Gerami Law PC Ready for the New Skilled Trades Stream

Gerami Law PC is all set to make intakes for the new Skilled Trades Stream Immigration program which was unveiled yesterday by Minister of Citizenship Immigration and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney.

The new stream which targets foreign skilled trade workers will start accepting applications in January 2013.

Minister Kenney has pointed out that the Skilled Trades Stream will help address serious labor shortages in some regions of the country, including remote regions such as Northern Ontario, and will help grow the economy.

With only an acceptance rate of 3,000 applications in the program's first year, Gerami Law PC advises clients to start filing their applications and that it will be best to use a professional representative to overcome complications and delays.

Applicants to the skilled trades program will not have to meet the criteria of the points system used for the rest of the federal skilled worker category.

Instead, the new program will give weight to applicants who:

  • Have a job offer in Canada;
  • Have basic proficiency in French or English, but not at the level required by the skilled worker points system;
  • Can prove they have recently worked in the trade and have a minimum of two years’ experience;
  • Can show their occupation falls within the federal trade classification system.
  • The federal government will consult with the provinces to come up with a list of jobs where there are vacancies before January. The list is expected to include such trades as pipe-fitters, mechanics, transportation jobs and electricians.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/08/pol-skilled-trades-program-kenney.html


Short-Sighted and Inhumane Refugee Policy with Long-Term and Costly Implications

The innocence of refugees unlawfully entering the country of refuge is an important article embedded in the 1951 Refugee Convention which Canada is a signatory to; however, the recently decried amendments created under Bill C-31; Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act unequivocally violates this article by arbitrarily detaining and denying health care to refugee claimants deemed to be “irregular” arrivals or from the so-called “safe” countries and the “designated countries of origin”.

According to article 31, (1) of the Convention, the Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Stated thus, the implementation of the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) cuts orchestrated against refugee claimants by the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney are in contravention of Canada’s international human rights obligations as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The federal government should take heed of health experts’ advice that the cuts are inhumane and constitute systematic continuation of torture, cruelty and degrading punishment. Medical groups have counselled the Minister responsible to abandon the changes and that change to the program should be consistent with international human rights standards and be non-discriminatory.

Encroachment is also rendered to the three types of protection within Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms namely; the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. The right to life and security of the person is being violated as refugee claimants are currently being denied access to health care to treat life threatening diseases whereas the right to security of person is being violated as some refugee claimants are currently being arbitrarily detained under the notion that they are “irregular” arrivals.

The new laws that amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) are oblivious to the fact that health is a human right in International Law under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25) which stipulates thateveryone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.

Minister Jason Kenney’s laws moreover come in force at a time when Canada has build a reputation as a long standing member of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which makes the right to health legally binding. Article 12 of the (ICESCR) denotes that every country which is a signatory to the Covenant should recognise the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Article 12 (d) calls for the creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

By signing the Covenant, Canada is bound under international law to observe the provisions of the ICESCR, which prohibits discrimination and stipulates that non-discrimination is essential to the enjoyment of the right to the highest attainable standard of health. The 1951 Refugee Convention also points that refugees should enjoy access to health services equivalent to that of the host population and that the health of refugees and other forcibly displaced people is a key component of protection that host countries who are signatories to the convention should observe.

Currently some refugee claimants in Canada are reported to be left with minimal access to health care than they would receive in refugee camps. Reports are now coming out citing cases proving that newly arrived refugee claimants are having a hard time getting admitted in Walk-in-Clinics to receive primary health care. Some doctor’s in Walk-in-Clinics are said to be no longer willing to see refugee claimants because they are afraid they would not receive payment for the billing.

At present some refugee claimants are alleged to only receive medical coverage when their conditions are deemed to be a threat to the public, such as when they have communicable diseases or in an acute psychotic state. This new development which affects victims of torture fleeing persecution from their countries is unprecedented since post world war. Ever since the Minister Jason Kenney started the implementation of the IFHP cuts, many newly arrived refugees in Canada are reported to be feeling the knocks and shocks of the inhumane exclusion. According to Minister Kenney, the cuts serve as a deterrence geared towards discouraging “bogus” refugee claimants from coming to take advantage of the Canadian Health Care System. What the minister forgets is that the last thing refugees think of when fleeing persecution is a health care system.

A report by Doctors for Refugee Care decries the eliminated refugee claimants’ medication which includes life saving medications such as insulin, anti-epileptics, and psychiatric medications. The Doctors for Refugee care also condemn Minister Kenney for cutting vision, dental and supplementary benefits care. They say refugee claimants from non-designated countries of origin, now only receive medical care if the condition is urgent or essential. Those from so-called “safe” countries and rejected refugee claimants are said to no longer receive any medical assessment and treatment at all with an exception for conditions seen as threatening public health or safety.

Medical experts argue that delaying treatment of refugees only incurs more complications in the future and have criticised these cut as bad policy that will prove to be more costly at the end. They have pointed out that Refugees have real trauma and have difficulties getting engaged in the health system and that not having access to timely intervention means that many health conditions, from physical conditions such as diabetes and cardiac diseases to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder may escalate to crisis levels, requiring more costly emergency or inpatient care. This legislation is therefore viewed as not only ethically flawed but is denounced as fiscally unjustified and is feared to have the propensity to lead to more costs for Canadian taxpayers.

The following is a sample of cases catalogued by the Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care in which IFHP entitled refugee claimants have been refused coverage and care:

  • A young child from Africa with a high fever but has no health insurance because his IFHP has not been activated;
  • A woman in her third trimester of pregnancy develops pre-eclampsia, a potentially lethal disease, but has no coverage to treat her condition;
  • A man with a rectal mass is turned away from care a multitude of times although he should have health insurance according to the government’s own policy;
  • A young child from Africa could not get a chest X-ray after her IFHP was issued but there was a delay in its implementation. She eventually was found to have pneumonia;
  • A man is scheduled for surgery for a kidney stone causing an enlarged kidney but may have to cancel the surgery as he waits over two months for renewal of his coverage;
  • Two young children with multiple hospitalizations for asthma cannot get access to their inhalers leaving them at risk for seeking out care through emergency departments;
  • A woman missed her opportunity to get prenatal screening because she awaits the initiation of IFHP coverage. The baby will be a Canadian citizen;

The exercise of discretionary powers to target this vulnerable population, impose designations and use such designations to deny them health care, is contrary to international human rights, and the humane and compassionate tradition for which the international community had so long recognized Canada.  This reputation has unfortunately increasingly come under attack in the recent years by the progressively inhumane and unfair policies of the present government.  It is incumbent on all Canadians to voice their concerns, and to demand that the government implement a more even handed and fair refugee policy, which also respects Canada’s international human rights obligations.


immigration canada

BILL C-43 - FASTER REMOVAL OF FOREIGN CRIMINALS ACT, AN ACT TO AMEND THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT

Bill C-43 was introduced in the House of Commons on 20th June 2012 by Jason Kenney, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.[1]

Bill C-43 amends the inadmissibility-related provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which determine who may not enter or remain in Canada.

Bill C-43 seeks to amend and add provisions related to:

  • Evaluating inadmissibility
  • The consequences of being found inadmissible on certain grounds and of having inadmissible family members
  • Granting relief from inadmissibility
  • New regulatory authorities for immigration applications
  • Formal procedures for the renunciation of permanent resident status

Bill C-43 has several problematic provisions since it seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) to give the minister immense discretionary power to decide whether an individual is ineligible to become a temporary resident for up to three years on “public policy considerations.” Additionally, Bill C-43 would ease the way to deport refugees, permanent residents, and visitors for “serious criminality” – crimes where the punishment is six months or more imprisonment. This article will go through an overview of the proposed changes and highlight some of the more problematic provisions in detail.

Overview of the Changes

A list of all the changes which are made by the Act may be found at this link: and the revised bill is available at this link.

Highlights of the proposed changes under Bill C-43 include[2]:

  • The process for deporting foreign nationals found inadmissible on security grounds, for violating human and international rights, or for organized criminality would be streamlined by limiting access to the Immigration Appeal Division. This would in turn reduce the time that individuals may remain in Canada by up to 14 months.
  • A rule that would deny an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division for individuals with foreign convictions for crimes that would carry a maximum sentence of 10 years or more in Canada.
  • A rule that would deny entry to Canada to those with a family member inadmissible for security and human rights reasons or organized crime connections, even if that family member is not travelling with them
  • Increased consequences for those applicants who misrepresent themselves or provide false information on their immigration applications. The bar on admissibility would increase from two years to five years. As a result, anyone who gives false information on their immigration application will not be allowed to enter Canada for five years.
  • Mandatory CSIS interviews if requested by officials
  • Reporting conditions for those under deportation orders
  • Automatic inadmissibility for non-Canadians and permanent residents for acts of espionage or acts against Canada’s interests.

Effect of Changes

Some of the more problematic provisions are discussed in greater detail below:

Limitation of Humanitarian and Compassionate Applications for Foreign Nationals

Applications for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations may be made either by a foreign national or on the Minister’s initiative. Bill C-43 acts to change sections 25 and 25.1 of IRPA to exclude a foreign national who is deemed to be inadmissible on security grounds, for violating human and international rights, or for organized criminality from applying for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

The effect of this change is to eliminate one of the options for entering or staying in Canada for individuals found inadmissible on the above grounds. Ministerial relief and the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment still remain options for the group of people under this category; however, a positive Pre-Removal Risk Assessment does not result in confer protected person status but only stays removal from Canada.

Longer Penalty for Misrepresentation on Application

Clause 16 of Bill C-43 acts to increase the penalty for misrepresentation, so that a permanent resident or foreign national who misrepresents on an application may not enter or remain in Canada for five years (previously the ban was 2 years). Clause 16 also adds that a foreign national may not apply for permanent resident status while they are inadmissible for misrepresentation.

Change in Definition of Serious Criminality

Section 36 of IRPA provides for the definition of inadmissibility on grounds of serious criminality using sentence terms in Canada and their equivalent for acts committed outside Canada. Bill C-43 acts to widen the scope of groups who fall within the definition of serious criminality in the inadmissibility context.

Under the current IRPA, serious criminality is defined as a crime punished in Canada by at least a term of two years of imprisonment. Clause 24 of Bill C-43 changes this definition by stating that serious criminality is a crime punished in Canada by a term of at least six months imprisonment. Individuals that are inadmissible on serious criminality grounds may not appeal their decision to the Immigration Appeal Division. By lowering the standard of serious criminality from 2 years to 6 months, Bill C-43 seeks to preclude individuals from access to the Immigration Appeal Division to appeal their inadmissibility finding and removal order.

Clause 24 also seeks to preclude rights of appeal for those who are found inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for convictions that constitute an offence outside of Canada, and that if committed in Canada would be an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment for at least 10 years.

Several countries have other standards for what constitutes a crime. For example, in some countries, simply being a member of an opposition party constitutes a serious crime. Bill C-43 would also apply to these individuals who have been convicted abroad.

This change is also problematic since new sentences brought in by the Conservatives’ crime legislation make a whole host of non-violent crimes subject to mandatory minimums. People convicted of offences that may not be considered serious, such as threatening or mischief, will be included under serious criminality. Additionally, with denying access to appeal, there would be no chance for any consideration of the circumstances of the offender, such as whether it was a first offence or how children may be affected by the deportation.

Inadmissibility Based on Family Members

Section 42 of IRPA states that a foreign national may not enter or remain in Canada if they are accompanying a family member who is inadmissible. However, if the foreign national has a family member who is inadmissible but is non-accompanying, the foreign national may enter Canada as long as they have not made an application for permanent residence and the non-accompanying inadmissible family member is not a spouse or a dependant child.

Bill C-43 acts to change this provision so that temporary residents and applicants for that status are inadmissible if their family member is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human and international rights, or organized criminality, even if the inadmissible family member is non-accompanying.

Broadened Ministerial Powers

Clause 8 of Bill C-43 gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the authority to issue a declaration regarding a foreign national. The declaration made by the Minister on their own initiative has the effect of preventing a foreign national to become a temporary resident. If the Minister issues a negative declaration, a foreign national must not seek to enter or remain in Canada as a temporary resident. This decision by the Minister is to be founded based on their opinion and justified by public policy considerations. However, public policy considerations are a very broad and vague concept which remains undefined in the IRPA. As a result of these arbitrary powers that will rest with the Minister, the immigration system would become even more politicized.

References:

Julie Bechard and Sandra Elgersma, “Legislative Summary of Bill C-43: An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act)” 41st Parliament, 1st Session. Available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?source=library_prb&ls=C43&Parl=41&Ses=1&Language=E&Mode=1#a1

Laura Payton, “Deporting foreign criminals bill moved forward in House” (CBC News) http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/24/pol-deporting-criminals-bill-moves-forward.html

 

[1] Julie Bechard and Sandra Elgersma, “Legislative Summary of Bill C-43: An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act)” 41st Parliament, 1st Session. Available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?source=library_prb&ls=C43&Parl=41&Ses=1&Language=E&Mode=1#a1

[2] Laura Payton, “Deporting foreign criminals bill moved forward in House” (CBC News) http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/24/pol-deporting-criminals-bill-moves-forward.html