Law Times

Law Times • march 3, 2014 Page 9 www.lawtimesnews.com anadian immigration lawyers worry the federal government is mishandling the implementation of its expres- sion of interest system for the economic class. Citizenship and Immigra- tion Canada aims to have the invitation-only system in place by January 2015. It laid the leg- islative groundwork late last year with amendments to the Immi- gration and Refugee Protection Act as part of omnibus budget implementation Bill C-4. People have likened the new system to a dating service with Citizenship and Immigration Canada playing the matchmak- ing role between wannabe immi- grants on one side and provinces and employers on the other. Based on systems already in place in Australia and New Zea- land, the expression of interest approach calls for prospective im- migrants to register their interest in moving to Canada by provid- ing details of their skills and work experience online. Citizenship and Immigration then ranks the candidates and invites the best to apply for work visas. It can remove anyone languishing too long with- out finding a suitor from the cho- sen pool, something the govern- ment says will keep backlogs and processing times in check. "I think game changer is an apt description," says Manjit Singh, an immigration lawyer with Cambridge LLP in Toronto. "It changes the whole land- scape. For at least a couple of generations, the impetus has come from applicants with each application receiving equal consideration. It looks here like the government is going to de- cide which applicants actually deserve immediate attention, which will be le in limbo, and eventually which should be dropped altogether." Mario Bellissimo, chairman of the Canadian Bar Associa- tion's national immigration law section, says the group's mem- bers are broadly supportive of the attempt to modernize and improve the selection process for economic class immigrants. "I think we're cautiously opti- mistic," says Bellissimo. "is has the potential to be a system that could be responsive to labour market needs. But we do have a number of concerns." According to Bellissimo, the CBA has particular concerns about the extensive use of min- isterial instructions to set selec- tion rules and procedures in the legislative amendments made as part of Bill C-4. e changes to the Immigra- tion and Refugee Protection Act empower the minister of citizenship and immigration to issue instructions "governing any matter relating to invitations to make an application," which includes setting the criteria pro- spective immigrants must meet in order to get an invitation to apply for permanent residence, the basis for the rankings sys- tem, and eligibility periods, among other issues. Bellissimo says such funda- mental changes to the new regime should only occur by regulation or legislation, something he says provides the kind of parliamen- tary or public oversight lacking in ministerial instructions. Po- tential immigrants might not like the unpredictability of a system that can change without notice or public consultation, he adds. "I understand the need for responsiveness and timeliness to changing conditions in the la- bour market, but there needs to be a balance," says Bellissimo. "Ministerial instructions in our submission should be for smaller-scale initiatives, the sort of thing that might need a little tweak once it's implemented. It shouldn't be at the heart of immi- gration policy-making." For Singh, the amendments' passage as part of an omnibus budget bill was another concern as it's a tactic he says limits mean- ingful scrutiny of the changes. "e immigration part couldn't be debated and com- mented on properly. Had there been some standalone legisla- tion, some MPs or other interest- ed parties would be able to com- ment. is is quite a significant change to introduce as part of an omnibus bill," he says. e CBA wanted more time set aside for discussion and study of the amendments before their passage and Bellissimo worries the omnibus approach could set the trend for future stakeholder consultation as the government fleshes out the new system ahead of its 2015 scheduled start date. With Bill C-4 now on the books, Bellissimo says the federal gov- ernment still has an opportunity to slow the process down. He suggests a pilot project to test the new system. "If you can get some empiri- cal data, you're in a stronger po- sition to conduct a consultation," says Bellissimo. In addition, he says a trial run could help shed light on some of the other unanswered questions le by the legislative amendments. e precise role of provinces and employers in the selection of applicants is still unclear while uncertainty also surrounds the role of labour market opinions, the issue of fees, possible routes of appeal, and privacy protection for ap- plicants under the new system, according to Bellissimo. Even assuming the govern- ment hits its 2015 launch target for the new system, Sergio Karas Lawyers worried about implementation of system overhaul Concerns centre on ministerial instructions under expression of interest program Canada's leading in-house counsel explore their challenges for the year ahead BROUGHT TO YOU BY 2 0 1 4 VIEW COMING TO www.canadianlawyermag.com/canadianlawyer-tv/InHouse Simon Fish BMO February 3 Daniel Desjardins Bombardier February 17 Robyn Collver Canadian Tire January 27 Audrey Mak OMERS February 10 Leanne Geale Shell Canada February 24 March 3 Our View 2014 panel offer their collective thoughts on the year ahead BlakesInHouseView_LT_Mar3_14.indd 1 14-02-26 8:48 AM isn't sure it will work in practice. e Toronto lawyer says he sus- pects an avalanche of potential applicants registering for it. "If you open it up for people to self-select, everyone will do it. It's like buying a lottery ticket. e pool is going to be enormous, and if I'm an employer, I have no interest in going through millions of applicants. It's not employer- friendly," says Karas. He says the program's format could also potentially open the door to the type of corruption that has previously dogged ar- ranged-employment programs in Canada. "It's an invitation for employ- ers who are not reputable to put out fake job offers. You could be going back to the problem where small employers try to help out friends and relatives by using this avenue. I don't see the point for the legitimate em- ployer when you can bring someone in on a work permit and see if it works out. I think the govern- ment would be much better served by expediting the process for all the people who are already here on work permits and gainfully employed. ere's no need to open the floodgates again." Andy Semotiuk, an immigration lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto, shares Karas' skepticism. "e matching concept to me evokes this idea of some mas- termind in Ottawa planning the economy of Canada: Here's how many taxi drivers we need in Saskatoon, here's how many dishwashers we need in Winni- peg, this is how many chefs we're missing in Vancouver, and so on. It's mission impossible, practically speaking," says Semotiuk. "I do work in spousal sponsor- ship, and a lot of my clients found each other through Internet-based matching, but it wasn't the govern- ment matching them up. It's hard enough to find a match without having someone else trying to match you with someone they think you'll be compatible with. at's not how the real world works." Semotiuk says the federal government should instead concentrate its efforts on speeding up processing times in order to help employers meet their needs. "My focus would be on fast processing, on how we can get people into Canada as soon as possible. If employers are looking for workers, say a plumber or an electrician, they don't need them six months down the road. ey need them now. As an employ- er, anything that delays the supply of an employee who is critical to my business is a problem." LT BY mIcHAel mcKIeRNAN For Law Times C 'This has the potential to be a system that could be responsive to labour market needs,' says Mario Bellissimo. FOCUS

• Cover