Danielle Smith:

The bad and the ugly today. We are going to start off with [inaudible 00:00:02]. I think one of the things that we forget, especially with all the turmoil that the liberals have created around the issue of illegal migrants, irregular migrants, family reunification, refugees, fast-track program, that we actually have a pretty good immigration system.

Remember, during the campaign, Donald, in the US, Donald Trump said, “Hey, we need a system that’s more like Canada,” because we do have … We try to match our immigration system to be able to bring in the kind of individuals that our economy needs, that are going to be able to integrate well. There’s a point system … that we give more points for education and for factors that will allow for integration.

So the immigration system is actually pretty darn good and worth emulating and worth celebrating except for when the liberals screw it up, which it appears that they did.

I don’t know how this one got off my radar. I should’ve known about it because I talk to Raj Sharma about it all the time. And maybe he mentioned it, and I didn’t understand the full ramifications of it. But it was such a hated program that it’s only been in place for about 18 months and they realized, “Whoopsy daisy, we’ve got to change this.”

I have to wonder how it is that they ended up doing this in the first place. Why would they have made a decision to go from an orderly application process where you get all your ducks in a row and you go through the process and settle the paperwork and file your fees and wait your turn … Why would they throw that overboard for the system of a lottery, which is “Woo-hoo, if you’re lucky, we’ll grab your name early and you’ll be able to jump the queue. And if you’re unlucky, we might never get to you.”

Why would they think that that would be a better way of doing it? How would they have thought that that wasn’t going to be right for the problem?

Amandeep is not fooled. He says “no matter what the policy changes in immigration of grandparents, parents, the damage is already being done to the liberals’ vote bank. Illegal immigration is going to hit hard. Voters are aware of this. Fraudulent vote bank packages were offered for the 2019 election.”

Well, so I think that those who are communities where they’ve been trying to deal with family reunification might understand this better than those of us who don’t. So let’s see what we can find out about it … find out where the idea for this change came in the first place, and I’m sure there’s a couple of stories about why it is they were forced in pretty short order to change it back.

I’m joined now with an immigration in town. We’ve talked to him many times about immigration issues, and he joins me now to talk about this one. Raj, thanks so much for making time for us today.

Raj Sharma:

Thanks for having me on.

Danielle Smith:

So just give me a little bit of history lesson on this. If I understand this correctly, this initial change to the lottery system was made in December 2016, so this is fully owned by the current liberal government and clearly a wrong direction if they’re already reversing it.

So give us … tell us a little bit about why it came in and took place in the first place.

Raj Sharma:

For sure, Danielle, firstly, I was wondering whether there was a German word that describes fixing a mistake that you yourself created and now claim credit for fixing that mistake.

Danielle Smith:

I’ll ask my audience if they can come up with a word that describes that. That is exactly what this is.

Raj Sharma:

Because that’s exactly what this is. And I actually met the minister [inaudible 00:03:13] last year and gave him an earful regarding this lottery system.

So if you’re a permanent resident or a Canadian citizen, you can sponsor parents or grandparents here, and your sibling is less than 22 years of age, they can come along as well. So that program is very near and dear to many, many ethnic communities and of course the wider Canadian family as well, the population as well. There’s invariably some parent or grandparent that may be outside of Canada.

So if you hit the rewind button, you go back to 2011. So just after the conservatives won, Jason Kenney suspended the Family Class program about six months after they won the election … and for good reason. There’s no way that you could touch that sacred cow prior to an election. If they were to say that we were going to suspend the Family Class prior to that election, I think they would lose more than a few ridings.

They suspended the program from 2011 to 2013, restarted it in 2014. They suspended it because there was a massive backlog. There was 100,000 plus backlog. The costs were worrisome. Parents, grandparents, depending on their age, could cost … a pair of grandparents were sort of monetized and could cost close to $400,000 to taxpayers in terms of health-care costs.

So there was a number of tweaks there. So Jason Kenney suspended it for two years, let the officers whittle away at that backlog. They introduced a limit of 5,000 parents and grandparents starting in 2014.

Danielle Smith:

What was it before in 2011? Before the program was suspended, was there a limit on the program?

Raj Sharma:

Yeah, that was the problem. There was no limit and so you had … Even now, you have 100,000 individuals applying to sponsor family members from aboard. So what he tried to do was try to match the intake to the output. So he’s like, “We’re going to take in what we can process.”

And so what you had then was 5,000 starting in 2014. Now, I don’t know whether the lottery system was worse or that program was worse. It’s kind of like asking what you’d rather prefer: poison or a gunshot? Because in January 2014, you had to get 5,000 applications in.

Now, if you’re in Mississauga, where the processing center is, you’ve got a good shot that your application will arrive. If you’re in Calgary, we were trying to get applications out to Mississauga. We couriered out, it gets there on the same day or the next day, and we’ve missed the cutoff because there’s people waiting in line to drop off applications.

So that-

Danielle Smith:

[crosstalk 00:05:49] So if you don’t get … If you’re not one of the first 5,000, then it’s basically, “Keep your application and try again next year.”

Raj Sharma:

Right, and there’s no way that someone from BC or Vancouver would be able to beat out someone that’s living in Ontario, for example, or ideally, close to Mississauga. So that system wasn’t great either.

So what we had is the Liberals came in and they created this lottery system. So this lottery system started about 18 months ago, and you do an online expression of interest. And if you’re one of the lucky few … so probably one in ten shot of being selected. Now again, that lottery system had a number of flaws to it.

And the lottery system, it’s based on the last three years of income, for example. You need to meet a minimum necessary income to sponsor your parents or grandparents. Now the lottery system is in January, which means that you will not have proof of your prior year’s tax or your income because the only proof that they require or ask for is income tax returns. But notice that that-

Danielle Smith:

But you’re a year late, yeah, because you don’t get that until … I mean, the very earliest you would get that would probably be March or April even if you filed early. So having an application deadline of January, I can see why you’re out a year.

Raj Sharma:

Exactly, and so you need three years of taxes. Now in January, you won’t have the prior year’s taxes, so now you’re going to go back four years. So if you wanted to do a lottery, it should be at a minimum in May or June. That’s just one simple tweak that would’ve saved a lot of for example heartache and headache. So that’s one issue.

The lottery system doesn’t differentiate. For example, you could have a situation where you desperately need to bring one remaining widowed mother for example that’s all alone in some country versus someone that perhaps doesn’t have that need. You could have a Canadian citizen that’s been here for 20 or 30 years, and he’s going to be in the exact same boat as someone that’s arrived here three years ago or four years ago.

So for a number of reasons, it was just … a lottery system has … I don’t think immigration should be a Las Vegas style roulette or game. We’re dealing with individuals. We’re dealing with family members. And we’re dealing with perhaps exigent circumstances or … And it simply didn’t address those concerns.

Danielle Smith:

So tell me then what they … what kind of … Did you have any particular stories, or was there any particular case that made them realize, “Oh my goodness, we’ve got to change this. This obviously isn’t working.” Because it sounds like those who are trying to be served by this program hate it as well.

Raj Sharma:

Absolutely, and so it doesn’t … It’s a very cynical ploy for votes. I think it’s very clear that in the months and the year prior to an election, you have a massive increase in the number of … Look, I’m not complaining. I’m not complaining in terms of the increase of …

Danielle Smith:

You’re just commenting on the politics of this and the timing of it. I get it.

Raj Sharma:

That’s right. If this is important to us, then we should address this in nonelection years and not the year prior to an election. These concerns were obviously brought to the attention of the minister a long time ago.

In terms of stories or whatever else, I mean you have a situation where my client has five kids in Canada, all of them doing very, very well. All of them making a lot of money. So they got five kicks at the can. They’ve got five draws. And then you have other situations where you only have one person in Canada, for example, or an only son or an only daughter.

And I think it’s inherently unfair that … The lottery system is just inherently unfair. I think everyone should have an equal shot at bringing loved ones to Canada.

Danielle Smith:

And it should only need to be one … I mean, what a nuisance for the family of five kids because then you’ve got five different times that you’re trying to make the application. That adds time and paperwork and money to it as well.

Raj Sharma:

Well, the stupidity of the system is reflected on almost every level. So the expression of interest asks you to self-report your income. Now there’s a minimum necessary income to sponsor your parents. And we have individuals that don’t meet that minimum necessary income that still apply to sponsor their parents and grandparents.

And so you have individuals that are working very hard, paying their taxes, and doing so … Obviously, they’re doing that because they’re hardworking, industrious individuals, but the benefit is of course they get to bring their parents here. And then you have other individuals that are simply filling out the expression of interest, which does not verify your income before you enter the draw.

Danielle Smith:

Oh brother, so you get chosen for the draw, but then when they go through the other factors that you have to meet to be able to qualify for the program, it’s, “No, you don’t qualify at all.” But there should be a way to kick those ones right off the bat.

Raj Sharma:

Absolutely, so you’ve got … They say there’s 100,000 applicants. I don’t know if that’s 100,000 eligible applicants. So there was just … On every level, this program made no sense. And so I’m not inherently opposed to for example lottery, but a lottery could be tweaked for example to consider the number of years or the need for family members to come to Canada. It could of course have been done later in the year so that there’s an easy way to establish income or qualifying income for the previous three years.

And so my concern right now is of course this is fantastic. We’ve got this feel-good vibe going on that “Hey, we’re going to quadruple intake. Under the conservatives it’s 5,000. Now it’s 20,000.” But if you do not increase the resources, i.e., the output, we’re going to get a backlog over 100,000 again.

Now what happens when there’s a backlog? It was taking seven or eight years to bring a parent or grandparent to Canada.

Danielle Smith:

Whoa, so even if you met all the qualifications, it would still take as long as eight years before you could bring them over?

Raj Sharma:

Correct, because of the massive backlog. So now we’ve whittled the backlog down. We’re getting parents here in a year or two years, and now we’re going to increase this. So what I was looking for when I was reading these news broadcasts and these announcements was, “Okay, how many …? What resources are you putting in?”

I don’t care so much about 20,000. We’re increasing the intake to 20,000 in January of next year. I’m concerned about can we process 20,000 per year? Because if we can process-

Danielle Smith:

Yeah-

Raj Sharma:

Go ahead, sorry.

Danielle Smith:

It stands to reason that if you had a certain level of staffing to process 5,000 per year and now you’ve tripled it, you’re going to need three times the staff to be able to keep up.

Raj Sharma:

Correct, and so if we’ve … As long as the … because what I fear is that everyone’s going to … They’re going to love this. They’re going to be, “This is fantastic.” But I’ll tell you the heartache of waiting seven or eight years to sponsor your mom and dad and your mom or dad or one or both die before the sponsorship is completed. And I’ve seen that as well. Or that they become medically inadmissible over that period of time.

And so this is … On its face, I’m sure it’ll be welcomed by many Canadians, many Canadians from immigrant backgrounds as well. But really, we’ve got to dig a little bit and say, “Okay, what additional resources are going to be deployed to ensure that a backlog of 120,000 doesn’t come up again?”

Danielle Smith:

So are we seeing any reinvestment on any front?

Every time we talk to you, we talk about how the program is failing because of backlogs in multiple ways. Are they addressing that on any front?

Raj Sharma:

Not that I … I tried to look at the announcements, and I didn’t see any sort of parallel. For example, Kenney was quite clear. Some could say hard-hearted in the sense of being very, very clear about the cost and benefits of Family Class, parents and grandparents and dependent children, and the number of intake versus processing resources.

But it was at least logical, so I need to understand, if we’re going to take in 20,000, what impact will that be on processing time? If it’s going to take my clients and other individuals eight to ten years to bring family members here, then that’s not a system really that I’m interested in.

I would rather take 10,000 or 15,000 but with little or no backlog as opposed to-

Danielle Smith:

Yeah, so that you … because if you’re children, then you have the certainty that your loved one is going to be with you within a really short period of time.

Raj Sharma:

This is sort of pie-in-the-sky thinking, which is like, “Yeah, why don’t you just announce that you’ll take in 100,000 per year?”

Danielle Smith:

Yeah, since you don’t have the staff to be able to do it, it’s not actually going to happen.

Raj Sharma:

If you can only process 5,000 per year, just do the math. That backlog will never end. If you’re taking in 100,000 and you can only process 5,000.

Danielle Smith:

Let me ask you about the first issue that you identified when they had set that limit of 5,000 … saying that those closest to the processing center had the advantage. How does that change with this new announcement of 20,000? Is just the assumption being that there won’t be 5,000 in the Mississauga or that there won’t be 20,000 in the Mississauga area and the regions will have more time to be able to get their application in?

Raj Sharma:

Their announced changes make no sense to me either, which is that there’s an online expression of interest that opens between January and February now. And out of those … Let’s say 100,000 people apply. Those expressions of interest are randomly then selected, and it was 17,000 this year. It was 10,000 last year. And what they’re proposing, I believe, is that those online expressions of interest, which again depend on self-report in terms of income, are then going to be selected first come, first serve.

So now we’re going to have a situation where immigration lawyers I think are going to be at their computers at … It opens on January 2 or 3, so what? At what time does it open and what …? Internet connectivity is going to surge I suppose for those minutes or hours, and …

Danielle Smith:

You’re basically going to get fully subscribed … Let’s do 20,000 applications within the first two minutes. It’ll be like a Ticketmaster ticket sale.

Raj Sharma:

Correct, and again, that doesn’t make any sense to me either.

Danielle Smith:

Well, especially since it sounds like they haven’t addressed this other problem that you identified about the January, February time frame because you don’t have your materials together to prove your income.

Raj Sharma:

Right, and it doesn’t address the issue that it depends on the self-reported income.

Danielle Smith:

Oh dear, okay, I’m going to talk to you a year from now when the system comes in again and hopefully you’ll have some good news, say, “Okay, they fixed it. I’m happy with it. It’s all going to work out.”

Somehow I feel that might not be the case.

Raj Sharma:

One can hope.

Danielle Smith:

Okay, Raj Sharma, always a pleasure talking with you. Thank you for your time today.

Raj Sharma:

Thank you.

Danielle Smith:

And Raj Sharma, again, is a Calgary immigration lawyer dealing with these issues. Oh my goodness, I don’t even know if there … Is [inaudible 00:16:39] problems where there actually isn’t a solution? I think Christian is trying to come up with the word for, “Boy, did I ever screw this up and now I’m taking credit for fixing it.”

He says mea culpa’s a Latin phrase that means “through my fault” and acknowledgement of having done wrong. Grammatically, mea culpa … and it goes on to some grammatical issues. I don’t know that that’s exactly the right one because it’s taking credit for a problem that you fixed without acknowledging that you were the one who created the problem in the first place. So this requires a little humility.