Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 6th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Valois, you are on mute.

[Stéphanie Valois, Administrator, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration]

I'm so sorry. It happens all the time.

As for me, I would like to draw the committee's attention to the problems associated with family reunification, which is a cornerstone of Canada's immigration system.

Family reunification comes together in different ways. It can involve a Canadian or permanent resident sponsoring a spouse, but also refugees or humanitarian and compassionate refugee protection claimants applying to be reunited with their family members. Unfortunately, there are problems for each of these categories, and these problems have been exacerbated by COVID-19.

Anyone who wants to be reunited with close family members—spouses and children—are forced to wait years before receiving a decision, when the process is opaque and difficult to follow.

Family separation is particularly difficult and has a significant impact on these future Canadians. For example, a refugee protection claimant can easily wait more than two years before receiving a decision from the IRB. It's only after this decision that the individual can include their dependents in their residency application, which can also take two years to be processed and accepted. Who can imagine being separated from their children and spouse for all those years?

During this period, it is impossible for family members to come to Canada on any type of visa, since these applications are systematically rejected, despite the notion of dual intent recognized in the act.

We believe that the government has the capacity to make the process more humane, faster and more transparent—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Valois, but your time is up. Maybe you will get an opportunity to talk more about it during the rounds of questioning.

For any witnesses who were not able to complete their testimony and want to submit something, you can send in a written submission to the committee and we will take it into consideration.

With this, I thank all the witnesses for their opening remarks. We will now move to the first round of questioning, for six minutes each.

Mr. Hallan, you have six minutes.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for coming today and sharing your thoughts and experiences.

I want to touch on some of the points that some speakers highlighted. We know this pandemic has brought many things to light.

I was always taught that work is work. Work carries a lot of dignity and honour, and we should recognize people's work as such. Now, as to whether work is defined as “skilled” or not, we've seen throughout this pandemic that industries such as some of the ones that were listed—transport, caregiving, manufacturing and processing—carry so much importance. Before the pandemic, they sometimes weren't given the respect they deserved. We've learned that not only is this work important and considered front-line work, as some mentioned, but it's also essential and saves lives.

Often, these front-line workers are temporary foreign workers. Currently, though, there doesn't seem to be a proper pathway for them. These front-line workers are good enough to be our neighbours and provide essential services, but when it comes to many of the challenges around obtaining a PR, there are so many obstacles for them—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Hallan, I'm sorry for interrupting. Can you move your microphone away from your mouth a bit? I think there is some buffering. The interpreters are having an issue.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Is this better?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes. Thank you.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

My question is for you, Mr. Sharma. By the way, that's a great-looking poster in the background there.

Given some of these challenges, in your own experience, what are some of these challenges these front-line workers are going through in obtaining PR status?

[Raj Sharma]

Thank you, sir.

In terms of permanent residency, the challenge is that the express entry or the federal immigration system prioritizes the economic class, and the economic class is restricted, more or less, to the so-called high-skilled individuals. Here, I just want to point out that in terms of “high-skilled” and “low-skilled”, I think the reality is that it's more like “low-wage” and “high-wage”. I think that's the actual discrepancy here.

The federal system is restricted to so-called high-skilled individuals in the national occupational classifications, NOC 0, A or B. A lot of these essential workers are in this no man's land of NOC C and D. You have transport drivers, for example. They're essential for logistics and our supply chain, but other than some select provincial nominee programs, they do not have access to a ready pathway for permanent residency.

Again, my concern is that we're treating these individuals—and I completely agree with you on the inherent dignity of work—like disposable workers, similar to what some of the Gulf States do, which is that they're good enough to come here and good enough to work here and contribute to programs they might not even have access to, such as EI or CPP, but then, at the end of their work, or whenever it's finished, it's just “go back home”.

I think that COVID-19 has exposed a moral obligation and responsibility. For whoever is taking care of us, we also should take care of them. I am proposing expanding the express entry to look at the NOC codes that these front-line essential workers are utilizing and allowing them a pathway to permanent residency.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you for that, Mr. Sharma.

Actually, that covered my second question, about what kind of pathway you see, theoretically, for them to obtain that status. Is there anything you want to add to that at all, in terms of that pathway?

[Raj Sharma]

Sir, in the past, pre-2012, there was a pass/fail Canadian experience class, again, restricted to skilled occupations, but the current system could easily be modified. Obviously this committee can't tell the provinces what to do, and different provinces will prioritize what they think is important.

I think it's a ready solution to use the existing express entry pathway, utilize those NOC codes and take care of those individuals who have been taking care of us.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Sharma, recently we heard the Liberal government announce that it would be bringing in about 1.2 million immigrants over the next three years. Given that there are already so many international students and temporary foreign workers here, instead of this government trying to hit, let's say, unrealistic quotas, doesn't it make more sense for us that we go to the lower-hanging fruit such as international students or temporary foreign workers, who, as we have seen, are so essential, and make the pathway easier for them to obtain a PR status? The processing is already halfway there and given that there are so many closures of offices around the world, would this not be lower-hanging fruit to go after?

[Raj Sharma]

I would agree. You have hundreds of thousands of individuals in Canada as temporary foreign workers, irrespective of their NOC codes or skill or low skill. You also have, of course, hundreds of thousands of international students. They are, indeed, low-hanging fruit.

That would seem to be where we should put our attention; however, the system that is set up right now makes it very difficult even for a graduate of a three-year program in Canada—let's say, someone who is 22 or 23 years old. Even with one year of skilled work experience in Canada and with good English, that person will never hit the points required for selection under express entry.

For example, the last draw just a couple of days ago was in the 470s. That will take out the vast majority of international graduates with a two-year diploma.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Sorry for interrupting you, Mr. Sharma, but your time is up. We will have to move to the next person.

Mr. Serré, you have six minutes for your round of questioning.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the four witnesses for their balanced approach to health and emotion, especially when it comes to family reunification. Initially, I wasn't sure what direction our discussion with four lawyers would take. In the end, I enjoyed the testimony.

My first question is for all the participants, but I will start with Mr. Waldman.

You mentioned the spousal reunification program. As I'm sure you know, last week we made some changes to the directives, giving the decision-making officers consideration of dual intent for spousal sponsorship applications.

Do you interpret this as a step in the right direction? What more can we do?

That's for Mr. Waldman and then for Mr. Sharma.

[Lorne Waldman]

I read the direction. Obviously it's certainly a step in the right direction, because otherwise many visa officers would refuse an application by a spouse outside of Canada to come to Canada and would say, “No, you're coming as an immigrant. You should do a sponsorship application and you won't get the visitor visa.”

Affirming the notion that there is dual intent is a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, I think there is still a significant risk that in a lot of cases people will still be refused since it still leaves the visa officers with the discretion to say, “Well, I know there is dual intent, but I'm sure you're going to apply for that permanent residence when you get there and I'm not going to give you the visa.”

That might be okay if processing were taking six months or eight months but now, because of COVID, processing is taking double or triple that. I think in those circumstances the minister has to send a much clearer directive to visa officers. We don't want spouses to be separated for years; that's not acceptable. We need to make sure they get together quickly and if they can't be processed outside, then we should let them come and be processed inside, unless there are admissibility concerns.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Waldman.

Mr. Sharma, do you have anything to add?

[Raj Sharma]

I welcome the changes to regulation 179(b).

It's interesting. This is kind of like what's old is new again.

Many years ago before IRPA, there was something called a fiancé visa. Individuals were able to get engaged and then come to Canada. Perhaps there was some abuse there, and so there was a change there.

It's definitely a positive. I used to be an officer many years ago, and it was very difficult. The minister is going to put in the regulations. They can have their manuals. It's very difficult to curb officer discretion. I think perhaps it's a bit of a wait and see thing, but it's a very positive step.

Now the only issue is that if it gets refused, what can we do? All we can do is go to the Federal Court, which is kind of like using a hammer to kill a mosquito.

I do agree with Mr. Waldman that it's a very positive step, and hopefully there will be some manuals that follow that give officers some more guidance so that we can be assured that these applications are properly and substantively considered.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Valois or Mr. Cliche-Rivard, do you have anything quick to add?

[Stéphanie Valois]

We welcome this measure, as well. However, the problem will always remain, in our view, when considering the extent to which the applicant has retained ties to their country of origin.

For example, in the case of a sponsored person who is thinking of coming to Canada, it is understood that the application for residency has already been approved at the first stage and has been in process for some time. We can therefore imagine that this person doesn't have any major plans in their country of origin. They probably haven't just enrolled in a three-year program of study, but may be studying English or French. What may be considered a positive element in a sponsorship application may be seen as a negative element by a visa officer regarding the person's intentions for Canada or their country of origin.

I agree with Mr. Waldman that there should really be the presumption that these visas should be granted.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Great. Thank you very much.

Unfortunately, I have only a minute and a half left.

Mr. Sharma, you mentioned modernization, digitalization and biometrics.

The department has, especially with COVID now, realized the importance of this, but it's been an issue over the last 20 years, and I want to ask you, because you touched upon this a bit, in a minute or less here, what more we can be doing by IRCC to further digitize and modernize the system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Sharma, you have 15 seconds.

[Raj Sharma]

There have been great strides by IRCC to digitize, so APRs, applications for permanent residence, and express entries are already electronic.

As Mr. Waldman said, there are many applications that are not. We've already moved the TRVs, the temporary resident visas, online as well. We've moved most APRs online as well.

There are still paper applications for spousal sponsorship, and for humanitarian and compassionate applications.

There is probably a good 20% to 25% more that can be done here, but we've made good progress, I think, on digitization.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Serré, you have 10 seconds.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I want to thank the witnesses for their balanced approach and their continued offer to work with the federal government to improve this.

This is not an issue involving party lines. We have to do better, because this is the best country in the world.

Thank you for your testimony.