The above picture of Wilfred Laurier, a former Prime Minister of Canada and member of the Liberal Party of Canada, is currently making the rounds on the internet accompanied by his famous passage:

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes a Canadian and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet a Canadian, and nothing but a Canadian… There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is a Canadian, but something else also, isn’t a Canadian at all. We have room for but one flag, the Canadian flag… And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the Canadian people.

People that are spreading this and citing this passage about undivided loyalty with fervour are I’m sure thinking of immigrants from certain countries with value systems very different to ours.  However, I wonder if they have actually considered the policy implication of the above passage – which is obviously whether Canada should ban its citizens from being dual (or triple) citizens?

What do you think?  Should Brett Hull, Kaya Jones, John Aimers, Peter Jennings, Megan Follows, Brian Burke, Jim Carrey, etc. have to choose?

And, if you believe in what Mr. Laurier said, do we not have room in Canada for the above individuals?

It is not difficult to see why the NDP was outraged by the introduction of Bill C-31.  Less than two years ago, the Conservatives and the NDP worked together to introduce the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.  Its passage was seen as a good example of compromise, and how the parties in a minority Parliament can cooperate to introduce what was generally viewed as good legislation.  I would also imagine that the NDP spent some political capital with its base by cooperating with the Conservatives and to makeCanada’s refugee system stricter.

Minister Kenney has now thrown all of that to the wind.

By abandoning the grand compromise that was the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, Mr. Kenney has taken several political risks.  First, he has abandoned any good-will that he had with the NDP.  Should the Conservatives ever find themselves in a minority government again, I doubt that they will find the NDP being very willing to work with them in the same away as they did in 2012.

Second, he has provided the NDP with the ability to criticize the upcoming reforms to Canada’s refugee system.  Because the NDP were co-drafters of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, they could not really criticize the upcoming changes because they themselves owned the amendments.  By abandoning the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and in effect replacing it with Bill C-31, Minister Kenney has provided the NDP with legitimacy to criticize the toughening of Canada’s refugee system.

Presumably, Minister Kenney believes that the benefits of the changes in Bill C-31 outweigh the above costs.

So.  What are these changes?

(It should be noted that many of the changes below will involves changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, and are not actually contained in Bill C-31.  However, as the Conservative government announced these changes concurrent with the introduction of Bill C-31, I am including them under the umbrella of the Bill C-31 changes.)

First, the time-frames for when a refugee hearing will be heard have been reduced.  Under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, a refugee hearing would occur within 60 days for a claimant from a designated safe country of origin (“DCO”), and 90 days for a non-DCO country.  Bill C-31 will reduce in most cases reduce this period to 45 days and 60 days respectively.

Second, under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, a non-successful refugee claimant from a DCO, or a claimant whose refugee claim was found to be manifestly unfounded, would have his appeal heard within 30 days.  A claimant from a non-DCO country would have had his appeal heard within 120 days.  Bill C-31 reduces the time-frame to 90 days for non-DCO countries.  It removes the ability to appeal completely for unsuccessful refugee claimants from DCOs, for people whose claims were found to be manifestly unfounded, and for irregular arrivals.

Bill C-31 also contains numerous changes that do not relate to time limitations.   The informational interview that was proposed in the Balanced Refugee Reform Act will now be replaced with a Basis of Claim document.  The ability to designate a country as being a designated safe country of origin has been transferred from a panel of experts to the Minister. The Immigration and Refugee Board will no longer be able to reopen previously decided claims or appeals once a final decision has been made at the Refugee Appeal Division or Federal Court.

Perhaps more significantly, there will no longer be automatic stays of removal for judicial reviews of refugee decisions for people from DCOs.  (It will be interesting to see how the Federal Court deals with the onslaught of stay of removal motions.)  Refugee claimants from DCO countries will also be prohibited from getting Work Permits during the processing of their refugee claim.

Essentially, most of Bill C-31 is geared towards decreasing the estimated total processing times of refugee claims (I am excluding from this the inclusion of all of the human smuggling provisions contained in Bill C-4).  Under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, it was expected to take 171 days to process a refugee claim from a designated country of origin, and 291 days to process a non-DCO refugee claimant’s claim. The Conservative government expects Bill C-31 to reduce this to 45 days and 216 respectively.

The above reductions may seem significant.  However, considering the fact that under the current system the average number of days is 1,038, the further reductions gained by Bill C-31 over the reductions in the Balanced Refugee Reform Act seem less impressive.  For claimants from designated countries of origin, the reduction in processing times from the current average is 96% instead of 85%.  For non DCO countries, it is 79% instead of 72%.

So.  Assuming that the above changes in Bill C-31 withstand the inevitable Charter challenges that are no doubt coming, the Conservatives will years from now have to ask themselves whether the 9% and 7% further reductions that Bill C-31 achieved were worth the political cost.

We will likely have to wait until after the next election and see what the House of Commons looks like to know the answer.

The answer can be found on the the B.C. Immigrant Investment Fund Ltd.’s (the “BC IIF”) website.  The BCIIF receives and manages British Columbia’s portion of funds under the Immigrant Investor Program.  Their 2011-2014 Service Plan can be found here.

According to the website and the 2011-2014 Service Plan, some of the money from the Immigrant Investor Program has been spent on the following projects:

• Loaning $60-million to aid in the construction of the BCIT aerospace facility near the Vancouver International Airport;

• Loaning $5-million to help facilitate the purchase of the University of Victoria Technology Enterprise Facility, which accommodates the Centre for Addictions Research B.C., the NEPTUNE Canada Research Project, and the Venus Research Project.

• Loaning $13.9-million for the construction of a student residence at the University of the Fraser Valley.

• Loaning $3.3-million for the construction of two residences at the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology.

• Loaning $5.1-million for two condominium units at Simon Fraser University Foundation.

• Loaning the Province of British Columbia $39-million for the Gateway Prince George Complex Care Project of the Northern Health Authority.

• Loaning the Province of British Columbia $29-million for the replacement of the J. Lloyd Crowe Secondary School.

• Loaning the Province of British Columbia $32-million for the renovation and replacement of Penticton Secondary School.

• Loaning the Province of British Columbia $24-million for the replacement of the Burnaby Secondary school.

• Loaning the Province of British Columbia $15-million for the renovation and replacement of Revelstoke Secondary School and the new Primary School.

• Loaning the Province of British Columbia $13-million for the replacement of University Hill Secondary School.

• Loaning the Province of British Columbia $12-million for the seismic upgrade of the Cariboo Hill Secondary School.

• Loaning the Province of British Columbia $11-million for the seismic upgrade of the Ecole Jules Quesnel Elementary School.

• Investing $66-million dollars total in the following 13 companies:
• Angstrom Power Inc.
• Boreal Genomics
• Cooledge Lighting Inc.
• Delta-Q Technologies
• Endurance Wind Power
• E-One Moli Energy
• Indicee Inc.
• LaCima Inc.
• Light-Based Technologies
• Mingleverse Laboratories Inc.
• Partnerpedia Solutions Inc.
• NGRAIN (Canada) Corporation
• Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies Inc.

It should be noted that the interest collected on the above loans is extremely low.

The above list should dispel the occasionally held notion that the Immigrant Investor Program has done nothing for British Columbia.  However, whether it has contributed more or less than most people assume, or whether the above-list will satisfy people that the benefits of the program outweigh the negatives that some people associate the program with, I do not know.

The above question was certified by the Federal Court in Laidlow v. Canada, 2012 FC 144, released today.  The Federal Court of Appeal will soon answer the question.

The facts in Laidlow giving rise to the question were essentially that an individual had a pending H&C claim which was based on risk to life (availability of medical treatment reasons) at the time that he appeared for his refugee hearing.  He asked that the refugee hearing be adjourned until the H&C application was determined.  The IRB refused to do so, and heard the refugee claim, which was dismissed.

The Court’s answer to the question was that refusing to adjourn the hearing did not breach section 7 of the Charter.  Relying on Poshteh v. Canada, [2005] 3 FCR 487, and Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General of Canada), [2005] 4 SCR 429, the Court articulated the following principles:

• A finding of inadmissibility does not engage an individual’s section 7 Charter rights.  The reason is because a number of proceedings may take place before an individual reaches the stage at which his deportation from Canada may occur.
• Section 7 does not place upon the state a positive obligation to ensure that each persons enjoys life, liberty or security of the person.  Rather, it restricts the state’s ability to deprive people of these.

Considering that the jurisprudence is fairly settled on the first point, I find it surprising that the Court certified the question that it did.  I also do not see how from a practical standpoint the question can be answered in the affirmative.  Requiring that the IRB postpone refugee hearings every time a claimant files an H&C application based on risk to life would create a scheduling nightmare for the Division.  You could forget about the soon to be introduced 60 day and 90 day deadlines for refugee hearings.  Everyone would take advantage of this.  Indeed, I would probably consider a representative who did not encourage a refugee claimant to file an H&C application in order to buy more time to prepare for the hearing to be negligent.  And it wouldn’t just be limited to medical availability… Lawful sanctions… Generalized risk.. any H&C claim really could be used to buy time.

And that, combined with the established jurisprudence that the existence of further avenues to stay in Canada, and that s. 7 of the Charter does not create positive obligations on the state, is why I would be stunned if the Federal Court of Appeal answered the above question in the affirmative.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada has posted the following its website:

On January 31, 2012, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) and Statistics Canada replaced the 2006 edition of the National Occupation Classification (NOC) with a 2011 version. For the purposes of the Federal Skilled Worker Program list of eligible occupations, new applicants are advised to refer to the HRSDC website for the latest job descriptions and duties for each NOC.

 

CIC will assess FSW applications received at the Centralized Intake Office before January 31, 2012 according to the old NOC system as they were the conditions under which the candidate applied.

 

CIC is examining the impact the NOC changes will have on immigration programs and will publish updates as soon as they become available.

So as of writing the answer is clear: no one knows yet.

The case affirmed several important principles of rehabilitation applications, including that:

• The Minister should take into consideration the unique facts of each particular case and consider whether the overall situation warrants a finding that the individual has been rehabilitated.

• That rehabilitation is forward looking.

• That an officer commits a reviewable error if he/she attributes too much importance to the fact that an applicant has past criminal activity as opposed to the likelihood that the applicant would be involved in future or unlawful activity.

I have embedded in this post Justice O’Keef’s discussion of these principles.

This is actually a question that comes up rather frequently, so for all those who are interested, here is the relevant section from the Citizenship and Immigration Canada Manual:

Maritime Travel

The determination of whether crew on a maritime vessel  require a Work Permit to work in Canada depends on whether the vessel meets the definition of “coasting trade” as defined in Canada’s Coasting Trading Act, SC 1992, c 31.  The Coasting Trade Act defines “Coasting Trade” as:

the carriage of goods or passengers by ship… from one place in Canada… to any other place in Canada… either directly or by way of a place outside Canada.

Subject to certain exceptions, when a vessel meets the above definition of “coasting trade”, then the vessel’s foreign crew will require a work permit to work in Canada.  The reason is because the vessel is involved in cabotage (domestic transportation of goods and services) activities within Canada’s domestic labour market.

A helpful indicator of whether a foreign vessel meets the definition of “Coasting Trade” is whether the vessel is required to possess a coasting trade license.  If it does, then it is very likely that the vessel meets the definition of “Coasting Trade.”

The following situations are examples of scenarios where a foreign crew on a vessel would require a Work Permit:

• Where a cruise ship embarks passengers at a Canadian port and disembarks any of these passengers permanently at another Canadian port.  For example, a cruise ship which embarks in Vancouver, disembarks permanently some people in Victoria, and then disembarks the remainder in Anchorage would likely require a Work Permit.

• Where a cruise ship embarks passengers at one Canadian port and then ends the cruise and disembarks at another Canadian port, regardless of whether the itinerary included a stop at an international port of call.  For example, if passengers embark in Vancouver, make a stop in Juneau, Alaska, and then end the cruise in Victoria, a Work Permit will likely be required.

However, there are two important examples of where a work permit would likely not be required.  These include:

• Where a cruise ship’s itinerary includes at least one foreign port of call and ends at the original port of embarkation within Canada. For example, if passengers embark in Vancouver, make a stop in Seattle, and then disembark in Vancouver, a Work Permit is generally not required.

• Where a cruise ship starts at a Canadian port of call and ends its itinerary at a foreign port of call.  For example, if a cruise starts in Vancouver, and ends in Juneau, a Work Permit will generally not be required, provided that no passengers were permanently disembarked in a Canadian city along the way.

Air Travel

Generally, any foreign crew member arriving on a flight into Canada from an international point of origin or departing Canada on an internationally bound flight will not require a Work Permit.  The Canada Transportation Act, SC 1996, c10 generally prohibits foreign crew members from performing domestic air service in Canada.

However, if a foreign company obtains a Ministerial Exemption to allow the foreign company to operate a publicly available domestic air service, then work permits may be required, depending on the circumstances.  (Eg. if there is an emergency, a Work Permit will not be required.)

As well, foreign charter flights that are authorized to travel within Canada in order to transport people in the sports and entertainment industry will generally not require a work permit.

Foreign nationals wishing to work aboard Canadian flights travelling between points within Canada will generally require work permits.

Highway

The North American Free Trade Agreement governs whether foreign crew of a foreign land vessel require a Work Permit.  NAFTA provides that foreign crew members working aboard vehicles operating within Canada may deliver or pick-up goods and passengers across the U.S. / Canada border so long as they do not pick up and deliver from one location to another point within Canada.

It is important to note that if the foreign national works for a Canadian vessel, then the foreign national will require a Work Permit.