Evidence of meeting #16 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was removal.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Rick Stewart  Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Susan Kramer  Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
Brenna MacNeil  Director, Social Policy and Programs, Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Andrew Chaplin

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

We will start. We're having a briefing today on spousal sponsorship.

I want to welcome to our committee today Mr. Rick Stewart, associate deputy minister of operations, and Brenna MacNeil, director, social policy and programs, immigration branch. From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Susan Kramer, director, inland enforcement.

Welcome to all of you today. I guess you have statements you want to make, first of all, and then we will have interaction and questions and what have you.

I'll give it to you, Mr. Stewart.

3:30 p.m.

Rick Stewart Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We will keep our opening comments as brief as we can. In addition to the individuals you already introduced, accompanying me today is Diane Johnston, who is senior program officer in the operational management and coordination branch in the operations sector at CIC. She is part of my team.

We do welcome the opportunity to appear before you today and to have the chance to present information that hopefully you will find useful in your deliberations around the motion that you are considering. I hope we will be able to fully answer all of your questions.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to speak to you today on the implications of the motion being proposed with respect to spousal sponsorships.

Family reunification is a key element of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We recognize that keeping families together helps people integrate into Canadian society and contributes to their success. We believe our current policies reflect this goal.

Under the provisions of IRPA, there are measures in place which allow individuals who are already living in Canada to apply for permanent residence within Canada. There are two types of cases involved: those who are in status and those who are out of status. I will speak briefly to each of these types.

One is in-status applicants. Spouses and common law partners who are already in Canada may apply for permanent residence in the spouse or common law partner class in Canada. In order to be eligible under this class, applicants must live with their sponsoring spouse or common law partner in Canada, and they must have legal temporary status in Canada. While their applications are being processed, spouses and common law partners in the in-Canada class can apply to maintain their temporary resident status. In addition, once applicants have been confirmed as having met the eligibility requirements as spouses or common law partners in the in-Canada class, they can remain in Canada and apply for open work permits while the necessary background, security, and medical checks are done to obtain final approval.

This initial eligibility assessment, also known as approval in principle, plays an important role in preserving the integrity of Canada's immigration program. It ensures that CIC has determined that an applicant's relationship is genuine before he or she is eligible to apply for a work permit.

I would like to stress that while the majority of spousal applicants are in bona fide relationships, some do abuse our programs. To help prevent this abuse, CIC officers check an applicant's background, perform personal interviews, and examine evidence to ensure that the relationship is genuine, and to detect fraudulent relationships.

Our current policy of restricting access to open work permits until after approval in principle is obtained prevents applicants from using the spouse or common law partner in Canada class as an avenue to circumvent legitimate immigration processes.

The second is out-of-status applicants. Many applicants in the spouse or common law partner in Canada class have legal temporary status in Canada. However, for spouses and common law partners who are in Canada without legal immigration status, a public policy was introduced in 2005 to also allow these individuals, including failed refugee claimants, to apply for and be processed in the in-Canada class.

This public policy was implemented to facilitate family reunification in cases where spouses and common-law partners are already living together in Canada, but who may have certain technical inadmissibilities resulting in a lack of status.

These technical inadmissibilities include, for example, having overstayed their temporary status; working or studying without being authorized to do so; entering Canada without a valid passport, the required visa, or other documentation; and failed refugee claimants.

The ability to submit an application in these cases allows individuals to remain in Canada for a limited period of time—60 days—to facilitate the processing of the application to the approval in principle stage. However, during this time applicants are not allowed to apply for a work permit until they have obtained approval in principle. In addition to the initial 60-day deferral of removal, once an applicant has obtained approval in principle, a stay of removal is granted until a final decision on the application is made.

For individual cases, where a determination of eligibility is complex and may take longer than 60 days, CIC and CBSA consult to reach a decision on how best to proceed.

The current policy provides considerable flexibility to facilitate family reunification applications and processing from within Canada. In most cases, it allows people to stay while their applications are in process and once the bona fides of their application have been established, they are allowed to apply for an open work permit.

CIC and CBSA work closely together to ensure that these applications are processed in a timely fashion without undermining Canada's commitment to family reunification. We believe that our existing measures strike an appropriate balance between our family reunification goals and the need to maintain the integrity of the immigration system.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I now turn it over to Susan Kramer for her remarks.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

3:35 p.m.

Susan Kramer Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and to provide you with information on immigration enforcement and how it relates to the recent motion on spousal applications made in Canada.

While Citizenship and Immigration Canada is primarily responsible for the facilitation aspects of immigration legislation, the CBSA is primarily responsible for enforcement of the act.

Immigration policy requires control; otherwise, the program is ineffective, leaving our doors wide open. Enforcement is key to the integrity of Canada's immigration and refugee programs and is fair to the thousands of persons who come to Canada legally each year. Controls, such as removals, ensure that Canada's best interests are considered with respect to safety and security, the economy, and our humanitarian and family reunification goals.

The CBSA prioritizes its enforcement action, with the first priority being those who pose a threat to national security. The next are those involved in organized crime, those involved in crimes against humanity, and criminals. The next priority is failed refugee claimants, followed by all others who violate immigration legislation. They include those who overstay, work, study, or live in Canada without permission, and those who misrepresent themselves.

Removing someone is a lengthy process. The time from when the removal order is issued to the time someone is actually removed can often be years. High-priority cases, of course--such as criminals--take much less time because they're a priority. We process them first.

Those under removal are also entitled to various levels of appeal. These processes can take months and sometimes years to be resolved. There is plenty of time for someone who wants to live in Canada to make an application for permanent residence.

Once all avenues of appeal have been exhausted, the immigration legislation is clear: a person under removal order must be removed as soon as is reasonably practicable.

The CBSA recognizes that there are instances of marriages between Canadian citizens or permanent residents and persons who are under a removal order. It is for this reason that the agency waits 60 days before enforcing a removal order when a spousal application has been made. This application must be submitted before enforcement action begins; without this time limit, those seeking to avoid removal would make continual applications for permanent residence under the spousal in-Canada class.

This 60 days gives Citizenship and Immigration time to assess the spousal application. If the application is refused, the removal process continues; if the application is approved in principle, the removal stops.

If the 60-day deferral period elapses and no decision has been made on the spousal application, the CBSA may proceed with the removal. Although this option exists, the CBSA does not often proceed with removals if it appears that the CIC decision is imminent on the application.

If the 60-day period expires and the CBSA proceeds with removal, these persons still have the usual recourse available to them, including a request to the Federal Court to stay the removal.

Additionally, while we're not in a position to discuss individual cases, there are other factors, such as criminality or security, that may prevent an individual from benefiting from a deferral of removal.

The removals process is lengthy, giving individuals ample opportunity to make a spousal application before enforcement action is initiated. Without a cut-off date, the spousal application process would be vulnerable to abuse, as individuals who would otherwise be removed would benefit from prolonged stays in Canada regardless of whether their relationship was legitimate. Those seeking to avoid removal could make repeated spousal applications, thereby jeopardizing the integrity of the immigration program.

We believe our existing measures strike the appropriate balance between the need to meet Canada's family reunification goals and the CBSA's mandate to remove those who are inadmissible to Canada as soon as reasonably possible. The removals program supports continued compliance and is a deterrent for those who fail to respect our laws.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Thank you, Ms. Kramer.

We will now go to seven-minute rounds. Our first questioner is Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Telegdi, you have seven minutes, sir.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Kramer, you said that CBSA prioritizes its enforcement action. That's in your fourth paragraph. Could you give me the numbers in terms of the different folks who were removed last year?

3:40 p.m.

Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency

Susan Kramer

Our high-priority removals count for about 14% of total removals.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

That's high priority. Okay.

3:40 p.m.

Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency

Susan Kramer

In 2006-07 we had a total of 12,637 removals.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

It was 12,637. High priority are the ones with criminal records and what have you.

3:40 p.m.

Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency

Susan Kramer

Yes, and it's about 15% of that number, so you're looking at almost 2,000 people.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Okay, now let's go through the rest of the numbers, shall we?

3:45 p.m.

Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency

Susan Kramer

For the rest of the people, most are failed refugee claimants.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

What number would that be?

3:45 p.m.

Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency

Susan Kramer

That would be 75% of the 12,637.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Okay, what else do we have left? We have 11% left.

3:45 p.m.

Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency

Susan Kramer

Pardon me, 15% and....

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

I had 14%. Is it 14% or is it 15%? You gave me two numbers.

3:45 p.m.

Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency

Susan Kramer

It's 15%.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

It wasn't 14%, then. At first you said 14%.

3:45 p.m.

Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency

Susan Kramer

I'm sorry, it was 14% the year before. Fifteen percent are criminals and 75% are failed refugee claimants, so the remaining 11% would be other violations of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: overstays; those who work, study, or live without permission; and those who misrepresent themselves.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

What number of that 11% would fall under this category?

3:45 p.m.

Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency

Susan Kramer

Is that under the spousal category?

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Yes.

3:45 p.m.

Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency

Susan Kramer

Although we are able to distinguish who makes an application in Canada, our system does not allow us to distinguish further breakdown.