Thank you very much.
Honourable committee members, I'd like to thank you for this invitation to provide testimony on the impact of COVID-19 on the immigration system.
I would like to acknowledge that I'm giving this testimony on Treaty 1 territory, the homeland of the Métis nation and the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples.
I'm appearing before you today as an immigration and refugee lawyer with more than 12 years of experience. I started my career at an immigration law boutique on Bay Street in Toronto. From there, I practised at a legal aid clinic assisting low-income residents, and for the past seven years, I have practised exclusively immigration and refugee law here in Winnipeg, Manitoba, the heart of the continent.
Today, I'll be making five brief points.
My first point is that IRCC needs to further digitize the system and expand online services. For example, spousal sponsorships and temporary resident permanent applications could be easily submitted online.
In 2018, the refugee protection division of the IRB introduced the epost system, which has been very successful. Epost makes it easy for counsel to see details of documents that have been uploaded. IRCC has started to use epost for refugee claimants inside of Canada, and this tool may be useful in other contexts. In short, a robust online system may provide solutions to dealing with long processing times and the current backlogs.
For my second point, I strongly support the possibility of an applicant posting monetary bonds for TRV applications in the context of a spousal sponsorship application. These applicants are sufficiently motivated to become permanent residents through the family class, and there would be low risk in the possibility of them overstaying their visa.
However, I do have reservations if a monetary bond were to become a requirement of all TRV applications. I would not want the TRV application to become out of reach for low-income applicants.
My third point relates to applicants in provincial nominee programs. Many of these individuals are able to apply for permanent resident status based on their education and work in Canada. Once these workers receive their nomination certificate, they can apply for a bridging work permit, but that is restricted to their employer.
This pandemic has resulted in many layoffs and it has caused severe hardship. In my view, these work permits should be less restrictive and could avoid many issues, including potential problems with flagpoling. For example, a NOC B worker could be allowed to accept a different NOC B position without having to obtain a new work permit. Similarly, I also urge more flexibility with post-graduation work permits. They should not be limited to one post-graduation work permit per lifetime.
My fourth point relates to refugee claimants. As you know, travel restrictions have essentially closed the border to claimants from the United States. Justice McDonald of the Federal Court of Canada recently held the safe third country agreement to be unconstitutional, and it's disheartening that this government has appealed that decision. Notwithstanding these extraordinary times, Canada has a strong humanitarian tradition that must be protected.
My last point relates to having a collaborative approach. Part of the reason I was interested in this area of law is that it is generally non-confrontational. To deal with minor issues, I can easily call a CMO at the IRB, a superintendent at the POE, an inland enforcement officer or a lawyer at the DOJ.
Dealing with the IRCC, in contrast, is a constant struggle. When an IRCC officer makes a clear mistake, there is no easy mechanism to get it fixed. In my view, the request for reconsideration system is broken and MPs are far too often put in the difficult position to act as intermediaries.
Bad decisions by visa officers are often easy to appeal to Federal Court—as I have experienced doing recently—but judicial reviews expend a huge amount of time and resources for both the applicants and the government.
The dual intent guidance issued last month is a step in the right direction; however, it does not go far enough in emphasizing flexible decision-making. An immigration ombudsperson may be a possible solution. In my view, there may also be a tech solution to facilitate better communication with visa officers to address minor issues.
In short, I would urge IRCC to adopt a more collaborative approach. I believe there is great merit in continued consultation with stakeholders.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts. I welcome any questions you have.
