Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 22nd, 2022

[Jennifer Miedema]

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate that.

I don't deal with students, so I can't address what you said about the French-speaking students. I am helping refugees from all over the world connect with communities, volunteers and churches in Canada that can sponsor them.

In terms of the issues I see in the work that I do, certainly it's these long wait times that are extraordinarily difficult for refugees. It is a sacred thing to raise the hopes of a refugee. Once they are raised, once you submit their application, for them to go through months, and then a year or two years, without any contact from the visa office, and to have to wait three years, or close to that time, for an interview—it is very, very difficult for their mental health. It affects their physical health. It affects their family dynamics, marriages and so many things.

One of the issues we had as well was that one of my refugees was accepted just before COVID hit. We had to place that on hold. He was an Eritrean refugee in South Sudan. We didn't hear any communication. I had to ask my member of Parliament to please check on the case. For months we still didn't know. We found out in late 2021 that his medical had expired in February 2021, but nobody had told him. Nobody had told anybody. That visa office didn't communicate. He was told to try to get a new medical, but there are no panel-approved physicians in South Sudan. We have been in a difficult situation, with no medicals provided and yet an expired medical.

There are sometimes things that make you feel like there's some disorganization at the visa office level, a lack of communication with the refugees themselves, and COVID-caused chaos on many levels, but I think this disorganization exists even outside of that. I would just ask that more resources be put toward visa offices and more communication be given to refugees, or an ability to sign in online and see the status of their application.

An ombudsperson would be very helpful when there is an issue. We don't really have anybody we can go to when there's a problem at a visa office. We just have to wait.

Thank you.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you.

My second question is for Mr. Meurrens.

When a student is granted a visa, they must come here to study full-time. If they subsequently study part-time, they lose their student status.

However, not all institutions define what constitutes full-time studies in the same way. Can you give us more information on this issue?

There is another issue: How can the department be sure that students will stay and study here?

[Steven Meurrens]

The requirement that students study full time is one that was brought in around 2014. The department treats all designated learning institutions the same, as far as that requirement goes. For post-graduate work permits, which is the ability to work in Canada after graduating, students have to have studied full time.

There's little sympathy given right now to students who may have to study part time because of family needs or mental health issues. The big issue that arises is that to get a post-graduate work permit, a student must have studied full time in every semester except for the final semester. It's always been a bit unfair to students who, say, study part time in one semester of year two of a four-year degree, for whatever reason. Those students will not be able to stay in Canada to work after graduating, while those who study full time, except for the last semester, can.

It's something I'd like to see changed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Your time is up, Mr. El-Khoury.

We will now proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today for this extremely important study.

I will get right to it because I don't have a lot of time.

Mr. Christian, I really enjoyed your opening remarks. I have a question for you.

The department seems to be having trouble talking about racism at IRCC. Instead, they use the term unconscious bias when referring to IRCC staff. However, when one learns that people are referring to African countries as the 30 corrupt nations, or that certain managers are saying that Latinos come to Canada just to get social insurance benefits, one realizes that we're far from unconscious bias.

Do you agree with me about that, Mr. Christian?

[Gideon Christian]

I think the expressions used in those reports are a clear case of outright bias, not unconscious bias. When you look at those terms, individuals from particular countries are being branded as untrustworthy and corrupt, some as coming to Canada for social security benefits, and then the greater part of the continent is being referred to as dirty. This is not unconscious bias. This is conscious basis or discrimination. It is explicit racism, not unconscious racism.

I'm not saying that there are not cases of unconscious bias, but if you go by the terms used here, these are deliberate terms that are used by individuals. It is irrespective of what the individual might be thinking. Anybody who's looking at it from a reasonable perspective would know that this is inappropriate, even from government managers in a government department.

It is unfortunate that there are some individuals who will now have to sit down and consider the applications from the same people who have been referred to as being corrupt, untrustworthy or from a continent that has been referred to as being dirty.

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

So you agree with me, Mr. Christian, that we need to call a spade a spade: There is racism at IRCC, that's all there is to it.

[Gideon Christian]

I know it's very uncomfortable raising the issue of racism, but the fact is that we need to call racism out for what it is. As uncomfortable as it might be, that is the only way we can identify the problem and address the problem. Running away from or trying to whitewash the problem doesn't solve it.

Yes, this is a clear case of racism and we should call it that. We should be having conversations around this problem, with a clear framework of how to address it. The problem is there. We shouldn't run away from it.

I'm not running away from it. I'm very happy to discuss it and offer up solutions as to how we can deal with it, even at the IRCC level.

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

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Mr. Christian. My mother always says that if you want to solve a problem, first and foremost you have to be able to identify it. You have just demonstrated it once again, and I thank you for that.

In your opening remarks, you offered two solutions. You talked about an independent ombudsperson and an independent panel of experts that could look into specific issues, respectively.

What do you think of the proposed ombudsperson position at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada? It would bring your two suggestions together under the ombudsperson's purview. If a position like this were created in the department, people would be protected.

Do you feel it's a good idea?

[Gideon Christian]

I agree with the appointment of an ombudsperson, but the two areas that I have highlighted are two different areas. It would be very difficult to have an individual who would be able to deal with these two areas.

When it comes to issues relating to the use of artificial intelligence, you need a body of experts who specialize in that field. That's a very technical field. You need a body of experts who specialize in that particular field to deal with the problems unique to IRCC's use of artificial intelligence technology. Even IRCC's internal documents show that there's a problem with regard to the use of historical data and policies that perpetuate bias. But this document does not actually indicate how to deal with the problem.

Now, when it comes to the problems relating to visa refusals, the individuals dealing with the use of AI may not be knowledgeable with regard to issues relating to visa refusals. That's why we suggested having a two-pronged approach in terms of a solution: an independent ombudsperson to deal with the visa refusal issues; and then an independent body of experts to deal with the technical aspects. Those have to do with the use of artificial intelligence, computer software and advanced analysis by experts—

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

Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Christian, but I only have one minute left and I'd like to hear what Mr. Meurrens has to say as well.

Mr. Meurrens, in your speech, you talked about being opaque and not being transparent.

How much of a problem is the lack of transparency in this department?

[Steven Meurrens]

Right now it's huge. The processing times stated on the IRCC website are inaccurate. The website itself says they're inaccurate. Again, only through Access to Information Act results have we learned that almost no caregiver files have been processed since 2019. Pretty much everything we've learned about artificial intelligence and its usage at IRCC has been through Access to Information Act results. It's surprising to me. There have been Federal Court decisions regarding TRV refusals from China and India, and not a single one has mentioned the use of artificial intelligence, because no one knew that it was playing a large role in the determination process.

The lack of transparency right now is huge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Time is up, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Ms. Kwan, you have six minutes for your round of questioning. Please begin.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for their presentations.

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Meurrens, just to carry on with your comments about the lack of transparency. In particular, based on the information that you have secured, whether through ATIP and freedom of information or other processes, can you share with us what you have learned or what your concerns are with respect to the Chinook system?

[Steven Meurrens]

As far as I can tell, Chinook is basically an Excel spreadsheet that allows for the bulk processing of applications. I have two main concerns with Chinook. Number one is whether or not it is enabling officers to quickly process files, possibly in bulk, without actually reading the entirety of applications. My second concern is that, thus far, to date, IRCC has refused, even in the judicial review context, to provide the screenshots or documentation regarding how a file was processed in Chinook or what priority flags might have been raised by Chinook.

So I guess my two main concerns are that it's enabling, or I suspect that it's enabling, bulk processing of applications without reading the files, and then a lack of transparency as to how files are being assessed.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Building on that issue, it is using a system that sort of helps in processing more expeditiously, I suppose, in terms of applications. But in light of that process, and in light of the Pollara report, where there is explicit discrimination as well as internal biases and attitudes within IRCC, when you put those two things together, and the fact that Chinook is actually created and developed by staff within IRCC, what concerns would you have, then, in the application of Chinook having embedded discriminatory views and biases in its development?

I'm going to ask that question to Professor Christian, please.

[Gideon Christian]

The problem [Technical difficulty—Editor] advanced analytics has been an absolute lack of transparency. Most of the information we know about these technologies is information that has been obtained through access to information requests. It's not information that was made available by IRCC.

Now, I can't even say exactly what Chinook is. We're told it's a computer software—an Excel sheet—but I have seen cases where some immigration lawyers did Access to Information requests and some aspects of Chinook were actually exempted from disclosure under section 15(1) of the Access to Information Act. Section 15 deals with international affairs and defence.

The problem I'm having then is, if Chinook is an ordinary Excel spreadsheet, why are they withholding disclosure of some information on Chinook based on section 15 of the Access to Information Act, which deals with international affairs and defence?

I think there is more to Chinook than we know and than IRCC is willing to disclose. That is the transparency issue we are talking about. If this matter is actually covered by national defence, let's have an independent body of experts analyze this and, of course, know what should be made available to the public and what should be withheld.

IRCC seems to be the judge and jury in their own matters and that lacks transparency.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Meurrens, I have the same question for you.

[Steven Meurrens]

My overall criticism and concern with Chinook is perhaps actually best summarized by an ATIP response that I received from an IRCC manager in the United States. They considered using Chinook in the United States. Those visa offices in the United States tend to process criminal rehabilitation applications or visas from people from a multitude of countries.

The United States program manager said that their office is not suitable for Chinook use, given each application presents unique circumstances that need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The manager later said that unlike visa offices, their caseload was not homogenous.

I think my concern with Chinook being used in some countries is that it's clear that IRCC views applications from China or India, for example, as being homogenous and people don't necessarily need to have their individual circumstances reviewed, unlike, say, people from the United States—at least as per that program manager.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

As Professor Christian suggested, should there be a dedicated, independent review of the Chinook system by specialists?

Mr. Meurrens.

[Steven Meurrens]

Yes, I for sure think that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Earlier, people talked about a task force. What do you think the mandate should be for the task force to review internal racism within IRCC?

That is for Mr. Meurrens and then Professor Christian.

[Steven Meurrens]

I think the mandate should be similar to what the committee is studying now. I don't know how it would work in practice, but it should have the ability to directly interview employees at IRCC who may be able to shed more light on what is actually happening, as opposed to what the department's goals are.

[Gideon Christian]

I would agree with—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but the time is up for Ms. Kwan. Maybe you will have an opportunity in the second round.

We will now proceed to Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Genuis, you will have five minutes for your round of questioning. Please begin.