Law Times

Page 6 March 30, 2015 • Law Times www.lawtimesnews.com COMMENT another immigration blunder s the federal government continues to toy with the immigra- tion system, it seems the landscape never stops shifting for those who hope to settle in Canada. Earlier this year, it launched the new express-entry program to manage certain applications for permanent residence. The new pro- gram puts greater emphasis on job offers and has the potential to speed up processing times. But as Law Times reported earlier this month, after three draws from the pool of interested candidates, the federal govern- ment had invited just 2,400 people to apply for permanent residence. But recent media reports have noted a further concern. In most cases, applicants with a job offer will need what the government calls a labour market impact assessment to ensure the employer has made efforts to hire Canadians for the position. Given the criticisms of the temporary foreign worker program, that's a valid concern. But the express-entry program isn't about bringing in temporary workers. The goal here is different: permanent residence in Canada. The changes have been particularly difficult for foreign post-second- ary students. Under the program, the government awards 600 of a maxi- mum 1,200 points to those who have a positive labour market impact as- sessment. With the few who have received invitations under the program so far having scored more than 800 points, that means applicants essen- tially need a positive labour market impact assessment to be successful. The changes go against those brought in by the government when it introduced the Canadian experience class just a few years ago. The Province should make Tarion more accountable, transparent ntario has various laws that go a long way in the attempt to provide an element of trans- parency and accountability from the government. We have legislation creating the office of the Ontario ombudsman, for exam- ple. The ombudsman has the power to investigate complaints about provincial government services. We also have public sector salary dis- closure legislation. This sunshine legisla- tion mandates disclosure of the names, positions, salaries, and taxable benefits of public sector employees paid $100,000 or more in any calendar year. Strangely enough, there's a huge loophole in these laws. In essence, all the government has to do is delegate a public service to a private corporation and all of the transparency and accountability laws disappear. That's precisely the situation with Tarion Warranty Corp., the private non- profit corporation empowered to ad- minister and enforce the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act. The act is remedial consumer protection legisla- tion designed to protect purchasers of new homes in Ontario, but the province has delegated its powers to Tarion. The government doesn't fund Tarion, which instead relies on man- datory fees passed onto and paid by new home purchas- ers as well as builder regis- tration and renewal fees and investment income. In other words, it's really the public that funds Tarion's opera- tions. Although it receives no government funding, all of Tarion's revenue comes from its legislated mandate. MPP Jagmeet Singh of the NDP has tabled a private member's bill to remedy most of Tarion's transparency and accountability problems. Bill 60, the Tarion accountability and over- sight act, would bring Tarion under the jurisdiction of both the Ontario ombuds- man and the auditor general as well the public sector salary disclosure legislation. The legislation would also force Tarion to disclose all of its detailed performance-related information con- cerning builders. Currently, Tarion pro- vides a builder directory with admitted deficiencies. According to Tarion, the information in the builder directory provides "some insight into a builder's performance, but it does not represent a complete picture of their service record." Providing for transparency and accountability by Tarion would be no mere academic exercise. According to a To- ronto Star report, the office of the ombudsman received almost 300 complaints about Tarion from 2007-13 and om- budsman André Marin has publicly stated he has "long believed that Tarion lacks proper oversight." Being unable to investigate Tarion directly, Marin has re- viewed the relationship between it and the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services. His 2008 report criticized the ministry for its failures concerning Tarion. Bill 60 is the latest proposed Tarion re- form. Former Ontario ombudsman Dan- iel Hill recommended having Tarion fall under his office's mandate in 1986. Former MPP Rosario Marchese tabled bills to re- form Tarion in 2010, 2011, and 2012. According to Tarion's 2013 annual report, it collected $33.9 million in new home enrolment fees in 2013. It also earned $3.2 million in builders' registra- tion and renewal fees. With investment income, its total revenue for the year was $71 million. Tarion paid $7.3 million "to new homeowners for warrantable claims made where the builders were unable to resolve the issues." Excess of revenue over expenses was $29.8 million in 2013. Total equity as of Dec. 31, 2013, stood at $216 million. These would be stellar numbers if Tarion was a for-profit business. But Tar- ion isn't a for-profit business and, aside from the numbers themselves, we have little verifiable or relevant information on whether the public is receiving value for its money or if new home purchas- ers are receiving fair treatment with full value for the warranties provided in the legislation. Reforming Tarion to render it more transparent and accountable should be the starting point. With transparency and ac- countability, the public can assess Tarion's accomplishments in administering its public trust, which is to protect new home purchasers. Without such an assessment, the government will never undertake re- forms to protect the public. LT uAlan Shanoff was counsel to Sun Media Corp. for 16 years. He currently is a freelance writer for Sun Media and teaches media law at Humber College. His e-mail address is ashanoff@gmail.com. ©2015 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written per- mission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, com- pleteness or currency of the contents of this pub- lication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 • ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $199.00 + HST per year in Canada for print and online (HST Reg. #R121351134), $199 + HST per year for online only. Single copies are $5.00. Circulation inquiries, postal returns and address changes should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact Keith Fulford at ........... 416-649-9585 or fax: 416-649-7870 keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com ADVERTISING Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Kimberlee Pascoe ...............................416-649-8875 kimberlee.pascoe@thomsonreuters.com Grace So .............................................416-609-5838 grace.so@thomsonreuters.com Joseph Galea .......................................416-649-9919 joseph.galea@thomsonreuters.com Steffanie Munroe ................................416-298-5077 steffanie.munroe@thomsonreuters.com Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Editor in Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gail J. Cohen Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glenn Kauth Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Yamri Taddese Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shannon Kari Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James Kang CaseLaw Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lorraine Pang Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alicia Adamson Production Co-ordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catherine Giles Electronic Production Specialist . . . . . . . Derek Welford Law Times Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON • M1T 3V4 • Tel: 416-298-5141 • Fax: 416-649-7870 www.lawtimesnews.com • LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes • LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes u Editorial obitEr By Glenn Kauth new class made it much easier for foreign students who have completed their degrees to stay and be- come permanent residents, something that made sense given their qualifications, integration into Canada already, and obvious language abilities. The program also made it easier for post-sec- ondary institutions to attract students to come here and pay much higher tuition than everyone else. With funding scarce, foreign students are an important alternative source of revenue for schools. It seems shortsighted, then, for the federal govern- ment to now reverse course. While this is just one more among a barrage of changes, the government should reconsider the ex- press-entry program as it applies to foreign students. We should be making it easier for them to stay per- manently rather than putting up a major barrier. — Glenn Kauth Social Justice Alan Shanoff O A

• Cover