This is probably the fourth or fifth National Immigration Law Conference that I've attended. I missed the last couple; no particular reason, just got busy with the practice of law. It's good to see familiar and new faces including immigration lawyers from Calgary.
I've live-blogged the Conference in the past, and will do so once again.
The Opening Plenary: The Making of Immigration Law is interesting, with a panel that includes Lorne Waldman.
Waldman's basic point is where's the compassion? His 'rant' (his term not mine) is that efficiency is coming at the cost of fairness. Also points out that Mexico and Hungary have serious human rights violations yet are designated as safe by the Minister. With respect to the elimination of the Federal Skilled Worker backlog, he criticizes the government for emphasizing the queue (calling refugees queue jumpers) but then turning around and throwing all the Federal Skilled Worker applications in the trash.
Mario Bellissimo makes the excellent point that the relevant Minister Instruction resulted in the reduction of the FSW backlog by almost half between 2008-2011. His point was that we had a moral obligation to continue with this initiative.
Bellissimo has a good paper. Canada's 'innovations' are in line with other developed countries, especially Australia. In essence, the executive has wide scope to deal with immigration applications (and, really, this is only logical and right).
Peter Sylvester from CIC rebuts Waldman. The central mission is building a stronger Canada. 'Transformation can be unsettling.' He recognizes that CIC needs to better explain the rationale for change.
Sylvester points out that the backlog was still 300,000; termination was necessary to allow flexibility. The government's role is to consider Canada's broader interests. That decision was supported by the Courts. This elimination allowed shift to applicants that are more likely to meet Canada's short and long term needs. FSW now more in line with current economic needs. This was based on comprehensive research. Language proficiency emphasized as well as younger applicants. We know from empirical evidence that younger more likely to hit the ground running. Also require foreign credentials assessed to Canadian standards.
Sylvester on Mexico: it's easy to come to simplistic conclusions on Mexico. He also takes issue with the characterization of denial of health care to refugees. There is a pull factor for certain claimants (for health care coverage). Sylvester is giving as good as he got from Waldman.
My take away: Waldman and Bellissimo's argument based on 'morality' for the deletion of applications for the FSW is weak. Canada has an obligation to its citizens. Immigration should advance the economy. It is the function of the executive to balance competing interests. Immigration policy should be based on the labour market and other objectively identified factors. What obligation does Canada owe to those that are seeking admission to this country on economic factors?
Raj Sharma JD LLM
Partner
Comments