2.1 Criminal Inadmissibility
Section 19 of the Immigration Act makes certain persons inadmissible for immigration to Canada due to criminality. These can be classified into eleven categories as follows:
A19(1)(c), A19(2)(a), A19(2)(b)(i) – persons convicted of offences within Canada under any Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum of ten years or more imprisonment; less than ten years imprisonment; or summary convictions (two or more separate offences, if seeking admission less than five year following the full completion of sentences).
A19(1)(C.1)(i), A19(2)(a.1)(i), A19(2)(b)(ii) – persons in which reasonable grounds exist to believe (* i.e., having an objective grounds for such, based on credible information) that a conviction or convictions for an offence or offences had occurred outside Canada. The offences must have an equivalent in Canada, punishable by Act of Parliament by a maximum of 10 years or more imprisonment, less than 10 years imprisonment, or summary conviction (two or more separate offences, if seeking admission less than five year following the full completion of sentences).
A19(1)(c.1)(ii), A19(2)(a.1)(ii) – persons in which reasonable grounds exist to believe* that an act or omission (an offence in the country in which it occurred) had been committed outside Canada, in which an equivalent offence exists within Canada which is punishable by Act of Parliament by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, or less than 10 years imprisonment. An act or omission leading to a charge that did not result in a conviction will not usually result in inadmissibility (except where conviction was avoided by legal technicality). A finding of guilt of an act or omission is not necessarily considered a conviction. Pending charges can be sufficient to allow inadmissibility.
A19(1)(c.2) – where reasonable grounds exist to believe* that an individual was or is a member of an organization that was or is involved in the commission of a pattern of indictable offences in Canada, or of acts or omissions outside of Canada which would be such an offence in Canada punishable under the Criminal Code (including knowledge that the organization is involved in such activity), the Narcotic Control Act or Part III or IV of the Food and Drug Act, unless the Minister is satisfied that the individual’s admission is not detrimental to the national interest.
A19(1)(d) – where reasonable grounds exist to believe that a person (i) will commit one ore more offences punishable by indictment under Act of Parliament, or (ii) will participate in a group pattern of criminal activity which is planned to held in the commission of an indictable offence under any Act of Parliament.
A19(2)(b)(iii) – where an applicant has been convicted in Canada of an offence punishable by summary conviction, and where reasonable grounds to believe* exist that the applicant had been convicted of one such offence outside Canada, and where five years has not passed since the full completion of all sentences.
In the evaluation of an equivalent Canadian offence, the following factors must be taken into consideration:
– the offence must exist under an Act of Parliament, and not exclusively in provincial or municipal legislation;
– statutes must be current at the time of the application;
– common elements, and not only nomenclature should exist, and consideration of the circumstances should be granted;
– political offences should be considered in consideration of the likelihood of such an offence being prosecuted within Canada;
– the severity of the offence, where several equivalencies exist, should be considered;
Admission cannot be issued to persons who committed or have been convicted of criminal acts which lead to criminal inadmissibility as outlined above. Approval of rehabilitation may be granted by the Minister or a suitable delegate under A19(1)(c.1) and A19(2)(a.1) where there exists sufficient demonstration that future unlawful activities are extremely unlikely. The result of a successful application for such is that an applicant would no longer be considered inadmissible for those specific those specific acts. An applicant is eligible for such an application where criminal activity occurred outside of Canada, and falls within the provisions of A19(1)(c.1)(ii), A19(2)(a.1)(i), or A19(2)(a.1)(ii).
Persons convicted of an offence within Canada must obtain a Pardon under the Criminal Records Act to overcome inadmissibility.
__________________________________________
2.2 1996 Immigration Forecast
The following numbers show the expected arrivals via immigration as tabled in the 1996 plan on November 1st of 1995, and the projected arrivals as of September 15th of this year.
1996 Plan(01/11/95) 1996 Projection (15/09/96)
Skilled Worker 66,500-73,000 83,000-85,900
Business 18,000-20,000 20,700-21,400
Spouses, Fiance(e)s, and Children 47,000-51,000 38,000-39,500
Parents and Grandparents 31,000-34,700 22,500-23,400
Other 8,500 8,800
– Live-in Caregiver Program
– Special Categories
– Humanitarian and Compassionate
– Provincial/Territorial Nominees
Total Immigrant 171,000-187,000 173,000-179,000
1996 projected Immigrant Arrivals Canada, Quebec, and other provinces
Other Provinces Quebec Canada
Total Family 51,900-54,300 8,600 60,500-62,900
Total Economic 93,730-97-330 9,970 103,700-107,330
Total Other ** 7,700 1,100 8,800
Total Immigrant 153,330-159,330 19,670 173,000-179,000
** Includes members of the Live-in Caregiver Class, Special Categories, Provincial/Territorial Nominees, and those landed on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds.
__________________________________________
2.3 1997 Immigration Plan
On October 29th, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tabled the 1997 Immigration Plan in the House of Commons. The following is an excerpt of the News Release by the Citizenship and Immigration Department:
The Immigration Plan for 1997 sets 195,000 – 220,000 as the overall range of immigrants and refugees. The 1997 number includes 168,900 – 187,700 immigrants and 26,100 – 32,300 refugees. Within the immigrant category, 102,000 to 113,000 are in the economic class (including their dependents) and 58,400 to 66,200 are in the family class.
The immigration levels for 1997 represent a range that is consistent with the Strategic Framework that was announced in November 1994, following extensive consultations with Canadians. The Government remains committed to its election promise that “we should continue to target immigration levels of approximately one percent of the population each year… within the limit of our ability to absorb and settle immigrants.”
“The 1997 Immigration Plan is a tangible example of this government’s pro-immigration philosophy. This government — and the Canadians that it serves — recognizes the importance of promoting immigration as an instrument of positive social and economic development,” Madame Robillard said. “Yet we take very seriously our international commitment to respond to refugees and people in need: last year we met and even exceeded our refugee resettlement targets,” the Minister added.
The Minister also reported on the number of newcomers to Canada in 1996. Madame Robillard announced that by the end of this year, Canada will have welcomed just over 200,000 new immigrants and refugees which is within the range forecast in the 1996 Immigration Plan.
1997 IMMIGRATION PLAN
Immigrant Category
-Economic
Skilled Worker 82,000 – 90,000
Business 20,000 – 23,000
-Family
Spouses, Fiance(e)s and Children 35,000 – 40,000
Parents and Grandparents 23,400 – 26,200
-Other
Live-in Caregiver Program
Special Categories
Humanitarian and Compassionate
Provincial/Territorial Nominees 8,500
Total Immigrant 168,900 – 187,700
IMMIGRATION LEVELS, 1997 CANADA, QUEBEC* AND OTHER PROVINCES
Immigrant (all numbers in thousands)
Other Provinces Quebec Canada
Total Family 50.4-58.2 8 58.4-66.2
Total Economic 90.0-101.0 12.0 102.0-113.0
Total Other** 8.5 8,500
Total 148.9-167.7 20.0 168.9-187.7
* The Immigration Act requires that the government’s annual immigration plan include separate numbers for provinces with selection powers. At this time, Quebec is the only province with this responsibility.
**Includes members of the Live-in Caregiver Class, Special Categories, Provincial/Territorial Nominees, and those landed on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds.
__________________________________________
2.4 Campbell, Cohen
1996 saw many achievements for Campbell, Cohen on the internet, and otherwise:
– According to the records of the DejaNews archive service, David Cohen was responsible for almost 2900 informative postings on the misc.immigration.canada newsgroup, making Campbell, Cohen, by far, the most substantial contributor. Over 90% of the contributions made, approximately 2610 posts, were responses to inquiries made by individuals seeking information regarding immigration to Canada. The remaining posts constituted the provision of continuously valuable information, updates to documents such as the Canadian Immigration FAQ, and informing readers how to obtain access to other informative information from our internet resources.
Those who wish to gain full access to the information posted to the above mentioned newsgroup by David Cohen should make use of the commercial newsgroup archives which are available.
These include:
DejaNews: www.dejanews.com
AltaVista: www.altavista.digital.com
These resources may be accessed from our own Web Site at:
http://www.cam.org/~dcohen/txt/usenet/
– Campbell, Cohen’s World Wide Web Site underwent major revisions early in the spring of 1996. These revisions constituted aesthetic changes, content changes, and technical changes – the latter made possible largely by the excellent work of the talented Misha D’yachkov.
– The Campbell, Cohen World Wide Web Site was named Canuck Site of the day in June of 1996. This award is granted to Canadian sites which display innovation in design and content. If you wish to vote for Campbell, Cohen for the Canuck Site of the Year for 1996, following the link from our home page to the voting page.
– Our World Wide Web Site was also conferred “5 Star Legal Site” status by a body presenting and rating legal Web Sites in Canada, and worldwide.
– Brahm Campbell, the other senior partner at Campbell, Cohen, won an impressive Supreme Court victory in late 1996. In a surprisingly quick judgment, Canada’s highest court awarded the case to Mr. Campbell’s client, re-instating a long held precedent in Canada.