Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 31st, 2023

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair. That's very disappointing.

We do have an amendment. It's from my colleague, Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding before line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.1. Section 5 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

Waiver by Minister for administrative delays

3.01 The Minister may, in his or her discretion, after having reviewed a person's particular circumstance, waive on compassionate grounds in the case of any person who has waited over five years for a response from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to their application due to administrative delays.

Thank you.

My rationale for this amendment is as follows. My understanding is that the.... I do have it in both official languages here, if colleagues need it.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Can we suspend so we can have it circulated?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Rempel Garner has moved an amendment. This is being circulated to all the members, so I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes so that everyone can get that in both official languages and can look into it, and then we will get back.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

I hope everyone has seen the amendment moved by Ms. Rempel Garner. That amendment is on the floor.

Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to state my rationale for this amendment and explain its potential benefits. We all know how important immigration is to Canada. We also know, when we talk about immigration levels and immigration numbers, that part of the challenge in the past has been that any sort of response from the department can become an impediment to either immigrating to the country or obtaining citizenship. Many of us around this table have constituents that this motion speaks to exactly, where their cases are just lost in limbo in a massive backlog in the system.

I don't have the current stats as of today, but I think there are around two million cases—I'm looking at my colleagues—in the inventory. Right now we don't have any recourse as parliamentarians, or people who are in the system really don't have any recourse, for when the Department of Immigration doesn't meet its service standards. That is very detrimental to mental health and to Canada's reputation in terms of attracting and retaining talent. What I'm thinking is that if this were embedded in the act, the department would all of a sudden become motivated to look at these cases that are wasting in the inventory and that haven't met service standards, because they will be inundated with requests for a review based on this component. I think it would also motivate the department to not let things get to this point.

I want to state why I think it's so important that we do this. I have had numerous cases, particularly in family reunification, where people have not received responses from the department. The tools I have as a member of Parliament to respond to them are very limited. Frankly, what we hear from the department quite often is, “Sorry. We can't do anything. We're working on the backlog, so don't worry.” It doesn't seem like there's political impetus right now from the minister to push down into the department. I know that we have colleagues here from the department. I don't really feel like there's any sort of managerial motivation to move faster or to do things better. We're still moving at this pace.

We are actually talking about non-compassionate actions at this point. That's really what it boils down to. I personally know what it's like to be separated from a spouse across a border. It wasn't due to the department's backlog, but I was separated from my spouse during the pandemic for a period of nearly a year. That was very difficult for us, but we made it—God bless you, Jeff.

Chair, I would like to put it on the record, if my husband is watching, to tell him to not get on the tractor today. He had abdominal surgery. I feel as though this is a very good opportunity for me to scold him in public.

It is very difficult, particularly in cases of family reunification, when there is not an end date in sight. The department has an onus to consider compassionate grounds when they're responding to people who are sitting in the inventory. What we would be doing as parliamentarians, colleagues, is essentially enforcing a service standard upon the department but also giving people who really feel like they have no hope a little bit of hope.

Also, frankly, in the minister's defence, we'd be giving the minister a tool. I know. I've been in cabinet before. I worked with some very talented public servants whom I still very much appreciate to this day, but I also know what it's like to be told, “No, we can't do that”, instead of looking for solutions. As a minister, it takes time. You have to convince cabinet colleagues and people in your department, the PMO and the PCO that, “Do you know what? Telling me that it's not good enough or that I can't do that is not enough.” That process does take time, and it takes a lot of political will to end up pushing against your bureaucrats and saying, “No, we have to do better.”

What this would do is actually give the minister a tool so that while they are doing that, while they are pushing their department to do better or perhaps clean up the mess of a previous minister, as happens from time to time, some of the worst cases will actually have some hope.

In many of these cases, the only tool an opposition member has to try to get a response from the department is to take the case to the media or to raise the issue day after day in the House of Commons, knowing that the department doesn't care if you raise it in the House of Commons. They don't care. It doesn't matter to them. They're just going to continue on their merry way. I think instead of having to do that, this would give people, like all of us sitting around the table, a tool to communicate with our constituents and say, “Listen, this seems really bad. We've done everything we can to try to figure out what's going on in the department, so now we're going to appeal to the minister on your behalf.” That's better than my just saying, “Okay, I'm going to try to make a big case out of this in the House of Commons” or “I'm going to go to the media.”

That is a better way, because sometimes, as people sitting around the table, we don't actually know the details of these cases. As parliamentarians, we also have to rely on the independent third party arm's-length review of an immigration process, because it shouldn't be politicized. We just had an entire series—and I have to give all colleagues in this room credit—of very troubling meetings in which we essentially heard that a member of the other place was issuing travel documentation out of her office without oversight.

My colleague Ms. Kayabaga and I were looking at each other incredulously as the details of this were coming out and thinking “how did this happen?” The job of parliamentarians is not to actually make determinations ourselves, as I think our colleague from the other place did. We have to rely on arm's-length processes from within the department. This amendment, if it were in the act, would allow us to say, “Look, we can now appeal to the minister on your behalf, but we're going to let the minister and the department sort this out for you.” That would be a better route than taking things to the media or, let's say, issuing travel documentation off the corner of one's desk. This is a common-sense tool.

Also, colleagues, frankly, the reality is that there's a massive backlog of responses within the immigration department. I appreciate and I know that the department has a new deputy minister, who seems very dynamic and who understands the gravity of the situation, but I also appreciate that she's probably facing a lot of inertia in her department. It's incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to look and think outside the box, beyond just having more consultants.

We've been talking about only the McKinsey contract. I have no idea what happened there. That was a bit of a surprise, but there was a lot of money spent on a consultant and I'm not sure that really resulted in anything. As parliamentarians, we should be looking outside the box at low-cost, easy ways to have extra tools to expedite cases that clearly need to be expedited when the department is saying, “We're implementing all these other systems”, because at the end of the day this is about compassion.

I hate being in a situation where I have to say to a constituent, “I don't know what I can do next outside of taking this to the media and making this a political issue.” I would like to occasionally not make things all about politics but instead work collaboratively with the minister and say, “Look, I appeal to your heart. I appeal to your sense of justice. Your department has been sitting on this for five years. I don't understand why I can't get a response. Can you look at this from a compassionate grounds perspective?”

My understanding is that we are now looking at amendments to the broader scope of the Citizenship Act. I would hope....

This is not a partisan amendment in any way, shape or form. It doesn't take a partisan ideological perspective on immigration. It's very much a process-oriented amendment. It says that, if the department is running so far behind in their inventory, in spite of staffing up and spending millions of dollars on consulting contracts—but I digress—there is a tool the minister can use to address situations where families are separated or people are facing extreme persecution. We're on the eve of Pride Month, which starts tomorrow, and I think all of us here understand the gravity of, let's say, members of the LGBTQ+ community who are in Uganda.

There sometimes are people who need to come to this country to get safe haven. It really bothers me and it cuts my soul when I hear from the department, “I don't know where this case is” or “there's nothing more we can do right now”. I'd like to say, “There is something you can do. It's this, and it's in the act, and it's hope.” I don't think that's a partisan thing. I think it is something that all of us here would agree is a great process amendment. It's not ideological. It doesn't add more burden. It just gives the minister a tool to say yes or no, a tool that thinks around the box, thinks around pedantry and is nimble. It speaks to nimbleness and the ability to have nimbleness in government.

I will point out technically.... I understand that I've just made this argument that parliamentarians can't and shouldn't, and I want to be very clear on that. Parliamentarians should never be making decisions on immigration files. That's not our job, but the minister is duly constituted to do that and what this would do explicitly is give him a tool, when his department is not responding to a case, to allow him to do so.

I have been waiting for years to move an amendment like this. I think this is an easy no-brainer amendment. I also think that I can't see a lot of resources having to be expended to do this. I think we would have a lot of support from the immigration lawyer community and the larger civil society groups. I would ask my colleagues to support this. This is, to me, a no-brainer. My understanding is, given the instructions in the motion that was passed in the House to this committee, that this is easily in scope, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

We have a speaking list.

Next is Ms. Kayabaga.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do appreciate my colleague's comments and her intent to be compassionate, and I think that's what this whole entire bill is doing. It's to be compassionate. We do have an expectation from the people who are watching. They're waiting for us to get going and to pass these amendments so that we can be compassionate in this approach of making sure we respond to this need.

I do have some questions for my colleague around this amendment.

First, what does it have to do with lost Canadians?

Second, does this amendment impact anything outside of citizenship applications? My understanding of this is that the amendment to the Citizenship Act could apply only to citizenship applications and not PR or temporary visas, so what is the relation?

If she could respond with the relevance to what we're talking about here today so that we can actually be compassionate by moving these amendments fast enough.... People who have been waiting have been waiting for years and talking about things that are not relevant to stretch time is.... I have lots of respect for my colleagues, but it's inappropriate, and we are actually putting more of a burden on these people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kayabaga.

Next I have Mr. Kmiec and then Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Terrific. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I can answer some of those questions.

There's a 294,000 citizenship application backlog. I think there must be, in that 294,000 group of people, some people who would benefit from the minister being able to look at their files personally and being able to, on compassionate grounds, waive the requirement.

I would then hope that they do the citizenship ceremony in person. I think they should be doing all of them in person, and virtual ceremonies should only be done in cases where a person's health is failing. Who knows, maybe in those situations, again, the minister could go and provide a waiver.

As a general rule, I don't like giving the executive even more discretionary powers. However, on this side, as my colleague said, most of our constituency offices are inundated with individual case files. It's about 80% to 90% of the work that our constituency offices are now doing. I've heard that individual members of Parliament are now having more than one case file manager. That was not the case eight years ago, before this government took charge of the immigration system. One case file manager for EI, CPP and immigration case files was usually enough. That person usually handled 80% to 90% of them.

However, I know there are 294,000 citizenship applications in the system right now. Overall, like my colleague said, there are two million applications. The department claims that 1.1 million are within their standard processing time. However, since the department sets its own processing time, it can be whatever it wants to be for any one of them. Of these, 800,000 of them are over the 80%...which the department then claims are considered backlogged applications.

I think this could apply to anything beyond just simple citizenship applications. I think in the way it's written, it could apply to other particular situations where a waiver on compassionate grounds could apply. That's directly what's proposed in the amendment. It's also time-limited. It specifically says, “over five years”. We're not talking about people who are just a day over a standard processing time. However, if the department were ever to set a standard processing time of five years for an application, I think most of us would find that ridiculous.

I've recounted this story now multiple times, but I have a constituent who has a TRV application for a family member to come to Canada. It has been 1,113 days in the system when they last checked a few weeks ago. That's an incredibly long time to wait. It's not quite five years. In that particular situation, that wouldn't apply.

Because it's so limited, I think providing an executive ability to waive is actually reasonable. It's a very small group of people. If you just use citizenship ceremonies.... Out of 294,000 citizenship applications in the system right now, how many of them are over five years? It could be a very small pool, and how many of them...? There are compassionate grounds.

We saw just a few months ago that, and I'm going to get the acronym wrong, but the GMCS or GCMS system—there are lots of acronyms in government—was up to 60,000 files that had a code assigned to them. Sometimes these were with employees who were no longer working.

The oldest file that was still open was 2006. That person, whoever they are, has been waiting a very long time to have their application processed. That is an inordinate amount of patience that someone out there has with the IRCC department. I know that in 2006, it was a different government in charge. It's not as if it's related.... This is a bipartisan issue, I would hope, as my colleague said. This would provide a very narrow scope for a minister to use a very broad range of factors.

Regarding compassionate grounds, I don't know whether there actually is a definition that is being used in the legislation. What are compassionate grounds? I think it's broad enough that a minister could determine whether a particular situation applies. It has to be over five years that the person has waited for a response from the department.

We hear this constantly. That's the reason people come to members of Parliament. They have emailed, they have called and there's nobody responding to them in any way.

I think that this provides an out. Like the debate in the House, when the report was considered on expanding the scope of potential amendments to this legislation—this is basically a statutory review of the Citizenship Act—we could insert this in here. The moment that this receives royal assent, if this passes through the House, passes through the Senate, the minister would then have the ability to use this particular power. We could even set out what types of rules would need to be considered.

I sent the minister a public letter back in April 13 about Iranian spousal sponsorships. I think this could apply in cases at the Ankara visa processing office, where Iranian nationals, whether they are Azerbaijani, Persian, Kurdish or Baluchi, are waiting multiple years, some for over five years, and there are compassionate grounds for them to receive a waiver of some sort.

My interpretation, potentially, will be on Citizenship Act applications. If someone wants to make a subamendment to limit it only to citizenship applications, perhaps that could be done here, in order to stay within the title of the act. I don't think it's necessary.

I know a lot of Turkish exiles. I've met some who have waited multiple years in third countries. Some of them are not in safe countries right now, and they're waiting to hear back from the IRCC department so they can also come to Canada. They're fleeing the Erdoğan regime, and I note Erdoğan was re-elected once again. I have a lot of Kurdish friends who have no time for his authoritarian politics.

I'll note, also, that I have.... He's not a constituent of mine. He's actually the constituent of another Calgary MP who wouldn't help him on his group of five sponsorship. He is from the Skyview area. This is a Kurdish man who was trying to do a group of five sponsorship for his family members. He waited three years just to get a no. That could have come a lot faster for him, because he had bonded.... He had cash set aside to demonstrate to the department that he'd take care of them. He was at the third-year mark and he wouldn't even be covered by this provision. He told me there's $24,000 for each family member. He had demonstrated to IRCC that he was willing to set that aside. He had the funds necessary. He's been incredibly successful. It's one of those great success stories in Canada, but he wouldn't be able to have his family members apply to get an answer or, in this case, a waiver.

There is another method for a person to get an answer from the IRCC department, and that's to go to court. I don't have the legalese text or the Latin word for when you go to court to get them to force the department to give an answer. I'll note those cases are way up. There are over 1,000 right now. This gives us another avenue to avoid court. That's why I think this is so reasonable. It's limited in scope. It provides the minister with a very limited discretionary power, which Parliament is governed by. I don't believe there's a definition in the act.

I'm going to turn to the department.

Is there a definition of “compassionate grounds” in the Citizenship Act that could refer to this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Ms. Girard.

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, there isn't a definition in the Citizenship Act, but I would note that the minister already has the discretionary authority to grant citizenship for reasons of hardship. That is a broad, flexible concept for some of the reasons that have already been mentioned.

Thank you.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I should follow up on cases of hardship.

In those cases, then, does that person need to have an active application with the department, or could they have no application at all?

[Nicole Girard]

It requires an application.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Then the example I would use.... I put it on notice many months ago now, when his case was concluded and he was sentenced to 25 years in a Russian gulag. Vladimir Kara-Murza, who's the same age I am, with three kids, is one of the Russian opposition leaders—he and Alexei Navalny. Both of them are facing imprisonment until death, basically. In their situations, they don't have an application with IRCC. They could use this if they had one. If it were over five years, they could seek this type of waiver.

There are many different types of situations. This was specific, I think. If it's not described in the act, it's a different method of doing it. This is a waiver on compassionate grounds for five years. I think it's infinitely reasonable in the way it's written. We should support it, because that would help our constituents and help families in Canada. There are people, I'm certain, who have citizenship applications and who have been waiting for a long time. That's a different type of lost Canadian. They've been here 18 to 20 years and are now waiting over five years to have their citizenship confirmed after they've taken the tests and done everything they're supposed to do. They could just apply for a waiver if this passes.

I think it's a good idea and I want to support it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Kmiec.

Go ahead, Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Dhaliwal, we cannot hear you.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

It's this new phone.

Can you hear me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes, we can hear you now. Please go ahead.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for recognizing me.

I also want to thank the Honourable Michelle Rempel Garner for thinking about these spousal cases. I want to wish Mr. Garner well with his surgery.

There might not be many people who recall the Conservative way of abolishing or diminishing or cutting the waiting list or backlog. I still remember, Madam Chair. It was the previous government, before 2015. If I'm correct, it was Mr. Harper's government, and that was a Conservative government.

Do you know, Madam Chair, what they did? The minister had a power. He came in one day—there were almost 250,000 applications in waiting—and do you know what he did? He came in, and with the press of one button he said that none of those applications would be considered and all those applicants who were waiting in line were gone.

I still remember because I was an MP when Mr. Harper was in power during the previous government. It was taking almost two to three years for a spousal case to process. In 2015, when the Liberals and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took over, they brought in a policy that every spousal case, 99% of them, would be cleared within one year.

It happened. Spousal processing time, which was from two to three years under the Conservatives, came down to 13 months. Sure, under COVID it went up, but now the minister is bringing families together. This is the first time. Last week, in fact, there was an announcement made by the Minister of Immigration. I had a very good discussion with him—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry, Mr. Dhaliwal. There's an interpretation issue.

Can you stop for a minute? It was French coming in.

Mr. Dhaliwal, can you please say one or two sentences, just to check the interpretation?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Certainly, Madam Chair.

I'll have to say a few sentences before I go back to the topic. I hope the interpretation is working well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

It's working.

Please go ahead.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was talking about bringing spouses together. It's a recent policy announcement by Minister Fraser—last week—that anyone whose application is in the queue will be able to apply for a temporary resident visa, and they will be issued a TRV.

I'm sure the parliamentary secretary to the minister who's sitting with us today will witness that I had a good discussion with the minister yesterday about this, and now these spouses will be able to come together in no time. I haven't seen certain policies under the previous government.

More importantly, Madam Chair, I was talking to my dear friend, Mr. Ali. He was very excited to attend many of these citizenship ceremonies last week when he was in his riding. I'm sure there are many other members who were attending those ceremonies.

Most important is the question raised by Madam Kayabaga: What does this have to do with lost citizenship? That is my question as well.

If Conservatives want to take longer, I think they can probably borrow from my dear friend, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. He had a novel there he didn't finish previously. They can borrow that novel and carry on. I would suggest that—