Immigration, old age and technology to rule Wente's Canada 47 years from now

Future Place des Festivals, Montreal, Quebec, ...Image via Wikipedia
Margaret Wente describes what Canada will be like in 47 years, as the country’s national age rises and its population becomes more dependent on immigration.

Source: The Globe and mail.

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Forty-seven years ago, when my family arrived in Canada, I could never have imagined what kind of country we'd grow up to become. Toronto was a boring backwater. Almost everyone was beige. Nobody drank wine or ate foreign food. Everything was shut on Sunday, because you were supposed to be in church. The Royal York was the tallest building in the city. Dief was the chief, the flag looked British, and nobody had heard of Leonard Cohen or Joni Mitchell yet.
What will Canada be like 47 years from now? Let me imagine.
No one was surprised when Shibani Pushparajah became prime minister. The brilliant second-generation immigrant, who was born in Mississauga, belongs to Canada's second-largest ethnic group. But really, she's a citizen of the world. The last white male prime minister lost his seat in 2043. The only white man in Ms. Pushparajah's diverse cabinet is the minister of agriculture.
Since the turn of the millennium, all of our population growth has come through immigration, mostly from China, India and the Philippines. In the thriving megalopolis of Greater Toronto (population: 12 million), people of European descent make up less than a third of the population. The biggest culture gap isn't between competing ethnic and linguistic groups, though. It's between the vibrant, globally minded, multiracial cities and the shrinking white ghettos of the Atlantic provinces and the rural hinterland.
Canada's population has swelled to 44 million. But immigration hasn't reversed the aging trend. Although the national IQ is high, so is the national age. A third of all Canadians are over 65. But “retirement,” as they used to call it, is long gone. There weren't enough workers to support the retirees. Today, you can't get old-age benefits until you're 75 or 80. That's really not that old. Breakthroughs in biomedicine have yielded cures for many of the old degenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, and the average natural life expectancy is pushing 100.
Even so, health-care costs are ruinous, and taxes are sky-high. Like other cash-strapped Western nations, Canada wants to cut people off medicare when they turn 90. Instead, it will offer you a lavish farewell party at a time of your choosing, along with a generous endowment for your descendants and a delicious cocktail to put you to sleep forever.
Some of the old folks remember when the neighourhoods were full of kids. They're much more quiet now. For every person under 16, there are two people over 65. Instead of schools, governments are building group homes for geezers. One thing hasn't changed, though. Caregivers from the Philippines are as popular as ever. Only now, their dependent, diapered charges are at the other end of life.
Compared to Europe, Canada is lucky. Italy is so depopulated that the entire nation has been declared a vast theme park. Most Canadians can't afford to go there any more. Admission is restricted to the very wealthy – mostly Asians – who are happy to fork over the $10,000-a-day entrance fee. (All sums in post-Euro, pre-crash USD.) Instead, we flood to bargain-basement Central America, where huge colonies of elderly North Americans prop up the economies of entire nations.
Today, it's hard to imagine how powerful Quebec's French-Canadians used to be in national life. Demographics and immigration did them in. The separatist party collapsed in 2025, after its supporters literally died out. French-speaking immigrants from Africa and Haiti didn't care about the old battles, and with the end of transfer payments, Quebec lost its leverage on Ottawa for good. Today Quebeckers make up less than 20 per cent of the Canadian population, and live in the poorest province of them all. But they still have the best places to eat.
After the Great Crash of 2024, when China finally stopped buying U.S. debt, Canada endured its darkest decade since the Depression. We're still scarred by the memory of 18 per cent unemployment and the great pension fund collapse. Fortunately, our once-reviled oil sands saved our bacon. We leased them to China for 199 years at highly attractive rates, and that, along with a bonanza of new discoveries in the North, has made us nearly as rich as the Norwegians. We are happy the world is finally weaning itself off oil, but please, not yet.
Nostalgia buffs think everything was better in the good old days, of course. They love to sit around and listen to old Joni Mitchell tunes and show off their souvenir copy of the last Globe and Mail printed on dead trees. Their grandkids can't imagine a time when The Globe did not exist entirely in cyberspace. Everyone agrees the world has changed a lot in 47 years. But one thing hasn't changed at all. Canada is still the best country in the world.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Convention Refugee Claims in Canada

Canada imposes a visa on the Czech RepublicImage by Vlastula via Flickr
Proposed Changes Hope to Streamline Refugee Determination Process

Read more at Suite101: Convention Refugee Claims in Canada: Proposed Changes Hope to Streamline Refugee Determination Process http://news.suite101.com/article.cfm/convention-refugee-claims-in-canada-a220131#ixzz0jzCR1kuQ

On March 30, 2010, the government introduced Bill C-11 that will divide refugee claimants into two streams. The goal is to speed up both determinations and removals.

For years many Canadians including politicians have described Canada’s refugee system as broken. Since the current procedures were enacted in 1989, Bill C-11 constitutes the first major overhaul of Canada’s refugee determination process. The purpose of the bill is to vastly reduce the time that it takes to decide whether or not a claimant is a genuine refugee and to speed up removals of failed claimants.

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told the National Post editorial board that the proposed legislation is an attempt to stop the “gaming of the system” by which people come to Canada and make false refugee claims knowing that the longer they get to stay, the less likelihood they will ever be removed.
Canada’s Current Refugee Determination System

When a foreign national, either at a port of entry or within Canada tells an immigration officer that they want to make a refugee claim, they are given a form to fill out. The claimant then has 28 days to complete the form and file it with the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). After the form is received, a date for a hearing is scheduled to be heard before a member of the Refugee Protection Division of the IRB. Under existing legislation, members of the Refugee Protection Division are appointed for fixed terms by the government of the day.

After the matter is heard and a decision rendered the successful applicant, together with any accompanying spouse and dependants, can apply to become a permanent resident of Canada. Those who are unsuccessful do not have the right to appeal that decision but they can apply for leave to seek judicial review of that decision in the Federal Court of Canada. Failed refugee claimants who apply to Federal Court do not automatically have the right to remain in Canada; however an application can be made to a justice of the Federal Court to stay the removal order until such time as that court decides the matter.

Currently, the average time between a person’s initial claim to be a Convention refugee and the time a determination is made is 19 months. The time that it now takes to remove a failed refugee claimant from Canada is close to five years after their initial claim is made.

The Refugee Protection Division currently has a backlog of 60,000 cases that are scheduled to be heard. Part of the backlog is due the reluctance of the current Conservative government to fill vacant positions on the board.

At the present time there are about 15,000 failed claimants who are waiting to be removed from Canada. It is also estimated that there are 38,000 unsuccessful refugee applicants whose whereabouts are unknown. It is not known whether they have left Canada or remain underground.
The Balanced Refugee Reform Act

Bill C-11 or the Balanced Refugee Reform Act as it will be known if passed will require refugee claimants to be interviewed by an immigration officer within eight days of making their claim. This replaces filling out a form and filing it within 28 days. If the claimant is found by the officer to be eligible to make a refugee claim, the matter will be set down for a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division within 60 days. The proposed legislation will replace government-appointed fixed term members on the board with career public servants.

The most controversial aspect of Bill C-11 is that refugee claimants will be divided into two different streams. The government will be able to designate certain countries as being “safe”. These safe countries will be those that are democratic, seen to have good human rights records, and be characterized as non-refugee producing countries. Examples of countries that the government would designate would be the United States and European Union countries.

Claimants who come from designated safe countries will not be able to appeal negative decisions of the Refugee Protection Division. Other claimants will be able, for the first time, to appeal to the newly created Refugee Appeal Division. The appeal will be based on the record of the Refugee Protection Division and the only evidence that will be allowed will be new evidence of events that happened after the initial hearing.

Failed claimants will still be able to apply for leave for judicial review in Federal Court of their final Immigration and Refugee Board decision. To that end, the bill will increase the number of justices who sit on the Federal Court of Canada.
Criticism of the Proposed Legislation

Although many applaud the government’s attempt to streamline the system; to remove failed claimants more quickly as well as grant speedier landing to those found to be refugees, there has been vocal criticism of some of the bill’s provisions. The main criticism is of the ability of Canada to designate some countries as safe. Many refugee advocates and lawyers feel that each person’s case should be determined solely on its own merits, equally and not according to their country of origin. The two streams could result in unfair hearings to those who have claims from countries that are already presumed not to produce genuine refugees.

Another complaint is that the time periods involved; eight days to be interviewed and another 60 days for the hearing will not allow the claimant sufficient time to obtain competent counsel to assist them and to adequately prepare for the hearing.

It is estimated that, if enacted, the legislation will cost taxpayers $540 million over five years.

Sources:

National Post
The copyright of the article Convention Refugee Claims in Canada in Law, Crime & Justice is owned by Arthur Weinreb. Permission to republish Convention Refugee Claims in Canada in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave us a message

Check our online courses now

Check our online courses now
Click Here now!!!!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Vcita