Immigration Canada

Refugee bill changes ‘strike the right balance’ on detention concerns: Jason Kenney

OTTAWA — The federal government is conceding on a number of opposition and stakeholder criticisms of proposed legislation aimed at cracking down on bogus refugee claimants — but those opposed to the bill argue it hasn’t backed down enough.

Just before a Commons committee sat down to review Bill C-31 clause-by-clause Wednesday, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney indicated the government would agree to amend provisions in the Protecting Canada’s Immigration Act that call for “irregular arrivals” who come to Canada en masse, possibly as part of human-smuggling operations, to be subject to automatic detention for up to a year without a review of their case.

Critics have argued the detention provisions, among others, are inhumane and a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other international treaties.

Under the amendment, those individuals would be guaranteed an initial review within 14 days and another review within six months.

“We believe this strikes the right balance,” Kenney said upon emerging from a caucus meeting.

“It ensures there will be a review of detention by the independent quasi-judicial Immigration and Refugee Board. It also ensures that we have enough time to truly identify smuggled migrants and ensure that they do not constitute a security risk.”

The government also has agreed to clarify that smuggled migrants who are deemed bona fide refugees will not face detention and it will amend certain language in the bill that some fear could have the unintended consequence of revoking a refugee’s permanent residence due to improved circumstances in their country of origin.

‘The bill concentrates power in the hands of the minister while it punishes refugees’ — NDP

“Some opposition members have raised unreasonable fear amongst refugees that the provision for cessation of protected status and revocation of (permanent residency) in bill C-31 will be applied arbitrarily and create uncertainty for bona fide refugees who have obtained (permanent residency) in Canada,” Kenney said.

“Let me be clear. It’s never been our intention to do that.”

In a bid to prevent rejected asylum claimants from “going underground” to avoid deportation pending a pre-removal risk assessment, Kenney said the government would also amend the bill to push the bar on access to such assessments back to three years as opposed to one.

NDP immigration critic Jinny Sims said she welcomes “any move by the minister to make improvements to the legislation,” but that the ones he’s outlined don’t “go far enough to address the fundamental flaws in the bill.

“The bill concentrates power in the hands of the minister while it punishes refugees and won’t address the problem of human smuggling,” she said at a news conference. She said the NDP wants the government to “abandon” the costly bill and warned it would result in numerous legal challenges and force the government to “go back to the drawing board.”

Joined by legal experts and a representative of the Roma community, which is being targeted in the legislation, Sims noted the NDP planned to put forward more than 20 amendments at committee before the process ends at midnight Thursday. Most of them, however, are likely to be rejected by the committee, which is dominated by Tories.

She added she’d ultimately like the government to maintain its commitment to the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which was passed with much fanfare during the last Parliament after the then-minority Conservatives reached a consensus with the opposition. The new bill essentially reintroduces elements that were left out in a bid to get it passed and critics have slammed the Tories for using their majority muscle to go back on their word.

Kenney is keen on getting his omnibus bill passed before June 27 when the predecessor legislation is set to take effect. He said the government isn’t “prepared operationally” to implement the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which would be rendered null and void once the new bill is passed.

Among other things, the omnibus bill seeks to quickly deport “bogus” refugee claimants from countries deemed “safe” within 45 days instead of the 1,000 days it currently takes or the 171 days it would take under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

The government has argued the move would assist in dealing with a huge spike in European claims, the bulk of them by Hungary’s Roma population. Last year, the number of claims from Hungary nearly doubled to 4,409 — though officials say most were withdrawn, abandoned or rejected.

Claimants from safe countries would be barred from appealing a negative decision to the new Refugee Appeal Division and the bill would eliminate a provision that called for a committee of experts to decide which countries would be placed on the safe list. Under the new bill, that decision would rest with the minister.

According to the bill, those who entered Canada by way of illegal smugglers also would be barred from seeking permanent residency or sponsoring a loved one for five years and certain visa holders would be required to turn over biometric data.

Postmedia News

Amendments to the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act

Map showing origin countries of refugees /asylum seekers (= people fleeing abroad) in 2007 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, May 09, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Minister of Citizenship, Immigration, and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney today announced that the Government is proposing amendments to Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act.

"Over the past few weeks, I've listened to parliamentarians and witnesses," said Minister Kenney. "We have always said that we were open to amendments that make Bill C-31 stronger and help us to fight human smuggling and to protect Canada's immigration system. These amendments do just that, and make for a stronger bill."

For example, some critics feared that the measures originally proposed in Bill C-31 with respect to the cessation of permanent residence status might be used in a way never intended by the Government. Others speculated that the Government would seek to remove permanent residence status from refugees who have become well-established in Canada, but whose rationale for refugee status ceases to exist due to improved conditions in their country of origin. The Government is introducing an amendment to clarify this section and to explicitly limit the application of this section of the legislation.

The proposed amendment would make it clear that where the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) determines that an individual's protected person status has ceased to exist solely due to a change in country conditions, that individual would not automatically lose permanent resident status. This was the original purpose of the provision in the bill, and the new language should make that purpose clearer.

Under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, individuals with a final negative decision from the IRB were barred from applying for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) for 12 months. This is because a PRRA is duplicative of the IRB decision, and a core purpose of the bill was to reduce redundancy and unnecessary delays in the removal process for failed asylum seekers.

The government is proposing to amend this provision so that the 12-month bar will apply as soon as Bill C-31 receives Royal Assent. There is no reason to delay the application of this provision, and the proposed amendment ensures there will be no such delay. The effect of this proposed amendment will be that individuals who received a negative decision from the IRB, or abandoned or withdrew their refugee claim, or received a negative PRRA decision within the 12 months prior to the date of Royal Assent would be barred from applying for a PRRA until 12 months after that decision.

The proposed amendment would also increase the temporal bar from 12 to 36 months for those from designated countries of origin who have received a previous negative decision from the IRB, abandoned or withdrew their refugee claim, or received a negative PRRA decision. This change will discourage failed asylum seekers from going underground and evading removal for 12 months, and recognises that country conditions and the threat of real persecution in a presumptively safe country are not likely to change in the course of 36 months. There is, however, a provision in the Balanced Refugee Reform Act that would allow the Minister to make exceptions to the bar on PRRA to quickly respond to sudden changes in country conditions.

Under the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, the Government had initially proposed mandatory detention without review for up to 12 months for those who arrive as part of a designated irregular arrival. This would allow for the determination of identity, admissibility, or any other investigations to take place before members or irregular mass arrivals are released into the community. Persons would, however, be released from detention before 12 months, if they are found to be genuine refugees.

Opposition members have asked for amendments to this detention review schedule, so that these individuals would receive a review of their detention much sooner than initially proposed. They have, for example, suggested that a first detention review should occur within 14 days of detention, with subsequent reviews every 30 days. Other witnesses and critics of this provision of Bill C-31 have suggested other time periods, including an initial review shortly after detention, followed by subsequent reviews at least every 6 months.

After listening to parliamentarians, the Government is proposing a compromise, which would see a first detention review within 14 days and subsequent reviews after every 180 days. As before, a person would be released before this time, upon being found to be a genuine refugee. As an additional safeguard, the government will also propose an amendment to allow the Minister of Public Safety, on his own initiative and at any time, to release a detained individual when grounds for detention no longer exist.

"I believe that these amendments show that the Government is open to reasonable suggestions that improve our Bills," said Minister Kenney. "We have listened to parliamentarians on Bill C-31 and, as a result, we have a stronger bill that will continue to protect genuine refugees, while ensuring that bogus asylum seekers are detained, processed, and swiftly removed, and sending the message to human smugglers that targeting Canada will no longer pay."

Photos of Minister Kenney available at: www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/photos/high-res/index.asp .

Building a stronger Canada: Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) strengthens Canada's economic, social and cultural prosperity, helping ensure Canadian safety and security while managing one of the largest and most generous immigration programs in the world.

        
        Contacts:
        Ana Curic
        Minister's Office
        Citizenship and Immigration Canada
        613-954-1064
        
        Media Relations
        Communications Branch
        Citizenship and Immigration Canada
        613-952-1650
        CIC-Media-Relations@cic.gc.ca

SOURCE: Citizenship and Immigration Canada

Accelerated Labour Market Opinion Fact Sheet

Before submitting an application under the Accelerated Labour Market Opinion (A-LMO) Initiative, employers must read and understand all of the requirements as described in this Fact Sheet.

Effective April 25, 2012, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC)/Service Canada is implementing a new A-LMO Initiative, in an effort to respond to the needs of eligible employers for timely Labour Market Opinion (LMO) processing while enhancing employer compliance.

The A-LMO Initiative introduces efficiency measures by reducing the amount of paper-burden on employers in the application process, and by introducing attestations for specific assessment criteria. An A-LMO application does not exempt employers from criteria assessed in the regular LMO process. HRSDC/Service Canada will continue to provide an A-LMO based on:

the genuineness of the job offer;
the wage offered; and
whether the job offer is likely to fill a labour shortage.

If the employer meets all the eligibility criteria to participate in the A-LMO Initiative,HRSDC/Service Canada will then verify if the employer has agreed to all of the attestations and issue a positive A-LMO within 10 business days.

Employer Eligibility

The A-LMO Initiative applies only to higher skilled positions such as: management, professional and technical occupations (classified under the National Occupational Classification (NOC) skill type 0, and skill levels A and B). However, at the present time, employers hiring in the film and entertainment and agriculture sectors, must apply under the regular LMO process.

To be deemed eligible for the A-LMO Initiative, employers must meet all of the Program requirements for higher skilled positions, including:

researching and understanding the wages posted on the Working in Canada (WiC) Web site for the occupation they are requesting an A-LMO. Employers have some flexibility to base the wage paid to the TFWs on what they pay their Canadian and permanent resident employees.
NOTE:
A wage up to 15% less than the posted wage will be accepted provided that the wage is the same wage paid to Canadian or permanent resident employees in the same occupation. Employer opting to pay less than the posted wage may be subjected to a compliance review. HRSDC/Service Canada will issue a negative A-LMO if the wage offered to the TFW is more than 15% below the posted wage.
meeting the advertisement and recruitment efforts in order to hire Canadian citizens and permanent residents, prior to offering the job to a temporary foreign worker (TFW) and submitting an A-LMO application.

In addition, employers must:

have been issued at least one positive LMO in the previous two years;
have a clean compliance record with the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP)within the last two years;
have agreed to all of the attestations included in the A-LMO application, consenting to participate in a post A-LMO compliance review;
not have been the subject of an investigation, infraction or a serious complaint, and
not have any unresolved violations or contraventions under provincial laws governing employment and recruitment.

If the employers do not meet the A-LMO eligibility criteria, HRSDC/Service Canada will inform them that their applications will be assessed under the regular LMO process, and will direct them to the TFWP Web site for information related to the Program requirements.

Accelerated Labour Market Opinion Compliance Review

As part of the A-LMO application, employers must provide their consent to participate in a post-LMO compliance review. By consenting, employers agree to allow HRSDC/Service Canada to perform a compliance review of the positive A-LMO or any other positive LMOissued to the employer in the previous two years.

During the review, employers will be required to submit documentation to demonstrate compliance with the terms and conditions of the positive LMO or A-LMO letters and their annexes. Up to 20% of positive A-LMOs will be selected for a compliance review. These reviews may be based on random selection, or in response to information received subsequent to the issuance of an A-LMO.

Employer Compliance

To be compliant, employers must meet all the terms and conditions set out in the positiveA-LMO or LMO letters and their annexes. Compliance includes, but is not limited to the fact that the:

employer provided wages, working conditions, and an occupation to the TFW that are substantially the same as those offered in the LMO or A-LMO application;
employer provided wages and working conditions that are the same as those offered to Canadian citizens and permanent residents in the same occupation and work location;
employer performed the minimum recruitment efforts required by the Program;
employment of a TFW filled a labour shortage;
employment of a TFW did not adversely affect the settlement of a labour dispute; and
employer agrees to abide by the relevant federal/provincial/territorial laws that regulate employment and recruitment.

Documentation required to demonstrate compliance

Employers must always review the positive A-LMO and LMO letters and annexes to understand all the terms and conditions in which they must be compliant. They should also contact HRSDC/Service Canada if they discover discrepancies or if they are thinking of making any changes to the terms and conditions set out on the positive A-LMO andLMO letters and annexes. To demonstrate compliance through a review, employers may be required to submit the following documents:

payroll information for the TFW and potentially for Canadian citizens and permanent residents;
collective bargaining agreements;
time sheets;
job descriptions;
copies of recruitment advertising;
proof of no labour dispute;
copies of the TFW’s work permit; and
proof of registration with provincial/territorial workplace safety, where applicable.

Employers should retain all documents related to their A-LMO application and attestations, as well as any documents related to other positive LMOs, for up to 6 years. Failure to provide the requested documentation will result in the employers’ ineligibility to participate to the A-LMO Initiative.

Non-compliant employers

When non-compliance is determined, employers will have an opportunity to provide justification as well as to take corrective action, where applicable. HRSDC/Service Canada will work with the employer to implement the appropriate corrective action and may request proof to this effect in order for the employer to be deemed compliant.

Employers found non-compliant with the A-LMO Initiative, will be subject to consequences which will include:

ineligibility to use the A-LMO Initiative;
possible revocation of other LMOs for which work permits have not been issued yet;
sharing the compliance review finding with HRSDC/Service Canada federal and provincial partners, for further investigation; and
greater scrutiny of any pending or subsequent LMO applications.

How to Apply

Employers who want to hire TFWs using the A-LMO Initiative can apply online or send a paper application. Employers must ensure that they have met all of the Program requirements for the higher skilled positions.

NOTE:
The Initiative is currently not implemented in the province of Quebec.

Online A-LMO Process

The TFW Web Service has been adapted to offer Web Service users access to the onlineA-LMO application process. The registration forms for the Web Service will include an option which allows users to be considered for the A-LMO Initiative. Once the registration is completed and mailed or faxed to the nearest Service Canada Centre, it will be reviewed to determine if the employer’s organization is eligible for access to both the Web Service and the online A-LMO process.

A-LMO Paper Application

Employers must complete, sign and submit the A-LMO application to the Service Canada Centre responsible for their area.

NOTE:
Employers who have previously submitted an LMO application, for which an opinion has not been issued yet, may now take advantage of the new A-LMO Initiative. They can withdraw their LMO application and resubmit an A-LMO application, provided that both applications are for the same position. To withdraw your previous application, please inform HRSDC/Service Canada in writing when applying for your A-LMO.

Are Canadians ready for higher rates?

The Toronto Dominion Bank Building, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

JEREMY TOROBIN

OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update

Policy makers are right to fret about overbuilding in the Toronto and Vancouver condo markets, but it’s worth remembering that unless those bubble-like markets burst, the less-than-ideal mix of high household debt and overpriced housing may be more manageable than it looks.

Concerns about housing have been in sharp relief for weeks now, long before Tuesday’s report from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. showed a surge in condominium construction, which helped push overall construction starts up 14 per cent last month to the fastest annual rate since September, 2007. That's because Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney started hinting in mid-April that he is looking for an opportunity to start lifting his key interest rate from the current 1 per cent. He also reiterated his concerns about too many people failing to resist the lure of cheap debt that won't be as affordable when rates are higher.

Francis Fong, an economist with Toronto-Dominion Bank, says in a study released Tuesday that while most Canadians look “well-positioned” to absorb an interest-rate increase of around 2 percentage points, “there is a substantial minority that cannot.”

Specifically, Mr. Fong points to analysis from the Bank of Canada itself, which warns that 7.5 per cent of Canadian households could be in some financial trouble once borrowing costs “normalize.” He also points to a projection by the Canadian Association of Accredited Mortgage Professionals that a benchmark rate of 3 per cent would put 21 per cent of all mortgage holders in hot water.

But here’s the thing: nobody believes Mr. Carney has any intention (or capacity) to bring interest rates to that level anytime soon. Even TD, which predicts the first rate hike will come before the end of 2012, sees Mr. Carney moving very gradually to 2 per cent – by the end of 2013. The central banker will be able to move more aggressively once the European crisis seems more stable again, and once the U.S. economy is stronger and the Federal Reserve is closer to hiking, too. So, Mr. Fong warns, barring another “major shock” to the global economy, Mr. Carney’s rate (which directly influences variable-rate mortgages and other floating loans) will rise by at least 2 percentage points before 2015.

Mr. Fong’s main point is that while higher rates are hardly a boon for consumer spending, rates will go up so slowly that there “will likely be enough lead time” for many households to “adjust their spending habits” to account for higher payments.

Moreover, he points to signs that Canadians are already accumulating debt at a slower rate, as does Benjamin Tal of CIBC World Markets in a separate report. Even in an environment of historically low interest rates, Mr. Tal says, overall household credit is rising at the slowest pace since 2002.

“The pace of growth in household credit is no longer a reason for the Bank of Canada to move from the sidelines any time soon,” he argues, suggesting Mr. Carney’s warnings are being heeded after all.

No need to worry, then? Afraid not.

TD’s Mr. Fong notes that annual mortgage credit growth, while down from its pre-recession peak, has held steady at an almost 8-per-cent pace for three years. This suggests borrowers are using their credit cards and lines of credit less, but taking out mortgages at roughly the same clip.

And Mr. Tal notes in his report that the real-estate market is “overshooting,” even as signals suggest – in most markets, anyway – that activity is slowing down.

Which brings us back to overbuilding in Toronto and Vancouver. The same day that CMHC published its eye-popping housing starts numbers, the Crown corporation said in its annual report that it sees no “clear evidence” of a bubble. Mr. Carney, meanwhile, will probably never utter the B-word, but has been hinting for several months that he sees at least the makings of one in some cities.

This below is in his semi-annual assessment of the financial system, from December: “Certain areas of the national housing market may be more vulnerable to price declines,” he said, adding, “the supply of completed but unoccupied condominiums is elevated, which suggests a heightened risk of correction in this market.”

Over and over again since then, Mr. Carney has said authorities are watching closely, and will act to cool the market if necessary, while stressing that interest-rate hikes are too blunt an instrument to deal with this issue, other than in “exceptional circumstances.” With Greece and Spain roiling global markets again, and lukewarm economic news south of the border, it’s harder to imagine Mr. Carney raising rates this year than it was a few weeks ago. Still, the excess supply of condos in Canada’s biggest cities suggests we may have reached “exceptional circumstances.”

That leaves CMHC and, by extension, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who is in the process of beefing up oversight of the often clueless-sounding agency.

Mr. Flaherty warned recently that condo developers seem willing to build new units until sales dry up. This could lead to a crash, and the last buyers in could get burned, he warned in a meeting with The Globe and Mail’s editorial board last month.

Some of this frenzied building and buying is linked to foreign investment, the actual amount of which is hard to know since even the government says it doesn’t know. So there may be little the government can do, other than hope the market lands softly.

However, if Ottawa is so worried about the last buyers in, there is one thing it could do to ensure that those people are not the Canadians who can least afford to get burned. The last of three times that Mr. Flaherty has ordered CMHC to tighten its eligibility requirements, in January, 2011, he opted against raising the minimum down payment from the current 5 per cent. (Mr. Flaherty had been warned by the Canadian Real Estate Association and Canadian Association of Accredited Mortgage Professionals that raising the current 5-per-cent minimum down payment would shut too many first-time buyers out of the market and cost jobs.) Raising the minimum to, say, 7 per cent, would seem to be a measured, prudent way for Ottawa to limit the number of naive new borrowers who could be left holding the bag for a lifetime because greedy condo builders couldn’t rein themselves in.

How Canadian farmers risk missing a global agri-boom

Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of Canada. World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland. January 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

JEREMY TOROBIN

OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Blog

Mark Carney likes to remind U.S.-focused exporters that a “massive new middle class” is forming in big emerging markets like China and India -- to the tune of 70 million people a year.

For a net exporter of agricultural products, like Canada, this should be an unmitigated bonus. Urbanization and higher incomes across Asia are fuelling an unprecedented increase in the number of middle-class consumers, and that means an unprecedented increase in the number of families who can afford meat, fruits, oils and other imported foods on a regular basis.

But reaching those customers is harder than it should be, business leaders say, and making it easier could depend on a major shift in trade policy, namely relaxing supply-management protections on dairy and poultry that date back to the 1970s.

In a new paper for the Canadian Council on Chief Executives – the Ottawa-based lobby group headed by former Liberal finance minister John Manley – Michael Gifford, Canada’s former chief agricultural trade negotiator, takes up the cause, urging Ottawa to ensure it does all it can to get Canada a piece of arrangements that are going to reshape global trade. Participation in massive regional bloc deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), for instance, could eventually allow Canada’s agri-food industry to become a “growth engine” for the entire economy.

“If Canadian agricultural producers are to maximize their export potential in Asia, they cannot allow themselves to be placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to other exporters,” Mr. Gifford argues. “The most urgent trade policy challenge, therefore, is to ensure that Canada is not locked out of the preferential trade agreements that will increasingly shape the future of trade in the Asia Pacific region.”

Mr. Gifford argues farmers across the country will miss out unless the government makes clearer an apparent willingness to budge on the long-standing, politically sensitive protections for certain Canadian products. A key barrier to Canada joining the TPP is what many participating countries view as punishingly high tariffs on imported milk and eggs, and the U.S. in particular has opposed Canada entering TPP talks, citing those supply-management protections.

The Harper government has pledged to keep the underlying supply-management system – a hot-button issue in Quebec, for instance, where the country’s dairy industry is based – intact, but officials also have hinted at being willing to compromise in order to get in on the TPP.

Mr. Gifford is clearly hoping to push Ottawa into making this a reality.

“Political sensitivities notwithstanding, the rest of the economy, including the 80 per cent of Canadian agriculture that is tied to world prices, cannot afford to be held hostage to demands by dairy and poultry producers to preserve the status quo,” Mr. Gifford writes.

A problem, though, is that even as Canadian officials increasingly realize this, it is debatable whether U.S. negotiators are ready to entertain anything other than a full abandonment of agricultural protections. Canada is reportedly willing to put everything on the table, but only after it is offered a place at the table, and also wants to see how far the U.S. is willing to go on its own restrictions. The Americans, meanwhile, want Canada to formally signal a readiness to scrap supply management as a condition for joining the discussions.

The only solution, Mr. Gifford says, is for all countries with quota and tariff systems to be willing to at least partially liberalize them, since this is about as far as the agreement will go in the best-case scenario with so many participants restricting one product or another. Again, easier said than done.

But he warns we must not find ourselves on the outside if a huge economy like Japan – which accounts for $3-billion of Canada’s agricultural exports – joins the TPP.