CIMM Committee Report

Supplementary Report of the New Democratic Party:

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration Family Reunification Study

During the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration’s study on the Family Reunification program, the Committee had the opportunity to hear from 55 witnesses over 13 meetings. The witness list was diverse, both in terms of geographic representation and in terms where their experience with the Family Reunification came from. The Committee heard from immigration lawyers, university researchers, resettlement services providers, and sponsorship applicants themselves. It was clear that a significant number of those appearing before the committee were sharp in their criticism of the current state of Family Reunification in Canada; thoughtful in their understanding of the impacts the programs have on individuals and the Canadian economy; and bold in their recommendations to transform the Family Reunification programs for the better.

For most Members of Parliament, the vast majority of their constituency office casework is immigration related. Given the difficult to meet standards currently in place to qualify for Family Reunification; the often confusing process in place to apply; the devastatingly long processing delays that stem in large part from massive backlogs; and relatively smaller targets under annual immigration levels plans when compared to ‘economic class’ immigration; it is heartbreaking to learn of these experiences.  The very real and negative impact of being separated from family for extensive periods of time on people is unacceptable by any standard. As well, many MPs find themselves spending considerable time helping constituents through the Family Reunification program. It is with these issues in mind, that New Democrats are presenting these supplementary recommendations.

While the main report offers a number of recommendations supported by New Democrats, it was disappointing that the report failed to bring forward some of the more significant and transformative recommendations presented that would truly impact Canadians hoping to reunite with loved ones.

One of the most important takeaways from this study was how frequently mentioned and stressed by witnesses that just because someone arrives through the family class immigration stream, that just does not mean they will have a negative impact on the Canadian economy; in fact, quite the opposite was stressed.

Parents and Grandparents:

Avvy Go, director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic (MTCSALC) informed the Committee about important figures from the recent government analysis of the Family Reunification program, stating,

“It found that 15% of sponsors said their parents and grandparents contribute to the household income. Another 21% said they contribute sometimes. 48% said that having the sponsors’ parents here helped them go out to work more and generate more income.”[i]

It was made clear by witnesses the reunited dependents become working age adults in Canada; reunited spouses often enter the workforce or take on other responsibilities and make contributions; and that parents and grandparents often wish to stay active in some way and contribute through work or household activities. Family class immigrants are Economic class immigrants, but with the added benefit of having an established network in Canada already. As Avvy Go further explained on parents and grandparents specifically that,

“Studies have actually shown that the presence of family networks in Canada, including parents and grandparents, facilitate the settlement and integration process. Research also confirms the central critical role parents and grandparents play in supporting the healthy development of our youth. Families are particularly important in the maintenance of the well-being of racialized communities, members of people with disabilities communities, and women.”[ii]

Many witnesses countered the stereotype that parents and grandparents that arrive in Canada have a negative impact on the economy. It was noted that families in many of Canada’s immigration source countries are generally younger than Canadian born families and could still be working age and healthy. As these source countries’ economies improve, even retired individuals are now more likely to have resources to support themselves and contribute to the economy through pensions and investments they bring with them.

Immigration lawyer and law professor Jamie Liew explained,

“The other I think that’s often forgotten is that these people have investments, their own economic history, and they will bring it with them to Canada. If you allow these people to come to Canada, often they’re not just elderly, ill people, they are also people who can further contribute to Canadian society through their investments, their spending, innovative ways they could generate activity socially, culturally, or economically. There’s a lot of misunderstanding with regard to parents and grandparents and what they could contribute to our society.”[iii]

During the course of this study, the government announced changes to this stream which came into effect 2017. The former first come, first serve basis for applications that resulted in a race to submit before the quota was hit, is now replaced with a lottery system, drawn after unlimited applications are submitted in January of each year. The notion that whether or not you get to be reunited with family is based on lucky of the draw is a deeply troubling one. No other immigration stream is based on luck. During the 2015 election, now Prime Minister Trudeau said,

“A Liberal government will make family unification at the core of its immigration policy. Making it easier for families to be together here in Canada makes more than just economic sense. When Canadians have added supports like family involvement in childcare, it helps productivity and drives economic growth and it brings in skilled workers we need so badly.”[iv]

It is the opinion of New Democrats that a family reunification lottery to does not reflect that statement. With that statement in mind, and on the basis of several witness recommendations, New Democrats recommend:

Recommendation One:

• That IRCC remove the quota on parent and grandparent applications and ensure adequate resources are allocated to this program to address backlogs and reduce processing times to 12 months.

Spouses and Dependents:

Canada’s spousal and dependent sponsorship programs are about reuniting the ‘nuclear’ family. Years spent apart due to long processing times and delays can have a devastating impact, including the breaking up of families. The government recently announced two significant changes to spousal sponsorship: the elimination of the conditional permanent residence provision, and a promise to reduce processing times to 12 months. These changes are welcomed, but more needs to be done to reduce hardships for families seeking reunification.

The biggest problem with conditional permanent residence was that it left sponsored spouses, often women, in a position of fear to leave a relationship even if there was abuse due to the potential loss of status in Canada. This fear put women and in some cases children in danger. Witnesses stressed that this provision was now so entrenched in the community that significant efforts must be undertaken to explain conditional permanent residence has been ended. Immigration lawyer Lobat Sadrehashemi explained,

“We must act now, even before regulatory change comes into effect. This measure has been in place for four years. We know women are staying in abusive relationships because of it. If they government is committed to eliminating it, it can take a number of actions right away.”[v]

Clear and concise recommendations were provided that are supported by the New Democrats.

Recommendation Two:

• That IRCC take immediate action through the issuance of an operational bulletin instructing officers to not enforce the soon to be repealed conditional permanent residence provision. Additionally, that IRCC issue letters to sponsored spouses upon landing explaining that no action will be taken if the currently in place conditional requirement is breached, and for IRCC to conduct outreach to affected spouses

Recommendation Three:

• That IRCC engage in multilingual communication strategies to make it clear that the conditional permanent residence provision has been repealed to reduce the likelihood of individuals remaining in relationships solely out of fear of losing status in Canada

With the importance of reuniting loved one in mind, there are additional steps IRCC can take to reduce hardship. As stated in the government report, the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) noted temporary resident visa refusals are not well explained, and this can be especially difficult for spouses trying to reunite with sponsorship applications are in processing. The Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC) also noted that refusing a temporary resident visa because a permanent resident application was in progress is contradictory.

Recommendation Four:

• That IRCC provide temporary resident visas to sponsored spouses when the application has been approved in principle, to speed up the reunification process and reduce hardship on families. Additionally, that IRCC examine the feasibility to providing “implied status” following the issuance of the temporary visa to avoid lengthy and costly temporary visa renewals.

Finally for spouses specifically, in some cases it was brought to the Committee’s attention that in-Canada sponsored spouses could face removal orders, despite their application for sponsorship being in process. The CBA informed the Committee that there is a policy of deferring removal for 60 days in this situation. However, it was noted that this is inadequate due to the processing times, even if the promise of 12 months is realized.

Recommendation Five:

• That CBSA defer any spousal removal while a sponsorship application is in process.

Often included in spousal sponsorships are dependent children. Currently, to be considered as a dependent, the son or daughter must be 19 years old or younger. Given the changes realities both in Canada and abroad, especially regarding the extended length of time young adults spend in the education system, witnesses explained that this cut off was not realistic. Anabela Nunes stated, “The current age of 18 as a cutoff age to be sponsored should be eliminated and increased to the age of 22, as it was a few years back. Children 19 to 22 years old are still greatly financially dependent on their parents.”[vi]

Recommendation Six:

• That IRCC return to the provision in place up until 2014 that allowed full-time students up to the age of 25 to qualify as dependents.

Immigration lawyer Chantal Desloges also alerted the Committee to a seemingly rare but important to address issue regarding children born abroad to Canadian permanent residents.

“The way the regulations are currently set up is that if you’re a permanent resident, you are not able to sponsor anyone unless you are living in Canada. If you’re permanent resident who, quite within your rights, has travelled abroad for a period of time, still maintaining your residency requirements for permanent residence, and you have a child outside the country, you have to actually leave that child in the other country and come back to Canada to sponsor that child.”[vii]

This would be a devastating situation for new parents, and should be addressed.

Recommendation Seven:

• That IRCC grant temporary status to children born to  permanent residents who give birth outside of Canada, so that the child can enter and remain in Canada during the sponsorship process

Definition of Family:

Generally, the narrow scope of family members eligible for family reunification was an issue raised by many witnesses and it was noted its impacts are not just felt in family reunification streams of immigration, but also for successful refugee claimants. Currently, only a spouse, dependent child 19 years old or younger, or parent/grandparent can be sponsored. This narrowly defined family unit simple does not match the definition of family for many of Canada’s source countries for newcomers and this causes significant hardship. Ms. Desloges explained,

“The concept of the nuclear family being just two parents with children is largely a western European construct. It is not the norm in most of the world and particularly not in areas of the world from which most of our newcomers in Canada originate. However, it’s exactly on that construct that we’ve built our definition of family in the immigration and refugee protection regulations Maybe it’s time to rethink that.”[viii] 

It is also important to note that at one time, Canada did allow for the sponsorship of siblings. In the case of siblings, uncles, aunts, nieces, and nephews; these individuals are very likely to working aged adults, or soon to be so. In many instances, these individuals would be closely aligned with what the current system considers an economic immigrant, only as noted in the opening; they have the additional benefits associated with having a family network already established in Canada.

Recommendation Eight:

• That IRCC expand the definition of family under the family reunification program and the one-year window sponsorship program for refugee claimants, so as to include siblings, cousins, uncles, aunts, nieces, and nephews

Processing Standards:

Despite some recent improvements to processing times and backlogs, and new promises for further improvements, witnesses were clear that the length of time families are forced to be apart can have devastating impacts. If the Prime Minister’s statement is to be taken as a true principle of our system, more needs to be done.

In their brief submitted to the Committee, the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR) suggested better information could be provided to applicants, especially in the category of dependents of refugee claimants as the current way was misleading. This is because it combines processing in-Canada and overseas applications into one average processing time, despite considerable differences between the two.

Recommendation Nine:

• The IRCC make public processing times per visa post, including for the categories of successful refugee claimants

Finally, the CCR also noted in its brief, a 2004 amendment that removed concurrent processing for family members of persons accepted in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. In the CCR’s view, this resulted in significant delays for family reunification, as well as dependent children potentially ‘aging out’ and no longer being eligible for reunification due to these long processing times.

Recommendation Ten:

• That IRCC reinstate concurrent processing for family members of persons accepted in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, reversing the amendment made in 2004.

Conclusion:

Strong families help build strong communities, and strong communities are what Canada needs to build a strong, sustainable economy with more equally shared benefits from coast to coast to coast. The Committee heard from many witnesses that reuniting families helps newcomers to Canada better and more quickly integrate into Canadian society. Further, there are significant social and cultural benefits to our communities, as well as positive economic impacts. For these reasons, New Democrats strongly urge the government to take action in addressing the recommendations both in the Committee report and in this supplementary report. Canada’s family class immigrants should not be considered lesser immigrants; instead, these programs should be considered and treated as integral parts of the system. This means increased levels of immigration through these streams, and an increased focus of resources and policy tools to reduce backlogs, and processing times.