|
Click
square for
index
 There have been Globe news stories, but the Globe editors have been silent on fundamental issues associated with Bill C50 and changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These go beyond politicking and Canadians deserve more insight from their leading English newspaper. First, Canadian practice does not attach disconnected amendments to one quite special area like the budget from another legislative area like immigration. Distinct parliamentary committees normally examine their area of legislation. Doing otherwise blocks normal parliamentary due process. Second,
the constitution makes immigration
an area of shared federal provincial
jurisdiction. One level of
government should
not amend legislation without prior
consultation with other levels.
Cities like Third, fairness and rule of law are crucial in developed democracies. Laws set out what is required of persons and courts make sure the authorities carry out the law fairly. There is no guarantee of fairness and rule of law if a law is produced which in effect says that the Minister and her delegated authorities can decide what to do, as Bill C50 proposes. Unknown guidelines are to lead the authorities in their discretion. That’s not good enough. Fourth, the rationale does not stand up to scrutiny. Discretion is supposed to respond to the problem of a growing backlog of immigration cases. Yet the stated need to address a backlog can be achieved without violating normal standards of fairness. The most obvious way is to pay the higher cost of meeting immigration levels fairly. Another way is to maintain objective criteria and to use them on a first come first served approach. Yet another way of preserving objective criteria is to use the ancient model of drawing lots. Finally, combinations of these could be used. Blank cheque legislation is bad legislation. The public needs to hear that. There can be no guarantee of fairness and a rule of law without objective tests and courts which can ensure the authorities follow them. Despite its failings, the present point system for immigration did at least provide objective tests. I’m surprised |