Citizenship and Immigration Canada finds passport lost for 13 years

Fortunately, a very rare occurrence, but why should it have taken so long, and why were previous MPs not able to ‘encourage’ officials to find it?

A woman whose passport was lost in the depths of a federal department for over a decade is finally on her way to becoming a permanent resident.

“It has cost us so much heartache,” said Janina Ibarra. “I haven’t seen my mother in 11 years and I have not been able to go back.”

Ibarra came to Canada 17 years ago from Sri Lanka, which was in the midst of a civil war at the time. She says she had hoped to stay as a refugee.

Before her refugee case was settled, Ibarra met and married a Canadian citizen, and he applied to sponsor her for permanent residency status.

As part of that process, 13 years ago Sri Lanka sent her passport to Citizenship and Immigration Canada — but it went missing, leaving her with no official residency status in Canada.

Ibarra says for the past two years she has been under a deportation order she was told could be enforced at any time, which would mean leaving behind her husband and their two children.

The situation put her and her family in a precarious position — emotionally and financially — leaving them to rely on their community for support.

“There were times we would have money thrown in our mail slot,” she said. “At the end of the day it really was the benevolence of our church and church friends.”

Note buried in file

After the federal election last fall, Ibarra decided to ask her new MP Harjit Sajjan for help.

She got the answer she was hoping within three weeks. Buried in a half-metre-tall file was a note that said the passport had been archived by the government at least five years ago, if not longer, and where to find it.

Ibarra’s sponsorship application is on track for the first time since 1999. She says she hopes to have her permanent residency by late summer.

In the meantime, she’s looking for answers from the federal government for the years of her life she feels were put on hold waiting for her paperwork to get processed.

Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada finds passport lost for 13 years – British Columbia – CBC News

Canadian Language Benchmark Test Nightmare – Immigroup

One of the implications of the change in to pre-application assessment of language introduced in 2010 or 2011 as a means of streamlining processing based on advice from the Operations people.

I didn’t fully grasp the implications at the time (my bad!) but since then a number of these anecdotes have emerged (a Danish friend of mine, having worked in Silicon Valley and Ottawa for many years, had to pay $200 or so for his test despite obviously being fluent given his work history).

The end result is that for a number of people, Canadian citizenship costs $630 in government fees plus about $200 or more for language assessment, higher than comparator countries like Australia:

IRCC is asking that I take either a French exam which would cost me $460 or an English exam which would cost me $299. Why the difference in price? Why is it that I have to take a French exam when I graduated with a BA Honours French from a recognised university in Canada? The test is plainly highway robbery! Not only am I fully bilingual, I have also studied French since kindergarten and the best part of it is that I am a French teacher who has been working in a language school for a year and seven months now, teaching government employees the language (oral, written and comprehension at all levels)! On top of this $460 for the exam, I will also be required to pay $475 for the PR fee.

Source: Canadian Language Benchmark Test Nightmare – Immigroup – We Are Immigration Law

ICYMI: Stateless Prince George man one step closer to citizenship

No longer falling through the cracks:

Qia Gunster is one step closer to being Canadian.

The 20-year-old Prince George man has lived in B.C. since he was a baby, but has never been recognized by his country.

As a “stateless person,” Gunster has been unable to get government identification, which means he couldn’t legally work, drive a car or travel.

But this week, Citizenship and Immigration Canada granted Gunster permanent resident status and he will finally be able to get a driver’s licence. He will also be able to get a social insurance number, so he can work and pay taxes.

He won’t be able to apply for Canadian citizenship for another four years.

“It’s pretty awesome — my whole outlook on the future has changed,” Gunster said Thursday.

“It makes everything easier.”

Gunster was born in Arizona, but his mother didn’t register his birth and when he was 18 months old, she crossed the border into B.C. with him. She left her baby in McBride, east of Prince George, where he was raised by a friend of a friend.

Being without ID wasn’t a significant problem until he finished high school. With help from a large circle of supporters, Gunster was able to earn a living. He is partway through his apprenticeship as an electrician and has found employers willing to pay in cash.

But Gunster still faced many limitations. He needed a birth certificate even to begin the process of applying to the federal government for citizenship.

The school principal got involved, and his adoptive families tried to help. Even the local MP contacted Arizona government officials in an attempt to get Gunster a birth certificate.

Despite stacks of paperwork, and a DNA test proving he is the son of an Arizona resident, the state has refused to issue the document.

Late last year, Michelle Quigg, a lawyer with North Vancouver-based Access Pro Bono, got involved with Qia’s case. She succeeded in getting Gunster permanent residency status, but she intends to press the government to grant him citizenship sooner under a section of the Immigration Act that allows it for “exceptional circumstances.”

Gunster, meanwhile, is making plans. He is going to get his driver’s licence and apply for jobs as an electrical apprentice at any company who’s hiring. He can go to a bar and no longer worry about being asked to prove his age. He can apply for a credit card.

“When you’re stateless, the options are so limited — you can’t work unless you know the right people,” he said.

“Basically I was stuck in a black hole that I couldn’t get out of, and now I have a world of opportunities.”

ICYMI: Liberals cheapen citizenship | Chong

Gordon Chong, former Toronto municipal councillor, criticizes most aspects of the changes to the Citizenship Act announced by Minister McCallum (like all such critiques, ignores that McCallum maintained and added to integrity measures introduced by the Conservatives):

But this new soft-headed federal government wants to demonstrate its soft-heartedness by easing the rules to obtain our most treasured commodity, citizenship.

But should newcomers self-segregate and be functionally illiterate in English and French?

Should we establish a multitude of solitudes in addition to our “two solitudes”?

Should we discourage newcomers from “throwing their lot in with us”, as former federal court judge Francis Muldoon described unconditional commitment to Canada?

We need Canadians of conviction, not Canadians of convenience!

If citizenship is to be made irrevocable, a true “until death do us part” contract — unlike the Order of Canada, or an Olympic medal — then we should make the requirements reflect the unalterable nature of that contract.

Serious standards should be de rigueur.

When Paul Martin Sr. brought in Canada’s first Citizenship Act in 1947, he did not do so lightly.

He had visited the battlefields of Europe and solemnly recognized the contributions of French Canadians and others, including Japanese Canadians, Chinese Canadians, Italian Canadians and German Canadians, even though some were not recognized as “Canadians” in the same way as those of British descent.

Martin Sr. corrected that glaring oversight because so many had volunteered to fight for Canada — some on the battlefields, others in intelligence gathering — in World War II.

By 1947, Chinese inhabitants of Canada could finally vote.

In my family, there had been a dichotomy before that.

My British mother could vote, but my Chinese father could not!

The then Liberal government thought Canadian citizenship sufficiently precious that five years of residency was required prior to applying — with no flexible interpretations of “residency”.

In the 1960s, the residency requirements were shortened to three years with a looser interpretation of “residency”, to accommodate the business interests of those with international ties.

As their families were settling in, the business class immigrant (usually the husband] could leave the country and still be considered a “resident” because he had established a residence in Canada.

Our new-age Liberals are now proposing a change in the requirements for someone to be physically present in Canada from four out of six years to three out of five.

Why? The present rules are hardly onerous when granting something so valuable.

How much is Canadian citizenship worth? How much are we willing to devalue it? How soft-headed are we going to be?

Admittedly, revoking citizenship is challenging.

However, if the federal government is determined to keep dual citizenship, then those convicted of terrorism or other treasonous crimes against Canada should face the death penalty.

One way of extracting a seed of good from the psychotic nihilism that permeates terrorism would be to harvest the organs of convicted terrorists sentenced to death for transplantation and medical research.

Some faint-hearted souls may think this extreme. Many Canadians will not.

Serious, hard-headed, utilitarian leadership is the sine qua non for this debate. Who will lead it?

If patriotic Canadians willingly sacrifice their lives fighting terrorism, should traitorous Canadians not have to sacrifice theirs?

Then our policy will truly be once a Canadian, always a Canadian, irrevocably, right up to, “until death do us part!”

Source: Liberals cheapen citizenship | Chong | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

Canadians support visa-free travel between some [largely white] countries: poll

Apart from the practicalities (more complicated than portrayed by the advocates), this is a throwback to imperial preferences and has a xenophobic tinge given that all four are majority white countries.

Echoes of ‘old-stock’ vs new stock, and hard to see how it would be a winner given the underlying message:

A majority of Canadians support the right – along with Australians, New Zealanders and Britons – of residents to have unrestricted travel between the countries without the need for visas, a new poll has found.

According to the poll commissioned by the Britain-based Royal Commonwealth Society, 75 per cent of Canadians believe that residents of the four Commonwealth countries should have an arrangement similar to the European Union, which allows citizens to travel freely to live and work in member countries. The poll, conducted by Nanos Research, is part of the group’s ongoing efforts to promote greater mobility between the countries.

The results showed 82 per cent of New Zealanders, 70 per cent of Australians and 58 per cent of Britons also support the idea. The survey of 1,000 Canadians was conducted in late January.

Tim Hewish, the society’s policy director, said the group plans to lobby politicians in Ottawa in the coming months. “It’s the responsibility of elected governments to respond to these types of responses from their citizens,” he said.

Currently, Canadians require a visa for all travel to New Zealand and Australia. Canadians visiting Britain for work or study, or on trips longer than six months, also require a visa.

The four countries were selected out of the 53 Commonwealth nations because they share similar socioeconomic characteristics, Mr. Hewish said. “It is intended that this could apply to other Commonwealth countries with comparable economic characteristics over time,” his statement said.

But Emily Gilbert, a University of Toronto geography professor who studies citizenship and migration, voiced concern about which countries were included – and excluded – from the proposal, and pointed to anti-immigration sentiments being played out around the world.

“Given the context of us really being really antagonistic against people coming from places who we think are not like us, I find it highly problematic that this proposal – ‘These are people like us, they’re okay’ – that this proposal is getting this kind of groundswell of enthusiasm,” she said.

She added that arriving at such an arrangement between the four countries would be far from simple. Even if their leaders agreed to it, the implementation would require the involvement of countless departments and ministries at multiples levels of government. “I’m skeptical that it could actually be put into place,” she said.

Mr. Hewish said specific details, such as whether residents would have the right to vote, could be worked out between the individual countries. Mr. Hewish attributed the slightly lower level of support in Britain, at 58 per cent, to recent debate over a possible British exit from the EU. In fact, the survey found that only 46 per cent of respondents in Britain expressed support for continued free movement within the EU.

The poll, released Sunday, is just the latest in an ongoing effort by groups lobbying for such an arrangement. Last year, the Commonwealth Exchange – the policy arm of the RCS – released a report floating the idea. That received support from London Mayor Boris Johnson, who has spoken publicly about creating a “bilateral free labour mobility zone” between Australia, New Zealand and Britain.

Around the same time, an online petition created by a Vancouver-based group called the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organization received more than 100,000 signatures.

“The U.K., Australia, Canada and New Zealand share the same head of state, the same common-law legal system, the same Western culture, the same respect for democracy and even the same language,” the petition states. “It is therefore unreasonable for each to not share the same economic, political and cultural benefits that a free-movement policy would bring.”

Source: Canadians support visa-free travel between some countries: poll – The Globe and Mail

Citizenship must be about more than a genetic link

This issue was already subject of some analysis and study during my time at CIC/IRCC a number of years ago.

The previous government, which addressed adoption issues, was not prepared to move on this one.

We will see whether the current government will respond (it was not in the party platform, ministerial mandate letter or the proposed changes to citizenship in Bill C-6, so I expect not in the short-term):

The Canadian government is playing fast and loose with the definition of “Canadian.” In March 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal decided Nanakmeet Kandola, a young girl born abroad to a Canadian parent, was not a citizen because there was no genetic link between them. Nanakmeet’s mother carried and gave birth to her but she was the product of anonymously donated sperm and ova. Think of it as adoption in utero.

Yet, a child adopted by Canadian parents who fills out the same application for a Citizenship Certificate as Nanakmeet’s father did will be approved. No genetic link required.

Perversely, ex-Nazi war criminal Helmut Oberlander maintains his right to Canadian citizenship until yet another government review is completed. And shocking to some, children born to Canadian Daesh brides are considered citizens.

Where has Canada gone wrong?

The Citizenship Act dictates who is Canadian. There are three main roads to “become” Canadian — be born in Canada, immigrate and then apply when you meet all the requirements, or inherit citizenship through your parent or grandparent if born abroad. So why was Nanakmeet’s request for citizenship refused when others using the same route were approved?

The law is behind the times.

Sex and adoption were once the only ways a person was able to become a parent but times have changed. These options are now mere fence posts in the world of conception. As early as 1983, the first “test tube” birth occurred in Canada. In 2004, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act officially sanctioned fertility relationships with surrogates, where a woman carries a child for someone else, and ova and sperm donations. Today, assisted human reproduction is a full-fledged, albeit small, industry in Canada with fertility doctors, counsellors, clinics, lawyers and even agents.

Is it hypocritical for Canada to condone the birth of children through assisted fertility procedures but then deny some children citizenship because they were born through these same procedures?

The court decided Nanakmeet’s case two years ago. The majority of the court wrote, “Several important policy issues also arise because of the novelty which this case presents … These questions are worthy of further consideration and risk being answered by the Courts unless Parliament exercises its prerogative to deal with them by way of legislation.”

What changes do we need?

Canada must expand the definition of parent in the Citizenship Act to include those who use assisted fertility to become parents. Grant these children citizenship the same way naturally born and adopted children receive it. As long as a parent is legally recognized as the parent of their child, that child deserves citizenship.

As the Federal Court of Appeal warned, the government risks a host of policy issues if changes aren’t made to the law. Such issues include confusion if judges reach different conclusions with each case they decide. If genetics is the test, ova and sperm donors could pass their citizenship to children even if they aren’t parents to them. Surrogates could claim genetic links and the right to pass on citizenship to children they birth when the surrogate never parents the child. Being Canadian must mean more than having the right genetic link.

The new Liberal government and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, John McCallum, have shown they are sympathetic to the realities of the times by admitting Syrian refugees, shortening processing times for certain immigration applications, and proposing changes to the Citizenship Act to make it easier to become a citizen.

Source: Citizenship must be about more than a genetic link | Toronto Star

Wells: Justin Trudeau takes Ottawa’s debates to Washington

Interesting snippet from Paul Wells’ account of Trudeau in Washington:

The other striking moment came when Trudeau raised, by himself, his decision to repeal the provisions in the Conservatives’ “Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act,” C-24, that stripped some convicted terrorists of their Canadian citizenships.

“One of the things the right-wing had done was put forward a bill that took away the citizenship of convicted terrorists,” he said. “A number of countries have done that around the world. It seems like a fairly obvious thing to try and do. If someone’s gonna commit an act of war, an act of terrorism against the country, they probably shouldn’t deserve to keep Canadian citizenship if they’re doing that.”

This is indeed a decent paraphrase of the arguments Conservatives made in support of C-24. Trudeau said his opponents “felt they were on very, very safe ground” with their policy.

“The problem is, as you scratch into that a little deeper, you realize it only really applies to citizens who have, or could have, a dual nationality. So a kid who was born in Canada, and only has a Canadian citizenship — but whose parents were born, for example, in Pakistan — could lose his citizenship if he committed an act of terror, [whereas] a kid who was tenth-generation Canadian home-grown terrorist could never lose his citizenship. And suddenly we’d made citizenship conditional on good behaviour. Or on non-heinous behaviour, which comes down to the same thing. And that devalues the citizenship — made two classes of citizen.”

Trudeau’s tone suggested he knew this was not, on the face of it, a winning issue for him. “And it came to the point where, in one of our largest debates, I was standing on stage against the former prime minister. And he was telling people that I was willing to stand up and restore the citizenship of the one Canadian who, under this law, had had his citizenship taken away.

“He knew he had me on that one. I’m actually standing there defending the right of a Canadian — stripped of his citizenship for terrorism — to become, once again, a Canadian citizen. And I stood there, and I defended that principle, that you should not be able to take away citizenship from anyone. And our government would be, because we’d reverse that law, restoring the citizenship of someone who was convicted of terrorism in Canada.

“And that’s a perfect narrative for the politics of fear and aggression. And yet it’s me sitting here as Prime Minister of Canada, not Stephen Harper.”

Source: Macleans

Citizenship: 2015 Full-Year Data – Backlog largely eliminated

Citizenship - Conference Board April 2016.001My quick analysis of the 2015 operational data released a few days ago.

  • The increased funding of $44 million provided in Budget 2013 to address the backlog has clearly worked: 235,000 in 2015, slightly down from 263,000 in 2014, but significantly greater than earlier years when it dropped as low as 113,000;
  • The backlog has been reduced from a high of 396,000 in 2013 to 130,000 in 2015, a major achievement;
  • In election year 2015, significantly more citizenship ceremonies were held (3,300) compared to previous years averaged around 1,900, likely reflecting a conscious decision to do more ceremonies, smaller in numbers, in more places; and,
  • While the number of applications appears less (130,000) compared to 2014 (198,000), the data is often revised as any delayed or incomplete applications originally not entered into the system are backdated to the original date of the application (the 2014 data, originally showing 130,000 was revised only in the third quarter of 2015).
  • While it would be premature to declare a trend, logic suggests that the various changes made by the previous government, including the fee increase to $630, would result in a decline of applications.

As the proposed changes to residency and testing in Bill C-6 need to go through the parliamentary process, followed by coming-into-force provisions, these unlikely to be implemented much before 2017.

Laura Track: Citizenship comes with the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of birthplace

Citizenship - Conference Board April 2016.001Laura Track of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association supporting the Government’s planned repeal of the revocation for terror or treason provisions (the above chart has been revised with full-year data for 2015):

Critics point out that the government can still revoke someone’s citizenship on the basis that they lied or committed fraud in order to obtain it. How can that be a more serious offence than terrorism, some wonder? However, the two scenarios are fundamentally different. Citizenship obtained by fraud is a citizenship that should never have been granted. Revoking it is akin to correcting an error. Revoking citizenship from a Canadian based on a crime they committed after citizenship was legitimately obtained is a punitive response that amounts to the ancient punishment of exile. Such medieval practices have no place in a rights-respecting democracy.

It’s no secret who would have been targeted by the law: new Canadians of colour who arrived in Canada only one or two generations ago. This unequal treatment is why the BC Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers challenged the law in court last summer, arguing that it is discriminatory and violates key constitutional rights. It is also poor security policy, and fundamentally wrong.

We applaud the government for taking the first steps towards bringing about the law’s demise. The reforms are not perfect, and still leave too much power in the hands of government bureaucrats to revoke citizenship in cases of fraud or misrepresentation, without the involvement of a judge. But it’s a step in the right direction — the direction of equal rights for all Canadians.

Source: Laura Track: Citizenship comes with the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of birthplace | National Post

Kelly McParland: McCallum’s plan to rewrite guide book is a historical stumble

Predictably, and legitimately, concern has been raised regarding the plans to revise Discover Canada, the citizenship test study guide.

When providing advice to the Conservative government on the guide in 2009, I argued for greater balance in their choice and treatment of elements, along with messaging, aiming to ensure a guide that would survive any possible change in government (while there was an advisory committee, it never met together to have a fullsome discussion and debate).

In terms of McParland’s particular concerns, while military history is important (and not just the previous peacekeeping focus), so is social history, which Discover Canada largely downplayed. It was a deliberate political choice to downplay the Liberal narrative in favour of a more Conservative one.

The wording of  ‘barbaric cultural practices’ was largely chosen to attract media attention (it worked!). Arguably, it also was a precursor to the Conservatives use of identity politics, seen in the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act and the late unlamented proposed ‘snitch’ line announced by former Ministers Leith and Alexander.

The same points can be made more effectively in the context of the history of women’s equality rights and how ‘honour’ killings and the like are against the law.

While Discover Canada was a marked improvement compared to the ‘insufferable lightness’ of its predecessor, A Look at Canada, my hope that the Liberal government, in revising and renaming the guide, doesn’t make the same mistake. Hopefully, it will keep some of the stronger points in Discover Canada while ensuring a broader narrative, one that lives up to the diversity and inclusion commitment, and speaks to those with both conservative and ‘progressive’ values:

Canadians continue to celebrate the people and events of the time despite the Liberal government’s apparent perplexity. Re-enactments are held each summer. Streets, schools and universities have been named in commemoration of its key figures. Reminders of the war are dotted across regions that are among Canada’s most popular tourist areas.

Handout

HandoutLaura Secord became one of Canada’s first heroes for warning of an impending American attack. featured in The War of 1812.

There is an unfortunate and dispiriting tendency in current culture to try and re-interpret the past. Oddly, it is deemed inappropriate to honour the events that made Canada a country and set the foundation for the culture we’ve become. We would prefer to condemn previous generations for lacking our own views, as if 19th century Canadians should somehow have shared the perspective of a future society they could never imagine.

The Liberals have shown an eagerness to roll back any initiative they view as too reflective of their Conservative predecessors. McCallum would do well to recognize that Canada’s history does not belong to any particular political party. He should be expanding efforts to acquaint Canadians with their history, not trying to erase it from guidebooks for the sake of a cheap political snub.

Source: Kelly McParland: McCallum’s plan to rewrite guide book is a historical stumble