Harper government hubris lands immigration bill in a legal morass
Seismic changes: First lawyers challenged the anti- crime agenda; now Bill C- 24 is the target of a major lawsuit
The federal government faces legal battles over its immigration and citizenship reforms that could be as bruising as the court cases that broadsided its tough- on- crime agenda.
Lawyers are preparing to challenge the cornerstone citizenship bill, C- 24, saying the sweeping changes are unconstitutional. The country’s legal community believes the proposed law has serious human rights flaws and won’t withstand judicial scrutiny.
In particular, the Canadian Bar Association has raised concerns about the broadening of grounds to revoke citizenship, the lack of flexibility in the definition of residency and the requirement that applicants demonstrate intent to reside in Canada if granted citizenship. The lawyers also pointed out that under the proposed Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, even those born in Canada could find themselves stripped of their Canadian status for some crimes, if they have the right to citizenship of another country through their parents.
The Tory administration insists the bill is sound and that judges will find no fault with legislation that it says will clarify sections of the existing law and retroactively restore citizenship to additional “Lost Canadians.”
Other changes have rankled as well, and litigation over those is already underway.
For example, the Tories scrapped the immigrant investor program, thus incensing millionaire, would- be Canadians. The rich foreigners are angry the Tories in February’s budget eliminated the scheme, suspended in 2012 because of a massive backlog, primarily many thousands of well- heeled Mainland Chinese seeking Canadian residency.
This is especially important for Greater Vancouver because a collapse of investor immigration could have a serious effect on the local economy, which has been buoyed by the influx of Chinese wealth.
Under the 25- year- old program , qualifying affluent families received a visa essentially by lending Ottawa $ 800,000 at no interest for five years. The money was made available as loans to provincial governments.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada maintains it is replacing that cancelled program — and others involving skilled workers ( cancelled) and parental sponsorships ( frozen) — with better ones that will keep the country competitive.
For instance, in response to criticism of the temporary foreign workers program, which is under review, the government is establishing a system in the new year that will allow speedy entry and give permanent residency to qualified skilled immigrants who are matched to job vacancies.
The department said in a statement that the new programs would let the government “focus on attracting experienced business people and raising investment capital that is of maximum benefit to Canada’s economy.” That remains to be seen. What is evident, however, is the manner in which the government has gone about these fundamental reforms, as with its anti- crime initiatives, has stirred up a hornet’s nest of opposition.
For instance, Toronto lawyers Tim Leahy and Rocco Galati are in Federal Court suing Ottawa on behalf of about 1,500 frustrated investor applicants who are seeking compensation — $ 5 million each — for being rebuffed.
They argue the government’s conduct breached the applicants’ rights and denied them equal treatment under the law.
Leahy is a well- known immigration gadfly and Galati, of course, is the man who threw a spanner into Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s plan to appoint Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Galati is also demanding a judicial review of Bill C- 24 if, as expected, it becomes law without amendment.
The two lawyers say immigration bureaucrats slowed applications under the immigrant investor program before it was cancelled, creating the massive backlog.
They say Quebec, which operates its own immigrant investor plan, processed many more applicants in the same period.
Leahy said Ottawa’s waiting list was artificially created.
If they win, it could cost the country billions.
Regardless, this isn’t good for the country’s image abroad or our domestic social contract.
The Tories are making seismic changes that will affect the cultural and demographic makeup of the country without proper debate and consultation.
The move to turn immigration into a job- recruitment process, the shift toward “expediency and naked pragmatism” — as Toronto specialist Morton Beiser put it — has serious repercussions that are being downplayed.
Instead of leading a dialogue with Canadians, though, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander displays the same kind of father- knows- best hubris that Justice Minister Peter MacKay exhibited with his anti- crime legislation.
Down the road, I expect it will produce the same legal embarrassment.