Dear Natalie,
It doesn't surprise me that your office is still hidden at the street level. I would do the same, if this were the sort of thing in which the creation of I were participating. Are you as ashamed as it appears?
Sincerely,
Kev
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:49 PM, <Braid.P@parl.gc.ca> wrote:
Dear Mr. Field,
Thank you for your letter expressing your concern regarding immigration practices in Canada.
Mr. Braid believes that the subject of immigration, along with all of the processes and implications surrounding the central issue, is of great importance in our country. Immigrants have played a pivotal role in shaping our social, cultural, and economic development.
Our government realized that changes were needed to improve the immigration system.
We took action to speed up wait times and reduce the backlog for immigrants, while making our system more responsive to Canada's labour market needs. We expanded the Foreign Credentials Referral Office and increased programs to assist with settlement and integration.
Also, our Government introduced Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which has now received Royal Assent. These reforms will improve Canada's asylum system, and ensure that Canada continues to protect vulnerable people, maintain the fairness and integrity of our system, exceed our international obligations, and reduce costs to the Canadian taxpayer.
However, removing individuals who do not have a right to enter or stay in Canada is essential to maintaining the integrity of our immigration program and to ensuring fairness for those who come to this country lawfully.
Reasons for removals include, but are not limited to: a threat to the security of Canada; involvement in crime, organized crime or crimes against humanity; failed refugee claims; or reasons of inadmissibility, such as expired visas, or misrepresentation of identity, including marriages of convenience and fraudulent documents.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides a formal structured process for reviewing risk before a person is removed. The person can apply to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA), which determines if the person would be at risk (i.e., torture, cruel and unusual punishment) if returned to his or her country of nationality.
Additionally, the Government of Canada works hard to ensure that the voices and views of Canadians are incorporated throughout the legislative process, and that all interested parties can access and contribute to the procedure throughout its duration.
Canadians can be proud of the fact that throughout our history we have maintained a tradition of openness to newcomers from around the world. We will continue to ensure that our system provides the best possible outcomes for Canada.
If you require additional assistance or have any further comments, please feel free to contact our office at any time.
Best regards,
Natalie Halpenny
Member's Assistant to Peter Braid, M.P.
Kitchener-Waterloo
Braid.P@parl.gc.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Field
Sent: February 14, 2011 10:58 AM
To: Braid, Peter - M.P.
Subject: refugees
Dear Mr. Braid,
I wanted to write you about a town hall meeting you missed last year.
It was on the subject of the immigration reforms that were drawn up
without proper consultation by 'on the ground' workers and tragically
passed into law. I say tragically because I was against the nature of
the reforms back then and now I am seeing the results of them play out
in two different communities I and my partner are part of. In each
community, multiple families who have been here an extended period of
time building a new life and bringing life and health to our
communities have been facing deportation. One family actually got
split up, with the father having to go to one country and the mother
and children having to go to another--the dangerous region they had
fled from in the first place. Doesn't such a situation strike you as
just plain wrong, no matter what the rationale behind it? And if the
rationale is purely economic, as with so many things in the political
sphere today, I think it's quite shortsighted. If you spend money
trying to kick families out of Canada, especially families who clearly
contribute much more to everyone's quality of life here than our
average native citizen, who is taught from a young age to be primarily
a consumer, I think this will end up costing us all more in real
dollar terms in both the short run (for the resources needed to
actively exclude, and the loss of their immediate economic
contributions) and the long run (in higher health care costs due to
poorer quality of life, if nothing else). Please help put a stop to
this somehow. I do think the current system as of last year needed
reforming, but the results of the path we took are exactly what
concerned groups last year predicted they would be, and they speak for
themselves. I think if groups of people who work with refugees and
immigrants (social workers, lawyers, immigration officials, judges,
etc.) had been more widely consulted, this could have been avoided. I
hope you act quickly in the best interests of Waterloo's communities
(and Canada's communities) in getting this reversed and arguing for a
more humane process this time.
Sincerely,
Kev (uptown resident)