Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 18th, 2020

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

What do you think needs to change in IRCC to ensure that Canadians and others trying to become Canadians are treated with more compassion, dignity and respect?

[Mark Holthe]

I worked at the border as an officer. This desire for efficiency is built into the system, and it's really hard to have efficiency, that is, fast processing, and a genuine care for people. It costs more money to care.

As I said, this problem has existed through all government transitions, so it's systemic within IRCC. I've seen a lot of really good things happen. With the Canadian Bar Association I've had lots of opportunities to connect with immigration, and they've really been doing what they can to try to make things better. But in this case, you can't control every officer, and how it was dealt with at that level was horrible. It was awful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Holthe. The time is up.

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you, Mr. Holthe, and thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now move on to Ms. Martinez Ferrada.

Ms. Martinez Ferrada, you have six minutes, please.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses who are with us this evening.

First, I would like to make a brief comment about something we said at our last meeting. I would like to say that Minister Mendicino was quite right. The government's record does show that family reunification is a priority. Our government has increased the number of family reunifications every year since we took office. The 2019 Annual Report on Immigration indicates that we recorded the highest number of family reunifications, 91,311 cases, compared to 2014. To be specific, the total number of cases in the family class then was 66,661.

Having said that, I would like to ask the lawyers a question, including Mr. Holthe

Since the beginning of the pandemic, you have seen the department taking steps to adapt to the challenging environment of COVID-19, including more flexible processes, some innovations and some new policies. I'd like you to tell us which policies you feel have helped the immigration process and which ones should be retained.

I would also like you to go back to the digitization of the immigration system. Could you tell us how digitizing and modernizing the immigration system will benefit the immigration process?

[Mark Holthe]

I've done a lot of talking. I'll let your other witnesses take the first shot.

[Alastair Clarke]

Sure. I'll give it a crack.

Let me start with some of the points I made during my opening comments. The first issue I see is with workers who have post-graduation work permits, as mentioned in the previous session, because those are not able to extended and you can only apply for one of them per lifetime. That's been a huge issue. Hopefully, that can be amended. I had one client who did a bachelor's degree. She received a post-graduation work permit. She was not able to get a job, so she did a master's degree. At the end of her master's degree, she had a very short time left on her post-graduation work permit, but she could not apply for another one. It was a very difficult situation.

In terms of the other, I will say that the government has been very reactive in some of the measures to allow, for example, the reunification of fiancés and others in exclusive dating relationships. We have been able to take advantage of some of those programs. We have many clients who have appreciated those measures. I will say that I believe the government is doing many things to reunify families, but we need to do more.

In terms of the online systems, I'll defer to Mark. He's really the expert on this. I'll tell you just one story that involves Mississauga. I can't even imagine what their mailroom is like, but we've had sponsorship applications lost before. They were in fact lost for four to six months. They were eventually found, but at least that would not happen if we switched to a more online system.

[Mark Holthe]

Thanks.

I guess the one thing I would add is that, yes, we need digitization of everything and modernization of the systems. Look at all the problems we are experiencing right now. So many of them would be resolved without a paper-based system or a need for visas to be imprinted in passports—or biometrics; the other witnesses in the other sessions talked about this. It's everything. If we can eliminate this, so many of the problems we're experiencing now will wash away.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thanks to both of you. I will continue in English, because I think it will be easier for translation.

Right now due to the pandemic, as you mentioned, we still have offices that are closed. Offices are not in full operation. We don't control other countries' health regulations and how they want to work on the pandemic. We've been faced with a lot of challenges.

Other than those, what other challenges do you see that we have during this pandemic that affect immigration?

[Mark Holthe]

If I can maybe step in and say this.... One of the biggest issues is communication. We can look at just about any line of business within immigration. We're dealing with not only immigration. We're dealing with the airlines, with people who are refused boarding. We're dealing with the border officers and their determination of what's non-essential and non-discretionary. People can do everything right from an immigration perspective and still get shot down. I think, from that perspective, every effort needs to be put into making sure that there's a consistent line of communication. The airlines are getting the message. I have clients in India who expired COPRs, got the letter from IRCC and then were refused boarding by the airlines.

Like I said, I would never cast blame on anyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. The time is up.

We will now move to our next member.

Madame Normandin, you have six minutes. The floor is yours.

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

My thanks again to the witnesses, who are providing us with a lot of information. It will be very useful for our reports. It's very much appreciated.

My first question is for Mr. Holthe.

You spoke of the issues that paragraph 179(b) is creating in sponsorship situations.

When a sponsorship application is submitted and the sponsor is approved, could we consider removing the burden of proof altogether and automatically grant a visa, barring evidence of a security issue, for example? Could that solution be considered?

[Mark Holthe]

I think that's one of many, right? The lifeblood of immigration is discretion. I would never ever want that to be taken away, but over the last while, with this emphasis on expediency and trying to get things processed as quickly as possible, often decisions are made in a way that really harms people and doesn't take into consideration their real situations. In the context of family, like I said in my opening remarks, I don't think that section should apply at all for someone who is the subject of a spousal sponsorship, and not just in that but in an adoption. For anything that relates to family unification, I don't think it makes sense to apply that. The number of fraudulent situations is astronomically low. It's not enough to justify that measure, and I think it should. I think it's a great idea to reverse the onus.

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

Thank you very much.

I have a few questions for Mr. Clarke.

You have told us about the digitization of cases. However, I'd like you to talk about the fact that, in some cases, original signatures and documents are still required. It is sad to say, but IRCC often loses those documents.

Shouldn't we always ask for copies of the documents? At the end of the process, applicants could submit the originals to the officer. They could be compared, but only as needed.

[Alastair Clarke]

I would opt more for the as-needed basis. I believe that if an officer refuses an application and if there are discrepancies with the signature, or there are discrepancies in—as part of the application—some other point, then the officer could make an easy request to have the original document submitted.

I remember when I was living in Japan. In Japan, they have hanko, which are stamps. You can go to a special store to get a stamp—I had two kanji characters on my stamp—and that is what they use for a signature. Signatures, in my view, are too heavily relied upon in 2020. We're already submitting copies of passports, copies of documents and copies of bank statements. Those signatures, as well.... Sure—as a lawyer—it's legally binding, and it's wonderful to have signatures. In my view, it needs to be a more comprehensive approach; it needs to be a more modern approach. Right now with digital signatures, copies and scans, you know, we try to run a digital office, and I know Mark has a much better digital office than we have. It's 2020. I think that we can do without original signatures.

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

Thank you very much.

Since the subject has been raised, I would like both Mr. Holthe and Mr. Clarke to answer this question about the Safe Third Country Agreement.

If the government is appealing, I assume it is to get an opportunity to review the agreement and come up with a new version. Could you tell us how likely a new version is? Would it really protect the rights set out in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Canadian Charter of Refugee Rights, and allow us to meet our obligations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

I'd like to know how you feel about reviewing the agreement rather than cancelling it altogether.

[Alastair Clarke]

Mark, I think you'll want me to handle this one.

[Mark Holthe]

I do, my friend, I do.

[Alastair Clarke]

I'm sorry. I am a little unsure. It sounds like you're talking about section 96 and section 97 of the Geneva Convention. I'm just not sure on exactly what the question is.

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

Justice McDonald's decision involves the agreement and compliance with the Charter, but we also have obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

I'd like to know how you feel about possibly reviewing the Safe Third Country Agreement rather than cancelling it, in light of our obligations.

[Alastair Clarke]

Thank you very much.

That's a complicated question.

First of all, I completely agree with Justice McDonald's decision from the Federal Court of Canada. It's a very well-reasoned decision. You can read all of the evidence that was presented on behalf of many parties and intervenors. I strongly agree with her analysis in terms of the charter analysis.

In terms of the Geneva Convention itself, Canada has been a party. We were actually one of the last signatories to the Geneva Convention. We signed up quite late compared to other countries.

In my view, the Geneva Convention is still a good document. It still contains good doctrine. It's more the implementation of the Geneva Convention that's the issue, in particular with some of the sections in IRPA that call upon the government to review the safe third country agreements, which, in my view, the government has not been properly reviewing—the safe third country agreement with the United States—but the Geneva Convention's section 96 and section 97, in my view, are all sound documents.

I regularly appear before the RPD—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Clarke, I'm sorry for interrupting. The time is up.

We will have to now move on to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you have six minutes. Please start.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

I'd like to first turn my attention to the issue around foreign workers, Mr. Holthe. In your opening statement, you talked about the situation with foreign workers.

What we know is that the government has brought in the guardian angels program, applying to health care workers only. For whatever reason, Lord knows why, agriculture workers, for example, have been excluded from it, and some of them have died putting food on our tables and supporting Canadians.

Do you think the Canadian government should in fact include all the migrant workers during this period to have status for all?

[Mark Holthe]

I don't like the foreign worker program. This is where my views diverge from my other role.

The reality is that I see exploitation all over the place, and they never come forward—never. Not only do they have no pathway to permanent residence, but they are stuck in these jobs where they are sending money home. We've all heard the stories. There have been so many meetings here before this committee itself in talking about this issue.

I think the government needs to do it more so than ever during this pandemic, when they're in the most vulnerable state of all, putting themselves out there while we sit comfortably in our homes. If you look at it, it's the marginalized element of society that is there. They're the ones on the front line. I think we have an obligation, a moral obligation, to do something about that.