Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 7th, 2022

[Krishna Gagné]

I'd have trouble trying to find anything less transparent, but in the field it's absolutely clear that the decision-making process is inconsistent.

On some occasions, we found that decisions had been made for the wrong application. It's obvious that it's not a human being running this system because we sometimes get a refusal for a study permit when the application was for a work permit, or on other occasions it's been for the wrong program. It's obvious that there's a lot of inconsistency in the decisions being made.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

Do I have any time left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You have eight seconds.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Okay.

I would like to truly thank all the witnesses. It was a pleasure to speak with them.

I repeat that I'm sorry about what they witnessed earlier.

[Krishna Gagné]

Thank you for having invited us to appear before you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have five minutes for your round of questioning. You can please begin.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses as well for their presentations. I apologize for the delay in getting the matter going.

I'd like to ask the representative from LUSO Community Services this question. You raised, I think similarly to the other witnesses, the significance of the delay in processing and what it means. Oftentimes, the government does not even follow its own processing standards. If you look at the website right now, they don't even give you a time; they only say not to expect your application to be processed expeditiously.

Given that this is the situation, I wonder what you think the government should do or what your recommendation is for the government to address this crisis in processing delays within immigration.

[Irena Sompaseuth]

Well, I think consistency with processing times.... I think a few of the witnesses mentioned that there is inconsistency, because some applications are processed faster than others, not really for any particular reason, and that communication is not available to applicants.

As I mentioned, we have seen recent applications being processed much faster compared to 2019 and 2020, so just keep that trend going but really focus on the backlog of all those applications that are sitting in the inventory as well. I think allocating staff and resources to specific applications and focusing on getting those processed will help reduce that backlog, as well as training for staff and hiring more staff to be available so applicants will be able to receive information.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Of course, when the government says they've hired new staff and set processing standards, it's for new applicants coming in from that day going forward. It's not for the people who are already in the queue who have already been waiting for a year, two years or longer for their application to be processed.

Do you think that's right? If not, how do you think the government should address that, those who have already applied and are waiting?

[Irena Sompaseuth]

With all of the new employees who have been hired to focus and work on all the immigration applications with the goal of reducing the backlogs, there should be designated teams, separate teams, to focus on specific issues. That way, the older applications would also be processed and not just left in the inventory without attention.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to ask the same question of Ms. Gagné. I'm sure you're seeing that in the system. What's your response? Should the government be processing new applications and then be able to say, “Oh, look, we're meeting standards”, when all the people who are stuck in the backlog are just waiting and waiting?

[Krishna Gagné]

The government should really set a deadline for dealing with the backlog. For example, it could decide that all backlogs have to be cleared within six months and hire the resources needed to administer the process.

At the moment, resources are assigned to processing new files. However, applications and the backlog are not always being dealt with, and 20% of applications are not being processed within the prescribed time periods. We have no idea what's going on.

There should therefore be very clear direction from the government requiring all backlogs to be processed within something like six months. After that, there should be an accountability requirement if the deadline is not met.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much for that.

Is my time up, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You have one minute and 10 seconds.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

One of the issues is the lack of transparency, really. People don't really know why their application has just been rejected. Often the government just cites, “We don't believe you're going to return to your country of origin”, even though there's ample evidence to indicate otherwise.

Ms. Gagné, I wonder what your response is to that and what your recommendation is to address this issue.

[Krishna Gagné]

First of all, I would recommend that the reasons be more detailed. At the moment, generic and highly subjective reasons are given. We don't understand why. When we submit an access to information request, we never get any further details.

Officers' notes should therefore be clearly detailed and the reasons given need to be explained at greater length. It's not enough to say in a short sentence that the officer did not believe the applicants would return to their country owing to their financial status. Details about what precisely is missing from the application are needed to answer questions or address officers' concerns. At the moment, the same application might be submitted twice and receive a different response depending on which officer processed it.

The reasons really need to be spelled out and clear instructions given with respect to what is required. For example, for financial means, a definition of the minimum required has to be identified and communicated clearly. At the moment, it's up to the discretion of the officer, and there are no guidelines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

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

With that, this panel comes to an end.

On behalf of all the members of this committee, I really want to thank and apologize to all of the witnesses for the delay. Sometimes if things are moved, we have to deal with them before we can go to the witnesses. I really want to apologize for the delayed start and the lesser duration we had to talk, but thanks a lot.

If there is anything you'd like to send to the committee, anything you were not able to bring today, you can always send a written submission and we will take it into consideration when we come to the drafting of the report.

With that, this panel comes to an end. I thank you all once again.

I will suspend the meeting for two or three minutes so that the clerk can do the sound checks for the next panel, and then we will come back.

Thank you. The meeting is suspended.

I call the meeting back to order.

As we start the second panel, I would like to welcome our witnesses today. I want to thank them for their patience for that delayed start.

In this panel, we are joined by the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants, being represented by Dory Jade, the chief executive officer. He is present in person. We are also joined by the chair of their board, Ms. Avni Marfatia.

Our other witness for today is Deacon Rudy Ovcjak, the director of the office for refugees of the Archdiocese of Toronto.

Welcome to all of the witnesses for today. Thank you for joining us and sorry for the delay.

We will begin with Mr. Jade.

Mr. Jade, you will have five minutes for your opening remarks. You can please begin.

[Dory Jade, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair and committee members, it is my pleasure to come before you as a witness on the issue of application backlogs and processing times.

CAPIC represents over 4,000 immigration and citizenship consultants, who represent thousands of clients and applicants before Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

Joining me today is Ms. Avni Marfatia, who is the chair of the CAPIC board and a practitioner as an immigration consultant for over 20 years.

We are very pleased to be able to appear before you today, particularly in person, after all this time.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on processing times and operational delivery of immigration applications. The processing system is not yet back to full capacity. As a result, the demands for temporary resident programs continue to rise by more than 30% of 2019 levels. More than 70% of the backlog consists of temporary residents' visa files. The backlog continues to grow, increasing the stress on the system, with now more than 900,000 temporary files in the backlog.

Some IT systems, as you have probably heard, are new, have issues and require time to be tested. As a result, multiple applications are filed for the same benefit, so there are multiple counts.

Applicants are facing extraordinary delays in processing time, and it's jeopardizing their future. The shortage of labour is causing economic stress for employers. Consequently, the immigration system's integrity is threatened.

As desperate applicants continue to look for other options, the pressure on the system should be urgently alleviated with the introduction of these non-regulatory measures. CAPIC recommends the following. First, declare some countries as visa-exempt for short-term visitors. Second, use enhanced eTA to control security and monitor intentions. Third, reinstate a high-in-demand NOC list for the LMIA-exempt. Fourth, implement the SDS, the student direct stream, for all student study permit applications and automatic issuance of post-graduate work permits for successful completion of studies. The minister today made a decision in the right direction.

Our recommendations include measures that can be implemented promptly to reduce the backlog and improve efficiency across the entire system.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members.

I'll be happy to answer your questions in French or in English.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Jade.

We will now proceed to the office for refugees of the Archdiocese of Toronto, represented by the director, Deacon Ovcjak.

Mr. Ovcjak, you will have five minutes for your opening remarks. You can please begin.

[Deacon Rudy Ovcjak, Director, Office for Refugees, Archdiocese of Toronto]

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

By way of introduction, I want to indicate the Archdiocese of Toronto's participation in the private sponsorship of refugees program. We are the largest sponsorship agreement holder in Canada and have been involved in the PSR program since its very inception.

We have been able to address the plight of refugees from many different faith and nationality backgrounds because of the generosity of Catholics throughout the archdiocese of Toronto and because of the vision and values of the church and of our cardinal archbishop. It's a response that is rooted in love of neighbour and finds its source in our love for God and in his love for us.

I would like to begin my comments by first recognizing the important work that IRCC has done to reduce the backlogs and processing times prior to the pandemic. I believe that at that point, average processing times for the PSR program were reduced to approximately one and a half years, a remarkable accomplishment that I'm confident IRCC will be able to repeat.

Unfortunately, the pandemic has had a very deleterious effect on both the backlog and the processing times. All throughout the pandemic, private sponsors were able to continue to submit cases to IRCC. At the same time, IRCC's overseas processing of cases slowed to a trickle. The resulting increased backlog—and it was significant—was exacerbated by Canada's commitment to resettle 40,000 Afghans by 2024. Private sponsors were asked to assist in this work through the operation Afghan safety program.

In addition to the direct increase of the backlog from private sponsors participating in the OAS program, I'm concerned that the situation will be made worse if IRCC resources used to process private sponsorship applications are redeployed to process Afghani cases in order to meet that target.

I'm here as one who has supported the OAS program. The goal of helping Afghani refugees is laudable, as is the desire to assist those displaced by the war in Ukraine through the CUAET program. The impact, though, of a decision to redeploy resources—if such a decision has been made—will lead to a significant increase in the backlog and in processing times for all other refugee populations, many of whom have waited in the queue for many years, oftentimes living in very intolerable conditions.

This ought to raise the question for us about how fair and equitable such an approach is to other refugee populations. I'm afraid that we have learned very little from the approach that was taken during the Syrian refugee crisis, where an enormous resettlement target of 25,000 Syrians was set and their processing was done at the expense of all other refugee populations, who had their processing times extended for an additional year so that this target could be met.

These extraordinary resettlement targets are fine, as long as they are adequately resourced and not resourced at the expense of other programs or other refugee populations. As an indication that such a decision to redeploy resources has been made, sponsorship agreement holders have experienced a significant delay in their annual allocation, which IRCC normally provides to SAHs by the end of February of each year. This allocation obviously indicates the total number of refugees that a SAH is able to submit sponsorship applications for in that year and oftentimes signals when SAHs are able to begin submitting applications to IRCC.

This year, we received the allocation not at the end of February, but towards the end of July—four and a half months later than normal. With the exception of 25 spots released in early 2022, SAHs were unable to submit applications to IRCC until the release of their annual allocation. This delay places an incredibly enormous pressure on SAHs to process and submit applications in the remaining five and a half months, essentially condensing a year's worth of work into five and a half months.

This enormous pressure placed upon SAHs has been exacerbated with the release of the program integrity framework and the new set of requirements for SAHs to complete a very onerous 34-question survey that is primarily focused on documenting policies and procedures that the SAHs undertake.

While time today, in my submission, will not permit me to comment on the many concerns that SAHs have expressed regarding this new framework, I would like to highlight that the timing of this rollout—in the midst of this already reduced processing period—is of great concern for most, if not all, SAHs.

With that, I will conclude my remarks.

Again, I extend thanks to the committee members for allowing me to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to our round of questioning. We will start with Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Genuis, you will have six minutes for your round of questioning. You can please begin.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Redekopp.

Thanks to both of you for your testimony.

Deacon Rudy, I want to put something to you and get your feedback on it. It seems to me that we have this challenge where there are crises in the world. The public is justly moved by images from those crises. The government makes commitments in terms of resettlement. Resources are moved from other places to that resettlement.

The problem is that this public policy response isn't increasing the net number of vulnerable people who are helped. It's simply moving resources around. There are people with long-standing challenges who are not in the top line of the news and, therefore, they're actually getting bumped down. What we really should be thinking about is not moving resources around, but how we help more people.

Related to that, when we ask this question, the government will always tell us that they can fulfill these new commitments without it negatively affecting people in other places. However, from what you're saying your consistent experience has been, it seems that if the government comes out and says they're going to help 20,000 people over here, this is necessarily going to draw resources from other places, which will expand backlogs and reduce the number of people who can come, at least in the current time frame.

What's your reaction to that?

[Deacon Rudy Ovcjak]

That's exactly right.

That is what happened during the Syrian refugee crisis. Essentially, in my understanding of what took place during that crisis, in order to meet the 25,000 target, they moved visa officers away from many of the posts and had them go to Lebanon and Jordan to process Syrian applications, which essentially stalled all the other applications. Many of them had been in the queue well before the Syrian crisis took effect.

It's a question of equity and justice. We want to be fair with all refugee populations and not place one refugee population ahead of the queue because they have the attention of the Canadian public.

This is why I've argued that if such targets are to be set—sometimes there's reason to do that—additional resources should be deployed and not moved from supporting other programs or other refugee populations.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

The government says they do that. They say that in all these cases when we ask the question.

Your experience is consistent with every other witness who is not employed by the government in saying that there is an impact. They're not just bringing a bunch of new resources on stream; they are being drawn away from other places.

[Deacon Rudy Ovcjak]

Yes, absolutely.

That is our experience and the experience of all SAHs.