Evidence of meeting #4 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was applications.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Mr. Serré. Your time is up.
Ms. Normandin, you have six minutes.
3:30 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses. What I've heard so far will already provide us with some good things to think about for the report we'll produce.
My questions will mainly be for Mr. Cliche-Rivard and Ms. Valois.
Could you tell us about the main reasons given when an application for a visitor's visa application is refused?
3:30 p.m.
President, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
Thank you very much for the question.
First of all, very often it's the links with the country of origin that are involved, as well as previous trips. The immigration officer's opinion is that the individual hasn't demonstrated that they will return to the country of origin at the end of the authorized period. This may be based on family ties, ties to the country of origin, employment prospects, or other socio-economic factors in the country of origin. This is essentially what immigration officers refer to when they indicate that, in their opinion, the individual isn't going to return to the country at the end of the authorized period.
3:30 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
When it's believed that an applicant won't return to their country after the expiry of the visa, do you think there are sufficient reasons for the refusal?
3:30 p.m.
President, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
Not at all. In this regard, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada or the embassy sends standard forms in which boxes are checked off. Essentially, there is nothing personalized. It's a laundry list, on which factors that apply or do not apply are checked off to explain the refusal. Details aren't given as to the evaluation criteria. If they make an access to information request, they will ultimately receive a response that will fit on a line or two at most, and that will be the personalized analysis of the refusal of their application. This is minimal compared to the time, energy and effort these people put into their applications.
3:30 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Could we make a recommendation that the refusals be more justified?
3:30 p.m.
President, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
This would even be necessary, especially since the Supreme Court, in the Vavilov decision last December, determined that the agents' analysis really had to be followed, that is to say that its reasoning had to be followed. We're hearing more and more about cases going all the way to the Federal Court, where decisions are then overturned by the judges, who feel that the analysis isn't sufficient or sound enough.
From this perspective, having more justified decisions would benefit both the public system and the courts. Also, I think people would have a greater sense of justice if they at least felt that their case had been read, which is not the case for most people right now.
3:30 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much.
This brings me to my next question, which is precisely about the criteria that the government has just announced regarding the analysis of visa applications in the context where the applicant also has a sponsorship application under consideration. Among these criteria, we see that links in the country of origin and the fact that there is a sponsorship application must be considered. However, there are no details as to how these criteria will be analyzed or how they will weigh in the balance.
Would having more detail on how these criteria will be analyzed be of benefit to you as a lawyer or to the applicant when preparing visa applications? Would it help you write them better?
3:35 p.m.
Administrator, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
Allow me to answer that question.
Indeed, it is always difficult to prove an applicant's intention to come to Canada. In the absence of a clear procedure or instructions given to immigration officers, we fear the return of the old way of doing things, meaning refusing visa applications made by people who have an application for permanent residence under consideration.
At this time, it's almost impossible for a refugee protection claimant's family to visit them in Canada. Of course, the applicant can't return to their country of origin while their application for permanent residence is being processed. I've never seen a refugee protection claimant being able to welcome their children while their application is being processed. As I mentioned earlier, this can take years.
So we think there should be a positive presumption against the claimants. Unless there's a barrier or admissibility problem, factors related to the application for temporary residence should be positively considered.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Am I to understand that you would welcome, for example, a reversal of the burden of proof on visas?
3:35 p.m.
Administrator, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
Yes, that would be a great idea. At the moment, our experience with immigration officers isn't very positive. So the new criteria are welcome. However, they remain so vague that, in our opinion, the applicant's intention will always be evaluated in the same way, meaning the visa application will be refused, since the double intention is extremely difficult to demonstrate.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
On the issue of the reversal of the burden of proof, we often hear from people with a sponsorship application under consideration that they don't want to risk damaging their sponsorship application by applying for a visa for which they would not meet the conditions.
Should this also play a role in facilitating the granting of visitor visas to people who are the subject of a sponsorship application?
3:35 p.m.
Administrator, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
Of course. In fact, when there is a sponsorship application, it must be demonstrated that the relationship is in good faith. In our view, it would be much easier to allow the person to come to Canada to join their Canadian spouse, so that they can see if the climate is right for them, understand how it works in Canada, consider employment or educational opportunities, and see if the relationship can actually work in the Canadian context.
Mr. Sharma was talking about the visa for fiancés, which we saw at the beginning of our practice. I think it's actually a good idea for applicants to let people come to Canada, pending the decision on the application for permanent residence. People won't risk losing the opportunity to—
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Valois, but your time is up. We have to move to the next person.
Ms. Kwan, you have six minutes for your round of questioning.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their presentations.
I want to pick up first on the thread around the issue of a special temporary residence visa for those with spousal sponsorship applications in place. Do you think the government should in fact bring in a special visa in this context, similar to that of a parent or grandparent super visa, if you will, so that people can get an extended stay while they wait for their application to be processed?
I'd first like to go to Mr. Waldman on this question.
3:35 p.m.
Lawyer, Waldman & Associates, As an Individual
Yes, absolutely; I think that would be a very positive step. The super visa for grandparents has made it much easier for parents and grandparents to be issued visas, because the government has made it clear that this is the expectation. I don't see any reason why a similar type of visa could not be issued in the case of spouses. Right now, given the delays in processing due to the COVID pandemic, people are at risk of being separated from their spouses for years. This is completely unacceptable.
Short of making a very clear instruction, which could be done through, precisely, a special type of visa for spouses, the risk will always be there that for any spouse who applies for a visa, notwithstanding the instructions, the discretion of the officer will be such that they won't get it. That's not acceptable. People need the emotional support of their spouses in times of COVID. We see too many foreign nationals in Canada who are suffering from being separated from their loved ones. That has to be remedied.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
3:40 p.m.
Managing Partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, As an Individual
I would agree, but only where there's a sponsorship application, so only where you have a permanent resident or a Canadian citizen who is seeking to bring their spouse to Canada. I would not extend that special visa, for example, to the spouses of students or individuals here on a temporary foreign work permit. Australia and New Zealand went through this issue about “IELTS brides” as well.
I would concur with Mr. Waldman: for permanent resident and Canadian citizen sponsors only.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
3:40 p.m.
Administrator, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
We agree with Mr. Waldman.
I also believe we must broaden the concept, because Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada are not the only people who might apply for family reunification. As I said earlier, refugees who are accepted may also request that their family come to Canada. It's not a sponsorship per se, but it is family reunification. In addition, some permanent residents can apply on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
These individuals have waited a very long time to sponsor their families. It's extremely important that they be able to reunite with their family, at least temporarily, until they are granted permanent residence.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you so much.
I'll turn to the issue of dual intent and paragraph 179(b). It's true that on the government website there's a new posting that basically outlines dual intent and what it means. Really, that's how I see it; I don't see it as a directive in any way, shape or form. Therefore, it will still be very much subject to the interpretation and discretion of IRCC officials or agents.
If we know that dual intent is meant to allow for people to come and visit while the application is being processed, would it not make sense, really, in the case of those applications, for the government to suspend the use of paragraph 179(b) for spousal sponsorship?
Mr. Waldman, I wonder if I can get your thoughts on this.
3:40 p.m.
Lawyer, Waldman & Associates, As an Individual
Yes, I agree. It seems to me we need to do everything we can to facilitate reunification of spouses in Canada. Notwithstanding the direction, there still will be discretion. I've seen the discretion exercised in very different ways by different officers. Some are very generous. Some might have a stricter interpretation. Obviously, that will result in spouses being separated from their family members, which is not acceptable at any time, but during a time of COVID, when people need the emotional support because we're so isolated, it's really completely unacceptable.
I would agree with you that the memo was a good first step, but it's not enough. We need to suspend any barriers to allowing spouses to be reunited with their Canadian permanent residents or citizens or refugees who are in Canada.
3:40 p.m.
Administrator, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
Yes.
I agree with Mr. Waldman.
The issue of dual intent needs to be clarified in the policies, because in our experience, officers will [Technical difficulties].
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting. There is an interpretation issue. I've stopped the clock.
Ms. Kwan, you have 30 seconds after that, but let me get this checked.
Mr. Clerk, can you check to see if the interpretation is okay?