:
We will start. We're having a briefing today on spousal sponsorship.
I want to welcome to our committee today Mr. Rick Stewart, associate deputy minister of operations, and Brenna MacNeil, director, social policy and programs, immigration branch. From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Susan Kramer, director, inland enforcement.
Welcome to all of you today. I guess you have statements you want to make, first of all, and then we will have interaction and questions and what have you.
I'll give it to you, Mr. Stewart.
We will keep our opening comments as brief as we can. In addition to the individuals you already introduced, accompanying me today is Diane Johnston, who is senior program officer in the operational management and coordination branch in the operations sector at CIC. She is part of my team.
We do welcome the opportunity to appear before you today and to have the chance to present information that hopefully you will find useful in your deliberations around the motion that you are considering. I hope we will be able to fully answer all of your questions.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to speak to you today on the implications of the motion being proposed with respect to spousal sponsorships.
Family reunification is a key element of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We recognize that keeping families together helps people integrate into Canadian society and contributes to their success. We believe our current policies reflect this goal.
Under the provisions of IRPA, there are measures in place which allow individuals who are already living in Canada to apply for permanent residence within Canada. There are two types of cases involved: those who are in status and those who are out of status. I will speak briefly to each of these types.
[English]
One is in-status applicants. Spouses and common law partners who are already in Canada may apply for permanent residence in the spouse or common law partner class in Canada. In order to be eligible under this class, applicants must live with their sponsoring spouse or common law partner in Canada, and they must have legal temporary status in Canada. While their applications are being processed, spouses and common law partners in the in-Canada class can apply to maintain their temporary resident status. In addition, once applicants have been confirmed as having met the eligibility requirements as spouses or common law partners in the in-Canada class, they can remain in Canada and apply for open work permits while the necessary background, security, and medical checks are done to obtain final approval.
[Translation]
This initial eligibility assessment, also known as approval in principle, plays an important role in preserving the integrity of Canada's immigration program. It ensures that CIC has determined that an applicant's relationship is genuine before he or she is eligible to apply for a work permit.
I would like to stress that while the majority of spousal applicants are in bona fide relationships, some do abuse our programs. To help prevent this abuse, CIC officers check an applicant's background, perform personal interviews, and examine evidence to ensure that the relationship is genuine, and to detect fraudulent relationships.
[English]
Our current policy of restricting access to open work permits until after approval in principle is obtained prevents applicants from using the spouse or common law partner in Canada class as an avenue to circumvent legitimate immigration processes.
The second is out-of-status applicants. Many applicants in the spouse or common law partner in Canada class have legal temporary status in Canada. However, for spouses and common law partners who are in Canada without legal immigration status, a public policy was introduced in 2005 to also allow these individuals, including failed refugee claimants, to apply for and be processed in the in-Canada class.
[Translation]
This public policy was implemented to facilitate family reunification in cases where spouses and common-law partners are already living together in Canada, but who may have certain technical inadmissibilities resulting in a lack of status.
These technical inadmissibilities include, for example, having overstayed their temporary status; working or studying without being authorized to do so; entering Canada without a valid passport, the required visa, or other documentation; and failed refugee claimants.
[English]
The ability to submit an application in these cases allows individuals to remain in Canada for a limited period of time—60 days—to facilitate the processing of the application to the approval in principle stage. However, during this time applicants are not allowed to apply for a work permit until they have obtained approval in principle. In addition to the initial 60-day deferral of removal, once an applicant has obtained approval in principle, a stay of removal is granted until a final decision on the application is made.
For individual cases, where a determination of eligibility is complex and may take longer than 60 days, CIC and CBSA consult to reach a decision on how best to proceed.
[Translation]
The current policy provides considerable flexibility to facilitate family reunification applications and processing from within Canada. In most cases, it allows people to stay while their applications are in process and once the bona fides of their application have been established, they are allowed to apply for an open work permit.
[English]
CIC and CBSA work closely together to ensure that these applications are processed in a timely fashion without undermining Canada's commitment to family reunification. We believe that our existing measures strike an appropriate balance between our family reunification goals and the need to maintain the integrity of the immigration system.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I now turn it over to Susan Kramer for her remarks.
:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and to provide you with information on immigration enforcement and how it relates to the recent motion on spousal applications made in Canada.
While Citizenship and Immigration Canada is primarily responsible for the facilitation aspects of immigration legislation, the CBSA is primarily responsible for enforcement of the act.
Immigration policy requires control; otherwise, the program is ineffective, leaving our doors wide open. Enforcement is key to the integrity of Canada's immigration and refugee programs and is fair to the thousands of persons who come to Canada legally each year. Controls, such as removals, ensure that Canada's best interests are considered with respect to safety and security, the economy, and our humanitarian and family reunification goals.
The CBSA prioritizes its enforcement action, with the first priority being those who pose a threat to national security. The next are those involved in organized crime, those involved in crimes against humanity, and criminals. The next priority is failed refugee claimants, followed by all others who violate immigration legislation. They include those who overstay, work, study, or live in Canada without permission, and those who misrepresent themselves.
Removing someone is a lengthy process. The time from when the removal order is issued to the time someone is actually removed can often be years. High-priority cases, of course--such as criminals--take much less time because they're a priority. We process them first.
Those under removal are also entitled to various levels of appeal. These processes can take months and sometimes years to be resolved. There is plenty of time for someone who wants to live in Canada to make an application for permanent residence.
Once all avenues of appeal have been exhausted, the immigration legislation is clear: a person under removal order must be removed as soon as is reasonably practicable.
The CBSA recognizes that there are instances of marriages between Canadian citizens or permanent residents and persons who are under a removal order. It is for this reason that the agency waits 60 days before enforcing a removal order when a spousal application has been made. This application must be submitted before enforcement action begins; without this time limit, those seeking to avoid removal would make continual applications for permanent residence under the spousal in-Canada class.
This 60 days gives Citizenship and Immigration time to assess the spousal application. If the application is refused, the removal process continues; if the application is approved in principle, the removal stops.
If the 60-day deferral period elapses and no decision has been made on the spousal application, the CBSA may proceed with the removal. Although this option exists, the CBSA does not often proceed with removals if it appears that the CIC decision is imminent on the application.
If the 60-day period expires and the CBSA proceeds with removal, these persons still have the usual recourse available to them, including a request to the Federal Court to stay the removal.
Additionally, while we're not in a position to discuss individual cases, there are other factors, such as criminality or security, that may prevent an individual from benefiting from a deferral of removal.
The removals process is lengthy, giving individuals ample opportunity to make a spousal application before enforcement action is initiated. Without a cut-off date, the spousal application process would be vulnerable to abuse, as individuals who would otherwise be removed would benefit from prolonged stays in Canada regardless of whether their relationship was legitimate. Those seeking to avoid removal could make repeated spousal applications, thereby jeopardizing the integrity of the immigration program.
We believe our existing measures strike the appropriate balance between the need to meet Canada's family reunification goals and the CBSA's mandate to remove those who are inadmissible to Canada as soon as reasonably possible. The removals program supports continued compliance and is a deterrent for those who fail to respect our laws.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Kramer, in your speech, you mentioned the time limits twice. You said, “Without limiting the time, those seeking to avoid removal would make continuous applications for permanent residence under the spousal-in-Canada class.” At the end, you stated “Those seeking to avoid removal could make repeated spousal applications, thereby jeopardizing the integrity of the immigration program. ”
I was not aware that an individual could file several spousal applications. I thought that since in Canada we can have only one, we would not be able to file several applications.
How would the time limit prevent people from filing repeated applications? Could you provide a more detailed explanation?
:
Many people appeal. Every decision can be appealed.
[English]
There are applications to the Federal Court to stop the removal. There are all kinds of mechanisms that delay a removal. Right now, for example, in the Immigration and Refugee Board there is a delay of eight to nine months before an appeal is heard. These are some things that are out of our control.
In addition, those who are being removed are entitled to a pre-removal risk assessment. It takes about eight months to process that. Sometimes it takes time to get travel documents for people we're removing. Sometimes we need to do a medical assessment to ensure they're fit to travel.
There are various factors that can have an impact.
How do you determine the legitimacy of a marriage? Ms. Chow said, why would somebody marry...? It has come to my attention that there are plenty of people who do get married, and they even have children, in an effort to stay here.
Also, for an inland application you require people in common law relationships to be living together. People who are sponsored from outside the country are not living together. Lots of them are abandoned at the airports or otherwise. How do you remove them, or what do you do about those people, or the fraudulent marriages?
:
You know, it isn't rocket science to figure out that when a committee of Parliament has a hearing on something, they probably would like to have some statistics instead of having a process that's like pulling teeth.
I really hope, Mr. Chair, we send a message to the department that in future, when they come before the committee, we would like to have some statistics on the areas that we might be asking questions on.
So we're operating within the 10%, and those are the people who are denied on security grounds, medical grounds. Now, all of the 100%, I take it, minus the ones where you don't approve their relationship, end up getting medical tests, criminal checks, security checks, right?
I think it was Ms. MacNeil who was answering my question. I'll go back to my original question, which she didn't have time to answer.
There are many, many groups of women and men who have sponsored spouses and abandoned them or have fraudulently sponsored them and they come to the country. In some jurisdictions, in Europe and the United States, there is a requirement that if you are married to somebody, you cannot get your documentation unless you are there for a certain number of years. Here we are facilitating these fraudulent marriages--people come here, stay here; the husband divorces or separates; then this man or woman goes and sponsors another person. Another person comes in and they separate. Then they go and sponsor another. This is a—
:
Then with the stuff I'm getting in Toronto, what you're telling me...either I'm not reading the faxes that I'm getting back from your offices right or I'm stupid. This is what you're telling me. And stupid I'm not, because I've been in this place for 20 years, much more than some people here combined.
What I'm getting from you in PRA is a month to two months. What I'm getting on GTEC is that from the time it goes in until the time you remove him, it's six months, a year tops. So either your offices in Toronto are not giving you the right information or I'm not reading the stuff right. For someone who's been here 20 years, six consecutive terms with whopping majorities, I don't think I'm stupid.
So please, I'm going to put the question again. From the time it enters GTEC until the time you kick him out, is it three years or is it one year? What is it?
:
Let me just comment on the question of the automaticity, because it has come up a couple of times now.
The reason, in these cases in which we have put a time window on cases where people are out of status as opposed to just providing an automatic stay in Canada until a decision is made, gets at the heart of the question was posing about the risk or the incidence of fraudulent relationships entered into seemingly for the purpose of getting here in the first instance.
I think the view is that the lack of an automaticity is a signal that you're subject to removal, but we're going to defer the removal—as opposed to staying the removal—for a period of time to allow ourselves to determine the authenticity of a relationship. I think the concern is that a move to pursue an automatic free stay in Canada until we decide sends a signal.
We can have a debate about whether it's a substantive or significant signal that significantly affects behaviour or not; that's a question of policy debate. But the perspective of having the possibility of removal there in some sense sends a signal that there is no free pass, as it were.
:
I want to get things back on the motion.
We are talking about is not marriages of convenience and fraudulent marriages and multiple applications and all that stuff; what we are talking about is getting a determination of the case for the person who has applied that this is legitimate or not legitimate before removal is made. That's all we're dealing with. Nobody's interested in having fraudulent marriages that are able to stay. It is the determination when the applications pour in, and it's your department, Mr. Stewart, that makes the decision on it.
The only thing the motion talks about is that until that process is completed, we do not waste time having the border security in, but make a determination on that case. Once that case is completed, if there's a need for border security to be in, then they are in. Until that takes place, having border security involved seems to me to be a real waste of bureaucratic time and a misspending of resources.
From my end, I go back to the parliamentary secretary. It seems to me--and I'm sure Mr. Khan would agree--that the security check should begin immediately, as well as the medical. That just seems to be prudent. All the motion talks about is that once an application is made and until a determination is made on it, border security has no business being in there. Any time they spend on it is totally useless. They should be out there looking for the criminals. That should be the priority, because we have a legitimate process going forward.
Just because CIC is slow in coming to a resolution, the family and the person who made the application should not be penalized. If the determination is that this is not an authentic relationship, then by all means remove the person. That is what we're talking about. Getting in there about fraudulent marriages and marriages of convenience....
You know, the whole issue here is very simple: it's to make a determination. Given the fact that 90% of the ones that are decided upon are legitimate, I think we should make sure everybody gets the opportunity to have their case heard.
I really would like to have statistics on that 11%, because nobody around this table wants to facilitate marriages of convenience. I think any suggestions to that effect are wrong.
What we want is a determination made on those cases that go before you, and you're going to have to say yea or nay on the authenticity of those applications.
:
I guess what I'm saying, sir, is that I recognize that, and with respect to direct reference to the objective of the motion, the provisions that we have under the act, under the regulations, and the flexibilities we've put into place were designed to be able to get us to a position to make a determination in virtually all cases that we can get to. Will it cover exactly 100% of all cases? Can we offer that guarantee here today? No, because there are going to be specific circumstances around some cases that mean there is going to be an objective or a reason to move on removal, and you referred to a couple of them in your comments.
What are those factors that lead us to not being able to make a determination in 60 days? We look at that--on what basis are we having difficulty reaching a final decision?--and we determine whether or not to proceed with the removal. I'm sure there are many cases where we've hit that 60 days where we've determined that it is not expeditious or efficient or effective to move forward on a removal, and we will wait to provide the time for our final decision.
So most of the conversation, I think, is really focused around a very small percentage of cases where, for some reason, there was a compelling reason, and the specifics of the case will have to dictate what that looks like, I think, when we've decided to move forward.
:
A spousal application has to be submitted before removal arrangements are made. The removal arrangement starts by calling someone into the office for a pre-removal interview. At that time, the person is asked if they'd like to make a pre-removal risk assessment. We look at their travel documents. We look at all the arrangements that need to be made before they're removed. That process takes about a year.
The pre-removal interview is not the beginning of the enforcement process. The beginning of the enforcement process starts when a report is written because there are grounds to believe the person is inadmissible. In most cases they're entitled to a hearing, especially if the case is complex, and the Immigration and Refugee Board makes a decision on whether or not someone is admissible and will issue a removal order.
In that process, because we live in Canada, there are many avenues of appeal available. Some cases go to the Immigration and Refugee Board, and some cases go to the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. These things take time and often can take years.
:
If I may be permitted, on the question of security processing and whether we should do this at the front end instead of the back end, I don't know that we adequately addressed that, and I would just offer a few comments.
I think the reason we do it in the order we do is this. I think you can appreciate that it does take time to do security screening and medical screening, but particularly the security side. Because that takes time, if we did it on the front end of a process, it would necessarily slow down our ability to get to an approval in principle stage on a determination of the relationship.
Because the ability to obtain an open work permit hinges on reaching an approval in principle decision, our objective is to try to get to an approval in principle based on the genuineness of the application in the case as quickly as we can, so that the individual can then have the flexibility to have a work permit or a study permit, and then to pursue the security screening results.
If it's an individual who is somebody of serious criminality, those circumstances are most likely to be known right up front. There'll be flags in the system that this is an individual for whom we can make a decision quickly.
On behalf of our committee, I want to thank both departments for coming here today and providing all of this information. It was very productive indeed and we thank you.
I know some of the questioning was tough, but you're tough people and you gave good answers, so thank you very much.
Now we can go to the motion that was put by Ms. Chow, and I'm sure you all remember. The motion was that the committee recommend--
:
Mr. Chair, allow me to say that in 2005 the minister at the time made a policy change. The policy was clear. It said, let's allow Canadians who want to sponsor their spouse in Canada to apply in Canada, whether or not their spouse is in status or not in status--simple. That is what the policy said, and there was no objection at that time; there was no uproar. People in the communities thought it made sense to allow them to apply.
But what happened? What happened was that the department.... Allow me to read this: “In 2005, a policy change was made to extend the benefits of the SCPC”—the spouse or common law partners in Canada class, to be more precise—“to spouses and common law partners who were in Canada without status. The regulations were not updated to reflect this. Instead a new public policy was adopted under the humanitarian and compassionate grounds provision in the IRPA.”
So the intention was to allow all inland applicants to apply in Canada for their spouses. Instead of just doing it the clean way, what happened was that the department decided to change a little bit of policy, and what you have noticed is that all of these people are getting caught. This is happening, according to what the Library of Parliament gave to me, okay?
An voice: What's the history?
Ms. Olivia Chow: I don't know the history; I wasn't here. But one way or another, the history is beside the point. What is happening is that there are people affected by this.
And, Mr. Komarnicki, it is not a small number, because it is not coincidental that in this committee alone, of all the members of Parliament, there are several MPs who have actual cases of people being deported. In my riding, a person's status stopped on January 31, and two days later the police—the police, okay?—knocked on his door and said, “You have to go; we're going to deport you.” He and his wife were not there. This is a person who has been in Canada for 13 years.
So there are these situations, and they are not small in number. We're not talking about fraudulent applications; we're not talking about people who want to cheat the system. We're talking about giving 60 days. But why not just allow them an automatic stay? That doesn't send any message out.
You know what's delaying them? It's not because there are fraudulent applications; it's because of the backlog at the CIC.
:
Look, we're not talking about huge numbers here, but we're talking about people who are impacted. If you go back to the 11% figure that they said it was, then you're talking about something like 1,500 people. But that includes all sorts of other categories.
The issue we are dealing with--the Conservatives should like this--is called family values. You do not split up families. You do not split up spouses. You do not split up parents and children.
What the motion speaks to is that an application is made...and we hear that 90% of the ones who are dealt with are legitimate, so I could make the conclusion that maybe similar numbers of those who get booted out are legitimate as well.
At any rate, what this speaks to is that the department does not deport somebody, does not take away a child from their mother or father, does not take a husband and wife away from each other, does not separate spouses. It's family values. This is the time to walk the talk. And that's what this motion is about. If an application is not legitimate, then removal can take place. But don't do removals of people who have not had their applications ruled on.
It's very simple: family values.
:
Mr. Chair, regarding the numbers, it doesn't matter if they're 10% and it doesn't matter if they're 20%. The numbers don't matter. What matters is that we have individuals who have sponsored spouses, and those people are deported. This is what is at issue.
Should Mr. Komarnicki want us to have a full--if you want to call it that--hearing on this, then do you know what? If he's prepared to move that we stop immediately all deportation until this committee has hearings and reports, that's fine. I don't think Mr. Komarnicki wants to entertain this. If that's the case, and Mr. Komarnicki agrees, we can adopt this very easily: we will stop deportations, we will have hearings, and this committee will report. We will stop deportations until we finalize the hearings and report to the House.
I think there is a spirit on this side that we go this way. I'm not sure if the Conservatives want to go that way. If they do--