a leter to the feds
Hi
I have gotten into something of an interesting situation regarding the Working Holiday Visa Program and how it relates to the Provincial Health Care Program here in BC. Check out the letter I wrote to someone at the federal ministry of foreign affairs in charge of the program.
Hi
Mr X, thank you for sending me an email regarding my query. The message sent to you, quoted below, contains only the very essential elements of my problem, and so I will attempt to elaborate for you. My problem is not financial in nature, actually, and has little to do with the retro-activity of the fees I have incurred. Rather, this is more a question of the intent of the Working Holiday Program (hereafter,the Program) and with what I perceive to be a miscommunication between federal and provincial administrators and an abuse of the Program.
To understand my current situation it is important to know the history of my travels, my relationship with the Program, and my understanding of it's aim. My understanding is that the Program intends to encourage travel and cultural exchange between the citizens of the involved countries. In particular, since the Program is available only to people between the ages of 18 and 30, it intends to encourage youth, those who have attended post secondary education and attained a degree as well as those who have not, to explore the culture of another country. The Program appears to me to focus on allowing youth a one time hassle-free*, long-term, work-enabled visit to a country, and does not focus on monetary gain while outside of the country, even going so far as to require that an applicant be able to demonstrate enough currency that they could reasonably live the year without working.
My experience of the Program itself has been a pleasant one. In 2006 I went to Japan to study, work, and immerse myself in all aspects of Japanese culture. I studied the art of Iaido, a specialized form of Japanese fencing; fell in love; made Japanese friends; attended festivals, plays, and other typical Japanese events; and most importantly I returned speaking, reading, and writing Japanese. Having not earned a degree at a post-secondary institution I could only find work as an assistant English teacher at small private schools, tutoring elementary students and grandmothers. I was offered a normal schedule, but my feeling was always that I should live frugally and enjoy Japan more fully, rather than make more money working more hours and end up spending a large part of my Japanese experience speaking English. I usually worked between 8 and 11 hours a week, and earned very little money (a fact that could be verified with a few phone calls). My understanding is that the Program is a cultural exchange, not a means for Japan to import English teachers and export eager students, and I believe that in 2006 I accomplished the goals of the Program as well as my own goals.
I spent 2007 working in Vancouver and Victoria, BC. The year has little bearing on my story except that when I went to file a tax return for 2006 I was told there was no need, since I had been a non-resident during that year. When, on the advice of my mother, I called BC Health Care (BCHC) to renew my insurance, I was told that there was no need and that I was up to date. I gave these facts little thought until the third month of 2008, and they did not begin to occupy my thoughts heavily until just a few days ago. I will return to them shortly. In the middle of 2007 my oldest friend announced to me that he intended to marry his girlfriend, a Korean he had met here. He intended to visit Korea for a month or so to become more acquainted with his girlfriend's parents, but I convinced him that a Working Holiday would be even better - he could learn Korean, become arbitrarily well acquainted with his parents-in-law, and learn about a new culture. My experience abroad in 2006 had been so positive that I resolved to go with him. Together we made the necessary arrangements and were successful in acquiring the visa.
The year 2008 I spent enjoying an even more authentic experience of a foreign culture than 2006 had afforded me in Japan. I had spent 2007 learning to be a barista, a job that travels very well, and since Japanese grammar is very similar to Korean grammar, I was actually able to avoid teaching English at all in Korea. I worked at two cafe in Korea, merrily earning 5 or 6 CND an hour and chatting in Korean with my very friendly co-workers. My friend and I spent the year racing around Seoul engorged in a seemingly endless succession of discoveries: I can say that Korea made a significant impression on my perceptions of how a country aught to be (that is to say, by being a foil to Canada both in good ways and bad). By the end of the year my Korean was excellent, conversational and literate, and I am now proud to speak four languages common to Vancouver. My friend did not marry his girlfriend, unfortunately, but they have scheduled a wedding ceremony for April, and I intend to accompany him back to Korea for that occasion. As can be imagined, working 4 days a week at 6 CND/hour, I was unable to save any money and have in fact come home to Canada in debt (not significantly, I expect to be able to get work as a barista within the week and have my credit card paid off in a month, but the impression I am trying to make is that I have once again put the intention of the Program ahead of concern for monetary affairs by not teaching English. Every other Canadian I met while in Korea was working full-time as an English teacher at a relatively high wage).
Within the first few months of 2008 I received news from my mother that BCHC had sent a letter declaring that because I had not filed my 2006 tax report, I would be being charged for 2007 at the regular premium of $54 rather than not charged at all (which is normal for a low-income earner like me). I was surprised by this, having been assured on the phone the year before that all was as it should be, and spent several hours in conversation with BCHC trying to resolve the issue. I arrived at what I thought was a positive conclusion when they assured me that by retro-actively filing for 2006 I would be able to avoid making these payments. I attempted to pay my taxes online, but to register would have required me to know line 150 of my return for 2006 or 2007, neither of which I knew at this point. It wasn't a problem, though, since a BCHC representative told me that they would make a note on my account and that I would be able to sort everything out when I returned to Canada the next year.
Now I have returned to Canada, and it is 2009. I made arrangements to have tax forms for 2006 (which I did not file because, as mentioned above, I was told I did not have to), and 2007 (which I did not file because I was in Korea and unable to attain the necessary forms) sent to me, and intend to file for 2008 in the same way as for 2006**. I also phoned BCHC to make certain that I would not have to pay the $375 of insurance I had incurred during 2007, and that I would be all settled for the year to come. To my shock, however, the picture I had drawn in my mind was not a realistic one. In actual fact, a person who was abroad for a period greater than 6 months will always have to pay the full premiums ($54/month) for the next year, regardless of their income during the away period. That is to say, I was away from the country for a year, returned, and have been billed for the period between July 2007 and my departure from Canada in January 2008, and will again be billed at the full premium for the period between July 2009 and July 2010. The total that I will incur is over $1000.
Now, I cannot say that I disagree with this policy in regards to people residing overseas for more than six months (in particular, for people who made changes of fixed address during this period). A person living abroad for longer than six months has probably decided to do so because they have received a financial incentive, such as a lucrative job offer. It is conceivable that if this policy did not apply, a person could work as an English teacher or in another high-payed position abroad, return to Canada and file taxes in Canada as though they were a low-income earner (having not earned money in Canada), and then benefit from very low or no premium payments for that year. The necessity of this period of reassesment upon re-entering Canada is apparent to me.
However, I believe that to apply this period of reassessment to young people making use of the Program to explore another county flies in the face of the Program's intentions. I will briefly restate my reasons, which are twofold:
1. A person who is on a working holiday in another country is a youth who is motivated to experience the culture of another country not by potential monetary benefit, but by their sense of adventure and desire to exchange something meaningful with citizens of foreign countries.
2. A person who is on a working holiday: may be old enough not to be covered by their parents medical insurance in their province, but may be young enough not to have acquired financial means in Canada, and may be young enough not to have earned a degree or be qualified to teach English while abroad or may not be of the mind to do so. As a result of these things (a lack of experience, a lack of means, or an honest intention to explore another country's culture by working in a regular capacity as a part-time employee in that country rather than to skirt the edges of that culture by working as an English teacher) it is likely that in many cases a person returning from a working holiday will not have been more than a low-income earner during their year abroad. At the very least, such a person should be allowed the chance to prove their income while abroad instead of being automatically assessed as a high-income earner.
It is my personal opinion, and not a fact, that the Program is an excellent opportunity for the realization of its intention: the exchange of youth, youth culture, and the broadening of a youth's understanding of the world. I vocally encourage my friends and have encouraged the youth of Korea and Japan to become familiar with the Program and to take advantage of every opportunity to use it for its intended purpose while they still qualify (I myself had intended to go on another Working Holiday in a few years). It should not be put to shame, I believe, by causing each youth returning from their year abroad to be "dinged" over 600 dollars. If it is the opinion of the administration responsible for the Program that this treatment is fair and proper, that Canadian youth should (without prior knowledge, or any mention of the issue in the available literature) be forced to pay for medical insurance in Canada as though they were high-income earners, then it is would be my sad responsibility to discourage the use of the program, to speak out against it in public forums, to cease to use the Program myself, &etc, &etc...
I believe that this grim image is not the position that you hold, Mr X. I request that you step in on my behalf in this matter, and I further suggest that persons using the Program be considered "residents of Canada" during their stay abroad, such that they would not have to be reassessed for insurance on reentering the country, or that other measures be taken to assure this outcome.
Thank you for reading this rather long email, and thank you for considering my request. I look forward to being able to speak with you on the telephone, and would request that you phone me at the number I provided between 9 and 12 O'Clock (local, Vancouver time).
z.
PS as a fun side-note: I speculate that if you have not received this complaint before, it is only because young people unused to the bureacracy here in Canada have neglected to announce themselves upon leaving or entering Canada and have assumed that the income they earned while abroad could be filed as income earned in Canada. I personally have never heard of a Working Holidayer being dinged 600 dollars upon re-entering Canada, and I have asked a number of such youths over the last few days (most of whom taught English overseas and earned easily five times what I did in their year abroad).
* by "hassle-free" I refer mainly to the ease with which one can acquire the visa, the freedom of a person on the visa to enter the country regardless of the prior arrangement of employment or housing, and the ability to work in nearly any field once in the country (these freedoms are in contrast to the normal regulations that apply to acquiring a visa: a single goal and a prearranged or at least preplanned schedule of activities (such as employment, tourism, or study)).
** to help you imagine the situation I have re-iterated it here: I did not have to pay any insurance to Canada or BC during 2006, I paid a private insurance company during that year. In 2007 I was charged the full premium of $54/month, which is more than a low-income earner aught to pay. This is because I did not file for 2006 (that was my understanding, actually this is incorrect). I did not have to pay for 2008, since I was abroad and paying a private company. My understanding was that I would not have to pay for 2009 if I filed for 2008, and that my fees ($375) for 2007 would be ignored if I filed for 2006, because in both years I was a low-income earner. By "to file for [a given year abroad]" I mean, "to file a statement that amounts to proof of my having spent the year abroad earning a low-income".
z.
That was pretty fun to write. I enjoy writing.
z.
I have gotten into something of an interesting situation regarding the Working Holiday Visa Program and how it relates to the Provincial Health Care Program here in BC. Check out the letter I wrote to someone at the federal ministry of foreign affairs in charge of the program.
Hi
Mr X, thank you for sending me an email regarding my query. The message sent to you, quoted below, contains only the very essential elements of my problem, and so I will attempt to elaborate for you. My problem is not financial in nature, actually, and has little to do with the retro-activity of the fees I have incurred. Rather, this is more a question of the intent of the Working Holiday Program (hereafter,the Program) and with what I perceive to be a miscommunication between federal and provincial administrators and an abuse of the Program.
To understand my current situation it is important to know the history of my travels, my relationship with the Program, and my understanding of it's aim. My understanding is that the Program intends to encourage travel and cultural exchange between the citizens of the involved countries. In particular, since the Program is available only to people between the ages of 18 and 30, it intends to encourage youth, those who have attended post secondary education and attained a degree as well as those who have not, to explore the culture of another country. The Program appears to me to focus on allowing youth a one time hassle-free*, long-term, work-enabled visit to a country, and does not focus on monetary gain while outside of the country, even going so far as to require that an applicant be able to demonstrate enough currency that they could reasonably live the year without working.
My experience of the Program itself has been a pleasant one. In 2006 I went to Japan to study, work, and immerse myself in all aspects of Japanese culture. I studied the art of Iaido, a specialized form of Japanese fencing; fell in love; made Japanese friends; attended festivals, plays, and other typical Japanese events; and most importantly I returned speaking, reading, and writing Japanese. Having not earned a degree at a post-secondary institution I could only find work as an assistant English teacher at small private schools, tutoring elementary students and grandmothers. I was offered a normal schedule, but my feeling was always that I should live frugally and enjoy Japan more fully, rather than make more money working more hours and end up spending a large part of my Japanese experience speaking English. I usually worked between 8 and 11 hours a week, and earned very little money (a fact that could be verified with a few phone calls). My understanding is that the Program is a cultural exchange, not a means for Japan to import English teachers and export eager students, and I believe that in 2006 I accomplished the goals of the Program as well as my own goals.
I spent 2007 working in Vancouver and Victoria, BC. The year has little bearing on my story except that when I went to file a tax return for 2006 I was told there was no need, since I had been a non-resident during that year. When, on the advice of my mother, I called BC Health Care (BCHC) to renew my insurance, I was told that there was no need and that I was up to date. I gave these facts little thought until the third month of 2008, and they did not begin to occupy my thoughts heavily until just a few days ago. I will return to them shortly. In the middle of 2007 my oldest friend announced to me that he intended to marry his girlfriend, a Korean he had met here. He intended to visit Korea for a month or so to become more acquainted with his girlfriend's parents, but I convinced him that a Working Holiday would be even better - he could learn Korean, become arbitrarily well acquainted with his parents-in-law, and learn about a new culture. My experience abroad in 2006 had been so positive that I resolved to go with him. Together we made the necessary arrangements and were successful in acquiring the visa.
The year 2008 I spent enjoying an even more authentic experience of a foreign culture than 2006 had afforded me in Japan. I had spent 2007 learning to be a barista, a job that travels very well, and since Japanese grammar is very similar to Korean grammar, I was actually able to avoid teaching English at all in Korea. I worked at two cafe in Korea, merrily earning 5 or 6 CND an hour and chatting in Korean with my very friendly co-workers. My friend and I spent the year racing around Seoul engorged in a seemingly endless succession of discoveries: I can say that Korea made a significant impression on my perceptions of how a country aught to be (that is to say, by being a foil to Canada both in good ways and bad). By the end of the year my Korean was excellent, conversational and literate, and I am now proud to speak four languages common to Vancouver. My friend did not marry his girlfriend, unfortunately, but they have scheduled a wedding ceremony for April, and I intend to accompany him back to Korea for that occasion. As can be imagined, working 4 days a week at 6 CND/hour, I was unable to save any money and have in fact come home to Canada in debt (not significantly, I expect to be able to get work as a barista within the week and have my credit card paid off in a month, but the impression I am trying to make is that I have once again put the intention of the Program ahead of concern for monetary affairs by not teaching English. Every other Canadian I met while in Korea was working full-time as an English teacher at a relatively high wage).
Within the first few months of 2008 I received news from my mother that BCHC had sent a letter declaring that because I had not filed my 2006 tax report, I would be being charged for 2007 at the regular premium of $54 rather than not charged at all (which is normal for a low-income earner like me). I was surprised by this, having been assured on the phone the year before that all was as it should be, and spent several hours in conversation with BCHC trying to resolve the issue. I arrived at what I thought was a positive conclusion when they assured me that by retro-actively filing for 2006 I would be able to avoid making these payments. I attempted to pay my taxes online, but to register would have required me to know line 150 of my return for 2006 or 2007, neither of which I knew at this point. It wasn't a problem, though, since a BCHC representative told me that they would make a note on my account and that I would be able to sort everything out when I returned to Canada the next year.
Now I have returned to Canada, and it is 2009. I made arrangements to have tax forms for 2006 (which I did not file because, as mentioned above, I was told I did not have to), and 2007 (which I did not file because I was in Korea and unable to attain the necessary forms) sent to me, and intend to file for 2008 in the same way as for 2006**. I also phoned BCHC to make certain that I would not have to pay the $375 of insurance I had incurred during 2007, and that I would be all settled for the year to come. To my shock, however, the picture I had drawn in my mind was not a realistic one. In actual fact, a person who was abroad for a period greater than 6 months will always have to pay the full premiums ($54/month) for the next year, regardless of their income during the away period. That is to say, I was away from the country for a year, returned, and have been billed for the period between July 2007 and my departure from Canada in January 2008, and will again be billed at the full premium for the period between July 2009 and July 2010. The total that I will incur is over $1000.
Now, I cannot say that I disagree with this policy in regards to people residing overseas for more than six months (in particular, for people who made changes of fixed address during this period). A person living abroad for longer than six months has probably decided to do so because they have received a financial incentive, such as a lucrative job offer. It is conceivable that if this policy did not apply, a person could work as an English teacher or in another high-payed position abroad, return to Canada and file taxes in Canada as though they were a low-income earner (having not earned money in Canada), and then benefit from very low or no premium payments for that year. The necessity of this period of reassesment upon re-entering Canada is apparent to me.
However, I believe that to apply this period of reassessment to young people making use of the Program to explore another county flies in the face of the Program's intentions. I will briefly restate my reasons, which are twofold:
1. A person who is on a working holiday in another country is a youth who is motivated to experience the culture of another country not by potential monetary benefit, but by their sense of adventure and desire to exchange something meaningful with citizens of foreign countries.
2. A person who is on a working holiday: may be old enough not to be covered by their parents medical insurance in their province, but may be young enough not to have acquired financial means in Canada, and may be young enough not to have earned a degree or be qualified to teach English while abroad or may not be of the mind to do so. As a result of these things (a lack of experience, a lack of means, or an honest intention to explore another country's culture by working in a regular capacity as a part-time employee in that country rather than to skirt the edges of that culture by working as an English teacher) it is likely that in many cases a person returning from a working holiday will not have been more than a low-income earner during their year abroad. At the very least, such a person should be allowed the chance to prove their income while abroad instead of being automatically assessed as a high-income earner.
It is my personal opinion, and not a fact, that the Program is an excellent opportunity for the realization of its intention: the exchange of youth, youth culture, and the broadening of a youth's understanding of the world. I vocally encourage my friends and have encouraged the youth of Korea and Japan to become familiar with the Program and to take advantage of every opportunity to use it for its intended purpose while they still qualify (I myself had intended to go on another Working Holiday in a few years). It should not be put to shame, I believe, by causing each youth returning from their year abroad to be "dinged" over 600 dollars. If it is the opinion of the administration responsible for the Program that this treatment is fair and proper, that Canadian youth should (without prior knowledge, or any mention of the issue in the available literature) be forced to pay for medical insurance in Canada as though they were high-income earners, then it is would be my sad responsibility to discourage the use of the program, to speak out against it in public forums, to cease to use the Program myself, &etc, &etc...
I believe that this grim image is not the position that you hold, Mr X. I request that you step in on my behalf in this matter, and I further suggest that persons using the Program be considered "residents of Canada" during their stay abroad, such that they would not have to be reassessed for insurance on reentering the country, or that other measures be taken to assure this outcome.
Thank you for reading this rather long email, and thank you for considering my request. I look forward to being able to speak with you on the telephone, and would request that you phone me at the number I provided between 9 and 12 O'Clock (local, Vancouver time).
z.
PS as a fun side-note: I speculate that if you have not received this complaint before, it is only because young people unused to the bureacracy here in Canada have neglected to announce themselves upon leaving or entering Canada and have assumed that the income they earned while abroad could be filed as income earned in Canada. I personally have never heard of a Working Holidayer being dinged 600 dollars upon re-entering Canada, and I have asked a number of such youths over the last few days (most of whom taught English overseas and earned easily five times what I did in their year abroad).
* by "hassle-free" I refer mainly to the ease with which one can acquire the visa, the freedom of a person on the visa to enter the country regardless of the prior arrangement of employment or housing, and the ability to work in nearly any field once in the country (these freedoms are in contrast to the normal regulations that apply to acquiring a visa: a single goal and a prearranged or at least preplanned schedule of activities (such as employment, tourism, or study)).
** to help you imagine the situation I have re-iterated it here: I did not have to pay any insurance to Canada or BC during 2006, I paid a private insurance company during that year. In 2007 I was charged the full premium of $54/month, which is more than a low-income earner aught to pay. This is because I did not file for 2006 (that was my understanding, actually this is incorrect). I did not have to pay for 2008, since I was abroad and paying a private company. My understanding was that I would not have to pay for 2009 if I filed for 2008, and that my fees ($375) for 2007 would be ignored if I filed for 2006, because in both years I was a low-income earner. By "to file for [a given year abroad]" I mean, "to file a statement that amounts to proof of my having spent the year abroad earning a low-income".
z.
That was pretty fun to write. I enjoy writing.
z.