No, not all currencies are backed by gold. The US Government left the gold standard in 1971.
The US Dollar is essentially a promise to pay by the US Government. Its not backed by anything other than trust in the government. This isn't as silly as it sounds, since the government can raise funds in hundreds of different ways, from raising taxes to printing more money.
You have it backwards. Many experts believe the yuan is undervalued, which allows Chinese manufacturers to sell their goods at low prices.
I think your comment on the stock markets is just a troll, but they're not overvalued either. The Chinese market is one of the fastest growing markets in the world.
For a 7 year old, its hard to explain why its illegal to borrow a friend's video game and put it on their computer(or download music in this case)... That hasn't stopped them from trying. Remember "Don't Copy that Floppy!"?
If written out on paper, the calculation describing this structure, known as E8, would cover an area the size of Manhattan. I'm having trouble understanding this. Could someone please restate in LOCs (Library of Congresses)?
I often hear that people pirate PC games to try them out and see if they enjoy them, and then buy later. It appears that Microsoft is in a sense indirectly giving this argument validity. I.e. They think its better for us to try out their products, see if we like them and buy later, rather than using their competitors' software. Feel free to correct my logic if I'm reading this wrong.
This is only my opinion and you shouldn't take this advice as a determination of your status.
If you want to actually get a response from a consulate you have to either write, fax, or go in person. I don't think they have a outside-line phone number, nor do they answer emails. What I suggest you do is write up a quick fax outlining the situation and asking for advice. If that doesn't work, fill out the rehabilitation form and send that to them. I'm not sure, but they probably need to review your file before they can tell you if its the $200 or $1000 cost.
From what you've said, it sounds like you're inadmissible under a36(2)(b) due to the marijuana possession. 22 grams (ie less than an ounce) would be serious enough to make you inadmissible. Possession of paraphenalia isn't illegal in Canada, so we'd ignore that one. If the only thing you're convicted of is simple possession (not trafficing) and its been 5 years since you finished the sentence, then you can apply for the rehabilitation letter. Did you do probation? It has to be 5 years from the date you finished the sentence, so if you had 3 years probation then you might be cutting it close. If it hasn't been 5 years, you can still apply for the Temporary Resident Permit (non-permanent). You're not guaranteed to get anything though, since there could be a number of reasons why they'd refuse you.
So essentially, it sounds like you're inadmissible and you need either the permit or the waiver of rehabilitation. You may or may not be eligible to apply for the waiver. Get ahold of the consulate by fax, and if you can't get ahold of them, just send them the rehabilitation form. It takes at LEAST a month or two for them to process it though. I would not book any plane tickets right away, unless you can get a full refund easily.
Oh and whatever you do, do NOT hire a immigration "consultant". They're a ripoff. All they do is take your money and fill out the rehabilitation form and fax it for you. Not worth an extra $200 in my opinion.
I don't know if I've helped or confused you. Does that explain anything?
What do you mean by Canada disregarding NAFTA? I'm actually curious and not just asking a rhetorical question. I'm an immigration officer and I see after-sales service technicians all the time.
I don't know really, you folks seem nice enough. Unfortunately, a lot of people are irate that they have to talk to me so I don't get to see your good side. Its fairly easy to tell the difference between a Canadian and American, since the accent and sometimes dress gives it away. Other than that, we're pretty damn similar though.
One thing that I do find annoying is that Americans tend to think that they have a "right" to enter Canada, as if we were just another State.
Slightly offtopic, but I absolutely hate your news programs. CNN is just terrible, and its not even the worst of the bunch.
Q) Will they make you go through secondary screening? A) Maybe. People are referred to secondary screening for practically an unlimited number of reasons, not just criminality. Its impossible to say beforehand whether you will be or not.
Q) Will public intoxication make you inadmissible? A) I'll assume you have had no other criminal convictions, and you're not inadmissible for any other reason. I don't know anything about the situation (where you driving? what exactly did you do?), but I don't think its likely that you're inadmissible. Though I don't have a criminal code handy to look it up, I doubt public intoxication is an indictable offence in Canada. Since it was a single, non-serious offence you should not be inadmissible. Also, it has been more than 10 years so even if it was an indictable offence you'd be deemed rehabilitated. Long story short, it sounds like you're ok.
By the way, there are other reasons you might be refused entry to Canada. You should be aware that misrepresentation (aka lying to an officer), will make you inadmissible. Even if you have a completely clean record, you can still be refused if you lie to an officer.
Once again, don't take legal advice over the internet, since I don't have all the facts available and another officer could come to a completely different decision. If you plan on travelling to Canada, contact a Canadian consulate.
Good point, it is pretty scary to think you might be refused.
Look at it from Canada's point of view though. A lot of Americans think they have the right to enter Canada, which they don't. Technically only Canadian citizens and Permanent Residents of Canada have the "right" to enter Canada. Everyone else has to "prove" they should be allowed into Canada. If theres the slightest chance of you being dangerous to Canadians, the CBSA officers should stop you from entering since that is the only time we really have control over you. Once you're inside Canada its damn near impossible to track you down, and during that time you could do a lot of damage. Remember, we ARE a different country and we have a right to protect ourselves.
That said, visitors and trade are very beneficial to Canada and we don't refuse people willy-nilly. We do like to have you here, but we'd rather the crazy and dangerous people stay home.
I agree that things have changed somewhat, but in a lot of ways its still the same. The CBSA has had access to US conviction data from NCIC and state records for a long time now. I haven't heard about this "new" IT system referred to in the article, but it sounds like the new tool being deployed that makes the same searches faster and easier.
I would assume that there hasn't been much publicity simply because there hasn't really been any changes.
Oh and technically you've always need at least some sort of proof of citizenship when crossing the border, such as a birth certificate. I know for a fact that it wasn't/isn't enforced that strictly though, so I easily imagine why you'd think it was never required.
I assume you're referring to "Members of Inadmissible Classes include those who have been convicted of MINOR OFFENCES (including shoplifting...)..."
Technically, what I said in my original post was correct, but I apologize for not making it clearer.
What I said in the original post was that a SINGLE minor offence will not make you inadmissible. If you have been convicted of MULTIPLE minor offences, then you are inadmissible. For example, if you have two shoplifting offences, then you are inadmissible.
In summary, you're criminally inadmissible if... 1) You were convicted of multiple minor (summary) offences, not arising out of the same occurance. 2) You were convicted of any indictable offences. If the offence was serious, you have less chance of obtaining temporary entry.
Actually, border control is that nuanced an art. The regular "border officers" (ie customs officers) don't go through your entire record at the booth. They send you to the immigration office where we look at each case individually, and personally look up what the offence would equate to. Its not that hard actually, since there are really only around 20 common offences and we have them memorized. We've been evaluating these offences for years, so unless anything really obscure comes up somebody has probably dealt with it before.
1) A36(2) Being convicted of an indictable offence. This includes things such as simple assault, theft under $5000, DUIs, etc. 2) A36(2) Being convicted of multiple offences, not arising from a single occurance. 3) A36(1) Being convicted of an indictable offence, punishable with 10 or more years in prison. This includes aggravated assault, murder, theft over $5000, and other serious stuff.
These do NOT include things like parking violations, or minor criminal code offences. Those minor offences are "summary offences", and are not "indictable." These offences won't make someone inadmissible. Seattle website is too vague, which makes it look like there is room for interpretation. Its actually laid out very clearly. If you have any doubt about an offence, contact the nearest Canadian Consulate by fax or in person.
All the 36(1) and (2) stuff is pretty black and white. There are a few offences that can be interpretted in slightly different ways, but if you have these offences on your record you probably already know you'll have a problem.
He took a pretty big risk doing that. It sounds like the first time he was just "allowed to leave", which means the officer didn't arrest him or anything like that. It shows up on the CBSA records if you try to enter again, but its not a ban or anything.
If he was caught trying to sneak in the second time, he would have been deported and the car as well as its contents would have been seized. He would be banned from Canada for life, unless he can get a pardon from the Minister personally. Trust me, I work at the border and I saw an almost identical scenario two years ago. Is it really worth the risk to go on a trip for a few days?
What he should have done was gone home and gotten a permit from the nearest Canadian Consulate. Unfortunately, it takes a few weeks so he would miss out on the trip. Personally, I'd rather miss one trip than be banned for life. Normally you can get the permit right at the border, unless you lie about it or are a jackass.
I agree with everything except the passport comment.
Technically, Canada hasn't passed any laws saying Americans need passports to come to Canada. Its simply a general (unwritten?) policy of the CBSA to not let Americans in without passports. Why? Because they need one to get back into the USA, and they'll be stuck here. We enjoy your company, but only for so long.;)
I agree with you, about the security and the tourism. However, these aren't new laws. We've always enforced this policy, and we've always had access to NCIC (FBI criminal database).
The problem is this article is spreading FUD. If you check out some of my other comments, you'll see you WON'T have a problem if you only committed a single minor offence 30 years ago.
I read these kind of stories in the news all the time. The problem is the writer usually knows nothing about the law, and its usually a sob story about some "nice guy" he wasn't let into the country "for a minor offence." In fact, the person had numerous offences but decided not to tell the interviewer. I'm speaking from personal experience, since I've seen the criminal records of some of the people interviewed (not this story).
Get your facts straight. Canada did not pass a law that forbids Americans from entering Canada without a passport.
What ACTUALLY happened, was that the USA passed a law saying every person entering the USA needs a passport, including their own citizens. So, if you show up at the Canadian border you probably won't let in. Why? Because if we let you into Canada, you can't go home and we'll be stuck with you.
It depends on whether the offence the deserter were convicted of in the US has an equivalent offence in Canada. I assume he'd be convicted of desertion or something similar under military law. Obviously "desertion" isn't under the Canadian Criminal Code, but it may be under another Act of Parliament. If there is a law regarding desertion, punishable by indictment, then that person would be inadmissible. I don't know whether any such law exists.
Not true. If you get a Waiver of Rehabilitation from the CBSA, the slate has been "wiped clean". They're not very hard to get either, unless you're a really really bad criminal.
Do NOT take any action on this advice. An officer obviously can't make a judgement on a persons inadmissibility except when they're seeking entry. Different officers might equate offences differently because there is a little grey area. This might give you a general idea however. If you're planning on coming to Canada, contact the nearest Canadian Consulate. Fax, write, or go in person since they rarely answer the phone.
It depends on wether you were convicted, had deferred adjudication, etc. You'll have to look this up on the court records, since most people don't know offhand.
Assuming you were convicted, the DWAI on its own is an indictable offence. It has been more than ten years, and normally you'd be fine. However, that mischief offence could screw you over. If you were convicted of it, you've been convicted of "two or more offences not arising out of a single occurance". So, you're inadmissible under the A36(2)(b), which is the lesser section.
See "A36(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for (b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;" http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/I-2.5/bo-g a:s_7::bo-ga:l_1//en?page=3&isPrinting=false#codes e:36
To come to Canada, you'd need a waiver of rehabilitation. Its a piece of paper that says the offence is no longer an issue and you're not dangerous, and you can come to Canada as often as you want. A Canadian consulate, and some ports of entry can give you one of these. Alternatively, you could get a temporary resident permit, which is the same thing but is only good for one trip. They cost the same, so the first one is usually smarter to get.
FYI, I'm a Immmigration Officer with CBSA. That said, this message is my personal opinion and I do not represent the government.
I'm tagging this article FUD, because the writer is spreading fake information about Canada to try and scare people away. I have mod points, but I think its important that I try and stop the spread of this misinformation.
It is not true that Canada will turn someone away for a single minor offence 30 years ago. Only serious offences will make someone inadmissible to Canada. There is a very specific scale used to determine how serious a criminal offence is. First of all, the seriousness of the crime in your home country doesn't matter. We have to equate the offence to a CANADIAN law. For example, DUI's are routine and brushed off in the USA, whereas inn Canada you can get up to 5 years in prison for a 2nd or 3rd DUI.
This scale is as follows: [refer to Immigration Refugee Act, A36(1)(b) and A36(2)(b)]. If the crime you committed is equivalent to an indictable Canadian offence (ie not a misdemeanor), then you're inadmissable but its not impossible to get entry. Permits and pardons will allow you into the country. If you commit an offence which would give more than 10 years in prison (ie manslaughter, theft over $5000, etc), then you're inadmissible and its damn hard to get a permit into the country. That is, unless you're a celebrity. Bloody government.
In addition to the above, after a certain length of time an inadmissible person under the first category can be "deemed rehabilitated". The criteria is a little complicated, but in most cases a single indictable offence will be "dismissed" after ten years.
So refering to the above, you'll see the article writer doesn't know anything about our laws. I don't have any personal experience with the person refered to in the article, but I can infer a few things. For example, I'd say the person was inadmissible for the DUI from seven years ago. Its an indictable offence (ie serious), and it was less than 10 years ago. He also had other criminal convictions, which make rehabilitation impossible. Of course, he could be inadmissible for other things as well (other convictions he didn't mention, for example).
Given the above, its FUD to say he wasn't let into Canada for the marijuanna possession from 30 years ago. Marijuanna possession isn't even an indictable offence in Canada unless its more than 22g, so a single conviction of that offence wouldn't make him inadmissible.
I'd like to remind everyone that Canada's Immigration laws haven't changed in the last few years. There is nothing "new" referred to in this article. Our laws have always forbidden convicted criminals from entering the country, and we've had access to NCIC for YEARS. Stop spreading FUD about my country!
Finally, if thinking of coming to Canada and have a criminal conviction, contact the Canadian consulate nearest you. They can tell you wether your offence is serious or not. I suggest you fax, write, or go in person since they rarely answer phone calls.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not all currencies are backed by gold. The US Government left the gold standard in 1971.
The US Dollar is essentially a promise to pay by the US Government. Its not backed by anything other than trust in the government. This isn't as silly as it sounds, since the government can raise funds in hundreds of different ways, from raising taxes to printing more money.
You have it backwards. Many experts believe the yuan is undervalued, which allows Chinese manufacturers to sell their goods at low prices.
I think your comment on the stock markets is just a troll, but they're not overvalued either. The Chinese market is one of the fastest growing markets in the world.
Good call. I'll try to make less typos :)
Nitpick: That should probably read "provided evidence for the existence dark matter."
I often hear that people pirate PC games to try them out and see if they enjoy them, and then buy later. It appears that Microsoft is in a sense indirectly giving this argument validity. I.e. They think its better for us to try out their products, see if we like them and buy later, rather than using their competitors' software. Feel free to correct my logic if I'm reading this wrong.
You've unleashed the Slashdot car-analogy fiends! You fool!
This is only my opinion and you shouldn't take this advice as a determination of your status.
If you want to actually get a response from a consulate you have to either write, fax, or go in person. I don't think they have a outside-line phone number, nor do they answer emails. What I suggest you do is write up a quick fax outlining the situation and asking for advice. If that doesn't work, fill out the rehabilitation form and send that to them. I'm not sure, but they probably need to review your file before they can tell you if its the $200 or $1000 cost.
From what you've said, it sounds like you're inadmissible under a36(2)(b) due to the marijuana possession. 22 grams (ie less than an ounce) would be serious enough to make you inadmissible. Possession of paraphenalia isn't illegal in Canada, so we'd ignore that one. If the only thing you're convicted of is simple possession (not trafficing) and its been 5 years since you finished the sentence, then you can apply for the rehabilitation letter. Did you do probation? It has to be 5 years from the date you finished the sentence, so if you had 3 years probation then you might be cutting it close. If it hasn't been 5 years, you can still apply for the Temporary Resident Permit (non-permanent). You're not guaranteed to get anything though, since there could be a number of reasons why they'd refuse you.
So essentially, it sounds like you're inadmissible and you need either the permit or the waiver of rehabilitation. You may or may not be eligible to apply for the waiver. Get ahold of the consulate by fax, and if you can't get ahold of them, just send them the rehabilitation form. It takes at LEAST a month or two for them to process it though. I would not book any plane tickets right away, unless you can get a full refund easily.
Oh and whatever you do, do NOT hire a immigration "consultant". They're a ripoff. All they do is take your money and fill out the rehabilitation form and fax it for you. Not worth an extra $200 in my opinion.
I don't know if I've helped or confused you. Does that explain anything?
What do you mean by Canada disregarding NAFTA? I'm actually curious and not just asking a rhetorical question. I'm an immigration officer and I see after-sales service technicians all the time.
I don't know really, you folks seem nice enough. Unfortunately, a lot of people are irate that they have to talk to me so I don't get to see your good side. Its fairly easy to tell the difference between a Canadian and American, since the accent and sometimes dress gives it away. Other than that, we're pretty damn similar though.
One thing that I do find annoying is that Americans tend to think that they have a "right" to enter Canada, as if we were just another State.
Slightly offtopic, but I absolutely hate your news programs. CNN is just terrible, and its not even the worst of the bunch.
Q) Will they make you go through secondary screening?
A) Maybe. People are referred to secondary screening for practically an unlimited number of reasons, not just criminality. Its impossible to say beforehand whether you will be or not.
Q) Will public intoxication make you inadmissible?
A) I'll assume you have had no other criminal convictions, and you're not inadmissible for any other reason. I don't know anything about the situation (where you driving? what exactly did you do?), but I don't think its likely that you're inadmissible. Though I don't have a criminal code handy to look it up, I doubt public intoxication is an indictable offence in Canada. Since it was a single, non-serious offence you should not be inadmissible. Also, it has been more than 10 years so even if it was an indictable offence you'd be deemed rehabilitated. Long story short, it sounds like you're ok.
By the way, there are other reasons you might be refused entry to Canada. You should be aware that misrepresentation (aka lying to an officer), will make you inadmissible. Even if you have a completely clean record, you can still be refused if you lie to an officer.
Once again, don't take legal advice over the internet, since I don't have all the facts available and another officer could come to a completely different decision. If you plan on travelling to Canada, contact a Canadian consulate.
Good point, it is pretty scary to think you might be refused.
Look at it from Canada's point of view though. A lot of Americans think they have the right to enter Canada, which they don't. Technically only Canadian citizens and Permanent Residents of Canada have the "right" to enter Canada. Everyone else has to "prove" they should be allowed into Canada. If theres the slightest chance of you being dangerous to Canadians, the CBSA officers should stop you from entering since that is the only time we really have control over you. Once you're inside Canada its damn near impossible to track you down, and during that time you could do a lot of damage. Remember, we ARE a different country and we have a right to protect ourselves.
That said, visitors and trade are very beneficial to Canada and we don't refuse people willy-nilly. We do like to have you here, but we'd rather the crazy and dangerous people stay home.
You make some good points.
I agree that things have changed somewhat, but in a lot of ways its still the same. The CBSA has had access to US conviction data from NCIC and state records for a long time now. I haven't heard about this "new" IT system referred to in the article, but it sounds like the new tool being deployed that makes the same searches faster and easier.
I would assume that there hasn't been much publicity simply because there hasn't really been any changes.
Oh and technically you've always need at least some sort of proof of citizenship when crossing the border, such as a birth certificate. I know for a fact that it wasn't/isn't enforced that strictly though, so I easily imagine why you'd think it was never required.
Anything else you're wondering about?
I assume you're referring to "Members of Inadmissible Classes include those who have been convicted of MINOR OFFENCES (including shoplifting...)..."
g a:s_7::bo-ga:l_1//en?page=3&isPrinting=false#codes e:36
Technically, what I said in my original post was correct, but I apologize for not making it clearer.
What I said in the original post was that a SINGLE minor offence will not make you inadmissible. If you have been convicted of MULTIPLE minor offences, then you are inadmissible. For example, if you have two shoplifting offences, then you are inadmissible.
In summary, you're criminally inadmissible if...
1) You were convicted of multiple minor (summary) offences, not arising out of the same occurance.
2) You were convicted of any indictable offences. If the offence was serious, you have less chance of obtaining temporary entry.
See section 36(2)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for more info.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/I-2.5/bo-
Does that clear things up?
Actually, border control is that nuanced an art. The regular "border officers" (ie customs officers) don't go through your entire record at the booth. They send you to the immigration office where we look at each case individually, and personally look up what the offence would equate to. Its not that hard actually, since there are really only around 20 common offences and we have them memorized. We've been evaluating these offences for years, so unless anything really obscure comes up somebody has probably dealt with it before.
g a:l_1-gb:l_4//en#anchorbo-ga:l_1-gb:l_4
You can be criminally inadmissible 3 ways. I'll summarize, but heres the link http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/I-2.5/bo-
1) A36(2) Being convicted of an indictable offence. This includes things such as simple assault, theft under $5000, DUIs, etc.
2) A36(2) Being convicted of multiple offences, not arising from a single occurance.
3) A36(1) Being convicted of an indictable offence, punishable with 10 or more years in prison. This includes aggravated assault, murder, theft over $5000, and other serious stuff.
These do NOT include things like parking violations, or minor criminal code offences. Those minor offences are "summary offences", and are not "indictable." These offences won't make someone inadmissible. Seattle website is too vague, which makes it look like there is room for interpretation. Its actually laid out very clearly. If you have any doubt about an offence, contact the nearest Canadian Consulate by fax or in person.
All the 36(1) and (2) stuff is pretty black and white. There are a few offences that can be interpretted in slightly different ways, but if you have these offences on your record you probably already know you'll have a problem.
He took a pretty big risk doing that. It sounds like the first time he was just "allowed to leave", which means the officer didn't arrest him or anything like that. It shows up on the CBSA records if you try to enter again, but its not a ban or anything.
If he was caught trying to sneak in the second time, he would have been deported and the car as well as its contents would have been seized. He would be banned from Canada for life, unless he can get a pardon from the Minister personally. Trust me, I work at the border and I saw an almost identical scenario two years ago. Is it really worth the risk to go on a trip for a few days?
What he should have done was gone home and gotten a permit from the nearest Canadian Consulate. Unfortunately, it takes a few weeks so he would miss out on the trip. Personally, I'd rather miss one trip than be banned for life. Normally you can get the permit right at the border, unless you lie about it or are a jackass.
I agree with everything except the passport comment.
;)
Technically, Canada hasn't passed any laws saying Americans need passports to come to Canada. Its simply a general (unwritten?) policy of the CBSA to not let Americans in without passports. Why? Because they need one to get back into the USA, and they'll be stuck here. We enjoy your company, but only for so long.
Err wait, I read your post wrong. You were never convicted of the mischief? Then you should in fact be ok if the 15 year old DWAI is all you have.
I agree with you, about the security and the tourism. However, these aren't new laws. We've always enforced this policy, and we've always had access to NCIC (FBI criminal database).
The problem is this article is spreading FUD. If you check out some of my other comments, you'll see you WON'T have a problem if you only committed a single minor offence 30 years ago.
I read these kind of stories in the news all the time. The problem is the writer usually knows nothing about the law, and its usually a sob story about some "nice guy" he wasn't let into the country "for a minor offence." In fact, the person had numerous offences but decided not to tell the interviewer. I'm speaking from personal experience, since I've seen the criminal records of some of the people interviewed (not this story).
Get your facts straight. Canada did not pass a law that forbids Americans from entering Canada without a passport.
What ACTUALLY happened, was that the USA passed a law saying every person entering the USA needs a passport, including their own citizens. So, if you show up at the Canadian border you probably won't let in. Why? Because if we let you into Canada, you can't go home and we'll be stuck with you.
It depends on whether the offence the deserter were convicted of in the US has an equivalent offence in Canada. I assume he'd be convicted of desertion or something similar under military law. Obviously "desertion" isn't under the Canadian Criminal Code, but it may be under another Act of Parliament. If there is a law regarding desertion, punishable by indictment, then that person would be inadmissible. I don't know whether any such law exists.
Not true. If you get a Waiver of Rehabilitation from the CBSA, the slate has been "wiped clean". They're not very hard to get either, unless you're a really really bad criminal.
Do NOT take any action on this advice. An officer obviously can't make a judgement on a persons inadmissibility except when they're seeking entry. Different officers might equate offences differently because there is a little grey area. This might give you a general idea however. If you're planning on coming to Canada, contact the nearest Canadian Consulate. Fax, write, or go in person since they rarely answer the phone.
g a:s_7::bo-ga:l_1//en?page=3&isPrinting=false#codes e:36
It depends on wether you were convicted, had deferred adjudication, etc. You'll have to look this up on the court records, since most people don't know offhand.
Assuming you were convicted, the DWAI on its own is an indictable offence. It has been more than ten years, and normally you'd be fine. However, that mischief offence could screw you over. If you were convicted of it, you've been convicted of "two or more offences not arising out of a single occurance". So, you're inadmissible under the A36(2)(b), which is the lesser section.
See "A36(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for (b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;"
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/I-2.5/bo-
To come to Canada, you'd need a waiver of rehabilitation. Its a piece of paper that says the offence is no longer an issue and you're not dangerous, and you can come to Canada as often as you want. A Canadian consulate, and some ports of entry can give you one of these. Alternatively, you could get a temporary resident permit, which is the same thing but is only good for one trip. They cost the same, so the first one is usually smarter to get.
FYI, I'm a Immmigration Officer with CBSA. That said, this message is my personal opinion and I do not represent the government.
I'm tagging this article FUD, because the writer is spreading fake information about Canada to try and scare people away. I have mod points, but I think its important that I try and stop the spread of this misinformation.
It is not true that Canada will turn someone away for a single minor offence 30 years ago. Only serious offences will make someone inadmissible to Canada. There is a very specific scale used to determine how serious a criminal offence is. First of all, the seriousness of the crime in your home country doesn't matter. We have to equate the offence to a CANADIAN law. For example, DUI's are routine and brushed off in the USA, whereas inn Canada you can get up to 5 years in prison for a 2nd or 3rd DUI.
This scale is as follows: [refer to Immigration Refugee Act, A36(1)(b) and A36(2)(b)]. If the crime you committed is equivalent to an indictable Canadian offence (ie not a misdemeanor), then you're inadmissable but its not impossible to get entry. Permits and pardons will allow you into the country. If you commit an offence which would give more than 10 years in prison (ie manslaughter, theft over $5000, etc), then you're inadmissible and its damn hard to get a permit into the country. That is, unless you're a celebrity. Bloody government.
In addition to the above, after a certain length of time an inadmissible person under the first category can be "deemed rehabilitated". The criteria is a little complicated, but in most cases a single indictable offence will be "dismissed" after ten years.
So refering to the above, you'll see the article writer doesn't know anything about our laws. I don't have any personal experience with the person refered to in the article, but I can infer a few things. For example, I'd say the person was inadmissible for the DUI from seven years ago. Its an indictable offence (ie serious), and it was less than 10 years ago. He also had other criminal convictions, which make rehabilitation impossible. Of course, he could be inadmissible for other things as well (other convictions he didn't mention, for example).
Given the above, its FUD to say he wasn't let into Canada for the marijuanna possession from 30 years ago. Marijuanna possession isn't even an indictable offence in Canada unless its more than 22g, so a single conviction of that offence wouldn't make him inadmissible.
I'd like to remind everyone that Canada's Immigration laws haven't changed in the last few years. There is nothing "new" referred to in this article. Our laws have always forbidden convicted criminals from entering the country, and we've had access to NCIC for YEARS. Stop spreading FUD about my country!
Finally, if thinking of coming to Canada and have a criminal conviction, contact the Canadian consulate nearest you. They can tell you wether your offence is serious or not. I suggest you fax, write, or go in person since they rarely answer phone calls.