Wealthy Chinese people looking to immigrate to Canada with their families have hopefully by now heard that the Canadian government has announced that it will temporarily no longer be accepting applications under the Canada Immigrant Investor Program (“IIP”). The IIP will resume accepting applications after the Canadian government introduces regulations this summer to change the program’s requirements.

The IIP has become an increasingly popular option for successful businessmen to immigrate to Canada. In 2009, approximately 10,000 people immigrated to Canada under the program.

The suspension does not affect those applications that were postmarked or received by a designated Citizenship and Immigration Canada office on or before June 26th. These will still be processed as normal.

However, those that have not yet been able to submit their applications will have to ensure that they meet the program’s new requirements when the program resumes.

Previously, an individual applying to immigrate to Canada under the IIP had to demonstrate business experience, had to have a personal net worth of CAD 800,000 (CN 5.2 Million), and had to be willing to make a CAD $400,000 investment (CN 2.6 Million) that would be returned after five years without interest. Under various financing options available, the actual amount that an applicant paid was between CAD 80,000 (CN 524,000) to 120,000 (CN 787,000). This amount essentially ensured Canadian permanent residence status.

Under the new IIP, the requirements have doubled. Participants must prove that they have a personal net worth of CAD 1.6 million (CN 10.4 million). As well, they must be willing to make a CAD 800,000 investment. There is no word yet from what the new financing options will be.

This is the first time that the Canadian government has changed the IIP since 1999. The Canadian government said that the reason for the changes is partially the strength of the Asian economy. At a time when personal incomes are falling across the world due to the recent recession, Asia, and China in particular, are bucking the trend. Indeed, in introducing the proposed changes, the Canadian government said that it believes that the number of wealthy individuals in Asia will surpass that of North America in the next few years. Given that Asians make up 80% of Federal Investor program participants, the Canadian government is obviously confident in the region’s continued economic resilience.

People that previously were seeking to apply under the original IIP that cannot afford the new requirements should be aware that there are numerous other options available. First, the Quebec Immigrant Investor Program is not expected to change its requirements for another few months. As well, immigrant businessmen are finding that provincial programs which require immigrants to commit to working in or operating certain types of business are attractive options. If done right, participants in provincial programs, such as the British Columbia PNP program, can immigrate to Canada much quicker than under the IIP. As well, they often begin making money as soon as immigrating to Canada. Anyone that can no longer afford the program that wishes to immigrate to Canada should immediately contact their immigration consultant or lawyer to learn more about these programs.

People that can afford the new IIP will also benefit from faster processing times. First, there will be less people applying because of the increased requirements. Also, once the IIP resumes, new applications will be processed at the same time as old ones. This means that people that are quick to apply under the new system will obtain their permanent resident visa very quickly.

However, these people, who have generally through hard work have overcome great obstacles to achieve their wealth, should be aware of a significant potential pitfall of the increased requirement. They should realize that they are going to have to disclose a greater amount of their assets to the Canadian government in order to prove their personal net worth. Given this, they are also going to have to pay more taxes to the Canadian government, which is increasingly starting to audit immigrant taxpayers.

Wealthy immigrants should thus consult with their account, immigrant consultant, or lawyer to learn about various legal tax mechanisms available to Canadian immigrants that will minimize their disclosure requirements. As well, they should discuss setting up trusts that will allow them to not pay tax on most of their income.

—————————————

Disclaimer: Views expressed by guest bloggers are theirs and may not represent those of CIV.

By inviting guest bloggers to write here, I’d like to see us grow together with more diverse ideas and perspectives. If anyone believe the idea is cool, please don’t hesitate to submit your stuff to me. We use real names and identities here. Thank you.

Related posts

• [GB] 9 reasons why CSIS chief should resign or be fired (3)
• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)
• [GB] CSIS chief should be accountable for his public remark (14)
• [GB] The BC-China Tourism Conference (1)

Latest release from Statistics Canada:

The visible minority population of the census metropolitan area (CMA) of Vancouver could more than double from 910,000 in 2006 to just over 2 million by 2031, according to new population projections.

The main factor would be immigration, as well as fertility.

During the same period, the rest of Vancouver’s population is expected to increase at a much more modest rate of roughly 12%.

These projections on Vancouver’s diversity are based on a ‘reference scenario’, that is, the medium assumptions of how the population might evolve as determined by analyzing recent demographic trends. Other available scenarios are a low-growth scenario that assumes low fertility, life expectancy and immigration, and a high-growth scenario that assumes high levels of each.

By 2031, visible minority groups could account for nearly 60% of Vancouver’s population. Of the 2 million visible minorities, one in three would be Canadian-born.

Counting both first generation and second-generation immigrants, 70% of the population of Vancouver would be either immigrants or children born in Canada of immigrant parents by 2031. This would be the second-highest proportion in Canada behind Toronto.

The largest visible minority group in Vancouver would be the Chinese, as it was in 2006. Their population could double from 396,000 to 809,000 over the next two decades. As a result, their share of Vancouver’s population would rise from 18% in 2006 to 23% in 2031.

The South Asian group, which ranked second in 2006, is likely to remain the second largest visible minority group. They would account for 14% of the population in 2031, up from 10% in 2006.

The share of Vancouver’s population having a non-Christian religion is projected to increase from 16% to roughly 21%. The proportion having a Christian religion is likely to decline from 50% to 47%.

The proportion of persons reporting no religion in Vancouver is likely to continue to be one of the highest of any metropolitan area in Canada, with this group accounting for nearly 33% of the population in 2031. This would be virtually unchanged from 2006. This situation is in part related to the high level of Chinese immigration in Vancouver. The population of Chinese origin has a high propensity to report no religion on the census.

One could only imagine how this ethnic mix would affect the already stringent race relations in Canada.

Related posts

• Chinese Canadian community to respond to CSIS head’s comments (1)
• We are all spies? (13)
• Letter – Courageous New Westminister initiative.. (7)
• Letter: Redress meeting format needs reform (3)
• [GB] Whose History? Our History or the Media’s… (23)

Finally, this is coming. If the funding cuts to pride parades aren’t first sight of anti-gay attitude of the Harper government, this one definitely is.

Well, I have to applaud to the Tories. They have the patience to wait for 4+ years to let this deep rooted sentiment slowly slip out. Applaud to Kenney for having the guts to be the “bad guy” on so many controversies the Tories hold dear of (being the bad guy, for instance, for “speaking up” against China’s human rights when Harper be the “good guy” during his historic December visit to China. watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKV7Un6HNZE&feature=player_embedded)

Having said that, this “progress” is the last thing I’d want to see Canada heading to. We used to be inclusive, open and socially progressive. But after the last few years, I feel a dramatic degradation to many Canadian values I used to love and identify with. (I am not talking about race, if some of my regular readers might suspect)

I just heard on the radio that a spokesperson for Kenney responded: “we have to make editorial decisions so that the guide won’t become encyclopedic”.

Is this a justifiable explanation? What do you thinks

Immigration Minister Kenney nixed gay rights in citizenship guide: documents

CP – Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney blocked any reference to gay rights in a new study guide for immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship, The Canadian Press has learned.

Internal documents show an early draft of the guide contained sections noting that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969; that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation; and that same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2005.

But Kenney, who fought same-sex marriage when it was debated in Parliament, ordered those key sections removed when his office sent its comments to the department last June. Senior department officials duly cut out the material, but made a last-ditch plea with Kenney in early August to have it reinstated.

“Recommend the re-insertion of the text boxes related to … the decriminalization of homosexual sex/recognition of same-sex marriage,” says a memorandum to Kenney from deputy minister Neil Yeates.

“Recommend the addition of ‘equality rights’ under list of rights. Had noted earlier that this bullet should be reinserted into the list as a means of noting the equality of all based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc …”

In the end, however, Kenney’s view trumped that of the bureaucrats. The 63-page guide, released with fanfare last November, contains no mention of gay and lesbian rights.

About 500,000 copies were printed and citizenship applicants will start being tested on its contents March 15.

The $400,000 project substantially updated an earlier edition of the guide created in 1995. The new version significantly expands sections on Canada’s military past and on aboriginals, drawing on the views of a panel of prominent Canadians.

The new guide got generally positive reviews when it was launched, though some immediately noted the absence of gay rights, including same-sex marriage.

The publication does include a picture of Olympic gold medal swimmer Mark Tewksbury, however, with a caption saying he is a “prominent activist for gay and lesbian Canadians.”

Drafts and other internal documents related to the guide were obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

“Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969 and more recently, civil marriage rights to same-sex couples was legalized nationwide in 2005,” the earliest draft of the guide says under the section Towards a Modern Canada.

And in the section on citizenship rights, the early draft said: “Equality Rights – Canadians are protected against discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or age.”

Neither sentence survived the minister’s red marker.

Kenney has steadfastly opposed same-sex marriage since his time as an opposition MP in the House of Commons.

He spoke against the Civil Marriage Act, or Bill C-38, when it was debated in the Commons in February 2005. And days earlier, Kenney told a session with Toronto-area Punjabi journalists that gays had every right to marry – as long as it wasn’t someone of the same sex.

He reaffirmed his stand in 2006 when the newly elected Conservative government attempted without success to revoke the legislation.

Last year, Kenney appointed a longtime Conservative who opposes same-sex marriage to the Immigration and Refugee Board, which among other things makes decisions about whether gays can be given refugee status in Canada.

When the new guide was released Nov. 12, Kenney brushed off a reporter’s question about why it lacked any reference to same-sex marriage.

“We can’t mention every legal decision, every policy of the government of Canada,” he said.

“We try to be inclusive and include a summary. I can tell you that if you were to read the old book, you wouldn’t even know that there are gay and lesbian Canadians.” He then noted the caption under Tewksbury’s photo.

Kenney’s spokesman reiterated that the 1995 guide “produced by the Liberals” did not mention gays and lesbians.

“We can endlessly debate what was included or not included,” Alykhan Velshi said in an email last week. “Unavoidably, choices had to be made about content because we had to ensure the guide did not become encyclopedic.”

Velshi also noted the new guide does not refer to marriage at all, whether opposite sex or same sex.

The gay-rights group Egale Canada met with the minister in early December after learning the booklet made no reference to gay and lesbian rights, and is negotiating with the department to have them included in the next printing, about a year away.

Executive director Helen Kennedy said Kenney told the group that gay rights had been “overlooked” when the guide was being prepared. She expressed surprise when told draft versions contained references to gay rights and that they were ordered removed.

“I’m hopeful and optimistic that we’re going to get it fixed because we’re not happy with it.”

The NDP’s critic on gay and lesbian issues said new immigrants need to know about basic rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“The minister, Jason Kenney, can’t edit gay and lesbian Canadians out of Canadian history,” Bill Siksay said. “That’s something that newcomers to Canada should know about.”

Liberal MP Marlene Jennings called Kenney’s actions “abhorrent.”

“It’s unfortunate that this government again has driven an ideological wedge on an issue of fundamental charter rights.”

The Canadian Press previously reported that other sections of the draft version of the guide were excised at the suggestion of the panel of prominent Canadians.

The deleted sections included one reference that said Canadian churches ran Indian residential schools, where aboriginal children were abused.

Related posts

• Taiwan Pride (5)
• 1/3 Canadians want fewer immigrants (18)
• Tories anti-gay?? (0)
• Chinese less happy about life in Canada than S. Asians: poll (1)
• CIC not proposing new language requirements for citizenship, Kenney insists (0)

This is a very important debate. Really want to hear from the readers on this. BTW, should Kenney change his title to “minister responsible for pluralism”? Any alarm here?

In short:

So … what’s the difference?

Multiculturalism:

The term is strictly for immigrants – it does not include Canada’s English or French founding cultures or aboriginal people, government documents suggest. Jason Kenney, the federal minister in charge of multiculturalism, says the word also conjures up images of “song, sari and samosas.”

Pluralism:

In a “pluralistic” society, different cultures work together, supporters say – there is no “them,” only “us.” Kenney says he started using the term because he was “looking for a terminology that went beyond parallel cultural silos … that don’t communicate between one another.”

Kudos to the Star on the story.

OTTAWA–Jason Kenney is the federal minister in charge of Canada’s multiculturalism. But for the last couple of years, he’s been wondering whether “pluralism” might be a better word to describe this country’s cultural diversity.

And so have government officials, according to documents obtained by the Star.

“What if the picture we have of ourselves shifted Canada as a multicultural society to Canada as a pluralistic society?” is the question posed in a series of slides prepared for a September 2008 discussion within government.

“Would the discourse change? Would it change the way we design policy and programs? Would the notion of Canadian identity change?”

In Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Canada, where blue is the new red, and much attention is paid to symbols and logos, word choice is significant. And with Kenney’s recent rollout of a new citizenship study guide, it is also obvious that the Conservative government has been doing some serious thinking about how to update and describe the Canadian national identity.

Multiculturalism, according to Kenney and the departmental documents, may have had the result of keeping various cultures separate in Canada, while “pluralism” is focused on getting different cultures to work together.

“I started using the term a little bit, firstly because I was looking for a terminology that went beyond parallel cultural silos,” Kenney says. “I think that’s one understanding of multiculturalism – that we set up a bunch of cultural silos that don’t communicate between one another. My emphasis has been on a more integrated multiculturalism, building bridges between communities and ensuring full equality of opportunity for new Canadians in mainstream society.”

Nearly 30 years since multiculturalism was enshrined in the Constitution and two decades since the Multiculturalism Act was passed in Parliament, legislating cultural awareness and understanding, Kenney believes that the word has become stuck in some old ways of thinking.

It’s not a word, for instance, that can be used to describe English or French founding cultures, or aboriginal culture – it’s strictly for immigrants, it seems.

Moreover, says Kenney, when people think of multiculturalism in Canada these days, they tend to conjure up images of “food, folklore and festivals” or his other favourite alliteration, “song, sari and samosas.”

“Multiculturalism says to a lot of people `kiosks at folk fests,’” Kenney says.

“We need a term that has a deeper meaning; that talks about the deeply different world views or belief systems that people have, and I thought pluralism perhaps speaks more to that.”

The words are used interchangeably in the new citizenship study guide unveiled in November.

Under a heading about Canada’s multicultural reality, the guide states: “Canadians celebrate the gift of one another’s presence and work hard to respect pluralism and live in harmony.”

In the departmental documents, officials state that “multiculturalism was not designed to include our national minorities, i.e. Quebec and aboriginal peoples” and that “official languages, aboriginal and multicultural policies are not perceived as fully inclusive.”

Describing Canada as a pluralistic society, however, might solve those problems and others, the documents suggest.

On one slide, titled “What is pluralism, really?” the following definitions are supplied:

It addresses the sum of diversity – there is no “them” in successful pluralism, only “us.”

It could be the natural next step in a mature multicultural society – groups can learn to balance their interests.

It is a way of addressing difference, not just diversity.

It is a way of understanding that the challenges are common.

Kenney hastens to say no one is thinking about taking the word multiculturalism out of the Constitution or renaming any departments or legislation within government. That would just be too complicated, he says. But the immigration minister is trying to talk up the notion of pluralism when he goes out to deliver speeches and make appearances at the many multicultural events he attends as part of his duties.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is skeptical about Kenney’s approach, saying this is a minister whose whole mission seems to revolve around using multiculturalism to boost the electoral prospects of Conservatives.

“The key thing is the political manipulation of ethnicity for political gain. And all of us, all politicians have to take our responsibilities,” Ignatieff said in a recent interview.

“We condescend to people when we think the only thing they’re interested in is being spoken to as an ethnic group. They want to be spoken to as citizens and they want to participate, and they want to be included and they want to be talked to as Canadians.”

Kenney denies that partisanship is behind all this attention on multiculturalism, which has been, rightly or wrongly, more associated with Liberal governments and politics.

This multiculturalism/pluralism debate isn’t about the Liberal legacy, Kenney insists.

“Part of my effort to recover our history of diversity is to remind people that in fact the term `multiculturalism’ was introduced into Canadian political discourse by Conservatives. And it was really John Diefenbaker’s government in the 1950s and 1960s that started this whole movement in politics,” Kenney says.

Related posts

• Lack of multicultural elements in opening, closing ceremonies?? Want to hear from you. (17)
• [GB] Whose interest does the Fraser Institute serve? (0)
• Auditor general denies government’s claimed success of immigration reform (0)
• Trudeau still seen as best Canadian PM; Harper and Mulroney as worst (9)
• Another insight into why British MP was denied entry to Canada (0)

Asians have the least desire to migrate

About 45 million people would like to move to Canada and make a new life here, a global poll on migration desires showed.

Those yearning for Canada are among 16% of the world’s adults or roughly 700 million people who would like to move to another country permanently if they could, according the latest Gallup’s Potential Net Migration Index.

The Gallup poll conducted in 135 countries between 2007 and 2009, concludes that if all adults actually moved to their desired destination country today, some countries would suffer tremendous losses and others would be overwhelmed.

The poll also shows that the global economic recession has not curbed the desire of the world’s poor to seek a better future by migrating, Gallup Inc. said.

The top tier of most desired destinations was led by the United States, with about 165 million people, followed by Canada (45 million), United Kingdom (45 million), France (45 million), Spain (35 million), Saudi Arabia (30 million), Germany (30 million) and Australia (25 million).

The second tier includes countries chosen by 1 million to 5 million as their most-desired migration destinations. Some countries included in this tier are China, Indonesia, India and Mexico.
The last group – where fewer than 500,000 marked as their most-desired migration destinations – includes Vietnam, the Philippines and Bangladesh, among others.

The report said that implications of hundreds of millions of people harboring desires to migrate are on government leaders in both countries of origin and destination to develop immigration policies and development strategies.

“If all adults who desire to move to another country permanently actually moved to their desired destination country today, some countries would suffer tremendous losses in human capital and others would be overwhelmed,” the report said.

“In most countries, people’s desire to relocate did not decrease meaningfully after the global economic crisis hit in 2008,” said Neli Esipova, the polling agency’s director of research for global migration.

Almost eight of ten respondents who said they would like to emigrate were in a developing country, the poll showed. The vast majority of the latter said they would like to live in a developed country.

If all the would-be migrants acted on their desire, some rich countries would see their population swell and some poor ones would be depleted, Gallup said.

The population of Singapore would more than triple and the population of Saudi Arabia, New Zealand and Canada would swell by 180, 175 and 170 percent respectively, according to the poll.

Countries like Sierra Leone, Haiti and El Salvador would lose about half their population, according to the poll.
“But reality does not match desires,” Esipova said.

Migrants’ theoretical wishes often come up against barriers such as visa requirements which force them to move to countries that are not their first choice.

Gallup’s Potential Net Migration Index is the number of adults who want to move out of a country subtracted from the number who would like to move to it.

Countries with a higher Potential Net Migration Index have high potential population gains. At the top of this list is Singapore (+260 percent), while the Democratic Republic of the Congo posts the highest negative PNMI (-60 percent).

Of the 700 million that would like to move to another country, Gallup found that citizens of sub-Saharan African countries have the highest desire to do so. About 165 million people, or 38 percent of the population, said they’d migrate internationally if the opportunity arose.

On the flip side, people living in Asian countries have the least desire to migrate internationally. Only 10 percent of the population said they would like to move permanently to another country.
Interestingly, the United States, which is the top desired destination among all potential migrants, does not make the top five in terms of potential net population growth.

The United States’ net migration value of +60% places it farther down the list, after Canada and several other developed nations that dominate the top of the list.

Developing countries, in contrast, dominate the bottom of the list. The countries with the highest negative Potential Net Migration Index values are the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa) (-60%), Sierra Leone (-55%), and Zimbabwe (-55%), Haiti (-50%), and El Salvador (-50%).

While Gallup’s findings reflect people’s aspirations rather than their intentions, the implications of what could happen if hypothetical desires became reality are serious considerations for leaders to think about as they plan development and migration strategies now and in the future.

Gallup plans to continue to monitor trends in desired migration, and will publish an updated index that includes more countries in early 2010.

Where migrants want to go to Countries with highest PNMI*

1. Singapore (+260 per cent)
2. Saudi Arabia (+180 per cent)
3. New Zealand (+175 per cent)
4. Canada (+170 per cent)
5. Australia (+145 per cent)

* The PNMI is the estimated number of adults who wish to leave a country permanently subtracted from the estimated number who wish to immigrate to the country, as a proportion of the total adult population.

Top destinations (by country)

1. United States
2. Canada
3. Britain
4. France
5. Spain

Top sources of potential migrants (by region)

1. Sub-Saharan Africa
2. Middle East and North Africa
3. Europe
4. Americas
5. Asia

Related posts

• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)
• [GB] Whose interest does the Fraser Institute serve? (0)
• Auditor general denies government’s claimed success of immigration reform (0)
• 1/3 Canadians want fewer immigrants (18)

To clearly stand out a guest blogger entry, all such headlines will begin with [GB].

A recent book against Asian immigrants published by the right-wing research organization, the Fraser Institute, has raised concerns among the general public, to such a point that federal Immigration minister Jason Kenney had to draw a line publicly to distance his government from the writer who was an MP of the Reform Party.

What the Chinese media is concerned about is that not only has the book denied the contribution of immigrants, but that the publisher of the book is the Fraser Institute. This research institute has a great influence on today’s Canada and on the B.C. government. Whether it’s the Conservative Party’s environmental policy or B.C.’s HST, there is a connection with the institute. The think tank also has a strong presence in the media, e.g. the editor responsible for the major English newspaper’s editorial and opinion pages used to work at the institute.

The Fraser Institute’s anti-immigration stand is nothing new, but the stand was not given a high profile in the past. What this book says, however, is that immigration does no good to our economic development: it is a burden to our society, and would increase government expenses and lead to a hike in taxes. The book also claims immigrants have lowered the living standard of Canada and have a negative effect on the sovereignty, culture and social structure of the country.

The timing of the publication of the book reflects the institute’s tactic to get maximum effect. The book is published at a time of worsening economic downturn, when people worry about job loss and taxpayers are concerned about government raising taxes. The purpose of the book is to attack Canada’s immigration policy and to defame immigrants.

Nevertheless, immigration is not the only target of the Fraser Institute. The right-wing think tank also hosted movie screenings and invited oversea speakers to challenge the consensus of the world’s top scientists that the human factor contributes to climate change.

The Fraser Institute’s action denying climate change and its stout defence of the oil industry’s interest are being criticized by local scholars and the independent media. It has been revealed that big oil companies have handed out millions of dollars to North American right-wing think tanks, which include the Fraser Institute.

Likewise, when the Campbell government was under immense pressure because of the HST, the Fraser Institute stood up, together with representatives of big corporations, to support the new tax.

If one examines the so-called “research” of the right-wing think tank, one will see that it’s all about the interests of big businesses.

I once read a Fraser Institute report comparing the health care systems of Canada and other countries. It was quite biased and figures were manipulated in order to produce the desired result. The Fraser Institute has long been advocating privatizing Canada’s health care and bringing in American big private medical corporations. Again, this is to serve the interests of big businesses.

Last year the Fraser Institute released a report attacking public auto insurance. On its press release, it said: “Independent study after independent study come to the same conclusion: public auto insurance is more expensive on average than competitive, private models, despite contrary claims by government auto insurers.” It sounds so authoritative, but is it true? Well, if one goes to the website of the Canadian Consumers’ Association (http://www.consumer.ca/1525), one will find that the independent organization has done many studies on this same topic, which include a very comprehensive study comparing over 7,000 auto insurance quotes from 40 cities in 10 provinces. The conclusion of all these studies is this: “Public auto insurance systems offer the lowest rates for consumers.”

The Fraser Institute’s so-called “study” not only found a contrary conclusion, it also totally neglected all the studies conducted by the Canadian Consumers’ Association.

So who is more trustworthy? Who is working for the interest of the public and who is serving big business. I will leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusion.

—————————————

Disclaimer: Views expressed by guest bloggers are theirs and may not represent those of CIV.

By inviting guest bloggers to write here, I’d like to see us grow together with more diverse ideas and perspectives. If anyone believe the idea is cool, please don’t hesitate to submit your stuff to me. We use real names and identities here. Thank you.

Related posts

• [GB] 9 reasons why CSIS chief should resign or be fired (3)
• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)
• [GB] Canada doubles requirements of investor immigrant program (3)
• [GB] CSIS chief should be accountable for his public remark (14)

Auditor General of Canada Sheila Fraser tables the 2009 Fall Report in Ottawa, Ont., Tuesday November 3, 2009. (CP)

Auditor general Sheila Fraser opened fire against the gov’s immigration reform today (full OAG report). While CIC has said that it has cleared 30% of backlog within a year, Fraser says the drop was only 6.5%. Whose accounting should we trust?

Reforms to fast track skilled immigrants a bust so far: auditor general

THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA – Vaunted reforms to fast track skilled immigrants and quickly plug gaps in Canada’s labour force have not lived up to advance billing, says Auditor General Sheila Fraser.

When the Harper government introduced the controversial reforms in 2008, it argued they were necessary to eliminate the backlog of more than 600,000 skilled-worker applications and reduce wait times of up to seven years.

But in her latest report, Fraser says the changes have done little to cut the number of new applications pouring in or put a dent in the backlog.

“While it is too early to assess their full impact, the trends in the number of new applications received since the beginning of 2009 indicate they might not have the desired effect,” Fraser says.

Indeed, she questions why the reforms – which give the immigration minister controversial power to pick and choose which categories of skilled immigrants will be fast tracked or turned away – were implemented in the first place.

Immigration officials were unable to provide auditors with evidence of any analysis explaining why the number of admissible occupations was reduced to 38 from 351, how they figured that would reduce the number of new applications or what the potential impact and risks might be.

The measures “were implemented without sufficient analysis,” Fraser concludes.

At the time, opposition critics predicted the reforms would do little other than empower the minister to “cherry pick” favoured immigrants from the queue.

New Democrat immigration critic Olivia Chow said Fraser’s report proves the opposition was right

“We knew the changes to the Immigration Act last year were not going to work,” Chow said. “We said so. Almost every immigration lawyer or academic said that it is the wrong direction.”

In the year since the reforms went into effect, Fraser says the queue has shrunk by only 6.5 per cent and even that reduction was due to the fact the government refused to accept new applications for a period last year.

If the government doesn’t soon start to see better results, Fraser urges it to “react quickly and consider alternative strategies.”

“Failure to do so could result in the creation of a new inventory of applications . . . and the department would be unable to process new applications within the six to 12 months it has forecast.”

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney respectfully disagreed with Fraser’s conclusions. He maintained the reforms have resulted in new applications being processed in only six months and a 30-per-cent reduction in the backlog of applications received prior to the reforms.

“To go from a six-year wait to a six-month wait is a huge improvement,” he said.

Nevertheless, he “took note” of Fraser’s concerns and acknowledged that some “adjustments” might have to be made.

Although touted as a way to ensure labour market needs are met quickly, Fraser says the immigration department has no process or mechanism to ensure its list of in-demand occupations is up-to-date.

As part of the effort to streamline the process, the government set up a centralized intake office for skilled worker applications in Sydney, N.S. It was to receive and pre-screen initial applications, collect processing fees and forward eligible applications to Canadian missions abroad for more detailed processing.

Fraser questions the relevance of the centralized office given that most applications so far have wound up being forwarded to missions abroad for processing.

Moreover, she says the office has encountered “many problems in managing application fees” since it accepts payments in Canadian currency only.

“A number of applicants did not have access to Canadian funds in their countries. In addition, the (centralized intake office) was unable to reimburse applicants in eight countries where cheques issued by the Canadian government were not accepted.”

Fraser’s annual audit also looked at the temporary foreign worker program and found, as other studies have done before, that it is open to abuse.

There is no systematic assessment to ensure the jobs being offered are genuine or that employers live up to their commitments to provide adequate wages and accommodations, Fraser says.

“The issues . . . pose significant risks to the integrity of the program and could leave many foreign workers in a vulnerable position, particularly those who are physically or linguistically isolated from the general community or are unaware of their rights.”

Chow said Fraser’s conclusions show it’s “open season” on live-in caregivers and other temporary foreign workers.

However, Fraser acknowledged at a news conference that the government has already taken some steps to redress the problems, introducing reforms shortly after her audit was completed.

Kenney said the changes include more stringent monitoring of job offers and employment conditions and harsher penalties against employers who abuse either the system or their workers.

Despite the problems, he said the temporary worker program is “essential to keep our economy growing.”

“There are tens of thousands of employers who tell me that they would go out of business if they couldn’t find people to fill those jobs.”

Here’s the government’s press release of last week.

Government of Canada Tables 2010 Immigration Plan

Ottawa, October 30, 2009 — Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, tabled Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s 2009 Annual Report today in Parliament.

“While other countries have cut back immigration levels as a short-term response to the global economic downturn, our government is actually maintaining its immigration levels to meet the country’s medium- to long-term economic needs,” said Minister Kenney.

“Canada plans to welcome between 240,000 and 265,000 new permanent residents in 2010, the same number of immigrants as in recent years. In 2010, Canada will again welcome more new permanent residents than the average annual intake during the 1990s,” said Minister Kenney. “The focus of the 2010 plan is on economic immigration to support Canada’s economy during and beyond the current economic recovery.”

In particular, the admission ranges for immigrants nominated by the provinces and territories have been increased. Provinces and territories are in the best position to understand how Canada’s immigration intake can be aligned to their labour market needs. Second, by increasing the admission ranges in the Provincial Nominee Program, the Government of Canada is helping to ensure that the benefits of immigration are distributed across this country. Canada and the provinces will work together to manage growth in the provincial nominee program. Increasing the total number of immigrants processed under the economic category will also allow CIC to continue reducing the backlog of federal skilled worker applicants as part of the Action Plan for Faster Immigration.

Although the Action Plan has been in place for less than a year, early indications are that it is paying off. “People applying now under the federal skilled worker program can expect to receive a decision within six to twelve months, compared to up to six years under the old system,” said Minister Kenney. “We’ve also brought the backlog of federal skilled worker applicants down from over 630,000 to 425,000—a reduction of more than 30%.”

The backlog consists of people who applied before February 27, 2008, the date the Action Plan took effect. Since then, almost 240,000 people have applied to the new federal skilled worker program under the Action Plan. But even with those additional applicants, the total number of people currently awaiting a decision on their application is still 12% lower than when the Action Plan took effect.

“Before we changed the system, we had to process every application received. Since many more people applied every year than could be accepted, a backlog was created,” said Minister Kenney. “Now that we are processing only those applications that meet specified criteria, our Government is making significant progress in reducing the backlog.”

Improving the federal skilled worker program is part of the Government of Canada’s overall commitment to modernizing the immigration system to maximize its contribution to our overall economic growth.

“The Government of Canada will continue to work with provinces, territories and stakeholders to make sure immigration meets the needs of communities, employers and families now and in the future,” concluded the Minister.

Related posts

• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)
• Let’s call it ‘pluralism’…. is ‘multiculturalism’ dead? (23)
• Asians’ desire to migrate not as high as expected: poll (3)
• [GB] Whose interest does the Fraser Institute serve? (0)

If the majority of immigrants coming to Canada are from Europe instead of Asia, do you think the public opinion towards immigration in general will lean to the opposite? Just like what the poster above indicates in 1907?

Americans and Britons Share Unease Over Immigration, Differ with Canadians
People in Canada generally have a more positive attitude towards immigration than those in the U.S. and the UK.

Angus Reid poll – A significant number of people in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom express animosity towards both legal and illegal immigration into their respective countries, a new Angus Reid Strategies poll has found.

The online survey of representative national samples in the three countries shows that 37% of Canadians feel that immigration is generally having a positive impact in the country, while 41% feel the opposite.

In the U.S., the gap between those who feel positively about immigration into their country (18%) and those who say it is having a negative effect (66%) is much more pronounced. So is the case in the UK, where 16% of respondents think well of immigration, but 72% are uneasy about it.

Legal Immigration

A significant proportion of the population in Canada (37%) and the U.S. (41%) want their respective governments to reduce the number of legal immigrants who are allowed to stay in each country.

In the UK, a staggering 63% of respondents would limit legal immigration.

Illegal Immigration

Canada is currently home to between 35,000 and 120,000 illegal immigrants. About two-in-five respondents (43%) say that illegal immigrants take jobs away from Canadians, whereas 40% say that unlicensed workers are employed in jobs that Canadians do not want.

In the U.S., where more than 12 million illegal immigrants reside at this point, 59% of respondents say that undocumented migrants take jobs from American workers, while 32% think they perform the tasks that Americans dislike.

British respondents hold similar views. Over half of people in the UK (57%) say that the 500,000 to 700,000 illegal immigrants currently living in the country take jobs from the hands of British workers, while one third of respondents (33%) say that those jobs are just not wanted by British people.

Future of Illegal Immigrants

About a fifth of Canadians (22%) would allow illegal immigrants to stay in Canada and eventually apply for citizenship. Roughly the same number (21%) says that they should only be allowed to stay in the country as temporary workers without an option of citizenship. Almost half of respondents (46%) believe illegal immigrants should be required to leave their jobs and be deported to their country of origin.

A quarter of respondents in the U.S. (25%) support the idea of offering a citizenship path to undocumented immigrants, while 18% say they should only be eligible for temporary work permits. Most Americans (47%) want all illegal immigrants to be asked to leave the country immediately.

British respondents are the least keen on offering any option of permanent residence to undocumented migrants. Only 11% of people in the UK think they should be granted citizenship, 22% say they could stay as temporary workers only, and three-in-five (59%) believe they should be deported.

Related posts

• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• 2/3 Canadians want Fadden to name names (5)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)
• Poll: Byelection in Vancouver Fraserview? (0)
• Poll says discrimination dropping in Canada…. REALLY? (11)

Full article.

Children of Temporary Foreign Workers in Alberta and Ontario can now apply for Open Work Permits

Working-aged dependents of Temporary Foreign Workers in Ontario and Alberta can now obtain Open Work Permits, giving them the ability to contribute to the Canadian workforce alongside their parents.  On an Open Work Permit, these individuals will be able to work for any employer in Alberta or Ontario without having to undergo the usual process involved in applying for a Temporary Work Permit.

In many cases, dependent children of Temporary Foreign Workers come to Canada on either Study Permits or Visitor Visas, or apply for their own Work Permits, so as to keep the family together. In other cases, the family is split up while the Temporary Foreign Worker is in Canada. Alberta and Ontario are now giving dependent children of Temporary Foreign Workers the opportunity to join their parents and work in Canada without first needing a job offer, as part of two separate pilot projects these provinces have put into place.

Currently, a Canadian employer who wishes to hire a foreign worker must first extend a job offer to that worker, and then apply to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) for a Labour Market Opinion (LMO).

A Labour Market Opinion (LMO) is a document that HRSDC issues to employers that demonstrates that the employer’s temporary job offer meets the HRSDC standards and is usually necessary for Work Permit issuance. Employers must usually demonstrate that they made reasonable, but unsuccessful, efforts to hire a Canadian citizen or Permanent Resident before they extended the job offer to the foreign worker. They must show that the applicant possesses the necessary skills and training for the job and that the compensation and conditions of the job are commensurate with regional standards.

With a genuine job offer and an LMO, the Temporary Foreign Worker can apply for a Work Permit that is usually issued for the duration of the employment contract.

Alberta and Ontario are allowing dependent children of Temporary Foreign Workers to avoid this process, as Open Work Permit holders can legally work in Canada without first receiving a confirmed job offer or an LMO from HRSDC.

Under these pilot projects, in effect from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, dependent children of Temporary Foreign Workers headed to, or working in, either Alberta or Ontario will be eligible to apply for Open Work Permits if certain conditions are met.

Related posts

• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)
• Asians’ desire to migrate not as high as expected: poll (3)
• [GB] Whose interest does the Fraser Institute serve? (0)
• Auditor general denies government’s claimed success of immigration reform (0)

British MP George Galloway barred from Canada under the Canada Israel “Public Security” Agreement

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, March 26, 2009

(The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) is an independent research organization and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists. The CRG is based in Montreal. It is a registered non profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada.)

British MP George Galloway was refused entry to Canada on the pretext that he supported Hamas, which is categorized by the Canadian government as a “terrorist organization.”

Contrary to what has been reported in the media, this was not a unilateral decision by the government of Canada.

The decision was taken in close consultation with Israel under the terms of a farreaching agreement of “public security” signed by Ottawa and Tel Aviv on March 23 2008. The “Declaration of Intent” establishes a framework of bilateral cooperation in the area of “Public Security”. The agreement has not been the object of debate in the Canadian parliament, nor has it received media coverage.

Under the proposed agreement, the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada is in liason with his Israeli counterpart the Director General of Public Security for the Government of the State of Israel. Together they chair a joint Management Committee.

The terms reference of the Canada-Israel “Declaration” are extremely broad. They include issues of immigration and ethnic profiling, the management of borders, intelligence and the exchange of information, emergency preparedness, correctional services, prisons, law enforcement and counter-terrorism. The agreement allows for officials from the State of Israel, to play a role in Canadian “public security” including border security and immigration. Were Israeli officials present in Canada? The important question is whether Israeli officials were present in Canada and whether they were assisting their Canadian counterparts with regard to the decision to bar George Galloway.

For further details see article as well text of full agreement in ANNEX, which provides detailed information on the nature of this Canadian-Israeli project.

—————————————————————————————-

The Canada-Israel “Public Security” Agreement

Ottawa & Tel Aviv collaborate in counter-terrorism & Homeland security

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, April 2, 2008

Canada and Israel have signed a far-reaching public security cooperation agreement.

The agreement, described as a “Partnership”, involves a “Declaration of Intent” by the two governments. The Declaration was signed in Tel Aviv on March 23:

“Today, the Honourable Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety Canada and Avi Dicter, Minister of Public Security of the Government of the State of Israel, signed a Declaration of Intent to enhance cooperation in the area of public safety.

“The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the security of Canadians – both through our actions at home and with our international partners.” said Minister Day. “Today’s declaration demonstrates the longstanding cooperation between Canada and Israel on public safety issues, and we welcome this increased cooperation in order to improve our countries’ capacity to protect our citizens.”

This declaration will allow Canada and Israel to better enhance cooperation in the areas of organized crime, emergency management, crime prevention, and other related public safety concerns. The declaration seeks to establish a more structured framework for the continued cooperation on public safety issues between Canada and Israel.

“The Declaration of Intent is an opportunity for Canada and Israel to strengthen their commitment to safeguarding their citizens and respective national interests from common threats,” said Minister Dicter.” ( http://www.ps-sp.gc.ca/app_support/xml/ps_news_e.xml)

Cheney Mission to the Middle East Shrouded in Secrecy

Canada’s Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day was in Israel on the same day as Vice Cheney Dick Cheney.

Coincidentally, a US mission led by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was also in Israel on official business, as guest of Israel’s Minister of Public Security, Avi Dicter. There are no reports on Canada-US-Israeli consultations during these official visits. In all likelihood, officials from the respective departments/ministries of US Homeland Security, Israel’s Public Security and Canada’s Public Safety had meetings behind closed doors.

Terms of Reference of the Partnership

Israel’s Ministry of Public Security carries out public security, law enforcement activities. It is also in charge of the operation of Israel’s prisons, which are in large part used to detain Palestinians.

Canada’s Ministry of Public Safety, established in 2003, is a copy and paste version of US Homeland Security. Public Safety Canada has a close bilateral relationship with US Homeland Security.

Public Safety Canada works closely with several government agencies including the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Correctional Service Canada (CSC) and The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Officials from these agencies have no doubt been consulted regarding the terms of reference of the Israel-Canada declaration.

The terms reference of the Canada-Israel Declaration are extremely broad. They include issues of immigration and ethnic profiling, the management of borders, intelligence and the exchange of information, emergency preparedness, correctional services, prisons, law enforcement and counter-terrorism.

The Declaration of Intent involves the setting up of a close bilateral cooperation arrangement at the ministerial level. A management committee has been set up under the helm of the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada, and the Director General of Public Security of the State of Israel.

Senior Israeli and Canadian officials respectively from Israel’s Ministry of Public Security and from various Canadian federal departments and agencies (including the RCMP, CSIS and CBSA), which are under the jurisdiction of Stockwell Day’s ministry would carry out “an approved program of work”.

The programme would be implemented by a Senior Coordinator from each country, namely, the Assistant Deputy Minister (Strategic Policy) for Canada’s Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Deputy Director General of Israel’s Ministry of Public Security of the State of Israel;

Nature of the Agreement

The agreement requires the two countries to “[b]uild on their shared commitment to facilitate and enhance cooperation to protect their respective countries’ population, assets and interests from common threats”.

What type of border security and control of immigrants is involved?

How does this impinge upon Canada’s immigration procedures?

The agreement appears to be built upon a much broader agreement between Canada and the US in the area of Homeland Security. However, it also replicates the pattern of a February 2006 agreement reached between US Homeland Security and Israel’s Ministry of Public Security.

The Israel-Canada agreement has been in the pipeline since Israel’s Public Security Minister Avi Dicter’s October 2007 visit to the US and Canada. Avi Dicter met Stockwell Day last October in Toronto “with the intention on establishing cooperation on homeland security” and counter-terrorism.

Israel is not part of North America. Canada and Israel do not share a common border. So what is the underlying agenda?

Will Canada assist Israel in policing its border with Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian territories?

Conversely, will Israeli officials assist Canada in ethnic profiling of people (including biometric applications, which is mentioned in the agreement) who visit Canada from the Middle East?

Will Israeli officials have access to confidential files of Canadians?

What type of cooperation is envisaged in the areas of prisons and law enforcement? Interrogation techniques? Are Israeli consultants going to help us reorganize our correctional services?

The agreement would allow officials from the State of Israel, a country on record for its numerous human rights violations acts directed against the people of Palestine and Lebanon, to play a role in Canadian public security. In this regard, will Israeli officials assist the RCMP and CSIS in the profiling of Canadians citizens who are Muslims. This ethnic profiling is already applied at Canadian airports.

Will Israeli officials assist their Canadian counterparts in dealing with individuals and/or organizations in Canada involved in supporting the rights of Palestinians. Will Israeli officials assist their Canadian counterparts in the domestic “war on terrorism”, which in the post 9/11 period has led to numerous arbitrary detentions on trumped-up charges.

At the same time, the Declaration establishes a de facto complicit relationship whereby Canadian officials (RCMP, etc) would contribute to assisting Israel in its domestic police and border activities (e.g. Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank), not under the auspices of the United Nations, but directly in cooperation with Israeli police and security officials.

In fact, Canada’s “contribution” to the policing of Israel’s borders with Gaza and the West Bank is already part of a 300 million dollar aid package in support of the “peace process”. According to Public Safety Canada, “a significant component [of the 300 million will be] devoted to security, including policing and public order capacity-building. This five year commitment will go towards the creation of a democratic, accountable, and viable Palestinian state that lives in peace and security alongside Israel.” (Marketwire, Ottawa, March 24, 2008)

Following his meeting with his counterpart Avi Dicter, Stockwell Day had meetings on the 24th of March in the West Bank with President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, where issues pertaining to Canada’s peace package, including police training and capacity building were discussed. “I was pleased to meet with Palestinian Authority President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad to discuss public safety issues of mutual interest,” said Minister Day. Stockwell Day also visited a West Bank prison as well as a police training center in Jericho. (Ibid)

Under the Declaration of Intent, Canada cannot exercise “neutrality” with regard to the Palestinian process. Canada would act as a partner of Israel in all issues of public security in the occupied territories. Moreover, Canadian support channelled to the US-Israeli sponsored Palestinian regime of Mahmoud Abbas will be used to repress Hamas, which is the duly elected government. It will contribute to worsening the situation in the occupied territories.

Counter-terrorism and Homeland Security

The issue of “counter-terrorism” is not mentioned explicitly in the Declaration of Intent. The terms of reference, however, suggest that the “war on terrorism” is an integral part of the agreement.

In early February 2007, Minister Avi Dicter addressed the public security committee of the Canadian House of Commons: “Iran is the largest terrorist state in the world” Dichter said. In his discussion with Canadian MPs, Dichter “laid out what he believes to be the guidelines for Canadian-Israeli security cooperation in the future, possibly similar to the agreement that the minister signed a day later in Washington DC.” (Jerusalem Post, 7 February 2007)

“The Canadian MPs echoed their American compatriots in addressing the former Shin Bet head as a world expert in the field of terror rather than as a visiting minister of a foreign government, asking him at one point what specific steps the parliament could take to prevent terror attacks on Canadian soil. In his answer, Dichter reiterated the importance of strengthening border security and use of proper investigative methods with suspects.” (ibid)

During a followup official visit of Israel’s Minister of Public Security Avi Dicter to Canada in late October 2007, meetings of Israeli and Canadian officials were held behind closed doors to discuss a blueprint for cooperation in the areas of homeland security and counter-terrorism. The meetings chaired by Stockwell Day were held in Toronto on October 29, 2007. A so-called “Arrangement Paper” was to be drafted with a view to defining “the actions of the competent structures at ministerial, central and subordinate/local levels for preventing and fighting home land securities issues”:

“The parties have agreed to intensify future cooperation by identifying ways of direct communication in order to maximize the exchange of information, technology and operational activity. For the same reason it has been agreed to accelerate negotiations for the signing of an Arrangement Paper between the two Ministries on cooperation in home land security and counter terrorism issues which falls within the responsibility of the respective Ministries.
…
Negotiations on the arrangement paper mentioned above will take place as necessary. The signing of the arrangement paper will be held on an occasion and place coordinated in advance between the Ministries.

The two Ministers agreed that by early November three work teams will be established in order to promote the cooperation between the two ministries on the following subjects: • Counterterrorism and Crime • Emergency preparedness • Border crossing security, focusing on biometric identification”

(Official communique of Israel’s Ministry of Public Security,
http://www.mops.gov.il/BPEng/MOPS+News/DicterWithCanadianMinister_30_10_07.htm )

The “Arrangement paper” refers to the draft text of The Declaration of Intent, which was signed in Tel Aviv on March 23, 2008. The two governments chose to sign the agreement during a week of intense diplomatic activity in Tel Aviv, involving the concurrent visits of the Vice President of the US, the US Secretary of the Department Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and other senior officials.

The final text of the Declaration of Intent remains vague. “Counter-terroism” and the “Homeland” are not explicitly mentioned in the final text of the Declaration signed on March 23.

Legal Implications

The text of the Declaration of Intent states that “:{it] is not intended to create legally binding obligations, under either domestic or international law. Yet, at the outset, it violates several fundamental principles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

The Canada-Israel Public Security agreement has barely been mentioned by the Canadian media.

It has not been the object of a debate in parliament. Why has this issue not been brought to the forefront of public debate? Why has the parliamentary opposition remained mum on the subject?

It should be forcefully challenged in Canada’s courts.

ANNEX

FULL TEXT of AGREEMENT

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2008/nr20080323-1-eng.aspx

Public Safety Canada March 23, 2008

Declaration of Intent Between the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada and the Ministry of Public Security of the Government of the State of Israel

The Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada and the Ministry of Public Security of the Government of the State of Israel, declare their intent:

1. To prioritize and manage cooperation in the following areas within the responsibility of the Ministries:

1. Border management and security, including biometric applications;

2. Correctional services and prisons;

3. Crime prevention;

4. Critical infrastructure protection;

5. Emergency management;

6. Illegal immigration;

7. Law enforcement cooperation;

8. Money laundering;

9. Organized crime;

10. Terrorist financing; and

11. Trafficking in persons.

2. To achieve the following objectives:

1. Build on their shared commitment to facilitate and enhance cooperation to protect their respective countries’ population, assets and interests from common threats;

2. Integrate and coordinate of the identification, prioritization, and implementation of cooperative efforts between themselves in the area of public safety;

3. Manage the delivery of approved cooperative activities within the scope of this Declaration;

4. Establish of clear lines of communication and points of contact between themselves as part of an ongoing process of dialogue and partnership in pursuing common goals;

5. Share knowledge, experience, expertise, information, research, and best practices;

6. Identify and share public safety concerns on the basis of threats, risk assessments, priorities, vulnerabilities, and consequences; and

7. Facilitate technical exchange cooperation, including education, training, and exercises.

3. To establish a Management Committee that would:

1. Be comprised of the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada, and the Director General of Public Security for the Government of the State of Israel;

2. Meet annually and as needed to develop and approve a program of work, consistent with the scope and objectives of this Declaration, for that upcoming year;

3. Evaluate and approve progress and results of activities carried out under this Declaration from the previous year;

4. Identify officials from the Ministry of Public Security of the Government of the State of Israel and from the department and agencies for which the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada is responsible, to carry out, within specific timeframes, each of the items in the approved program of work;

5. Be supported by a Senior Coordinator, namely, the Assistant Deputy Minister (Strategic Policy) for the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada, and the Deputy Director General for the Ministry of Public Security of the Government of the State of Israel; and

6. Have the Senior Coordinators ensure the delivery of the approved program of work and recommend new activities for the Committee’s approval.

4. To bear respectively the costs that they each incur for performing, managing, and administering its activities under this Declaration;

5. To ensure the appropriate protection of all information, knowledge, expertise, etc. that is exchanged between them against any unauthorized access, alteration, publication, or dissemination; and

6. To protect any information, knowledge, expertise, etc. that is exchanged between them against disclosure to any third party with the same degree of care as they each exercise with their own information, knowledge, expertise, etc. of a similar nature;

It is understood that:

This Declaration is not intended to duplicate or supersede any existing arrangements between any departments and/or agencies of the Government of Canada and the Government of Israel; and

This Declaration is not intended to create legally binding obligations, under either domestic or international law.

Signed in duplicate at Tel Aviv, this 23rd day of March, 2008, which corresponds to the 16th day of Adar b’5768, in the English, French, and Hebrew languages with all texts being equally valid.

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS OF CANADA

FOR THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SECURITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

Related posts

• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)
• [Letter] Roadmap to a balanced budget: Maximizing government efficiency (1)
• Let’s call it ‘pluralism’…. is ‘multiculturalism’ dead? (23)
• Asians’ desire to migrate not as high as expected: poll (3)