Archives for July 2002

Q. As per the previous immigration rules we could gain upto 10 points by the immigration officer… i.e., if I were to score 65 points I could still qualify for immigration as I could get upto 10 points by the immigration points…

Answer: Now in the new immigration rules… do we still have the same formet… so if we score more then 65 points we could be still eligible for immigration?

There is no equivalent of the personal suitability factor under the present Regulations. Officers do not award points based on subjective assessment of the candidate’s ability to succeed in Canada. Officers do have the authority to make a substituted evaluation (positive or negative), however, if they feel that the points earned are not representative of the candidate’s ability to economically settle in Canada.

The new Regulations give rise to many questions.

Q. Do you think after obtaining SIN, driving license, Medical card and opening a Bank account means a PR has establish his residence, even after doing all above he is out of Canada for 6 or over 6 months in a year?

Answer: The 183 Day Rule, and the subjective assessment of establishment of permanent residence is no longer a factor in retaining resident status.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (effective June 28th 2002) sets objective, transparent and flexible criteria to assess a person’s right to retain permanent resident status when they wish to return to Canada following an absence. Under Bill C-11, the residency obligation replaces a vague, highly subjective and easy to abuse test in the current Act which is based on an evaluation of the intention of a person to abandon Canada as a place of residence if they have been outside Canada for more than 183 days in any 12 month period. Under C-11, permanent residents would be required to be physically present in Canada for at least 730 days in every five-year period after becoming a permanent resident. The proposed legislation would allow a permanent resident to count, as part of the required 730 days, time spent working abroad in certain circumstances such as working for a Canadian company or the Canadian government or accompanying their Canadian spouse or common-law partner. This would allow permanent residents a degree of flexibility over their personal or business affairs that is necessary in a world where routine international travel, work periods abroad and multinational business ties are becoming commonplace.

The period under review when assessing the residency obligation is limited to the last five years immediately preceding the examination for persons who have been a permanent resident for at least five years. For persons who have been permanent residents for less than 5 years, the test is that they be able to comply with their residency obligation in respect of the five year period immediately after becoming a permanent resident. Humanitarian and compassionate considerations, which take into account the best interests of affected children, will be carefully reviewed before any loss of residency decisions are rendered for failure to satisfy the residency obligation. This is new as the current Act only allows for humanitarian considerations to be reviewed during an appeal but not during the initial loss of status determination. Bill C-11also provides for an oral appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division of all IRB decisions regarding failure to meet the residency obligation. This includes consideration of any humanitarian and compassionate circumstances and is subject to judicial review by the Federal Court.

Earlier this year, CIC concluded its evaluation of the Centralization and Family Class Redesign Pilot (the Pilot), established to test the feasibility of centralized processing and of the redesigned FC application kit.

The reports suggest that no increase in productivity was gained from processing applications centrally in Canada, and no improvements in processing times were found. It was found, however, that redesign of the Family Class application kit could yield significant results.

Population Growth Relying on Immigration

Statistics Canada says the country’s fertility rate is falling
compared with that of the United States, but it is still well above other
developed countries, Prof. David Foot said Wednesday.

Overall, in 1999, Canada’s population growth rate was 8.6 per 1,000,
compared with 12.3 in the United States. About 337,200 babies were born in
Canada in 1999. Had Canada’s fertility rate been the same as that of the
United States, the country would have had an estimated additional 123,000
births, bringing the population growth rate to 12.7 per 1,000.

Low birth rates mean that immigration has become the main contributor to
population growth. At present levels, deaths are expected to exceed births
in Canada in about 20 to 25 years. U.S. population projections indicate
that births will continue to exceed deaths for the next 50 years.

OTTAWA — Canada’s immigration policies are becoming restrictive at a time when the country needs to build its skilled workforce, Nancy Hughes Anthony, Canadian Chamber of Commerce president, said yesterday.

To make the economy more productive and innovative, Canada should be encouraging highly skilled people to come to Canada, Ms. Hughes Anthony told the Canadian Club in Toronto.

The goals of the government’s innovation strategy — announced last month by Allan Rock, the Industry Minister, and Jane Stewart, the Human Resources Minister — are being blunted by new immigration rules now being considered by Parliament.

The rules are in response to a heightened concern for security and will reduce the numbers of immigrants able to enter the country, Ms. Hughes Anthony said.

“Immigration has always been a major source of qualified workers for Canada, but as global competition for skilled labour increases we must become more aggressive in our approach,” Ms. Hughes Anthony said.

“Unfortunately, there seems to be a contradiction between this goal and the new restrictive immigration regulations before Parliament. If Canada does not fix its system and cannot compete in a positive way for people, then our members cannot continue to grow the country’s economy or compete globally.”

Canada’s workforce is ageing and will not be completely replaced by subsequent generation in the decades ahead.

Ms. Stewart has suggested Canada will need at least one million new workers from overseas by the end of the decade.

If Canada plans to attract this level of immigration, the country also needs to be more accommodating in recognizing the skill levels of immigrants, Ms. Hughes Anthony said.

“Too many high-skilled people faced with the costs of repeating their studies or undertaking further training have simply given up, resulting in a significant productivity loss to Canada.

“The government can help to ease this problem by working with industry and professional associations to develop national and international accreditation standards to evaluate foreign credentials.”

The government can also help to attract highly skilled people by cutting taxes, particularly income taxes, she said.

“In order to attract and retain highly skilled and productive human capital, much more needs to be done in providing fair taxes for all individuals,” she said.

In its innovation strategy, Ottawa has committed to keeping tax levels consistent and competitive with the G7 nations.

But Ms. Hughes Anthony said that it is imperative that Canada use the United States as a benchmark if the country hopes to retain investment and talent.