Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 29th, 2022

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will now proceed to Ms. Kayabaga.

Ms. Kayabaga, you have three minutes.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd just like to thank the witnesses for being here and, given that I only have three minutes, I'm going to go really quickly on my questions.

I just want you to know, Ms. Rayale and Ms. Ali, that I also believe that AI, generally speaking, can be very discriminatory. It really does depend on the algorithm and who's setting the algorithm. It's important for us to talk about who's behind the algorithms behind AI, but I'm curious to know if you're aware that, after we collect information through AI, through IRCC, it is also reviewed by people. I think someone said Mr. Christian mentioned this last time. He did mention that he's aware of that. I wonder where we would then target our work to make sure that it's not discriminatory. What kind of work can we do on that?

Could you comment on the algorithm and where the dissension really needs to happen to make sure that it does not continue to be discriminatory?

I'll go to both of you.

[Dr. Siham Rayale]

Yes, really quickly, thank you for that, and I think the first point of contact should always be a person. It should be a visa processing person. I think AI in many ways, algorithms aside, works better in the host country as they are able to do that sort of final check of approvals as opposed to being the first line of assessment. I'll turn it over to my colleague, Nadiya, if she has any further comments.

[Nadiya Ali]

I would just echo what Dr. Rayale said about the first line of contact and thinking about the intervention points across the journey [Technical difficulty—Editor] and contact and review needs to happen, so it's a multipronged review.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Both of you agree with me that the algorithm, who sets the algorithm and who's behind that is really important.

You did talk about the ombudsperson. Quickly, in my last minute, can you be specific on what roles you would want this person to take in IRCC?

[Nadiya Ali]

At least at a high level, I think the focus of that role ideally would be one overall to ensure the safety of racialized communities. What does that mean internally? How do we create safer spaces, safer and enabling workspaces? For all, that looks like developing ERG affinity groups, that looks like thinking about what anti-racism education looks like, and also looks like what review, research and data collection regularly look like. I'll just leave it there.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Quickly, since Madam Chair has not stopped me, you did talk about having regular reports through IRCC that basically would give us an idea of what's going on.

Madam Chair, I know my time is done, but can I get a submitted response to my question on how IRCC can continue to build on these reports and make sure that we get that in our emails, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes, your time is up, but I'll request that the witnesses please submit the answer to this question to the clerk of the committee, and that will be circulated to all the members.

Thank you.

Now we will proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for one and a half minutes.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, please begin.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Kals, in one of your answers, you referred to IRCC's opacity. We may be talking about processing delays, about the department stopping its services to applicants during the pandemic, or the opacity of the Chinook system, which was previously discussed.

How opaque is that department? Why do you think it is so opaque? What benefits could the department get from greater transparency?

[Gurpartap Kals]

The advantage is that, if the IRCC is non-racist and non-discriminatory in applying its policies and measures, we would see a difference in the economy here in Canada. If employers hired the people from different countries following an unbiased process by the IRCC, we would see no shortage of employment in Canada. That would automatically boost our economy here in Canada.

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

Ms. Rayale, do you think IRCC is too opaque? Is it lacking transparency?

[Dr. Siham Rayale]

Yes, there isn't enough transparency. I think transparency should be embedded throughout all the internal review and audit processes.

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

Thank you, and I thank all the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will end our panel with Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have 90 seconds. You can please begin.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Within IRCC, what's come to light, for example, is that an Afghan student who might be in a third country at the moment makes an application for a student visa to Canada, and they get rejected. Why? The reason is the official says they don't believe they will return to their home country.

This response to me is almost asinine, but that's the reality of what people are faced with. From that perspective, where IRCC has these strange policies in place and does not take into consideration the current realities of what's going on, how should the government address this?

My question is to both Ms. Ali and Ms. Rayale, please.

[Dr. Siham Rayale]

This is further evidence of the disconnect between certain government policies and the commitment to bring in a certain number of refugees and the inability, the bureaucratic and administrative gap, to be able to do that. In between all of that are decision-makers who, frankly, aren't working with accurate information. Any conclusion that's drawn about the state of affairs in Afghanistan and the ability for those who have already fled to return safely and to believe that they won't be targeted is frankly false. I think there has to be a greater conversation and exchange of information between decision-makers and those who are on the ground.

Canada has made a commitment, so it's time we follow through.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

With that our panel comes to an end.

On behalf of all the members, I really want to thank Mr. Kals, Ms. Rayale and Ms. Ali for appearing before the committee today and providing important input in regard to the study we have undertaken.

With that, I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes so the sound checks can be done for the witnesses for the second panel.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting back to order.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I would like to welcome our witnesses for this panel. We are joined by Arlene Ruiz, licensed and regulated immigration consultant and recruiter from Alexene Immigration & Employment Services. We are also joined by Craig Worden, president of Pollara Strategic Insights. Our third witness for today is Christian Blanchette, president of Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières.

I would like to welcome all the witnesses. They will have five minutes for their opening remarks, and that will be followed by a round of questioning.

We will start with Ms. Ruiz.

Ms. Ruiz, you will have five minutes for your opening remarks. You can please begin.

[Arlene Ruiz, Licensed and Regulated Immigration Consultant and Recruiter, Alexene Immigration & Employment Services Inc]

Good morning, Madam Chair. I appreciate being here today.

My name is Arlene Ruiz and I am the founder and owner of Alexene Immigration & Employment Services based here in Saskatoon. I am a licensed and regulated immigration consultant and recruiter and work with a lot of foreign nationals who intend to come to Canada to study, to work, to become PR, and ultimately become Canadian citizens.

Being in this line of duty, I am often on the receiving end of the frustrations of clients when things don't go as anticipated. Although some of the reasons are understandable, there have been cases where the decisions of IRCC do not make sense and reasons for refusal are completely illogical.

Where I see some of the systemic discrimination, it's more with the IRCC's use of the system called Chinook. The overall refusal rate for 2020 was 53%, compared with 34% in 2018, with sharp increases in refusal rates for the largest countries with students coming to Canada.

As an example, the study permit refusal rate for India has increased from 34% in 2018, to a staggering 57% in 2020.

This is very concerning and, as an advocate for my clients, it is difficult to make people understand some of the basis for refusals because I, too, quite often do not understand how IRCC comes up with their decisions. We see this system mostly applying to India's and China's nationals. Although this system was put in place in 2018, IRCC was not very transparent about this. Quite often, you would only know that the Chinook algorithm was used if you requested an ATIP.

The issue I am having is with the lack of transparency from IRCC, which leads me to believe that this is a form of systemic discrimination. The IRCC needs to be held to a higher accountability by way of transparency.

Chinook was introduced in March of 2018 and refusal rates increased significantly. Study visa refusal rates jumped from 34% in 2018 to 40% in 2019. Furthermore, refusal rates have increased from 40% to 53% in 2020. Most of the refusals are just getting a template message, which may totally be unrelated to the person's case. Even though IRCC has emphasized that Chinook is not an AI system, I beg to disagree.

The other point that I would like to bring up today as part of my observation for the Pollara Strategic study is that it is clearly apparent as well that there is systemic discrimination with the way the IRCC is handling the issues with Ukraine versus the refugees from Afghanistan. I would like to believe that Canada is a country that promotes diversity and inclusion, however, I feel as though Ukrainians are being given favourable treatment in comparison to the Afghan nationals.

Is Canada helping Ukrainians in their desperate time of need because they happen to look like us or dress like us or pray like us, or do we reserve our help exclusively for them while denying the same help for others?

There seems to be a double standard in our country's international response, but if it was really about humanity, then they would treat all of those trying to escape violence equally.

I would also like to highlight issues that surround those who have applied under the caregiver pathway. The higher percentage of the applicants under this pathway are from the Philippines, but the processing time has been an extensive amount and because of the lengthy processing, the majority of the applicants' relationship stresses...are often causing breakdowns in their relationships, with marriages falling apart, children reaching the age of majority and all other cases. In some other cases, employers either have already passed away—and I have personally heard and witnessed some of this—or the person to be cared for has already reached the age where care is no longer needed, as in the case with child care providers.

While other application streams require higher urgency, my recommendation is for IRCC to allocate more resources to facilitate the speedy processing of applicants who are often left out. They feel they are being pushed to the back burner. They feel neglected and unimportant.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Mr. Worden.

Mr. Worden, you will have five minutes for your opening remarks. Please begin. The floor is yours.

[Craig Worden, President, Pollara Strategic Insights]

Thank you.

Good day to all members, witnesses and observers of the committee's proceedings.

Thank you for inviting me to appear on behalf of Pollara Strategic Insights to answer your questions about the research project we conducted on behalf of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, in the first quarter of 2021. It is an honour to participate in the committee's important work, and I hope that I can be of assistance.

Since the committee members have already read our research report, and I have only five minutes, I'll provide a quick summary of objectives, methodology and the key findings of the study.

In 2020, IRCC conducted an employee survey that revealed that significant proportions of racialized employees consider racism to be a problem within the department. Pollara was not involved in that research; however, we were contracted by IRCC to conduct focus groups to gain greater insight into the perceptions, attitudes and experiences underlying these survey results.

The primary objectives of the focus group study were to gain insight into the impacts and nature of the racism that was witnessed and experienced within the department; identify strengths and failings of the anti-racism mechanisms currently in place; and gather input into the creation of programs and policies that would be effective at dealing with racism at IRCC and its impacts.

In order to accomplish these objectives, from March 18 to March 26, 2021, we moderated 10 two-hour online focus groups and in-depth one-on-one interviews among a cross-section of 54 IRCC employees from various levels of the organization. Participants were chosen from among those who, when completing the survey in 2020, had indicated a willingness to participate in a follow-up study, as well as those who expressed interest in participating in these focus groups from an internal call-out to volunteers within the department. Participants included both racialized and non-racialized employees, and employees in various roles and sectors of the department.

We structured many of the 10 groups into like audiences, with four groups dedicated to hosting only employees identifying as Black, one group hosting employees identifying as South Asian and one group hosting employees identifying as East Asian, or the individual communities that comprise those ethnocultural or racial categories. We also included groups that hosted employees representing a range of different racialized backgrounds and one group among non-racialized employees.

Due to the qualitative and opt-in nature of the study, results cannot be deemed representative of the IRCC workforce as a whole or specific cohorts within it. The findings are directional and indicative, rather than statistically significant and representative and definitive. However, the value of qualitative research lies in the in-depth explorations of attitudes and experiences among key audiences.

Briefly, the overarching key findings were that focus group participants had witnessed or experienced a large number of experiences of racism within the department. Focus group participants also believed that there must be racial bias and discrimination in the delivery of the department's programs, policies and client service, with particular references to case processing.

Participants also painted a picture of an organization fraught with challenges at the level of workplace culture that included unchecked racism, insufficient guidelines or training for reporting and handling reports of racism, and a deep imbalance in racial representation among management that is seen to impede progress on preventing and ending racism at IRCC.

Given these experiences, participants expressed skepticism about the department's anti-racism initiatives, suggesting that bold, decisive actions were necessary in order for employees to be convinced that management was sincerely committed to progress and results.

Thank you for listening to my high-level summary of our research project. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Worden.

We will now proceed to Mr. Blanchette.

Mr. Blanchette, you have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Christian Blanchette, President, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Distinguished members of the committee, on behalf of the Université du Québec à Trois‑Rivières, I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to speak to our situation, and to the challenges and pitfalls UQTR is facing in its international recruitment efforts.

I hope my testimony will help you, on the one hand, shed light on a situation that is raising many questions, and on the other hand, get the full measure of the consequences differential outcomes can have in the decisions of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, on our university, on our region and on the tremendous potential of a generation of talented young people who want to study in French at a Canadian university.

There are rankings we don't want to top. In February, an article in Devoir provided a list of universities with the highest IRCC refusal rate of international students admitted. For school years 2019, 2020 and 2021, the UQTR topped the list by a wide margin when it comes to refusal rates of study permit applications.

I will give you the numbers because they speak for themselves: 78% refusal rate in 2019; 88% in 2020; 79% in 2021. The Quebec average varies between 39% and 48%. Without burying you under the statistics, I would like to present five facts and figures that will help you quickly understand the repercussions of the current situation on the UQTR.

Between 2014 and 2021, the UQTR had a 142% increase in international student enrolments. If we narrow the search down to the African pool, the increase is 280% for the same period. In the fall of 2019, the weight of Africa at the UQTR was set at 65% of newly enrolled international students.

That weight is the most significant among the institutions of the Université du Québec network, and, across Quebec, new enrollees from Africa account for only 18%. So francophone African countries make up an extremely large recruitment pool for our university.

However, over the past three years, for each student who manages to get a study permit and start a bachelor's degree in Trois‑Rivières, nine get a refusal.

Can you imagine what it is like to put in the effort and investment in human and financial resources only to obtain such frustrating results, both for us and for the candidates? That frustration also stems from the reasons used for the refusals, even a failure to respond in some cases. Three main scenarios are among the reasons for refusals IRCC provides.

The first reason provided is that the application is being refused because the officer is not convinced that the applicant will leave Canada after their stay.

The second reason is the officer's not being satisfied that the applicant's study program proposed is reasonable relative to their previous studies and career path, as well as relative to other local education opportunities.

The third reason concerns evidence of financial ability and relevant requirements, which, it should be pointed out, vary by country.

There is inconsistency, unfairness and notorious contradiction between what elected officials and the state are saying in terms of welcoming and integrating diversity and the decisions made by public servants and machinery of government officials. The state, the government and the country want to welcome and retain talent, but the system is refusing to do so.

Let's remind ourselves that the university is a very important vector of integration that promotes the retention of those individuals in our regions once they have completed their degree.

I will add that access to higher education is a very important issue, especially for the youth of African francophonie. Neither Quebec nor Canada has the luxury to refuse those educated and skilled individuals.

For university regions such as Mauricie, Lanaudière and Centre‑du‑Québec, that flow of talent is as important as hoped for. For us, it is a matter of dynamism, vitality and sustainability of development, be it social, cultural, industrial, scientific or simply human.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Thanks to all the witnesses for their opening remarks.

We will now proceed to our round of questioning.

Mr. Hallan, you will have six minutes.