Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 7th, 2022

[Saeeq Shajjan]

May I just give a short answer?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Quickly, you have 10 seconds.

[Saeeq Shajjan]

Definitely there are many ways. Of course the way the government is going right now, it is not really helping, unfortunately.

There are many ways that we can really help—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. The time is up.

We will now proceed to Mr. Ali.

You will have six minutes. You can begin, please.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madame Chair.

Thank you to all witnesses for being here and for your time.

My question is to Mr. Hyndman.

The Canadian Bar Association immigration law section's brief on the modernization of client service delivery, in its section on program issues, “recommends implementing a system for routine requests for additional information on intake and triage, with reasonable deadlines to facilitate processing rather than unnecessary refusal of the applications.“ It is suggesting that this “would assist in reducing inefficiencies.”

Could you expand on this issue? Could you give us examples of situations where this might arise? How would this approach work in practical terms? What efficiencies might this generate?

There are three or four questions in there, so I just want you to expand on it, please.

[Kyle Hyndman]

Thank you, Mr. Ali.

Just to clarify, we're really talking about returns of applications, not just refusals of applications. These are the regulation 10 completeness checks that have very severe impacts on people. These checks are fairly ruthless. The most trivial apparent deficiencies result in applications being returned, which means that they were never legally filed.

Allowing applicants even a very short-fuse opportunity to correct minor deficiencies or sometimes perceived deficiencies—maybe the document is in there or it's not there for a specific reason—would avoid a lot of grief for applicants and also avoid a lot of spinoff applications and other steps that applicants need to take if an application is returned.

Looking for examples, the one I noted in my intro is a very real-life example. I have experienced in my practice, as have many of my colleagues, where people have permanently lost rights to include children or they no longer qualify for a program because an application has been returned many months after filing. That, in turn, creates a cascade of other applications to try to address the issues.

It's really about targeting resources—not necessarily even about applying more resources—to limit those completeness check returns. Doing them more quickly would actually reduce work in the long run for IRCC.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Hyndman.

The Canadian Bar Association immigration law section's brief on modernization also referred to the situation of application refusal letters that are “very cursory on the reasons for refusal”. They recommend “more specific refusal letters”.

Could you expand on this issue? What would be the possible benefits of having these officers provide more fulsome reasons for refusals? Are there any efficiencies that could result?

[Kyle Hyndman]

Certainly. Currently, most refusals are pro forma. They're a form letter, perhaps with something checked off, but often with nothing checked off, so applicants are really given no insight into why their applications were refused. This means that they don't have an opportunity to address whatever the perceived deficiency was.

If they decide to file another application, if they even have a right to file another application, they may not be addressing whatever deficiency there was without, for example, doing an access to information request and getting a copy of the GCMS notes. There are all kinds of extra steps that applicants need to do and those extra steps take resources from IRCC.

Giving clear and complete reasons for refusals will reduce some of those extra steps and may actually reduce follow-up applications if the people genuinely don't qualify. It will reduce people going to Federal Court. I am aware of lawyers who will go to Federal Court simply to get the reasons for refusal. Obviously that is incredibly resource intensive for the courts and for IRCC, and not a good use of anyone's resources. Certainly there are efficiencies to be found there.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Hyndman, the Canadian Bar Association immigration law section's brief on processing time recommends that IRCC prioritize the reduction of lengthy processing times for work permit applications at visa offices, such as New Delhi and Abu Dhabi, by increasing staff or mobilizing IRCC processing resources in other locations to eliminate processing time disparities regionally and to ensure that processing times remain standard globally.

Could you expand on this? What gave rise to this recommendation?

[Kyle Hyndman]

A number of things gave rise to that. Certainly we've seen, I think, really difficult to justify disparities in processing times for work permits and for other types of applications across the global network.

There are some real equity issues there, which I alluded to in my opening statement. New Delhi is a sort of chronic offender here, with extremely long processing times for work permits. As Mr. Jain alluded to, there's really no way of communicating with the visa office on these long-delayed applications. It creates anxiety and often constant follow-ups and, as you mentioned, sometimes even mandamus applications in Federal Court to try to get applications moving.

That's where this comes from.

In terms of addressing it, the global network is supposed to be able to distribute applications in a way that spreads out the processing times and uses resources more efficiently. Therefore, we would certainly advocate for more of that, both for—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. You can complete your sentence, please.

[Kyle Hyndman]

—efficiency and for equity reasons.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

You can please begin, and you will have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Shajjan, your story is embarrassing for Canada, as a G7 country. I want to thank you in particular for being here today.

As you are one of the rare people who have experienced something so difficult and you are here with us in committee, I want to ask you what you think Canada knew before the fall of Kabul, and what it did not do even though it had that information.

[Saeeq Shajjan]

What Canada knew about it is a very difficult question to answer, but I'm sure there were embassies where they knew that things were going to be very different and difficult in Afghanistan. We could also understand that there were reports coming in that things could be very difficult in Afghanistan, because the Taliban were making advances in different provinces outside of Kabul.

Still, there was hope that at least Kabul would stand and resist for some time. However, all of a sudden we saw that Kabul fell, and honestly no one was really prepared. I think the Government of Canada would be no different on that.

At the same time, when we're talking about how things are really getting tighter on people who assisted the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, I think that was the right time to kind of.... When they saw that, in July, I think it was not late.

At the same time, we could have continued. We can still do much better than what is going on right now to really help those people, to get them out and to make sure they're not in danger. Unfortunately, I do not see that. Of course, the Government of Canada is doing...but it's not really enough.

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

You told us much about what should have been done and was not. Is there anything else you would like to share with the committee?

What should have been done when it comes to Afghan refugees?

[Saeeq Shajjan]

What could have been done was.... It was announced that it would be 40,000 visas for Afghans who had an enduring relationship with the Government of Canada. The way it was announced the priority would be given to those people. Honestly, we do not see that.

If you look at IRCC's website right now, the figures that you see there for people who had an enduring relationship are far less than the number of people who were brought to safety on humanitarian grounds. I think this is not really serving the purpose.

Of course, you need to help many people from different communities. That needs to be done, but at the same time, priority should have been given in the way that it was announced. A legitimate expectation was given to the people that if they had this enduring relationship, they would be helped by the Government of Canada. That's what, unfortunately, we are not seeing.

We are seeing now that the sum is limited to only 18,000, which I think needs to be increased to 40,000, as it was announced. Priority should not only be given to those, but most of that 40,000 should be given to people who had an enduring relationship with the Government of Canada. Of course, there are many other people from different sectors of life in Afghanistan who are in danger. They deserve to be helped. Of course, that needs to continue, but at the same time, people like us, people who served the Canadian military in Afghanistan, are in danger, as you can imagine.

I am here. I'm raising my voice. I'm doing whatever I can. Honourable MP Kwan raised this issue on May 2 with Minister Joly. I thank her for that. Minister Joly said that it has been referred to the IRCC. Still we do not have anything from IRCC.

Honourable MP Chong asked a question of the Prime Minister on May 11 about what happened to these people. Still we haven't heard. So many other honourable MPs have been supportive.

That's the level that I can get here, and still there's no progress on my case. What about those people who are in Afghanistan right now? They do not have access to the Internet. They cannot get in touch with anyone. They have no means of raising their voices to people in Canada to get the necessary support.

You can imagine how difficult it is for those people by the way I have been struggling for the past 10 months. Even with all the support I have from counsels, from honourable MPs in this House, I get nothing done.

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

Thank you for your answer.

Mr. Hyndman and Mr. Jain, you just heard Mr. Shajjan's story. Meeting after meeting, regardless of the study we are conducting, many people have been saying that an immigration ombudsman is needed.

Do you agree with that? Wouldn't that solve a number of issues?

I would like to hear your opinion on this. You have 30 seconds each.

[Ravi Jain]

I can go first, I guess.

My interpretation is not working but I did take French immersion, though I didn't understand your question. I take it to be about an ombudsperson. I do think that's a good idea. So far we've been talking about applications—not returning them, returning them more quickly if need be and with more fulsome reasons. These are things that generically have been problematic with the system for many years.

Today we're talking about backlogs. We need to understand how this backlog was able to be created in the first place. We're talking about a ridiculous number of officers who were on leave, 80% were on leave for over a year. Why was that allowed to happen? That's my question. We need to have more accountability, more transparency, etc.

I'll pass it over to you, Kyle.

[Kyle Hyndman]

Thanks. I agree with what Mr. Jain has said. Certainly, backlogs are a real problem now, but they're not new. I've been practising immigration law for 22 years, and there has not been a time during my career when there have not been major delays and backlogs under every government.

We really want to focus on solutions. That comes partly from more resources but also from applying resources more intelligently. It's not so much a rethink of the whole immigration system, but it's certainly a rethink of where and how resources are allocated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you. The time is up for Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

We will now go to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have six minutes. Please begin.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses.

I'd like to ask my first question to Mr. Shajjan.

As I understand it, your colleagues have been left behind even though their files, their applications, have been referred by GAC to IRCC, and to date, you have received no information, no response from IRCC whatsoever, and it's been 10 months. Their lives are in danger, as you've indicated.

Given that this is where we are in the government's 40,000 applications, those numbers are getting filled up as time passes. For the people who have been left behind, would you support the government extending the immigration measures and expanding them to ensure that all of those who have enduring relationships with Canada and their extended family members will be able to come to Canada to safety?

[Saeeq Shajjan]

Thank you so much. I would say yes. The way it was announced initially, I think if I'm not wrong, it was said that there were at least 40,000. There were the words “at least” 40,000, and I think it's time that we need to stick to getting at least 40,000. That's the very first thing.

The second thing is that most of those 40,000 need to be provided to those who have this enduring relationship with the Government of Canada. If we are helping families of people, those should be in some way in a different category of reunification visas. They shouldn't be under those 40,000. I think we are already, as you said, filling those 40,000 and there are thousands of people who have been left behind who are in danger and their only hope is to be brought to safety here in Canada.

The situation, unfortunately, is worse than what is being reported in Afghanistan. People can be literally slaughtered like animals. I'm sorry to say that. There's no rule of law. There's no political order. There is no judicial order in the country anywhere. Any one of the Taliban members is the judge, the police, the prosecutor. They do whatever they do. If they simply find out that you have this relationship, you can be killed on the spot.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

GAC-referred files are lost in the system with IRCC. The Department of National Defence files are lost within the system of IRCC. People's lives are lost, from the Canadian government's point of view, and those who served the country.

At this juncture, one of the issues that people have told me is a huge barrier is biometrics. It's impossible for people to do biometrics in Afghanistan. What's your recommendation to address that issue? Should the Canadian government bring people to safety and then do the biometrics in Canada?

[Saeeq Shajjan]

I think that's what many other countries are doing. I think that's very easy. If there is a will, there is always a way of doing it right.

We see countries that are taking people out of Afghanistan to a third country, to Pakistan. They're taking them out to Doha. They're taking them out to UAE. Why is the Canadian government not doing the same? Get those people out to safety. Once they are out of Afghanistan, then, honestly, I would not be really concerned about how long it is going to take to bring them to Canada, because we're not talking about a routine immigration process.

We are talking about the safety of people. I think that's very important and it's already kind of late on that. The Government of Canada needs to start working with different countries in the region and make sure they get people out of Afghanistan as soon as they can, and, again, the way it was announced, priority would be given to those who have this enduring relationship with the Government of Canada. Help those first, and then helping people on other grounds of course will also be welcomed.