Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s new language testing requirements go too far
On June 26, Jason Kenney, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism quietly issued a “ministerial instruction” that all applicants destined to the labour market in the Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSW) and the Canadian Experience Class (CEC) must undergo an examination for competence in English or French in order to have their immigration application processed.
Obviously, proficiency in English or French is essential for anyone hoping to work and live in Canada. However, the new instruction is problematic in two ways. First, Section 79(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provides that an applicant had the choice to “(a) have their proficiency in those languages assessed by an organization or institution designated under [the regulations]; or (b) provide other evidence in writing of their proficiency in those languages.” This is a regulation and cannot, in law, be changed by a ministerial instruction. If the Government really wants to make this change, it requires a regulatory change and pre-publication of the regulation so that interested persons can make submissions with respect to the proposals.
Second, while evidence in writing from someone whose mother tongue is not English or French might be subject to doubt, evidence of a native speaker that they have completed secondary and post-secondary education in an English or French educational institution is pretty conclusive. Do we really need to ask an American or British born PhD in English Literature (real cases) to take an English test? Of course not. The United Kingdom and Australia have similar requirements but exempt people whose mother tongue is English according to clearly established criteria. Canada could and should do the same. It is unfair and a waste of time and effort to make native speakers of French or English take exams designed for those who have learned French or English as a second language.
The real problem that this testing is attempting to resolve is that for the last twenty years or so, the vast majority of Canada’s immigrant applicants are never seen by an immigration officer. The decision to move to ‘paper decisions’ rather than in person interviews was done in order to save money. Yet should such an important decision as who can have residence in Canada be made without an interview? I doubt many employers would even consider hiring an employee without an interview. Why should Canada extend a far more important privilege – permanent residence - without even seeing the applicant? In the past, when immigrants were routinely interviewed it was much easier to assess their ability to establish themselves in Canada and much easier to determine their fluency in English or French. Perhaps the real test Canada should be asking potential immigrants to undertake is not a language exam but an interview with a Canadian immigration officer.
Robert Vineberg is a Senior Fellow with the Canada West Foundation. He was, formerly, the Director General, Prairies and Northern Territories Region, Citizenship and Immigration Canada.