Evidence of meeting #16 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ircc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Will I be able to start from the beginning, Madam Chair? The witness did not hear the interpretation. Could this be resolved please?
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Mr. Ghai, you have to select the language at the bottom of your screen. You might be on the floor audio. You should select English.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Okay. We will start the clock again.
Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, please begin.
Noon
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
If I speak in French, are you hearing the English interpretation through your headphones, Mr. Ghai?
Noon
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Ghai, you were upset during your testimony when you talked about cases of racism. I must admit that I was touched.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada told us there were unconscious biases within the department. However, there is a difference between an unconscious bias and racism.
During a meeting of this committee, a witness said concerning racism that we should call a cat a cat—in other words, there is indeed racism at IRCC—even if that made people uncomfortable. I think we must first and foremost be able to name a problem if we want to resolve it.
Do you differentiate between an unconscious bias and racism? Do you disagree with IRCC on that issue?
Noon
Voices4Families
I strongly disagree, because it is at the bottom rung of the order.
Personally, I've been separated for five years from my family. The flag was because I was divorced. I got an interview one month ago. The interview was for 10 minutes in person. We were not even afforded a virtual interview.
I absolutely disagree that it is unconscious. It is definitely conscious.
Noon
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Ghai. I absolutely wanted to give you a chance to speak out on this.
Mr. Bellissimo, that's fantastic because, during the last question round for the Liberals, I heard them talk about a position of ombudsman. I told myself that the idea must be making the rounds, even among members of the current government party. I want to hear your comments on that.
A number of people have told us, study after study, meeting after meeting, that an immigration ombudsman would help us move the process forward much more quickly and would resolve many problems.
I would like to hear you on the possibility of creating a position of immigration ombudsman in the Government of Canada.
12:05 p.m.
Certified Specialist in Citizenship and Immigration Law and Refugee Protection, Bellissimo Law Group Professional Corporation
Thank you for the question. I have a two-part answer to that question.
First, with the nature of the ombudsperson that we're creating, in terms of resourcing and enforcement powers, will they actually have the ability to move the needle or will it potentially become another organization that has hundreds of thousands of complaints and also becomes backlogged? How you position it will turn on its effectiveness.
The second part of my answer is this: As I said in my opening remarks, I think we have an opportunity to reimagine and reorder the way we deal with immigration in Canada. By this I mean we can always deal with the problems or symptoms that flow, but really we need to get to the underlying condition and begin from the other way. Instead of always having more remedial mechanisms, the idea would be to leverage the technology in an effective way.
For example, Australia had an immigration college about 15 years ago where they sent all of their officers to retrain and to remember that it was about facilitation and not enforcement. I think there are a lot of innovative ways we can go by re-addressing and revolutionizing.
Every time I hear about more panels or ombudspersons, I think it just adds to the layers rather than getting into the issues that we really need to address, which is a reordering and reimagination of the program. There are exciting possibilities now.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Bellissimo.
Mr. Ghai, throughout the committee's meetings, a number of witnesses have told us that one of the biggest problems at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada was the department's opacity, the lack of transparency, the difficulty for people to access information.
I would definitely like you to tell me about that aspect. If Mr. Bellissimo would like to wrap up on that topic after you answer, he is welcome to do so.
12:05 p.m.
Voices4Families
I could go first, if possible.
We talk about transparency. It is non-existent, especially all the way down the rungs, which is when an applicant or sponsor is looking for answers. When we raise ATIPs, we don't even get replies. We don't get answers. However, ATIP requests from lawyers tend to get answers. Is that access of information fair? Does it serve everybody? Absolutely not.
When you do an interview, apparently it is not recorded. You are not able to bring counsel. If, God forbid, you are refused, it takes almost a month to get the transcript. The transcript of the interview only includes what the interviewing visa officer actually wants the committee or tribunal to hear. It isn't actually what happened on the ground. This has been confirmed by several people. Later on you are going to hear this, probably.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Ghai.
Mr. Bellissimo, I would quickly like to hear your comments on the lack of transparency.
12:05 p.m.
Certified Specialist in Citizenship and Immigration Law and Refugee Protection, Bellissimo Law Group Professional Corporation
Look, I've been around long enough that in-person interviews were the norm and not the rare exception. We need to get behind the curtain, with user access in real time, and be able to see what's happening in the offices. There's no need for this lack of transparency. It's becoming a faceless plug-and-play system in which everything is a click away. It empowers digital ghost representatives to begin to exploit individuals.
Those are things to think about. Thank you.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses.
Mr. Ghai, I'd like to follow up on the issue around interviews. As the brief from Voices4Families notes, you are asking
the government to direct IRCC to suspend the interview process. It is suspected that officers choose who to interview based on “typical cultural and/or social practices” as per the local immigration employee beliefs. [For many] [t]he interviews remain unscheduled for years.
Mr. Ghai, you said that you've been waiting to reunite with your family for five years. You finally just got an interview, after five years of applying, and it was a 10-minute interview.
Could you tell the committee what you're asking for? Are you asking that the government suspend the interview process, and that the interview process needs to be waived or conducted within a maximum time frame of 30 days, like an additional document request?
12:10 p.m.
Voices4Families
Absolutely. When IRCC requires a document or any additional information from you, there is a time frame of 30 days, but when we need to wait for an interview, it is indefinite. Unfortunately, when you're flagged as “complex”, there are no time frames, which is totally racist, because a standard application for anybody under the age of 30 is 12 months. God forbid you are above that age, and God forbid you find love across the nation on an outland application that requires a visa. You'll get stuck on that rung. We absolutely have waited three years, and some of these interviews take five minutes.
There are two things we would say.
The first is for it to become virtual. The Honourable Marco Mendicino did announce that they should be virtual, but they're not. In India there are more than 30 interviews happening in a day. Some last literally five minutes. They ask you only if you know where your spouse works and how much they earn. There you go: You waited three years to get three questions and to be told that you're approved.
Another thing we're seeing right now is that those who are approved and who are from the 2018-2019 backlog are only brought up to pre-arrival. We are not getting PPR, while other people in the same interview rooms are getting PPR within a week.
Therefore, yes, we would like it to be waived, seeing as how it has taken so long.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you so much, Mr. Ghai.
How much time do I have, Madam Chair?
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Okay.
Mr. Ghai, in the five years that you've been waiting or that other families like yours have been waiting, have people applied for a temporary resident visa for which they've been rejected because IRCC is not satisfied that you would return to your country of origin? Can you expand on this dual intent concern of paragraph 179(b) within the regulations, whereby people are regularly rejected because they have close ties in Canada?