Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 18th, 2020

[Helen Francis]

We in northeastern Ontario have a little bit of a digital divide in Internet accessibility. Certainly we've seen from COVID that vulnerable populations, including newcomers, feel that divide more acutely.

Yes, there's room for us to improve access to those types of tools, particularly when we're relying very heavily on virtual communication through the COVID pandemic. It's true, however, even outside of the pandemic, that it's great to have tools that are online. If folks do not have access to them, we need to make sure they become more readily available.

The other component concerning the work force that we need to understand is that in northeastern Ontario we're heavily reliant—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm so sorry for interrupting. The time is up. We will have to move to our next member.

Madame Normandin, you have six minutes. Please start.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Once again, I thank our witnesses, who have given us a lot of information that will be useful when we write the report and the recommendations.

I'd like to speak to Ms. Goldthorpe and Ms. Long about biometrics.

Several recommendations have been made about the biometrics being done in Canada. Just think, for example, about students arriving from countries where there is no service centre. They would find it useful to have them done here.

So that we can understand this and include it in the report, can you remind us what biometrics are, what they are used for, and why there are no risks or issues in having them done here, at the end of the process?

[Kelly Goldthorpe]

Biometrics is a requirement—a new requirement as of a couple of years ago. It was not always a requirement for the immigration or the temporary residence process.

Biometrics involves a photograph and the fingerprints of everybody who is entering Canada, with the exception of American citizens from the United States. Biometrics is a part of the process for permanent residence, as well as for work permits, study permits and visa applications.

At the start of the application process, applicants submit their application online; then they get an invitation to do biometrics, whereby they take the requisition letter to a centre to do their biometrics. The centre takes their photograph and then does their fingerprinting.

These are automatically linked to their application for a 10-year period. Applicants only have to do biometrics once every 10 years, and it's a way to verify identity.

It's possible to do biometrics at the airport, because visa-exempt citizens, such as people who are coming from Europe and Australia, for example—those who used to get their work permits issued upon arrival in Canada at the port of entry—would do their fingerprints and take their photograph upon their arrival in Canada.

They pay the $85 biometrics fee, then the border services officer takes their photograph and their fingerprints, and these are linked to their application and their profile for 10 years.

It's an important tool for IRCC to establish identity, and it's information that's shared between Canada and several other countries. It's information gathering and sharing, but it doesn't need to be done at the beginning of the application process, because it can be done—there's equipment, there's personnel, and there's capacity to do it—at the end of the process as well.

Right now, with COVID, doing it at the beginning of the process is delaying the application for everybody.

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

Thank you very much.

I imagine that Ms. Long's answer would be the same. It was worth explaining what biometrics are for, so that we can include it in the report.

I have another question about work permits. I'm still asking Ms. Goldthorpe and Ms. Long.

We got rid of the good old “flagpoling” to prevent people from going to the border to renew their work permits. The problem is that it can now take up to 180 days. People end up with implied status, which is not always recognized by the employer.

Should we make sure that the work permit issue, which is purely administrative, is dealt with quickly so that people are not stuck with implied status that can be problematic? This is particularly the case for guardian angels, who may not even be able to accumulate the number of hours needed to register for the program that has been announced.

[Kelly Goldthorpe]

The work permit extension applications are currently taking upwards of six months, which is a really long time and that's not just for people who need to extend their stay. It's for people who are changing the conditions of their work permit, if they're moving from one employer to another. There have been some innovative programs that have allowed for the quick change of employers, but the work permit extension application is taking about six months right now, which is causing hardship in terms of getting housing, in terms of getting extended health care, and also with respect to social insurance numbers.

There are immigration impacts on other aspects of people's lives while they're waiting for their work permits to be extended. They can't travel or they will lose their implied status, and if they leave Canada before the work permit is issued and they try to come back, they don't have the right to work. The 183 days' or six months' processing time is very problematic for people who are basically stuck in Canada until their work permit can be processed. It's a matter of just printing out a work permit, or maybe issuing a letter that authorizes employment. There have been some new letters from the government that talk about implied status and say that candidates are allowed to remain in Canada and have access, but there's a date on those letters, which is problematic. It's an arbitrarily decided date four months from the date of the application, whereas implied status based on paragraph 186(u) of the regulations has no date. If a person receives that letter, the employer—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Sorry for interrupting you, but your time is up. We will have to move to our next member.

Ms. Kwan, you have six minutes for your round of questioning.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thanks to the witnesses.

I'd like to first touch on the issue around paragraph 179(b) for the folks who are trying to bring their loved ones here for a visit and who are often denied. The government of course cites dual intent, and we know that even with dual intent, their applications are often rejected.

To Ms. Goldthorpe and Ms. Long, given this situation, would you recommend that the government suspend the use of 179(b) especially during this COVID period? Further to that, really for those who have a sponsorship application in place for their loved ones, why not provide a special temporary visa, if you will, so that people can come to Canada, sort of like the parents and grandparents super visa, so that they can reunite with their loved ones while they wait for their application to be processed? I would just like to get your thoughts on that.

[Elizabeth Long]

I absolutely concur that the inequities in requirements for someone who is from a visa-requiring country and those for someone who is not are very stark. Especially now when processing times are just through the roof, it's very important to have a way for family members to come to Canada. The dual intent is often applied in such draconian ways at visa posts that, instead of saying “will someone follow the laws?”, they're saying “does someone have permanent intent?” and if someone has permanent intent, it's almost as if there is no dual intent involved. If we had a policy that stated that someone has to show that they have family members in Canada and that they have never disobeyed the laws in Canada before, that should be enough. We have to have a clear line as to what is enough for someone to obtain a visa. There should be the same criteria as for someone who has an eTA. An eTA is issued in a matter of seconds. Why is it that someone who is from that country can get an eTA and can come in right away, whereas requirements for someone from a visa-requiring country mean they will perhaps never to be able to get that visa to come to Canada?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Goldthorpe.

[Kelly Goldthorpe]

Yes, paragraph 179(b) is highly problematic. With the dual intent purposes, basically if there is a sponsorship application, that's viewed negatively, and it's a factor that's viewed towards refusing a TRV application.

Requiring spousal sponsorship applicants to additionally apply for a TRV adds another layer of expense and processing for them while they're being processed for their spousal sponsorship. It adds another layer of expense for government processing. It's an additional application that wastes government resources, knowing that the applicant is going to be staying in Canada permanently once their permanent residence application is completed.

I completely agree that 179(b) is very problematic. Showing dual intent is very problematic for visa-required individuals who are being sponsored to Canada.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Should the government suspend the use of paragraph 179(b)?

[Kelly Goldthorpe]

I think so. I mean they're allowing boyfriends and girlfriends in in a matter of weeks with just a statutory declaration of being in a long-term relationship. There is no issue of looking into how long those people are going to be staying in Canada. The inequity is very, very stark between that and those who are married and who have a stronger and more solidified relationship.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to turn my attention to the certificate of PR. We know that people are held up because their certificate of PR has expired, and then they have to wait. In fact, IRCC right now, even as it stands.... I have a boatload of cases where people have no idea when they can get their certificate of PR renewed, and that's the only thing that's barring them from getting into Canada. They have gone through the entire process.

Do you think the solution for the government to proceed and move forward on this is to honour expired certificates of PR?

I will ask Ms. Goldthorpe and then I will go to Ms. Long.

[Kelly Goldthorpe]

Absolutely. If the COPR has expired, it has expired now because of COVID; it's nothing that the applicant has done. If the COPR has expired, some of them are being requested to redo a security clearance or redo their medical checks, which means they have to go out into the community, go to the police department to do their security check and go to do a medical, wait for the results and then wait for a new COPR to be issued. Again, it's a waste of resources.

The easy fix is to automatically add a 12-month period to the COPR date by ministerial instruction or public policy instruction, or whatever, and allow these people come. It doesn't make any sense to require an applicant to redo a medical or a police clearance. They just did one in the past 12 months.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but the time is up.

We will now move to our second round of questioning. Based on the time left from the first panel, we will have four minutes for Mr. Allison and Ms. Dhillon, and then two minutes each for Ms. Normandin and Ms. Kwan.

Mr. Allison, you have four minutes.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Raquel is going to start with my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay.

Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, MP Allison, and Madam Chair.

I have a fairly complex question, I believe, for Ms. Goldthorpe and Ms. Long.

You've given a lot of testimony today, and thank you very much for your expertise in regard to family reunification.

I'm wondering if you can summarize for the committee whether you believe that family reunification has become more difficult in the last eight months since the pandemic.

[Elizabeth Long]

In terms of permanent residents and in terms of actually being able to be together, absolutely it is. It's not necessarily that the criteria has become more difficult, but in terms of practicality, in terms of waiting time, absolutely....

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you.

Ms. Goldthorpe.

[Kelly Goldthorpe]

Yes, I completely agree that's the case, in terms of permanent family reunification, as well as temporary family reunification for people who are wanting to join their Canadian citizen spouses from other countries or travel with their Canadian citizen spouses from other countries.

In the early days of the pandemic, those Canadian citizen spouses were not able to have their foreign national family members come into Canada. It wasn't until a Federal Court lawsuit happened that people were finally allowed to come in and orders in council were changed for family reunification.

During COVID, our clients are seeing barriers every step of the way in terms of being able to join their families, and to not only being reunited but to being together while the family is travelling as a family unit.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you for those answers. I certainly agree with you. Everyone on this committee has heard heartbreaking stories about family reunification, with so many people falling through the cracks and processes taking so long, much longer than they say on the website.

I mention that because, two days ago, in the Canada-China committee, the Minister of Immigration said that under his leadership and under his government, family reunification has never been easier. I wanted to get your expert opinion on that.

I appreciate that.

Madam Chair, the remaining time will go to MP Allison. Thank you.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Thanks very much.

I have a question for you guys. I talk to businesses all the time, and they say that the processes are very complicated federally, provincially, and then municipally on things like that. They're calling for a bit of a strategy. I want to get your thoughts on trying to figure that out when people are looking for meaningful work.

When they're trying to figure that out, would it be helpful to have some type of national strategy playing into this? That's also part of the issue, I believe, when we start looking at bringing people to remote parts of Canada and being able to help companies where they're at. Do you have any thoughts on this? Does anyone want to tackle it at all?

[Helen Francis]

I can jump in from our experience in employment services and workforce development. Certainly, it makes it harder for us to encourage employers to take on newcomers and immigrants when they know they might run into process delays, particularly when they have a work permit and if they have experience. When they need to modify or expand and it's taking so long, it's a deterrent to a number of employers to take on what would ordinarily be a great opportunity.