:
I call meeting number five of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to order. Good afternoon, everyone.
We will continue with the study of the impact of COVID-19 on immigration.
Before we begin, I just want to remind all attendees about the health and safety measures that need to be taken.
To all the attendees in the room, physically distance yourselves from others by at least two metres, and wear a mask until you are seated and more than two metres away from anyone else. This is a hybrid meeting. Some members are appearing in person in the parliamentary precinct, and the other members are appearing remotely.
As a reminder to members, please speak at a slow enough pace for interpretation to keep up.
The clerk is tracking the raised hands and keeping a speaking list, if needed. All questions should be decided by a recorded vote, except for those decided unanimously or on division. This is based on the order adopted by the House on September 23. The meeting is being webcast and is available on ParlVU.
We are continuing to listen to witnesses on the impact of COVID-19 on the immigration system.
I want to welcome all the witnesses today. Thanks to all the witnesses for appearing before the committee and providing your important testimony.
We will be hearing today from Universities Canada. They are being represented by Paul Davidson, president and chief executive officer; as well as Wendy Therrien, director, external relations and research. We also have Colleges and Institutes Canada, being represented by Denise Amyot, president and chief executive officer. I also welcome Debbie Douglas, executive director for the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. On behalf of Alliance Canada Hong Kong, we will hear from Robert Falconer, research associate, immigration and refugee policy, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, and also Starus Chan, representative from Alliance Canada Hong Kong.
As individuals, we have appearing before us today Emmanuelle Bergeron, as well as Jatin Shory, lawyer for Shory Law.
We will proceed with our first panel. All the witnesses will have five minutes for their opening remarks.
I will start with Colleges and Institutes Canada. I would request Denise Amyot, president and chief executive officer, to please start.
You have five minutes for your opening remarks. The floor is yours.
:
Thank you, Madame Chair.
Bonjour and good afternoon, everybody.
Canada's colleges, institutes, polytechnics and CEGEPs are helping international students become ideal candidates for permanent residency and citizenship. They graduate with Canadian educational qualifications and in-demand skills, and are proficient in at least one of our official languages. International students are key in achieving the historic immigration target recently announced by .
[Translation]
Navigating this pandemic has led to some remarkable collaborations and innovations. The implementation, for example, of a two-stage process for the review of study permit applications provided students the certainty they needed to begin—
:
All right. I will repeat the last sentence.
For Canada to remain competitive, we must continue to innovate and invest in improving the student experience and in streamlining systems to attract those students and future citizens.
[English]
Colleges and institutes represent the fastest-growing level of study for international students in Canada, accounting for just under half of all study permit holders at the post-secondary level in 2019. This is in part because colleges are deeply connected to their communities and responsive to local labour markets.
Colleges and institutes embody Canadian values and often act as service hubs for newcomers. They are vectors through which temporary and permanent residents gain the language skills and the Canadian education and experience necessary for their successful integration. As Canada recovers, our network of publicly supported colleges and institutes is instrumental in helping to develop, attract and retain talent. In fact, 95% of Canada’s population lives within 50 kilometres of a college or institute campus. This means that our members play a key role in bringing the benefits of immigration to communities and local economies.
With that in mind, I’d like to focus the committee’s attention on the following five recommendations:
The first recommendation relates to short-term measures to remain competitive and attract students. Canada should allow for the collection of biometric data at the point of entry for students from countries where visa application centres remain closed, and immediately extend to the end of 2021 the two-stage study permit application process and the provisions that allow for time spent studying online to count towards a post-graduate work permit.
Second, IRCC should work collaboratively with CICan and other stakeholders to develop and implement an information-sharing mechanism that would allow visa officers and designated learning institutions to share information in real time related to admissions and study permit outcomes.
Third, in support of Canada’s evolving labour market needs, express entry must emphasize points for post-secondary education with in-demand technical and professional skills.
Fourth, the provision of settlement services should be extended to international students interested in making Canada their home.
Fifth, further investment should be made in promoting Canada as a place to study, work and live, to ensure that colleges and institutes can welcome students and potential new immigrants from a diverse set of countries.
:
Thank you, Chair and committee members.
I appreciate this opportunity to contribute to the study. As many of you know, OCASI is the umbrella organization for agencies working with immigrants and other newcomers here in Ontario, where I'm located.
It comes as no surprise that there have been many delays in all immigration, refugee, international student and migrant worker streams. For many, the delays existed even before the pandemic.
A big concern for all streams is that dependent children would age out and become ineligible to be sponsored. We recommend that the age of dependent children be locked in as of March 1, 2020, so that regardless of when the application is reopened, these children are included in the application.
Family members who are approved for sponsorship still cannot travel into Canada in most cases because of travel bans or difficulty in arranging travel. Many families overseas have not been able to find out what will happen when the visa to land in Canada expires, or how and when a new one would be issued to allow them to land. We recommend that all landing dates be extended at least until the borders are fully opened and travel fully resumes, or IRCC should land overseas applicants via email, as they are beginning to do now for people already in Canada. That would allow them to come here as permanent residents regardless of current travel restrictions.
Permanent resident card renewals are also delayed. Some permanent residents whose cards expired are stranded outside Canada with no hope of being able to return. Most if not all embassies are still closed, and stranded permanent residents have nowhere to turn for help. We are recommending that the Canadian government issue a public communication so that those overseas and/or their families here will know that those with PR will continue to be recognized as permanent residents in spite of the expiration of their PR cards.
As for refugees, IRCC's level for family members of refugees accepted in Canada is far lower than the number of people who are awaiting family reunification. The combination of low numbers, existing processing delays and COVID-related delays will only make people wait longer for family reunification. We recommend that the total number of refugee family reunifications be increased.
There are gaps and delays in communications from IRCC. The only information is what is being posted on the website. That is sometimes unclear and doesn't speak to the specific situations people are facing because of COVID. We appreciate that IRCC has tried to keep the public informed of most measures, but there is still a need for consistent, clear and more comprehensive information about migration offices overseas, as well as local offices here, as to exactly what is available and what is not. Inadequate communication is one of the biggest concerns we have heard from our member agencies and their clients. We recommend that IRCC show more flexibility and compassion during this extraordinary period.
Before I move on to my last point, I am sure you've all been receiving emails from many sponsored spouses. We've been hearing story after story of months and months, sometimes as long as 28 months, which is the last story I saw this morning in an email from a spouse. There is no information, and people want to know when they can have their spouses here in Canada.
On parents and grandparents, we appreciate the government's recent announcement to expedite spousal sponsorship, to allow the entry of extended family and to temporarily ease the minimum necessary income requirement.
Introduction of the minimum necessary income and the later 30% increase have been a tremendous hardship for many Canadian residents. Until Canada dismantles structural disadvantage and ends income inequality, racialized Canadians, especially racialized immigrant women, will be disproportionately excluded from family reunification. This has been over the last six to seven years.
For this reason, we are again recommending that the minimum necessary income be eliminated to make the immigration system both fair and equitable—
:
As I said, we continue to bring this recommendation forward about the minimum necessary income. We have pointed out that the introduction of the MNI and later the 30% increase have caused tremendous hardship for many Canadian residents. In particular, racialized Canadians, as we all know, tend to be overrepresented in low-wage jobs or in low income, and they have been disproportionately impacted by the MNI rule.
Until Canada dismantles structural disadvantage and ends income inequality, racialized Canadians—especially racialized immigrant women—will be disproportionately excluded from family reunification. We recommend that the MNI be eliminated to make the immigration system more fair and equitable and consistent with an anti-racism and feminist approach.
We welcome the opening of the parents and grandparents sponsorship program, but the number of spaces is too low. Many families have been waiting for years to reunite their family. In some cases, parents and grandparents have died and dependent family members have aged out. The cap on parents and grandparents sponsorship, rather than the lottery, is unfair, and it takes a heavy toll on families. We are, therefore, recommending that the cap be removed and that more resources be put into processing so that everyone who wants to reunite with parents and grandparents and who meets the criteria can apply and expect to get a decision within a reasonable amount of time.
I will hold off on discussing international students, since my colleagues from CIC and from the association of university teachers are here.
Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for the invitation, for conducting the study and for the extraordinary work that all parliamentarians are doing during this challenging time.
I'd especially like to welcome the newer members to this committee. Of course, immigration is one of Canada's great competitive strengths, and the work of this committee is important in ensuring that this asset remains.
With me today is Wendy Therrien, who leads our public policy and public affairs efforts. She'll be particularly available for questions the committee may have.
As you may know, Universities Canada represents all 96 universities across the country. Taken together, Canada's universities are a $38-billion enterprise that is a significant driver of economic prosperity. Universities provide employment for over 310,000 people. In many cases, universities are the largest employer in their community. As well, we are the talent engines for Canada.
It's great to be here with my colleague, Denise Amyot. I very much support her comments earlier today. We work together, particularly on matters of immigration and success for international students.
Canada's universities are an integral part of the team Canada approach to the COVID-19 pandemic, from mitigating the risk to the search for a vaccine and cure and accelerating Canada's economy into recovery. We appreciate the challenge now facing the government and all of us: that of restarting the Canadian economy while continuing the health measures necessary to keep COVID-19 at bay.
We've greatly appreciated the steps the government has taken to support our sector, including ensuring international students can continue their studies, whether online or in person. As these measures take effect, I want to highlight the role that universities, and international students specifically, can have in our recovery from COVID-19.
Canada's need to attract skilled talent predates the pandemic. As our population ages and the labour force shrinks, our future prosperity depends on our ability to welcome immigrants from around the world. Universities are an integral part of Canada's immigration system, welcoming well over 200,000 international students per year. Once in Canada, these students are able to take advantage of government pathways to immigration.
Our institutions can be key partners in attracting, training and retaining skilled talent. At all levels of study, international students bring new perspectives, ideas and valuable human connections abroad. As students, they contribute over $22 billion to the Canadian economy annually.
As graduates, many become highly skilled individuals, contributing to local Canadian communities, or they return home with an appreciation for what Canada has to offer as a society and as a business partner.
While they are here, international students play a crucial part in our research and innovation ecosystem. Our ability to conduct research and to make new discoveries that strengthen our economy is dependent on a steady flow of international talent. International graduate students in particular are the arms and legs of our research enterprise.
However, as Denise was mentioning, international student recruitment has been hampered by COVID-19. Federal measures to accommodate online learning for international students and to provide a pathway for their safe return to Canada have been very helpful, but after five years of an average of 10% growth annually, international student enrolment at universities this year was down 2%. While these aggregate numbers might not seem so bad, given the circumstances, it's important to note that 51 universities saw a decline in international students compared to last year. Of these universities, 26 saw a decline of over 10% and 14 saw a decline of over 20%. This is having an impact not just for the universities, but also for grocery stores, car dealerships and families renting a room to international students. It is a loss that will be felt for at least the next four years.
The good news is that, given events in other countries, Canada's brand remains strong. We've seen federal investment in regaining traditional markets as well as in building our relationship with emerging markets, such as Vietnam and the Philippines. With these strategic investments, Canada can actually leapfrog competitor countries and build back stronger relationships with key sources for international students. As the speech from the throne outlined, these investments will ensure that Canada remains a destination of choice for top talent. These international students, many of them graduate students, will help grow our economy and stabilize the recovery of the post-secondary education sector.
We appreciate the work that all the members of the committee have done to help Canada recover from COVID-19 and we look forward to partnering to build a stronger Canada.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Witnesses, it is great to see you. I know I have seen some of you in other committees. I'm on a new committee. Paul, you come to mind. I've known you for many years on the Hill, as well as Wendy and certainly Denise. I have seen you in other committees.
I have some tough questions. I understand and appreciate how important our foreign students are. I look at the spat we had with Saudi Arabia back in 2018. Based on the numbers in 2016, Saudi Arabia was probably about 10% of what we get in terms of people and students from China.
I'm going to ask some questions and these may not be easy questions, but I think they are absolutely something we need to consider. We have issues around Hong Kong, Huawei, the two Michaels. Are you guys concerned about what the Chinese may do in retaliation? It's a very delicate balance. My last numbers in 2016 had us at almost 150,000 short-term and long-term students from China. I would be interested, Paul or Wendy, what those numbers are today. I know we've had a bit of a decline because of COVID and [Technical difficulty—Editor] how important students are in terms of immigration, revenue, etc.
Can you elaborate on that relationship with China? It's a very delicate one.
:
I'd be happy to start, and Wendy may be able to have the most up-to-date enrolment numbers from China. International student enrolment has grown both for colleges and universities over the last decade. China has been a significant source, and so has India. China is the largest source for universities.
That said, for a number of years we've been working to diversify the source countries, and we are very actively doing that to make sure we don't become overly dependent on one particular market.
There are some differences between the Saudi situation and the China situation, in that most Chinese students are self-financed, whereas in the Saudi situation they were scholarship students sponsored by the Saudi government. So there are some differences there. Frankly, both Canada and China recognize the value of having the flow of students from China to Canada and from Canada to China.
You are right that we are in a period of change in political dynamics. We're quite mindful of those dynamics, but we also know that universities play an important role in keeping channels of communication open when other channels are not open, and also the people-to-people contacts can develop and contribute lasting benefit to Canada.
:
Welcome to the committee. These are terrific questions.
Because over the years we have worked together on a number of issues and all parties have worked on building and strengthening the relationship with China and increasing the flow of students from China, I think we're all committed to trying to find solutions that reflect the current reality. One stream is to diversify our sources of students.
With regard to the situation in Hong Kong, our universities take those situations very seriously because universities believe in the free flow of people and ideas. There are a number of challenges with regard to the situation in Hong Kong and with the new legislative frameworks that have been introduced.
That said, we want to make sure we have a careful, calm and dispassionate conversation about these challenges. One of the benefits of Canada's approach to these matters and immigration matters is that it has been largely non-partisan. We're really encouraging that kind of dialogue, where we look at what the changing dynamics are, what the changing security challenges are and what the changing realities are in the realigning geopolitical movement.
:
Thank you very much for the question. I would be happy to explain.
Our institutions pay close attention to what employers in their regions are saying, not to mention national bodies that represent business and industry. They are all lamenting the skills shortage, which we know will continue to be a problem in the recovery phase. We also know that immigration is the solution to the problem and that international students make ideal immigrants, because they speak the language and have studied here. Many of them have also gained work experience in Canada.
Consider the Cégep de Sherbrooke, an institution that is working with other sectors to address the problem. The Cégep de Sherbrooke formed partnerships with eight regional county municipalities in the region. The institution delivers training and support to the international students, while the regional county municipalities provide accommodations, work placements and jobs for international graduates.
I could also mention the Cégep de Matane and the Cégep de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue, both of which have told us repeatedly that, without international students, the local mining industry would be struggling. Why? Because international students tend to choose areas of study that local students do not.
I will end with this: the benefits are numerous when it comes to encouraging international students to come here in larger numbers and expediting the status recognition process so they can become immigrants.
Thank you to all the witnesses for their opening statements.
My first question is for you, Ms. Amyot. You brought up the closure of biometric data collection centres in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the problems that has created. That is an issue I was hearing about even before the pandemic. For instance, the Cégep de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu was dealing with that because students from Réunion Island did not have access to such a centre at home. These are people who help alleviate the labour shortage in the biomedical field, in particular. We want to attract those students, and we don't want to see programs cancelled because of a lack of enrolment.
Once the pandemic is behind us, will people in countries without biometric data collection centres be able to provide their biometrics here?
:
You really hit a nerve because that is a very serious issue.
All of our members are complaining to us about that right now. Certain French-speaking countries in Africa are especially affected. A solution has to be found. I know the department initiated a pilot project around a mobile biometrics system at one point, but the project was disrupted, so I don't know what came of it.
As you suggested, people in the affected countries could submit to biometric data collection when they enter Canada. I completely agree with you. We are seeing a decrease in international student enrolment among our membership. I wish I could tell you enrolment was down 2%, as in Mr. Davidson's case, but it's much more for our members. That holds true for spring, summer and fall enrolment. The situation isn't looking any better for the winter, so we have to find solutions.
:
Thank you, Madame Normandin.
I will say a few words, and then I'll ask Wendy to follow up.
First of all, in terms of the online experience, Canada's universities moved 1.4 million learners online in 10 days. It was a remarkable achievement and students were able to complete their course work in the winter, and then in the spring and summer terms we've been investing heavily to improve the online experience for students. It's particularly important for international students, and it was a key feature that distinguishes Canada from other jurisdictions. It enabled international students to register online to continue their studies, and to be eligible for the immigration benefits of study in Canada.
I'll turn now to Wendy Therrien just to describe some of the other dimensions of the online experience for international students and for Canadian students as well.
:
I was saying that every international student's goal is to come to Canada.
As for the immigration of international students, their coming to Canada is one of our goals as a country. As Mr. Davidson said, online learning is hugely important, precisely because international students were able to begin their studies. Without that virtual option, we could have lost a whole crop of students.
It will be important, however, to help all of the students who moved online transition to in-person learning, so they can get more out of their learning experience, and we as well.
:
Absolutely. With all of our recommendations, one thing that we have been trying to impress upon government is that parents and grandparents contribute to the social and economic assessment and integration of families. Grandparents, in particular, are not only cultural bridges but they also support the families in terms of unpaid child care. More than that, they become a support to the family. This is especially important for women, who are then better able to participate in the labour market. It becomes a win-win for everyone: for the children; for the sponsors, who are the children of those being sponsored; and, of course, for the parents and grandparents, who are then reunified with their families.
Removing the minimum necessary income will allow a larger group of people to be able to sponsor, and lifting the cap on parents and grandparents, and increasing the resources needed to process that, can only lead to a better program. We've heard from families time and time again who have been waiting sometimes for over 10 years and they have not been able.... Whether it's the lottery system or, as you know, with the cap by January 1 end of day, before the 10-month pause that we had, all of the numbers would have been taken up. Time and time again folks were unable to get their application in, and with the lottery system it is the luck of the draw.
What we are saying is to lift the cap and have people who want to sponsor put in an application. Let's invest the resources to be able to process those applications in a timely manner, because, after all, parents and grandparents do contribute economically and socially.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, Ms. Amyot, Ms. Douglas, Ms. Therrien and Mr. Davidson. I would appreciate input from all of you on my first question.
We know that there is Chinese intimidation on campuses of students. It's something that I believe will be increasing and won't be getting better. Is there a government plan to prevent that? If you are aware of one, we would appreciate your advising us on it.
I guess I'll start with you, Mr. Davidson.
:
That's a very good question. Thanks very much.
As I was saying, given the restrictions on travel due to COVID and the closing of embassies, what we are strongly encouraging the government to do is to look internally to identify the folks who are here with a precarious immigration status and those who are undocumented and to create a pathway for them to have their status regularized.
Settlement services are ready to act as proxy. We know that there will be some hesitation in terms of the people coming forward unless there are clear guarantees that they will not be deported before they have a fair trial and hearing. We expect the government to put clear guidance in place and, as I said, to work with our community-based organizations, which will work to support the individuals but also to support the government in reaching those communities.
We absolutely support the government focus on immigration as a response, an economic response. That has always been true. It will continue to be true for Canada, both economically and demographically speaking.
[Technical difficulty—Editor ] in our long-term care homes [Technical difficulty—Editor]—
:
We have experience of this in Canada. I believe the last regularization program was in the early to mid-1980s. It was a huge success.
As I said, we have a number of folks here who want to stay in Canada, including those in the seasonal agricultural workers program, who have been coming in and out of Canada for sometimes 15 or 20 years. We have folks who are refugee claimants and have been waiting. The process should be expedited for them. We have temporary foreign workers working in our health field. They also want permanent residency. We have caregivers, as we spoke about earlier with MP Kwan, who want the process regularized.
We have a number of folks who are here. [Technical difficulty—Editor] with a clear process, with the support of community-based organizations, including faith communities, I believe that the time is right for us to put a regularization program in place to meet our immigration numbers that were recently announced by .
With this, our first panel comes to an end.
Thank you to all the witnesses, and a special thanks to Ms. Douglas. I know you had to leave, but we really appreciate your staying longer with us.
You can stay with us, but if any people on the first panel have to leave, they can leave also.
Now we will move to our second panel.
:
My story is one that thousands of Canadians share. My name is Emmanuelle Bergeron, and I never expected to fall in love with a man who lived in another country. On July 7, 2017, I met Ernesto Davalos Urbizo. From that point on, I flew to see him as much as I could as our relationship grew. The periods of separation have always been filled with emotional conversations online.
In February 2018, I was thrilled to be able to tell him that he was going to be a father. Being in my early 40s, I no longer thought that dream possible. We were excited about our plans for the future and we met with a lawyer to apply for a temporary visa. We were applying so that my partner could be here for the birth of our son. I was planning to go back to Cuba when the baby was two months old for my maternity leave. That would give us time to work on the application for permanent residence through sponsorship. We submitted all of the necessary proof and documentation, but in 2018, we were shocked to learn that the application had been refused under subsection 179(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
On July 11, 2018, in front of family and friends in Varadero, I promised not just to cherish Ernesto, but also to do everything in my power to reunite our whole family under one roof. A few days later, we found out that another application had been refused, this one for a visitor visa so that Ernesto could be with me for the birth of our son. I was six months' pregnant and a soon-to-be mother—my heart was broken. I could no longer hold back tears at the airport, where I once again had to say goodbye to my husband. It is thanks to the support of family and friends that I was able to return to Canada without him. The government refused his basic right to be present for the birth of his son on the pretext that he had family ties here, in Canada, and had not convinced the immigration officer that he would return to his country.
On July 30, 2018, I filled out and submitted the application and paid the required fees. My son Lucas was born on October 1, 2018, and his father, Ernesto, learned that he had become a father a few minutes later by video conference. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, opened our sponsorship application on November 28, 2018. The interminable wait had begun. During the long months of not hearing from the department other than to receive requests for updated documents and forms, my son and I travelled to see his father. Ernesto held his son in his arms for the first time when Lucas was two years old.
On July 28, 2019, a year after submitting the application, we received a request to complete a medical exam and permission to apply for a Quebec selection certificate. Applicants are supposed to receive an answer within 25 business days, but I did not receive it until December 4, 2019, five months later. That was yet another document that delayed the processing of our application.
As time went on, visits grew further apart and finances became strained. After 18 months of waiting, we received a letter from IRCC asking us to prove that our love was a genuine, bona fide and public relationship. A month later, on February 8, 2020, we received a letter welcoming my husband to Canada. We cried tears of joy. We were happy and we thought it was over, but alas, it was not. On March 19, 2020, we received another letter notifying us that the medical exam results had been lost. I was angry. My spouse had taken the medical exam in Trinidad and Tobago on August 26, 2019.
Since Cuba no longer had a panel physician following service cuts at the Canadian embassy in Havana, I had to pay for the trip, something I had not budgeted for. It cost me about $4,000. Since then, I have submitted the supporting document provided by the clinic three times, but it doesn't show up in my IRCC account. After calling the clinic where the exam was conducted, I was told by the secretary that the results did indeed appear in IRCC's online system. She sent everything by fax and email to Mexico City. What happened to the results? We will never know because IRCC never responds to our inquiries.
COVID-19 blindsided the entire planet, causing countries to close their borders. Frankly, I am worn out. I don't think I can make it through another goodbye at the airport. In the past two years, Ernesto was able to cuddle, rock and hold his son for all of 15 weeks. We have been waiting for 27 months. We have submitted all of the required documents, we have met the Quebec selection certificate criteria and we have paid all the fees.
The last time Ernesto held his son in his arms was January 5, 2020, more than 315 days ago. I am worn out and on the brink of depression. I cry every time my two-year-old son brings me the telephone saying “daddy, daddy” because he wants to see his father. I cry every morning because my husband is so far away. I feel like the government has robbed me of the most precious moments of my life, moments I will never get back. I have moved past anger. I want to cry foul when I see the government issue visas to people who submitted their applications after I did and who do not have children. How a country built on family values can turn its back on us like this is beyond me.
Today, I am speaking on behalf of all the women who have and who will give birth to their child without their spouse by their side.
Would or stand for being separated from their wives at a time as important as the birth of their child?
On what basis can an immigration officer decide to deny a father his fundamental right to see the birth of his child?
Thousands of Canadian families are living with the lack of transparency, the inconsistency and the unfairness caused by the discretionary power of officers. As a result, we remain uncertain about the future of our family.
:
Madam Chair and honourable committee members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration this afternoon.
My name is Jatin Shory, and I am an immigration and refugee lawyer working at Shory Law in Calgary, Alberta.
It is my understanding that the committee is currently studying the impact of COVID-19 on Canada's immigration system. I believe this inquiry is an important step in the right direction, and I suspect that the committee members have received a variety of perspectives and suggestions over the course of this exercise.
It was only seven months ago when the Canadian government began to announce significant steps to contain and manage, in a predictable timeline, the global COVID-19 pandemic. In my world, that of immigration, it began with significant border closures and restrictions on travel, resulting in thousands of families becoming separated. Internally, application processing was halted, and hearings at various courts and tribunals paused.
The world of immigration law subsequently became a process of staying up to date with further directions from the government, policy announcements and interpreting orders in council being issued, at times on a weekly basis.
Around that time, I had just won a matter at the immigration appeal division by consent from the minister's council. My client had sponsored his wife, and this application had been refused. He was a father of three, and his family application had been refused in an interview of his wife that he did not even get the chance to participate in.
After this win, of course, my client was ecstatic. His wife's file, however, was being managed at the High Commission of Canada office out of London. Then COVID hit, and his file remains at a standstill today. My client had three children with his wife, and yet the genuineness of his marriage was still being questioned. He has now been waiting for almost three years for his family to reunite in Canada.
Most of the phone calls or advice I gave for the first few months following the lockdowns were largely around how to bring back a spouse, how to reunite with a partner and why they're not letting family work when they have all the documentation the government says they need.
It became clear that family reunification, which is among the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, would need to become a priority. This left a lasting impression on me as a professional, and I continue to observe what solutions the government is presenting for the future of immigration in Canada.
Family reunification is at the forefront for many Canadians and permanent residents. There have been homegrown movements by Canadians and permanent residents demanding more transparency on why their application to reunite with their loved ones has been halted, and this was covered extensively by the media and continues to be today as well.
The government responded by confirming the allocation of more resources to the processing of overseas applications. I applaud these efforts. Many of my clients who were in the final stages of their processing are now beginning to receive their passport requests. However, what will happen to the thousands of families who have been picked for interviews that, in reality, have no specified timeline to resume?
One of my clients came out of a very abusive relationship. She had a child out of this relationship. Culturally, she struggled with getting independence and confidence to move forward in her life in these conditions. She found a life partner and overcame the adversity faced by women in her circumstances. We were told that interviews were going to be set for the summer of 2020. Obviously that did not happen, and my client remains lost as to when she can begin the next chapter of her life.
In a time when Canada is beginning to evaluate a more efficient system of processing applications that maintains integrity, I believe it is imperative that IRCC also take this as an opportunity to go back to the drawing board on how overseas applications are being processed and selected for interviews. It is imperative that IRCC take this opportunity to consider the following reforms.
One is speeding up the interview and application process, and two is introducing new forms of training for immigration officers to make them more attuned to the parties' physical and mental conditions as well as their social and cultural backgrounds.
The backlog of file processing would definitely result in families being separated for unjustifiable periods because of the current system. The movement towards electronic solutions is apparently required in 2020; however, some of the family reunification pathways available today continue with the status quo from previous years: the paper filing of humanitarian and compassionate applications, other sponsorship applications and even temporary resident permits, and the need for wet signatures.
The use of technology can be further instilled in the interview process. Virtual interviews are a solution to an anticipated backlog of processing. It is a process that has been smoothly incorporated at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. If we can introduce artificial intelligence at various visa processing centres overseas, why can we not bring forward a solution like this as well?
Canada is a leader when it comes to global immigration. We need to continue to demonstrate that through this pandemic.
Thank you again, and I invite questions.
:
Thank you to the committee for inviting me. It's an honour and a pleasure to present with Starus and Alliance Canada Hong Kong.
The topic of today actually goes along with Mr. Shory, about the idea of timeliness and flexibility when it comes to the processing of applications for refugee claimants, immigrants and others. While we do come here as a group that's focused on Hong Kongers, the recommendations we make would be very similar, and would broadly impact the larger immigrant and refugee community.
Historically, our [Technical difficulty—Editor] has not been very flexible. Since 2000, we've had three periods where large numbers of claims were made in Canada, and each time it has taken several years for the Immigration and Refugee Board to catch up and process those claims. This is, by the way, the same with the most recent rise in refugee numbers since about 2016, and still our system continues to try to catch up.
With the advent of COVID-19, the faults in the processing pipeline, as it were, continue to have real human impacts. I was looking at some data today, and it was quite apparent that since March 2020, about 44% of all refugee claims have been referred to the IRB for a hearing date. That's in comparison to [Technical difficulty—Editor] per cent in the same period last year. While we can certainly understand why the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic would exacerbate the ability to process and refer refugee claims, we have to understand there are human lives in the mix here. They are unable to access work permits, attain status in Canada and access social services. They are all impacted by those wait times.
Likewise, it prevents [Technical difficulty—Editor] especially the provinces, which, rightfully so, have to [Technical difficulty—Editor] lives of refugee claimants while their claims are being processed.
In addition to this, international students have found it very difficult to make the transition from graduation into the Canadian economic immigration system. Graduates of an education program will find that [Technical difficulty—Editor] study in Canada to excel academically and to find work afterwards, through no fault of their own but only because of the economic circumstances that surround them, they will be unable to gain the points necessary to qualify for the economic immigration system.
With that, we would like to make several recommendations.
The first would be that Canada develop a five-year post-graduate work permit, similar to the Australian model that was adopted for Hong Kongers. This would allow international students in Canada, who have graduated from our system, more time to gain work experience in Canada.
The second, for those who are fleeing or who are here from countries with oppressive regimes, as in the situation in Hong Kong right now, is to provide them more safety in Canada, and if need be, access to the refugee claim system.
Finally, it would be the transition to an interim visa program. Right now, refugee claimants, students or workers who are transitioning out of one permit to another whose permit expires in the meantime...on an implied status that is [Technical difficulty—Editor] many employers [Technical difficulty—Editor] students and workers themselves. The new [Technical difficulty—Editor] offers an interim visa program that, immediately upon applying for an extension or a change of status in the visa, issues them an interim visa that would last until the government gets back to them with their new work, study or visitor permit.
In addition, [Technical difficulty—Editor] into our immigration and refugee system would pay dividends both in humanitarian [Technical difficulty—Editor] as well as to the management of our immigration and refugee system.
The [Technical difficulty—Editor] aspect will be presented by my associate, Starus. The delays in the processing of work permits, study permits, and refugee claim referrals have a real impact, causing stress, financial difficulties, and inability to access social services.
I'll pass the time over to Starus.
:
Thank you for letting me speak here today.
I'm an international student from Hong Kong, and also a student activist for the democratic movement. I'm here to speak about my experience.
We all know that Hong Kong is not safe for student activists anymore. However, here in Canada, Tibetans, Uighurs and Hong Kong student activists are being intimidated and harassed by pro-[Technical difficulty—Editor] supporters. We worry that our activities are being documented, and that this may lead to potential prosecution for us and our families.
We sincerely hope that the government will implement immigration and asylum measures as soon as possible. It's stressful for international students and their families to tackle COVID-19, Canada's immigration system, and also worry about their safety at the same time.
I wanted to go back—
I wasn't [Technical difficulty—Editor]. I noted when I read the [Technical difficulty—Editor]. While I think the announcement is a first step, it's an insufficient one.
With regard to humanitarian intervention, which is really what this is, I can understand the desire of [Technical difficulty—Editor] for highly qualified students. Again, I applaud those measures, but it leaves a very large gap for grandparents and for extended family members who might not qualify and for those not having post-secondary education within the recent past.
I don't know the exact time, but I believe the recent graduate qualification for these programs is that within the past five years they would have had to [Technical difficulty—Editor] a program.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the presenters.
My questions will go to Jatin.
Jatin, first of all, my apologies that I was not part of your wedding celebration, even though your auntie, my wife, Roni, was there. I wish all the best to you and your wife in the coming years.
Jatin, in the business you are in and the area you are coming from, I'm sure you are hearing the same things that I do. If we look prior to 2015 and moving forward to 2021, when it comes to parents and grandparents, the number of applications we can take has increased sixfold, from 5,000 applications all the way to 30,000 applications, and we have increased the age of a dependent child from 18 to 22. Last year, in 2019, the number of spouses, parents and grandparents...27% of the immigration was from that category.
When it comes to wait times, they have gone from several years to two years for parents and grandparents, and from almost over two years to one year for spousal applications. That is the reduction in the wait times. To reduce these wait times, which were historically inherited and are because of COVID, we're going to process 49,000 spousal applications by the end of December.
Jatin, I would like you to comment on how you see these developments for reducing the backlog that was inherited historically and because of COVID, and also comment on the number of applications we are going to accept.
:
Mr. Dhaliwal, sir, thank you for the question. You were missed at the wedding as well, so no worries there.
I'll speak about the parents and grandparents first, and then I'll talk about the spousal sponsorship applications.
With respect to the parents and grandparents applications right now, it's great that they're still being accepted. It's great that the procedure is still being...and the program is still in play. However, it's a bit confusing for me. Last year, we had the “first-come, first-served” situation, and it was pretty obvious, I think.... Within seven minutes, the entire portal shut down. It was quite devastating for a lot of our clients, as well, who were trying to get some help. It was really devastating for people who didn't have an adequate Internet connection, people who couldn't type as quickly as other people.
It's my understanding that the government had to settle a number of cases, as well, due to human rights concerns that were brought up, so I can understand why the government may have decided this year to revert back to the lottery system. It is a system that I think prior to last year's program was a system that ultimately had some form of consistency based on programs that existed before. This year I guess it is 10,000 applications or interest to sponsor forms that will be selected, and I guess it's 30,000 next year. I'm not too sure if that is the best system moving forward.
I know that this is not the first committee meeting. I know there have been a number of suggestions by senior colleagues in the space, suggestions for weighted lottery systems, for example. That's something that should probably be explored in today's day and age. It's something that even clients have asked us when they come in talking about the different types of ways that they have been considered, people who have been waiting five to 10 years just to sponsor their parents.
With respect to the spousal sponsorship applications, frankly, I'm really confused. Of the 49,000 spousal sponsorship applications being processed, how many are going to be successful? What kinds of mechanisms and safeguards are being put into evaluating the way the discretion of visa officers is being exercised and the way they're actually looking into and evaluating the genuineness of marriage or the primary purpose of the application? Ms. Bergeron's story is, unfortunately, not unique. It's something that a number of my clients come in the door sharing with us. I'm curious to see how that plays out.
Again, those are my concerns here today.
:
It was a generic response, which referred to paragraph 179(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
The visa application was refused on the grounds that my husband had ties here in Canada and that he didn't have enough money in his bank account. This wasn't true. I deposited money into his bank account to make sure that he had the amount required by Canada. I was also told that he had never travelled. They don't take into account the fact that people from Cuba can't travel. The same reasons are given in the two refusal letters.
For our second application, counsel put together a very good case. The plane tickets were purchased in advance and everything was done according to Canada's requirements. We provided proof that he was making the trip for the birth of his son. The application was refused.
On what basis can an officer prevent a father from seeing the birth of his child? I have thousands of questions for the people at immigration. I don't understand why you prevented this. What's happening? Why can't a father see the birth of his child?
:
There isn't any. I've lost confidence in the system.
When I went to the embassy in Havana to pick up the second refusal, I was five months pregnant. I threw a pregnant woman tantrum so that I could go in and speak to an officer.
When I finally managed to meet with an officer who spoke some English, he explained to me that what wasn't written was that my case had been refused because I hadn't paid the application for permanent residence fee. The $1,200 fee was the issue. I told the officer that my husband was being prevented from seeing the birth of his child because I hadn't yet paid the $1,200, which I planned to pay shortly, and that this was why the case was refused.
He said that they were putting this note in the case file. He suggested that I submit the application for permanent residence and then apply for a visitor's visa. I asked him whether he knew how much each application cost. I told him that I had accumulated over $10,000 in immigration-related debt. This included all the paperwork and translations. It's incredibly expensive.
Our relationship is much more complicated. We must admit it.
At the age of 40, I may have wanted a second child. I turned 41 two weeks ago, and I'm too old for this. The immigration system ensured that I won't have a second child. I'm 41 years old. By the time Ernesto arrives, I'll be too old to get pregnant again. Not only was he denied the opportunity to attend the birth of the first child, but I won't have other children.
You choose people's future and you have unbelievable control over it, while people live in uncertainty. I also don't even know whether that future will happen.
With respect to the people in Hong Kong, the minister actually mentioned family reunification. As we know, family reunifications are restricted to spouse and dependants, or partners and dependants if you will, and, in a very limited capacity, parents and grandparents, and we already know that is with the luck of the draw. This year that avenue is already closed, so it would not apply to people in Hong Kong in any event.
We used to have a program under which extended family members could sponsor each other to come. In fact, my own family was sponsored by my aunt to come to Canada.
Would you say the government should expand the family reunification stream to go beyond spouses or partners and dependants, and to allow for siblings and other extended family to sponsor each other to come to Canada?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for coming before our meeting today.
Ms. Bergeron, let me just start by saying thank you for the courage it took to share your experience. We've heard through our offices many heart-breaking and gut-wrenching stories, unfortunately, that are much the same.
I want to ask you, Ms. Bergeron, if you ever tried reaching out to your MP in regard to the situation. If you did, would you mind sharing what kind of experience you had, what they said and who they are?
:
I'm sorry to hear that was your experience with the MP's office. Thank you again for sharing your experience with us.
I again want to highlight the family reunification. Now more than ever, especially now that we're seeing so many advocacy groups doing so much amazing work to bring it to light, and with the pandemic and the current system, there's so much urgency in getting people reunified.
Mr. Shory, you highlighted some points about families who get picked for interviews without any specific timeline. We heard through Ms. Bergeron's statement that these delays have a real-life impact on people's personal lives—such as missed birthdays and holidays. Mental and physical health are so important now, and they're being impacted by all these delays. With your experience, can you share some of the experiences of other people and what you think we can do to improve these interviews?
:
Yes, absolutely. Thank you, sir, for the question.
Very quickly, when we go to the immigration appeal division, for example, to appeal some of these decisions, we get records. I think everything should be recorded, even at the visa offices. I think it would really help streamline and clarify where the issues were at the interview and would allow people like us and the 's counsel to come to a resolution more quickly.
The second issue is that I don't understand why we don't have video conferencing technology available yet. I'd that say 90% of my clients, especially where the spouse who sponsored is in Canada, just don't have the means to go for the interview. Ultimately, their testimony and their opinions—where perhaps they could have clarified certain issues—are just left out.
I think those are two very quick and obvious responses that could ultimately help to make this process a little more efficient and ultimately help families to reunite. We're around the corner from Christmas, and a lot of families.... I just celebrated Diwali this weekend with my family, and I couldn't imagine what it would be like to not be able to celebrate that with my family members if I were in a position similar to theirs.
I think those are just two quick solutions that exist and that are really easy to implement.
:
Okay, I hope you read the instructions we gave out two weeks ago.
Thank you again, all of you, for your testimony.
[Translation]
Ms. Bergeron, thank you for your presentation today. I'm glad to have heard it.
[English]
Mr. Falconer, one of the motivating factors in choosing these measures for Hong Kongers was that we saw the Hong Kong applications for work and study permits greatly increasing over time. The choices to strengthen those paths are already being used by Hong Kongers. As well as providing the choice to remain permanently, we are deliberating providing what we call parallel aid.
Are these additional ways you have seen Immigration taking action to help the people of Hong Kong? Are there other things you see that we should be doing?
:
To be very short, I would look toward what we are doing internally here in Canada to help Hong Kongers and others who are currently in Canada who may be at risk of losing their status.
Currently, Canada only offers up to a three-year postgraduate work permit program. There is good reason to suggest that, given the current economic circumstances and the uncertain situation in Hong Kong, we might want to extend that to a five-year postgraduate work permit process, similar to the Australian model.
Two would be to adopt the interim visa policy of New Zealand. What that means is that currently, when somebody applies for an extension or change in their immigration status, if their current permit expires in the meantime, they are under what's called an implied status, meaning they are here in Canada with status but there isn't necessarily a clear record of that. In New Zealand, when somebody does that, the New Zealand government automatically issues them a paper interim permit that provides proof to their employer, proof to themselves, etc.
Those would be the ones I would look to here in Canada: the extension of the postgraduate work permit period and also to help them be able to find work that both sustains their livelihood and adds to their points for long-term eligibility for the economic immigration system, and as a last-ditch effort it also keeps the door open for our refugee claim system, should they feel the need to—
My question is for Mr. Falconer.
I want to build on what Ms. Kwan had started to address.
I'll make a comparison. Carles Puigdemont, a Catalan elected official, didn't receive his electronic travel authorization because he was arrested for helping to organize a purely political referendum. People from Hong Kong can also be arrested for protesting a political issue, namely, the national security law.
I want to hear your comments, Mr. Falconer. Is there a concern that people in Hong Kong may not be able to receive their electronic travel authorization? Are the measures announced by the government to help the people currently in Hong Kong more symbolic than effective?
The answer to the first question is yes. For inadmissibility, the potential to be barred from Canada for participating in, let's say, a riot, which another government might call it, is absolutely a concern of the Hong Kong community. Many others in the world [Technical difficulty—Editor] are charged because their government deems their political activity to be in contravention of their laws.
That is one of the measures we consider more generally, that not all countries are going to have an equal interpretation of illegal political participation, whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere. We do have the precedent that we judge criminal activity based on our own activities, and activities that are happening in Hong Kong would not be held against them.
The second answer—
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm actually going to Mr. Shory for a minute.
We're talking about the dual intent issue and what was published on the website. My office actually phoned the ministerial enquiries division and spoke to an agent. He said he knows that it's essentially an internal memo issued by IRCC. It provides clarification to assist in interpreting dual intent, but is not considered an actual policy. It's a suggested practice and a guide to understand what dual intent is, but it is not there to help make a decision. Ultimately it's up to the officer to make the decision and to the applicant to still convince the officer that they will leave once the visa expires.
That's how I read that as well, and I think that's your understanding of it. If there's any interpretation or somehow there's a directive or policy from the government, I think it's incorrect.
Given that that is the case, and given Ms. Bergeron's experience and many like her who are stuck in the system and the government and the officer do not believe that their loved ones would actually return, what do you think the government should do? Should they suspend the use of 179(b), so that people can in fact bring their loved ones here? Should they also bring in a program or a special measure so that people can in fact bring their loved ones here to Canada?
:
Madam Chair, I have a point of order as well.
For this particular meeting, we had a lot of technical difficulty with people's sound is not coming through very clearly. I'm not sure what the problem is, but there are bits of sentences where we can't really hear what they're saying, although I think we can sort of string the ideas together.
For the purpose of Hansard, I think it would be very difficult to string that together. They're going to have to blank it out. I'm just wondering if, when we have the Hansard blues available, we can send the blues to the witnesses so they can review what they were trying to put on the record. Then they can correct the information and fill in the bits that did not get recorded, so that we actually have an accurate representation of what we're trying to achieve here.
:
Thank you, Ms. Kwan, for raising that. I will discuss it with the clerk and the analyst to see what we can do to that end.
I want to apologize to all of the members, as well as the witnesses. I think there were some connectivity issues and some echoes, and at times it was very difficult to understand. I have raised that with the clerk of the committee, and that will be looked into by the committee logistics team also. We will try our best to make sure we don't have these issues in our meetings going forward.
I just want to emphasize for all of the witnesses that if there is anything you would want to raise to the committee members and you have not been able to raise it today because of time constraint or the connectivity issue, you can submit your briefs to the committee as we continue our study on the impact of COVID-19 on the immigration system.
With that, I would thank all of the witnesses for appearing before the committee, and thanks for the understanding and flexibility. Because of the votes, we were not able to start the meeting at 3:30. I want to apologize for that to all of the witnesses. Thanks for being flexible and for being with us as we have gone beyond 5:30.
With that, we will end the meeting. Thanks to all of the members also. We will see you on Wednesday as we continue our study.
The meeting is adjourned.