GOVERNMENT QUIETLY SETS AUG. 1 TO RESTRICT CHILD IMMIGRATION

Starting Aug. 1, 2014, parents may only sponsor children to Canada who are under 19 years of age. This also applies to any applicant for permanent residence, who wants to include their children in their application. Children over 18 years of age may only be sponsored or included in an application if they are dependent on the parent and unable to support themselves due to a physical or mental condition. The rule changes were published without any news release in the Canada Gazette on Wednesday.

The government had initially proposed these changes in May, 2013, to be effective Jan. 1, 2014. As I previously wrote, in late last December the Immigration Minister said the government had postponed a decision on the changes after many public groups had expressed opposition to the changes. Despite the opposition, the government has moved ahead with the changes. Like other changes to the rules, the government justifies it on economic grounds. It says that older children are less able to adjust to moving to Canada and do not have Canadian work experience  and education that is better recognized by Canadian taxpayers.

Applications to sponsor dependent children include sponsorship forms completed by a parent or parents, and the applicants complete application forms. Under the current rules, children under age 22 can be sponsored or included in an application. It also includes children over age 21 who are dependent and continuously enrolled in and attending a post-secondary institution approved by a government, and are actively pursuing a course of academic, professional or vocational training on a full-time basis.

Applications properly filed before Aug. 1, 2014, will be considered under the current rules. The applications have to be complete and in order. If anyone has concerns about the application process, they might consider retaining the services of an experience immigration lawyer or qualified immigration consultant.

William Macintosh started practising as an immigration lawyer in 1984. You can reach him for advice or help on any immigration or citizenship matter at 778-714-8787 or by e-mail at macintoshlaw@gmail.com.

HELPING YOU GET WHERE YOU WANT TO BE

Floated policy highlights spousal sponsorship challenges

The current government has implemented changes to immigration rules for several years, in all categories of immigration, to address several of its concerns. The first concerns the ability of immigrants to adapt to the economy and their ability to contribute to society. The second is to crack down on fraud in obtaining permanent immigrant status and ultimately citizenship.

For the most part, the changes related to adaptability have focused on economic immigrants, but has included changes to sponsoring parents and grandparents. However, several weeks ago the Toronto Star reported the immigration department was thinking of requiring sponsored spouses to meet language and other requirements. If carried out, this would be the most dramatic change to spousal sponsorship since the category was formally started in 1962. Earlier rules had expressly exempted spouses from literacy tests.

This alarmed a number of groups and arose after the Immigration Minister, Chris Alexander, reportedly raised the issues at public meetings earlier this year. Critics suggested the idea would prevent many spouses, particularly from non-English and non-French-speaking countries, from qualifying under family sponsorship. They also suggested the government was thinking about requiring sponsors to meet minimum income requirements to sponsor their spouses. The government was quick to respond to the criticism. The Minister’s spokesperson, Alexis Pavlich, deflected the issue by saying the issues were raised by stakeholders as meetings and did not mean that it would become government policy.

Since 1962 citizens and permanent residents have had a right to sponsor their spouses to the country. Following a court ruling the rules were amended in early 1984 to prevent “immigration marriages” by excluding spouses who did not intend on living permanently with their sponsor. The current rule requires spouses, common-law partners and conjugal partners to prove their relationship is genuine and was not entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any immigration status.

While immigration officers are trained to spot fraudulent marriages, the decision-making process can appear subjective. It is difficult to determine what a person is thinking by objectively viewing their actions and statements. As a further deterrence, when the current Act was started in 2002, a rule was added (Regulation 117(9)(b)) to prevent a sponsor from sponsoring a new spouse while they still were responsible (currently for three years) for a previous one. Some persons had abused the system by sponsoring a spouse, obtaining a divorce within a few years and remarrying another person to sponsor. A few cases involved serial sponsors, involving more than two immigration marriages in a row.

To deter immigrants who deceive their sponsor and terminate the relationship soon after coming to Canada, the rules were changed in 2012 (Regulation 130(3)) to bar a recent immigrant from sponsoring a new spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner for five years after getting their permanent status. The consequences can be harsh for a person whose previous relationship breaks down for legitimate reasons and wants to start a new relationship with another immigrant.

There is nothing guaranteed about sponsoring a spouse or other partners. Red flags are raised when the parties to a relationship appear incompatible due to age, education, race or religion. Arranged marriages are looked at to see if they fit within customary norms. The sponsorship process requires the immigrant applicant to complete a questionnaire about their relationship. If the written application doesn’t address potential concerns the applicant will be called to an interview, where their answers will be compared with the written application.

If refused, the sponsor may appeal the decision to the Immigration and Refugee Board. This does not apply to refusals of applications made within Canada. New evidence can be submitted to the board. Other witnesses to the relationship may testify. The Border Agency may investigate by visiting the sponsor’s home. Credibility is a primary issue. False statements, whether regarding employment, education, family relationships or other matters, may affect a decision. They might also lead to criminal charges for sponsors. The Border Agency is also seeking removal orders against permanent residents under the current law for making misrepresentations in subsequent sponsorships.

De Cervantes, the Spanish author of Don Quixote, is quoted as saying “Forewarned, forearmed; to be prepared is half the victory.” Anyone contemplating a relationship with a potential immigrant should be aware of the responsibilities and obligations of sponsoring that person. In order to avoid a delayed application or having to appeal a refusal, they should arm themselves with knowledge of how to prove it is a genuine relationship and to deal with any potential matter an immigration officer may be concerned about. Inadequate information can result in an uninformed response. Since the onus is always on the applicant to prove they qualify for immigration, an officer will not be faulted if the information is not provided.

William Macintosh started practising as an immigration lawyer in 1984. You can reach him for advice or help on any immigration or citizenship matter at 778-714-8787 or by e-mail at macintoshlaw@gmail.com.

Minister confirms parental sponsorship restrictions; no change yet to dependent children

Immigration Minister Chris Alexander appeared in Brampton, Ontario, Wednesday to announce the government’s changes to sponsorship rules and policy for parents and grandparents. Despite his efforts to sugarcoat the announcement, he couldn’t disguise the fact that the changes will severely limit future reunification of parents and grandparents for many families in Canada.

Minister Alexander’s predecessor, Jason Kenney, announced the new policy originally on May 10. Proposed rule changes were published a week later. The final version of the changes made by cabinet order on Dec. 12 will not be formally published until Jan. 1, 2014, the day they come into effect.

The new rules and policy make four significant changes to sponsorship of parents and grandparents. First, sponsors previously signed an undertaking to be responsible for the parents and grandparents for 10 years after they are granted permanent residence. New undertakings will last 20 years. If the parents or grandparents receive any social assistance within those 20 years, the sponsor may be compelled to pay back the social assistance payments.

Secondly, sponsors are required to meet certain income requirements to be eligible to sponsor parents and grandparents. The minimum necessary income for sponsoring parents and grandparents is increasing by 30 percent. For example, at present a sponsor with a spouse and two children intending to sponsor two parents has to show an annual income of $55,378. Starting in 2014, the same sponsor will have to show an annual income of $71,991.

Thirdly, sponsors will be required to provide proof of income from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for three years, instead of one year. A sponsor noted above wanting to file an application in January, 2014, will have to show proof of the greater income for the taxation years from 2011 to 2013. The sponsor may not get satisfactory proof from the CRA for 2013 income for several months, so the sponsor may have to show proof of the higher income for 2010 as well if they file an application on Jan. 2.

That’s important if the sponsor’s application is to be approved, because of the fourth change. The Minister confirmed that under his power to issue instructions the number of sponsorship applications for parents and grandparents accepted for processing in 2014 will be limited to 5,000 (covering 9,000 applicants); effectively on a first-come, first-served basis.

Like the historic Oklahoma Land Rush, there will be a mad scramble to file applications in early January as sponsors stake their claim to the limited number of sponsorships. The government isn’t helping the situation. The Minister advised that new application forms and guides will not be posted on the Citizenship and Immigration website until Dec. 31.

When asked about that, the Minister said there wouldn’t be any surprises with the new forms. He urged those intending to apply to get ready and gather the necessary information. He said it doesn’t take a lot of time to get it together, noting he had sponsored a spouse himself. One of the CRA forms usually requested is an Option C printout of a notice of assessment. While you can call the CRA to request the form, it may take a week or two to receive it.

The Minister’s announcement amounted to a shell game. On the one hand the Minister notes the changes will reduce the backlog and waiting time for outstanding applicants.  On the other hand, he hides the fact that fewer potential sponsors will be eligible. In prior statements the government made it clear it wants to reduce parental sponsorship as parents and grandparents are considered to be an economic burden, as they make demands on social and health services that outweigh any benefit their presence may contribute to the economy. That may be a legitimate political policy decision. Unfortunately current politics dictate that political leaders obfuscate policy decisions to offend the fewest number of voters.

There was good news for some from the Minister. A further change proposed in May would restrict eligible children who can be included in any application, either through family sponsorship or economic class applications, to children under age 19 (it would still include children over 18 who are dependent due to mental or physical conditions). The Minster advised that a final decision on that change, which was to start Jan. 1, has been put off until early next year. Public input on that proposal may be making the government think twice about it.

William Macintosh started practising as an immigration lawyer in 1984. You can reach him for advice or help on any immigration or citizenship matter at 778-714-8787 or by e-mail at macintoshlaw@gmail.com.

HELPING YOU GET WHERE YOU WANT TO BE

Perils involved in citizenship adoption applications

When then-immigration minister Diane Finley announced in 2007 the start of changes to the Citizenship Act allowing children adopted abroad by Canadian citizens to obtain citizenship, the new law reduced the differences in treatment between children adopted abroad and children born abroad to a Canadian parent.
Applicants would have to prove the adoptions were legal and genuine, and were not entered into mainly for acquiring status in Canada - a challenge Kulwinder Kaur faced when she applied for citizenship as an adoptee several years ago.

Ms. Kaur’s maternal aunt (massi) and her husband purportedly adopted her in 2002 in Punjab when she was 13 years old. Her aunt in Canada had two sons. She and her husband wanted a daughter. They discussed their desire with her sister and brother-in-law, who agreed to give Kulwinder Kaur up for adoption.
Indian adoption law sets rules as to who may be adopted and who may adopt. Unlike Canada, where all provinces require court approval for adoption, the law in India allows people to carry out their own adoption. The main formality is a giving and taking ceremony, when the child is physically handed over to the adopting parents by the natural parents.

The aunt and uncle thought they had gone through all the formalities necessary to adopt Kulwinder Kaur. A giving and taking ceremony was performed. Notice of the adoption was published in a newspaper. To provide written proof of their action, the aunt and uncle, together with the natural parents, registered a deed of adoption with a court in India.

Unfortunately for Kulwinder Kaur, her new parents took no action to bring her to Canada until 2010. She remained in India, though the new parents appointed a guardian to be responsible for her, while they provided support from Canada.

When Kulwinder was 21 years old, she applied for Canadian citizenship based on the new rules that came into effect in 2007. In 2012 a citizenship officer at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi interviewed her, along with the guardian and her natural parents. She failed to prove to the officer that a giving and taking ceremony was performed, and that her adoption was genuine. Her only remedy was to apply for judicial review of the decision. That review was held before the Federal Court in Vancouver last month. Justice Michael Phelan, who heard the review, rendered his decision within a week, upholding the officer’s refusal.

A judicial review is a limited form of appeal. Justice Phelan could only consider the evidence that was considered by the citizenship officer. He could only overturn the decision if he found the officer’s conclusions were unreasonable. Based on the evidence before the officer, Justice Phelan decided the decision was reasonable.

When interviewed by the officer in New Delhi, neither Kulwinder Kaur nor the others gave clear evidence that a ceremony took place. The officer was not satisfied about explanations for the lack of visits by the adopting parents and communication with Kulwinder Kaur, and why it took eight years before taking action to have her come to Canada.

The law holds that an applicant must prove they qualify for citizenship. An officer making a decision is not required to find a way for someone to qualify. An uninformed applicant is at a disadvantage, not knowing what evidence is important to show an officer, especially when it deals with legal issues like a giving and taking ceremony. For example, it is the usual practice in Punjab, when registering a deed of adoption, to have all the parties present, including the child being adopted, who will be physically given and taken before the court registrar.

Had Kulwinder Kaur been aware of the importance of this, she or one of the other persons could have told the officer. What is unfair is that the officer probably did not ask about it, though the officer should have been aware of the practice. The Immigration and Refugee Board upheld the Indian court practice as proof of a giving and taking ceremony over 17 years ago (see [1996] I.A.D.D. No. 1032 (QL)).

While Kulwinder Kaur may have proven that she was properly given and taken, the lengthy delay in joining her adoptive parents raised serious questions about the adoption’s genuineness. Getting good advice before starting on such an important matter can help avoid disappointment later on. As shown in this case, an inadequately prepared application cannot be cleared up after the decision is made. 

William Macintosh started practising as an immigration lawyer in 1984. You can reach him for advice or help on any immigration or citizenship matter at 778-714-8787 or by email at macintoshlaw@gmail.com. 

HELPING YOU GET WHERE YOU WANT TO BE

Fraser Institute continues assault against family immigration

On May 25 I wrote about then Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s announcement to reinstate the processing of applications to sponsor parents and grandparents which was suspended in November, 2011.  While increasing the number of applications processed each year to reduce the large backlog of existing applications, the government intends to introduce new rules for new applications starting in January, 2014, which will make it harder to sponsor parents and grandparents. The government’s proposals have received a mixed response from the Fraser Institute in its latest report on immigration policy.

While the proposed rule changes have not yet been formally approved and published, the government has given no indication that it will change any of its proposals. When the government resumes receiving new sponsorship applications for parents and grandparents in January, 2014, it will limit new applications to 5,000 per year. The changes include increased income requirements for sponsors, impose a 20-year undertaking for sponsors to be responsible for the relatives and ending sponsorship of dependent children at age 18.

On Tuesday, the Fraser Institute released its latest immigration report, entitled “Canadian Family Class Immigration: The parent and grandparent component under review,” written by Martin Collacott, a long-time critic of immigration policies. In 1997, soon after he ended a 30-year foreign service career and before he began authoring reports with the Fraser Institute, Mr. Collacott expressed the opinion that Canada was eroding its achievements in integrating immigrants by allowing in large numbers of people who were ill-equipped to participate in Canada.

In 1998 he used the assassination of Tara Singh Hayer as an opportunity to push for changes to immigration policy and blaming a lack of change on vested interests and well-intentioned advocacy groups. In 2000 he took his crusade against existing Canadian immigration laws before the U.S. Congress, testifying that lax laws made it easy for terrorists and their sympathizers to raise funds within Canada. Since then he has authored several dozen articles and reports with the Fraser Institute.

In his latest report Mr. Collacott says Canada needs to ensure that taxpayers are adequately protected from assuming the costs of support and medical care for sponsored parents and grandparents. He implies the government should have cancelled some, if not all, of the outstanding sponsorship applications because of those costs. He suggests the failure of the government to do this was to curry favour with eligible voters in the next election, ignoring a basic legal concept against retroactive legislation.

Mr. Collacott argues that the proposed changes requiring sponsors to take more financial responsibility for supporting their parents and grandparents don’t go far enough as taxpayers will still bear much of the expenses of older sponsored immigrants who may be eligible for Canada’s various income support programs. He suggests tougher provisions, proposing that Canada consider copying policies used by Australia.

Under a balance-of-family test a sponsor must have at least half of their siblings already living permanently in Australia, or at least more of them living permanently in Australia than in any other country, in order to sponsor parents. This has resulted in fewer parents immigrating to Australia. He incorrectly states that Australia also requires a sponsor to pay significant visa fees for a contributory parent visa, though it does require an assurance of support and financial bonds for the required support period. Mr. Collacott also recommends the government look at requiring sponsors to purchase comprehensive health insurance for parents or grandparents they want to bring to Canada to reduce the strain on the public health care system.

As with most reports from the Fraser Institute, it bases its recommendations on economic factors, from selectively chosen studies. In Mr. Collacott’s case, he draws some conclusions without objective data. For example, his opinion that the economic benefits of having sponsored parents and grandparents available for child care in reducing the burden on government-funded facilities and enabling greater labour force participation by sponsors, would unlikely come close to offsetting the health care and other costs to taxpayers of those sponsored.

Don’t expect this report to influence the government in making any more changes to the rules for sponsoring parents and grandparents in the near future. A more critical analysis of the report will likely reveal more errors. Immigration issues are open to legitimate debate. That includes arguments that public policy should not be based solely on economic factors. There are intangible factors, which are not quantifiable on a ledger sheet, which ought to be considered and weighed in making political decisions affecting conflicting interests.

 William Macintosh started practising as an immigration lawyer in 1984. You can reach him for advice or help on any immigration or citizenship matter at 778-714-8787 or by email at macintoshlaw@gmail.com.

HELPING YOU GET WHERE YOU WANT TO BE

Immigration relief for Filipinos affected by typhoon

As a result of the national calamity in the Philippines created by super typhoon Yolanda, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander announced Thursday that Canada will be prioritizing the processing of applications on request from Filipinos who are significantly and personally affected by the typhoon.

Applications from Filipino citizens to extend their temporary stay in Canada will be considered in a compassionate and flexible matter. Citizenship and Immigration Canada will receive requests for priority processing by email at situation-philippines@cic.gc.ca or through a dedicated crisis line at its Call Centre at 1-888-242-2100.

Overseas applicants, who have applied for temporary or permanent visas, may contact the visa office in Manila, to declare their case as a priority, by email at manila-im-enquiry@international.gc.ca. The visa office will consider applicants who can demonstrate they are significantly and personally affected by the typhoon, with priority given to those in affected areas.

The government responded in a similar manner following the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 and the catastrophic earthquake in Haiti in 2010. Instructions were given in 2010 for priority processing of applications in Canada and abroad, waiving certain fees and requirements to have travel documents. The extent of the government’s relaxation of requirements will not be known until the government issues a detailed operational bulletin, so it is advised to keep informed by regularly checking the immigration website at www.cic.gc.ca.

The Filipino community is making an increasing contribution to the social and economic development of Canada. Since 2006, the Philippines has been the second largest source of immigrants, with 32,747 Filipinos arriving in 2012. As of the 2011 census, 662,605 persons identified themselves as Filipino, including 133,995 in British Columbia; making it the third-largest non-European community in the country. In addition, 47,470 Filipinos were in Canada on Dec. 1, 2012, as temporary workers.

Canadians are responding to the plight befalling those in the Philippines. The Government of Canada has pledged up to $5-million for assistance, as well as sending a disaster relief team. Fundraisers have been organized across the country as Canadians of all stripes worth together to help those in need..

William Macintosh started practising as an immigration lawyer in 1984. You can reach him for advice or help on any immigration or citizenship matter at 778-714-8787 or by email at macintoshlaw@gmail.com.

HELPING YOU GET WHERE YOU WANT TO BE

Annual immigration report glosses over contentious issues

On Monday this week Immigration Minister Chris Alexander stood in the House of Commons to announce the filing of the 2013 annual report on immigration. It was a perfunctory performance, lasting less than a minute, unaccompanied by any speech or comment on the report’s contents. Mandated by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the report includes a description of activities and initiatives undertaken by the Immigration Department in the previous year. As well, it lists the number of persons who became permanent residents and the number projected to become permanent residents in the next year; including those entering under provincial immigration programs. The report usually lauds the government’s achievements and sets the tone on what matters most to the government.

This year’s report is no exception. The Minister’s introductory message notes the government’s focus on economic interests. He states, “For Canada to remain competitive in the global economy and support our national interests, we must ensure our immigration system is designed to best meet our current and future labour market needs.” The government plans continue high levels of immigration to Canada, with 240,000 to 265,000 new permanent residents expected in the next year.

A news release issued by the Immigration Department after the report’s release indicate that economic class immigration will increase to 63 per cent of all permanent residents in 2014, with 26 per cent admitted under the family class and 11 per cent admitted as refugees and on other humanitarian grounds. As well, under the economic class, up to 47,000 permanent residents will be admitted under provincial nominee programs. Provincial programs are viewed as strengthening local economics by allowing provinces to select immigrants to meet specific labour market needs and promote business development.

The number of permanent residents admitted under the Canadian experience class will also increase, to 15,000 in 2014. While not new, the annual report provides details on the government’s intention to start a new method of selecting economic immigrants in 2015, under what is called an “Expression of Interest” management system.

Copied from immigration programs in Australia and New Zealand, an EOI system allows prospective immigrants to indicate their desire to move to Canada by providing information about their qualifications. Eligible applicants will have their information posted on-line, to allow potential employers to select specific applicants. Those that receive job offers or who have in-demand skills will be invited to file immigration applications, which the government will process on a priority basis. The government expects an EOI system will reduce backlogs and keep processing times to a minimum.

Lost in the spin highlighting the government’s achievements and goals of working to improve the economy is the long-term reduction of the program for sponsoring parents and grandparents, known by its bureaucratic acronym, PGP. The government is still committed to changes beginning in January, 2014, which will reduce the number of new sponsorships for parents and grandparents. New rules will require sponsors to sign longer-term undertakings (20 years) to support these relatives, increase the required income to sponsor them and increase the qualifying period for proving the required income level to three years.

On Tuesday, in an attempt to appear supportive of family sponsorship, the Immigration Department issued another news release, stating the government’s intention to reduce the PGP backlog. Anyone sponsoring parents knows that wait times have increased up to eight years in some cases. The government expects it will have admitted up to 50,000 parents and grandparents in 2012 and 2013, with 20,000 more added in 2014. 

While existing applications will benefit from these measures, future sponsors will be limited to a cap of 5,000 applications each year (involving 9,000 immigrants), if they meet the more stringent sponsorship qualifications. This sleight-of-hand will see the backlog of applicants reduced to about 42,000 by the end of 2015. The release notes the government’s program to issue super visas, allowing parents and grandparents to come to Canada as visitors for up to two years, implying that it is acceptable substitute for permanent sponsorship. It has approved 26,000 visas since the end of 2011, which is fewer per year than would have been sponsored previously for permanent residence.

Tuesday also saw the release of second news release advising that the government will increase the number of live-in caregivers granted permanent residence in the next year to 17,500. Live-in caregivers are admitted as workers who, after completing two years work, may apply for permanent residence. The government allowed a backlog to develop in processing their permanent resident applications by failing to increase processing levels, despite allowing more into Canada as temporary workers.

The annual report does not address the issue of temporary foreign workers admitted to Canada. The latest immigration statistics show that 125,000 temporary workers were admitted in the first six months of this year, a 5-per-cent increase from last year. New rules restricting language requirements, mandating equal pay for foreign workers and requiring employers to pay a $275 processing fee came into effect in July. It is not known yet if these measures have decreased the number of temporary workers admitted to Canada.

The annual immigration report is another attempt by the government to sell itself as a competent manager of the economy. Immigration measures planned for 2014 continue to focus on the means of attracting permanent residents who will benefit Canada, and who are not a drain on health or social services. It glosses over contentious issues, such as whether or not current policy is meeting other objectives of immigration law, such as reuniting families in Canada, and maximizing social and cultural benefits of immigration. The results of the governments measures will not be known for several years, by the time the government seeks renewal of a mandate to govern in 2015.

William Macintosh started practising as an immigration lawyer in 1984. You can reach him for advice or help on any immigration or citizenship matter at 778-714-8787 or by e-mail at macintoshlaw@gmail.com.

HELPING YOU GET WHERE YOU WANT TO BE

New Immigration Minister to face continuing challenges

On July 15 Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the appointment of Chris Alexander, MP for Ajax-Pickering in Ontario, as the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, replacing Jason Kenney. Mr. Kenney had been the Immigration Minister since October, 2008, the longest tenure for an immigration minister since Charles Stewart held the position in the 1920s.

Mr. Alexander has publicly acknowledged that he has “big shoes” to fill, as Mr. Kenney has left large imprints on the immigration ministry and immigration policy. Mr. Kenney hasn’t left the field entirely as he will still have an impact through the implementation of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program as part of his responsibilities as the new Minister of Employment and Social Development.

During his tenure Mr. Kenney was responsible for several significant legislative changes to immigration legislation and regulations, many under the guise of public safety and crime protection issues. In 2010 Parliament passed the Balanced Refugee Reform Act which tightened the procedures for determining refugee claimants and removing failed claimants. Amendments in 2011 provided for greater regulation of immigration consultants. Under the 2012 Safe Streets and Communities Act immigration officers are empowered to refuse work permits to workers in vulnerable occupations subject to abuse. The Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act in 2012 made further changes to the determination of refugee claimants in Canada and imposed restrictions on persons who arrive in Canada through organized smuggling. Finally, last month Parliament passed the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act which makes it possible to deport permanent residents without appeal if convicted of serious criminal offences and sentenced to at least six months in prison.

Much of immigration policy is carried out through regulations. Under Mr. Kenney’s watch the regulations have been amended for various reasons, including eliminating some health services for refugee claimants and the creation of conditional visas for spouses in an attempt to reduce marriage fraud. He has been responsible for changes to eliminate the backlog of permanent skilled worker applications, wasting years of wait for many applicants.

The restrictions on health services for refugee claimants generated significant backlash, particular in the healthcare community. Fraud has been a major focus of the Immigration Department and the Canada Border Services Agency for the past few years, whether it be marriage fraud, misrepresentations made during immigration applications, and fraudulent claims of residency in citizenship applications.

Mr. Kenney’s last significant act was to announce proposed rule changes, to come into effect in 2014, that will restrict the ability of citizens and permanent residents to sponsor parents, and to limit the age of dependent children who may accompany immigrants to Canada under all categories to age 18 and younger.

The government’s purported priorities are job creation and the economy. Immigration policy, particularly under the current government, has changed – to use immigration as a means of meeting Canada’s economic needs. There has been less emphasis on family and humanitarian immigration categories. There has been a shift to meet short-term employment needs through temporary foreign workers. Some critics argue the changes have gone too far, with not enough public resources spent on job retraining of existing Canadian workers. They wonder why Canada continues to import more temporary foreign workers when the unemployment rate for young Canadians remains high.

The government faced political heat over two cases in the news since last year, with the proposed hiring of Chinese miners at the HD Mining site in Northern British Columbia and the Royal Bank of Canada’s training of foreign workers in Canada for future outsourcing of jobs. The government has yet to announce the results of its review of the temporary foreign worker program undertaken as a result of public outcry over these two cases.

Part of the problem is that job retraining is considered a matter of provincial responsibility and the provinces have not agreed what role the federal government should play. Until that is sorted out and political decisions are made on spending public monies to retrain Canadians, the federal government will probably continue to use temporary foreign workers as a solution for worker shortages in many occupations or to meet regional economic requirements.

While the immigration department and the border agency have increased resources for enforcement issues, the government has downloaded the cost of immigration selection to provinces by allowing them to select more immigrants. The government has centralized more immigration processing to fewer offices. Federal selection programs require applicants to spent more money to provide objective proof of their occupational and language qualifications. In an attempt to operate more efficiently there is less face-to-face contact with applicants.

There continue to be problems with citizenship applications and legislation. Conflicting decisions of the Federal Court over the residency requirement for grants of citizenship have existed for the past 20 years creating uncertainty and unfairness for applicants. Parliament has twice failed to pass a new citizenship law in the past 14 years. The government faces calls to restore or grant citizenship to persons born before 1947, who would otherwise be citizens if they were born after 1946.

Mr. Alexander will face all of these issues as the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Some issues, such as the use of temporary foreign workers, require agreement with several federal departments as well as the provinces and is not something he can resolve alone. I expect he will face a growing backlash over the proposed age limits on dependent children. The rule change will result in decreased parental sponsorship and a shift in the age range of potential economic immigrants, as fewer immigrants in their 40s with children older than 18 will likely apply to come to Canada. Given Canada’s aging demographics that may be the government’s intention. Mr. Alexander will have to use his skill as a former diplomat to navigate his way through the public perception that the government’s immigration policies are too focused on economic goals.

William Macintosh started practising immigration law in 1984. You can reach him for advice at 778-714-8787.

Changes to immigration rules toughen family sponsorship

Earlier this month, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced the results of a long-awaited review of the immigration program for sponsoring parents and grandparents, which was suspended in November 2011. The Minister suspended the program by putting a moratorium on new sponsorship applications for 24 months in order to reduce a backlog of 165,000 applicants, stretching up to eight or nine years.

The government will resume receiving new sponsorship applications for parents and grandparents in January 2014, though limited to 5,000 applications. In the meantime it expects to reduce the backlog by approving 50,000 applicants in 2012 and 2013, and will approve an equally high number in the coming years. The Minister announced four changes to the rules for sponsoring parents and grandparents starting in 2014. The changes will make it tougher for residents and citizens to sponsor their parents and grandparents.

Sponsorship of parents and grandparents has been an integral part of family class immigration under immigration law since 1978. Family sponsorship is one of three basic immigration streams, the others being economic immigrants and humanitarian immigrants.

Since 1978 sponsors have had to meet a minimal household income level set out in low income cut-off (LICO) figures published by Statistics Canada. The number of the sponsor’s family in Canada and family members being sponsored determines the level required. Parents and grandparents can include dependent children in their applications. The definition of who qualifies as a dependent child has varied over the years. Under the program, an immigrant, within a few years after arriving in Canada and establishing sufficient income, could sponsor their parents and remaining qualified siblings to come to Canada.

Sponsors also sign a contract, known as an undertaking of assistance, to be responsible for their parents or grandparents and their dependants for a period of time after they arrive in Canada. They also agree to repay to the government any welfare payments received by the sponsored relatives during the responsible period. Provincial governments didn’t begin suing sponsors to recover welfare payments received by sponsored relatives until the 1990s. In 2002 the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into effect, keeping the sponsorship of parents and grandparents in place, with some changes to rules for the enforcement of undertakings and to the required income levels for sponsorship.

The first change announced by Minister Kenney is to increase the sponsor’s minimum necessary income by 30 per cent above the required LICO figure. For example, a married sponsor with two dependent children sponsoring two parents will have to have a minimum household income of $55,378 plus the extra 30 per cent or $16,613 for a total of $71,991.

Secondly, the sponsor must show through income tax notices of assessment the required income level for the three years preceding the sponsorship application, instead of one year. Thirdly, the duration of the sponsorship undertaking is extended to 20 years, from ten years.

Finally, the maximum age of dependants is set at 18. At present, an applicant can include a dependant child over 21 who has been dependant upon the applicant before age 22 and has continued to be a student.

The government justifies the changes mostly for economic reasons. The official statement accompanying the proposed rule changes asserts that only 10 per cent of seniors over 65 years of age participate in the labour market, contributing taxes. On the other hand, a 2009 Metropolis Centre study suggests 40 per cent of parents and grandparents find work, with 30 per cent working as a child-care provider in the sponsor’s home. The government says a 2010 Immigration Department study found that three per cent of parents and grandparents receive welfare during the undertaking period, jumping to 20 per cent after the undertaking ends. As well, the official statement notes that 50 per cent of a person’s lifetime health care expenses are incurred after age 65, consuming 44 per cent of all heath care costs. As to increasing LICO levels, the government claims that compared with 1978, immigrant unemployment rates are higher, economic outcomes are worse and achieved later, and health care costs not covered by provincial health care are not adequately captured under current LICO levels.

Minister Kenney added more reasons in later statements, claiming one third of sponsored seniors end up on welfare and that he was informed more immigrant seniors were qualifying for subsidized public housing, displacing long-term residents and citizens who had contributed to the economy.

The changes will have a major effect on family sponsorship. The higher required income levels, and three-year period of assessment, will limit the number of qualified sponsors. Potential sponsors will likely have to have a longer period of settlement before making enough income to qualify. They may have to consider deferring establishing their own family in Canada until after sponsoring parents, if they want to meet the income qualifications, or wait until their own children become established on their own.

The lower age limit for dependants will likely result in many parents remaining in the home country if it means abandoning young adult children who are not self-supporting. If those children do not subsequently migrate, the parents may be less willing to join a lone child in Canada.

Sponsors may appeal refusals of permanent resident visas for parents on humanitarian grounds, when refused because the sponsor is unable to fulfil the income requirement. With fewer sponsors qualifying, the number of humanitarian appeals will increase. Those appeals are only likely to succeed if the parents have few family ties in the home country and the sponsor can show a stable income and adequate housing resources for the sponsored relatives.

Family class was established as a cornerstone of immigration policy in the 1970s under the Trudeau administration. Its critics, particularly in the past 20 years, have stressed arguments based on increased economic costs of family immigration. A 2011 Fraser Institute report co-authored by Herb Grubel, a former Reform MP, recommends abolishing all family sponsorship.

The current proposals maintain the appearance of supporting family class immigration in name only, while measuring family members against an economic balance sheet skewed by an aging Canadian population. If an immigrant can’t contribute to the economy, the government will restrict their access to it. There is no consideration of intangible social costs of allowing whole families to live together in Canada, even though it is a stated objective of the immigration law. To some, this cold-hearted approach to immigration lessens all of us.

William Macintosh is an immigration lawyer who began practising in 1984. You can reach him for advice at 778-714-8787.