|
August 5, 2004
Dear Minister:
I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you and the Immigration Department for finally implementing this long overdue legislation licensing Immigration Consultants so that there is a means of protecting consumers for Immigration services from either incompetent and/or unscrupulous individuals operating in Canada and all over the world.
The issue of licensing Immigration Consultants has been discussed for as far back as I can remember when I was with the Immigration Department. Unfortunately it took so long to implement the process. There are also some serious implementation issues and problems that I will not address here other than to state that Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC), the governing body has rushed the process of registration resulting in serious inefficiencies and high costs. Many long time Consultants have brought the integrity and ulterior motives of this body into question.
I trust that with this new legislation that your offices will recognize the benefits of having licensed consultants who are both ethical and competent in immigration matters serving the immigrant community in Canada and Canadian Immigration clients abroad.
SERIOUS ISSUES OF CONCERN:
Canada has traditionally been a country of compassion and has for the most part dealt with immigration clients fairly. The Liberal government in particular has recognized the benefits to Canada of Immigration and the need for Canada to demonstrate flexibility in the administration of Immigration legislation and programs while safeguarding the integrity of the Immigration programs.
I joined the Department in 1967 when the White Paper on Immigration was introduced by the then Minister Jean Marchand in the Liberal government headed by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Canada, over the years has accommodated many immigrants under humanitarian and compassionate programs - including amnesties - as well as selected many skilled and business immigrants. The benefits to Canada of all these immigrants have far outweighed the costs. It has made Canada a rich country economically and culturally.
I am writing to you now because we are in danger of jeopardizing our humanitarian and compassionate tradition. This is something that has always distinguished your political party, the Liberal Party. I want to discuss some issues for your consideration and hopefully immediate action in this and future issues:
- IN CANADA SPONSORSHIP OF SPOUSES
- HUMANITARIAN AND COMPASSIONATE CASES
- BEST INTEREST OF CHILDREN NOT ADDRESSED
- DENIAL OF SPONSORSHIP FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE DEPENDENTS IN APPLICATION
- OVERSEAS APPLICATIONS HANDLED BY LOCAL STAFF
- INEFFICIENCY AND TIME DELAYS
IN CANADA SPONSORSHIP OF SPOUSES
In June 2002 the Immigration Department implemented the new Immigration Legislation. One of the "HIGHLIGHTS" of the new legislation is the provision to allow for persons to apply for permanent resident status in Canada as long as they have legal status in Canada, if they are married to or if they have a common law relationship for at least one year with a Canadian Citizen or permanent resident of Canada.
On the surface, this provision appears to be very generous and "humanitarian". However, as is always the case, the law is secondary to the attitudes of the people who interpret the law and the policy of the immigration Department.
For instance, how can such a seemingly generous system result in the deportation of a husband and father of three to Nigeria with no criminal record? And is it humane or generous for a man who was always in compliance with the Immigration authorities to be put in handcuffs when he reported to immigration as directed, put in detention to be deported within days in front of his crying Canadian wife and his 3 screaming young Canadian born children? A hardworking family where the wife worked days while her husband worked evenings so they could make ends meet and take care of their children without resorting to social assistance were torn apart, and this man's only crime was that he did not have legal status in Canada.
In the words of the immigration official who put the handcuffs on the applicant: "they should have known they were taking a risk when they had the children in the first place";. Tell that to the children who will be fatherless for probably 1 to 2 years or longer. When asked for the reason for detention, he replied: "he is a risk not to appear for removal because he is very motivated to remain in Canada". When asked, if he really wanted to remain, he obviously answered: "yes".
Immigration officials decided it was okay to allow for a loving and self-supporting family to be separated, and in turn created a single parent family who will most likely have to turn to Social Services to help support herself and her three children. Incidentally, if the mother must rely on social assistance, she may be ineligible to sponsor her husband back to Canada!
An immigration officer made the decision that separation of this man from his spouse and young children would not cause any significant hardship. The Immigration Act and the decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada direct officers to make decisions in the "best interest of the child". The officer, in order to try to technically comply, states in his decision that he has considered the "best interests of the child" but stated that due to their "young age" they would not be significantly affected by separation from their father, and therefore there are insufficient "humanitarian and compassionate" grounds to allow the applicant to remain in Canada.
The officer made this decision on paper - without even seeing the family. I would have liked to see if he would have the courage to make this decision looking this family including these children in their eyes!
Immigration officers, especially those that are "immigration hawks" have the comfort of knowing that their decisions cannot be interfered with by their superiors and in fact have the support of new manual "guidelines" that now state for the first time that marriage to a Canadian - even one that is genuine - is in itself not sufficient to warrant the granting of special relief for humanitarian and compassionate consideration. In other words separation of spouses - notwithstanding that family reunification is an objective of the Immigration Act - is not a major factor.
Under the previous Act there was no provision for "family members" applying from within Canada but there was always the provision to apply under "Humanitarian and Compassionate" grounds. There would always be a test when couples were married in Canada whether the marriage appeared to be genuine. Once the officer was satisfied that the marriage was genuine and there were no other negative reasons to refuse the application the applicant was given the opportunity to be processed from within Canada. In many cases the applicant did not have legal status in Canada but this was overridden by the circumstances including a genuine and bona fide marriage and relationship with a Canadian citizen or Permanent resident.
In addition to the changes of the immigration legislation and policy, the increasing backlog of cases from within Canada - including those who are sponsored by their spouse or common law partner - is so great and results in applications not being processed for a long time. Many applicants in turn are forced to apply from overseas because of the shorter processing times, but this process could cause the unnecessary separation of spouses or partners, and extra airplane expenses that not everyone can easily afford.
In conclusion, the Immigration Department has given Canadians and potential immigrants the impression that the new Immigration Act is more lenient in allowing spouses and common law partners to apply from within Canada - but the implementation of the law, the policy and attitude of the "immigration hawks" has moved the Department backwards in meeting the objective of family reunification. This point is clearly reflected looking in the eyes of a hard working sad mother of three young children left for possibly years - or forever - without her husband; the crying faces of 3 young children who will be fatherless because "they are too young to be affected by the separation from their father"; and the applicant who was forced to return to Nigeria - a country that he fears, for political and other reasons separated from his wife and 3 children. Perhaps the victims of this new "progressive" policy should include Canadian Citizens. We Canadians should also share the guilt for allowing this to happen. We will be responsible for paying social benefits for the family and for any psychological or other harm done as a result of three children seeing their loving father taken away from them in handcuffs and not seeing him for a long time - if ever at all.
Sincerely,
Sol Gombinsky
(CSIC ID: M041298)
SOLUTIONS Immigration Consulting
1183 Finch Ave. West, Suite 508
Toronto, ON, M3J 2G2
Phone: (416) 661-6376
Fax: (416) 663-4931
|
This e-Newsletter is never sent unsolicited. You are receiving this message as a subscriber to the Canadian Immigration SOLUTIONS e-Newsletter or it has been forwarded to you by your friend.