I move to amend Bill C-242 by adding, before line 5 on page 1, the following new clause:
1.1 Subsection 14(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):
(c.1) special circumstances to be taken into account in the processing of temporary resident visa applications;
(c.2) a review process for decisions made in relation to temporary resident visa applications;
Jenny Kwan (NDP) Vancouver East, BC
"All right.
I move to amend Bill C-242 by adding, before line 5 on page 1, the following new clause:
1.1 Subsection 14(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):
(c.1) special circumstances to be taken into account in the processing of temporary resident visa applications;
(c.2) a review process for decisions made in relation to temporary resident visa applications;
Madam Chair, the reason I'd like to move this amendment is so that there could be an appeal process in place for rejections. As we know, oftentimes people are not able to have their application reviewed after it's been rejected. The process that's available to them is extremely onerous, and in many cases effectively not available.
We know that there are extenuating circumstances that happen in people's lives. I cited during committee, with witnesses, examples such as applicants whose applications are rejected because their financial situation changes at the last minute and for the short term, but their entire application is ultimately rejected as a result.
I'm moving for an appeal system to be established and for special circumstances to be allowed to be taken into consideration. The amendment does not spell out what that appeal process would look like. It would be left to the government to make that determination and set up that structure. However, the call for an appeal process to be established is what this is about, and for special circumstances to be taken into consideration.
I hope members will consider this."
The Chair Salma Zahid (Liberal)
"Thank you, Ms. Kwan.
I will have to give a ruling on this amendment. The amendment that Ms. Kwan just moved seeks to amend subsection 14(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which deals with regulations related to requirements and selection. The amendment also seeks to introduce a review process that is not contemplated by Bill C-242.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following on page 771:
...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.
Since section 14 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is not being amended by Bill C-242, and also because the introduction of a review process is a new concept, this amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
This ruling is non-debatable."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Kwan (NDP) Vancouver East, BC
"Yes, Madam Chair. I move that Bill C-242, in clause 5, be amended (a) by replacing line 19 on page 2 with the following:
tion does not provide for a reduction to the minimum income re‐
Also, it moves that clause 5 be amended (b) by replacing line 24 on page 2 with the following:
or grandchild or the circumstances or review process referred to in subsection 4(1), the Minister must table in each
This is a consequential amendment to the previous amendment that was passed, effectively asking that the minister respond to Parliament, including the issues around an appeal process and under special circumstances."
Marie-France Lalonde (Liberal) Orléans, ON
"Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, I'm a little bit troubled. I feel that I cannot support this.
Currently, a super visa applicant's host—child or grandchild—and a co-signer, who must be the host's spouse or common-law partner, must provide evidence that they meet the income requirement, which is equal to or above the low income cut-off. The low income cut-off is the income threshold, established by Statistics Canada, “below which a family will...devote a [much] larger share of its income on the necessities of food, shelter and clothing than the average family.”
A requirement to report or evaluate existing income will provide an opportunity to ensure that hosts are able to provide the basic necessities to their parents and grandparents for the duration of their extended stay in Canada, and, I will say, in addition to the other members of the family in the household unit.
At this point, I don't feel that I can support this amendment, Madame Chair."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Kwan (NDP) Vancouver East, BC
"Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wonder if I can move this motion, which is related to the work that we have just completed and, particularly, to the amendment that I tried to move forward that did not pass. I would like to move that the committee report to the House its support for the creation of the review mechanism recommended in the following amendment proposed to C-242: that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be amended by adding a provision for “special circumstances to be taken into account in the processing of temporary resident visa applications” and “a review process for decisions made in relation to temporary resident visa applications”."
https://openparliament.ca/committees/immigration/44-1/28/jenny-kwan-2/
On the question around student housing, I absolutely think that it is essential for institutions and provinces do their part and I think that the federal government should show leadership and perhaps initiate a program wherein the federal government contributes a third of the funding, institutions provide a third of the funding, and the provinces and territories provide a third of the funding towards the creation of student housing, both for international students and domestic students. That way you can have a robust plan to address the housing needs of the students.
I'm going to park that for a minute and quickly get into the students who were subject to fraud. We have a situation in which students have now been cleared and found to be genuine by the task force, but they have not gotten their passports back yet. I don't know what the holdup is, and I wonder if the minister can comment on that.
Second, there are students who are still waiting to be evaluated by the task force, and the task force work can't proceed because they might be waiting for a date for the IRB to assess the question on their permit on whether or not it was genuine or whether or not there was misrepresentation. They are consequently in a situation in which people are just chasing their tails and they can't get to the task force.
On that question, will the minister agree that instead of making people go through that process with the IRB, the task force evaluation can move forward first so that they can be found to be either a genuine student or not a genuine student?
I want to thank the special rapporteur for joining us today at committee. I also very much appreciate your coming to Canada and looking into this issue.
As many of the witnesses have said to us, the issue around the immigration system as it's set up, with the closed work permit approach, is that it actually sets these workers up for exploitation. From that perspective.... It's not to say, as the Conservatives would suggest, that you were alleging that all employers abuse workers. I don't believe you said that at any point in time; rather, I think the issue is about the immigration system that Canada has.
Instead of having this closed work permit situation, what would you say is the remedy to address the exploitation that many of the migrant workers you spoke with directly experienced?
Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, United Nations, As an Individual
Tomoya Obokata
My recommendation is, certainly, to modify the closed nature of the program. If the workers are able to choose their employers at their own will, that reduces the instances of abuse and exploitation.
More importantly, whether it's closed or not, employers have to comply with the relevant legal obligations. I accept that a large number of employers already do. It's those others who do not who require further attention from the provincial and federal governments to see whether they can take appropriate law enforcement actions against those who breach labour standards legislation.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
With respect to exploitation, one of the issues that migrant workers are faced with is that they don't have full status here in Canada; they have only temporary status. One issue that has been identified is the closed work permit. The other issue is in terms of having rights. Being able to have their rights protected also means that they have to have status here in Canada.
How would you suggest the policy side of things should be amended to ensure that these migrant workers have their rights protected?
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I thank the committee members for supporting the last motion.
I have another motion that I'd like to move at this point. Notice has been given for it. It reads as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities and relevant officials together for two hours, or invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship with relevant officials for two hours, and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities to appear separately with relevant officials for one hour to update the committee on:
(a) the work of the task force addressing the exploitation scheme targeting international students as many students are still reporting that they are in limbo and have not heard back from officials about their status;
(b) the measures taken by IRCC and institutions to help prevent and protect international students from fraud schemes;
(c) the justification to increase the financial requirements for international students by more than 100% to $20,635;
(d) the justification for putting a cap on international study permits; and
(e) the plans to address the housing crisis for international students and efforts made to collaborate with provinces, territories and post-secondary institutions.
I think the motion is self-explanatory on all elements, and I think we would benefit from having the two ministers appear before our committee. We've also deliberated this issue at length at another meeting, so in the interest of time, I won't revisit all of those points.
I hope committee members will support this motion.