Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 12th, 2020

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Given that the 2012 legislation not only discouraged unworthy asylum claims but saved the Government of Canada hundreds of millions of dollars by reducing the time that unworthy claimants were supported by federal, provincial and municipal social welfare costs, what was your advice to the minister with regard to that previous program?

[Catrina Tapley]

Our advice to the minister takes a number of forms: of things we want to look at, a number of things the department has done in the past, or a number of things that we have done with money from budget 2019 and the way we want to continue to invest in the asylum system. Those discussions are still ongoing with Minister Mendicino and Minister Blair. We continue to make strides from the money that was received in budget 2019. We will have to see what comes for the next part.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The City of Toronto is in the midst of budget considerations now. They have revealed what they require for support for their emergency shelter. They've doubled their shelter capacity for refugee claimants, many of whom, we're told, will ultimately be found to be unworthy and will be asked to leave the country.

The city will require $76.9 million in 2020 to continue its program to temporarily house family refugee claimants, $22.2 million to continue supporting the IRCC in delivering the regional response after 2020, and $13.1 million to continue the Willowdale Welcome Centre temporary response site for refugee singles.

What plans does the department have to recommend in this budget this compensation to the City of Toronto and to cities in Manitoba and Quebec for the support of asylum claimants?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You have 30 seconds.

[Catrina Tapley]

We continue to work very closely. We have provided $88 million to the City of Toronto to date. We are in discussions with the City of Toronto now over continued assistance to the city, as we are with the Government of Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now move on to Ms. Dhillon for six minutes.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Good morning.

The first question I have is in regard to sponsorships and spousal work permits. A lot of constituents feel that they have been discriminated against because officers are not always fit to understand the nature of their relationships. As we know, in many cultures, people do not live together prior to marriage, and in some cases marriages are even arranged. Does that automatically disqualify somebody from sponsoring their spouse, even though in their view the relationship is bona fide and they plan on spending a lifetime together with their partner?

What kinds of measures are being taken to make sure that officers are receiving cultural sensitivity training and help in understanding the many cultural nuances that exist in many countries across the world?

[Catrina Tapley]

It's an important question. We continue to invest in and update two types of training for our officers. One is on cultural sensitivity training, because I think that's a really important point that you've raised, but the other is on bias training as well, to make sure that our decisions are as fair and as open as possible.

If I may—and I apologize, Madam Chair—we do have the answer to a question that was asked previously by Mr. Kent. In terms of the number of times the minister exercised his authority in the past year, Dr. Kochhar has found the answer. It was 27 applications by the minister out of 4,302.

I'll come back to your question. We continue to invest in those two types of training, which we find very important to understand, and to continue to assess those applications in a fair manner. If there are specific applications, we're always happy to look at those.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Okay. Can you talk to us a bit about the bias training?

[Dr. Harpreet Kochhar]

As the deputy pointed out, we have two types of training. One is based on the actual local knowledge or the cultural aspect. I'll take an example from our major source country, India. We have what we call in our own lingo an “India academy”. When the decision-makers or the temporary duty officers go there for their first posting, they are given a complete two-week training package on the sensitivities of the different regions in India where our visa application centres are and what is the cultural norm and how you would assess those applications.

That training is based on complete local knowledge and the availability of complex cases that are provided to them. This prepares them and, based on that, we also do a buddy system: the new people who are arriving there as the decision-makers are buddied up with the people who are more experienced. That's how we gradually bring them in.

The bias training specifically is based on the fact that when the applications come in, they are handled by different parts of the continuum. For example, eligibility is done by one set of officers and admissibility by a different set of officers. That takes away the bias, if there is any existing. We are very much focused on this, which is that the merit of the application determines the result.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Perfect.

Madam Chair, I'd like to point out that maybe witnesses could be instructed to answer the question they're asked, because time was taken out of something that I had to inquire about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I can give you an extra 30 seconds as that was the case.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Perfect. I have a very brief question.

When a constituent applies for a temporary resident visa for the first time, they're also required to submit and pay for biometrics. If the application is refused and they decide to reapply, the first biometrics submitted are still valid and they don't have to pay for those again. However, a lot of constituents don't know this, because the refusal letter they receive doesn't say that they're still valid. Only when they call our office do they realize this.

We had a case just last week where a constituent's father submitted a third temporary resident visa application and was asked to submit biometrics. When the constituent was told by the office that he did not have to pay again, he had already paid. Is there any way that you can make it clear, when the officials send out refusal letters, that these biometrics remain valid?

[Dr. Harpreet Kochhar]

Madam Chair, there is a provision where, when you're submitting your biometrics, we categorically mention there that your biometrics, once taken, are valid for 10 years. If you are applying multiple times, or even if you're converting your visa from a temporary resident to that of a student or a permanent resident, those validity periods exists for 10 years.

We've tried to correct this. We've noticed a few of them where folks do pay at that time and we do the reimbursement, which is a bit cumbersome. We have also started to mention to our visa application centre, where they do the intake of the applications and the biometrics, that they should be very precise in explaining this to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Dhillon, your time is up.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Normandin, you have six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My question is specifically for Mr. Kochhar. It relates to my colleague's question and follows up on a question I asked last time. This is the preamble to my question.

Mr. Kochhar, at the last meeting, you explained to us that, before sending their files back to the clients, IRCC officers contact them if documents are missing from the file. I was a little surprised by your answer. I myself have worked as an immigration lawyer, and in that context, on several occasions files have been returned to me because documents were missing. I would send the files back. Then they were sent back to me. Sometimes there were up to three or four trips back and forth. I thought maybe the directive had changed since I was elected and no longer work as an immigration lawyer.

However, as my colleague mentioned, your response on social media has also provoked reactions. Several lawyers mentioned that this was still the case and that files were systematically returned to them when documents were missing.

My question is this. At present, what is the directive with regard to missing documents in a file?

[Dr. Harpreet Kochhar]

Thank you for your question.

There is not a specific directive that we have sent in regard to specifically calling everyone if there is a missing document.

We are using this approach: What is the piece that is missing? If it is simply our document or something that is very trivial, we actually do try to call if possible, based on availability of the agent and availability of the person. However, this is not across the board in terms of all lines of business. We are still trying to get ourselves aligned with that, but if there is a signature missing, if there is something that somebody physically has to do, then we will probably need to send back the application package.

Let me correct myself if I left the impression that we are contacting everyone who has a missing document. We have started to kind of make sure that for the minor deficiencies we don't actually send the package back but do have an ability to correct it as such.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Am I to understand, though, that this is at the discretion of the officers, since there is no formal directive?

[Dr. Harpreet Kochhar]

This is actually what we are right now making sure of, which is that this is an officer's judgment in terms of what the missing document is and what the value is of just making a phone call and getting that information piece, or if we actually need to have the application piece sent back.

We will be more clear as we move towards more precision in terms of how we communicate that kind of directive or that guidance to our front-line officer staff so that there is a harmonized approach throughout.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

All right.

Does the departmental representative agree with me that it can be easy for an officer to simply return an application if the file is thick and complicated or if there is a missing document? Does he agree that this unduly lengthens delays, adds to the workload and prevents the proper processing of files, since they can be reviewed two, three or four times before they are finally opened?

[Dr. Harpreet Kochhar]

For the officers who are taking in the applications, their training is to make sure that they are providing the best client service to the applicant. We strive to minimize client pain points or client challenges on that.

I'm very cognizant of the fact that there would be instances where there are complex files that may need substantial revision and might have been sent back, but that is also an officer's judgment. We believe that officers take a lot of effort into consideration in terms of looking at those files and accordingly requesting a document through personal contact or returning the application to get it back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You have one minute.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Relying on the good judgment of officers has clearly not worked in the past, as processing times are very long and files are returned.

Is the department open to the idea of issuing a clear directive as to the handling of files where there are missing documents?