Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 5th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order. Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 21 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Given the ongoing pandemic situation and in light of the recommendations from health authorities as well as the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on Thursday, November 25, 2021, to remain healthy and safe, all those attending the meeting in person are to maintain two-metre physical distancing and wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It is highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when seated. Maintain proper hand hygiene by using the provided hand sanitizer in the room. Please refrain from coming to the room if you are symptomatic.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For all those who are logged in virtually, when you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute and your camera must be on.

For the safety of the staff working in this room and for everyone to feel safe, it's very important that members or any people who going around in the room wear a mask. Please make sure you wear a mask even if you are going to pick up food. I have to make sure I emphasize the importance of everyone in this room feeling safe.

Today we are going to start our study on the application backlogs and processing times. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will begin this study today.

I would like to welcome our witnesses.

Today we are joined by Ghulam Faizi and Hameed Khan, who are former Afghan interpreters.

We are also joined by Luisa Veronis, associate professor and research chair in immigration and Franco-Ontarian communities, University of Ottawa.

Our third witness on this panel today is Kareem El-Assal, director of policy, representing CanadaVisa.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before this committee. It's good to have in-person witnesses; it's been a long time. Today is the second day we have in-person witnesses. That's a good feeling to have.

All the witnesses will have five minutes for their opening remarks. We will start with the former Afghan interpreters.

Mr. Faizi or Mr. Khan, you can begin, please.

[Hameed Khan, Former Afghan Interpreter, As an Individual]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I'll present the opening statement highlighting the issues with the IRCC public policy of December 9, 2021, for the former interpreters' extended family members.

I have a confirmation on timelines. The former chief of staff to the previous minister at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada assured former Canadian Armed Forces interpreters that the public policy would be announced on December 9, 2021, to bring the extended families of former Canadian interpreters to Canada, and that when the applications were received by the intake office at IRCC, the applicants would start receiving UCI and G numbers within a window of 24 to 48 hours.

However, contrary to the promises made by the IRCC, the majority of our former interpreter applicants have not received their UCI and G numbers since the applications were received by the intake office three months ago.

IRCC also promised us that the first batch of arrivals of former interpreters' extended families would begin in the first quarter of 2022 and that they would start arriving within the first three to four months of the year.

We have advised IRCC numerous times about the challenges the former interpreters are facing. Some of the challenges and problems we've shared with IRCC include that the UCI numbers are not fully issued for the group; medical tests in Pakistan have longer than a 30-day wait or delay times; and IRCC has requested the same documentation multiple times, such as schedule A and form 153.

I'll move on to accommodation.

Accommodations are still not provided for the applicants in Pakistan more than 15 days after confirmation of passing eligibility. Due to the current situation in Pakistan, local housing became unaffordable to sustain for long periods of time for the former interpreters' families. A local point of contact should be provided to assist with these questions and with better tracking of who was assisted and who is pending. The IRCC is relying on the IOM—the International Organization for Migration—and Aman Lara to fully coordinate this work without overseeing fully the time frames it has done.

On providing a clear pathway, IRCC should provide a single travel document to travel to Pakistan and to lift medical requirements to be done in Canada upon arrival, as in the other programs that Canada has offered before. It should open discussions with Qatar and Tajikistan to accommodate families of former interpreters temporarily before they're processed to come to Canada.

On the SIM program, IRCC should provide the same level of generosity and services in terms of support upon arrival to Canada for the former interpreters' extended families as has been provided to any other immigrants arriving in Canada, such as the Syrians and Ukrainians.

On eligibility, there are requests to include four to five families in the public policy that was announced on December 9. These families left Afghanistan earlier than July 22, 2021. The policy was updated to limit this program to 5,000 people. However, the concern is that the IRCC did not yet issue all the UCI and G numbers to our applicants, and the program might reach the limit, leaving some people not receiving UCI and G numbers afterwards, as promised to the former interpreters by IRCC.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Khan.

We will now proceed to Ms. Veronis, associate professor and research chair on immigration and Franco-Ontarian communities, from the University of Ottawa.

[Luisa Veronis, Associate professor and research chair in Immigration and Franco-Ontarian communities, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

First of all, I really appreciate being here and being able to participate in your committee's discussions.

I will share some observations regarding the costs and impacts of delays and backlogs on specific categories, based on my research, and I have a few suggestions for potential solutions.

Regarding costs and impacts of delays when it comes to economic immigrants, I have heard of the uncertainties that delays have caused to applicants and their families, who may be unable to make essential decisions regarding important life matters, including their jobs, careers, investments, family and health, with potentially detrimental impacts as well as lost opportunities.

Sometimes applicants have secured a job in Canada, and both they and their employer are left in limbo with the risk to the applicant of losing their job and to the employer of facing the consequences of labour shortages.

Meanwhile, applicants who are given a timeline for when they will receive a response or their permit are led to develop expectations and sometimes even to organize and prepare for their arrival to Canada by, for example, by selling their assets and giving notice at their jobs. If delays occur, these applicants and their families then face untenable situations, such as not having a home or not having an income, as we saw in the first year of the pandemic when international borders limited the possibilities for travel. It's also not uncommon for applicants to have to redo the medical exams once, twice or more times at their own cost, given that the results of medical exams are valid only for a limited period, typically around six months.

In particular, my research focuses on francophone immigration and minority contacts. Francophone applicants seem to be facing these challenges at higher rates, as seen recently from a petition signed by 700 francophone immigrants who applied to the provincial nominee program and had received provincial approval but whose files were then unduly delayed. They claimed there were inequities in the way application files were treated. They were in communication with English-speaking provincial candidates, and their files seemed to be moving faster.

With regard to family reunification, in my research I've heard numerous accounts of delays specifically for reunification of spouses and children, with wait times of two years or more. The separation creates uncertainty and tremendous costs for these families who often also have to redo the medical exams, as mentioned previously.

Also, in the case of refugees who have been admitted to Canada and wish to sponsor immediate or extended family members who remain in refugee camps and conflict zones, the delays are tremendous. These individuals undergo significant stress because they are concerned about the well-being of their loved ones, especially children, which as a result means they can't fully focus or invest in their own settlement and integration here in Canada, which further delays their own well-being.

Lastly, with regard to private sponsorship groups, we heard, including during the Syrian refugee resettlement initiative, of the cost that sponsors incurred when they had found housing for the family they were going to receive, and the family didn't come. There were delays and they were left paying rent, for example, for empty apartments, depleting the funds they had prepared.

In terms of recommendations, I'll focus on two ideas that we can discuss further.

The first is regarding francophone immigration. Rather than creating a francophone stream within existing dominant mainstream immigration categories such as express entry or the provincial nominee program, it may be time to consider creating a separate immigration policy or category that is specifically designed for French-speaking immigrants, given that the government and francophone institutions have determined that francophone immigration is a priority for the vitality of francophone communities, and the selection criteria could therefore be different from the mainstream.

The second is for family reunification. It is time to consider modernizing and facilitating or simplifying the process to accelerate processing times to avoid undue strain on families who remain separated for so long.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Veronis.

We will now proceed to Mr. El-Assal, director of policy, representing CanadaVisa.

Mr. El-Assal, you have five minutes for your opening remarks.

You can please begin.

[Kareem El-Assal, Director of Policy, CanadaVisa]

Canada's immigration backlog stands at over two million people. It has nearly doubled since the start of the pandemic. The permanent residence inventory has grown from 400,000 people to 530,000 people. The temporary residence inventory has doubled to 1.2 million people, and the citizenship inventory has gone from 230,000 people to 400,000 people.

The backlog is undermining Canada's economic, social and humanitarian objectives. We have the lowest unemployment rate on record and over 800,000 job vacancies. The backlog hurts our economic recovery effort, since we can't bring newcomers into Canada quickly enough to address our labour shortages. For instance, it's now taking 31 months to process Quebec's skilled worker applications and 28 months to process paper-based provincial nominee program applications, even though the service standard for both is 11 months.

The backlog is keeping families apart. For example, although the service standard for spousal sponsorship is 12 months, it's taking us 20 months on average to process outland applications.

On the humanitarian side, Canada is making refugees and displaced persons live in discomfort for far longer than necessary, as we're currently seeing with Afghans and Ukrainians. It is absolutely imperative that we get the immigration system back on track.

Within the next decade, all nine million baby boomers will reach retirement age. We're going to need more immigrants to grow our labour force, tax base and economy. However, other countries will win the race for talent if Canada continues to struggle to provide immigrants with certainty that we'll process their applications quickly and fairly. This will be to the detriment of our economic and fiscal health.

I'd like to provide three recommendations to the committee.

First, we need more transparency.

The government should be mandated to provide monthly updates to the public on the state of immigration policy and operations. Immigration in Canada is far too important to be a black box. We should not have to rely on access to information requests, as has been the case during the pandemic, to remain informed about the immigration system. The monthly update should contain critical information, such as the government's policy priorities and its backlog reduction plan, among other details that can help to restore the trust in our immigration system that was eroded during the pandemic. Providing monthly updates would also reflect well on the government. People are more understanding and forgiving when you're honest with them.

Second, we need more accountability.

An independent study should be commissioned to better understand the operations of the immigration system during the pandemic. Right now, we have many unanswered questions. What are the causes of this backlog? The pandemic alone can't entirely explain the situation we're in. For instance, express entry was designed to avoid backlogs, so why then do we have an express entry backlog? We need an evidence-based study that answers these sorts of questions and provides us with guidance to ensure such backlogs never happen again.

Third, we need to work more collaboratively.

Major decisions have been made during the pandemic with little consultation, leading to avoidable consequences. We're blessed to live in a country with many immigration experts from law, academia, think tanks, business and the settlement sector, among others. They are assets to our immigration system.

Hence, my final recommendation is that the government form a national advisory council on immigration. The council's mandate would be to provide the government with technocratic advice to inform our country's major immigration decisions. We're a diverse nation with diverse immigration objectives; we need diverse views reflected in our immigration policy.

To conclude, I want us to remember that among these two million people waiting in the backlog are future colleagues, friends, neighbours, voters, politicians, and business and civil society leaders. They are Canada's future, and we must treat them with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. El-Assal.

We will now proceed to our round of questioning, beginning with Mr. Redekopp.

Mr. Redekopp, you will have six minutes. You can please begin.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for joining us here today. I appreciate their presence here. I'm sorry for the late start, but that's the way life is around here.

I'm going to start with the Afghan interpreters.

I had the pleasure to sit on the Special Committee on Afghanistan just a bit ago. Sally Armstrong, a Canadian journalist, was at the committee and was speaking about the horrors that she had experienced first-hand in helping refugees and others to get out of the country to Canada. I asked her about a comment I've heard from different people: that there's a risk that if we bring in people from Afghanistan too quickly, we might get some terrorists in Canada. Her response was:

You could say that with every single refugee program we've ever instigated. The terrorists are running Afghanistan; they're not trying to come here. I think that is a very poor and weak and wrong conclusion to draw in the face of vulnerable people who need us to help them.

I want to ask Mr. Khan and Mr. Faizi both to comment on this.

Do you agree with her conclusion that when the government labels people coming out of Afghanistan as potential terrorists, they're politicizing and reiterating stereotypes that people might have of Muslim people, for example?

[Hameed Khan]

Thank you for this important question.

We brought to the government's attention previously, once we heard these kinds of hurtful comments from the government, the fact that the Afghan interpreters worked side by side with the Canadian Armed Forces in their civilian mission. We worked with the Canadian members of Parliament who came to Kandahar, as well as the senators who visited Kandahar and Canadian International Development Agency higher officials. Most, if not every one of our former interpreters, had top-level security clearance, as well as background checks on numerous occasions.

As you stated, if the government is saying this is the situation or this could happen, this could happen with any other refugees or immigration process. All of our former interpreters have been screened and have had background checks, as well as had information about their families provided to IRCC in December last year.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you.

Mr. Faizi, what would you have to say about that?

[Ghulam Faizi, Former Afghan Interpreter, As an Individual]

We've been telling immigration in IRCC weekly meetings that they can take the biometrics when our families move to third countries, like Pakistan. They can do their process once they're eligible in the system, and they can bring them in. However, the system makes them delay and they require other medical examinations that are not part of security, so we've been telling them that you guys can do the medical tests upon their arrival in Canada.

As Mr. Khan said, we were the people who worked with and sat in the same armoured cars as the Canadian military in Kandahar. We made the Taliban and terrorists our enemies and the enemies of our families because of the enduring relationship we had with the Canadian Armed Forces. I strongly disagree with whoever made those comments that there will be a risk of bringing in terrorists. They have a system that can process and prevent them from getting into Canada.

Thank you.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you for your comments.

For the record, we really appreciate the work that you guys have done. I'm sure all of us at the committee stand with you and really appreciate everything that you and all of the other interpreters did for us in Afghanistan.

There was a question I asked Ms. Frogh, the founder of Women and Peace Studies Organization, about her observations on the subject. We were talking about the third country, and she said:

...the third country phenomenon has been very difficult for us Afghans. Right now, my colleague has travel authorization to travel to Canada, but they do not have Pakistani visa and they cannot obtain Pakistani visa. There are also political and security risks to many Afghans travelling to Pakistan.

She went on to detail some of those risks.

Do you have a comment, Mr. Khan, on the issue of safe third countries for Afghans trying to come to Canada? Is that a problem? Are there maybe some different ways to look at that?

[Hameed Khan]

Yes, that's definitely a problem for former interpreters and their families.

Using a third country was one of our proposals to the previous minister at IRCC, as well as the current honourable minister at IRCC, Sean Fraser. When we talked with him, we proposed that either Qatar or the UAE or perhaps Pakistan could be used as a third country, where the families, once they they get their UCI and G application numbers, could be moved for processing, such as with biometrics, as well as any other documentation.

There was lack of appetite for this from the IRCC, as well as the minister himself. They were not interested in these proposals. They were not interested in providing a safe zone for the families of former interpreters in any of the third countries. In fact, that is still our demand of the minister himself, as well as of the IRCC. There are a lot people who are at risk of prosecution, and possibly execution, by the Taliban government for their relationship with the Canadian Armed Forces, and they're still stuck in Afghanistan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Khan. The time is up for Mr. Redekopp.

We will now proceed to Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Lalonde, you will have six minutes. You can begin, please.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

I would like to thank each of the witnesses for being with us today. It is always important to hear what the participants have to say.

I would like to ask Ms. Veronis a couple of questions.

One is a more general question. Could you maybe highlight for the committee how institutional resilience in relation to immigration and immigrant settlements and integration in Canada can help mitigate decisions based on the evaluation of an application on factors such as race, religion and regional origins?

Thank you.

[Luisa Veronis]

Thank you for the question.

Could you clarify what you mean by "institutional resilience"? Is it outside of government?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Yes.

A lot of work is done at the federal and provincial levels, but there is also the whole approach to consider when someone arrives.

I don't want to lead the question too much, because I'd like to let you tell us more about that. Generally speaking, what can you tell us that would help us once the decisions are made?

[Luisa Veronis]

As my colleague Mr. El‑Assal explained earlier, there is a lot of expertise across Canada, partly because of the history of immigration and the fact that, since the 1960s, we have gained experience.

I can say without a doubt that Canada probably has one of the best immigration systems, particularly in terms of welcoming people, because of all its years of experience in welcoming populations and groups that are very diverse in terms of culture of origin, religion, race and age. Canada has welcomed categories of immigrants with very diverse needs, ranging from political refugees to groups in search of a better quality of life.

As Mr. El‑Assal was saying earlier, I think that in order to improve the system and to overcome the difficulties in the current system, it would be very helpful to develop a more collaborative system in which you would find different members of the institutions, with different experiences, including their own immigration experience in many cases.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Okay.

I would like to ask you two brief questions related to the francophonie.

You made two suggestions. You talked about modernized and simplified family reunification. Could you elaborate on that to help the committee members in their study?

[Luisa Veronis]

In my remarks earlier, I emphasized the cost of delays in family reunification. Members who are in Canada are actually living a double life in the sense that they are concerned or they have to maintain contact with family members who are outside the country. I think this is a very important factor in making family reunification a priority.

Once the family is reunited here, people who are already settled can focus on integrating and doing what they need to do to become Canadians and contribute to our society. Having the family here provides them with support. We need to think of the family as a unit where all members are important.

Now let's talk about the reasons to speed up the process. Knowing that someone is already here, the people who are going to be reunited will be in a better position to integrate, to participate in society and to become Canadians. We could make the process easier and faster by perhaps asking for fewer criteria. I personally have never applied for family reunification, but from talking to people, I know there are a lot of hurdles and the administrative process is complicated. Then there are delays.

As people already in Canada are responsible for other family members when they arrive, I don't understand why these delays exist. In the case of Afghan refugee families, for example, we see this cost and the fact that the process should be accelerated and facilitated. I think we should consider the guarantee given by the person who is already here and responsible for them.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much.

I still have a little time left, I believe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You have one minute.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

That's fine. I will go very quickly and I will ask the question in the same language.

In your experience, Ms. Veronis, how should the candidate selection process provide quality services that take into account differences in the francophone community with respect to race, accent and cultural variations, in order to ensure viable criteria and assessment methods?

[Luisa Veronis]

As far as francophone immigration is concerned, I think the objectives are different. There is the demographic issue and the economic aspect, but the goal is mainly to support the vitality of francophone minority communities.

I think the criteria are different and the selection procedure can be less burdensome. Indeed, it is enough that newcomers speak French and are able to contribute. So we don't need more criteria. If we simplify the procedure, we can speed up the assessment of the files.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Your time is up. Thank you. We will now proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you will have six minutes. You can begin.