On May 13, 2015, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness introduced Bill C-60, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, also known as the Removal of Serious Foreign Criminals Act (“Bill C-60Removal of Serious Foreign Criminals Act”). Bill C-60 will: Make it easier and faster to remove certain foreign nationals and permanent residents who are inadmissible to Canada for serious criminality. Make all foreign nationals and certain permanent residents ineligible for a record suspension. Allow the Correctional Service of Canada to inform registered victims of crime of the date and destination of criminals released from immigration detention; and Make it easier for Canada to transfer criminals without their consent to serve their sentence in their home country. A more detailed breakdown of the provisions is as follows:
Consequences of Recent Changes to Live-in Caregiver Program
The following article appeared in the January edition of The Canadian Immigrant. At the end of the article I have reproduced two Access to Information Act which confirm the great reduction in the program.
Government of Canada Commits to Initiating Removal Against 875 Refugees Per Year
The following is an article that I wrote for the May edition of The Canadian Immigrant. ————————————————- In January 2014, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) released Operational Bulletin: PRG-2013-59, which states that the CBSA has committed to referring a minimum of 875 refugee vacation or cessation cases per year to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). News of this bulletin, and the apparent resolve of CBSA to reach its quota, puts many in the refugee community at risk. It is important that all refugees who became permanent residents, and refugees who are not yet permanent residents, understand its implications. Vacating versus cessation The “vacating” of refugee status occurs when the RPD determines that a refugee claim was successful as a result of the claimant misrepresenting or withholding material facts. A person whose refugee status is vacated loses both their permanent resident status and their protected person status. In contrast to vacating, “cessation” of a refugee’s status can occur without fraud, which is why it has attracted criticism. The RPD may determine that a person’s refugee status has ceased if: the person has voluntarily re-availed himself or herself of the protection of their country of nationality the person has voluntarily reacquired … Read More
Several LMIA Changes Taking Effect April 30, 2015
The Ministry of Employment and Social Development (“ESDC”) has announced that there will be several changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (“TFWP”) that will take effect on April 30, 2015. The changes are: Implementation of new High and Low-wage Streams Updating the Provincial / Territorial Median Hourly Wages Increasing Worker Protections Modifying the Method for Calculating the Cap on Low Wage Positions Implementing the Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA”) system fully in Quebec Updating Regions of Refusal to Process
Where the Conservative Party of Canada Stands on Immigration (2011 and 2015)
On October 19, 2015, Canada will have a federal election. There are three political parties that may form government. One of them is the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservative Party of Canada has made the following election promises regarding immigration: Continue to make the immigration system faster, flexible, and more responsive to the needs of Canada’s economy. Continue to be a world leader in refugee protection. Increase the intake of applications for the parents and grandparents sponsorship program, as the backlog and processing times continue to decrease. Provide increased funding to Citizenship and Immigration Canada to clear the citizenship backlog over a two-year period. Comments I previously wrote in Policy Options on how the Conservative Party of Canada completely overhauled Canada’s immigration system. Looking at their 2015 platform, I guess they’re done. Below you can find their 2011 commitments, for comparison’s sake.
Where the New Democratic Party Stands on Immigration (2015 and 2011)
On October 19, 2015, Canada will have a federal election. There are three political parties that may form government. One of them is the New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party has made the following election promises regarding immigration: Remove the cap on parent and grandparent sponsorships imposed by the Conservatives. Reduce wait times by increasing resources to reduce the huge backlogs in processing applications. Put greater priority on family reunification, especially the reunion of children with their parents. Fully restore the Interim Federal Health Care Program for refugees, as ordered by the Federal Court. Reverse the what the NDP calls discriminatory changes to refugee determination and ensure that every refugee claimant receives a fair and unbiased hearing. Make the visitor visa system more transparent and accountable, including by creating an appeal process. Create an ombudsperson for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to investigate complaints and monitor human rights. In consultation with communities, provinces and territories, introduce a comprehensive action plan to foster immigration to Francophone minority communities across the country. Resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees in Canada by the end of this year. Welcome 9,000 Syrian refugees per year starting in 2016. Create a Syrian Refugee Coordinator to expedite and coordinate the … Read More
Certified Question on Removal Orders for Permanent Resident Visa Holders at the Port of Entry
On March 17, 2015, Justice Montigny in Ismail v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 338 (“Ismail“), certified the following question: For the purposes of determining its jurisdiction to hear an appeal pursuant to subsection 63(2) of the IRPA, shall the validity of the permanent resident visa be assessed by the IAD at the time of arrival in Canada or at the time the exclusion order is made?
Federal Court Affirms New ESDC Internal Part-Time Recruitment Policy
In January 2015 the Federal Court released its decision in Frankie’s Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. The Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada, 2015 FC 27 (“Frankie’s Burgers“). Frankie’s Burgers is one of the first Federal Court decisions involving an employer seeking judicial review of a decision of the Ministry of Economic and Social Development Canada (“ESDC“) to not issue a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA“), which was then referred to as a Labour Market Opinion (“LMO“). Frankie’s Burgers should be read by all representatives and employers who submit LMIAs. In my opinion, the case shows that the Federal Court seems prepared to show much greater deference to ESDC in its administration of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (the “TFWP“) than it does to both Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board. Lawyers who were anticipating that the Federal Court would force ESDC to change some of its (often internal and secretive) policies should also take pause.
CIC to Begin Sharing Information on Citizenship Applicants with the Canada Revenue Agency
On February 28, 2015, the Government of Canada announced in the Canada Gazette that it would begin enhanced information sharing between Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) and the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA“). To many representatives who have been stunned at how many people can seemingly get away with reporting different information to the two government departments this is welcome news.
Supreme Court of Canada Affirms That State Cannot Undermine Duty of Loyalty to Client
The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC“) in Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2015 SCC 7, has affirmed that some provisions of Canada’s anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing duties unreasonably impedes the lawyer’s duties to both keep their clients’ confidences and to act with the commitment to serving and protecting their clients’ legitimate interests. In doing so, the SCC has held that it should be recognized as a principle of fundamental justice that the state cannot impose duties on lawyers that undermine their duty of commitment to their clients’ causes. The SCC’s decision contained the following key passages: The duty of lawyers to avoid conflicting interests is at the heart of both the general legal framework defining the fiduciary duties of lawyers to their clients and of the ethical principles governing lawyers’ professional conduct. This duty aims to avoid two types of risks of harm to clients: the risk of misuse of confidential information and the risk of impairment of the lawyer’s representation of the client (see, e.g., Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 649, at para. 23). The Court has recognized that aspects of these fiduciary and ethical duties … Read More