Thank you for inviting me to testify.
In my time I will address two issues that touch the core of the lives of many thousands of immigrant women: conditional permanent residence for sponsored spouses; and the unacceptable delays in processing the permanent resident applications of live-in caregivers.
This committee has recently heard from Minister McCallum that the government is planning to move forward with the regulatory amendments to eliminate conditional permanent residence for spouses. This issue is very close to my heart because I have seen first-hand in my office women who are suffering through making the awful decision of remaining in abuse or living with the fear that they may lose their status in Canada.
I will make three points on this issue. First, what we should do right now, even before amendments are passed into regulation; second, what is required in the amendment; and third, the kind of education that will be required to implement this change effectively.
We must act now, even before regulatory change comes into effect. This measure has been in place for four years. We know women are staying in abusive relationships because of it. If the government is committed to eliminating it, it can take a number of actions right away.
On a daily basis, people enter Canada as permanent residents and are told their status is conditional on living with their spouse in a conjugal relationship for two years. We should not allow for one more woman to believe that she must endure abuse or risk losing her status. Officials should be providing a letter on arrival explaining that no action will be taken against them if they breach the conditional requirement.
Second, IRCC and CBSA could issue an operational bulletin directing that investigations be halted on breaches of conditional permanent residence requirement. As to the content of the regulatory amendment, the amendment has to be the elimination of the conditional category altogether. The minister has said this is what he will be proposing. Nothing short of this can be accepted.
The amendment also has to deal with retroactivity. No one should have to live with the perpetual fear that they could be reported for having breached the condition in the past. This fear of reporting is a tool used by abusers. We should be able to tell our clients that without a doubt they will not be subjected to an investigation for breaching this condition.
Lastly, the damage of this provision is not cured simply by changing the law. The idea that you must live with your spouse for two years is now very ingrained in communities and I have no doubt that the legend of conditional permanent residence will continue. To be effective, this type of change requires a serious multilingual communication strategy that makes it clear that the government is not requiring you to live with your spouse to maintain your status.
On another topic, I would be remiss not to state to a committee studying family reunification that something must be done to deal with the totally unacceptable backlog of processing for permanent resident applications of live-in caregivers. I checked yesterday; the average processing time is 51 months, so four and a half years. This is after they've already been separated from their spouse and children fulfilling the two-year work requirement.
For other economic categories, it's six months. The requirements are the same: medical and criminal checks, and examination of overseas dependants.
I heard Minister McCallum say to this committee that there would be a general effort to reduce the backlog but the focus would be on nuclear family sponsorships, and not on the caregiver category. If we value this program, we have to do something about it. The backlog is at a point where it requires a targeted effort.
Thank you.