Evidence of meeting #33 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON
In your opinion, what are the greatest barriers to family reunification through Canada's immigration program? What are the main barriers? What information can we collect?
The idea is to listen to you, collect the information, write the report. What are the barriers? Anybody can take this one.
4 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer and Law Professor, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I'll just add two other things. Other than 117(9)(d), the two other issues that I didn't have time to talk about are the definition of biological child and the use of DNA to test this. There needs to be a greater understanding, given technology and our understanding of families today. We need to relook at the definition of a biological child.
The other thing is that it is my that understanding that IRCC has scaled back on the kind of data it's providing on the processing of family reunification or sponsorship applications, especially regional information. There should be a greater access to this kind of information so that persons working in the field can assess the disparities and any issues that need to be taken up.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON
Most of you talk about sponsorship and that two years' residency should be removed. How many cases do we see or do we hear?
4:05 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
I don't have the exact number, but I can tell you that I frequently have women in my office who are in this situation, where they have to make this decision about whether or not....
Even though there is an exception for violence, it's ineffective because they still have to apply for the exceptions. They would have to notify an immigration official that they are leaving the relationship and are applying for the exception. Many would rather, as one person said, do their time in the abusive relationship and not risk losing their status.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Settlement Counsellor, Working Women Community Centre
I believe they need the police records when a person informs the IRCC. I don't think a letter from a social worker or a family member is sufficient for them, so yes, there is that added stress. Many of them don't have police records. As I mentioned before, they don't want to get the police involved. It is a very unfair policy.
4:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
I would just echo that. It's very unfair, and in a way quite unsavoury, in that it seems to put a spouse's immigration status in Canada in the hands of her or his Canadian spouse, which I don't think sends a great message. I've spent years trying to tell new immigrants, especially women, that it's not like it is back home, that their husbands can't get them deported, and that they have rights in Canada as women. With this provision, it seems as if we are right back in the days, when I have to tell them, “No, your husband could actually get you deported. It's not up to you; you don't have status unless he says you do.”
4:05 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Jenny Kwan
Thank you very much.
The rotation now comes to me for seven minutes, and then to Mr. Ehsassi for seven minutes. I am starting the clock.
I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their presentations. You have all raised very important points.
I'll just follow up with respect to paragraph 117(9)(d). Am I assuming correctly that the call is for the government to repeal this section of the act? Ms. Liew, go ahead.
4:05 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer and Law Professor, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes, exactly. In my mind, this is the only way to remedy the problem of 117(9)(d). Effectively, it is an exclusion provision, and it automatically applies, regardless of the reason and regardless of whether the family member is a genuine family member, which I think is behind the premise of why this was put in place to begin with. If we are talking about a provision that is supposed to be effectively carrying out the government's objective of protecting the integrity of the immigration system and ensuring that only genuine family members are coming into our system, it's failing completely, because it is barring people for a lifetime from bringing their family members over. The only remedy, I think, is to get rid of it completely.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Jenny Kwan
Thank you very much.
My next question is for Ms. Wells and Ms. Sadrehashemi.
Both of you raised the issue of the live-in care workers, and particularly the delays in processing family reunification. I often have this question in my own mind. If they are good enough to work here, are they good enough to stay? Why are they temporary foreign workers, really, to begin with? I wonder whether you can comment on that.
In the interim, until perhaps the policies change, what can we do? A special measure was talked about. What should that special measure look like?
Ms. Wells, go ahead.
4:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
It's a very good question. Why are they temporary foreign workers, when the whole program is geared toward giving them permanent residence? A very salutary change that happened several years ago was trying to take away the uncertainty of the temporary work aspect. The whole program is geared to working, and once you work, you automatically get permanent residence.
I actually haven't given any thought to how a program that doesn't call them temporary foreign workers might look, so I defer to my colleague.
October 20th, 2016 / 4:10 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
In a way, they have. They have made some amendments now, as of two years ago, to bring them into a permanent resident stream, with serious—
4:10 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Jenny Kwan
In that instance, they have to wait two years before they bring in their families, before they submit the application. I am suggesting, why not just bring them in as permanent residents right from the get-go, instead of making them wait two years?
4:10 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
I would leave that to the committee to decide, but I don't see anything wrong with that. I can't see any downside to it. It would serve the needs of these immigrants, mostly women, coming in. It's one of the few programs that were, at least at one time, open to them.
4:10 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
I agree. I think that, if we value them as workers, we should make sure they are actually able to be permanent residents of Canada. Even if you look at other programs, such as the Canadian experience class—which does require one year of work, so it's very similar—you'll see that their applications for permanent residence are processed in six months. That's the average processing time. Because they are allowed to bring their spouses on accompanied work permits, they are not separated from their families, whereas live-in caregivers are separated from their families while they are doing their work requirement, and then on top of that, their processing takes eight times longer, and during that time they are not with their families.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Jenny Kwan
In the meantime, perhaps until large policies change, in terms of a special measure, what would you say needs to be done?
4:10 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
There has to be targeted effort at reducing the backlog. The 51 months is just totally unacceptable.
That's why I was quite surprised to hear that, even though we're looking at reducing the backlog, the only main focus is on the nuclear family sponsorship, when for live-in caregivers the wait is 51 months, four and a half years. That's not going to go away unless there are special targeted efforts made to reduce it.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Jenny Kwan
The processing takes such a long time that there are times when people's medical tests have already expired, and then they have to go through them again, which is onerous and expensive and, of course, sometimes the health condition of people changes as well. There are situations where children, particularly if they have some sort of disability, could also become a “hindrance”—and I use the word hindrance in quotes—for the family's application in that process. So much of that is dependent on how well you can make the arguments.
I wonder if you can shed some light on that because I've come across families who have run into this huge challenge, and they cannot reunite with their families through the live-in caregiver program.
4:10 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
If you think of the length of the separation, you're looking at at least six years and likely more, so lots of things happen to families in that time. Children grow up, and they could have other medical issues arise, definitely.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Jenny Kwan
Thank you.
In terms of the conditional requirements for spousal sponsorship, the issue around abuse is ever real for people in those situations. In terms of a remedy with respect to that, can you share with us what the committee should be recommending to the government in addressing that issue specifically?
Ms. Sadrehashemi.
4:10 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
First, the regulations have to be amended to get rid of it completely, nothing short of that, and it has to be retroactive so that women don't have to constantly live in that fear.
Also, as I've said, there have to be measures taken right now while we're waiting for the regulations because of the high risk of this provision that's been in place for four years. That's why I say that right now the thing you could do is, if we're going to get rid of it—and we've said that we're getting rid of it—then every day when people come in, and we tell them they're conditional permanent residents, we should also be telling them that we're not going to be enforcing this condition against them.
We should also have an operation bulletin that says clearly there are not going to be investigations of these breaches.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Jenny Kwan
On siblings, regarding the definition, I'm asking the question to Ms. Nunes.
Oh, I'm sorry, the seven minutes are up. Maybe someone else will ask that question.
Mr. Ehsassi, you have seven minutes.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Thank you.
I also want to thank all the witnesses. The topics that have come up today have been incredibly helpful.
I will start off my questioning with Ms. Sadrehashemi.
You have pointed out that for sponsorship there are long waiting times and that we do have a need for a targeted effort. I've heard the Minister of Immigration speak to that issue on numerous occasions, how that happens to be one of his priorities. I wonder whether you as a practising lawyer have seen any discernible change in wait times over the course of the past year.