Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 29th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 13 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Given the ongoing pandemic situation and in light of the recommendations from the health authorities as well as the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on Thursday, November 25, 2021, to remain healthy and safe, all those attending the meeting in person are to maintain two metres of physical distancing. You must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room and it is highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when seated. You must maintain proper hand hygiene. Please refrain from coming to the room if you are symptomatic.

For those participating virtually, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately and we will ensure interpretation is properly restored before resuming the proceedings.

When you are ready to speak, you can click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. I'll remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

Before we start the meeting, we have some administrative matters.

First, I would like to bring to the attention of all members that you have all received a copy of the draft report on recruitment and acceptance rates of foreign students. Please note that we will begin report consideration on Thursday, March 31. As we are a paperless committee, should you require paper copies for any reason, please arrange for your office to print the report for you. No paper copies will be distributed during the meeting.

Second, in the last meeting Mr. Genuis requested time in committee business to discuss his motion on notice. Following his request, 30 minutes have been allocated for committee business in the meeting on Thursday.

With that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on February 1, 2022, the committee is resuming its study of differential outcomes in Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada decisions.

It is my pleasure to welcome the witnesses to today's meeting.

In our first panel we are joined by MD Shorifuzzaman, regulated Canadian immigration consultant from Guide Me Immigration Incorporated, and Gurpartap Kals, immigration consultant from Kals Immigration.

We are also joined by Siham Rayale, director of foreign affairs, and Nadiya Ali, diversity, equity and inclusion specialist, both from the National Council of Canadian Muslims.

On behalf of all the members, I would like to welcome our witnesses appearing before the committee today. All the witnesses will have five minutes for their opening remarks, followed by rounds of questioning.

We will start with MD Shorifuzzaman.

Mr. Shorifuzzaman, the floor is yours.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Stephanie Bond]

Madam Chair, I believe we should go to the next witness. He's having connection issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay, we can go to Gurpartap Kals, immigration consultant from Kals Immigration.

Mr. Kals, you can please begin.

[Gurpartap Kals, Immigration Consultant, Kals Immigration]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for having me here today and giving me this opportunity to represent the issues faced by immigrants in the Canadian immigration system, which I would like to bring up in today's meeting.

To begin, the processing time for applications that have already been submitted under the provincial nominee program is taking much longer than that of new potential applications. For example, the current processing time for future applicants under the provincial nominee immigration economic category is only 15 months, whereas applicants who have already applied under this category are stuck in the backlog. Their current processing time is 25 months; it takes two years and one month before they hear the decision.

My recommendation is that IRCC allocate more resources towards clearing the backlog of PNP applications already standing in the queue rather than putting focus on new applications, in order to manage the processing time in an effective and better way.

The other issue, to my knowledge, is that the processing time for applications from certain countries takes too long compared to those from other countries. IRCC is giving preferential treatment to some applications based on the origin of that application. This pending backlog includes major programs, such as work permit, visitor visa, super visa and nanny or caregiver applications.

For example, the processing time or wait time for super visa applications from Australia is 106 days, whereas the same application from Pakistan has a wait time of 456 days. That is almost one and a half years of wait time before they hear any decision on their application. These significant gaps in wait times are very damaging, given that a super visa application exists to help you join aging parents or grandparents.

In my recommendation, the government and IRCC should be more diligent in allocating resources to lessen processing times and treat every application equally in a fair and non-discriminatory way, regardless of the point of origin of that application.

Another concern is that some applicants are being misguided and left confused due to communication gaps between the customer service agents and the immigration officers at the IRCC office. The IRCC office might send out multiple requests to an applicant to pay biometric fees, even after they've already been paid by the applicant. When contacted, the customer service representative at the IRCC office assures the applicant that they do not have to redo their biometrics. But the applicant might still receive another request to undergo biometrics, with the warning that their application will be revoked in 30 days. Such situations escalate their stress levels and affect their livelihood, and result in added unnecessary workloads at their MP's office.

My recommendation is that IRCC should take necessary measures to lessen the communication gap between their different departments, so that it can better serve the potential immigrant population and keep immigrants' faith in Canada's immigration system.

The next thing I want to talk about is the frequency of work permit refusals. These are significantly higher at some visa application centre offices compared to other VAC offices worldwide, and that is impacting a range of industries. For example, in the year 2018, the VAC office in Chandigarh, India refused 66% of all work permit applications received, whereas in Sydney, Australia the refusal rate stayed at only 17%.

Due to these high refusal rates, employers are forced to hire employees from certain countries, leaving other suitable workers behind. Some employers hire from those countries, but they have to wait a long time before an employee can report to their work location. Some applicants in this category have successfully gained employment in Canada by navigating through the complex hiring system. Unfortunately, their work permit applications are refused by IRCC for a very generic reason. Due to the prejudiced treatment of those applications, the Canadian economy is hurting, but it also raises serious concerns about the working procedures and the policy implementation structure of IRCC.

My recommendation is that IRCC should follow its own mandate and apply the rules of procedural fairness throughout the decision-making process—that is, providing applicants with a fair and unbiased assessment of their application and providing a meaningful opportunity to receive a response to their concerns about their application, not only on paper but also in practice. Time is very precious, and it is important that IRCC give out decisions in a timely manner without being prejudiced.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Kals.

Now we can proceed to Mr. Shorifuzzaman.

Mr. Shorifuzzaman, please go ahead.

[MD Shorifuzzaman, Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant, Guide Me Immigration Inc.]

I'm still struggling with the microphone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes so we can check the connectivity of the other two witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting back to order. We will first of all go to Ms. Rayale, director of foreign affairs, from the National Council of Canadian Muslims.

Ms. Rayale, welcome. You will have five minutes for your opening remarks. Please begin.

[Dr. Siham Rayale, Director, Foreign Affairs, National Council of Canadian Muslims]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to offer our thoughts on—

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

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

I cannot hear the interpretation.

It is now working. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Rayale, please continue.

[Dr. Siham Rayale]

Again, thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to offer our thoughts on this study.

My name is Siham Rayale and I am the director of foreign affairs at the National Council of Canadian Muslims. I am joined today by Nadiya Ali, the diversity, equity and inclusion specialist for the council.

The NCCM has a long-standing record of participating in major public inquiries, intervening in landmark cases before the Supreme Court of Canada and providing expert advice.

To dive right in, the findings outlined by the Pollara report, which the committee has already seen, are troubling and point to evidence of racism directed at IRCC's racialized employees. These are concerns that we hear at NCCM from federal workers and from immigrants and refugees constantly.

We make the following four recommendations.

First, we recommend that IRCC conduct, on an annual basis, regular reviews like the Pollara report to end bias and systemic racism. Specifically, we also request that the audit require that nobody uses Islamophobic documentation in the determination of files.

Second, we recommend that IRCC enshrine the principle of treating all equally. That must mean that everyone currently in Ukraine, for example, deserves fair and equal treatment, and those who are non-Ukrainian nationals do not deserve to be set aside in favour of white Ukrainians.

Third, we recommend that IRCC expedite refugee claims based on prior commitments, specifically toward Afghan refugees, as well as Uighur refugees.

Last, we recommend that IRCC ensure that employee affinity or resource groups are institutionalized with adequate resources to support employees.

We make this submission to the respected members of the committee during strange times. For decades, diverse Canadians have raised the flag that our immigration system fundamentally treats racialized people differently. Now, Canada is saying the quiet part aloud in its response to the horrifying situation in Ukraine.

Canada has established the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel that eliminates normal visa requirements and does not specify a limit to the number of Ukrainian nationals who can apply. Any undocumented person in Ukraine or person without Ukrainian citizenship is left without protection. The IOM estimates that could number up to 60,900 people, mostly from South Asia and Africa. What this has resulted in is a two-tier refugee admission process that prioritizes white Europeans and that leaves racialized groups in danger. It's a good thing that Canada is safeguarding those at risk in Ukraine who are Ukrainian nationals, but war does not discriminate based on the colour of skin.

We cannot stop the systemic discrimination at IRCC when we are entrenching policies of marginalization at a time when people need us the most.

The issue before the committee of deferential outcomes grows more serious as the IRCC relies increasingly on technology to address growing backlogs of refugee admission cases. With the use of technology during the immigration intake process, IRCC risks entrenching inherent biases and flattening the refugee experience to misleading statistics.

Recent evidence already points to factors like systemic racism being a significant issue with AI algorithms. To address the concerns raised in the Pollara report, we recommend that regular audits like the Pollara report become part of a regular, annual, internal review process directed at decision-making surrounding refugee and immigration cases, including an examination of sources cited by the IRCC to inform that decision-making.

For example, in the past, the IRB has relied on documents produced by well-known Islamophobes like Daniel Pipes or Tom Quiggin. This is a practice that must immediately end.

Regular audits would also involve continued and thorough examination of IRCC's exploration of AI in its decision-making. We know this is an issue that is already being considered by another committee, and we are in support of such a study.

Afghan and Uighur refugee applications must be processed with as much expediency as those from Ukraine to heed the Pollara report recommendations concerning differential outcomes for refugees of colour and from the global south. Canada has a duty to advance its commitment to Afghan refugees. Not doing so would signal to the international community that we are a country that does not adhere to our international commitments. We must also develop a pathway for Uighur refugees fleeing genocide to come to Canada more easily.

We recommend that IRCC adopt legislation that requires a zero-tolerance policy regarding racism and hate. We further recommend that the new ombudsperson's office dedicate appropriate resources to implementing and supporting the establishment of what we are calling employee affinity or resource groups, otherwise known as ERGs.

ERGs are employee-led voluntary groups not tasked with committee work but to cultivate an informed space and foster a coming together of individuals with shared lived experiences. Given the challenges at IRCC with employees feeling marginalized—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Rayale. Your time is up. You will get an opportunity in the rounds of questioning to talk further.

We will now proceed to Mr. Shorifuzzaman.

Mr. Shorifuzzaman, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. Please begin.

[MD Shorifuzzaman]

Thank you, Chair and members, for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts.

I have narrowed down my whole discussion into three different groups. In my experience with—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I am sorry, but our interpreter is letting us know that the sound quality is not good enough for interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay.

I'll suspend the meeting and ask our technical support to look into this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will resume the meeting.

Mr. Shorifuzzaman, please continue.

[MD Shorifuzzaman]

Thank you.

I have a few concerns about the family class. As the other member explained—

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

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

I think we will have to postpone Mr. Shorifuzzaman's attendance to a later meeting, as the sound quality is not good enough for the interpreter to do their work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay. So there is no interpretation. Thank you.

Mr. Shorifuzzaman, I'm really sorry about that. The sound quality is not good, so interpretation can't be done. Can you please submit your submission in writing to the clerk of the committee so that it can be circulated to all the members? Otherwise, the clerk will check with you on whether we can invite you to some other meeting.

Is that okay?

[MD Shorifuzzaman]

Yes. Absolutely. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Shorifuzzaman.

We will now proceed to our round of questioning. We will begin with Mr. Hallan.

Mr. Hallan, you have six minutes. Please begin.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Chair, I believe I will be going first today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay. Please go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you.

Thank you to the witnesses for your presentations. That was great.

Mr. Kals, it's good to see you. You're from my home riding of Saskatoon, so I appreciate your perspective. You gave some great examples there about the different treatments that we see between the different ethnic or racial groups. That's exactly what we're looking for here at the committee today. I trust that the analysts took note of your examples. Hopefully, they'll be in the report.

I want to follow up with you on processing times for the various employment streams. Last week I asked the associate deputy minister from IRCC why it takes about two years for nannies to come from the Philippines under the temporary foreign worker program versus only four days for, say, a public relations person. She didn't have a good answer.

What are some of your experiences on these different employment streams and the differential treatments when it comes to people's ethnicity and their race?