New Report Demonstrates Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Immigration in Canada
Report Reveals Data, Suggestions on Recovering from Pandemic’s Impact on Immigration
A new report has revealed data pertaining to how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected immigration to Canada.
The report was published by the Conference Board of Canada, which is a Canadian research organization that reports on various issues.
Titled “Counting on Immigration,” the report provides analysis on how the pandemic has affected various numbers relating to immigration. Specifically, it looks at topics from immigrant classes to the geographic spread of immigrants – all of which are contextualized by the effects of the pandemic.
Notably, the report explains that the composition of immigrant classes brought into Canada changed during the first six months of the pandemic. Immigrants with work or educational experience were more likely to be accepted, while other classes saw large drops: the rate of immigrants from the ‘refugee’ class dropped by 72 percent, while the rate from the ‘family’ class dropped by 63 percent.
The report also found that the pandemic’s effects on immigration in Canada differed by province.
“COVID-19 has hindered regionalization efforts that were helping to grow admissions in locations that don’t usually settle many immigrants,” the report says. Meanwhile, the provinces that typically accept more immigrants, like Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, did not face effects as harsh as other provinces.
In terms of overall acceptance of permanent resident admissions, numbers dropped during the first six months following the start of the pandemic. However, the report explains that those numbers are slowly recovering.
The Report Provided Suggestions of Ways To Offset The Pandemic’s Effects
The report provided four examples of ways to limit the unexpected effects of the pandemic. These include:
- Increasing support for immigrants by focusing on economic integration
- Prioritizing regionalization to even out immigration throughout the country
- Improving immigrants’ economic circumstances with federal policy changes
- Considering a broader mix of immigrant classes for acceptance into Canada
You can learn more about the report at: conferenceboard.ca.
The Case for Suspending Removals During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Why the Resumption of Deportations of Vulnerable Individuals is Detrimental
Nearly seven months have passed since Canada announced in November 2020 that it would resume removals and deportations after an eight month suspension due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This suspension had limited removals to cases of “serious” inadmissibility.
The decision to resume removals provoked an outcry from immigration advocates, who argued that the decision jeopardized public safety and asked that the previous policy be reinstated (CARL, CBA).
Since that time, Canada has experienced two more “waves” of infection that have been significantly higher than its first, followed by serious lockdown restrictions across the country. The Canadian government continues to advise against nonessential travel.
Likewise, deportations have resumed in many countries – if they ever stopped in the first place. In Australia, deportations to select countries resumed in July. In the US and the UK, deportations never truly stopped.
The United Nations Network on Migration, which includes the UN human rights agency and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, has called on governments to “suspend forced returns during the pandemic, in order to protect the health of migrants and communities, and uphold the human rights of all migrants, regardless of status.” Most countries have been unwilling to heed this call.
International Pandemic Norms?
Though international law has few direct precedents for immigration policies during pandemics, a landmark decision in 2016, rendered by the International Human Rights Committee (the “Committee”) may provide some justification for curbing removals.
Teitiota v New Zealand concerned a man named Ioane Teitiota from Kiribati, an island in the Pacific ocean that is at risk of submersion due to rising sea levels. Scientists and local Kiribati believe that the island will be unable to sustain human life in the next thirty or so years. Teitiota had sought asylum in New Zealand on the basis that climate change made return to Kiribati impossible. However, his claim had been refused.
The question before the Committee was whether Teitiota had substantiated the claim that New Zealand’s decision to deport him to Kiribati carried a real risk of irreparable harm to his right to life, under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This article states:
Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
In the end, the Committee found that the risk to Teitiota’s life was not sufficiently imminent (see para 9.12).
However, for the first time, the Committee accepted, in principle, that it is unlawful for states to send people to places where the impacts of climate change exposes them to life-threatening risks or a risk of cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment.
While this judgment is not formally binding on countries and is more directly applicable to refugee claims based on climate change, it points to the legal obligations that countries have under international law to protect all people under their jurisdiction from life-threatening risks. This obligation may be applicable to deportations during a pandemic.
In support of this claim, in Teitiota, the Committee sets out a reminder that States who are party to the Convention have the obligation not to “extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory when there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.” The Committee acknowledges that this obligation may not only apply under international refugee law, but also to protect aliens not entitled to refugee status (see para 9.3).
To apply the reasoning in Teitiota to pandemic deportees, we should ask, first, if deportees face imminent, life-threatening risks and, second, if the decision to expose deportees to that risk is arbitrary.
Do Pandemic Deportees Face Life-Threatening Risk?
Each day, the COVID-19 virus and its variants claim thousands of lives around the world and infect millions more. In Canada, there are still nearly 6,000 new cases and 50 new deaths per day. The US’s Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website lists 142 countries at “very high” risk of COVID-19 and recommends that travelers avoid all travel to these destinations. Many of the countries on the list are countries to which Canada and the US are likely to seek to deport people, including Mexico, India, the Philippines, Brazil, etc. With only around 5% of the world’s population vaccinated, worldwide conditions are unlikely to change soon (source).
Removals require a great deal of proximate contact between people. Deportees are put in situations where they have to quickly wrap up their lives in Canada. This involves gathering what they need for their travels, clearing out their lodgings, and saying farewell to friends and family (if they have the chance). They may be held in crowded detention centres and come into contact with others while being processed at the airport, sitting on the plane, and transiting. Additionally, upon arrival in their country of destination, they may have to interact with numerous people while resettling, from finding accommodations, food, work, etc. Reports also indicate that most deportations now include CBSA escorts, meaning that CBSA officers exposed in similar ways while making round-trip flights. This puts both deportees and officials at risk of COVID-19 infection.
As for determining whether the risk to life is sufficiently imminent, it must be noted that the outcomes of COVID-19 infection (or infection by one of its variants) are highly unpredictable. Though vaccination is believed to provide considerable protection, at the moment only 3.3% of Canada’s population is fully vaccinated, and only 38.87 partially vaccinated. Plus, deportees are unlikely to be among the fully vaccinated, since early vaccination in Canada prioritized the elderly and frontline medical and care workers.
In Teitiota, Mr. Teitiota’s risk to life was not considered imminent because evidence showed that Kiribati officials were taking steps to address climate change’s toll on the country’s islands (see para 9.12). However, the Committee recognized that in another case, with different facts or in the future, a Kiribati resident might be entitled to protection (see para 9.14). Conversely, pandemic deportees do have ample evidence that their risk to life is imminent. It may not be so a year from now if global transmission decreases or vaccination reaches a critical threshold, but at the moment, statistics and government policies continue to prove that there is a broad recognition of the dangers of transmission and of travel.
Is The Decision To Resume Deportations Arbitrary?
Teitiota indicates that Courts must assess whether there was arbitrariness in a State’s decision to push forward with a measure that poses a risk to life. As restated by the Committee, “Arbitrary deprivation of life is said to involve interference that is: (a) not prescribed by law; (b) not proportional to the ends sought; and (c) not necessary in the particular circumstances of the case.”
Are deportations proportionate and necessary? As indicated by Canada’s prior suspension from March until November 2020, the federal Liberal government did not consider the vast majority of deportations essential. As noted above, conditions have not changed or improved in the meantime. Infections and deaths have only increased across Canada and much of the world.
Determining if the means used are proportionate is rendered more complicated, because so far, Canada has shared little information about how pandemic removals are being executed. What considerations are being taken into account when government officials assess the safety of a return? Does it matter if the country has adequate access to testing, reporting, and vaccination? Does it matter if the country has significant levels of spread? Does it matter if a deportee has a very minimal support network awaiting them upon their return? Answers to these questions are essential to determine if a risk to life (for both deportees and the officers that escort them) is proportionate to the objective of removal.
In the meantime, until such assessments can be conducted properly and transparently, Canada must reinstate its former suspension and conduct only essential removals.
Temporary Immigration Pathway Announced For Essential Workers And Graduates
New Pathways Will Create Up to 90,000 Permanent Resident Spots
On the 14th of April 2021, an announcement was made by Immigration Minster Marco Mendicino. He announced that Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (‘IRCC’) plans to create several immigration pathways which will allow up to 90,000 permanent resident spots for essential workers and international graduates who currently reside in and work in Canada.
The temporary program, which came into effect on the 6th of May 2021, is a unique opportunity for low-wage, low-skilled workers to convert their temporary resident status to that of permanent resident status. This is in vast contrast to the normally prioritized highly skilled worker programs currently in effect.
On the surface, this sounds like a great initiative and a wonderful opportunity for many people to gain their permanent residence status, however, a group known as the Migrant Rights Network has highlighted sentiments to the contrary.
The Migrant Rights Network, one of Canada’s largest migrant-led coalition, asserts in a report entitled “Exclusion Disappointment, Chaos and Exploitation,” that the newly created policy will only serve a small population of applicants, in that it is restrictive against undocumented migrants, which the group estimates to include at minimum 500,000 people. Refugee claimants, international students who have not yet graduated, and temporary residents of Quebec are also excluded, meaning that at least 1.18 million people are excluded. Most of these people are employed in “essential sectors,” including in the list of occupations that qualify for the current program. Migrants with health issues, or with certain criminal convictions may also be inadmissible. As the group writes in its report, “[t]he well-documented over policing of racialized and particularly Black communities means that inadmissibility on this basis is an additional layer of racist exclusion.”
A large number of the very people this policy aims to aid are therefore not able to meet the initial qualification requirements. The group says that the people who qualify for this program will also have to rush to attain the much-needed language test results and other relevant documents to have their applications processed on a first-come, first-serve basis.
The Migrant Rights Network created a survey to help applicants assess their eligibility for the newly created program. This survey, completed by over 3,000 migrants, identified several barriers to the program. One barrier deals with the difficulty in booking a language test at one of the two approved testing centres in Canada. The only two testing programs that are accepted by IRCC are IELTS and CELPIP. Another barrier is that most applicants do not have readily available funds for the payment of the permanent resident application, or to pay for representation in navigating the system to apply. Getting the required documents, which include police clearances, educational transcripts, valid passports, etc., is also exceedingly difficult during Covid-19, particularly from countries where government bureaucracies have been overwhelmed by the pandemic. This favors applicants from richer countries. These barriers essentially mean that any applicant who does not speak English, does not have a good job, does not have the money upfront, or is stuck outside of Canada, is being served last. As such, this program is not equitable nor is it inclusive. Low wage, working-class essential workers are served last or are de facto excluded.
A spokesperson for the Immigration Minister released a statement to the effect that the new pathway initiative is one of inclusion in that “from bricklayers to bus drivers to custodians, the range of eligibility has never been more inclusive.2” In fact, this program is said to be the most innovative program ever launched by IRCC.
The Migrant Rights Network has called on the Minister to involve them in making the process more equitable and inclusive. Meanwhile the 90,000 available spots are expected to be filled in the coming days.
Canada to Introduce New System For Immigration Applications to Be Processed More Quickly
Government Pledges $428.9 Million to Help Create the New Platform
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically increasing processing times for immigration applications, the federal government is in the process of creating a new digital platform to help expedite the process.
The new system is expected to launch in 2023 and will improve application processing and increase support for applicants.
The federal government has pledged $428.9 million for the project over the next five years in the 2021 federal budget. The funds will go towards creating the new platform and gradually replacing the case management system currently being used to process applications.
According to Alexander Cohen, spokesperson for Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino, this initiative is a part of the government's plan to shift towards digital platforms.
“(This new) platform will ensure that our immigration system can efficiently handle the increasing number of cases,” he said. “It will reduce the use of paper applications and be simpler and easier for applicants.”
A new updated system is warranted, as Cohen confirmed that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's (IRCC) intake of applications has significantly increased over the past several years.
“There are just more applications than ever before and so we’re only going to process as many applications as there are spaces for in the (immigration) plan," said Cohen, adding that COVID-19 restrictions have made it more difficult for immigration officers to process paper-based applications.
Cohen explained that the main challenge with processing applications during the pandemic is that officers would have to travel to a central receiving location to pick up the applications or find a way to get them mailed securely to their homes.
There are currently around 120 Canadian immigration programs, and almost half of them require paper-based applications.
The new platform will not launch for another two years. However, IRCC has launched an online application portal that allows newcomers to apply online for permanent residency.
This portal is currently only available to select applicants in seven programs. However, it will eventually expand to all permanent residency programs.
New Immigration Portal Is “Unfair” To Applicants, Say Lawyers
The Portal Will Open 90,000 Spots for Permanent Residence This Thursday
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) announced that it will launch a new portal allowing some immigrants to apply for permanent residence on Thursday May 6. However, the planned rollout of the portal has earned criticism from immigration lawyers, who have called it “unfair.”
The portal was announced by IRCC on April 14. They say it will offer 90,000 permanent residence spots to healthcare workers, essential workers, and post-secondary students. The streams will remain open until November 6, 2021, or until the program caps are reached. An application guide was released on May 5 specifying eligibility requirements.
Applicants must apply themselves through an online portal – a decision that immigration lawyers say will lead to many problems. Specifically, they fear that the do-it-yourself nature of the application will leave room for applicants to make small mistakes that will get their application rejected. This can cause tremendous, unnecessary stress for applicants, who may already be struggling to maintain a living in Canada during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Upon signing up through the online portal, applicants will receive a document checklist identifying the required supporting documents. Applicants for all streams are required, for instance, to prove that they have valid status and are living in Canada when submitting the application, by submitting work or study permits. Applicants are also required to submit proof of employment by including a work permit, a letter from an employer, and their most recent pay stubs.
Other supporting documents include valid language tests, police certificates, and valid identity documents. Applicants are also required to submit a copy of their Immigration Medical Exam or proof that an exam is scheduled. Additionally, applicants will need to complete all the required forms. The eligibility requirements and types of supporting documents required will depend on the stream available to applicants.
Arghavan Gerami, founder and senior counsel of Gerami Law PC, says that the format of this program overlooks the value that an immigration lawyer or similar representative can provide.
“Essentially, what it does is it marginalizes the role of representative and, in turn, it's breaching the rights of individuals to be represented by counsel in important legal processes that have significant long-term implications,” she says. “The government should not be setting up applications in a way that encourages applicants to proceed without legal representation. It's procedurally unfair. And it can also amount to a breach of fundamental justice.”
The effects of how this program is organized can therefore result in the de facto exclusion of otherwise eligible applicants, a form of bureaucratic disentitlement.
Another critic of the portal is Barbara Jo Caruso, a certified immigration and citizenship law specialist who founded Corporate Immigration Law Firm. Caruso says that the first-come-first-serve format of the portal will leave out people who are busy working at the time of launch.
“A doctor, who is on this list of essential services, is supposed to take time off work in the middle of a pandemic, on a Thursday, to sit at their computer and do this,” she says. “Or a truck driver, who is delivering vaccines from one point to another point in the country is supposed to pull over at a McDonald's and log into public Wi Fi and try to do this.”
Caruso says that a better system would have allowed people to register an interest first, and then give users a period of time to submit documentation – otherwise, the current system rushes applicants, encouraging mistakes.
Applicants who are rushed may struggle interpreting the different eligibility requirements for each stream, accurately completing the numerous forms with the necessary details, and obtaining required supporting documents. These are all matters that immigration lawyers generally support clients with.
In 2019, the federal government opened a similar portal giving spots to applicants to reunite with their families. All spots filled up in ten minutes. There is a likelihood that the same will happen in this case.
The manner in which the application process is designed in this instance risks creating inefficiency, as some applicants who turn out not to be eligible will rush to apply, taking spots from others who would have met the eligibility requirements. Immigration lawyers working with clients ensure that such inefficiencies do not occur, and therefore, end up cutting down on administrative costs and time. They also help manage expectations with clients by explaining the details of the available programs and pointing them towards the best, most relevant, and available options to pursue permanent residency in Canada.
Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino hopes for Canada to accept 401,000 immigrants in 2021.