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/
James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I would say that's generally the case. If the work permit they obtained was originally connected to the public policy, that's correct. I don't know if that's the situation in all cases. In some cases, applicants may have had an LMIA-based work permit to begin with.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
That's right. However, under the special immigration measure, the LMIA is not required. I have a list of applicants in those circumstances. Their work permit renewal application was rejected. They were asked to submit an LMIA, which makes no sense. I want to flag that as a deep concern now emerging for people whose open work permits are being rejected as they wait for their permanent resident status. At this rate, given the immigration levels plan numbers and the processing delays happening, and with the number of applicants in place, you can imagine that it's going to take something like eight years to get through the backlog of people getting their PR status. This means that if they are trying to get their pension, they will not be able to do so for eight years, because they are required to provide proof of permanent residence.
I want to flag this as a major concern. I hope the department will take action to fix the error being applied to applicants whose open work permits are being rejected under this stream. Can I get a confirmation from officials that this will be undertaken?
James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, that issue has been raised with the department already, and we're looking into it to see what exactly happened in those situations.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
Okay. Officials are aware of it, and yet it's still happening. I have cases coming to me that are happening. I'm about to prepare a giant pile of this stuff for the minister, so I hope the officials will fix that. The other thing related to the pension, of course, is lengthy delays for people to get their permanent status. Based on the immigration levels plan and the number of applicants in place, is it the officials' anticipation that it will take about eight years to get those applications processed?
James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
We have looked at that possibility. Certainly, it will take longer than we had previously indicated to the committee. I would note that the first year of the levels plan is the fixed year. The years that follow, in this case, 2026 and 2027, are flexible. There are opportunities to adjust those numbers in the future, and that could affect that timeline. It's hard to say whether eight years will be the timeline, but it will be longer than had been originally predicted because the numbers have gone down.
Bronwyn May, Director General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It's not always the case that a letter originates from an institution. We would need to look at various possible sources.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
Maybe I can reframe that.
Obviously, as these are fraudulent letters of acceptance, they wouldn't be issued by the institutions. However, regarding the list of institutions being used for the purpose of these fraudulent letters, I would be interested in obtaining information to determine what percentage are private institutions and public institutions, how many of them are colleges, how many of them are universities and so on. That will tell us very specific information that I think is important when trying to tackle fraudulent activities.
Bronwyn May, Director General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I completely agree. That's a very important line of analysis.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
I will make the further request to make sure you share this information with the committee. I'll argue that this information should not be kept secret. It should be public and transparent—shared with all Canadians—so that we're aware of what the landscape is and of how international students are being taken advantage of. With respect to that analysis, will there be information and data on what countries are being targeted?
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
All right. Thank you.
Hence, we have this problem. You have the Canadian government, which created this lifeboat scheme for Hong Kongers who are fleeing persecution in Hong Kong as a result of the national security law. The government, in its wisdom or lack thereof, created this lifeboat scheme that only provides for temporary residence by way of a work permit or a study permit. Then these people have to go to the queue to make an application for permanent residence, and we know that there is a huge backlog and delay in processing.
In the beginning, there was swift action, but as time has passed, it's been lengthened by way of the delay, to the point where the former minister even made an announcement to further extend people's work permits and study permits for another three years. That is to say, a person could be here for six years—as long as six years—under this current scheme without getting permanent residence. This is because the minister anticipated that people would not be able to swiftly get their permanent resident status. That is the reality.
As a result of that, people are not able to provide proof of permanent residence, because the application is in process. To make it even worse, the government—the minister—just made an announcement about the levels plan, cutting levels to the tune of 105,000 permanent resident status applications.
You can imagine how long the wait-list is for Hong Kongers as they continue to wait. Now, these Hong Kongers have zero intention of returning to Hong Kong, because they know that they would be persecuted if they did. People know that. I think the Canadian government knows that.
This is my question, then, to you as the manager of their pension, which, because of this rule, they're unable to access: Would your organization be willing to write to the regulator to ask for consideration for these applicants who are in a prolonged period of waiting for permanent resident status, to ask that their declaration indicating that they do not intend to return to Hong Kong be accepted as proof that they intend to leave Hong Kong permanently so that they can access their pensions? Is that something that your organization would consider doing?
Maryscott Greenwood, Global Head, Government Relations, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company
I think I understand the question.
The basic premise of your question has to do with the period of time it takes for the Government of Canada to determine and provide permanent residency or citizenship. It seems to me that this is a function of the Government of Canada, as opposed to a regulated entity. That's how I would answer that.
Laura Hewitt, Senior Vice-President and Head, Global Government Affairs and Public Policy, Sun Life Financial Services of Canada Inc.
Yes. I would say that it's not within our authority to change the criteria.
However, our numbers show that once that permanent residency does come through, we're able to process the applications and approve Canadian permanent residents.