CIMM Committee Report

Supplemental Report of the Official Opposition New Democratic Party

The backlog in Canada’s immigration system is an issue that greatly concerns the New Democratic Party of Canada.

There are over one million applications currently in the queue. This represents an increase from the 850,000 applications in the backlog in 2006. Notably, backlogs are present in all three immigration categories: economic, family and refugee.

The presence of backlogs in the system has a direct and negative effect on the amount of time it takes to process an application. Indeed, it is inarguable that wait times have reached patently unacceptable levels.

It is not uncommon for an application to sponsor one’s parent to take between 10 and 13 years. Employers seeking to attract skilled workers frequently wait between 4 and 7 years. Live-in caregivers seeking to re-unite with their spouses and children wait an average of 5 years from the date they complete their obligations under that program. Even spousal applications - ostensibly in the number one priority category that are supposed to go into instant processing - are taking two years to process depending on the country involved.

This situation presents serious problems for the integrity of Canada’s immigration system. Equally important are the very real and negative impacts it is having on the individuals and their families involved. Significant application fees are held for years on end with no clear indication or guarantee of the timeliness of a response. Families remain separated, employers are frustrated and our economy suffers.

New Democrats believe that a balanced and multi-faceted approach must be employed to address this problem. It is our view that prudent adoption of several key strategies will be most successful in arresting and reducing the backlog.

In this regard, we wish to thank all of the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee and who presented thoughtful, varied and creative options. What follows are a series of recommendations that emerge from their testimony and from information obtained from a variety of organizations with expertise in immigration matters, including Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) itself.

Recommendations:

1.    Ensure immigration levels better match demographic and economic needs.

2.    Recognizing the importance of family reunification in nation-building, resist the use of broad-based quotas, and strict restrictions, on family sponsorship.

3.    Ensure that the new ten year multiple-entry visa (“Super Visa”) is accessible, affordable, fairly administered and generously approved.

4.    Oppose the use of excessive financial barriers as a strategy to deter applications.

5.    Increase resources to embassies where there is a high volume of applications and particularly acute backlogs, and examine how best to address under-served areas.

6.    Reduce the reliance on Temporary Foreign Workers, improve training for Canadian workers and better match skilled workers to employers’ needs.

7.    Study the possibility of raising the levels of refugee visas and restoring cuts to private sponsorships.

Recommendation #1: Ensure immigration levels match demographic and economic needs.

Canada is facing a looming demographic transformation that will see a significant reduction in the ratio of working adults supporting the rest of the population. A forward-looking plan to increase skilled workers and ensure new Canadians receive adequate settlement services would help alleviate these demographic pressures. As such, New Democrats believe that immigration levels should be regularly reassessed to more effectively match long-term demographic and economic needs.

As identified in the main body of the Report, it is understood that the backlog was created by a combination of two main factors: first, the introduction in 2002 of provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) that obligate Canada to process every application received to final decision; and second, the fact that in every year since 2002, Canada has received more applications per year than the federal government chooses to admit to our country. To quote CIC:

CIC strives to process applications in a timely manner, but it is an ongoing challenge for CIC to meet the IRPA objectives simultaneously. Every year, we receive many more applications than can be processed resulting in large backlogs in many categories, which in turn have led to long wait times for applicants[1].

Information presented to the Committee suggested that raising the annual number of visas issued to more closely approximate the number of valid applications received is one tool that would work to slow, arrest and even reverse the backlog. CIC acknowledges this fact in the same source quoted above.

The numbers presented to the Committee reveal that even a modest increase to the annual number of visas issued would go a substantial distance toward successfully addressing the backlogs.

Mr. Marc Audet of Desjardins Trust Inc. provided the Committee with statistical information over the last 5 years from CIC that showed that increasing the annual visas issued by 10% from the current levels would completely arrest the growth in the backlog. Any increase above that number would start to reverse it.

The question that is raised, then, is whether an increase to Canada’s annual visas issued (the “levels”) is justified and desirable on economic and social grounds.

The evidence is overwhelming that a gradual, prudent increase to annual levels would not only address the backlog - it is essential to deal with Canada’s labour force and economic growth needs:

• Canada is facing a clear demographic trend of aging population and declining birthrate.
• The proportion of Canadians aged 60 and over is projected to increase from roughly 1 in 5 to nearly 1 in 3 by 2020 (SOURCE: Frontier Centre for Public Policy).
• CIC projects that within 5 years - 60 months from now - immigration will be responsible for 100% of Canada’s new labour growth needs.
• Addressing the demographic trends through increased immigration is necessary to secure the economic sustainability of various federal programs and service the federal and provincial debt.
• Industry representatives point to a significant present and future deficit in labour supply. The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association testified that its members will have 142,000 unfilled job vacancies in 2025. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and many Building Trades affiliate unions have publicly stated that they are dependent upon temporary foreign workers because of a shortage of permanent stream immigrants and skilled Canadians.
• Nearly every province in the country has requested expansion to the Provincial Nominee Program, a highly successful immigrant stream that allows provinces and territories to align new Canadians with local economic needs.
• Canada’s current immigration rate of admitting 0.7% of population is low in comparison to historical standards:
• 1860 - 2009 average -   0.97%;
• 1900 - 1949 average -   1.34%
• 1900 - 2009 average -   1.003%

Singling out just one of these factors - that of Canada’s dependence on immigration for our new labour force needs - we would quote the Minister of Immigration himself:

“With an aging population, the number of retirements from the Canadian labour force is increasing. Very soon, the number of new entrants from Canadian schools and universities will equal - or fall short of - the number of retirees. That means that, if we want our labour force to grow, it will have to come from immigration.”[2]

It is clear that annual immigration levels will need to keep pace with Canada’s evolving demographic and economic needs. The Committee heard evidence suggesting that a prudent increase to annual levels could achieve this goal, while also helping to reduce the backlog.

We note that the current government has itself recognized the need to increase annual immigration levels to deal with the immigration backlog.

Upon assuming office in 2006, the Conservative government raised immigration levels some 14%, from an average of 220,000 per year under the Liberal government which preceded it to the current average of 254,000 per year. Importantly, the Minister of Immigration testified before the Committee that one of the reasons he increased the annual levels upon taking office was to address the pre-existing backlog that was inherited from the previous government.[3]

The Official Opposition believes that admitting more immigrants must be done gradually and in measured fashion. We must ensure that there are sufficient resources to properly settle newcomers and adopt policies and measures that match them intelligently with Canada’s economic and labour needs.

We also acknowledge CIC’s advice that an increase to immigration levels will require “broad buy-in from the public”. It is the Official Opposition’s view, given the clear and strong demographic and economic needs of our nation, that strong public sanction can be achieved.

In this vein, we note that the Minister of Immigration conducted consultation meetings throughout Canada in the summer of 2011 to obtain feedback from selected invitees on this very question. Unfortunately, although he was asked to provide this data to the Committee for this report, he neglected to do so.

We believe that Canadians want an immigration system that builds a strong economy, sustains public programs and helps us maintain a high standard of living. We believe that Canadians want an immigration system that produces strong family units in cohesive communities.

Ensuring that our immigration system is responsive to these shared goals is of vital importance as we develop sound policy in the years ahead. We are confident that Canadians will be fully supportive as we do so.

Recommendation #2: Recognizing the importance of family reunification in nation-building, resist the use of broad-based quotas, and strict restrictions, on family sponsorship

The government has steadily reduced the number of family class visas issued from 2006 through 2010 (CIC figures: 70,517, 66,242, 65,582, 65,204, 60,220). The Official Opposition recommends that this trend be halted.

Canada has long enjoyed a balanced immigration stream between economic, family and refugee classes, and this balance ought to be respected. We note that economic class immigrants themselves have spouses, children and parents. Ensuring that they can unite their families is critical to Canada’s ability to attract and retain desirable applicants to build our economy.

Notwithstanding these facts, the Government appears intent on imposing caps (quotas) on applications to deal with the backlog.

New Democrats do not agree that imposing temporary freezes, or permanent quotas, on applications in the family class are effective long-term solutions to the backlog problem. We believe that imposing a temporary freeze or permanent quotas on parental sponsorships is misguided and contrary to IRPA’s explicit purpose of uniting families.

We particularly stress our concern that the government will impose permanent caps on applications to sponsor parents and grandparents when the temporary freeze is lifted in two years’ time. The Official Opposition opposes that strategy categorically. While quotas may be an appropriate option in certain economic categories, they should not be employed as a measure when dealing with applications to unite family members.

In addition, we have great concern with the Report’s recommendation that the Government consider the adoption of the so-called “balance of family” test used by Australia. In essence, this approach prohibits people from sponsoring their parents if more of their siblings live outside the country. For example, a person could not sponsor their parent if they had a sister and a brother that lived in another country - even if those two siblings were unable to care for parent.

This approach will, if adopted, prevent thousands of Canadians from sponsoring their parents. It will do so even in cases where the sponsor is the best position to do so.

The Conservative government appears to be headed in the clear direction of putting quotas on Canadians’ ability to sponsor their parents and unite their families. They are actively contemplating placing strict limits on who can sponsor their parent. This approach will leave many new Canadians’ families separated and also reduce Canada’s ability to attract the young, skilled workers our employers and economy so clearly need.

New Democrats believe that quotas and strict restrictions on who can sponsor their parent are ineffective and unfair. Adopting policies that unite more families, more quickly, is more responsive to Canadians’, and our economy’s, real needs.

Recommendation #3: Ensure that the new 10 year multiple-entry visa (“Super Visa”) is accessible, affordable, fairly administered and generously approved.

The Official Opposition believes that offering parents and grandparents of Canadian citizens or permanent residents a 10 year, multiple-entry visa is a sound and desirable policy. Many witnesses lauded this concept during testimony before the Committee, and the Official Opposition led the call for the creation of such visas early on in the study. If granted in generous numbers, fairly, and with reasonable criteria, Super Visas have the potential to ease at least a portion of the backlog for parents and grandparents (currently estimated to be 165,000) and help many families.

However, we must acknowledge that Canada has had 5 year multiple entry visas for decades, (increased to 10 years in July, 2011), and they have not proved to be issued widely or of any assistance in reducing the backlog. Indeed, immigration officials testifying from Chandigarh, New Delhi and Manila were unable to tell the Committee how many of these visas were even issued.

If Super Visas are to have any real impact, we must understand why existing multiple entry visas have been of so little help. What is clear is that those visas have been of extremely limited utility to applicants because they were not advertised. Applicants were not aware of their existence and were unable to specifically apply for them, leaving their issuance entirely up to the discretion of the visa officer processing the application. Most importantly, multiple entry visas have simply not been granted in any sizeable number.

The Super Visa must be offered in a transparent and accessible manner. In order to accomplish this, the Official Opposition recommends as follows:

• Advertise the Super Visa widely to ensure that potential applicants are aware of its existence.
• All visa application forms must have a distinct and prominent section for this visa, inviting applications and setting forth the criteria for applying and the rules regarding issuance.
• The criteria for granting Super Visas must be clear and reasonable, including prohibiting the consideration of any existing permanent resident application as a negative factor.
• Ensure that income requirements are reasonable and flexible, including allowing applicants’ and their sponsors’ incomes to be judged cumulatively.
• Have a mechanism to make sure that affordable health insurance is available to all qualified applicants.

This measure must be designed carefully to accomplish the goal of easing some portion of the backlog in the parent and grandparent class. It is also essential to provide relief to the many thousands of Canadian families who are suffering the pain of separation. It is regrettable that the government chose to rashly implement the Super Visa before this Report was concluded. Early reports of Canadians’ experience with the Super Visa are already revealing problems, with many families expressing frustration with unexplained rejections, extremely high medical coverage costs and overly restrictive financial requirements.

Moreover, while the Official Opposition believes that flexible visa options are important, it is equally clear that they cannot be relied upon to solve the deeper structural problems and mismanagement that has caused Canada’s backlog crisis.

It is also critical that the Super Visa should not be a substitute for permanent residency options for parents and grandparents.

Recommendation #4: Oppose the use of excessive financial barriers as a strategy to deter applications.

We are greatly concerned with the Report’s suggestion that immigration application fees be reviewed to determine what “gap” may exist between what is being charged and “actual costs” of the processing.

The Official Opposition is concerned that the advised “review” may be an exercise masking the desire to raise immigration application fees as a deterrent measure to deal with the backlog. The fact that this measure is contained in this report, whose object is to deal with the backlog, serves as a basis for this concern.

This is wrong and we categorically reject it as a method of attacking the backlog.

Canada’s history is replete with examples of punitive landing fees, head taxes and prohibitive application fees. Indeed, the current government has repeatedly sought credit for its decision to reduce immigration landing fees set by the previous Liberal government.

New Democrats believe that raising application fees, income requirements or other measures designed to discourage applicants from applying to immigrate to Canada are inappropriate and unfair.

The Official Opposition believes that Canada’s immigration system must not erect undue financial barriers to admission to Canada nor create a money-based, two-tiered immigration system where wealth determines citizenship.

Criteria for permanent residency should not be based on the ability to buy one’s way into Canada, but on legitimate factors such as the ability to successfully integrate and contribute to Canada’s economic needs, the commitment to democratic values, and a desire to build the Canadian cultural mosaic.

Recommendation #5: To ensure fairness for all prospective immigrants, increase resources to embassies where there is a high volume of applications and particularly acute backlogs, and examine how best to address under-served areas.

Too many newcomers are not getting the fair treatment they deserve. Committee evidence clearly showed that the backlog is unevenly distributed around the world, creating very long processing times in some countries and shorter processing times in others. Processing centres under particular strain include New Delhi, Chandigarh, Beijing, Manila, Nairobi, London and Damascus.

Evidence tendered before the Committee, gleaned from CIC statistics themselves, shows that Canada fails to process an average of 25,000 applications each year. Disturbingly, evidence was received that indicated that there is no necessary connection between the number of personnel working in a particular visa processing centre and the volume of applications that centre receives.

The Conservative government refuses to acknowledge that there is any connection between available resources in overseas embassies that process immigration applications and the backlog. With respect, the Official Opposition disagrees.

This regional inequality must be addressed by placing additional resources in over-stretched processing centres that receive disproportionately high volumes of applications, particularly if coupled with an increase in the number of visas granted in those areas.

The evidence further revealed that there are areas in the world where Canada has an inadequate immigration processing presence. For example, evidence was presented to the Committee that our embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, serves 18 countries. In our view, it is no coincidence that such offices have among the longest processing times, and largest backlogs, of applications.

This can be addressed by opening visa processing centres in acutely under-served areas. We would suggest that addressing the top three areas under intense pressure would be a prudent measure in this regard.

Recommendation #6: Reduce reliance on Temporary Foreign Workers.

Under the current government, admissions to Canada of Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs) have exploded. This represents a significant alteration to Canada’s historic policy of pursuing citizenship-track immigration. Many Canadians believe, as the Official Opposition does, that this change is regrettable.

Canada experienced some 180,000 entries or re-entries of TFWs to Canada in 2010. There are over 425,000 TFWs in Canada, and even more are estimated as having gone underground after their visas have expired.

While there is a legitimate need for TFWs in certain industries, we are concerned that sustained annual use of TFWs is masking permanent economic needs as “temporary” ones.

In times of high unemployment, and underemployment of many individuals (including in many skilled trades), the record high use of TFW’s must be questioned. In addition, many Canadians can and ought to be trained for many jobs currently being filled by TFW’s.

In terms of the backlog, the Official Opposition would suggest that the Government study the extent to which we may reduce the number of TFW visas issued and replace them with permanent resident stream applicants and domestic Canadian workers. In addition, more pathways to permanent residency should be explored for TFWs currently in the country. Permanent status allows individuals establish roots in the community and contribute even more towards the Canadian economy.

Any changes in this area must be within the limits of the annual permanent resident levels plan.

Recommendation #7: Study the possibility of raising levels of refugee visas and restoring cuts to private sponsorships.

Evidence presented before Committee suggests that, globally, 2011 has been a troubling year in many parts of the world with extraordinary numbers of people displaced.

We heard that there are 43.5 million displaced persons worldwide, and some 16.8 million Convention Refugees. Testimony revealed that these numbers, while staggering, are undoubtedly low, as many of people in these categories are uncounted or do not register.

While some 747,000 refugees need re-settlement annually, only 79,000 receive an offer to re-settle by those states who participate in re-settlement programs. Some 35,000 refugees are on the wait list for Canada.

From 2005 to 2009, Canada reduced the number of refugees granted permanent residency by 13,803 (36,000, 31,000, 27,000, 21,000, 22,000). 2010 saw a slight increase of 2,400. Not surprisingly, the Committee heard evidence that the backlog is getting worse for refugee class applications.

While we are attracting the most economically advantageous applicants from other countries, we should also increase our responsibility for the world’s most vulnerable people. Dealing with the backlog in refugee claims is also consistent with Canada’s legal obligations under international conventions and treaties.

CONCLUSION

Canada is a nation of immigrants.

Outside of our First Nations, we are all immigrants, or the children, grandchildren or further descendants of people who came to Canada to make this land our new home. We - or our forefathers and foremothers - have been given a chance to start a new life here, to grow, to succeed.

And in this endeavor, we have all been helped.

The Official Opposition believes that Canadians want us to continue to accord to others that which we have been given. We believe that Canadians want a strong, generous and fair immigration system that can process applicants in an efficient, effective manner.

We recognize that there are limits to what Canada can absorb - economically, socially, culturally. We also recognize that we are a prime destination for people from all corners of the globe, and that our economy depends, as our economy of times past, on our ability to attract and retain the citizens of tomorrow.

The Official Opposition is committed to practical, evidence-based and common sense solutions to help our immigration system accomplish the needs of our nation. We will continue to work to build a system that helps Canada achieve its full potential.