Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 10th, 2008

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the officials coming before us today.

Can you describe for me and all of us here what exactly is the beginning of the enforcement process? This is for whoever chooses to answer. Can you go through the enforcement process briefly for us here.

It seems to me that some members here are making reference to what is actually the end of the enforcement process. Is it realistic to assert that someone can submit a spousal sponsorship, have the enforcement process then begin, and have that process run its course before the CIC process is addressed and decided?

[Susan Kramer]

A spousal application has to be submitted before removal arrangements are made. The removal arrangement starts by calling someone into the office for a pre-removal interview. At that time, the person is asked if they'd like to make a pre-removal risk assessment. We look at their travel documents. We look at all the arrangements that need to be made before they're removed. That process takes about a year.

The pre-removal interview is not the beginning of the enforcement process. The beginning of the enforcement process starts when a report is written because there are grounds to believe the person is inadmissible. In most cases they're entitled to a hearing, especially if the case is complex, and the Immigration and Refugee Board makes a decision on whether or not someone is admissible and will issue a removal order.

In that process, because we live in Canada, there are many avenues of appeal available. Some cases go to the Immigration and Refugee Board, and some cases go to the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. These things take time and often can take years.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you very much.

Does anyone else have anything to add?

[Rick Stewart]

If I may be permitted, on the question of security processing and whether we should do this at the front end instead of the back end, I don't know that we adequately addressed that, and I would just offer a few comments.

I think the reason we do it in the order we do is this. I think you can appreciate that it does take time to do security screening and medical screening, but particularly the security side. Because that takes time, if we did it on the front end of a process, it would necessarily slow down our ability to get to an approval in principle stage on a determination of the relationship.

Because the ability to obtain an open work permit hinges on reaching an approval in principle decision, our objective is to try to get to an approval in principle based on the genuineness of the application in the case as quickly as we can, so that the individual can then have the flexibility to have a work permit or a study permit, and then to pursue the security screening results.

If it's an individual who is somebody of serious criminality, those circumstances are most likely to be known right up front. There'll be flags in the system that this is an individual for whom we can make a decision quickly.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you very much for that clarification. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

On behalf of our committee, I want to thank both departments for coming here today and providing all of this information. It was very productive indeed and we thank you.

I know some of the questioning was tough, but you're tough people and you gave good answers, so thank you very much.

Now we can go to the motion that was put by Ms. Chow, and I'm sure you all remember. The motion was that the committee recommend--

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Can we recess for five minutes, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Why?

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

We have some individuals who would like a break for just five minutes.

[Some hon. members]

No, no.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Okay, that's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I don't think we need a recess on this, do we?

The motion reads:

That the committee recommend that the government allow any applicant (unless they have serious criminality) who has filed an in-Canada spousal or common law sponsorship application to be entitled to an automatic stay of removal until a decision is rendered on their application, that the committee adopt this recommendation as a report to the House and that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), the Chair present it to the House.

Is there discussion?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I've always said that we should receive evidence before we make a report to the House. So today was a good step in that direction, because we actually heard from someone before making a report. But to take this to its logical conclusion, there were some specific things requested by Mr. Telegdi from the department—and I'm not sure, but perhaps from Mr. Karygiannis as well. In any event, that information is not before us yet. If you're going to do a report, that information should be before us, and we should put together a report that encapsulates some of the evidence with a recommendation in the end, and not just a motion.

So I would say the motion should be the result of a report, and the report should be the result of the evidence. We've heard the evidence, but we have not yet made a report. Neither do we have all of the evidence, because some of it has to come back in due course. When it comes back, then we should deal with the report—if we're going to have a report to the House.

That would be my preliminary point of objection to our voting on the motion, having gone this far.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I see Ms. Chow first, then Mr. Telegdi, and Mr. Karygiannis.

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chair, allow me to say that in 2005 the minister at the time made a policy change. The policy was clear. It said, let's allow Canadians who want to sponsor their spouse in Canada to apply in Canada, whether or not their spouse is in status or not in status--simple. That is what the policy said, and there was no objection at that time; there was no uproar. People in the communities thought it made sense to allow them to apply.

But what happened? What happened was that the department.... Allow me to read this: “In 2005, a policy change was made to extend the benefits of the SCPC”—the spouse or common law partners in Canada class, to be more precise—“to spouses and common law partners who were in Canada without status. The regulations were not updated to reflect this. Instead a new public policy was adopted under the humanitarian and compassionate grounds provision in the IRPA.”

So the intention was to allow all inland applicants to apply in Canada for their spouses. Instead of just doing it the clean way, what happened was that the department decided to change a little bit of policy, and what you have noticed is that all of these people are getting caught. This is happening, according to what the Library of Parliament gave to me, okay?

[An voice]

What's the history?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I don't know the history; I wasn't here. But one way or another, the history is beside the point. What is happening is that there are people affected by this.

And, Mr. Komarnicki, it is not a small number, because it is not coincidental that in this committee alone, of all the members of Parliament, there are several MPs who have actual cases of people being deported. In my riding, a person's status stopped on January 31, and two days later the police—the police, okay?—knocked on his door and said, “You have to go; we're going to deport you.” He and his wife were not there. This is a person who has been in Canada for 13 years.

So there are these situations, and they are not small in number. We're not talking about fraudulent applications; we're not talking about people who want to cheat the system. We're talking about giving 60 days. But why not just allow them an automatic stay? That doesn't send any message out.

You know what's delaying them? It's not because there are fraudulent applications; it's because of the backlog at the CIC.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Right.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Give Ms. Chow a chance to wrap up, please.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Okay, what I need to say is that all this motion in front of you actually does is allow them to stay in Canada until the application is done. There is no reason not to do that, because why should ordinary folks, ordinary Canadians and the spouse, be punished because of the backlog of the department?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you have a clarifying point, Mr. Komarnicki, before I go to Mr. Telegdi?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

No, you should go to Mr. Telegdi.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

No, no, my point of order has not been dealt with. I think that's arguing on the motion substantively.

My point of order was that we started hearing evidence on this. It's not been completed because the committee asked the department people to bring information as a result of questioning before this committee. We're partway into the evidence and we are not to make a report while that's in process.

I'm asking the clerk and the chair to rule on that. I would say—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes. Well, the clerk—