Danielle Smith: All right. Welcome back. There's two issues that I wanted to talk to Raj Sharma about. One of them was the issue of the family reunification program, and the kind of catastrophe that has become under the Liberals. There were problems under the Conservatives, but he describes this one now. He says, "I think a cohort of moderately intelligent twelve-year-olds could have come up with a better system for family reunification in some of the black Friday door crashers model that we saw yesterday." So, I want to find out just how bad that went and what his solutions are for fixing it, but then also get his take on the Humboldt driver, who he has just tweeted out. He says that he has a shot at avoiding deportation regardless of the length of sentence imposed. We'll talk about both of those. Raj Sharma, of course, is a Calgary immigration lawyer, and he joins me now. Raj, thanks so much for being with me.
Raj Sharma: My pleasure.
Danielle Smith: Tell me about the Black Friday door crash, and you warned that this was going to happen, but remind us of what the problem is with the system, and then we'll see if we've gotten any closer to figuring out a solution.
Raj Sharma: Well, the problem, I suppose the inherent problem is that demand exceeds supply. So, every year for the last couple of years we have about a hundred thousand prospective sponsors trying to bring parents and grandparents to Canada. Both Liberal and Conservative governments have restricted the number of parents and grandparents that can come to Canada, and that's because our system prioritizes economic immigrants versus non-economic immigrants. It's a 60/40 split, and again, quite a contrast to the US where the split goes the other way. So as a result, and the problem is this, is that because immigration and family reunification is a bit of a sacred cow, the Liberal governments, especially under Chretien and Martin, what they allowed for is they allowed unlimited intake, and restricted processing to finite numbers.
Danielle Smith: Oh dear.
Raj Sharma: About the same as about now, and so a massive backlog then was created. We have a lot of misinformation, including the Minister of Immigration right now talking about this backlog and how they've tackled the backlog. That's not exactly ... It's not true at all. What occurred is that Stephen Harper won a minority, and then he won a majority, and soon after that Jason Kenney became the Minister of Immigration. What he did is he suspended intake for two years, from 2011 to 2013, to tackle this backlog which had grown to over a hundred and fifty thousand plus, and so it was taking close to a decade to bring parents and grandparents to Canada. By the time the decade was done, some parents had died, and some had become medically inadmissible in that time period. So, Jason Kenney imposed a suspension, tackled the backlog, and then reduced intake to how much they could process per year.
Danielle Smith: And what was that number? How much did they reasonably think they could process?
Raj Sharma: Well, in the first couple of years it was 5,000. Now, the number was quite a bit lower, but at the same time you were now getting parents here in about a year, which a lot of people were grateful for. That number then increased to 10,000. This most recent year, intake is going to be about 20,000. But again, a lot of misinformation out there which is don't confuse intake, and again, we've increased it to 20,000, just coincidentally mere months before a federal election, but don't confuse intake for the numbers of applicants that are processed, which have been consistent between the Liberal and Conservative governments.
Danielle Smith: Well, what's the difference then?
Raj Sharma: The difference now is that we had this sort of first come, first served model, and this first come, first served model, then again, I liken to a Black Friday door crasher sale, or reserving campsites in Banff. So, what you had is you had this system that was open and which shut within minutes, and so people that were tech savvy, computer literate, that had perhaps faster typing speeds and better internet connections, were able to succeed and others were not.
Danielle Smith: Now, you also though told us that the problem that you had before, was that they controlled access by having a single point of entry. I think it was a processing center in Mississauga. So, great if you live in the Mississauga area, you can get your application in. Not so great if you live in western Canada.
Raj Sharma: Correct. You've had this sort of these governments sort of stumbling and bumbling their way towards a fair sort of system, and so we had that first come, first serve where whoever lived close by or could pay a expensive courier to get the application in line succeeded. After that you had this sort of lottery system. Now, the lottery system, you had a month to put your paperwork together and then there was a random draw of 10,000 or so. People were a little bit frustrated with that, because of course the randomness. Some people have tried multiple times to bring their family. Right now, that lottery system appears to be like a godsend compared to the debacle we saw last Monday.
Danielle Smith: With a lottery system, everybody at least could have a fair chance of getting chosen to have their application processed. There's now tens of thousands of people who don't even have an opportunity to get their applications submitted.
Raj Sharma: Well, and I said there's a difference with what I'm hearing from my clients. Before there would have been frustration, but that frustration was tempered by the reality that not everyone can bring their parents here because we have limited processing for parents and grandparents, but it was transparent, and it was fair. Improvements could have been made to that system, but what you have here is that a lot of people weren't even able to see the link. A lot of people weren't able to get their information in.So, Canadians and permanent residents of Canada, they understand that. I think they can deal with not being selected. I think it's a different thing altogether when you can't even put forward your request for your parents and grandparents to join you in Canada.
Danielle Smith: What do you think needs to happen? Should they just go back to the lottery system?
Raj Sharma: Well, yes. Look, I think there can never be a perfect system when you have something like this. What I would suggest is this, is that you may want to increase sponsorship threshold or eligibility threshold. What I would suggest is that you should restrict sponsorship of parents or grandparents to those individuals that have been in Canada longer. I think individuals that have been in Canada for seven or 10 years should have probably a priority over individuals that are more recent arrivals to Canada, for example.
Danielle Smith: That would make sense, because then they would be more economically established and better able to care for those family members.
Raj Sharma: Absolutely. There is an income threshold, and that income threshold has been increased, and the Liberals have maintained that that increase as well. There's other things you could do. You could have a weighted draw. So, if you've tried to bring your widowed mother to Canada, and you've tried three times in the past and been unsuccessful, perhaps a weighted draw to recognize your previous efforts to do so. So, I mean, what I would have simply have done is I would have moved a lottery system later in the year so that they would have access to the most recent year's Notice of Assessments. So for example, a draw in January, a individual can't establish their most recent tax year because they don't have the Notice of Assessment.
Raj Sharma: When I sat down with Mr. Ahmed, the first thing I told him was you have to move the selection process to later in the year so that clients can, and sponsors can, be able to present their most recent Notice of Assessment, which was again very, very basic. And again, like I said, a moderately intelligent twelve-year-old would have been able to come up with that. You don't need Einsteinian level insight to have implemented at least a fair and transparent system.
Danielle Smith: Is the problem that it's an election year, and so they don't want to make a big change like that as we get close to us on September, October election date?
Raj Sharma: There's absolutely no reason why the selection, or this process, should not have been moved down to June or July so that everyone has access to their most recent tax year, and can show their eligibility. Like, Danielle, sponsor eligibility. When you do this, people are applying and taking up spots when they might not even be eligible sponsors. You have to show ... Why wouldn't there be a requirement to show up front that you meet the income requirement? Here, they wanted you to upload proof of your status in Canada, but they didn't have a requirement of uploading proof that you meet the income requirement. So, what's going to happen when you go through the application forms and then you realize, "Oh, wait a second. This sponsor is not eligible?" So, a ineligible sponsor is now taking up the spot for a potential eligible sponsor. That's not fair, and that's part of the frustration that I'm hearing.
Danielle Smith: Well, it's maddening. It's got to be frustrating for the bureaucracy too. Are you getting any evidence that they're going to change the system, or is this going to be the status quo for the foreseeable future?
Raj Sharma: You know, I've kind of given up on trying to predict the future for the family class. Firstly, I think immigration will play a role in this next federal election, so I don't know which government, which party will be in power next year, and how they'll deal with this. But again, I think that what was maddening and a little bit annoying for me is to see this sort of misinformation, where Minister Ahmed Hussen is talking about, "We've put into place this Super Visa system, for example." Well, that's not true. Jason Kenney did that. "We've cut into the backlog." And again, that's not true. Jason Kenney did that by really taking the bull by the horns and suspending intake for a couple of years. I would really like more transparency here, and I would really like Canadian citizens and permanent residents, these sponsors, to be treated with sort of respect, tell them, "Look. Intake exceeds our processing capability. We're going to put in place a fair and transparent sort of model so that everyone has an equal shot."
Raj Sharma: Again, Canadians respect orderly processing...It's this inherent sort of value, and so again, Canadians and these sponsors, if they have a fair shot, if they're on the same playing field as everyone else, and playing by the same rules, they will respect non-selection.
Danielle Smith: ...Okay. So the problem was not fixed. Raj predicted it was going to be a problem. Interesting little fact check there. I wonder if Ralph Goodale's committee is going to make sure that that false information from the immigration minister doesn't end up getting widely spread and become a social media phenomenon. We're going to find lots of examples of that. Let's take a pause. When we get back, we're going to ask him more about why it is that he thinks that Mr. Singh is not necessarily going to be deported. It seems like most of the coverage suggests he will. We'll find out why he might not be when we return, on 770 CHQR.
Comments