A Canadian Citizen Perspective on Spousal and Dependent Child Immigration

2016 A Canadian Citizen Perspective on Spousal and Dependent Child Immigration SUBMISSION TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION FOR THE STUDY ON FAMILY REUNIFICATION CANADA SPOUSAL SPONSORSHIP PETITIONERS

Table of Contents Introduction 2 Processing Delays 4 Lack of Transparency 5 Inadmissibility Checks 6 Inaccessibility to Comprehensive Health Insurance 7 Citizenship Revocation 7 Impact on Canadian Families 8 Summary of Recommendations 9 1

Introduction The Canada Spousal Sponsorship Petitioners group welcomes the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration s study on Family Reunification. The Canada Spousal Sponsorship Petitioners group is a new grassroots organization, formed in 2014 when Canadian citizens from around the country came together to combat ballooning spousal sponsorship delays. Now exceeding 4,700 members, we speak to a shared experience of government scrutiny of our most intimate bonds between husbands and wives, parents and children. To give credit where due, we applaud the Liberal party platform goal of granting immediate permanent residency to new spouses entering Canada, and the government s regulatory proposals to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to repeal conditional permanent residence and return the maximum age of dependent children from 19 to 22. We are also grateful to the Members of this committee for the concern they have expressed for Canadian citizens who are sponsoring their spouses and children. That being said, the core problem remains: Canada continues to impede Canadian citizens family unity. Processing delays, lack of transparency, inadmissibility checks, inaccessibility to comprehensive health insurance, and citizenship revocation laws conspire to deny, delay, or revoke full citizenship and integration of Canadians spouses and children. Michael and Jessica LeBreton s experience exemplifies the love and heartbreak so many Canadians know today. Michael met Jessica by chance in an airport, where they struck up a conversation and learned that they both worked in the construction industry. They exchanged emails and soon they found they shared much more in common. Jessica was widowed with one son, while Michael had a son and daughter from a previous marriage. She s the sweetest person I ve ever met. A smart sweet girl, says Michael. He s a good soul, a good person. At first I was so attracted to him because he was very gentlemanly and smart, echoes Jessica. After two years of corresponding and visiting, Michael married Jessica in her native Philippines. A year later, Jessica came to Canada legally on a visa, but had to leave her son, then aged 13 and ineligible for a visa, in the Philippines, while their spousal/dependent child application for permanent residency was processed. Even so, Michael and Jessica joyfully started a new life together in Victoria, BC with the reasonable expectation that the immigration process would be completed in a timely matter. Their joy was slowly eroded as the immigration process grew from months to years, punctuated by bizarre communications, like when the Canadian embassy in India emailed to ask for new medical tests an email they thought was a scam, but learned later was a process gone awry or when Jessica applied for a work permit and was told she was out of status, only to hear back later that the real problem was that her profiles had not been linked in Immigration Refugee 2

and Citizenship Canada s (IRCC) computer systems. Jessica s work permit was delayed by five months. Most frustrating, though, has been IRCC s silence on the overall delay, even when their MP intervenes. They live without a light at the end of the tunnel, no end in sight, caught between a life near Michael s adult children, or a de-facto family exile to the Philippines to be with Jessica s son, who cannot come to Canada otherwise. It s like a nightmare for me, says Jessica. Every day, Canadian citizens and their spouses and children continue to be punished for obeying the law. Four overall perspectives arise directly in this connection, which will be detailed further below: Facilitate early entry into the Canadian economy of sponsored spouses who are willing and able: To the extent that the current rules require sponsored spouses to delay their desired entry into the labour force, Canada is losing both their contribution to the economy, to tax revenues, and to the well-being of their partner and their children. The change introduced by the previous government of granting work permits to spouses awaiting status determination was a very welcome step in the right direction. Ideally, granting open work permits and associated capacity to pay taxes on earnings would be a very early step in the process, as it tends to be the case in other comparable countries. In addition, those spouses who can be fasttracked because they possess skills and qualifications of high priority to the Canadian economy should be noted as part of the review process and offered that alternative. Facilitate the efforts of sponsoring spouses in providing adequately for their dependents: To the extent that sponsors are being asked to cover most or all costs of living of the sponsored spouses, consideration also needs to be given to their financial and emotional situation as sponsors. Delays in granting even temporary SIN numbers associated with work permits mean that sponsors are unable to establish RRSP accounts for the sponsored spouse, to claim them as dependents on tax returns, or to obtain proper medical coverage for them. While granting full comparability to Permanent Residents may not be deemed feasible, at least a limited form of those benefits in support of sponsorship needs to be considered. In brief, at present, sponsors are doubly liable for costs for a dependent that would not be borne by a typical spouse. Facilitate clear communication between IRCC and applicants: Currently, correspondence from IRCC and other agencies associated with the status determination process is notable for its bureaucratic and generally unwelcoming tone, complexity of expression and lack of clarity about key points that need to be understood. All documentation associated with spousal status determination should be reviewed by plain language specialists and focus groups of typical sponsors and spouses to ensure that key messages are understood. The current movement toward allowing status tracking by applicants via the IRCC website should be accelerated. Documents issued by IRCC should be reviewed from the perspective of how, through lack of clarity, they may create errors and confusion leading to delays and extra work, or even outright, groundless rejection. As just one example, on a work permit, there are four 3

different document numbers, which can lead and have led to transcription errors by provincial health authorities. Recognize and reflect the reality that multiple agencies are engaged in sponsorship determination: It is recognized that sponsorship determination is inherent a complex and potentially intrusive process. It involves not only IRCC, but also CBSA, CSIS, the RCMP and other federal agencies, as well as provincial governments and potentially social service agencies as well. Currently, there appears to be duplication of effort among these agencies, e.g., in requesting multiple police checks, and also between agencies doing similar work in closelyallied countries and by Canadian authorities, e.g., when those passing FBI clearances and becoming US citizens are then rechecked in Canada. Processing Delays Leaders of every major political party have expressed their desire to end delays for routine processing of Canadian spousal applications. To those looking from the outside in, this reality is perplexing and frustrating, but IRCC remarks to this committee on November 15 th, 2016 shed significant light on the problem. When asked directly if spousal immigration processing delays were attributable to processing challenges or numerical targets, IRCC s reply was that they meet their numerical targets. Consistent with other western democracies, Canadian spousal immigration accounts for between ⅕ to ⅓ of all immigration. Yet IRCC s 2016-2017 Report on Plans and Priorities reveals that of that processing of spouses and dependent children account for just 1% of departmental spending. As well, Canadians may be paying more in spousal and dependent child application fees each year than are spent on processing such cases. Why may this be so? Because application fees are based on the average cost to process an application. When numerical targets are met, permanent resident applications that Canadian citizens have paid for are set aside until the following year. Fresh application fees continue to be collected. The implication is that the money is there, but the performance metrics are not. During the course of this study, the government announced 2017 numerical immigration targets. Consistent with years past, these quotas will not even clear out the existing backlog of cases, let alone process cases opened next year. We believe that as long as there are annual immigration quotas for nuclear family members, Canadian citizens and permanent residents will continue to be punished for falling in love and following the law. Irregularity is also a factor in processing delays. For two years running, we ve noticed a pattern: people who apply in some months experience longer delays than others. We assume these to be peak month applications. We note that these unlucky applicants sometimes have to wait for 4

years, while others who apply a month later experience normal processing times. We favor a first come, first served business model to address this inequity in processing. Our recommendations to deal with processing delays follow: 1) Exclude spouses and dependent children from annual immigration quotas. Eliminating quotas on husbands and wives, parents and children is not only the right thing to do, it is in line with the practices of other western democracies and in line with Canada s international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 2) Process spousal and dependent child applications on a first come, first served basis, with service goals to process 80% of these applications within 2 months. Other countries routinely process spousal applications in this time frame; Canada can as well. 3) Where annual quotas continue to be used, set targets in terms of nuclear families rather than individuals. When people immigrate to Canada, it should be acknowledged that they immigrate as a nuclear family, and targets should be considered met when the whole family is together in Canada as citizens or permanent residents. 4) Consider giving the Backlog Reduction Office the mandate to handle and resolve all aspects of actually reducing the backlog of spousal sponsorships. At present, it would appear that elements of the overall application from a sponsoring spouse and applicant, such as temporary residence visas and work permits may still be undergoing processing in different locations, e.g., by Vegreville rather than Vancouver. As well, applicants making inquiries to the Backlog Reduction Office are unable to obtain firm information about decisions in those other locations. Lack of Transparency As a side effect of the quotas and resulting processing delays, applicants experience other knock-on effects. Cases get lost, information goes missing as the department struggles under the weight of large backlogs of open cases. We see wide variations in case processing, often for no discernable reasons. When these things happen, applicants often turn to Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) requests in attempt to obtain more details entered by officers. According Info Source Bulletins 37-B and 38-B, immigration-related inquiries account for roughly half all (ATIP) requests received issued by Canadians. This percentage has grown slightly under the new government. For this reason we recommend: 5) Consider an automated interface for ATIP request and delivery through IRCC s online tool for case status updates. IRCC provides applicants access to high level information through its online tool, mycic. Exposing additional information, specifically the officer notes that are entered as applications move through the process, would 5

improve service. This also may be a more cost effective way to deliver immigration related ATIP requests. As well, this approach may realize reductions in call centre volumes. Additionally, we find wide variation in the answers received from the IRCC call centre. Specifically, we point to issues in navigating systems, linking profiles and answering general, non-case specific questions. Applicants have called five different times and received five different answers to the same question. We note that Members of this committee have expressed similar frustrations to the Minister given the recent elimination of the MP immigration line. We recommend: 6) Improve training for IRCC call centre staff and other front-line staff engaged in responding to inquiries, whether by post, e-mail, or in person. Finally, we note that for every $1 the government spends actually processing spousal and dependent child immigration cases, it spends $1.50 on immigration related ATIP requests. In our minds, the best use of funds is to do the job right the first time, rather than to process ATIP requests and to field calls on the status of applications set aside resulting from unnecessary delays. Inadmissibility Checks Our members report that post hoc checks for medical admissibility are a significant factor in processing delays. Established to keep out spouses who endanger public health or public safety, the reality of this test in practice is rather absurd. Jessica and Michael s story highlights what we see every day. Jessica has been living in Canada for three years awaiting a medical test to screen for a condition that would present a threat to public safety. Common sense tells us that any damage would be done by now. Further, as the test is meant to screen out communicable diseases, and given 1) the knowledge that communicable diseases are passed among nuclear family members, and 2) that Canadian spouses and parents are free to return to Canada at any time, this post-hoc test appears to serve no purpose. It is a duplication of both expense and effort in relation to pre-immigration medical testing. Current approaches to carrying out security checks for criminal or security-related inadmissibility reveal a similar problem. Spouses of Canadians live legally inside Canada for years, awaiting checks to confirm if they could be a national security threat to this country. We agree that national security screening is important in today s world, but we propose that for Canadian security reasons, screening needs to be completed promptly, and ideally in advance of arrival into Canada. An appropriate aid to promptness would be duplicating effort either among Canadian agencies (such as CSIS and CBSA) or between close Canadian allies and partners who are part of overall intelligence-sharing agreements with Canada. There are important subsequent checks already in place for security screening as for example, when someone actually applies for a sensitive position in Canada. Additional effort at that point is 6

appropriate, and would avoid stress for those who have no interest whatsoever in applying for such positions. We therefore recommend the following: 7) Eliminate medical screening for spouses and dependent children of Canadian citizens and permanent residents. A far better solution to public health concerns is to ensure that all spouses and children of Canadian citizens and permanent residents have immediate access to health care. 8) Revise and accelerate the security-screening process. Avoid duplication of police record checks both pre- and post-arrival of a spouse in Canada, and avoid duplication of security checks by Canada s allies and intelligence-sharing partners. Inaccessibility to Comprehensive Health Insurance Three month waiting periods for permanent residents and delays in processing permanent residency applications in some provinces mean that spouses and children of Canadian citizens are left without comprehensive health insurance in Canada. Of particular concern are expectant mothers, the wives of Canadian citizens who live in Canada and cannot purchase private health insurance because pregnancy is treated as a pre-existing condition. We recommend that if provinces cannot see their way to provide universal coverage for all residents, that they at least be required to allow those who are not covered to purchase provincial health insurance: 9) Amend Section 11 of the Canada Health Act to require that provinces allow persons who live in their province to buy into provincial health insurance plans if they are not eligible for coverage. Citizenship Revocation A Canadian citizen s family is not unified until all members of the family live together as firstclass citizens, with the same protections, rights and freedoms as everybody else. Canadian citizens families continue to be harmed by cessation proceedings, the after first generation limit to citizenship, and accusations of misrepresentation. We highlight these issues specifically because they can lead to the revocation of citizenship of a Canadian s spouse or child. Cessation proceedings Brought into force in to 2012 under Bill C-31, cessation strips former refugees, now permanent residents, of their status if they travel back to their home country. Among the highest profile cases are spouses of Canadian citizens who traveled before this law was on the books and did so with good reason. Further, the courts have ruled that immigration officers cannot consider humanitarian and compassionate grounds, such as having a Canadian spouse, and the best 7

interest of Canadian children. We are alarmed that the government can retroactively create laws and take away a citizen s family without normal legal due process, all for something as innocuous as traveling abroad to attend a parent or grandparent s funeral. We recommend the following: 10) End federal cessation cases and repeal corresponding sections of Bill C-31. After first generation limit to citizenship The Canadian government has effectively revoked the citizenship of thousands of Canadian children born abroad since the "after first generation" exclusion to the right to citizenship came into force in 2009. Particularly impacted are Canadian couples who conceive children while waiting on cases, be they in Canada without maternal health care (and considering leaving to get health insurance), or outside of Canada waiting on a pending application. We recommend: 11) Repeal retroactively the "after first generation" right to citizenship exclusion contained in subsections 3(3) to (5) of the Citizenship Act. Misrepresentation Under current law, accusations of misrepresentation can lead to the separation Canadian families without due process. To remedy the situation we support the recommendations of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, made to this committee on April 22, 2016 during the study of Bill C-6. We welcome the Minister s prior remarks that he will support such legislation in the future. Impact on Canadian Families The government has not funded research on the impact of barrier to nuclear family reunification, but we know our members direct experience: 1. Depression 2. Suicide of a spouse 3. Spousal abuse 4. Inability to get credit and buy a home 5. Postponing having children 6. Unattended health issues in spouses and children We recommend: 12) Provide funding for research and programs to support the unique needs of Canadian citizens who sponsor spouses and children for immigration, and assess the impacts of delays and separation on Canadian families. 8

Summary of Recommendations 1) Exclude spouses and dependent children from annual immigration quotas. 2) Process spousal and dependent child applications on a first come, first served basis, with service goals to process 80% of these applications within 2 months. 3) Where annual quotas continue to be used, set targets in terms of nuclear families rather than individuals. 4) Consider giving the Backlog Reduction Office the mandate to handle and resolve all aspects of actually reducing the backlog of spousal sponsorships. 5) Consider an automated interface for ATIP request and delivery through IRCC s online tool for case status updates. 6) Improve training for IRCC call centre staff and other front-line staff engaged in responding to inquiries, whether by post, e-mail, or in person. 7) Eliminate medical screening for spouses and dependent children of Canadian citizens and permanent residents. 8) Revise and accelerate the security-screening process. 9) Amend Section 11 of the Canada Health Act to require that provinces allow persons who live in their province to buy into provincial health insurance plans if they are not eligible for coverage. 10) End federal cessation cases and repeal corresponding sections of Bill C-31. 11) Repeal retroactively the "after first generation" right to citizenship exclusion contained in subsections 3(3) to (5) of the Citizenship Act. 12) Provide funding for research and programs to support the unique needs of Canadian citizens who sponsor spouses and children for immigration, and assess the impacts of delays and separation on Canadian families. 9