Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 7th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You have 30 seconds.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Maybe you can just elaborate, Ms. Bien-Aimé, about transparency and accountability.

[Marie Carmel Bien-Aimé]

For transparency, they should provide clear status updates and not just say your file is on queue. They also have to keep better records of the documents they receive and not ask for them three or four times. They should provide a timeline and respect the timeline provided. Please stop the blanket automatic email responses and respond to email in a timely manner and respect the time frame provided.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Time is up, Mr. Hallan. Thank you. We will now proceed to Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you will have six minutes. You can please begin.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I will echo your comments that you made to Imam Badat about Ramadan. I would love to wish him Ramadan mubarak on this religious and spiritual occasion.

I also have a question for the imam as well. I know many applications are passed, but many people come to my office with issues, particularly with regulation 4, which was brought in by then immigration minister Jason Kenney and the Conservatives. I would love to see regulation 4 abolished today, because it asks the couples, number one, to prove that their marriage is genuine. It already presents many difficulties, not only in the Islamic community but also for Sikhs, Hindus and others in India and Pakistan, which I have experienced.

The first one is on the genuineness of the marriage and the second is when you entered into the marriage. It was a marriage of convenience if you never met before. I am also one of those who had an arranged marriage 34 years ago.

Imam, I would like to ask you how many such cases do you see, and would you agree with me that regulation 4 should be abolished?

[Yusuf Badat]

As an imam, at the particular mosque where I work, we have at least three or four thousand coming for the Jumu'ah prayer, which is the main prayer of the week. I would say at least one-third of those who have applied for immigration are coming up with these concerns and these questions about the delay and why their marriage is not considered valid.

I was actually brought for expert testimony by IRCC on a case. The spouse was away from the other spouse for 10 years, and they finally gave the go-ahead. They weren't moving the case forward because they did not believe that they were actually married. There was also a child who was born, and the spouse who is here, a citizen of Canada, was going every other year to spend some time with the other spouse. They just couldn't believe that the marriage actually took place, and the concern was, “Why don't you have photographs of your wedding? Where's the invitation card?” Some of these villages where people come from back home don't have all these flashy weddings. It's just a simple thing and they don't meet beforehand. It's just an arranged type of marriage. Finally the case was completed, after 10 years.

Again, to answer your question, it's a sizable number. I would say at least one-third of my congregation who have some form of immigration application on file are waiting, and it's delayed anywhere between two and 10 years, as I said.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Chair, this is a very serious issue that the imam faced in his congregation and I faced in my constituency as well. I would like to find some tangible solutions from the honourable imam that we on this side can use to improve this situation.

[Yusuf Badat]

I think that cultural sensitivity is very important. You gave a recommendation earlier about abolishing what Jason Kenney put into place. Any laws or policies that block this need to be removed. We need to treat everybody with equity, fairness, justice. We need to understand that all these people who are coming to Canada—Canada's a land of immigration—only enhance the country, and we need to unite families, not disenfranchise families and communities based on personal biases or the lack of understanding of various cultures.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Chair, through you to the other witnesses, do they have any other suggestion to remove these cultural barriers that some of the communities face? Are there tangible solutions that they have in mind?

[Debbie Douglas]

Mr. Dhaliwal, I would suggest that in addition to what the imam has suggested, we also take a look at the collection of data on this aspect.

We have lots of anecdotal information. I often say that what gets measured gets addressed, so let's get the hard data so we can continue to prove that our communities have absolutely been correct that they are facing differential treatment based on their countries of origin, religion and race. Until we have that data....

We are very clear as Canadians that we expect the department to answer when we see the disproportionate impact on particular communities, and then to put these things in place. I think cultural education is really good. We have to begin to hold those with decision-making power accountable for the decisions that are being made by the department. If folks know that jobs are on the line, that they will need to publicly report on the decisions and on the various communities that are disproportionately being affected, I believe that also changes behaviour.

I think there are a number of tools that we need to use. Education and cultural training absolutely are good, but let's also collect the data, report it, and have the department talk about what it's doing to address the findings of the data collection.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Ms. Bien-Aimé or Mr. Badat, do you have anything to add?

[Marie Carmel Bien-Aimé]

To continue what Ms. Douglas said, I completely agree that we need data, and we need to interview people.

I need to stop, but I agree with her. I have nothing else to add.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal. We will proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you have six minutes. Please begin.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here this afternoon.

Ms. Bien‑Aimé, I listened carefully to your testimony. I especially liked that you made several suggestions and recommendations to the committee; that will be very helpful to us. I also liked that you shared your personal story with us.

I have a few questions for you.

You suggested that a special temporary resident visa be issued for the purpose of family reunification, but with the 179(b) exemption.

Would that put an end to the debate on dual intent, in your view?

[Marie Carmel Bien-Aimé]

Thank you for your question.

I believe it would, because people who come from countries that do not require visas don't have this problem. Why do immigration officials only apply paragraph 179(b) to countries that require visas? This would not resolve the backlog at all, but it would at least reunite families until their applications are processed. That way, these families could just be together.

I don't see why there is a difference between people from countries that don't require visas and people from countries that do.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you for your answer.

In your presentation, you talked about creating an immigration ombudsperson position. What would the ombudsperson's mandate be? Is it really necessary? If so, how much is it needed?

[Marie Carmel Bien-Aimé]

I will answer that question by saying that an immigration ombudsperson position is definitely needed. Their mandate could be to create a diverse committee tasked with revamping policies and programs. In doing this, immigration officials could demonstrate inclusiveness and fairness when making decisions.

A review board is also needed and its mandate would be to review denied spousal sponsorship applications. It would have a duty to give families a fair and independent review prior to the appeal process. The team could recognize the systemic oppression of individuals from countries requiring visas. It could also challenge assumptions and stop implicit and explicit biases. Finally, it could also embark on a path of change and transformation.

Earlier, I heard someone say that the office should be completely independent. I agree with that. They would also have to invest in the project, because when applications are rejected, the appeal process costs everyone dearly. So they could put the money back in the right place, to ensure that applications are processed fairly and equitably.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you for that great answer.

You made another suggestion that I think is quite innovative. We'd never heard this suggestion before at committee. I think it's a great one.

You suggested that we require immigration officers to rotate every two to five years to avoid familiarity and even jaded staff members. Those were your words, I believe.

Could you elaborate on that? Could you share your thoughts about this suggestion with the committee?

[Marie Carmel Bien-Aimé]

Thank you for your question.

When an immigration officer has been there for 5, 10 or 15 years, they develop bad habits, whether you like it or not. So when that officer has decisions to make, they base them on what the local employee says and what they see. Rotation will prevent them from developing bad habits.

I did say “jaded”, yes, because when you're always in the same position and always interviewing people for the same reasons, it becomes a little easier to reject applications based solely on your own biases.

They should rotate every two to five years and it should be a requirement for the position. That way, people who apply and are in the process will know, for example, that they will have to stay in Accra for two years and then go to Egypt or another country for three years. They will know that they have to rotate.

This will help them build a wider knowledge base. They will also become more open to other cultures, because travelling and seeing other people is also a form of self-education.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask you one last question.

Everyone's talking about backlogs. We hear it on television, in the newspaper, on the radio.

You have personal experience with IRCC, though. When we hear about backlogs, is it true?

[Marie Carmel Bien-Aimé]

Yes, it's true.

I know because I'm currently in an ongoing process. My husband is from one of the “30 most corrupt countries”. He's Nigerian. I've been waiting 35 months for him, but he still hasn't arrived here.

Yes, it's true. I'm living proof of it. Our group has 5,000 to 8,000 members who all tell us the same thing. They all say it's taking a long time and they don't understand why it happens faster for white countries.

I see that there's a backlog. I also see that there are biases that have a huge impact on decisions.

Why are applications from countries requiring visas not handled the same way as those from countries that do not?

It should be consistent. The treatment should be the same. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I am living proof: I've been waiting for 35 months.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Bien‑Aimé.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you. We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.

You will have six minutes. You can begin, please.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for their presentations.

I'd like to follow up with Madame Bien-Aimé with this question.

Oftentimes IRCC will cite reasons based on section 179(b) of the IRPR regulations to refuse people's TRV applications. These reasons are based on travel history, based on the purpose of the visit and based on the limited employment prospects in the country of residence.

Would you say that those reasons and the policies that IRCC adopted to allow for those reasons to be used are inherently discriminatory?

[Marie Carmel Bien-Aimé]

Thank you for your question.

Yes, they are 100% discriminatory, absolutely.