本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Submission to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
With respect to Family Reunification
by
Chinese Canadian National Council
The Chinese Canadian National Council (“CCNC”) is a national non-profit organization with 27 chapters across the country. Our mandate is to promote the equality rights and full participation of Chinese Canadians in all aspects of Canadian society.
As a national organization, we believe that Canada’s immigration and refugee policies must reflect the humanitarian values that are commonly shared by Canadians, and that such policies should enhance the ability of immigrants and refugees to make an important contribution to the future of this country.
Family Reunification
The issue of family reunification is a particularly important one for the Chinese Canadian community. A strong emphasis on the family is one of the major values that defines Chinese Canadian culture and affects the daily lives of Chinese Canadians. The traditional Chinese Canadian view of family places a high value on both family togetherness and the interdependence of family members. Further, Chinese Canadian family structure, generally speaking, cannot be clearly divided into “immediate” and “extended” family in the way that may be applicable to other cultural groups. It is for this reason that the CCNC takes the position that social policies which fail to recognize the importance of the extended family have a discriminatory effect on the Chinese Canadian community. Immigration and social benefit policies which narrowly restrict the definition of family to the mainstream Canadian nuclear family model fail to respect a crucial and distinctive aspect of Chinese Canadian culture.
Parental sponsorship: processing has come to a virtual halt
The current application processing times for parental sponsorship are exceptionally long and disparate. As a consequence, the government’s stated objective regarding family reunification outlined in section 3(1)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) is clearly compromised.
Parental sponsorship processing, which is completed in two stages, has virtually stopped at the first stage of approval. The first stage, conducted at the Case Processing Centre in Mississauga, Ontario, is currently taking up to 22 months (up from 6 months in 2003). The second stage (after sponsorship approval), conducted at overseas visa posts, has recently added up to an additional three years to finalize the sponsorship process.
In addition to the long delays, significant processing disparities exist around the world. According to Lexbase Inc., research into the current inventory of applications at overseas visa posts reveals that parents and grandparents immigrating from Beijing, Hong Kong, Seoul and Taipei will likely need ten times more time to be approved than applicants from Mexico City, Santiago, Sao Paulo and Havana. At other posts, it is estimated that some parents and grandparents may be required to wait over ten years before receiving a Canadian immigrant visa.
Drastic reductions to the quotas for parents coming to Canada also contributes to processing delays and an ever increasing backlog. In 2003, the quota for parents was over 19,000, and in 2004, the quota was lowered to just over 10,000. The quota for 2005 has been further reduced to 5,500 to 6,800.
The current delays in processing parental sponsorships must be examined. Application fees continue to be collected by the government with respect to parental sponsorship applications however actual processing appears to have come to a virtual halt.
Recommendations:
1. Re-establish parental sponsorship as a priority and allocate appropriate resources to process these applications more expediently in Canada and overseas; and
2. Increase the quota for parental sponsorships at least back to 2003 levels.
Shorten length of sponsorship obligations
Under the current Act, sponsorship undertakings for parents and children are in force for ten years. In contrast, sponsorship undertakings for spouses are only in place for three years.
It is submitted that such lengthy sponsorship undertakings for family members are unnecessary and, with respect to elderly parents, makes them dependent and vulnerable to abuse. In the majority of cases, these sponsorships succeed; but in the minority of cases involving abuse, the length of the sponsorship agreement creates hardship.
In Ontario, sponsored parents are eligible for social assistance if they can prove that there has been a breakdown in the sponsorship; however, sponsors will then receive letters from CIC demanding repayment of any amounts of social assistance benefits provided to the sponsored relatives. This sanction creates pressure on the often elderly parents to either remain with their sponsor, who may be abusive, or to live in situations of extreme poverty.
With respect to sponsored children, parents are obligated under family and criminal law provisions, making the sponsorship undertaking unnecessary.
Recommendation: Reduce the length of all sponsorship undertakings to three years.
Spousal Sponsorship – Evaluation Process
Individuals going through the spousal sponsorship interview process report a number of systemic problems with this process, including:
• Poor translation during interviews
• Lack of cultural awareness among visa officers (for example, focus on western/Eurocentric model of marriage and using this model to determine criteria for bona fide marriages)
• Emphasis on fraud
Recommendations:
1. Improve training and diversity/representation of visa officers to promote greater awareness of cultural differences.
2. Expand criteria for evaluating marriage.
Re-instate Sponsorship of Never-Married Dependents
The definition of family class should re-incorporate a version of the repealed J-88 Regulations. The J-88 Regulations included all never married dependants – regardless of age as part of the definition of family class. This previously recognized definition of family class is more realistic and practical in that it reflected and continues to reflect the reality of most family units in Asia. Dependent children regardless of age but who have never been married and who continue to live with parents should be included in the definition of family class and should be sponsorable like parents.
Recommendation: reinstitute a version of the repealed J-88 regulation, which allowed for sponsorship of never married dependents.
Expansion of the definition of family class
The definition of family should reflect how people truly define family and be culturally inclusive. As stated above, many communities, including the Chinese Canadian community, do not view “family” as limited to the Western, nuclear family model. Therefore, “family” under immigration legislation should include extended family members such as adult siblings, aunts and uncles and other de facto family members regardless of relationship where there has been a clear indication that these family members have resided together on and ongoing and continual basis. Since the aim of the Canadian government is to reunify families in Canada these expanded definitions of family class which achieve this end.
Recommendation: Expand the definition of family to include siblings, aunts and uncles and other de facto family members.
Repeal section 117(1)(9)(d) – Bar to sponsorship of undeclared family members
117(1)(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations should be repealed. This section artificially restricts the definition of family class in that it bars members of the family class from being sponsored under this category if a sponsor did not declare them on their own application for permanent residence or even if they were declared – the inability of that dependent to be examined at the time would bar them from now being a member of the family class.
First, this section which came into effect on June 28, 2002 applies retroactively and is grossly unfair. Applicants who applied to come to Canada prior to this time were completely unaware of the potential consequences of not declaring a member of the family class or of not having that family member examined. Second, there are various legal reasons where an applicant may not have previously declared a member of the family class – for example under a custody dispute in which an applicant may not have known the whereabouts of a dependant. The current section 117(1)(9)(d) is so restrictive it allows no exceptions.
In one fact situation currently in the Hong Kong visa post, a Canadian citizen who was previously physically abused by her husband was permitted to leave the relationship on condition her minor daughter remained with the spouse. She had no legal custody of the child and did not know the child’s whereabouts for years as the father who is a citizen of Portugal via birth in Macau was at liberty to take the minor child who was also born in Macau in and out of China. The mother migrated to Canada without disclosure of this child as she did not know the child’s whereabouts. She has recently located her daughter but her sponsorship application of her daughter has been refused for previous non-disclosure. This is a biological relationship and can be proved by a DNA test. There is also indication from the mother that the father was similarly abusive towards the minor daughter.
Section 117(1)(9)(d) of the IRPR seeks to punish both sponsors and non-accompanying family members and seeks to limit the family reunification and should be repealed.
Recommendation: Repeal s.117(1)(9)(d) of the IRPR.
Reinstatement of the family business job offer program
CCNC requests the immediate reinstatement of the family business job offer program, which allowed small family businesses to secure the necessary human resources to remain in operation or to expand, while facilitating the family reunification of extended family members who immigrated through a sponsorship agreement with the employer- family member.
For example, many immigrant family-run restaurants or retail operations have long relied on overseas members of their extended families in maintaining or expanding their businesses. Small family businesses continue to provide significant contributions to the Canadian business landscape, and are worthy of protection and assistance.
Furthermore, there has never been a coherent explanation as to why this category was suddenly eliminated with the advent of IRPA, especially in view of the program’s past success in attaining its stated objectives of assisting family reunification and encouraging economic integration of new immigrants.
Recommendation: Reinstate family business job offer program.
Right of Landing Fee – Impact on Family Reunification
According to “Impact of the Right of Landing Fee” (Canadian Council for Refugees, February 1997), “there has been a significant overall drop in applications in the family class since the imposition of the ROLF” (p. 2).
As many groups have noted, the Right of Landing Fee of $975 has a disproportionate impact on women and immigrants from developing countries.
Further, this fee is not used directly to add resources to visa posts where demand is highest, or to provide settlement services to those areas, such as Ontario, where most immigrants settle.
Recommendation: Abolish the Right of Landing Fee; or, in the alternative, allocate the revenue from fees to increase resources in visa posts with high demand for services, and to areas where high numbers of immigrants settle.
Submitted by:
Chinese Canadian National Council
302 Spadina Avenue, Suite 507
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
M5T 2E7
www.ccnc.ca
Tel: (416) 977-9871
Fax: (416) 977-1630
Email: national@ccnc.ca更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
With respect to Family Reunification
by
Chinese Canadian National Council
The Chinese Canadian National Council (“CCNC”) is a national non-profit organization with 27 chapters across the country. Our mandate is to promote the equality rights and full participation of Chinese Canadians in all aspects of Canadian society.
As a national organization, we believe that Canada’s immigration and refugee policies must reflect the humanitarian values that are commonly shared by Canadians, and that such policies should enhance the ability of immigrants and refugees to make an important contribution to the future of this country.
Family Reunification
The issue of family reunification is a particularly important one for the Chinese Canadian community. A strong emphasis on the family is one of the major values that defines Chinese Canadian culture and affects the daily lives of Chinese Canadians. The traditional Chinese Canadian view of family places a high value on both family togetherness and the interdependence of family members. Further, Chinese Canadian family structure, generally speaking, cannot be clearly divided into “immediate” and “extended” family in the way that may be applicable to other cultural groups. It is for this reason that the CCNC takes the position that social policies which fail to recognize the importance of the extended family have a discriminatory effect on the Chinese Canadian community. Immigration and social benefit policies which narrowly restrict the definition of family to the mainstream Canadian nuclear family model fail to respect a crucial and distinctive aspect of Chinese Canadian culture.
Parental sponsorship: processing has come to a virtual halt
The current application processing times for parental sponsorship are exceptionally long and disparate. As a consequence, the government’s stated objective regarding family reunification outlined in section 3(1)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) is clearly compromised.
Parental sponsorship processing, which is completed in two stages, has virtually stopped at the first stage of approval. The first stage, conducted at the Case Processing Centre in Mississauga, Ontario, is currently taking up to 22 months (up from 6 months in 2003). The second stage (after sponsorship approval), conducted at overseas visa posts, has recently added up to an additional three years to finalize the sponsorship process.
In addition to the long delays, significant processing disparities exist around the world. According to Lexbase Inc., research into the current inventory of applications at overseas visa posts reveals that parents and grandparents immigrating from Beijing, Hong Kong, Seoul and Taipei will likely need ten times more time to be approved than applicants from Mexico City, Santiago, Sao Paulo and Havana. At other posts, it is estimated that some parents and grandparents may be required to wait over ten years before receiving a Canadian immigrant visa.
Drastic reductions to the quotas for parents coming to Canada also contributes to processing delays and an ever increasing backlog. In 2003, the quota for parents was over 19,000, and in 2004, the quota was lowered to just over 10,000. The quota for 2005 has been further reduced to 5,500 to 6,800.
The current delays in processing parental sponsorships must be examined. Application fees continue to be collected by the government with respect to parental sponsorship applications however actual processing appears to have come to a virtual halt.
Recommendations:
1. Re-establish parental sponsorship as a priority and allocate appropriate resources to process these applications more expediently in Canada and overseas; and
2. Increase the quota for parental sponsorships at least back to 2003 levels.
Shorten length of sponsorship obligations
Under the current Act, sponsorship undertakings for parents and children are in force for ten years. In contrast, sponsorship undertakings for spouses are only in place for three years.
It is submitted that such lengthy sponsorship undertakings for family members are unnecessary and, with respect to elderly parents, makes them dependent and vulnerable to abuse. In the majority of cases, these sponsorships succeed; but in the minority of cases involving abuse, the length of the sponsorship agreement creates hardship.
In Ontario, sponsored parents are eligible for social assistance if they can prove that there has been a breakdown in the sponsorship; however, sponsors will then receive letters from CIC demanding repayment of any amounts of social assistance benefits provided to the sponsored relatives. This sanction creates pressure on the often elderly parents to either remain with their sponsor, who may be abusive, or to live in situations of extreme poverty.
With respect to sponsored children, parents are obligated under family and criminal law provisions, making the sponsorship undertaking unnecessary.
Recommendation: Reduce the length of all sponsorship undertakings to three years.
Spousal Sponsorship – Evaluation Process
Individuals going through the spousal sponsorship interview process report a number of systemic problems with this process, including:
• Poor translation during interviews
• Lack of cultural awareness among visa officers (for example, focus on western/Eurocentric model of marriage and using this model to determine criteria for bona fide marriages)
• Emphasis on fraud
Recommendations:
1. Improve training and diversity/representation of visa officers to promote greater awareness of cultural differences.
2. Expand criteria for evaluating marriage.
Re-instate Sponsorship of Never-Married Dependents
The definition of family class should re-incorporate a version of the repealed J-88 Regulations. The J-88 Regulations included all never married dependants – regardless of age as part of the definition of family class. This previously recognized definition of family class is more realistic and practical in that it reflected and continues to reflect the reality of most family units in Asia. Dependent children regardless of age but who have never been married and who continue to live with parents should be included in the definition of family class and should be sponsorable like parents.
Recommendation: reinstitute a version of the repealed J-88 regulation, which allowed for sponsorship of never married dependents.
Expansion of the definition of family class
The definition of family should reflect how people truly define family and be culturally inclusive. As stated above, many communities, including the Chinese Canadian community, do not view “family” as limited to the Western, nuclear family model. Therefore, “family” under immigration legislation should include extended family members such as adult siblings, aunts and uncles and other de facto family members regardless of relationship where there has been a clear indication that these family members have resided together on and ongoing and continual basis. Since the aim of the Canadian government is to reunify families in Canada these expanded definitions of family class which achieve this end.
Recommendation: Expand the definition of family to include siblings, aunts and uncles and other de facto family members.
Repeal section 117(1)(9)(d) – Bar to sponsorship of undeclared family members
117(1)(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations should be repealed. This section artificially restricts the definition of family class in that it bars members of the family class from being sponsored under this category if a sponsor did not declare them on their own application for permanent residence or even if they were declared – the inability of that dependent to be examined at the time would bar them from now being a member of the family class.
First, this section which came into effect on June 28, 2002 applies retroactively and is grossly unfair. Applicants who applied to come to Canada prior to this time were completely unaware of the potential consequences of not declaring a member of the family class or of not having that family member examined. Second, there are various legal reasons where an applicant may not have previously declared a member of the family class – for example under a custody dispute in which an applicant may not have known the whereabouts of a dependant. The current section 117(1)(9)(d) is so restrictive it allows no exceptions.
In one fact situation currently in the Hong Kong visa post, a Canadian citizen who was previously physically abused by her husband was permitted to leave the relationship on condition her minor daughter remained with the spouse. She had no legal custody of the child and did not know the child’s whereabouts for years as the father who is a citizen of Portugal via birth in Macau was at liberty to take the minor child who was also born in Macau in and out of China. The mother migrated to Canada without disclosure of this child as she did not know the child’s whereabouts. She has recently located her daughter but her sponsorship application of her daughter has been refused for previous non-disclosure. This is a biological relationship and can be proved by a DNA test. There is also indication from the mother that the father was similarly abusive towards the minor daughter.
Section 117(1)(9)(d) of the IRPR seeks to punish both sponsors and non-accompanying family members and seeks to limit the family reunification and should be repealed.
Recommendation: Repeal s.117(1)(9)(d) of the IRPR.
Reinstatement of the family business job offer program
CCNC requests the immediate reinstatement of the family business job offer program, which allowed small family businesses to secure the necessary human resources to remain in operation or to expand, while facilitating the family reunification of extended family members who immigrated through a sponsorship agreement with the employer- family member.
For example, many immigrant family-run restaurants or retail operations have long relied on overseas members of their extended families in maintaining or expanding their businesses. Small family businesses continue to provide significant contributions to the Canadian business landscape, and are worthy of protection and assistance.
Furthermore, there has never been a coherent explanation as to why this category was suddenly eliminated with the advent of IRPA, especially in view of the program’s past success in attaining its stated objectives of assisting family reunification and encouraging economic integration of new immigrants.
Recommendation: Reinstate family business job offer program.
Right of Landing Fee – Impact on Family Reunification
According to “Impact of the Right of Landing Fee” (Canadian Council for Refugees, February 1997), “there has been a significant overall drop in applications in the family class since the imposition of the ROLF” (p. 2).
As many groups have noted, the Right of Landing Fee of $975 has a disproportionate impact on women and immigrants from developing countries.
Further, this fee is not used directly to add resources to visa posts where demand is highest, or to provide settlement services to those areas, such as Ontario, where most immigrants settle.
Recommendation: Abolish the Right of Landing Fee; or, in the alternative, allocate the revenue from fees to increase resources in visa posts with high demand for services, and to areas where high numbers of immigrants settle.
Submitted by:
Chinese Canadian National Council
302 Spadina Avenue, Suite 507
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
M5T 2E7
www.ccnc.ca
Tel: (416) 977-9871
Fax: (416) 977-1630
Email: national@ccnc.ca更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net