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.

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.

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.

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.