Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 7th, 2022

[Vishal Ghai]

Absolutely. Paragraph 179(b) is the norm used to reject outland applications. Although dual intent was announced by the Honourable Marco Mendicino, it did not make a difference to the visa officers. Again, they're saying, as in my case, “Oh, you will not return, because your husband is in Canada, and you have a strong tie there.”

Again, the only option you give outland applications is to apply for PR. Had you given the option for a spousal visa or a bridging visa until the application was done, that would have really helped.

We do thank the Honourable Jenny Kwan. She did raise the House of Commons petition to abolish paragraph 179(b), but we are yet to hear of any resolution on it.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

With regard to paragraph 179(b), in fact there was a private member's bill tabled in the last Parliament. Unfortunately, because the election was called, it died on the Order Paper and we never got to debate it. That recommendation is for the government to not be allowed to reject applications on the basis of the notion that they don't believe that people would return to their home country unless there is a record of violation of immigration measures. Is that your recommendation to the government?

[Vishal Ghai]

Correct. If a sponsor has approval and the application is stuck in a visa office abroad, absolutely that's where they should issue these visas so that, as I said, it can act as a bridging permit so that our spouses can be with us during these trying times.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

The impact, of course, is that the lengthy delay is significant. As you go through the process, many of your documentations have expired, such as medicals and other things. What's your recommendation to the government on that?

[Vishal Ghai]

I'm facing that right now. I'm trying to get medicals redone. There are no available spots with the panel physicians. For members from Cuba, there is no panel physician in Cuba. They require a visa to go to a third country to get their medicals redone, which is unfortunate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Ghai, but time is up for Ms. Kwan.

I thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee. I'm sorry we had to go through some motions in the beginning and that some time was wasted. If any of the witnesses would like to send a written submission to the clerk for the things that they were not able to bring in today, they can email it to the clerk of the committee and it will be circulated to all of the members.

Go ahead, Ms. Kayabaga.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I forgot to ask for Mr. Ghai to submit in writing where he got the information about where the flags of IRCC are. I want to understand how he got that. If we could get that in writing, it would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Ghai, if you could send that in writing, that's what the members would like to see.

[Vishal Ghai]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you once again to all of the witnesses for appearing before the committee today. With that, the first panel comes to an end.

Our witnesses for the second panel are already logged in. Without wasting any time, we will proceed to our next panel. I would like to welcome our witnesses for the second panel.

We are joined by Imam Yusuf Badat from Toronto. We are also joined by Debbie Douglas, executive director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. Our third witness for this panel is Marie Carmel Bien-Aimé, co-administrator, Spousal Sponsorship Advocates.

I welcome all of the witnesses for appearing before the committee. All of you will be provided five minutes for your opening remarks, and then we will proceed to the round of questioning. Our first witness on today's panel is Imam Yusuf Badat.

Imam Badat, welcome, and thanks a lot for appearing before the committee in spite of Ramadan. I know you must be very busy. You will have five minutes for your opening remarks.

Imam Badat, please begin.

[Yusuf Badat, As an Individual]

Thank you for affording me the opportunity to be here and present on this panel.

I am an imam within the community of one of the largest mosques in Toronto, and a lot of the family members or spouses who have applied for immigration for their partners or family members from abroad constantly bring me the concern that it's been months or years and they're unable to have their families join them.

In particular, I see three areas repeated by congregation members, including questions from Immigration Canada about the validity of marriage, some of the questioning of individuals who are supposed to be coming to Canada to join their spouses or family members, and the issue of the the length of time it takes to process some of these cases.

When it comes to the validity of marriage, sometimes people who practise Islam are very conservative and traditional, so sometimes it's an arranged marriage. No dating took place prior. Families got together and arranged a marriage. When questions are asked about when the dating started or where the locations were where they met up prior to the marriage, there is no such data like this available. The particular individuals don't follow the culture that we may be used to here in Canada of how we date, get to know our partners and then marry.

This is similar for the concept of common law. In many cultures where Muslims live and where Islam is practised, there is no such thing as living together prior to getting married. These challenges delay the process in genuine cases when a spouse is trying to sponsor their family member.

In some situations, I've been approached by congregants saying that they have their first child and it's been three years or five years, but the immigration case is just not being approved.

These are some issues. I echo the sentiments of one of the witnesses in the previous panel that in the cases of divorce, it's very challenging. The amount of effort it takes for many clients to prove that they were divorced and the process that it goes through extensively delay the cases.

In some situations, because the cultures vary, women specifically find it very challenging to answer some of the questions.

I'll give you a simple example. In some of the cultures where Islam is practised, when we talk to someone whom we respect, oftentimes we're looking down. Women specifically, in some of the cultures that we come from, may often look down when they're talking to someone who's interviewing them. If the interviewer doesn't know the culture, they may assume that something is being hidden or something is not accurate and that's why they're looking down. It's actually a cultural element of respecting the person who's interviewing.

These are all facts that make things challenging when we assume that all cultures are similar to the Canadian culture or the Canadian context. The way we may get married, the way we date or the way we have common law in this context here in a Canadian situation is not the same. Judging each application based on our culture here in Canada can delay the process and cause individuals to be very far from accepting an applicant who is a genuine spouse or genuine family member.

In summary, these are some of my remarks for the panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Imam Badat.

We will now proceed to our next witness, Debbie Douglas, the executive director of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants.

Ms. Douglas, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. Please begin.

[Debbie Douglas, Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants]

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important study.

I'm the executive director of OCASI, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. We are the umbrella organization for immigrant- and refugee-serving agencies across Ontario. I will begin with four actions that I believe the government should take to address racial inequities and racism in the immigration system.

One, conduct a comprehensive racial equity review of legislation, regulations, policies and practices. Two, collect disaggregated intersectional race data across all IRCC activities. Three, conduct a comprehensive racial equity review of IRCC funding in its settlement and integration programming. Four, establish an independent ombudsperson office for IRCC.

The Pollara report confirmed what some have known and many of us have suspected for a long time: that racism and racial discrimination and bias are present in the immigration system internally towards IRCC employees—and you see that in the senior leadership of IRCC and the absence of racialized employees—and very likely, as we know from what we've heard in testimony and what we hear from many communities, in immigration decision-making.

First, with regard to the racial equity review of legislation, our member agencies have frequently mentioned immigration challenges faced by racialized clients. They hear that we are questioning whether spousal relationships are genuine and frequently denying spousal sponsorship applications from particular areas of the world, as well as questioning whether parent-child relationships are genuine, demanding DNA proof and often denying these applications. We often see this demand being made on African clients in the same way that we often see the spousal sponsorship question being asked of applicants from South Asia.

There are many other challenges, but my time is limited. We need a comprehensive racial equity review of legislation, policies and practices in order to identify systemic bias and identify areas where individual bias and racism can colour decision-making.

Second, with regard to disaggregated data, a comprehensive racial equity review would be supported by ongoing disaggregated intersectional race data collection across all of IRCC's activities. Data will help to identify patterns of systemic discrimination and bias. Data should be collected on all section 15 grounds of the Canadian charter, as well as on immigration status, which is not currently in section 15. IRCC already collects data on most of these factors, including immigration status, but not on race or ethnicity, or religion or faith. I don't believe they have started on issues of sexuality or sexual orientation either. The data should be publicly available.

Third, with regard to a comprehensive review of funding, a racial equity review would show who and what activities get funded. Citizenship and Immigration Canada, now the IRCC, defunded 13 settlement agencies in Ontario in 2011. Six of these agencies worked directly with racialized communities. Of the six, four were African community agencies. There was no explanation and no warning—just a complete defunding during the 2011-12 funding cycle.

Immigrant and refugee settlement agencies are a focal point for community activities and community-based leadership. They are not simply third party service providers. They know the communities they serve and are trusted, which is integral to credible and effective service delivery. I often speak of community-based organizations, especially ethnospecific ones, as cultural brokers, as the bridges between newcomers and the communities where they are planning to settle. We need data on who and what is funded to know if racialized communities are equitably served and community organizations are equitably resourced.

Last, with regard to the independent ombudsperson, we strongly urge the establishment of an independent ombudsperson office for IRCC. It should be external to the department, adequately resourced and have a legislative mandate to take action on individual and systemic bias and discrimination.

I am aware that the ombudsperson proposal has been recommended to this committee during previous studies. Given the significance of the immigration program to Canada as a whole and the vast powers IRCC decision-makers have on individual applications, it would serve the public good to establish such an office.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

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

We will now proceed to our third witness, Marie Carmel Bien-Aimé representing Spousal Sponsorship Advocates.

Ms. Bien-Aimé, you will have five minutes. You can begin, please.

[Marie Carmel Bien-Aimé, Co-Administrator, Spousal Sponsorship Advocates]

Madam Chair, honourable committee members, good afternoon.

I am appearing before you on behalf of Spousal Sponsorship Advocates. I am honoured to be here to provide you with an overview of the situation and of the recommendations we consider important.

According to the Polaris Strategic Insights report results, racialized employees are marginalized based on their place of birth or the colour of their skin. Their applications are not taken into consideration for promotions, and they are kept in temporary contract positions. As a result, they cannot report discriminatory or racist incidents they witness for fear of reprisal. Have the staff and managers in question been penalized since the report came out?

In addition, it is clear that integrated systemic biases play a role in decision-making when it comes to immigration files. Immigration officers have preconceived notions on applicants from racialized countries. For example, some African countries are designated as part of 30 corrupt nations, and Nigerians are said to be corrupt or untrustworthy. According to an article published in CIC News on March 15, IRCC has a backlog of over 1.8 million applications. For family reunification, the backlog is 55,301 spouse and common-law partner files.

In January, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship announced that the spousal sponsorship application process was back to 12 months of processing for new applications. Recently, that was changed to 19 months. Why are there no solutions available to families that are suffering right now? The red tape must be reduced to clear the huge backlog.

One common bureaucratic issue is the loss of humanity for those who are being served. We want to make the staff in charge of managing the immigration process related to family reunification understand that what is involved are our most irreplaceable personal connections, as well as our families' mental, physical and financial health.

That said, allow me to share our recommendations to help eliminate the backlog in the family reunification category.

I will first present our short-term recommendations. The department must provide a special temporary resident visa for families by granting an exemption to subsection 179(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations and really accept dual intent applications. An ombudsman's office is also needed to process complaints. Creating a position of ombudsman would reduce the number of cases the Federal Court and the Immigration and Refugee Board, IRB, have to process. Transparency would be actively demonstrated in the measures taken to resolve disputes, and families would not be financially strained. Couples who are recommended must also be interviewed. Finally, interviews must be recorded to avoid misunderstandings.

I will now present my long-term recommendations. First, immigration officers must be required to rotate every two to five years, so as to avoid familiarity and jaded employees. That rotation must also be part of the job requirements. Mission staff must be increased or missions must be added to improve the situation. For example, the Accra office handles 12 countries, and the Dakar office handles 16 countries. The department must also implement mandatory training on cultural differences, to be attended every six months by hired staff and visa officers. Transparency must also be prioritized.

In short, we are favourable to the study underway. However, you should know that many spouses are diagnosed with depression and that suicidal thoughts are on the rise. Canadian citizens and permanent residents feel betrayed. Bureaucracy has no place in family affairs, and all the families involved are victims of the system.

In closing, remember that no one is born equal, but that people born with privilege must lead by example.

I now look forward to your questions on the issues raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thanks a lot.

We will now proceed to our first round of questioning.

Mr. Hallan, you have six minutes. The floor is yours.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses, and in the first panel as well, for sharing not just your hardships but also the emotions that a lot of other people are probably reaching out to you about as well, through the hardships that all of you are facing.

I want to touch on the recording of interviews, because that seems like a theme. It's something we hear about in our offices as well. Sometimes when a decision is made, we see that the officer has something else in his notes, and our constituents are often telling us something different.

Imam Badat, you touched on the point that sometimes there are cultural differences that maybe the officer does not understand as well.

Ms. Bien-Aimé, can you elaborate a little more on how recording these interviews would create more transparency and would not just hold the officer more to account but would also give the applicant a little bit more power in their hands in the process?

[Marie Carmel Bien-Aimé]

Thank you for the question.

Basically, the reason I say that we should tape or record these interviews is that I'm in the process myself. My husband went through the interview. What he told me happened and what the agent wrote in the GCMS note were completely different.

It's not the first time I've heard this. As a spousal sponsorship advocate and administrator, I'm also a therapist during those times, because I hear the same thing over and over again. They always say, “I said this, but it's not in the notes.” Recording these interviews would hold the visa officer more accountable. If this person had implicit or explicit bias, they would not have any space to project their own bias onto the person they're interviewing.

I think it's very important. It should be mandatory to record all of them.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I agree with that. As I said, I think it would make the officer a lot more accountable.

Imam Badat,, can you elaborate a little more for the committee on the sometimes insensitive questions that get asked? Again, as MPs we hear in our offices all the time about the sometimes insensitive questioning. What kind of impact does it have on the applicants?

[Yusuf Badat]

As I briefly mentioned in my presentation, the cultures that we come from differ. Here are some of the questions that might be asked: When did you start dating? Where was your first kiss? Is this an arranged marriage? How did you meet? Is it even possible that you guys got married? These are questions that sometimes turn off the person who's being interviewed and make it more challenging for them.

I hope these few examples give you some clarity on that.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Imam Badat, do you feel that maybe culturally appropriate training should be introduced to CBSA officers and IRCC officers?

[Yusuf Badat]

Definitely; definitely. Understanding different cultures and different communities would make the process much smoother and more respectful for all.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you for that.

Ms. Bien-Aimé, you and one of our other witnesses mentioned TRVs for spousal applications. I think that's a good idea. I would agree with you that if the person is already going to move here, and they have the intent to come here to work and contribute to Canada, at a certain stage maybe a TRV would be a good idea.

Can you elaborate a little on some of the benefits of the TRV?

[Marie Carmel Bien-Aimé]

Thank you for the question.

Basically, to make it short, IRCC should give all of the spouses a special TRV. First of all, paragraph 179(b) should not even be considered. Yes, obviously they have ties to Canada, because the spouse is here, but why would an officer say that they feel that the spouse will never go back to their country? Why would a principal applicant ruin their chance of staying permanently in Canada by overstaying their visa? For me, it makes no logic.

To answer your question, they would help the economy, they would pay tax and they would be with their family. They would also see if they liked the country. Maybe they won't like it. Maybe the family will move out and go to the home country of the principal applicant.

Basically it would help, because right now we need labour. We have tons of jobs but nobody to fill them. These people are spouses and very hard-working people. I don't believe they would stay on the couch and watch TV, so it would definitely be beneficial for the spouse, the children, the families and this country as well.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you for that.

How much time do I have left?