I could not get a link to the entire article which showed up in my email via the CCR, so I am pasting it here:
Embassy
Years from now, Canadians will apologize
By Mary Jo Leddy
Published September 28, 2011
Years from now, a prime minister will stand in the House of Commons and
issue a formal apology to the Tamil community. He or she will “regret”
the arbitrary detention of the men, women and children who landed on our
shores in search of security. The prime minister will “express sorrow”
over the social fury that was whipped up as this little band of
survivors arrived on our western coast.
The MV Sun Sea arrived off the British Columbia coast last August
carrying nearly 500 Tamil migrants. The MV Ocean Lady came the year
prior with 76.
He or she will “deeply regret” that this fury enabled the government to
even think of Bill C-4, legislation that would make it possible to
designate such people as “irregular arrivals,” to detain them for at
least a year and to prevent them from sponsoring their families to come
to Canada for at least five years.
How deeply the prime minister will regret that this punishment will
apply to groups (more than two people) arriving not only by boat, but
also by air and land as well.
There will probably be an excellent documentary movie showing the number
of children who spent months in a detention centre before being sent
back to a country where they perished together with their parents.
We have done this before.
In 1914, the Conservative government of the day turned away more than
300 Sikhs who came by boat from India seeking a better and safer life.
When the Komagata Maru arrived back in Calcutta, 20 people were killed
in a riot. Many others were detained and brutalized.
In 1939, the Liberal government turned away a boatload of 936 Jewish
refugees from Europe. After being refused by Cuba and the United States
they made a final effort to land in Canada. The SS St. Louis returned to
Europe where many of the people on this “voyage of the damned” died in
Adolf Hitler’s murder camps.
Once again we have demonized the people on the Ocean Lady and the Sun Sea.
They are Tamil Tigers, violent, terrorists who pose an extreme danger to
the country, say government officials.
I have talked to some of the people who were on the Ocean Lady and I see
different faces: orphans, women who had been raped, people filled with
shrapnel, two priests, a respected journalist. They worked together to
prevent the spread of disease and held together during the terrible
storms on their journey here. Together they prayed and together they
survived.
When they arrived off Vancouver Island they were immediately placed in
detention and repeatedly interrogated.
In Canada, they have been treated as criminals. One of the passengers on
the Ocean Lady asked me, “Is it a crime to want to live?” He had tried
coming to Canada in the more acceptable way; he had gone to the Canadian
Embassy in Thailand but was told by other Sri Lankans that they had been
waiting 14 years for an appointment.
In desperation, he placed his life and life savings in the hands of some
“smugglers.” Now Bill C-4 will indeed make it a crime for wanting to
live. Bill C-4 is not an anti-smuggling bill, it is an anti-refugee bill
that turns desperate people away now as surely as we have done in the past.
Bill C-4 is another attempt by stealth to prevent refugees from coming
to Canada. A series of pieces of legislation have effectively divided
refugees into two groups: the “bad” refugees who have the audacity to
come to Canada on their own, and the “good” refugees who are in camps
overseas and who will stay there until they are among those chosen to
come to Canada.
The “good” refugees are the ones who have been able to find their way to
a refugee camp and are willing to wait for more than 14 years.
The difference between “bad” refugees and “good” refugees seems to be a
function of the degree to which Canadian officials are in control of
those seeking access to the country. The passengers on the Komagata
Maru, the St. Louis and the Ocean Lady were “bad” refugees.
It is indeed legitimate for a nation state to have control over its
borders. However, Canada began to lose control of its borders quite some
time ago and this loss of control had nothing to do with refugees.
Free trade, the power of communications technology to slip through all
boundaries, the so called “security perimeter” with the United States
and the unfettered flow of global capital have all posed immense threats
to Canadian sovereignty.
It seems as if controlling the small flow of refugees to Canada is a
last desperate effort to prove that we still have a country with borders.
The climate of fear surrounding the loss of control over our borders has
numbed our ability to see that Bill C-4 has made it a crime for some
people to want to live.
In 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an informal apology for
what happened with the Komagata Maru.
As far as I know there has never been an official apology for the
rejection of the St. Louis although a memorial for the Jewish refugees
was unveiled on January 20, 2011 in Halifax at Pier 21.
Regrets are not enough.
Mary Jo Leddy is a senior fellow at Massey College and a recipient of
the Order of Canada. She is the founder of Romero House, a Toronto
non-profit organization that houses refugees.
Comments on the Discussion Paper regarding licensing of recruiters and employers pursuant to the Worker Recruitment and Protection Act – Short version
NewsThe Department of Labour and Advanced Education has asked for comments on the Discussion Paper dated January 16, 2012.
http://www.gov.ns.ca/lae/employmentrights/docs/DiscussionPaperRegsForeignWorkers.pdf
Context
Some temporary foreign workers are vulnerable and prone to abuse and disadvantage by unethical recruiters and employers.
Comments:
2012: Year of the…residency investigation
News, Permanent Residence, Temporary ResidenceIt’s almost Year of the Dragon. If I had to guess, from an immigration perspective, I would say 2012 is going to be the year of residency issues. Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has vowed to investigate anyone suspected of obtaining permanent residence or citizenship fraudulently. Locally, we are seeing simple applications to renew permanent resident cards take 6 months or more. Many are being diverted to officers to scrutinize, which takes even longer. This is creating so many practical problems, I get depressed just thinking about them.
So how about some happy news? Well, not exactly happy, but a little info that some people don’t realize which could make someone, somewhere, happy. Here goes:
We get this question a lot – I am a Canadian living abroad with my spouse. We want to move back to Canada eventually so we want to start the immigration process. But what happens if we can’t find work in Canada or can’t stay for some other reason? Will my spouse lose his permanent residence status if we leave Canada?
The happy news is this: Once the spouse is a permanent resident of Canada, he (or she) can remain outside of Canada indefinitely provided he is accompanying a Canadian citizen abroad. Meaning, if the couple is together, the permanent resident’s status is safe.
This is often a surprise to people, so check out the actual section of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act:
28. (1) A permanent resident must comply with a residency obligation with respect to every five-year period.
(2) The following provisions govern the residency obligation under subsection (1):
(a) a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are
(i) physically present inCanada,
(ii) outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent,
(iii) outsideCanadaemployed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province,
(iv) outside Canada accompanying a permanent resident who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent and who is employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province, or
(v) referred to in regulations providing for other means of compliance;
So what this means is as long as the Canadian citizen is with the permanent resident outside Canada for at least 730 days in every five year period, their status is safe.
Of course, there is a catch:
1. Getting Permanent Residence in the first place: When the spouse applies for permanent residence with the Canadian citizen as his sponsor, the Canadian citizen has to prove and declare her (or his) intention to move back to Canada. In other words, the plan must be that the happy couple intends to live in Canada once the application is finalized.
2. Proving you were outside Canada with your spouse: This can be tricky, just like trying to prove you were in Canada for a given period of time is tricky. These days, passports and entry/exit stamps are often not enough. Phone bills and leases are often rejected. Even bank statements can be discredited by officers looking at the file who say, well anyone could have used your bank card.
Do you know what does work? Dental records, proof of attendance at medical appointments, the gym, hair and personal care appointments, etc. Sometimes it is hard to prove you were in (or out) of Canada during a particular period of time. But I always tell clients if you have documents to prove your teeth or hands or hair were in a given place at a certain date and time, that’s going to be as good as it gets.
3. Qualifying for citizenship: This loophole does not give the permanent resident the days required to qualify for Canadian citizenship. The residency obligation for citizenship is different than for permanent residence, so even though you can maintain your permanent residence status while living abroad, you will eventually have to come here and be physically present inCanadafor 3 out of 4 years to qualify for citizenship. Some very obscure exceptions do apply, but I am not going to go into them here.
So to all the Canadian citizens wanting to bring their spouses to Canada: go for it.
It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s (not so) Super Visa!
NewsLast month, CIC shut down the parents & grandparents permanent residence category. So if you want your parent or grandparent to come to Canada, you have to wait two years to apply to sponsor them. Until CIC shut it down it was taking up to 8 years to process those applications. That was a long time to wait. In some cases, it was what remained of a lifetime.
But as a consolation, CIC announced a new “Super Visa” category for parents and grandparents. Catchy name. Sort of. But what is it?
If your parent or grandparent is from a non-visa exempt country, they can apply for a ten-year multi-entry Super Visa. Non visa-exempt countries are mostly poorer, in the global south or with a majority racialized population (see http://ccrweb.ca/en/res/visitor-visas-parents-and-grandparents).
All the other regular criteria still apply: security, criminal and medical checks; promise to leave Canada at the end of your stay and maintain your ties abroad. You also have to show you have sufficient funds for your visit.
But that’s not all. For the Super Visa, you must:
– Show proof of Canadian private medical insurance valid for at least one year; and
– Show proof that the “host” in Canada has sufficient household income to support all family members.
You might be saying: “Good, we don’t want these people becoming a burden on our health care system. At least they can come for a longer visit. Canada cannot afford to provide health care for visitors.”
Listen: Canada never has – and never will – provide free health care to visitors. Until now, visitors either pay out-of-pocket for private insurance or out-of-pocket for health care. Sometimes both.
But CIC doesn’t demand every visitor have private health coverage. Thousands of visitors come to Canada every year with no private health insurance at all. The health insurance requirement means wealthier Canadian families and people from wealthier countries will benefit most from the Super Visa. They can afford private health insurance at a cost of $250-$1000/month.
On the other hand, poorer Canadian families and people from poorer countries will suffer. Maybe that’s not a big surprise. But when you think about it, it’s often the poorer Canadian families who need a parent’s help, for example for childcare.
I don’t want to be totally negative about this. Having a 10-year multi-entry visa is a good thing. It avoids the rigmarole of extending your stay every six months and having to do the “Buffalo shuffle” once a year for a new visa. But did CIC really need to shut down an entire category and create a new one to accomplish something as simple as a 10-year multi-entry permit? Come on.
Similarly, did CIC really need spend 450 Million Dollars revamping the entire refugee system when the major problem was processing delays? 450 Million Dollars could go a long way towards hiring a few new judges to clear the backlog. It’s a pattern of massive, expensive changes with little net gain for Canadians or their families abroad. And in the case of the Super Visa, the new program unfairly discriminates against poorer families.
Super Visa. Wow. Super.
Link to the CIC bulletin:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2011/ob357.asp
Blame the lawyers…again
News“Public discussion about something that is before the courts is never recommended and for good reason.” http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/33238-halifax-councillors-stay-silent-occupy-ns-eviction
What a disappointment the city’s behavior in the ONS matter has been. There is nothing “before the courts” unless an action, application or motion has been filed (physically, not metaphorically or a “threat” of a Charter challenge) in a court. Unless the media has missed something, there is nothing “before the courts” at the moment. Criminal charges against individuals for resisting arrest or obstructing justice are no reason to silence open debate in a city council meeting.
A lawyer advising a client not to discuss something publicly is just that: legal advice. Lawyers are not judges or decision-makers. They don’t dictate what clients do, their job is only to advise. The client takes that advice and instructs or acts. The client (in this case, city council) must take ownership of its decisions, not defer to its lawyers as having the final say. To blame the lawyer, use the legal department as a scapegoat, or put the legal department in the role of decision-maker on what is/isn’t discussed openly is unfair and undemocratic.
Top 10 Question: Permanent resident interrogated at border and “reported” for not living here
Immigration, Permanent Residence, UncategorizedQuestion: I am a permanent resident with a valid PR Card. I arrived at the airport and ended up being questioned for 3 hours about whether or not I can prove I live here. In the end the officer “reported” me for being inadmissible to Canada. Now I have to go back for another interview to deal with the report. What can I do?
The short answer is that you should not have engaged in the officer’s questions when you entered. A permanent resident has no obligation to answer any questions regarding residency or any other suspected ground of inadmissibility at the border. The CIC policy manual (. Section 11 of ENF 4) puts it this way (POE stands for Port of Entry, BSO stands for Border Services Officer):
“When a permanent resident appears at a POE for examination, the BSO must determine whether the person is a permanent resident. BSOs must remain cognizant of the fact that the Act gives permanent residents ofCanadathe right to enterCanadaat a POE once it is established that a person is a permanent resident, regardless of non-compliance with the residency obligation in A28 or the presence of other inadmissibilities.
“BSOs can refuse entry to a permanent resident only when the person has already lost the status in accordance with the provisions of A46 (such as a final determination has been made that they have failed to comply with the residency obligations or when a removal order comes into effect). In other words, once a permanent resident’s status is established, the person may enter Canada by right and the immigration examination under IRPA concludes.”
But once someone has answered the questions (and raised the suspicion of the BSO), then what? In my experience, you are stuck having to answer to the “report”. Generally, this means going back to the border (usually airport) at a designated date and time with all your supporting documents and being interviewed by another officer (who is referred to as “the Minister’s Delegate”). At this stage, you are risking a finding of inadmissibility (i.e. the beginning of losing permanent residence status) so it is imperative that you have an immigration lawyer assist you throughout. It is never good to go to an interview like this without a representative, even in cases where it seems like there is a simple answer or the border officer has just made a mistake.
The flat rate works great
Fees, NewsI had an interesting conversation with one of our favorite clients the other day. We have been working for her for many months and she called with a general question about a potential immigration application. She told me not to start any work on the file as she didn’t want to incur any expenses yet, although she knew I would have to charge her for the phone call.
Charge for the phone call?
Over the past three years, we have moved into a flat-rate billing system. We don’t charge for phone calls, emails or meetings. Unless the matter is completely unpredictable or the client requests an hourly rate, our fees are set at the beginning.
We posted all the fees online in February. Since then, we have had exactly:
– Zero clients request hourly rates
– 2 matters we decided to take on at an hourly rate. Those are Federal Court files, with unique legal issues we have not dealt with before so it was impossible to set the rate from the beginning
When I started the flat rate system, I wasn’t sure how it would go – would clients like the flat rate? Would people balk at the costs? Would other lawyers hate me for posting my fees online?
Happily, the flat rates are working out. More predictability for clients means they pay our invoices quickly. The “Our Fees” page on the website has the most hits after the home page. And well, as far as other lawyers go, I guess it really doesn’t matter what they think. The bottom line for me: if I was a client this is what I would prefer. Complete predictability on fees means a better relationship with clients. No awkward phone calls about an unexpectedly high invoice. No hesitation for clients to call us with a question or update.
Now, obviously an area I need to work on is making sure clients understand what flat rate really means. For clients who are used to dealing with many lawyers for various corporate and employment matters, I realize now it can take some getting used to.
So no, there won’t be any charge for the phone call.
Deceptively Simple – Citizenship and Immigration Canada on Twitter: How to hire a foreign worker
Citizenship, Immigration, NewsSounds easy, right? CIC keeps trying to make it simpler for people to do their own immigration paperwork. But they just keep making the process and explanations of the process more and more difficult. Who in their right mind (other than a curious and critical immigration lawyer…) would follow these links and actually feel like they understand the process? Plus, you have to love the fact that CIC refers to “Social Development Canada” (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/hire/skilled.asp)
I feel sorry for employers who attempt to navigate through these rules for the first time, innocently thinking they are actually going to be able to bring a new worker into Canada (a) ever; or (b) in any sort of workable time-frame.
Then again, who doesn’t need a little help with their social development? Especially when you earnestly follow the government’s simple instructions which sends you in circles, cursing and pulling your hair out.
Hooray for simplicity.
Shipbuilding and Temporary Foreign Workers
News, Temporary ResidenceIt’s not even a week since the shipbuilding announcement and we are already talking about more temporary foreign workers in Nova Scotia. More people, more jobs, more money. All good. Unfortunately, the immigration process for temporary foreign workers is often unbelievably frustrating, especially for companies that are simply trying to bring the right people in quickly. The agreement between the federal government and province referred to in this article is not yet in place. Here’s hoping it will be fast-tracked to make the process smoother and faster.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/27004-ns-companies-turn-foreign-workers-fill-skilled-trades-shortage
Great opinion piece on Bill C-4 by Mary Jo Leddy
NewsI could not get a link to the entire article which showed up in my email via the CCR, so I am pasting it here:
Embassy
Years from now, Canadians will apologize
By Mary Jo Leddy
Published September 28, 2011
Years from now, a prime minister will stand in the House of Commons and
issue a formal apology to the Tamil community. He or she will “regret”
the arbitrary detention of the men, women and children who landed on our
shores in search of security. The prime minister will “express sorrow”
over the social fury that was whipped up as this little band of
survivors arrived on our western coast.
The MV Sun Sea arrived off the British Columbia coast last August
carrying nearly 500 Tamil migrants. The MV Ocean Lady came the year
prior with 76.
He or she will “deeply regret” that this fury enabled the government to
even think of Bill C-4, legislation that would make it possible to
designate such people as “irregular arrivals,” to detain them for at
least a year and to prevent them from sponsoring their families to come
to Canada for at least five years.
How deeply the prime minister will regret that this punishment will
apply to groups (more than two people) arriving not only by boat, but
also by air and land as well.
There will probably be an excellent documentary movie showing the number
of children who spent months in a detention centre before being sent
back to a country where they perished together with their parents.
We have done this before.
In 1914, the Conservative government of the day turned away more than
300 Sikhs who came by boat from India seeking a better and safer life.
When the Komagata Maru arrived back in Calcutta, 20 people were killed
in a riot. Many others were detained and brutalized.
In 1939, the Liberal government turned away a boatload of 936 Jewish
refugees from Europe. After being refused by Cuba and the United States
they made a final effort to land in Canada. The SS St. Louis returned to
Europe where many of the people on this “voyage of the damned” died in
Adolf Hitler’s murder camps.
Once again we have demonized the people on the Ocean Lady and the Sun Sea.
They are Tamil Tigers, violent, terrorists who pose an extreme danger to
the country, say government officials.
I have talked to some of the people who were on the Ocean Lady and I see
different faces: orphans, women who had been raped, people filled with
shrapnel, two priests, a respected journalist. They worked together to
prevent the spread of disease and held together during the terrible
storms on their journey here. Together they prayed and together they
survived.
When they arrived off Vancouver Island they were immediately placed in
detention and repeatedly interrogated.
In Canada, they have been treated as criminals. One of the passengers on
the Ocean Lady asked me, “Is it a crime to want to live?” He had tried
coming to Canada in the more acceptable way; he had gone to the Canadian
Embassy in Thailand but was told by other Sri Lankans that they had been
waiting 14 years for an appointment.
In desperation, he placed his life and life savings in the hands of some
“smugglers.” Now Bill C-4 will indeed make it a crime for wanting to
live. Bill C-4 is not an anti-smuggling bill, it is an anti-refugee bill
that turns desperate people away now as surely as we have done in the past.
Bill C-4 is another attempt by stealth to prevent refugees from coming
to Canada. A series of pieces of legislation have effectively divided
refugees into two groups: the “bad” refugees who have the audacity to
come to Canada on their own, and the “good” refugees who are in camps
overseas and who will stay there until they are among those chosen to
come to Canada.
The “good” refugees are the ones who have been able to find their way to
a refugee camp and are willing to wait for more than 14 years.
The difference between “bad” refugees and “good” refugees seems to be a
function of the degree to which Canadian officials are in control of
those seeking access to the country. The passengers on the Komagata
Maru, the St. Louis and the Ocean Lady were “bad” refugees.
It is indeed legitimate for a nation state to have control over its
borders. However, Canada began to lose control of its borders quite some
time ago and this loss of control had nothing to do with refugees.
Free trade, the power of communications technology to slip through all
boundaries, the so called “security perimeter” with the United States
and the unfettered flow of global capital have all posed immense threats
to Canadian sovereignty.
It seems as if controlling the small flow of refugees to Canada is a
last desperate effort to prove that we still have a country with borders.
The climate of fear surrounding the loss of control over our borders has
numbed our ability to see that Bill C-4 has made it a crime for some
people to want to live.
In 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an informal apology for
what happened with the Komagata Maru.
As far as I know there has never been an official apology for the
rejection of the St. Louis although a memorial for the Jewish refugees
was unveiled on January 20, 2011 in Halifax at Pier 21.
Regrets are not enough.
Mary Jo Leddy is a senior fellow at Massey College and a recipient of
the Order of Canada. She is the founder of Romero House, a Toronto
non-profit organization that houses refugees.
Interesting article but it’s the comments that blow my mind
NewsMaybe I shouldn’t be surprised. But the lack of understanding of the general public (I should say the general public that actually has the time and inclination to post comments on news websites) is so depressing! Fact: Service Canada scrutinizes every single one of those Chinese chef jobs to confirm the position cannot be filled from within Canada. If there were Canadians willing to “fry eggrolls” believe me, Service Canada would not issue LMOs to the employer. Fact: The feds have now made sponsoring parents and grandparents pretty well the lowest priority – it used to take around 6 years, now it is expected to take 8-10. So telling people to just sponsor their family is unfair, especially if those family members have been refused visas to visit in the meantime. Imagine not being able to see your parents for 8-10 years. Fact: There is a tremendous variation in how quickly work permit/visa applications are processed depending on the country you’re in. For example, times can vary from a couple of days (visa exempt countries like the US, France, UK, etc) to a a couple of months (India) to over a year (Vietnam, Philippines), depending on the category. It’s unfair to chalk this up only to the feds doing medical and background checks, etc. It’s about resources – how quickly Canadian embassies can process these applications depends entirely on the number of officers they have working there. Obviously, some countries are lower priority than others. Think about it this way: a Chinese chef with an American passport could get a work permit at the border, but a Chinese chef with a Chinese passport has to wait many months. Anyway, read the comments and see for yourself:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1264954.html#comments