must incur delays and come up with the fee to take the test.
In defending the change, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told the web site canadianimmigrant.ca that it would make the assessment process fairer, particularly since some applicants used someone else’s writing samples to back up their claims of proficiency as part of their submissions.
Requiring the test, he noted, will also speed up application processing times since officials can rely on the results rather than going through the written materials.
Kenney’s arguments are fair, but the change is still an unnecessary bureaucratic imposition on immigration applicants who speak English or French as a first language.
It makes no sense, for example, to have someone with post-secondary education from an English-speaking country take a language-proficiency test, particularly when they may have already been working here on a visa and are now applying for permanent residency under the Canadian experience class.
It’s a waste of time and resources, especially for applicants who have clearly demonstrated their ability to function in Canada and now find themselves going through the same process as would-be immigrants from other countries.
In tackling the issue the last time it came up in 2008, the Canadian Bar Association addressed many of Kenney’s concerns with a series of recommendations for dealing with people who speak English or French as a first language or who are otherwise obviously proficient in either one.
Its submission noted provisions for dealing with the issue in countries such as Britain, which allows for exemptions from language testing for nationals of 16 countries, including Canada.
Summarized below are the CBA’s suggestions in 2008 for alternatives to requiring the language test:
• Have completed secondary school or resided for 10 years or more in and be a passport holder or permanent resident of any country whose national or official language is English or French.
• Hold a university degree from any country whose national or official language is English or French.
• Have a degree from an accredited university in Canada.
Two years later, the CBA’s recommendations seem to be a reasonable way to handle the issue while addressing Kenney’s concerns. Let’s hope the government reconsiders the latest changes.
- Glenn Kauth
