Uncategorized

Episode #44 – An Interview with Chris Alexander, Canada’s Immigration Minister from 2013-2015

Steven Meurrens

The Honourable Chris Alexander served as Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada from July 2013 to November 2015. He represented the riding of Ajax—Pickering in the House of Commons of Canada from 2011 to 2015. Prior to that spent 18 years in the Canadian Foreign Service, serving as Canada’s first resident Ambassador to Afghnistan from 2003 – 2005. Subsequent to being an Member of Parliament he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada.

As Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Mr. Alexander presided over the launch of Express Entry, the termination of the Immigrant Investor Program and the introduction of the Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which prohibited forced and underaged marriages.

5:09 – If there was one misconception about Canadian immigration law that Minister Alexander would like to change what would it be?

15:00 – Bill C-24 and the revocation of citizenship for dual nationals convicted of high crimes.

16:00 – Whether there was a strong anti-fraud and anti-exploitation mandate during Minister Alexander’s time as Minister.

22:00 – Combatting forced marriages.

23:00 – Preventing foreign worker abuse by sanctioning the employers who abuse them.

26:00 – The Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

36:45 – Ending the Immigrant Investor Program

41:45 – Entrepreneurial immigration and self-employed program.

49:00 – Points inflation in Express Entry and the increased demand for Canadian immigration.

52:30 – The launch of Express Entry

55:30 – Moving towards online applications

57:15 – What it was like following Jason Kenney as immigration minister, and the challenges posed, if any, by Jason Kenney retaining the multiculturism portfolio, as well the immigration minister sharing immigration responsibilities with HRDC and the Minister of Public Safety.

1:02 – The role the Prime Minister’s Office played with immigration.

1:05 – Mr. Alexander’s immigration platform when he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada in which he called for an increase in immigration, and whether he pushed this view when he was Minister.

1:10 – The importance of Canadian immigration and populism.

1:15 – Open work permits on demand for people from visa exempt countries.

1:18 – The need for immigration to adapt to changing circumstances and system racism.

1:22 – When Minister Alexander would intervene on specific files.

1:25 – If Minister Alexander were giving advice to a future Minister of Immigration what would the advice be?

Episode #43 – An Interview with John McCallum, Canada’s Immigration Minister from 2015-2017

Steven Meurrens

The Honourable John McCallum served as Canada’s Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada from November 2015 to January 2017. A Member of Parliament from 2000 – 2017, he also served as Defence Minister under Jean Chrétien, and Veterans Affairs Minister, National Revenue Minister, Natural Resources Minister and as Chair of the Expenditure Review Committee under Paul Martin. As Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship in Justin Trudeau’s cabinet, Mr. McCallum led Canada’s effort to welcome 25,000 Syrian refugees over a period of three months. He also increased the age of dependency from 18-22, repealed conditional permanent residency and reduced family class processing times.

5:00 – The resettlement of 40,000 refugees in Canada.
22:00 – The division of immigration repsonsibilities between IRCC, CBSA and ESDC. Should they be combined?
28:00 – What goes into reducing processing times.
33:00 – Abolishing conditional permanent residence.
39:00 – Mr. McCallum’s approach to being immigration critic towards the end of the Harper era.
42:30 – The Barbaric Cultural Practices Act and the Niqab ban.
44:00 – Caregivers
48:00 – Helping as Minister on individual files.
54:00 – What goes into levels planning?

Borderlines Podcast #42 – Section 15 of the Charter and Canadian Immigration, with A. Connie Campbell

Steven Meurrens

Section 15 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. Aidan Campbell joins to discuss the application of s. 15 of the Charter to Canadian immigration law and the implications recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Fraser v. Canada. Aidan Campbell is an Associate at Mahon & Company, a progressive firm which practices in Criminal Law, Immigration and Refugee Law, Public Interest & Constitutional Litigation, Sex Worker Rights, Prisoners’ Rights, Professional Discipline. Extradition Law and Tenants’ Rights  

Section 15 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that:
Section 15(1)  of the Charter  states:
  1. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability;

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 548, at paras. 19‑20) provides that to prove a prima facie violation of s. 15(1) , a claimant must demonstrate that the impugned law or state action:
  • on its face or in its impact, creates a distinction based on enumerated or analogous grounds; and
  • imposes burdens or denies a benefit in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating, or exacerbating disadvantage.

Adverse Impact Adverse impact discrimination occurs when a seemingly neutral law has a disproportionate impact on members of groups protected on the basis of an enumerated or analogous ground. Instead of explicitly singling out those who are in the protected groups for differential treatment, the law indirectly places them at a disadvantage. Increased awareness of adverse impact discrimination has been a “central trend in the development of discrimination law”, marking a shift away from a fault based conception of discrimination towards an effects based model which critically examines systems, structures, and their impact on disadvantaged groups. Accompanying this shift was the recognition that discrimination is “frequently a product of continuing to do things ‘the way they have always been done’”, and that governments must be “particularly vigilant about the effects of their own policies” on members of disadvantaged groups.  

Some of the leading cases on s. 15 and Canadian immigration are: Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli, 1992 CanLII 87 (SCC), [1992] 1 SCR 711
  • s. 6 of the Charter specifically provides for differential treatment of citizens and permanent residents in this regard.
  • While permanent residents are given various mobility rights in s. 6(2), only citizens are accorded the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada in s. 6(1).  There is therefore no discrimination contrary to s. 15 in a deportation scheme that applies to permanent residents, but not to citizens.
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, 1989 CanLII 2 (SCC)
  • Discriminatory for the LSBC to restrict practice of law to Canadians
Austria v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FCA 191 (CanLII), [2015] 3 FCR 346
  • Discrimination on national origin because of visa post backlogs
  • Sidestepped the issue and said lack of evidence.
  • Appellants argued that this was unfair because the government had the evidence and did not provide it, but court unmoved.
Y.Z. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 892 
  • The first aspect of the test is satisfied by the very provisions of paragraph 110(2)(d.1) itself inasmuch as it creates two classes of refugee claimants based on national origin: those foreign nationals from a DCO and those who are not from a DCO.
  • This is akin to saying that all refugee claimants in Canada are equal, but some – i.e. those from non-DCO countries – are more equal than others. As proficient as the RPD may be, there is no question that access to the RAD is a substantial benefit which is being denied to claimants from DCOs.
Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v. Canada (Attorney general), 2014 FC 651
  •  For these reasons, I have concluded that the 2012 IFHP violates section 15 of the Charter inasmuch as it provides a lesser level of health insurance coverage to refugee claimants from DCO countries in comparison to that provided to refugee claimants from non-DCO countries. This distinction is based upon the national origin of the refugee claimants and does not form part of an ameliorative program. It is, moreover, based upon stereotyping, and serves to perpetuate the disadvantage suffered by members of an admittedly vulnerable, poor and disadvantaged group.
Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1134 (CanLII), [2007] 3 FCR 411
  • Social assistance not an enumerated ground.
 

Borderlines Podcast #41 – Judges Virtue Signalling Inside and Outside of Court, with Andrew Hayes

Steven Meurrens

In R v. Kattenburg Justice Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal cautioned judges against giving “virtue signalling and populism a go.” This prompted a largely philosophical discussion about the role of judges, a Toronto judge who wore a Make America Great Again hat in court, a Quebec judge who proclaimed herself a feminist before making statements about Quebec’s ban on religious attire, Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticizing President Trump, and defining what virtue signaling even is.  

Andrew Hayes is a US immigration lawyer who practices out of Vancouver.