Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 27th, 2020

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and allow me to also thank the witnesses for appearing today.

By the way, I recognize that the five-minute opening statements do not provide a lot of time, but I do hope that you'll have an opportunity during the questions and answers to cover the material that you would like to cover, although I know that even an hour is not very long. That's the nature of this work, I'm afraid.

Dr. Poon, speaking of the five minutes, you were talking at the very end about your internal tracking and what happened after October 15. Could you complete that part, please? I'd like to hear the rest of that.

[Dr. David Edward-Ooi Poon]

Thank you very much for your time.

People who have applied after October 15 have been processed quite fast. We've seen times of as short as six days. If anything, all those people in the first few days, if they reapplied, would probably be processed faster.

The conflicting message is this. IRCC has told us not to reapply. We will slow down every single person. We are following the rules. To the first people who were given a broken form, they said do not worry; we'll take care of you.

Well, the fact is they followed the rules; they followed the forms, and they were not treated with the 14-day promised turnaround time. That is our major concern. However, if you applied after October 15, our internal tracking shows that you're pretty good, and we do thank the ministry workers for putting that together.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Are you aware of what changed in relation to that length of time?

[Dr. David Edward-Ooi Poon]

If I were to speculate, I would say the first two or three days of applications have been lost on the computer system. The rollout was [Technical difficulty—Editor]. While I thank the ministry for pulling this new system together, the new system must work on day one, and I was reassured that first-day applicants would not be adversely punished. I do believe they have been adversely punished in this scenario, and this speaks to a wider issue of needing immigration reform.

If there were an upgraded IT system for IRCC, the ministry workers would be able to help us much better. I do believe the ministry workers have the best intentions. I do not believe they have the right tools.

We need a systemic reform that is very transparent and trackable for applications.

If you were to ask me straight out why this was the case after the 15th, my best guess would be that the initial applications were lost, but on the 15th the system was working, and so everyone after the 15th has been treated exactly as they're supposed to be.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Let me ask you about your suggestions on how to accelerate the process for reunification.

You've talked, of course, about the IT system; maybe that'll be the focus of your comments and perhaps you have other suggestions, but maybe there are other things you would like to focus on.

[Dr. David Edward-Ooi Poon]

Thank you for the opportunity.

The IT system is a huge ask, but we do believe it is necessary to bring Canada into a new generation of a post-COVID world, in which immigration helps Canadians and is accessible to Canadians.

We also suggest the following. We need an ombudsman to operate for the people when it comes to IRCC and CBSA issues. There is currently no independent oversight of those two bodies.

At the moment, Faces of Advocacy has taken that role, so I'm very grateful that we've had high-level conversations with people working at the ministry of IRCC, and well as Health and CBSA and Public Safety.

However, it should not require the strength of a 9,000-person grassroots movement led by a guy with a gaming headset in order to get justice for these people. It should be done in a manner that is easily accessible to the public, and this ombudsman is how we could deliver that transparency. That is something that I have a lot of ideas on, and on which I can get more information.

When it comes to making the system better overall, CBSA has a mandate to be transparent, and right now the only system we have for any communication by the general public is to email an inbox that already has, according to IRCC, 17,000 requests in it.

If we have an urgent thing, if Donna McCall's children needed to see her before she died, this is an ineffective system that needs to be overhauled.

Everything comes down to infrastructure and resources, and that is what the Faces of Advocacy will be [Technical difficulty-Editor].

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, how long do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You have one minute and 50 seconds.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I was hoping to ask Ms. Desloges about the situation at the border.

Obviously, there have been unprecedented challenges at borders, not just for Canada, but for other countries around the world. I know the government has tried to move as quickly as possible to assist international students. I'm aware that since August, they've introduced temporary measures for students to study abroad, with no time deducted from the length of the future post-grad work permit.

Do you think what they've done there is an appropriate balance between maintaining public health safety and trying not to penalize international students?

[Chantal Desloges]

I'd say it's an appropriate step, but I don't think it has struck a balance yet.

In preparation for today, I canvassed one of my colleagues who is an international student recruitment agent. What she was telling me is that there are still a lot of courses where universities and colleges require an in-person component. For example, there's lab work, or there are specific co-op requirements or something like that. These students are really being left out in the cold, because they can't complete all of their studies online even if they wanted to.

She was also telling me that the government is now moving towards this system where certain colleges, universities and other schools are either approved or not approved to receive international students, even if they're a designated learning institution. One example she gave me was of a person who has paid $78,000 in tuition for a very prestigious private school and is now unsure whether they are even going to be able to come to Canada at all.

I would further point out that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Desloges. The time is up. We will have to move to Ms. Normandin.

Ms. Normandin, you have six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I, too, want to sincerely thank the witnesses on the panel for their participation in our study.

My first questions are for Ms. Desloges about the issuing of temporary visas in sponsorship cases.

I'd like you to comment on the reasons that are usually given for denying someone a visa when they are the subject of a sponsorship application.

[Chantal Desloges]

Sure. I'm happy to elaborate on that.

With the visitor visa, the legal test is whether the person will return home after they're finished visiting Canada. Anything about their situation, whether it's something to do with their attributes or with their behaviour, that might suggest they have no motivation to go back home after their visit is going to be a problem. You can imagine that when someone is married to a Canadian and wants to come to visit their spouse or common-law partner in Canada, one of the main suspicions in the mind of the officer is the motivation for them to go back home after their visit.

In the law, there is this concept called “dual intention”, which means that you can have a long-term intention to remain in Canada permanently but simultaneously have a short-term, legitimate intention to visit and go home while you're waiting for your paperwork to process.

I think this concept of dual intention is not very well used when it comes to spousal, common-law or conjugal relationships. It works very well for parents, for other types of relationships. However, there's something about the spousal relationship that makes officers disbelieve that the person is going to go back to their country, even when they have excellent ties to their home country, even when they have children they might be leaving behind in order to make that visit to Canada.

Something really needs to be done about that situation, because it creates so much pain for people.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

You must have anticipated one of my other questions. I actually wanted to hear your take on how subsection 22(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is being applied. In practice, I don't think it is being applied correctly in sponsorship cases. Am I correct to think that?

[Chantal Desloges]

If you're talking about dual intention, it's not exactly that it's not correctly applied; it's that they are very miserly with its application. You can't say that there's anything legally wrong, it's just that they're so suspicious and the tendency is to just refuse and refuse. I was saying earlier that one of my colleagues called it the “kiss of death” if the person you're coming to visit in Canada happens to be your spouse or common-law partner.

Systemically, I think there are some issues too. People who are visa exempt for Canada, who when they come to the border have exactly the same legal test as everyone else, seem to have a much easier go of convincing an officer of dual intention; whereas a person from a visa-required country has a much more difficult time persuading an officer that they have a genuine intention to go back home after the visit.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

As far as supporting documentation goes, whether it be proof of employment, proof of income or proof of emotional or family ties to their home country, when the person is denied the visa, do you think the reasons are adequate?

Do you think the degree of procedural fairness is adequate when the person is denied the visa?

Are the reasons adequately explained, or is section 179 merely cited?

Would you say the documents people provide are properly consulted?

[Chantal Desloges]

That's an interesting question.

The refusal letter an applicant receives is a generic format letter, with some boxes ticked off saying, “We don't believe you're going to return home at the end of your visit.” They give you some generic reasons, which very seldom shed any light on what's actually at play.

To get the real reasons, you need to order a copy of the computer notes from the decision-maker to see what the actual rationale is.

May I say that those decisions are often very easy to challenge in Federal Court because they lack justification and transparency. It often seems that the officers have not properly reviewed all of the documentation, or maybe did it in a hurried manner. When they've listed the reasons, they've failed to really justify, with a logical analysis, why they've reached that conclusion.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Aside from exempting visa applicants who are being sponsored from the application of subsection 179(b) altogether, would it be a step in the right direction to make it mandatory to provide the reasons for denying the visa and explain why each piece of supporting documentation was not accepted?

[Chantal Desloges]

They do have an obligation to justify every refusal. It's just that they don't have to tell you right away what that justification is. If you were to take it to court, yes, the judge is going to look at whether that decision was properly motivated. I'm not sure whether it would make a difference if the officer had to give that justification off the top to every single person. They are really under a lot of time constraints.

One good idea that one of my colleagues suggested is that they should allow the posting of bonds for people. If there's a doubt as to whether they're going to go home after their visit, why not allow for the posting of a substantial financial bond to guarantee they're going to go home?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I think I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Your time is up. Thank you.

We will now move to Ms. Kwan. You have six minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for your really excellent presentations.

I just want to build on Ms. Desloge's comments with respect to dual intent and TRVs, and the times that people are often simply rejected. With respect to that, what are her thoughts on the government embarking on providing a special temporary visa for those who have a sponsorship application in place?

[Chantal Desloges]

That's interesting, because I had given that subject some thought in preparation for today. Why do we have a super visa, for example, for parents and grandparents, who may or may not be in the sponsorship process, and we don't have anything really similar to that for spouses?

If you're sponsoring your mother to Canada, it's usually not that difficult to get a visa for your mother to visit you while her sponsorship is going on; yet if that person is your spouse, there seems to be this real recalcitrance with granting that request. It doesn't seem to make any logical sense because, if you're sponsoring your spouse, the last thing you want to do is to make a mess of your case by violating immigration law and then putting your sponsorship in jeopardy.

Does it require a special type of visa? Maybe additional clarifications in terms of policy.... A super visa itself, actually, is not a special type of visa. It really is just a temporary resident visa with specific conditions and extra leniency attached to it.

Something like that could be developed for spouses as well. If the minister were to say to officers that he wants a little bit of extra consideration for spouses, and to take X, Y and Z into account the way they do with super visas, that could be a very good solution, in fact.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much. That's exactly what I was thinking—having a similar special visa like that of the parents and grandparents super visa concept.

Just building on this, I have a boatload of cases of people stuck in the system. Mr. Ojo, you talked about a certificate of PR. People actually cannot get their certificate of PR and now are stuck in limbo. I even had constituents who had to leave the country because they could not get their certificate, and without that certificate, they could not get a work permit. On and on the loop goes.

With respect to that, I called on the government to honour biometrics, and they finally just began to move in that direction. Would your suggestion, then, be for the government to honour the previous certificate of PR so that people could move forward with their application without being stuck?

[David Ojo]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

If I got your question correctly, you are asking about the certificate that would allow a spouse [Technical difficulty—Editor] to migrate to Canada, right? I think it's okay, but most importantly, these [Technical difficulty—Editor] who are currently exempt really need the travel authorization letter. That would allow—