“WORKING”
IMMIGRANTS: THE PREMAKUMARAN CASE.
SOME
IMPLICATIONS OF THE AUGUST 2005 FEDERAL COURT OF
CANADA JUDGEMENT BY JUDGE KONRAD VON FINCKENSTEIN, AND THE CONTEXT OF THE
JUDGEMENT
Reference: The Edmonton Sun , August 23 2005 – article, Canadian Dream Dies, by Mindelle Jacobs. CLICK
HERE
This case concerns a couple who
immigrated from the U.K and were then confronted with a series of unpleasant
surprises, all involving the impossibility of getting meaningful employment.
What follows is an analysis of why things went wrong for them.
Quote 1: The reality, however, is that enormous numbers
of immigrants are having a terrible time either finding jobs in their areas of
expertise or getting their foreign educational qualifications recognized by
Canadian employers.
Comment: In fact, the problem really seems to be
happening because of the absolute lack of jobs available relative to numbers
applying for them, because there is no general appreciation of the true numbers
of jobs required.. This, in turn, is being caused initially by continual
monthly under-statements from Statistics Canada, in which the so-called
“official” unemployment number actually represents only about one third of
people totally out of work and wanting work. To this, one must add the effects of the “under-employment”
problem which affects a significant percentage of those officially ”employed”.
Collection of the
relevant statistics, and any analysis based on them, are a federal government responsibilities and this is simply not
being done properly.
Quote 2: “Last
week, after lengthy pretrial proceedings, a Federal Court of Canada judge ruled
that the suit is not worthy of a trial.
The courts don't wade
into policy issues, Justice Konrad von Finckenstein explained.
It is not the
role of the courts to order that agencies be set up to assist immigrant
workers, nor can the courts order that the municipal, provincial and federal
governments recognize certain skills or credentials, he noted.
Those kinds of
issues have to be settled at the ballot box, he added.“
Comment: Judge von Finckenstein was clearly not
aware of the problems noted in the comment under Quote 1 above. Nor are most
people – because of the mis-information already referred to concerning the
unemployment numbers. Maybe the courts don’t wade into policy issues, but they
can set a precedent when a big problem, not contemplated in any previous
judgement, is brought to their attention. As is already clear, Judge von
Finckenstein was missing the real point when he referred to the problem of
recognition of certain skills or credentials.
Finally, these kinds
of issues cannot be settled at the ballot box when the electorate itself is not
properly informed about what is really going on.
Quote 3: I
find that nothing would be gained by allowing this issue to proceed to trial, von Finckenstein declared. The
federal government owes a duty of care to the public as a whole, and to the
individual plaintiffs, he said.
Comment: The federal government indeed does owe a
duty of care to the public as a whole, and to the individual plaintiffs. That
means optimizing revenues for the tax base, to ensure optimal funding for
essential government services. This, in turn, is not possible if - through
carelessness, negligence or social custom which accepts high real unemployment
– large numbers of people are routinely ignored as potential factors of
production in the economy.
Quote 4:“Quoting
a previous court decision, he added the government should be able to govern
without worrying about being sued.
Government,
when it legislates even wrongly, incompetently, stupidly or misguidedly, is not
liable (for) damages.
Comment: Maybe. On the other hand, the government is accountable to the
electorate and when problems are found, they must be corrected.
This should be clear
to everybody by now. The Gomery Commission enquiry into the Sponsorship
Scandal made this quite
clear and led directly to the federal Accountability Act which became law in
2006.
In the Maher Arar
affair - in which software engineer Maher Arar was branded as an Al Quaeda
terrorist by the RCMP and others based on wrong information, deported to Syria
where he was imprisoned and tortured – Maher Arar was awarded CDN $11.5 million
compensation by the federal government to re-build his life.
Part of his problem,
since the trouble started, is that - so far - he has never able to get any work
again. It is possible that un-admitted job market problems referred to above,
plus others, have been at least partly responsible for his difficulties.
General
Conclusions: For the reasons noted above, this Federal Court
of Canada judgement was inappropriate and extremely dangerous. It was also
based on based on ubiquitous and popular mis-information and mis-guided but
popular social customs in Canada concerning immigrants and people out of work.
An appropriate judgement
would have required the setting of a legal precedent and a compensation award
to the Premakumarans. However, like everybody else, the Judge was not aware of
important information which could have affected his decision in this case.
Finally, as will now
be clear, this case has important and fundamental implications for Canada as a
safe place to work and live, at a time when it is said to need large numbers of
immigrants to counter alleged skill shortages related to
demographics.
In this author’s opinion,
as things stand, Canada is quite definitely NOT a safe place to work and live,
for anybody. This state of affairs is obviously unsatisfactory and must be
corrected.
Development in the case – October 2006.
The Premakumarans have
asked the Supreme Court for leave to appeal this decision.
Reference: Immigration Watch Canada – Press Release - CLICK
HERE