The purpose for this change was to make employment in the U.S. for Canadian and Mexican professionals “more attractive”. Specifically, the change would reduce the potential for interrupted employment caused by annual renewals and delays in processing. It would create a more stable and predictable work force and provide cost and resource savings to the foreign workers and to their American employers.
Although this initiative applied only to professionals admitted to the U.S. under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the action taken by the Americans was entirely unilateral. Although, neither Canada nor Mexico committed to reciprocity, it was expected that they would follow suit.
Canada has now done so.
On December 15th immigration minister Jason Kenney announced that American and Mexican professionals seeking to work temporarily in Canada under NAFTA can get work permits for up to three years at a time. This is a good thing since foreign workers have better things to do than run between their HR departments and their immigration lawyers every 12 months to renew their status and that of their accompanying family members.
Although there is no legal limit to the number of times a foreign worker can renew these NAFTA permits, they will only be renewed as long as the reviewing officer feels that the worker is still here “temporarily”.
This has always been a weird sort of concept for me because these workers are not always here for assignments that have a finite purpose (i.e. building a bridge or setting up a computer system). Often these positions (i.e. accountants, architects, lawyers etc.) are offered and accepted on a basis that is perceived to be open-ended. Someone coming to Canada to work for a year or more in one of these occupations will often give up a job in their home country to accept the one being offered here.
They are also likely to give up their dwelling abroad and bring their family and belongings here with them. Rarely do they have fixed arrangements to return to their country. Yet they still need to show a “temporary intent” both at the time of their initial entry and again at the time of renewal. It will be interesting to see what our border officers will be looking for in the form of proof of a “temporary intent” when the person will be coming here for at least three-years.
While I wholeheartedly support this development, it is nonetheless interesting to note the title of my November 16th column “To predict the future of Canadian immigration policy, look to the U.S.”. In this case, the title seems very aptly named since we followed in lock-step with our American counterparts notwithstanding, perhaps, some very strong reasons not to do so.
No doubt, it made perfect sense for the Americans, in May 2008, to make a career in the U.S. “more attractive” to foreign professionals. However, since then the wheels have suddenly and completely fallen off the economic bus here and there. But for the American announcement in May, I doubt that a Canadian immigration minister would have ever agreed to a three-fold increase in the duration of work permits offered to any class of foreign workers at the same time that we are witnessing record job losses and unprecedented government bailouts.
Not an objection, just a thought.
Guidy Mamann practices law in Toronto at Mamann & Associates and is certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as an immigration specialist. Reach him confidentially at 416-862-0000 or at .