Evidence of meeting #17 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 amendment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui  Professor and Member, Ontario Steering Committee, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
MD Shorifuzzaman  Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant, Guide Me Immigration Inc.
Aleks Selim Dughman-Manzur  Co-Executive Director, Programming and Advocacy, Rainbow Refugee Society
Sharalyn Jordan  Chair, Rainbow Refugee Society
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Stephanie Bond

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 17 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 and must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It is highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when seated. Attendees must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the provided hand sanitizers in the room. Please refrain from coming to the room if you are symptomatic.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute and your camera must be on.

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 introduce the witnesses for this important study. Today, we are joined in person by Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui, professor and member, Ontario steering committee, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. We are also joined by MD Shorifuzzaman, regulated Canadian immigration consultant, Guide Me Immigration Inc. The third group of witnesses for today's panel are Sharalyn Jordan, chair, and Aleks Dughman-Manzur, co-executive director, programming and advocacy, representing Rainbow Refugee Society.

Welcome to all of the witnesses. Thanks for appearing before the committee to provide your testimony on this important study. All the witnesses will be provided with five minutes for their opening remarks, and then we will go into rounds of questioning.

We will begin with Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui, representing the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Please begin. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

11:05 a.m.

Dr. Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui Professor and Member, Ontario Steering Committee, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Good morning.

I have provided Stephanie with some data and research, but in the interest of time, I'm only going to share my reflections with you today.

I think it's important for us to ask what our preoccupation with and predisposition towards the point system of immigration is doing to what immigration is really about, which is building healthy communities. The Canadian index of well-being is rooted in Canadian values. It begins with a belief that our cornerstone value is the principle of shared destiny, that society is best shaped through collective action and that there's a limit to how much can be achieved by individuals acting alone or, I will add, even being alone.

If immigrants and therefore immigration are actually going to be successful, it has to be successful within the community development concept. This brings us to my first point about the relationship between values and policy.

Family reunification has become a mode of migration that the system is clearly very skeptical about, hence the policing, regulation and securitization of it. However, if our Canadian values were reflected and entrenched in policy and in the way that policy is enforced, the question of reunification would be central to it. We would want to build wholesome, healthy communities. We would want immigrants to be in healthy relationships.

Research shows that people who come here through family class migration do better because they don't have to deal with the same level of integration challenges. Sadly, we have commodified the support, for example through ESL and job search support, etc., but we continue to scrutinize the family reunification process. We must remember that we are dealing with human beings for whom having relationships and a sense of belonging begins with family.

My first point is that we need to centre this notion that family reunification is the most important mode of migration.

My second point is about the self-fulfilling prophecy of cynicism. Immigration policy has been criticized as being skeptical of applicants from certain regions. However, I argue that the way the program is being run appears to operate more from a place of cynicism. Some of the biases and microaggressions that have been found to penetrate within the department among the people who are doing this work will naturally be reflected in their assumptions and predisposition towards people who they think want to cheat the system.

For example, when looking at an applicant from rural Botswana, where relationships and marriages are done quite differently, we not only use a Canadian standard to evaluate the genuineness of that marriage, we use an ethnocentric, biased and discriminative viewpoint and expect to find liars and cheaters because of the racial stereotypes associated with that region.

If you run a policy with the assumption that the preponderance of those going through the processes are cheating, that means you are either biased, you are finding what you are expecting to find or the outcome of that process of unification is flawed.

The primary purpose of the policy should be to reunify people, not to find cheaters. However, the number of resources that are put into trying to prove that these relationships are not real is disproportionate. If something is happening on the margins, we can't have entire regions subjected to the same standard. It is rare that someone coming from the U.S. or Europe is subjected to the same requirements of proof. Rejection rates from these countries are also very low. Is that because the marriages are genuine or because the applicants aren't expected to be liars, so they are not asked to provide further proof or scrutinized?

Confirmation bias can lead to finding something you are looking for. The problem would then be the policy, the biases of the people running the policy and the choices they are making in those moments of discretion.

How do we ensure applications are being treated fairly?

Firstly, we need to invest time and energy into identifying the problem. We need to obtain data to show the percentage of reunification cases that are subject to extraordinary demands over time and where these cases predominate. A standardized and normalized demand without any data or policy to support the extra measures taken for some regions should not be sustained as the norm.

The research also has to be carried out by racialized researchers. I'll explain more about that later. We also need to ask ourselves what the value is of asking the perpetuator about the persistence of a phenomenon. If we want to know if immigration officers are microaggressing people, we shouldn't be asking the immigration officers. The methodology needs to centre the voice and experience of the victims.

I'm going to skip some stuff and move on to my last point to consider.

Looking at the complaints from inside the department, we see there are people within these spaces raising alarm bells about the potentially racist culture and environment of these spaces, which points us to diversity, equity and inclusion. We need to diversify the pool of officers, so there's more cultural translation in the department.

The other thing is anti-racism training. Training should not be delivered with the expectation that it will eradicate racism. I can tell you, it likely won't eradicate racism. What it will do is provide an accountability system so that we can hold people to account.

There's also good and bad training. Online module training is bad training. In-person training is good training.

Thank you.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

Thank you, Ms. Ghaffar-Siddiqui.

We will now move to MD Shorifuzzaman, representing Guide Me Immigration Incorporated.

Mr. Shorifuzzaman, you can please begin. You will have five minutes for your opening remarks.

11:10 a.m.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, members and witnesses. Please accept my greetings. May Allah's peace be upon you.

I am an RCIC practising mainly in Saskatchewan for Guide Me Immigration Consulting Incorporated. Let me start with the SINP program with an employment offer, which I feel has been extremely affected by the racist behaviour of the IRCC, differentiating different countries and applicants from different countries in many different ways.

The economy of Saskatchewan is severely affected by the unreasonable, lengthy processing for the PR and temporary work permit applicants supported by the mentioned programs. The primary goal of the SINP program is to facilitate employers with international skilled workers to fulfill the immediate labour needs. However, considerable numbers of SNIP-supported work permit applicants, mostly from Bangladesh, India and a few Asian countries, are denied every month, mainly for a very common reason: “I am not satisfied that you will leave Canada at the end of your stay, based on your personal assets and financial status, or purpose of visit, or ties with the country of residence or current employment or travel history.”

Even though the applicants are dual intent and their primary goal is to become a permanent resident, refusing those applications based on those grounds is considered absolutely unreasonable and unfortunate by many Canadian employers. As a result, the helpless Saskatchewan employers and the economy continuously suffer from unpredictable labour supplies that have no real-time relevance to market needs.

I would like to bring your attention to the fact that the applicants who applied through the online PR portal outside Canada are not receiving the AOR, even 16 months after applying, while those who applied for PR applications from inside Canada or some European or western countries have already received their medical request, and are expecting in a few months to get their confirmation of PR, unlike those from Asian countries.

Let me focus a little bit the caregiver program, which can be an example of mistreatment of those foreign workers who work hard to protect the vulnerable in our communities. Unfortunately, the senior and child care pilot programs have become a humanitarian crisis for those helpless workers, who are separated from their families, out of a job, without medical assistance and with no clear pathway to becoming permanent residents. Some of them are outside Canada in the middle of nowhere, as the employment situation may have changed over this long delay.

International students are considered a quick fix for the economy. Many Bangladeshi students complain about the discrimination in their application process for not having the advantage of the student direct stream program despite Bangladesh and Canada having long and robust economic ties.

I also receive a significant amount of feedback from my clients that the study permit approval rates are higher if someone is applying to Ontario, British Columbia or Quebec. If we look at the statistics, we see that the number of students who get study permits in those provinces is much higher than in Saskatchewan. As a result, Saskatchewan is deprived of economic benefits from international students, and also receives significantly fewer post-graduate workers for the labour force.

Finally, I want to bring your attention to the entrepreneur programs. Entrepreneurs, investors and proven successful business people across the world wish to bring their own funds, skill sets and business knowledge to invest in our country. Of course, this program has an escalated growth in job creation, more than any other immigration program. Unfortunately, Canada offers only a few underperforming immigration programs, unlike other developed countries such as England, U.S.A. or Australia.

The Canadian entrepreneur programs are complicated, lengthy and absolutely full of policy barriers. The unfavourable situation is pushing away those investors and innovators to other countries. We are searching for jobs and we are trying to increase the job opportunities, but we are opposing those investors who can create those opportunities.

In my opinion, we need those entrepreneurs to have equal immigration priority, or even higher priority, to compensate for the unforeseen economic pressure from the other immigration programs.

Thank you, Chair.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

Thank you, Mr. Shorifuzzaman.

We will now proceed to Mr. Dughman-Manzur. He will be representing the Rainbow Refugee Society.

Mr. Dughman-Manzur, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. You can begin, please.

11:15 a.m.

Aleks Selim Dughman-Manzur Co-Executive Director, Programming and Advocacy, Rainbow Refugee Society

Thank you very much.

On behalf of Rainbow Refugee Society, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

Sharalyn Jordan and I are joining you from the unceded and traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations.

Rainbow Refugee Society is the proud steward of the national rainbow refugee assistance partnership. With our collaborators in the Rainbow Coalition for Refuge, we have created LGBTQI supportive sponsorship circles in 25 communities across Canada. Our testimony reflects 22 years of direct work with people seeking refuge from persecution related to their sexual orientation, gender identity and expression.

In a global context where the persecution against sexual and gender diversity is pervasive, backlashes against LGBTQI communities are on the rise, particularly in war zones. Canada must fulfill its international human rights commitments to provide fast and accessible pathways to safety and communities of belonging for LGBTQI refugees, irrespective of their ethnic background, race, country of origin or geographical location.

How do we measure human life? Is the life of an LGBTQI person from Ukraine more valued or more worthy of protection than the life of a queer person fleeing Uganda, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia or Afghanistan? Our experience shows that they face vastly unequal possibilities for pathways to safety.

An LGBTQI person from Ukraine can get to Canada faster on a temporary visa and be eligible for settlement services, while an LGBTQI person in Afghanistan does not have this option and there is resistance in providing them with TRPs for travel. Rainbow Refugee, as the steward of the RRAP, saw first-hand, massive discrepancies in processing times and standards between applicants for sponsorship from Africa and South Asian countries compared with those from Europe or the Middle East. In 2017, Ugandans who fled the “kill the gays” bill faced six- to eight-year wait times, Afghanis in Pakistan five years, while other regions could process applications in one to two years. In view of this disparity, Rainbow Refugee advocated for equity in processing times and safer pathways for LGBTQI refugees in Kenya.

In 2019, with IRCC, we piloted a pathway using the BVOR program. By 2020 initiatives to equalize processing times were starting to work, but we fear that resource allocation for the return to operational capacity after COVID will again reinforce racism.

We have also seen discrepancies in how applications are processed. The assumptions visa officers bring to their scrutiny reflects unconscious bias, overt stereotyping or ethnocentrism. Officers supply western expectations based on LGBTQI identity and communities as if they were universal, treat bisexuality as if not a fully queer category, or may scrutinize applications for fraud based on nationality alone.

Further, we cannot forget that the refugee pathways do not start when people arrive in Canada. Canada's policies, like interdictions and the safe third country agreement, prevent people who need protection from reaching or crossing our borders. These measures make refugees more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, and make it more dangerous, particularly so for LGBTQI refugees from global south countries.

The IRCC collaborates with CBSA, an institution with the power to stop people from entering the country, detain or deport. We have noticed that refugees from African countries are far more likely to be detained. Anti-Black racism is further exacerbated for those who are gender diverse or trans. An officer's evaluation of who is a threat or who is unlikely to appear is prone to unconscious bias or stereotyping as well.

CBSA powers to detain and deport people have a major negative impact on LGBTQI refugees that lasts into settlement. People are afraid to call police out of fear that their information will be shared with CBSA. Some endure violence rather than call. Transwomen of colour are disproportionately impacted, yet CBSA remains unaccountable to any civilian oversight body. Any effort to address systemic racism in our immigration and refugee system must create civilian oversight for CBSA.

To conclude, systemic racism profoundly constrains the life chances of queer and trans refugees, and is manifested in policies, pathway scrutiny and supports that enable or constrain mobility and settlement. Systemic racism cannot be measured against intentions. We must look at the impact of the policies and their implementation. The IRCC's commitment to enacting anti-racism must bring an intersectional approach that includes LGBTQI refugees and addresses disparities in pathways and emergency response, bias and assumptions in the scrutiny of applications, and border policies and practices.

Thank you. Both Sharalyn and I look forward to your questions later on.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

Thank you.

Thanks to all the witnesses for their opening remarks.

We will now proceed to our six-minute round of questioning. We will begin with Mr. Redekopp.

Please begin.

April 26th, 2022 / 11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today and sharing with us.

I want to start with Mr. Shorifuzzaman, who's actually from my riding of Saskatoon West. You brought up the caregiver program. It's an issue that I and my colleagues in the Conservative Party are talking about. It's important to many immigrant groups, whether they're Filipino, Bangladeshi...all kinds of people.

I've had about 50 tweets about this in just the last few days. You spoke of mistreatment. Can you explain a bit more what you mean regarding the mistreatment that's happening in the caregiver program?

11:20 a.m.

Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant, Guide Me Immigration Inc.

MD Shorifuzzaman

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp, for asking this important question.

I would say, when it comes to the caregiver program.... This program was offered in 2018, and there are many applicants from inside Canada and outside Canada who chose this program to come to Canada—some are vulnerable—with the hope that, after a few months of experience, they would be able to submit their PR application and they would be able to bring their family members to Canada. Unfortunately, however, what happened was the priority of the IRCC shifted to other programs.

I understand that COVID has had a serious impact on business, but I don't know how and why other parts of the government are functioning pretty well after this COVID situation, while if you look at the situation in immigration, the work efficiency is a matter of pushing. What happened is this program has been completely neglected by the IRCC.

These people had a valid work permit. They requested an extension. They asked for the valid status, but their application is pending. There are no decisions on their application, which is why they couldn't even renew their health cards and other basic facilities that they need from inside Canada from the social services department.

What's happened is that they are living in a situation where they do not have any hope. They do not have anything. They have left their family for over four years and they can't even see their family members.

I would say, unlike other programs, such as.... As you mentioned, the people from the Philippines and other countries are the majority of people who came to Canada under this program. There are Bangladeshis and Indians as well. I received over 200 inquiries in the last two weeks and they're asking us to look into this matter.

While we are focusing on other economic classes and other programs, we should always care about these people as well, who are giving their best to protect our communities and the vulnerable.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Thank you.

You also mentioned the study permits from Bangladesh and you talked about discrimination in their applications. Could you speak a bit more about what you mean?

11:25 a.m.

Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant, Guide Me Immigration Inc.

MD Shorifuzzaman

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

If you look at this situation, there is a specific stream, called the student direct stream. This helps a student submit their application, even with a lower IELTS score. Let's say that someone has a score of 6.0, and they can prove that they can transfer $10,000 Canadian and that they have a $10,000 Canadian as a guaranteed investment in Canada. If they can show that GIC certificate, the possibility of getting the study permit becomes much higher, because the visa officer thinks that this student has money to support their education.

As I mentioned, Canada and Bangladesh have had very strong and robust economic and cultural ties for a very long time. There are many academic institutions that help their students grow and get their higher education from Canada. We can expect them to come to Canada to get a higher education, but the nature of immigration officials when they're assessing their applications, and the mindset they have, is that they feel that they are giving all these documents just to find an opportunity to come to Canada and stay here.

Remember, we help every student who comes to Canada by supporting them in as many ways as possible, so that they can become part of our economy and they can try to stay here. Unfortunately, a few students—those who are applying from Bangladesh—are examined in a way that says, “Okay, they are just trying every possible way to come to Canada and I don't know why. We can't let them come to Canada, even though they have enough proof of financial support and they have sufficient funds.”

That's why I feel that Bangladesh is discriminated against, like other countries that have that eligibility to submit applications through the student direct stream.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

In this last little bit of time, as we're studying racism specifically at the committee, can you share with us any evidence of racism that you have seen ?

11:25 a.m.

Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant, Guide Me Immigration Inc.

MD Shorifuzzaman

Yes, absolutely.

I saw the applications that were refused. I submitted over 50 or 60 study permit applications. I found some study permit applications from other nationals that were approved in seven days, but the study permit applications that we have applied for—where the student's ability and ability to prove the requirements for the study permit is even higher than for those students who got their study permit—got declined after five or six months. The reason given was, “We have doubts that you will not return to your home country after your study and you don't have a travel history”. Sometimes the reasons are very—

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Shorifuzzaman. The time is up for Mr. Redekopp. Thank you.

We'll now proceed to MP Ali.

MP Ali, you will have six minutes. You can begin, please.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Shafqat Ali Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for Dr. Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui.

Thank you for your time and thank you for what you do for the community.

Immigrants worldwide start life in one culture and, after immigrating, spend the rest of their lives in another generally quite different culture. They start off as an insider in their culture of origin, with an understanding of its norms and mores. After immigrating, they're outsiders in the new culture and are able to maintain some insider status in the subculture communities of their fellow immigrants from their country of origin.

Is there any type of training we can offer the immigration department personnel that would be effective in allowing them to share in the culture of origin insiderness of the applicants whose cases they're considering? Or can that only be achieved by hiring immigration officers from among Canadians who are from those same ethnic and national subcultures?

11:25 a.m.

Professor and Member, Ontario Steering Committee, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Dr. Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui

Thank you very much for that question. I'll try to keep it as succinct as possible.

What you're speaking about is this idea of cultural competence training, which actually has received a lot of criticism over the years, because we've come to realize that no one can be competent in another culture. You can be aware, but you can't gain competence. That's why my recommendations are more towards diversifying the pool of officers, so that those who have an already existing understanding and awareness of another culture can provide their experience and their expertise.

It's not for not having enough of these people in the department. We clearly know from the Pollara report that the diversity is okay. I heard this even yesterday in a meeting. I heard from somebody working in IRCC that the composition of the department appears to be diverse. The problem is that the people in the decision-making roles are not from those cultures and those regions. The people who have the power in making the decision aren't culturally aware.

This is why, in my recommendations about training, I'm quite skeptical of training, because you can't really train someone in someone else's culture, but what you can do is train them in an awareness. Something that I was going to say but didn't have time for is that, for these training modules that we have online—these diversity, equity and inclusion training modules—people just click to the next, the next and the next. They don't actually retain any information. It's very easy to get trained and get a certificate but really know nothing about what you've just read.

My recommendation is for engaged training, which is more in the workshop-style. You have people who are conversing with other people with other lived experiences, where you're posed ethical questions. As a professor, that's what I do in my classroom. I pose ethical questions that make people think outside the box, and by the end of the session they understand a little better the other perspective.

Again, due to the pandemic, I feel that ideas and perspectives are even more polarized. People are even more so on two ends, on two extremes. The only way that we can come together is if we are engaged in discussion in the same room, on the same web session, but in conversation, rather than in some training module online.

I hope that answers the question.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Shafqat Ali Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

Thank you, Dr. Ghaffar-Siddiqui.

Here is my next question. In the next few days, I will be speaking with an organization in my riding that the Minister of Mental Health has recently funded to operate crisis lines in supporting the South Asian community across Ontario. Would you have any words of advice that I could pass on to them about dealing with mental health problems created by racism and Islamophobia?

11:30 a.m.

Professor and Member, Ontario Steering Committee, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Dr. Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui

Absolutely. I think everybody in this room remembers the tragedy that took place in London, Ontario, with the Afzaal family. One thing that I like to point to is that, even though that was an incident of Islamophobia, we know that the person who committed the crime was coming from a place of Islamophobic hate. However, one thing that people tend to not understand is that he actually didn't know if they were Muslims. He suspected they were Muslims, simply by the way they were dressed. They were dressed exactly the same as a Sikh family would have been or a Hindu family would have been.

Islamophobia actually impacts people from across regions around the world. There's a misunderstanding of who's Muslim and who's not Muslim. The first man to be attacked after 9/11 in the U.S., in New York, was a Sikh man who was mistaken for a Muslim man. He was shot and killed. The point I'm trying to make is that South Asians, because of Islamophobia and because of anti-South Asian, anti-immigrant hate, are on the receiving end of a lot of discrimination.

Young people especially, with coming of age and identity, are even more so affected. We are finding, even in my research, that young people are very troubled. They're very scared. If somebody's scared to even go out for a walk with their family, what does that say about their sense of well-being and belonging in Canada?

Yes, I agree with you that those types of programs are very necessary, and we need to focus on them.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Shafqat Ali Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

Thank you, Dr. Ghaffar-Siddiqui.

Madam Chair, do I have...?

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

You have 12 seconds.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Shafqat Ali Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

Do you want to add something? It's just 12 seconds, so please go on. Is there anything you want to highlight?

11:30 a.m.

Professor and Member, Ontario Steering Committee, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Dr. Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui

Oh my god, 12 seconds.... It's great to be in this room with you guys.

11:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

11:30 a.m.

Professor and Member, Ontario Steering Committee, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Dr. Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui

I like that you laughed and made it more comfortable.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

Before I go to the next person, I think you are the first witness in person after two years. It's really good to have you in person here among us.

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