Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 20th, 2017

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

The way we have approached this is to have an assessment based on our relationship with both countries and with the European Union broadly. We didn't tie one to the other. We didn't tie the visa lift to CETA, but we have approached this issue as being one that should be looked at through the calculation of the importance of our relationship with both Bulgaria and Romania and with the European Union in general.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

It would be a shame if CETA is affected as a result of that voting, Mr. Minister.

What is the status of the review of the visa policy framework?

[Richard Wex]

As the minister indicated in his opening remarks, the Prime Minister in his mandate letter to the minister asked that a review of the visa policy framework be undertaken and that review is now being initiated. It is part of the standard practice to take a look on a regular basis at the approach, the criteria, and the manner in which we go about imposing or lifting visas. That is what we will be undertaking over the course of the rest of this mandate.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

How will it impact the situation with respect to Romania and Bulgaria?

[Richard Wex]

At the end of the day, although we'll take a look at the approach going forward with respect to the visa policy framework, decisions that have already been taken have been taken. I cannot see how the review of our approach to considering visa lifts or the imposition of visas would have any impact on decisions that have been taken by the government with respect to the lifting of the visas for Bulgaria or Romania.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, a number of items from the minister's predecessor's mandate letter went unfulfilled, including the establishing of an expert human rights panel on designated countries of origin, reforms related to caregivers with respect to eliminating the $1,000 labour market impact assessment, and organizing a system of regulated companies to hire caregivers on behalf of families.

Are you able to tell us, Mr. Minister, why these were not achieved?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

First of all, just as a major point of clarification, any item that was in my predecessor's mandate letter remains a priority for me and for my department. I want to clarify that.

On the DCO countries, as we just discussed, that matter is still under review. When it comes to caregivers the lead ministry is ESDC. We, obviously, have a role to play in that file. My department official has just spoken to you about the two new categories under the caregiver program that have resulted in a processing time of three months or less.

We're obviously attacking the backlog from the existing caregiver program. That's my response to your question.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

So you're working on it.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Yes, and all the items in the previous mandate letter continue to be important to us. We haven't abandoned anything.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

With respect to the 2017 levels plan how has the department been coping with the existing backlogs already in the system?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

May I ask if you can be more specific, the backlog in which stream of immigration?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

All streams.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I'll let my officials be more specific than I can, but I can tell you that there has been a lot of success in some of the streams in not only reducing but sometimes dramatically reducing the processing times in the backlog and the inventory, but for the remaining streams that have backlogs and issues around volume that's also ongoing work.

There has been a lot of success, dramatic reductions, but also we're continuing to attack the existing inventory.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

You have 20 seconds.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Minister.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I hope you're enjoying yourself today.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I am now.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Tilson.

Ms. Kwan, you have seven minutes, please.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to follow up on a budget question with respect to the live-in care workers program, those who are actually in the system waiting for years and years and years for their application to be processed.

Your predecessor, Minister, had said that of the $25 million allocated for processing spousal and fast-tracking spousal applications, none of that money will be allocated for the live-in caregiver program, not one cent of it. Is there any money in the budget here in the supplementaries, because I don't see it and I don't see it in the main estimates as well, that would put special allocation of dollars to deal with the backlog, not the new applications but the backlog, of the people who have been waiting in some cases 10 years to be reunited with their children?

[Robert Orr]

Perhaps I can respond to that.

The fact that the levels have gone up to 300,000, and include a significant number for live-in caregivers, with 18,000, being the target for this year, indicates.... Some of that money does indeed come out of this money being discussed today. That allows us to move forward and to reduce the backlog. As I've said, the backlog has come down 46% since the end of 2014, and with the continued high levels, we continue to bring it down.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

How much money is being dedicated to reduce the backlog? That's additional money then, if I could have that specific figure.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I can answer that question.

Part of reducing backlogs and providing resources is to create allocations. Those allocations come with a resource commitment from our part. With higher levels there are more expenditures. That tells you that those extra allocations mean we are prepared to put resources behind it.

I can't give you a specific figure, but it is a priority for us and we are tackling the backlog. The new streams are resulting in much faster processing times.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Minister, with the exception though that for spousal sponsorships there are dedicated amounts of new monies. Your predecessor stated as much as $25 million. In this stream, I don't see a line item that specifically says that. What you're talking about overall, I get it. Overall that applies to everything, but there is no dedicated amount of money to deal with the backlog.

I urge the minister to talk to the families who are impacted by this. Families are breaking up because they have not reunited with their children and spouses. Why? Because they've come here to take care of our children in Canada. That is the reality. I'll park that there.

I'm going to move on to the safe third country agreement issue. Has the department undertaken a legal analysis with respect to the safe third country agreement? On March 10 a report was prepared by 845 of Canada's law students from 22 Canadian law schools across the country, involving 3,143 hours of legal research. They released their conclusion, and it stated that the safe third country agreement needed to be suspended.

They go on to say that Canada is in breach of the Canadian charter, and that it violates the fundamental rights of asylum seekers, who in Canada have been refused in accordance with the agreement. This finding happens to match up with the Harvard law school's finding with respect to that. They raise a number of issues, and I will put this on the record. The report echos Harvard's finding that the U.S. is in violation of the non-refoulement principle in the 1951 refugee convention. The report further states:

The right to non-refoulement also falls under Canada’s domestic obligations under section 7 of the Charter which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

They also state this is also recognized by the Supreme Court. The report goes on to say that if an asylum seeker is denied entry based on the safe third country agreement, and if that individual is then “refouled” by the United States, Canada has committed indirect refoulement by refusing entry. The document goes on to raise the de facto U.S. practice of punitive measures for asylum seekers, who are then subject to human rights violations and not given adequate access to legal counsel. This amounts to a violation of the 1951 refugee convention.

As a result of all of this, it therefore is a violation of our own rights in sections 7 and 9 of the Canadian charter. To quote their document again:

By returning asylum seekers coming from the United States to that country, the government of Canada is complicit and responsible for this mistreatment of refugees. Such action is in contravention of the Charter and therefore contrary to Canada’s constitutional obligations towards asylum seekers.

Based on the legal arguments that have been advanced by both of these reports, has your department undertaken a legal opinion with respect to this, and if so, will you make that public?