Canadian Toronto Immigration Lawyer

Archives

Blog Release Dates

March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
  • 08Mar

    The Edmonton Journal has confirmed that Canada’s identity includes immigration.  Citing a well-produced ad for Tim Horton’s that encapsulates an African family’s resettlement in Canada, Columnist Paula Simons concisely described the commercial as follows:

    It begins so quietly. A man who seems to be an immigrant from Africa sits alone in a dingy apartment on a winter night, talking wistfully to someone on the phone in Zulu, while his finger gently strokes a family photograph. Then we see him at a department store, buying colourful parkas in different sizes, which he takes back to his apartment and carefully packs into weatherproof bags. He wakes to the sound of his alarm clock. It’s early, still pitch black, as he makes his way through the falling snow to the airport.

    He heads to the Tim Hortons counter and orders two coffees. We watch his anxious face light up as he sees his wife and two daughters arrive. The couple exchange a kiss. He hands her a coffee and says, “Welcome to Canada.”

    The family head out into the snow, dressed in their new winter wear, as the first winter morning light breaks.

    “Welcome home,” he says.

    The ubiquity of Tim Hortons all over Canada has spawned an entire sub-culture.  I’m not talking about the phrase ‘double-double’, which originated not at any Tim Horton’s, but on an episode of the television show Dragnet that aired long before Tim’s became a nation-wide phenomenon.  There are other terms brought on by the presence of Tims.

    A couple of days ago, while walking on Bloor Street near the University of Toronto, I observed a gathering of protesters,  (by the appearance of their hand-held placards, they were unionized workers asserting rights for minorities and women).  There was a Tim’s just around the corner.  One of the persons in a group said to another, “Are you going for a Timmie Run?”  TRANSLATION: are you going to buy some of Tim Horton’s products for our group?  Similarly, South Asians typically describe the spherical South Asian dessert ladoo as a being ‘like a Timbit’.  Tim Horton’s is no longer the exclusive haunt of shift workers like policemen.  On my way to the Immigration and Refugee Board this morning, I passed three Tims on foot.

    I personally find some of this lingo corny or downright scary.  When I hear the word ‘Timbit’, it brings to mind some dark vision like clones of the late Tim Horton secretly located at each Tim’s franchise, constituting a core ingredient at Tims, along the lines of the plot from the movie Soylent Green.  Or, I think of pieces of the Ford Pantera that he drove at the time of his death being sold as metallic souvenirs like James Dean’s Porsche.

    One element of immigration reality not alluded to is that skilled immigrants to Canada often start their Canadian work history working at low-level employment such as in service jobs provided by Tim Horton’s franchisees.  Indeed, there is a low skill program administered by Canada’s immigration department  that many Tim Horton’s franchises benefited from, especially those in Alberta prior to 2008, when the job market was hot, and local Canadians had no interest in working at or near minimum wage.

    Indeed, when completing a labour market opinion for a Tim Horton’s franchisee in Calgary during 2007,  a Tim’s franchisee confirmed that a sizeable number of their workers were recent immigrants who were well-educated and would consistently quit after a few months (for example, as soon as their credentials were recognized, or as soon as they commenced a course of study to have their credentials transferred to a Canadian setting).

    The effectiveness of the ad was captured by Ms. Simons as follows:

    What we’re being sold, of course, isn’t just coffee. We’re being sold a vision of Canada as a multicultural country that welcomes hardy refugees and immigrants from around the world, and absorbs them into its national fabric — one Timbit and double-double at a time.

    Ms Simons contrasted the ad with the reality that faces many recent immigrants to Canada that is wholly absent in said ad:

    In reality, plenty of newcomers have a difficult time making the economic and cultural transition to life here, never mind being accepted as Canadians. But the happy immigrant story is part of our national mythos. The ad works, in part, because it reminds many of us of our own family histories — but also because it allows us to pat ourselves on the back, just a little bit smugly, for being citizens of such a noble nation.

    Ms Simons implicitly acknowledged the current government’s lack of vision by highlighting the fact that sophisticated corporate marketing is taking up the torch of multiculturalism:

    How odd, that it should take the most “white bread” business imaginable — a multinational doughnut corporation! — to capture the authentic face of today’s urban Canada.

    And how intriguing, too, that one of Canada’s corporate giants has chosen to make the immigration narrative such a large part of its brand identity.

    By contrast, current Canadian government policy is more intent on atomizing Canada’s minorities by unduly ethnicizing politics in Canada.  The intent appears to be pandering to ethnic minorities who are politically connected and/or politically active at the expense of other minorities. This could create a big rip in the cultural mosaic if Canada takes sides on contentious historical or current foreign policy issues like Greece/Macedonia, Kurdistan/Turkey, India/Pakistan, China/Tibet, and Israel/Palestine.  A more principled approach would be to place less of a priority on the government’s reelection, but rather, to articulate a position on well-documented human rights issues (positions that are defensible should there be some complaint by one ethnic group or other).

  • 01Mar

    In a previous weblog entry, I commented on the utility of using Canada’s call centre, for, among other things, checking the status of an immigration application filed with Canada’s immigration authorities.  Indeed, lawyers with proper authorization do regularly ascertain some basic information about the file through the Canada’s immigration call center.  Recently however, due to the expansion of immigration call center employees, it has been more difficult to reach a person at Canada’s immigration call center and obtain information.  The immigration department has confirmed that officers normally answering the phone line are currently training other people to answer calls at the call center.  In addition, there’s been marked increase in the amount of telephone calls the call center has received.  The normal volume of calls is around 30,000 per day, whereas earlier this week they received 70,000 calls per day.

    The inability to reach somebody at the call center has caused people to try to ascertain their application’s status on Canada’s immigration website.  This has overtaxed the abilities of Canada’s immigration website, and for that reason people are unable to get the status of an application on the website as well.

    The reason for the recent surge in inquiries can be any number of things, such as the situation in Haiti, or the amount of visitors in Vancouver for the 2010 Olympics who may wish to extend their status.  However, it is reasonable to assume, that immigration will remain an important part of Canada’s growth, given the demographic challenges that Canadian society shall face over the next 20 years.  Such challenges have been outlined in a Parliamentary Budget Officer’s Report dated February 2010.

    The demographic predictions in this report are consistent with what is happening in Europe and Japan where the proportion of elderly (i.e. economically non-productive) persons is increasing in relation to work-aged persons.  The lack of work-aged persons in Canada and the simultaneous economic burden on Canada’s health and pension systems spells future deficits for Canada’s governments well into the future.

    The demographic projections in this report were premised on current Canadian immigration levels remaining the same.  Thus, pro-immigration advocates could argue that increased immigration beyond the current levels would have the effect of increasing the government’s tax base (assuming that the new immigrants are integrated into Canada’s labour force).

    It is hard to see what other alternatives there could be.  Relatively xenophobic and Japan is investing heavily on robots to take care of its elderly.  This will no doubt exacerbate their stagnant economy as robots won’t expand their tax based as much as human beings.  I’m more partial to human contact, and will likely have this opinion as I age into retirement.

    Before the economic woes of 2008, Europe was contemplating increased migration from developing countries as opposed to the dead-end ‘guest worker’ programs of earlier decades.

    Given the paranoia of terrorism, and the consequent inconvenient road blocks this poses for productive, legal migration, I can foresee a bright future for immigration lawyers in developed countries like Canada, as long as Canada’s economy, and the world economy, is managed responsibly.

  • 22Feb

    Some very basic facts: the Low Income Cut Off goes up every year.  It is mandatory for a sponsor to meet the LICO when sponsoring parents and their dependent children.  Meeting the LICO is  a badge of confidence you can show to Canada’s immigration department, promising that the relatives who you sponsor will not be a burden on Canada’s social services for three or ten years from the date the sponsored relatives obtain their Canadian immigration visas.

    The LICO can impact marriage sponsorships.  Normally, the LICO is not applicable when sponsoring a spouse with underage dependent children.  However, a visa officer overseas has the discretion to use the LICO as a guideline.  This is done primarily where a sponsor of a spouse presents very, very little income (let’s say, for example, only $18,000.00 per year), and the sponsored spouse is bringing two children.  Given the fact that the 2010 LICO for four people is $39,455 (as per the Current Canada Immigration website for 2010), a visa officer can have a very legitimate concern that the sponsor will not be able to keep his spouse and children off of Canada’s social assistance for three or ten years).  In such a circumstance, the visa officer can have reference to the LICO and determine that an application to sponsor a spouse and children should be refused on financial grounds.

    However, a sponsor of a spouse who is refused in such a situation can have recourse to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, where a judge (or more precisely, a Member), can review the financial situation and grant approve the sponsorship despite the lack of income of the sponsor.

    The Member at the IAD would have regard to humanitarian and compassionate factors and other circumstances, such as the employability of the person being sponsored, the age of any dependent children being sponsored, the proven financial worth of the person being sponsored, and many other factors.

    I have come across a situation where a sponsor of a parent has had to pay the province of Ontario over CAD$100,000.00 due to a sponsored parent taking social assistance for many years.  The sponsorship agreement is a document that both the sponsor and the sponsored parent or spouse signs and it sets out in detail the obligations of the sponsor. This is likely a rare occurrence, as the slow processing times for parents that characterize Canada’s immigration system appears to ensure that parents are unable to get their permanent resident visas until they are close to passing away, or are too ill to pass the immigration medical.

  • 16Feb

    Canada’s immigration lawyers are subject to certain unique characteristics depending on where they practice.  Vancouver immigration lawyers appear to have the benefit of a more progressive media outlet in the form of the Vancouver Sun.  An editorial, published on February 9, 2010, entitled, “Time to exorcise ghost immigration consultants”, was significant.

    It was one of the few the mainstream news outlet that acknowledged the term “ghost consultant” – immigration consultants who provide the services of a Canadian immigration consultant, but without the license required by the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.  Vancouver lawyers in the practice of Canadian immigration law will benefit from this article due to the increased awareness that will no doubt accrue from this pithy editorial.

    It mentions the ‘exploitation’ that characterizes the mode of operation of the ghost consultants.  It has even characterized the presence of ghost consultants as a national security issue.  Toronto immigration lawyers were not as lucky in this regard.  There was an expose a couple of years ago in the Toronto Star that used undercover reporters disguised as clients who were  counselled to make false refugee claims (at the link:http://www.thestar.com/article/289751).  I recently blogged about the issue of a ghost immigration consultant who was apparently filing fraudulent citizenship cases in Mississauga (covered in the Globe and Mail February 1 and 2 2010).  However Toronto lawyers in the practice of Canadian immigration law operate in a somewhat more saturated market than Vancouver immigration lawyers.  There are more Canadian immigration lawyers in Toronto, as well as more immigration consultants, both licenced and ghost, than there are immigration lawyers in Vancouver.  Indeed, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants is based in downtown Toronto.

    It is laudable that the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration intends to make legislative reforms in this regard.  It is also laudable that CSIC intends to advertise about the risks associated with hiring ghost consultants (the new ad consisting of a shark eating some other sea creature) is graphic and vivid:

    photo CSIC ad February 2010

    The issue of ghost consultants affects the reputation of licensed Canadian immigration consultants, and Canada’s immigration lawyers, and adds cannon fodder for anti-immigration cranks.  However, the problem of ghost consultants cannot be legislated away.  Similarly, no educational campaign will reduce the presence of ghost consultants.  Ghost consultants fill a market niche that cannot be filled by Canada’s immigration lawyers and Canadian immigration consultants: clients who actually intend to break Canada’s immigration laws. Every experienced Toronto or Vancouver or other Canadian immigration lawyer has come across such a client.  The client either does not meet the criteria imposed by Canada’s immigration laws or feels too inconvenienced by the strictures of Canada’s immigration laws.  I consulted with such a person once.  This person was convinced that simply buying real estate in Canada entitled him to Canadian immigration status.  I told him that at best, this may be part of a broader strategy for his immigration to Canada.  When I told him that this fact itself does not confer any special status for obtaining Canadian immigration, he got up, threw his consultation fee on my boardroom table and left my office.  He wanted to give me the impression that he was wasting his time consulting with me on Canadian immigration matters.  However, you cannot legislate morality.  No matter how much harsher the penalty for violating Canada’s immigration laws, there will always be willing law breakers.  The ghost consultants will be there to serve this market niche despite the penalties.

  • 08Feb

    The February 2 2010 edition of the Globe and Mail contained an article stating that Immigration Minister Jason Kenney will ‘crack down’ on unscrupulous immigration consultants after it was revealed that the RCMP are investigating as many as 300 citizenship applicants who claimed to live at the same address.

    What does this mean in reality?  First, the processing of citizenship applications is clearly within the mandate of Minister Jason Kenney’s department.  It is an embarrassment to his bureaucracy that 300 citizenship applications are apparently completely fraudulent.  This cheapens the value of Canadian citizenship.  To overcome this bureaucratic gaffe, tough talk must be employed, hence the phrase “crackdown”.

    The crackdown consists of proposed amendments to the regulations, “that will include much more severe penalties for furnishing people with advice to commit fraud or [submit] fraudulent documents.”    The Minister did not specify what the proposed regulations would consist of.  However, it is worth mentioning that as they stand, the current law imposes stiff penalties for counseling somebody to lie on an immigration application:

    126. Every person who knowingly counsels, induces, aids or abets or attempts to counsel, induce, aid or abet any person to directly or indirectly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act is guilty of an offence.

    128. A person who contravenes a provision of section 126…is guilty of an offence and liable

    (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both; or

    (b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both.

    Given the relatively stiff penalties already present, the problem of fraudulent citizenship applications doesn’t appear to be one that can be allayed through penalties.

    Mr. Kenney acknowledged that the problem is widespread having attended citizenship interviews at the Mississauga Citizenship office.  He told the Globe and Mail, “I myself went and sat in on some interviews that our officials had with citizenship applicants recently in Mississauga, and I saw cases where an applicant was living at an address where 25 other people were supposedly living – 25 other applicants for citizenship were registered.”

    A contact I have spoken to at the Canada Border Services Agency tell me that the Citizenship branch of Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration department is a “Mickey Mouse” outfit.  This might be true, given the largely boilerplate decisions that are issued by citizenship judges.  Some citizenship judges may be sensitized to this perception, given the propensity of some citizenship judges to interrogate legitimate citizenship applicants over the slightest aberration in their citizenship application.  My immigration law practice has benefited from clients with otherwise solid citizenship applications who who hired me after going through a harsh and threatening Canadian citizenship interview.  My assistance to these clients invariably consists of simply citing the law and asking the citizenship judge to apply it.

    The Globe and Mail was also told by the Minister of Immigration, “We are developing some techniques to track that kind of obvious evidence of fraud.”  This is quite likely true.  It is not a difficult exercise to acquire some software that engages in data mining, looking for common traits in more than one citizenship application, such as an implausibly large amount of people residing at the same address.

    Keeping with the fact that the Globe and Mail is a newspaper of record, it mentioned in the second paragraph, “The case revolves around an address located in the same building as Palestine House, a Mississauga centre that offers language classes and settlement services to new immigrants and also acts as an advocate for Palestinian and Arab causes,” all of which is accurate.  It was wise to position this connection to Palestine House not in the headline, or the first paragraph, but in a position further down.  This would allay concerns that the Globe and Mail is pandering to the anti-immigrant sentiment that is in every developed country to some degree or other.  That task would be left to other newspapers with more expansive sports sections and prolific advertising of electronics.  The Globe and Mail article also mentioned that it was an immigration consultant that rented space from Palestine House in 2007 before disappearing, who is of interest to the RCMP.  This latter fact also properly distances the fraudulent immigration consultant from his landlords at Palestine House.

    The Minister said another part of his strategy will involve reaching beyond Canadian borders to influence foreign governments in major immigration source countries. He said something must be done to tackle the “Wild West environment for immigration consultants” in those jurisdictions, where consultants promote ways to beat Canada’s laws and obtain citizenship without really living in the country. However, he did admit that the likelihood of cooperation from foreign governments would be highly unlikely when he added, “India, for example, has no legislation on this at all. Nothing,” and, “It may be a bit Pollyannaish of me to think that it will actually have an effect, but I think we need to push this as a diplomatic priority in these countries.”

    What Canada’s immigration department won’t admit is that the more immigration applications they receive, the better.  With some exceptions, it does not matter to the immigration department that an application for Canadian immigration or Canadian citizenship is represented by someone who is competent.  The ideal is to receive as many applications as possible which would justify funding to Canada’s immigration department.  Applications for Canadian visas which are assisted by ‘ghost consultants’ tend to be easier to refuse than applications completed with the assistance of a Canadian immigration lawyer (which are characterized by the citation of law and adducing of evidence).

  • 01Feb

    The often long road to acquiring a Canadian permanent resident visa is often squandered because of the failure to maintain one’s permanent resident status.  The permanent resident who falls into this difficulty is often one who lands in Canada and fails to find employment in Canada and is forced to find work outside of Canada.  There are numerous other scenarios such as a permanent resident who is subject to some legal (or other) obligation that forces them to remain outside of Canada.

    Keeping Permanent Resident Status

    A permanent resident must, within a five year period spend at least a total of at least 730 days in Canada within that five-year period. Otherwise, one can be outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent, or be employed outside Canada on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or the Canadian government, or be the child or spouse of a person who is employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or a Canadian governmental entity.

    What Happens if the Obligation is Not Met?

    If a permanent resident does not fall into one of the circumstances described above, then they will be issued a deportation order. The deportation order usually is issued by a visa office outside of Canada.  This often happens when a permanent resident fails to pick up their permanent resident card from an immigration office in Canada (which they must do personally).  Their old permanent resident card expires and they are unable to board a plane back to Canada.  They apply at a visa office for a travel document to return to Canada, and during the course of that travel document application, it is revealed by the permanent resident that they have been outside of Canada for more than 730 days.

    Why Does the Canadian Government Want Permanent Residents to Maintain This Obligation?

    The concern of the government is likely related to the collection of tax revenues by permanent residents who remain outside of Canada at a job and do not declare their worldwide income to the Canadian government.  Indeed, at appeals of persons who failed to meet this obligation (at the IRB), I have seen the government lawyer rant to the Judge about how the infrastructure of Canada (schools, hospitals, etc) was financed by the Canadians who worked in Canada their whole lives.  This is true. Indeed, my parents struggled in Canada toiling at blue collar jobs for most of their working lives.  But this fails to acknowledge that much of Canada’s infrastructure was built at a time when immigration to Canada was based on race rather than not merit.  In other words, had Canada’s immigration system been more open in the ‘40s ‘50s, and early ‘60s, you would have had people from more diverse backgrounds who could proclaim their contribution to Canada during those years.

    Similarly, the perception of Canada as a great country (owing to a United Nations Survey more than a decade ago) has given the Canadian immigration department (that designed the point system) the impression that Canada will automatically attract the world’s best and brightest.  I disagree with this spurious pretention.

    The reality is that there is a form of gridlock between the recognition of professional credentials (which is a Provincial matter), and the Federal bureaucrats who decide which immigrants can enter Canada.  The result is that for example, Federal bureaucrats allow physicians to obtain permanent resident status, but their credentials are for the most part not recognized by the Provincial authorities.

    If I was a recent skilled immigrant to Canada I would not like to choose between toiling at a semi-skilled job in Canada unable to provide for my family, or chancing the loss of permanent resident status by returning to my country of origin and working in the field which corresponds with my training.

    I would like to see some additional flexibility in the residency obligation to recognize permanent residents who sincerely tried to find work in Canada but could not. If they paid their taxes on their income made outside of Canada, then Canada would not lose.  This is particularly the case where the main bread winner in a family returns to his or her country of origin to work and leaves the rest of the family in Canada.  Of necessity, the family will spend the foreign-earned income of the breadwinner in Canada, which is a boon to the Canadian economy. If the presumption of Canada as hospitable to immigrants is to be made congruent with the current Canadian immigration law, the residency obligation should be made to be more flexible.

  • 25Jan

    A recent bulletin (170) by the Canada’s immigration department has clarified the assessment of language skills for persons seeking a temporary work permit.  This bulletin reminds visa officers and port of entry officers that the level of English or French for a work permit holder must be related to the job being performed.

    A helpful excerpt states,

    “…it is not appropriate for an officer to consider perceived challenges the applicant might face in interacting with the broader community, such as availing him/herself of community services, if this is not relevant to their job performance. Such a consideration is beyond the scope of the current legislation.”

    This bulletin confirms that persons employed in such tasks as fruit pickers, and ethnic food cooks do not have to demonstrate a particular level of one of Canada’s official languages unless it is relevant for the performance of the job being offered in Canada.  This coheres nicely with the current occupation list for federal skilled workers which includes chefs.

    This bulletin is of course being made with regard to the language needs of the job being offered.  Thus, it is obvious that a nanny on a live-in caregiver work permit must have a sufficient knowledge of one of Canada’s official languages to navigate such essential services like reading medication bottles, or calling 911.

    In the grand scheme of Canadian society, Canadian farmers will not have to pick their own produce.  Further, this move may eventually see more foreign workers displace Canadians in more lucrative jobs.  This has been a concern in the recent past:

    http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=7630d07f-e129-49ac-ae48-75da68043990&k=91072

    Some companies like Maple Leaf Foods in Manitoba have availed themselves of foreign workers and are creating a system by which work permit holders can obtain permanent resident status in Canada:

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/01/05/mb-foreign-workers-contract-maple-leaf-manitoba.html

    There is of course nothing wrong with Maple Leaf foods employing foreigners on temporary work visas, as long as it is true that local Canadians are not interested in working there. This latter issue is the mandate of a different government office, Service Canada.

    Working Temporarily in Canada – English or French Optional?

    A recent bulletin (170) by the Canada’s immigration department has clarified the assessment of language skills for persons seeking a temporary work permit. This bulletin reminds visa officers and port of entry officers that the level of English or French for a work permit holder must be related to the job being performed.

    A helpful excerpt states,

    “…it is not appropriate for an officer to consider perceived challenges the applicant might face in interacting with the broader community, such as availing him/herself of community services, if this is not relevant to their job performance. Such a consideration is beyond the scope of the current legislation.”

    This bulletin confirms that persons employed in such tasks as fruit pickers, and ethnic food cooks do not have to demonstrate a particular level of one of Canada’s official languages unless it is relevant for the performance of the job being offered in Canada. This coheres nicely with the current occupation list for federal skilled workers which includes chefs.

    This bulletin is of course being made with regard to the language needs of the job being offered. Thus, it is obvious that a nanny on a live-in caregiver work permit must have a sufficient knowledge of one of Canada’s official languages to navigate such essential services like reading medication bottles, or calling 911.

    In the grand scheme of Canadian society, Canadian farmers will not have to pick their own produce. Further, this move may eventually see more foreign workers displace Canadians in more lucrative jobs. This has been a concern in the recent past:

    http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=7630d07f-e129-49ac-ae48-75da68043990&k=91072

    Some companies like Maple Leaf Foods in Manitoba have availed themselves of foreign workers and are creating a system by which work permit holders can obtain permanent resident status in Canada:

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/01/05/mb-foreign-workers-contract-maple-leaf-manitoba.html

    There is of course nothing wrong with Maple Leaf foods employing foreigners on temporary work visas, as long as it is true that local Canadians are not interested in working there. This latter issue is the mandate of a different government office, Service Canada.

  • 18Jan

    The modern (post modern?) world of work is characterized by uncertainty arising from fickle or stingy employers.  This is not an era where a person stays at the same employer for 30 years, and benefits from a generous pension thereafter.

    Perhaps because of the world economy, characterized by the overabundance of qualified people seeking fewer employment opportunities, the Minister of Immigration to Canada now acknowledges that persons who are seeking skilled immigration to Canada may have gaps in their employment, and need not remain with the same employer for more than a year.  In addition, the reality of workers who often freelance on a contractual basis for a few months is also acknowledged.

    The occupation list for skilled immigration to Canada is generally preoccupied with the following sectors: the health needs of Canada’s population, the renovation needs of Canada’s homes, the satiating of Canadians who like to dine out, and the extraction of Canada’s natural resources.   The presence of a few of the occupations on the demand list appears to be a mystery, such as university and college professors.

    On January 8, 2010 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration issued a Clarification on the issue of continuous full-time experience and a break in the continuity of employment.  Persons who are applying as Federal Skilled Workers who require at least one year of “continuous” full-time (or equivalent part-time) paid work experience in the last ten years in one or more of the 38 occupations listed in the current occupation list.  The Minister also clarified the issue of breaks in continuity of employment for other skilled worker applicants.

    The Ministerial Instructions require one-year of “continuous” full-time or equivalent paid work experience within the last 10 years of the application being filed.

    As a result of the January 8 2010 change, immigration to Canada under the Federal skilled worker category can be supported by any combination of full-time or part-time work experience in one of the 38 occupations as long as the aggregate work experience totals at least one year.

    The relevant quote from the Minister is below:

    Effective immediately, the requirement of having at least one year of continuous full-time or equivalent paid work experience in the last ten years in “one or more” NOC code in the MI means that an SW1 applicant may use any combination of full-time or part-time work experience in more than one eligible NOC category in the last 10 years in calculating their one year of continuous work experience, as long as their experience adds up to at least one year. [Emphasis in Original]

    For example, an SW1 applicant would be eligible under the MI if they had 7 months of full-time (or equivalent) work experience in NOC 6242 immediately followed by 10 months full-time (or equivalent) work experience in NOC 6241 in the last 10 years. Experience accumulated in each NOC counts towards calculating one year of continuous experience. It is not necessary for the NOCs to be in related occupations, as long as all NOCs are listed in the Ministerial Instructions.

    Previous instructions that an applicant cannot make up the one year of continuous full-time employment experience in a series of continuous periods of employment in different occupations that total one year are revoked.

    The Minister also confirmed that anticipated short breaks between jobs are acceptable:

    For example, if an applicant is employed in one occupation for a 4 month contract and before the end of that contract, has secured other employment that will begin shortly after the end of the first contract, this break in continuity would be acceptable. For SW1 applicants the occupations must be one that is listed in the MI.

    The Minister also promised instructions on how to proceed with applications that were previously found ineligible for processing due to the old interpretation of “continuous full-time or equivalent paid work experience” in a future bulletin.

  • 11Jan

    On December 14 2009, Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minster Jason Kenney announced proposed changes to the Live-in Caregiver program that are intended to help protect foreign workers on live-in Caregiver work permits:

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Canada+make+easier+live+caregivers+from+abroad+obtain+residency/2331965/story.html

    “These important changes help fulfill Canada’s duty to those who care for our young, our disabled and our elderly. The Government of Canada is taking action to protect foreign workers from potential abuse and exploitation,” said Kenney.

    One proposed change is that live-in caregivers will not have to undergo a second medical examination at the time that they apply for Canadian permanent residence, as they will have already undergone one prior to their arrival in Canada.  The consequence of only one medical examination would be to allow live-in caregivers to be allowed permanent residence even if they subsequently become a burden on Canada’s health system.

    A significant proposed change is that the number of hours caregivers have worked will be counted towards their qualification for Canadian permanent residence, as opposed to number of days. This will ensure that caregivers who work overtime hours will be able to qualify for a permanent resident visa sooner than before.

    In addition, caregivers would have four years to complete these work requirements instead of the currently mandated three years.

    The problematic change Kenney is proposing involves the obligations Canadian employers of live-in caregivers. Canadian employers will be responsible for the costs of travel to Canada, for medical and workplace safety insurance, as well as for any recruitment fees involved in bringing their live-in caregivers to Canada.  Employment contracts will also have to be more explicit in terms of job duties, hours, benefits and holidays and sick leave.

    There is a contest of vulnerabilities in this situation.  Live-in caregivers can be vulnerable to unscrupulous employers whose patronage is a pre-requisite for the caregiver’s obtaining permanent resident status.  Such employers can through concerted efforts or indifference scuttle the permanent resident application of a caregiver.  Mr. Kenney’s quote (above) only addresses the vulnerability of the caregiver, not the persons who are being taken care of: the elderly and children.  Kenney’s proposals may be an attempt to level the playing field too much in favour of caregivers.

    It is worth mentioning that the Canadian government has not bothered to implement measures such as a national childcare program.  Elder abuse is a problem in Ontario to the extent that there are televised public service advertisements discussing it.

    What will families with working parents do if they cannot afford the airfare, insurance, and immigration lawyer fees required for a live-in caregiver?  There may be no recourse for a Canadian employer who has paid the requisite fees for the caregiver to come to Canada and is faced with a nanny who left for a different job after a few weeks.  Such a financial risk may militate against having a nanny.

    Many Canadian immigration lawyers charge at least a couple of thousand dollars for the work permit that allows caregivers a path to Canadian permanent residency.  The pool of potential employers in Canada may be reduced because of this added expense, not to mention the overly legal, formal relationship this would create with the caregiver who would live in their home.  Some women may drop out of the work force to stay home, which may compromise the competitiveness of the Canadian economy.

    Anecdotally, the children in my neighbourhood whose parents utilize caregivers are smaller, more emaciated and more glassy-eyed, compared to the children taken care of by a family member. Often, a caregiver sees her job as simply keeping a child out of danger, and placating the child with tasty snacks and passive media like television and video games.  Educating is often not in the job description.  This does not constitute taking care of a child.  The proposed changes would not do anything to address this concern.

    Although the live-in caregiver program does not prohibit relatives from being employed as caregivers, the criteria bars persons who do not have a good level of English language ability, and who do not have experience or related education.  This would mean that retired and active grandparents or an aunt from back home may not qualify unless the two aforementioned criteria are met.

  • 03Jan

    Who would have thought that an young Nigerian man named Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was a terrorist?

    What does a terrorist look like? Is his name always going to include the title ‘Abdul’?  You may remember The Shoe Bomber.  The Shoe Bomber (aka Richard Reid) was bi-racial (half Caucasian), and appears ethnically ambiguous, neither black, or white or brown.  His name does not sound particularly ‘Muslim-ee’.  Would the average security person at Pearson International Airport in Toronto know the difference between a Hindu name, and a Muslim one?  What about the name Chaudhary which is spelled dozens of ways and is carried by Hindus as well as Muslims in countries located in East Africa, not to mention India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Malaysia?  Similarly, well travelled or well read persons would know that there are millions of Arab Christians who have “Muslim-ee” sounding names (like Abdul) and are at first glance indistinguishable from your average Sicilian or Spaniard.

    On a US-based flight shortly after 9-11, some passengers were alarmed (or terrorized) at the sight of Mediterranean-looking men wearing skull caps, and  were quietly chanting while the plane was landing.  Further investigation revealed the men to be not terrorists, but Orthodox Jews in prayer. I have met Sephardic Jews who look like some South Asian people I know.

    Persons familiar with the developing world would be aware that Muslims are not readily identifiable on the basis of their skin tone, and range from Bosnian-white to Subsaharan-black or Uighur Chinese.  Does anyone remember John Walker Lindh, the young white guy who was raised in Northern California, and had the misfortune of being in Afghanistan when the US invaded during October 2002?

    By contrast, proponents of profiling (often in the context of decrying political correctness,) assert that profiling on the basis of one’s country origin and religion is a no-brainer.  These persons see the sources of terrorism in simplistic, cartoonish and vaguely defined terms.   The reality is, however, that there is a scientific basis for concluding random screening is as effective as profiling passengers on the basis of race or perceived religion:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16521-random-checks-as-effective-as-terrorist-profiling.html

    This is not to say that profiling should be completely prohibited.  For example, a young male boarding a plane bound to the US, who was discovered carrying a large amount of cash, and passports for more than one country, with entry stamps indicating that he visited the Sudan and subsequently visited Afghanistan and Yemen should be thoroughly questioned about his purpose of visiting the USA.  His person may also have to be thoroughly searched.  This would be reasonable.  Can all of this information be gleaned by low-level security screeners at Transport Canada who are viewing an x-ray of your baggage, and waving a plastic wand around you? Not likely.

« Previous Entries   



Site Meter