Modernizing the Selection System: Skilled Workers
      What we are doing:
      Moving away from an occupation-based model to one focused on flexible
      and transferable skills.
      Assigning more weight to education.
      Increasing the relative weight of having knowledge of an official language but
      ensuring that language is not a bar to admission.
      Creating an "in-Canada landing class" for temporary workers (including
      recent graduates from Canadian schools) who have a permanent job offer
      and who have been working in Canada.
      Why we are doing it:
      To attract and keep the highly skilled, adaptable immigrants that Canada
      needs to succeed and prosper in the future.
      Expanding the Temporary Worker Program
      What we are doing:
      Facilitating the entry of temporary workers through a more serviceoriented
      approach.
      Pursuing agreements with individual sectors or firms to identify and meet
      short-term labour market needs, while respecting the terms of applicable
      federal-provincial agreements.
      Why we are doing it:
      To allow the immediate needs of employers to be met faster.
      To expand our access to the global labour market.
      To attract people who are skilled and on the move and to encourage them to
      make Canada their destination of choice.
      Strengthening Sponsorship Obligations
      What we are doing:
      People in default of court-ordered spousal or child support payments will not
      be allowed to sponsor.
      People convicted of a crime related to domestic abuse will not be able to
      sponsor unless a pardon has been granted or rehabilitation has been
      demonstrated.
      New legislative provisions will improve the ability of the federal government to
      recover the costs of social assistance in cases of sponsorship default.
      People receiving social assistance, except for reasons of disability, will not
      be able to sponsor.
      Why we are doing it:
      To strengthen the integrity of the sponsorship program.
      Streamlining Appeals
      What we are doing:
      Introducing a new leave requirement for people appealing visa officer
      decisions from overseas.
      Developing an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for overseas
      decisions.
      Limiting inland humanitarian and compassionate applications to one per
      year.
      Why we are doing it:
      To provide a screening mechanism for applications to the Federal Court for
      review of overseas decisions. The leave provision currently exists for inland
      applications only.
      To provide an effective, alternative means of reviewing and solving disputes
      regarding overseas decisions.
      To ensure a fast and fair inland system for considering applications on
      humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
      Business Immigration
      What we are doing:
      Establishing objective criteria to assess business experience for both the
      investor and entrepreneur programs.
      Creating a new net worth requirement for entrepreneurs.
      Why we are doing it:
      To strengthen the integrity of the business immigration program.
      Objective Criteria for Permanent Residence
      What we are doing:
      Introducing a clear physical residency requirement. To retain permanent
      residence status, a person must be physically present in Canada for a
      cumulative period of 2 years for every 5 working years. People who spend
      time overseas for specific reasons (to accompany a Canadian citizen, to
      work for a Canadian company, or for humanitarian reasons) will retain their
      status.
      Developing a fraud-resistant permanent resident card.
      Ensuring an oral appeal to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) for all
      loss of status cases.
      Ensuring that permanent residents without a valid card have the right to
      enter if they have been outside Canada for less than one year.
      Why we are doing it:
      To implement a clear objective standard that is easier to administer.
      To replace a document that is easy to forge with one that has
      state-of-the-art security features.
      And Refugees
      Strengthening Refugee Protection: Overseas Resettlement
      What we are doing:
      Amending the criteria for "ability to establish in Canada" to include social as
      well as economic factors.
      Pursuing agreements with NGOs to locate, identify, refer and pre-screen
      refugee applications in areas where refugees are most in need of protection.
      Ensuring that people in urgent need of protection are brought to Canada
      within days.
      Why we are doing it:
      To ensure that the need for protection is the overriding objective in
      resettlement from abroad.
      To focus existing resources on areas where refugees are most in need of
      protection.
      Facilitating Family Reunification of Refugees
      What we are doing:
      Processing overseas families as a unit, including extended family members
      of refugees whenever possible.
      Allowing dependants of refugees, selected inland or abroad, to be
      processed as part of the same application for a period of one year after a
      refugee has acquired permanent resident status.
      Exempting refugees, their spouses, partners and dependants from the
      admission bar with regard to excessive demand on health or social services.
      Why we are doing it:
      To facilitate the reunification of refugees with their family members as soon
      as reasonably practicable.
      Faster and Fair Refugee Processing Inland
      What we are doing:
      Referral to the IRB to be made within three working days.
      Consolidating protection decisions at the IRB to examine all risk grounds at
      a single hearing. Grounds will include the Geneva Convention, the
      Convention against Torture, and the risk of cruel or unusual treatment or
      punishment.
      The use of single-member panels as the norm, supported by the
      establishment of a paper appeal on merit.
      Reducing the waiting period from 5 to 3 years for the landing in Canada of
      undocumented refugees who are unable to obtain documents from their
      listed country of origin because there is no central authority in that country
      to issue documents.
      Why we are doing it:
      To allow genuine refugees to be processed faster so that their lives are not
      put in limbo while they wait for decisions crucial to their future.
      To provide a fair opportunity to correct errors in law or fact in the first
      instance, and to increase the integrity of the decision-making process.
      Front-end Security Screening
      What it is:
      A security check initiated when a person makes a refugee claim.
      Why we are doing it:
      To catch criminals and people who present security risks at the start of the
      process and speed genuine refugees through the system. Currently, a
      security screening is carried out only once a person is granted refugee
      status by the IRB.
      Admissibility Hearing
      What it is:
      A hearing before an independent adjudicator to decide whether a person is
      admissible to Canada.
      Why we are doing it:
      To make fair but fast decisions on security cases.
      Pre-removal Risk Assessment
      What we are doing:
      Legislating a procedure to fairly assess the risk of return prior to removal.
      There will be flexibility for an oral hearing should the complexity of the case
      require it.
      Repeat claimants, failed refugee claimants, and refugees who have
      withdrawn or abandoned their claims will be assessed on the grounds of the
      Geneva Convention, the United Nations Convention against Torture, and the
      risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment.
      People found to be inadmissible to Canada for reasons of serious
      criminality, security, organized crime or violations of human rights will be
      assessed on the grounds of the United Nations Convention against Torture
      and the risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment.
      Why we are doing it:
      To ensure that there is a fair and effective procedure for assessing the risk
      of return for individuals being removed from Canada.
      Strengthening Enforcement
      Penalties
      What we are doing:
      Increasing penalties for existing offences.
      Creating a new offence for human trafficking.
      Extending Criminal Code counterfeiting provisions (which currently apply
      only to passports) to cover any immigration document or travel document
      (with an exemption for refugees).
      Allowing for the seizure of assets in cases of migrant smuggling and
      trafficking.
      Providing new authority to seize citizenship documents to prevent fraud.
      Creating a new offence for people who counsel a person to misrepresent
      himself or herself or to commit an offence under the Act.
      Creating a new offence for the possession and laundering of proceeds from
      immigration offences.
      Raising the penalty to life in prison for migrant smuggling and trafficking.
      Why we are doing it:
      To ensure that we have the tools we need to combat organized crime and
      human trafficking.
      Exclusion from the Refugee Determination System
      What we are doing:
      Barring access to serious criminals, people who present security risks,
      organizers of criminal operations, or violators of human rights. A "serious
      criminal" is defined as someone who was convicted of an offence punishable
      by 10 years or more and who has received a sentence of 2 years or more in
      Canada. People convicted of an offence punishable by 10 years or more
      outside Canada will only be excluded if the Minister finds them to be a
      danger to the public.
      Why we are doing it:
      To prevent abuse of the refugee protection system.
      Eliminating Appeals
      What we are doing:
      Eliminating appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division for serious criminals,
      people who present security risks, members of criminal organizations and
      war criminals. There will remain recourse to judicial review with leave by the
      Federal Court.
      Why we are doing it:
      To ensure that we can remove serious criminals and people who pose a
      security threat to Canada without delay.
      Suspension of a Refugee Claim
      What it is:
      The ability to suspend a person's application for protection before the IRB if
      he or she has been charged with a crime. The claim would be suspended
      until the courts have rendered a decision on the case.
      Why we are doing it:
      To prevent abuse of the system by people who come to Canada not
      because they need protection but because they intend to engage in crime.
      Repeat Claims
      What we are doing:
      Extending the period after which a new claim can be made from 90 days to
      six months.
      Why we are doing it:
      To avoid "revolving door" situations where failed refugee claimants return to
      Canada and make multiple claims.
      Detention and Day Parole
      What we are doing:
      Excluding incarcerated foreign criminals under removal order from day
      parole.
      Why we are doing it:
      It is inconsistent to integrate individuals into Canadian society who are to be
      deported on completion of their sentence.
      Streamlined Security Certificate Process
      What we are doing:
      Applying to permanent residents the security certificate process that
      currently applies only to non-permanent residents. The process requires the
      signatures of two ministers to the effect that the person is inadmissible on
      grounds of security, and a review of the certificate by a Federal Court judge.
      Why we are doing it:
      To make it easier to remove permanent residents who pose a serious threat
      to national security.
      New Inadmissibility Classes
      What they are:
      Two new classes of people who will be inadmissible to Canada: (1) people
      subject to travel sanctions imposed by Canada as a member of an
      international organization such as the United Nations; (2) people who
      committed fraud or misrepresentation on an immigration application will be
      inadmissible for 2 years.
      Why we are doing it:
      To strengthen our ability to enforce international sanctions.
      To prevent immigration to Canada through fraudulent means.
      Backgrounder # 3
      Milestones On the Road to New Legislation
      Since 1996, the Government of Canada has been reviewing immigration and
      refugee policy and legislation with a view to fundamental policy reform and the
      introduction of new legislation.
      The comprehensive review process that has been under way since has involved a
      significant number of consultations with many different groups and interests as well
      as with individual Canadians. Ministers have been discussing immigration reform
      with Canadians for more than four years.
      This process has included:
      The appointment of a Legislative Review Advisory Group (LRAG) in 1996
      commenced a major consultation process both by LRAG and by the
      government on their report, Not Just Numbers, in 1998.
      A Red Book commitment in 1997 and 2000 to streamline and update the
      immigration/refugee system, which promised to implement changes to
      make Canada's immigration system simpler, more effective, and more
      easily understood.
      The release of the White Paper, Building on a Strong Foundation for the
      21st Century: New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policy and
      Legislation in January 1999;
      Consultations on the White Paper with Canadians, provinces and territories,
      non-government organizations, the legal community, special interest
      groups, and the business sector throughout 1999;
      Immigration commitments in the 1999 Throne Speech, Budget 2000 and
      2001 Throne Speech; including the 2001 Throne Speech commitment to
      re-introduce legislation to streamline and improve the immigration system.
      Consultations leading up to the Standing Committee Report of March 22,
      2000 entitled Refugee Protection and Border Security: Striking a Balance;
      and
      The introduction of the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Bill
      C-31 Bill C- ) in 2000 and 2001.
      General agreement on fundamentals
      There is general agreement that Canada needs a new Act that is simpler, more
      effective, and more easily understood. Canadians want to stop abuse of our
      immigration and refugee system and protect Canada's borders.
      They want a system that is fair, effective, and respectful of Canada's humanitarian
      traditions and international commitments in a world of increasing migration
      pressures.
      They also agree that Canada needs immigrants to contribute to Canada's
      economic growth and prosperity. The business community needs access to the
      highly skilled global workforce. Canadians recognize that immigration is largely
      responsible for Canada's rich and diverse culture, and is a key advantage in the
      global economy.
      Canadians want a system that reflects our traditions of family reunification and
      family values, honours our history of compassion for refugees needing a safe
      haven, and contains selection criteria for immigrants that will ensure that
      newcomers contribute Canada's economic and social fabric.
      Immigration has proved to be a successful economic, social and cultural strategy
      for Canada in the past and will continue to be so in the future.
      & 2001-03
      Backgrounder # 4
      Detention Provisions Clarified
      Detention is one of the most serious measures a liberal society can impose on
      individuals. It must be limited to cases where it is clearly warranted and does not
      contravene Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
      However, Canadians want to ensure that their safety and security is protected and
      that that their borders remain safe.
      Current grounds for detention remain unchanged
      Under the current legislation, there are three main commonly used grounds for
      detention:
      1.Failure to establish identity;
      2.Danger to the public; and
      3.Unlikely to appear for future immigration proceedings or removal.
      Detention process will be more effective and transparent
      The criteria for detention decisions will be established in the new Regulations.
      There will be a requirement to review detention decisions after 48 hours, with further
      reviews scheduled after 7 days and each subsequent 30-day period.
      Foreign criminals facing deportation orders will not be eligible for day parole, as
      they are unlikely to respect conditions set out in temporary release programs.
      Priority hearings for those in detention
      To balance increased detention measures, the Immigration and Refugee Board
      (IRB) will give priority to hearings for those being held in detention.
      This streamlining should prevent refugee claimants from remaining in detention for
      long periods of time. Every step in the process from the irregular arrival of a foreign
      national in Canada to his or her removal following a negative decision will be fair
      and faster.
      Protection of unaccompanied minors
      While the legislative package honours Canada's international commitments to
      protect the best interests of the child, the security and safety of unprotected
      minors arriving as part of a criminally organized smuggling or trafficking operation is
      a major concern.
      These children are vulnerable to exploitation and coercion by the traffickers; in
      these cases, detention is truly a last resort and this is stipulated in the Act. The
      Government of Canada will make every effort to make arrangements with provincial
      social services to protect these children effectively, while seeking to ensure that
      they are not deprived of education and other basic needs.
      2001-03
      Backgrounder # 5
      A Fair, Faster, More Effective Refugee
      Determination Process
      Front-end security screening of all refugee claimants
      In the current system, security and background checks are initiated only once an
      individual has had a refugee claim accepted and has applied for permanent resident
      status. In the new system, security screening will be initiated for all claimants at
      the time the claim is submitted. Greater coordination between domestic and
      international agencies will improve the timeliness of security information.
      Faster referrals to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)
      The legislation will speed up this process by clarifying grounds of eligibility and
      automatically referring all eligible claims to the IRB within 3 working days.
      Consolidated assessment of protection grounds at the IRB
      Currently, assessment of the grounds for protection is handled in several stages,
      one at the IRB and the others at Citizenship and Immigration (CIC). The new
      system will consolidate these grounds in one risk assessment during a single
      hearing process at the IRB. The grounds for assessment of risk are: Geneva
      Convention on Refugees, risk of torture (Convention Against Torture), and risk to
      life and/or cruel and unusual punishment. These grounds are not new; they are
      merely being brought together from several current steps into one.
      Use of single-member panels as the norm at the IRB
      Currently, two-member panels hear refugee cases at the IRB, and in the majority of
      cases the decisions are unanimous. The process will be made more efficient by
      the use of single-member panels as the norm.
      Greater use of Ministerial interventions
      The Minister (by delegated authority to her officials) will have the right to intervene
      at IRB hearings to present security information or other data pertinent to the case.
      Greater coordination between domestic and international agencies will improve the
      timeliness and accuracy of information.
      Paper review on merit to be introduced
      To ensure consistency in decision-making and fairness to all refugee claimants, a
      paper review on merit may be conducted by a division of the IRB. This step is
      intended to ensure fairness and reduce the number of protracted applications for
      leave for judicial review by the Federal Court.
      Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)
      In keeping with Canada's international commitment not to repatriate people who
      would face risk upon return, the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) will be
      provided on the same consolidated protection grounds, and coordinated with CIC
      removal priorities. Pursuant to the Geneva Convention, serious criminals, security
      risks, and members of organized crime groups will be excluded from consideration
      of refugee protection grounds. Their PRRA will be limited to risk of torture and cruel
      and unusual punishment.
      Linking the PRRA and the removal process will allow for expeditious -yet fair -
      treatment of all removal cases. This will ensure that no one will be sent to a
      situation of risk to life or cruel and unusual punishment in their country of
      nationality.
      Six month bar on repeat claims
      If a person returns to Canada after removal, they will not be allowed to reapply for
      refugee status for six months following removal. Prior to the six months, previously
      refused claimants would continue to have the option of seeking protection at any
      Canadian mission abroad. Persons who return to Canada after six months may
      apply for a pre-removal risk assessment but they are not able to re-access the
      refugee protection system of the IRB.
      Criminals will be barred from the Refugee Protection System
      The new Legislation clarifies inadmissibility criteria to ensure that serious
      criminals, terrorists, human rights violators and security risks will be barred from
      access to the refugee determination system and promptly removed from Canada.
      Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research
      P.O. Box 234
      Lawson, New South Wales 2783
      Australia
      Phone: +61 (0)2-4758-6822
      URL: www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr
      Although the above materials are highly recommended by CAFMR, we do not necessarily share all the views expressed by the authors.
      Note about copyright: Any of the above information may be downloaded, copied, printed or otherwise distributed without seeking permission from CAFMR. However, printed acknowledgement is required when this is done.
      Bradley R. Smith
      Revisionism by: CODOH, POB 439016, San Diego, CA 92143
      The Revisionist Campus Project
      David Irving's Reply to
      Jeffrey Shallit's "Lies of Our
      Times"
      London,
      [ ]
      Dear Professor Shallit,
      I am not a subscriber to the Internet, but over the last few
      months I have heard repeatedly about scurrilous materials
      which you have been posting on that medium; at least you
      have had the courage to put your name to them as author,
      although this lays you open to the kind of lawsuit which I have
      started conducting--and winning--here in the British courts.
      I have so far seen versions of your Shallit's Report, and of your
      "Lies of Our Times." You appear to be interested in the Truth,
      and that being so I am making these comments to assist you
      in the search for that elusive quantitй.
      It appears that your primary source is a handout or handouts
      of the Wiener Library (Dr David Cesarini) and of the Board of
      Deputies of British Jews, who have furnished the League of
      Human Rights of the B'nai Brith Canada with two lengthy
      secret reports which are the subject of dispute between me
      and the Board under both the Data Protection Act 1984 (the
      Board at first denied having any data on me), and the
      Defamation Act 1952 (the Board's solicitor is negotiating with
      me for permission to withdraw the reports in toto, in return for
      an undertaking by me not to pursue the matter in the courts).
      First, your "article" Lies of Our Times (forgive the quotation
      marks, but as you call me an "historian" it seems justified).
      David Irving
      David John Cawdell Irving is a British "historian", born in
      1938.
      * Correct.
      According to David Cesarani of the Wiener Library in London,
      England, he attended Imperial College at the University of
      London, but never graduated. He holds no academic degree
      and no academic position at any university or college.
      * Correct. The same can be said for Winston S.
      Churchill, Thomas Babington Macaulay (The
      History of England), and the Gibbon who wrote
      The Decline Fall of the Roman Empire, etc.
      Would you denigrate them as "historians" too?
      He calls himself a "moderate fascist",
      * Incorrect. Please produce the source of this
      spurious and libellous allegation.
      and claims, among other things that the gas chambers at
      Auschwitz (in which an estimated 2-3 million people died)
      were "built by the Poles after the war as a tourist attraction."
      * Not quite correct. I stated (on April 21, 1990 and
      other occasions): "The gas chamber which is
      shown to the tourists in Auschwitz is a dummy
      (Atrappe) built after the war by the Polish
      communists as a tourist attraction." In 1990, Dr
      Franciszek Piper, the then director of the Auschwitz
      State Museum Archives, confirmed that this is
      true. As recently as 1995 the present directors
      confirmed in an interview with Eric Conan, of the
      well-known liberal French weekly L'Express, that
      the gas chamber shown to the tourists was
      constructed on the orders of the Polish communist
      government in 1948. "Tout y est faux," reported
      Conan, and the deputy chief of the site stated:
      "Pour l'instant, on la laisse en l'йtat et on ne
      prйcise rien au visiteur. C'est trop compliquй. On
      verra plus tard" (L'Express, January 26, 1995).
      (For this remark, he was fined DM 10,000 by a Munich court in
      May 1992.
      * Correct. On January 13, 1993 the fine was
      increased to DM30,000 in view of my refusal to
      retract the statement. (Why should I? It was true). In
      addition, on July 1, 1993 I was permanently
      banned from setting foot in the German Federal
      Archives, which had benefited over the years from
      my donations of half a ton of archival material
      including the diaries of Canaris, Himmler,
      Rommel, etc., which I had located, and which they
      have now had to relinquish to me; and on
      November 13, 1993 I was permanently banned
      from Germany. How's that for freedom of speech!
      The judge was quoted as saying that the gas chambers of
      Auschwitz were "an historically certain fact.")
      * Correct. The word used is offenkundig, and is
      used in German law to deny defence lawyers the
      introduction of any defence exhibits or witnesses,
      e.g. the aforementioned Dr Franciszek Piper whom
      we were prepared to call. There has been an
      outcry in the German legal profession against
      these methods, and Germany is to face a rebuke
      from the United Nations for her repression of
      freedom of opinion by such means. Of course, if
      you believe they are correct to adopt such tactics,
      such is your right.
      Irving denies being a "Holocaust denier" or "Hitler apologist",
      and seems willing to resort to legal action if necessary.
      * Correct. Last year one of Britain's biggest Sunday
      newspapers was forced to pay me substantial
      damages after they printed such a libel. I issued a
      Libel Writ in the High Court. (For legal reasons,
      namely the settlement agreed, I am not permitted
      to identify the newspaper or the amount, except off
      the record). I am currently pursuing Libel action in
      the British courts against The Observer, Deborah
      Lipstadt, (whose odious little tract has been
      foolishly published here, i.e. within the jurisdiction,
      by Penguin UK Ltd) and Svenska Dagbladet. You
      have been warned!
      In a recent fax printed in the K-W Record, he is reported as
      saying, "I have warned 22 British newspapers that I shall not
      hesitate to commence libel action if they use smear phrases
      such like 'Hitler apologist' or 'Holocaust denier' to embellish
      their writings." But Bernard Levin, writing in The Times of