Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 20th, 2016

[Toni Schweitzer]

They could be done later in the process. Once an assessment is made that the marriage is genuine, they could then move on to second-stage processing.

Now, there may be cases where it is so obvious that the case should be approved that sending it all in at once might be a strategy, and certainly people could do that. But I don't know why the visa posts routinely ask for all of this stuff up front when these cases are taking eight months, a year, two years, or three years, and all of that is going to expire.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

And they go through a medical three times in some files. I've seen it.

[Toni Schweitzer]

It happens with our clients all the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

There are twenty seconds left, please.

[Toni Schweitzer]

We have a large Tibetan community. Those cases are complicated and take a long time. They do medicals multiple times.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Mr. Saroya, you have seven minutes, please.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Toni, for coming in. You're getting all the attention here today.

MPs from the GTA have big immigration issues. What do you see as the biggest? What I see in Markham is, what is a genuine marriage? Somebody came, and two days later, didn't like the situation, called the police, and moved on. In many cases, they already have somebody in mind.

What do you think? Where should the law stand on this sort of situation?

[Toni Schweitzer]

As I said, I think the law should be changed. The regulations should be changed back to what they were before when you had to show both that the marriage was entered into primarily for the purposes of acquiring a benefit and that the marriage is not genuine to refuse a marriage.

The reality is, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of many immigration lawyers, that tools existed to deal with marriage fraud. The marriages that are fraudulent would be found to be not genuine, or if there is a case that slips through, that someone gets here and is subsequently found out, there are provisions, as well, for CBSA to conduct investigations as to whether or not there was misrepresentation in relation to that marriage.

The tools exist. What's happening now is genuine spouses, sometimes with children, are being permanently separated. I don't see what possible policy justification there is for that.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

The other cases we hear about most of the time are situations when we sponsor the parents and grandparents, and the amount of money that is required to sponsor somebody is too high. They can't afford it. They can't do it for three years in a row. What is your opinion on that?

[Toni Schweitzer]

As I said, none of my clients can qualify. It is a problem. They are simply unable to bring their parents or grandparents. As you heard earlier from other witnesses, those parents and grandparents contribute. They make the family more economically viable, and my clients don't have that opportunity.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

In 2016, we're expecting 80,000 family immigrants, of which 20,000 are parents and grandparents. In your opinion, is this 20,000 a good enough target, or should we change it?

[Toni Schweitzer]

I haven't thought deeply on this issue because it falls so outside the work that we do in my office and in other legal aid clinics. I certainly think that the original target of 5,000 was completely unacceptable. I believe the target is now 10,000. I think upping it to 20,000 would be a good idea.

I think the idea that parents and grandparents are simply a drain on our system is a complete misconception of the way families work. Allowing in the family that's going to help in looking after children and in doing a lot of the things that will free up the parents to work and contribute economically is very significant. I would say at least 20,000....

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

In your opinion, what are the greatest barriers to family reunification through Canada's immigration program?

[Toni Schweitzer]

How much time do you want to give me?

I think there are many. I think the current test for assessing a genuine marriage is a big problem. I think that the conditional permanent residence is a problem, although I know there is a commitment to do away with that. I think this committee should expand what it is looking at beyond sponsorships. You have been hearing about live-in caregivers. Those are not sponsorships, so maybe you are looking beyond a strict sponsorship. You should be looking at the families of protected persons or refugees as well. Those cases are taking an inordinately long period of time, and families are being destroyed in the process. I think there are problems with policy around parents and grandparents, which you've also heard about. I think there are problems with refusing families who have disabled children. I think that is an egregious problem and needs rectification.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I think it's all going to balance if we bring in about 300,000 immigrants a year in all the different classes. We bring in so many from each class, I think about 20,000 or 10,000. It's all about a balancing act.

What is your opinion on raising the age of dependent kids from 18 or 19 to 22 or 24? Any suggestions on what that should be?

[Toni Schweitzer]

I certainly think that under 19 is not appropriate. I would be in favour of raising it to 24 if that's on the table. I don't know if the government is considering that. Certainly, back to 22, absolutely. I see families in my office all the time who are devastated that their children, who in all ways are still dependent on them—and in some cultures an unmarried child will remain with their parents until they are married—are being told they can't come. This idea that children are independent at the age of 19 is simply not necessarily true in our culture. I don't know if you have a 19-year-old, but they're often not terribly independent. Certainly in other cultures the idea that at 19 your child is living an independent life is simply wrong.

For those families it is devastating, and it affects them beyond their emotional well-being.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Twenty seconds.

[Toni Schweitzer]

It affects their ability to be functioning, contributing members of our society, too, if they're worried about their family back home. I would support raising it to 24.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Ms. Kwan, you have seven minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much for your presentation. I'd like to ask a question about overall immigration levels, because a lot of the challenges that we face around delays in processing and limitations with respect to processing are tied to immigration levels as well as resources in processing. Would you agree that the immigration levels need to be increased versus, then, what it is right now, which is about 300,000, 340,000 or so applications that are being processed?

[Toni Schweitzer]

I would agree.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Some people have talked about a comment about a 1% of total overall population to be the targeted number, so that would bring us to about 400,000.

[Toni Schweitzer]

Again, I have not looked deeply at the issue of what the appropriate levels would be for immigration. I don't know that I could speak with any particular authority on the issue. I do agree that we could and should raise them. I think we are a country that needs immigrants, and I think that we, and you, have heard already from a number of people that the various categories of immigration....and it's not correct to say that some are an economic benefit and some are just about family reunification. It's much more complicated than that. When families are well and healthy and happy, they contribute more. I think that the economic well-being of the country is well served by healthy immigration even in the family category.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

In a previous panel there was some discussion about paragraph 117(9)(d), so this is related to people declaring children and then not declaring children. The suggestion was to repeal this paragraph...thought it was unfair for a whole variety of different reasons. I think you were here to hear that presentation, so I wonder whether or not you have some comments about that.

[Toni Schweitzer]

I would agree with what was said earlier today. The paragraph can operate very unfairly without any ability to assess why somebody may have not indicated a child on their forms, and it does operate then to permanently bar a sponsorship, and the only option is a humanitarian application, which is a discretionary decision, and therefore it is a very uncertain remedy.