Thompson: Immigration rules changing for caregivers

Q I am hearing this rumour about the live-in caregiver program, that as of April, newcomers arriving through the caregiver program can no longer apply for permanent resident status after three years of working. My daughter-in-law’s papers are in process to come and work in Canada as a live-in-caregiver. Is this rumour true?

A: First, you should know the rumour is not true, at least not the way you heard it. The live-in caregiver program will continue to allow temporary workers who come here through that program to apply for permanent resident status in Canada after two years of work. The rumour you heard was probably sparked by a few recent regulation changes for temporary workers that did have an impact on live-in caregivers.

In March, the government announced that as of April 1, 2011 and onward, most temporary foreign workers allowed to enter Canada to work will be subject to a cumulative time limit of four years of temporary work. That means that after four years of temporary work, they will have to leave Canada unless they are well into the process of obtaining some kind of permanent status. The rule change was not retroactive, but applied only to new temporary foreign workers who entered Canada after April 1.

So your daughter-in-law would fall into the category of those affected by the new four-year limit. But, live-in-caregivers who complete a total of 24 months of authorized full-time employment as a live-in caregiver (it doesn’t have to be continuous, but could be blocks of time added together) will still be allowed to apply for permanent resident status.

The important thing is that if a live-in caregiver has applied for permanent resident status and has been approved in principle when the four-year deadline comes along, they will be allowed to stay. There was another change in 2010 to the live-in caregiver program.

Effective April 1, 2010, live-in caregivers working in Canada under the program were given two options for calculating their work experience to be eligible to apply for permanent residence:

 • Twenty-four months of authorized full-time employment, or

 • A total of 3,900 hours (within a minimum of 22 months which may include a maximum of 390 hours of overtime) of authorized full-time employment

Live-in caregivers, including those who were already in Canada when this change came into effect, have a maximum of four years from their date of arrival in Canada under the Live-in Caregiver Program to complete the employment requirement to be eligible to apply for permanent residence.

Q: I was born in the United Kingdom (England) and my parents immigrated to Canada in 1948 when I was 2 years old. Can I claim dual citizenship and carry a British passport as well as a Canadian passport?

A: Yes, you almost certainly carry British nationality as well as Canadian. You can apply for a passport through a centre established by Britain in Washington to handle all passport applications in North America. Check the website of the passport centre for further details.

Q: I was interested in your recent response to the inquirer who had asked about how much money one could take into the U.S. without declaring it. The inquirer had heard the limit might be $6,000. You responded by saying that arriving and departing passengers must report to U.S. Customs any money or other monetary instrument exceeding $10,000 (U.S.).

I don’t know whether a credit card is considered to be a monetary instrument but I am wondering whether I would be required to let them know that my credit card has a limit in excess of $10,000, say $13,000 for example?

A: A credit card with a high spending limit (lucky you), is not considered to be a monetary instrument exceeding $10,000 so you don’t have to declare it.

World Citizen appears every other week. immigration@thestar.ca

Lorne Gunter: Family-class immigration needs to be limited

Lorne Gunter  Oct 21, 2011 – 2:12 PM ET | Last Updated: Oct 21, 2011 4:20 PM ET

It’s good for Canada to admit lots of skilled immigrants — blue-collar and white-collar — each year. It’s also good for us to admit their spouses and children. But we admit far too many parents and grandparents as well. It’s hard for any politician to say so, though, because the instant he or she does, the immigration industry in Canada — immigration and refugee lawyers, immigration consultants, advocacy groups and politically correct commentators —  labels him or her as a racist for even daring to question our current overly generous policies.

That’s why it was so bold for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney to tell a House of Commons committee Thursday that family-class immigration has to be scaled back. “Canada is the most generous country in the world with respect to immigration – but there have to be practical limits to our generosity,” the minister told the often heated hearing. “We have to calibrate those limits based on our country’s economic needs, our fiscal capacity. There is no doubt that the people who are coming who are senior citizens, they have much, much lower labour-market participation and much higher levels of utilization of the public health system.”

Therein lies the problem: Skilled immigrants can usually pay their own way. The income they earn and the taxes they pay can also, usually, cover the services consumed by their husbands or wives and their kids. But their moms and dads, grandmas and granddads tip the balance. Older family-class immigrants are unlikely to work enough in Canada to cover the cost of their social benefits. Nor are their children — the skilled immigrants Canada wants — likely to earn enough to pay, through taxes, for the pensions and health care their elderly relatives will use here. All of which means that admitting the older relatives amounts to a giant subsidy from native-born Canadians and long-standing immigrant Canadians to new Canadians.

That is neither fair nor wise.

As Mr. Kenney pointed out, just under 20% of newcomers to Canada are what he called “primary economic immigrants.” Immigration Canada claims 55% of immigrants to this country are economic-class immigrants, but in truth just 18% are skilled workers. The other 37% in this category are the spouses and children of someone with a marketable skill. Yet, as a I said above, I do not begrudge new Canadians bringing their husbands, wives and children with them. Having to leave one’s family behind is cruel, besides most skilled workers are able to fully support their nuclear families.

Even among the 45% of immigrants categorized each year as non-economic, 11% to 13% are admitted on humanitarian or compassionate grounds. There is a debate worth having over whether our definitions of who deserves compassionate admission are over-broad, but let’s for now assume most of these immigrants are admitted for good reasons, too. And even though they may not always be able to pay their own way, it is worthy of us as a caring nation to accept them anyway.

Together, that means about two-thirds of our yearly intake consists of immigrants we should be happy to have. Last year Canada admitted about 254,000 immigrants, that means about 173,000 are people who are no net drag on our social services and are poised to make a net contribution to Canada’s economy and society after a short few years of adjustment.

However, that still means there are about 80,000 newcomers admitted each year — nearly one million each decade — who more than likely will have to be supported for the remainder of their lives by Canadians who have lived and worked here all or most of their lives. About half of this number (38,000 in 2010) are parents and grandparents of newcomers.

That is what Immigration Minister Kenney is getting at: How does it make any sense to saddle hardworking Canadian taxpayers with $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion extra each year to pay for immigrants’ parents and grandparents to move here just because the benefits we offer to people in their twilight years are better than those in their home countries? How is it fair to burden Canadians with these costs when the beneficiaries have never lived, worked or paid taxes here?

I am so in favour of robust immigration that you could convince me of the sensibility of open immigration — no upper cap on numbers whatever — just not into a welfare state such as ours. Open immigration into a welfare state is a recipe for fiscal suicide by governments. That is one of the problems Mr. Kenney is trying to solve.

National Post