在加拿大
Patrick GradyImmigration Minister Jason Kenney on the Right Track, but Has Long Way to GoApril 10, 2012 Frustration over the poor performance of recent immigrants has precipitated a whirlwind of activity from Immigration Minister Jason Kenney. This has generated a wide-ranging, and innovative, set of proposals for reforms to Canada’s dysfunctional immigration system that has sent shockwaves through Canada's immigration lobby. Most fundamentally, these proposals include the elimination of the backlog of Federal Skilled Workers (FSW) that has been preventing the selection of immigrants most likely to succeed in Canada’s labour market; and tying the selection of economic class immigrants to pre-approved credentials and job offers. Both of these proposed reforms are major steps in the right direction, but, as for many things, the devil is in the details. And there are many questions about how the proposed new system might eventually work. Take the requirement of a pre-arranged job offer for instance, while it is clearly the best way to make sure that newcomers are quickly integrated in the labour market, it is no guarantee by itself that new immigrants will do well economically. This, of course, depends on the earnings of the immigrant in the specific job offered. If employers are given the opportunity, there is every reason to expect that they will bring in low-wage foreign workers to fill unskilled jobs that could be done by Canadians, but at higher wages. This is why even in a system based on job offers, it will still be necessary to adopt the requirement that the employer get a Labour Market Opinion (LMO) from the Government certifying that “there is a need for the foreign worker to fill the job you offer and that there is no Canadian worker available to do the job.” This requirement for a positive LMO is currently imposed on employers seeking to bring in workers under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. It is supposed to protect Canadian workers from having their wages undercut by foreign competition. If immigrants are going to make a real economic contribution to Canada, they must be capable of filling good high-paying job where they will earn enough to pay taxes sufficient to cover the government benefits they receive. That is why Herbert Grubel and I proposed in our paper that immigrants admitted should have a job offer with a minimum level of earnings at least equal to the average in the region. Otherwise even though the immigrant may be employed, it may be in a job that pays so low the Canadian taxpayer will have to pick up his/her health and welfare benefits. Moreover, it is more likely that high-paying jobs are those experiencing real labour shortages of the type often cited by business groups advocating higher levels of immigration. And if only immigrants offered good, high-paying jobs are allowed in the country as economic immigrants, their numbers will be greatly reduced to be more in line with the absorptive capacity of the Canadian economy. Another important issue that will have to be resolved is which employers can make job offers to immigrants. Equity may suggest that all employers, large and small, incorporated and unincorporated, should be eligible. However, the reality is that job offers can be exploited by unscrupulous employers desirous of short-circuiting the immigration system to bring in relatives or friends from their home countries or even to make money by accepting bribes for job offers. This is more likely to be a problem with small family businesses, which generally pay low wages. In contrast, large firms are more likely to recruit based on objective job qualifications and have more to lose from corrupt practices. It will thus be important to set restrictions on the employers eligible to participate in the proposed new economic immigration program based on job offers. Any employers caught abusing the program should be subject to severe penalties including fines and imprisonment for those implicated. And firms implicated in unethical or illegal activities like SNC-Lavalin was recently should be banned from participating in the program. Employers should also be required to take responsibility for a certain period of time for the social benefits of the immigrants they bring in if those immigrants don’t work out on the job and are let go. This would cause the employers to be much more careful in recruiting if they cannot slough their mistakes off on the Government. Concerning foreign credential recognition, it is laudable that the Government wants to establish national groups to assess immigrants’ credentials before they are admitted. However, federal-provincial efforts have been ongoing for many years and national and provincial agencies have been established to facilitate the recognition of foreign credentials and yet the issue remains unresolved. This suggests that there are fundamental questions of equivalency that are not going to be answered satisfactorily soon in favour of the recognition of foreign credentials. The elimination of the FSW backlog will also probably face serious legal challenges. It is thus still not yet in the bag. If it is disallowed by the courts on Charter grounds, the Government will have to invoke the “notwithstanding clause” to make it stick. This may require more political determination than the Government is willing to exercise.--一刀切可能将会面临严重的法律挑战，所以还不是十拿九稳的事。如果法庭因违宪原因否决，政府将不得不搬出“但书条款”使之施行。这也许会要求比政府愿意操作的更大的政治决断。注（摘自网络）：这些基本的、法律的和平等的权利服从于一个“但书”条款。这就允许了议会或省立法机关以宣言之类的法律轻而易举地通过损害这些权利的法律（除了禁止基于性 别歧视的平等权），只要事实与该章规定的内容相反，它就可以通过但书的方式来操作。除了重新规定，这种条款就在五年期满后终止。换言之，当政府建议制定限 制该章规定的公民权利和自由的法律时，它们就必须清楚地申明其意图，并对政治后果负完全的责任。很多宪法专家把这种安排看作“权利法案与议会民主的一个巧 妙联姻。” There are also questions about the health, criminality, or security status of the prospective immigrant that will have to be considered. These are inherently the responsibility of the state and cannot be delegated to employers. Critics are saying that the Minister is proposing to turn over the administration of Canada’s immigration system to the private sector. And his rhetoric often feeds their concerns. But the reality is that all he is doing is proposing to give employers a larger say in the selection of immigrants as the Government will have to make the final decision on the admissibility of an immigrant itself taking into account all factors, and not just whether or not the immigrant has a job offer. In conclusion, Minister Kenney is proposing to go down the right path to transform Canada’s badly broken immigration system. But the road will be rocky and filled with many large holes. He is going to have to overcome a lot of obstacles and make many hard decisions before he arrives at his intended destination. And if he isn’t careful, he can actually end up making the system even more costly for Canada than it already is if he establishes a “job offer requirement for immigration” that allows employers to bring in as many low-wage employees into the country as they want.
评论
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]他们欺瞒上帝偷偷拨回时间They fool God secretly timing of the reversal 赏
反馈:永远的夏天 2012-04-14#2 P Guest
回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？这意味着什么？ 是不是CIC这次的法理基础不是那么牢固？ CIC在法庭上不见得很容易赢？评论
回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？如果立法后，只能起诉违宪，也许CIC在法庭上不见得很容易赢，但保守党政府将不得不搬出“但书条款”使之施行。也就是说如果保守党霸王硬上弓，法律上回旋的余地不大，保守党必须承担相应的政治风险（在目前的政治气候下，风险也不大）。当然这个“但书条款”在联邦一级史上还末使用过。此文是支持保守党人士写的，透露了保守党下下步的动作选项。
评论
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]他们欺瞒上帝偷偷拨回时间They fool God secretly timing of the reversal回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？horrible
评论
回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？能不能说说,什么是"但书条款"?
评论
回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？霸王条款 探测无耻底线的条款
评论
回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？这种条款在五年期满后终止，必须重新立法。
评论
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]他们欺瞒上帝偷偷拨回时间They fool God secretly timing of the reversal回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？有霸王条款可以强撤, 逆转不了的话, 我们可以起诉赔偿, 单方毁约, 就应该赔偿, 散步时向媒体通告CIC只退申请费是不合理,不合法的, 应该赔偿, 五年时间太长了，我们错过了其它机会, 为什么拖这么长时间, 也不是非要去, 但是咽不下这口气
评论
回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？恩,以后多谈赔偿
评论
2007年2月8日fn2012年2月13日S2回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？看来谈赔偿更易操作!巨额赔偿有可能使他们放弃立法.
评论
回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？我们用受伤害人所在国的法律约束、惩罚CIC还是行得通的，我们告CIC诈骗罪。
评论
回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？能不能说说,什么是"但书条款"?点击展开...33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-2.html
评论
回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？看来谈赔偿更易操作!巨额赔偿有可能使他们放弃立法.点击展开...政府可以立法免其赔偿责任。
评论
回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？就是欺诈，因为CIC白纸黑字说2011年7月1日以前的案子按照当时的规定来审理，现在在CIC的网站上还可以看到。既然这样承诺了，为什么还单方面终止案子的审理。这不是欺诈是什么呢？必定这是政府，不是小孩子做事，对吧？
评论
回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？所以说加拿大在用它的国际声誉来赌博
评论
回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-2.html点击展开... 你永远是不急不躁，稳稳当当的，佩服你
评论
回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？康胖子这么放肆，我早就猜测是不是手中有一张未亮相的王牌，这个王牌现在好像隐隐若现了，是不是这个“但书条款”？
评论
回复: 保守党政府会用 “但书条款”？？康胖子这么放肆，我早就猜测是不是手中有一张未亮相的王牌，这个王牌现在好像隐隐若现了，是不是这个“但书条款”？点击展开...应该不是这个"但书条款"。它只是瞄准权利和自由宪章第2(宗教/言论/集会/结社自由)，7(生命，自由和安全)，和15(平等)章。 现在只是行政法中"程序公正"的问题，但是有点难去证明。
评论
现在难道不是违反了平等一条么，本来是视排队和生命一样的确有这个遭遇
评论
你们这些咖啡乐不愿意不吃猪肉也不愿意去死真的很让人头疼现在难道不是违反了平等一条么点击展开...有点困难证明平等适用在这种情况。因为 1) 人不是在加拿大，2) 很难证明这一把刀是歧视，3) 即使这一把刀被证明是违反宪章第15条，政府仍然可以根据宪章第1条争辩。
·中文新闻 澳大利亚反犹太主义：新南威尔士州警方称 Woollahra 破坏行为“
·中文新闻 出于福利考虑，医院取消了见习妇产科医生的资格