The notion of dual intent clearly grants disproportionate discretion to Immigrations, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) officers, leaving room for discriminatory bias, as this regulation only applies to a portion of students, generally those who need a visa. By the way, this is also an issue in the processing of spousal sponsorship cases, and it always affects the same individuals.
Secondly, I want to alert the committee to the lack of transparency and the arbitrary nature of decisions made by IRCC officers. It's impossible to know precisely how study permit decisions are made, and some federal court rulings show that these decisions are sometimes not justified.
The Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association has shown that of 25 student visa refusals from the Accra, Ghana office that have been challenged in Federal Court, the court has upheld 23. That means that almost all the applications that were refused should actually have been accepted. That is just one example of the major issue we are facing today. Not every denied application should have to go to Federal Court for what should be a simple study permit application.
Concerns about transparency do not end there. The Chinook artificial intelligence system brought in to speed up application processing appears to be unobtrusively reinforcing discriminatory biases. It seems this tool was not subjected to consultation prior to usage and, while it does bring up the processing rate, it apparently leads to more refusals, with no need to justify them.
In an employee report on anti-racism report, IRCC employees were concerned that some manifestations of racism, even subtle ones, could affect the processing of immigration cases. The different refusal rates from country to country were even given as an example. This proves that racial bias has an impact on application processing and that there is discrimination based on country of residence at IRCC.
We come before you today with very significant concerns, but we can offer pragmatic and structural solutions.
Over the short term, we recommend that the Chinook software no longer be used effective immediately, that the guidelines given to IRCC officers be clearly and explicitly released, and that a mechanism be established to reimburse the tuition fees of individuals whose study permit applications have been refused.
Over the medium term, we recommend a substantial increase in IRCC's annual budget. IRCC needs more resources to meet its own processing targets, but it must also do it humanely and decently, for both officers and applicants.
In conclusion, we recommend that legislation be introduced to create an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada ombudsperson position. Greater clarity and transparency can only serve both Canada [Technical difficulty] already contact the Hon. Minister of Immigration and parliamentary secretary—