Mr. Marc Serré:
Great. Thank you very much.
…
Mr. Sharma, you mentioned modernization, digitalization and biometrics.
The department has, especially with COVID now, realized the importance of this, but it's been an issue over the last 20 years, and I want to ask you, because you touched upon this a bit, in a minute or less here, what more we can be doing by IRCC to further digitize and modernize the system.
Mr. Raj Sharma:
There have been great strides by IRCC to digitize, so APRs, applications for permanent residence, and express entries are already electronic.
As Mr. Waldman said, there are many applications that are not. We've already moved the TRVs, the temporary resident visas, online as well. We've moved most APRs online as well.
There are still paper applications for spousal sponsorship, and for humanitarian and compassionate applications.
There is probably a good 20% to 25% more that can be done here, but we've made good progress, I think, on digitization.
…
Mr. Marc Serré:
I want to thank the witnesses for their balanced approach and their continued offer to work with the federal government to improve this.
This is not an issue involving party lines. We have to do better, because this is the best country in the world.
Thank you for your testimony.
…
Mr. Bob Saroya:
If I can say this, COVID started that month, and the applications I'm talking about are from 2013 and 2012. If you see two people working full-time.... By the way, for the 2013 application, I checked with the ministry over and over again and got the same recycled answer.
Mr. Sharma, do you want to add something, please?
Mr. Raj Sharma:
I agree with Mr. Waldman that perhaps an ombudsman is what's required. I don't think MP resources should be utilized to do status checks.
With regard to what Mr. Waldman's reference to the court, that's called a mandamus application. Our office probably files about 50 or more mandamus applications per year. Again, that is a very, very harsh use, and a disproportionate use, of court time just to move a file along. I mean, these individuals have paid their fees. They've put in a complete application. They deserve an answer on their application.
Again, I don't think mandamus is appropriate. I don't think an MP office sending inquiries is appropriate. There has to be a third way.
…
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to pose an open question to each of the witnesses. As I said before, we heard from the Liberal government that 1.2 million immigrants is its quota to meet over the next three years. Given that there's a pandemic and that we see processing offices all over the world shut down and that biometrics aren't able to be done and medicals are delayed, what does each of you think about whether this quota seems realistic? Does it just seem out to lunch?
…
Mr. Lorne Waldman:
I agree with that. It seems obvious that the only way we're going to be able to meet our quota for 2021 is by looking at the resources in Canada, regardless of whether they're in status or out of status. If they're working and they're contributing, we should be encouraging them to apply and facilitating their immigration to Canada.
Mr. Raj Sharma:
I would agree with Mr. Waldman and Mr. Cliche-Rivard. It's low-hanging fruit, in that they're already here. Processing in Canada is relatively unaffected, as opposed to processing in other countries. Prioritize everyone who is here first.
I don't know whether the targets can be hit or not. I'm not a policy guy, and I'm not within the department, but I think it's certainly possible. There's certainly great potential to prioritize those individuals who are already our neighbours and are already contributing toward this society.
…
Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Saroya said that we have top knowledge on this panel here. I won't be able to explain the mess Jason Kenney created over the years when he was the immigration minister, and is creating now as the premier of Alberta. I am getting hundreds of calls from there. However, I want to tell you what the Liberal government has done. In the parental category, the wait time was reduced from 72 months to 22 months. For the spousal cases, it went from 24 months to under 12 months. As well, 26% of the migration we got came as family class. If we look at temporary workers, 75,000 temporary workers were given a path to immigration, which comes to 22%.
Instead of answering my questions now, I would ask the panel members if they could provide us with some tangible input on how we can improve on, number one, the PGP. We talked about the weighted draw. I'm wondering what thoughts Mr. Waldman and Mr. Sharma have on that so that we can put them into the report. The second one is about a clear pathway to permanent residency, because there is also a petition going on now.
On those two issues, I would like to hear from both Mr. Sharma and Mr. Waldman on what can be done. If they can't cover it in two and a half minutes, I would like them to present it in written form.
Mr. Lorne Waldman:
Mr. Sharma, go ahead.
Mr. Raj Sharma:
Thank you, Mr. Waldman. Usually I would defer to you, but I think you and I are in agreement.
The weighted draw is a very, very simple suggestion. It can be easily implemented. A lottery is a lottery, which means that theoretically someone can apply for five years or 10 years and never be selected.
Mr. Waldman's other suggestion I would have to endorse as well. There are different types of visas. We can get creative. Look, we have to balance competing considerations, which is that there are simply not going to be enough seats, let's say, given our numbers. Demand will always exceed resources. That being said, Canada's approach, if you look internationally in terms of parents and grandparents, is better than the U.K.'s and better than Australia's.
Comments