A briefing on the hearings which concluded in the Court room :
#) The lawyers challenging 87.4 tagged it, in violation of constitutional and human rights law, and pleaded to abolish the same. On the other hand, CIC lawyer argued that the Govt. has the right to frame law, keeping in mind,Canada's economy & the interest of new immigrants. Justise Rennie questioned CIC Lawyer that his arguments might support Canada's economy, but not in the sake of applicants.
#) CIC Lawyer arguments included that older Immigrants are hard to find jobs in Canada, to which Justice Rennie termed 'hypothetical'. CIC Lawyer had no data to support his cause. Also, CIC Lawyer pleaded that the new Immigrants are more likely to integrate in their society. Justice asked the CIC Lawyer that if an old applicant can re-apply, why can't he be processed on his older application? Further more, CIC Lawyer pleaded that if an application is submitted in CIC, it will be processed to conclusion, which is why Deptt Immigration is legal.
#) Justice Rennie asked that prior to framing of new law (87.4), no national consensus was carried out. Whereas in Newzealand, the similar law was framed after 4 months of public consultation. Rennie concluded with, "No Public Consultation".
#) Lawyers challenging 87.4 pleaded that an interest, if any, should not over ride constitutional guarantees of human rights, while dealing the backlog. It stands against section 7 of the constitution to delete the FSW backlog, created due to Deptt Immigration in itself.
#) The lawyers challenging 87.4 tagged it, in violation of constitutional and human rights law, and pleaded to abolish the same. On the other hand, CIC lawyer argued that the Govt. has the right to frame law, keeping in mind,Canada's economy & the interest of new immigrants. Justise Rennie questioned CIC Lawyer that his arguments might support Canada's economy, but not in the sake of applicants.
#) CIC Lawyer arguments included that older Immigrants are hard to find jobs in Canada, to which Justice Rennie termed 'hypothetical'. CIC Lawyer had no data to support his cause. Also, CIC Lawyer pleaded that the new Immigrants are more likely to integrate in their society. Justice asked the CIC Lawyer that if an old applicant can re-apply, why can't he be processed on his older application? Further more, CIC Lawyer pleaded that if an application is submitted in CIC, it will be processed to conclusion, which is why Deptt Immigration is legal.
#) Justice Rennie asked that prior to framing of new law (87.4), no national consensus was carried out. Whereas in Newzealand, the similar law was framed after 4 months of public consultation. Rennie concluded with, "No Public Consultation".
#) Lawyers challenging 87.4 pleaded that an interest, if any, should not over ride constitutional guarantees of human rights, while dealing the backlog. It stands against section 7 of the constitution to delete the FSW backlog, created due to Deptt Immigration in itself.