It was an honour appearing before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on November 6, 2020. As was the case in my previous appearance before this Parliamentary Committee (in 2017) I spoke just before Lorne Waldman -the Dean of Canadian immigration lawyers. Here are some of the responses from the first round of questioning (my opening statement can be found in an earlier post).
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC):
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for coming today and sharing your thoughts and experiences.
I want to touch on some of the points that some speakers highlighted. We know this pandemic has brought many things to light.
I was always taught that work is work. Work carries a lot of dignity and honour, and we should recognize people's work as such. Now, as to whether work is defined as “skilled” or not, we've seen throughout this pandemic that industries such as some of the ones that were listed—transport, caregiving, manufacturing and processing—carry so much importance. Before the pandemic, they sometimes weren't given the respect they deserved. We've learned that not only is this work important and considered front-line work, as some mentioned, but it's also essential and saves lives.
Often, these front-line workers are temporary foreign workers. Currently, though, there doesn't seem to be a proper pathway for them. These front-line workers are good enough to be our neighbours and provide essential services, but when it comes to many of the challenges around obtaining a PR, there are so many obstacles for them—
(1520)
The Chair:
Mr. Hallan, I'm sorry for interrupting. Can you move your microphone away from your mouth a bit? I think there is some buffering. The interpreters are having an issue.
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
Is this better?
The Chair:
Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
My question is for you, Mr. Sharma. By the way, that's a great-looking poster in the background there.
Given some of these challenges, in your own experience, what are some of these challenges these front-line workers are going through in obtaining PR status?
Mr. Raj Sharma:
Thank you, sir.
In terms of permanent residency, the challenge is that the express entry or the federal immigration system prioritizes the economic class, and the economic class is restricted, more or less, to the so-called high-skilled individuals. Here, I just want to point out that in terms of “high-skilled” and “low-skilled”, I think the reality is that it's more like “low-wage” and “high-wage”. I think that's the actual discrepancy here.
The federal system is restricted to so-called high-skilled individuals in the national occupational classifications, NOC 0, A or B. A lot of these essential workers are in this no man's land of NOC C and D. You have transport drivers, for example. They're essential for logistics and our supply chain, but other than some select provincial nominee programs, they do not have access to a ready pathway for permanent residency.
Again, my concern is that we're treating these individuals—and I completely agree with you on the inherent dignity of work—like disposable workers, similar to what some of the Gulf States do, which is that they're good enough to come here and good enough to work here and contribute to programs they might not even have access to, such as EI or CPP, but then, at the end of their work, or whenever it's finished, it's just “go back home”.
I think that COVID-19 has exposed a moral obligation and responsibility. For whoever is taking care of us, we also should take care of them. I am proposing expanding the express entry to look at the NOC codes that these front-line essential workers are utilizing and allowing them a pathway to permanent residency.
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
Thank you for that, Mr. Sharma.
Actually, that covered my second question, about what kind of pathway you see, theoretically, for them to obtain that status. Is there anything you want to add to that at all, in terms of that pathway?
Mr. Raj Sharma:
Sir, in the past, pre-2012, there was a pass/fail Canadian experience class, again, restricted to skilled occupations, but the current system could easily be modified. Obviously this committee can't tell the provinces what to do, and different provinces will prioritize what they think is important.
I think it's a ready solution to use the existing express entry pathway, utilize those NOC codes and take care of those individuals who have been taking care of us.
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
Thank you for that.
Mr. Sharma, recently we heard the Liberal government announce that it would be bringing in about 1.2 million immigrants over the next three years. Given that there are already so many international students and temporary foreign workers here, instead of this government trying to hit, let's say, unrealistic quotas, doesn't it make more sense for us that we go to the lower-hanging fruit such as international students or temporary foreign workers, who, as we have seen, are so essential, and make the pathway easier for them to obtain a PR status? The processing is already halfway there and given that there are so many closures of offices around the world, would this not be lower-hanging fruit to go after?
Mr. Raj Sharma:
I would agree. You have hundreds of thousands of individuals in Canada as temporary foreign workers, irrespective of their NOC codes or skill or low skill. You also have, of course, hundreds of thousands of international students. They are, indeed, low-hanging fruit.
That would seem to be where we should put our attention; however, the system that is set up right now makes it very difficult even for a graduate of a three-year program in Canada—let's say, someone who is 22 or 23 years old. Even with one year of skilled work experience in Canada and with good English, that person will never hit the points required for selection under express entry.
For example, the last draw just a couple of days ago was in the 470s. That will take out the vast majority of international graduates with a two-year diploma.
...
Mr. Marc Serré:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank the four witnesses for their balanced approach to health and emotion, especially when it comes to family reunification. Initially, I wasn't sure what direction our discussion with four lawyers would take. In the end, I enjoyed the testimony.
My first question is for all the participants, but I will start with Mr. Waldman.
[English]
You mentioned the spousal reunification program. As I'm sure you know, last week we made some changes to the directives, giving the decision-making officers consideration of dual intent for spousal sponsorship applications.
Do you interpret this as a step in the right direction? What more can we do?
That's for Mr. Waldman and then for Mr. Sharma.
...
My response follows:
Mr. Sharma: I welcome the changes to regulation 179(b).
It's interesting. This is kind of like what's old is new again.
Many years ago before IRPA, there was something called a fiancé visa. Individuals were able to get engaged and then come to Canada. Perhaps there was some abuse there, and so there was a change there.
It's definitely a positive. I used to be an officer many years ago, and it was very difficult. The minister is going to put in the regulations. They can have their manuals. It's very difficult to curb officer discretion. I think perhaps it's a bit of a wait and see thing, but it's a very positive step.
Now the only issue is that if it gets refused, what can we do? All we can do is go to the Federal Court, which is kind of like using a hammer to kill a mosquito.
I do agree with Mr. Waldman that it's a very positive step, and hopefully there will be some manuals that follow that give officers some more guidance so that we can be assured that these applications are properly and substantively considered.
Comments