Thank you for inviting me. I'm here to talk to you about one provision in the regulations and particularly section 117(9)(d). This provision defines who is not in the family class and therefore persons who are not eligible to be sponsored by a permanent resident or a citizen of Canada through the imposition of a lifetime ban on sponsorship.
This provision does not apply to refugees only but everyone who wants to bring family to Canada.
We are told that this rule aims to protect the integrity of the immigration system by preventing misrepresentation in family reunification. Under this rule, if an applicant does not disclose the existence of a family member at the time of their immigration application, irrespective of whether they came as a refugee or economic migrant, they are subject to a lifetime ban and can never sponsor that family member, even if they are genuine family members.
When a law purports to combat a problem, many of us take for granted that it is doing so effectively and also that it is not harming people.
When we are talking about section 117(9)(d), the research that I and some others have conducted shows a completely different picture. There are five reasons why section 117(9)(d) should be repealed.
First, the evidence shows that the problem of fraud in family reunification is benign. And looking at the reasons for non-disclosure and non-examination, 90% of cases that had section 117(9)(d) applied to them had nothing to do with fraud but involved tragic and heartbreaking reasons. There are five general headings of reasons why people don't disclose their family members. The first is misunderstanding, the second is failure to update an application, the third is fear of exposure, the fourth is lack of knowledge or bad advice, and the fifth is lack of awareness a child existed at the time.
Second, the provision does not provide any discretion or flexibility on the part of the decision-maker to exclude cases where fraud is clearly not an issue. And while the government has pointed to alternative remedies such as humanitarian and compassionate assessments, our research reveals a disturbing finding that this option is applied unevenly. At best, the option provides relief to only half of the 90% not engaged in fraudulent activity. Further, where relief is given, it means repeated attempts through multiple applications, appeals, and therefore extremely lengthy separation, not to mention the high costs of legal support.
In our research, approximately 45% of successful cases had to wait five years or more to be reunited with family. We have observed one ongoing case waiting for 16 years and counting.
Third, this exclusion clause has prevented families from reuniting with their children, despite the best interests of the child clearly being reunification.
Fourth, the regulation not only imposes family separation, but also places a chill on persons seeking to bring their family to Canada. This is because applicants fear they will lose their status when they submit an application and where the regulation applies.
Finally, the immigration system already has in place tried-and-true mechanisms for dealing with misrepresentation. This can be found in section 40 of the act.
For all these reasons, the status quo is not acceptable. The law as it's stated now is overbroad, arbitrary, and harsh. The provision is simply not needed, given that the problem of fraud is overblown and mechanisms are already in place to deal with misrepresentation. Not only does this exclusion clause erode the humanitarian and compassionate objective of reunifying families provided by the act, the provision does extreme harm by permanently separating genuine family members. It penalizes vulnerable individuals, including children, with the pain of separation for a lifetime.
Thank you.