Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll start the paragraph over from the beginning.
We have analyzed whether there is a relationship between the acceptance rate and economic factors such as GDP per capita, with purchasing power parity considered, and yes there is a positive correlation.
However, there is a limitation to this relationship. It only applies to numbers between $3,000 and $15,000. That is, the rule does not apply to French‑speaking African countries because the vast majority of these countries do not fall into this range. There needs to be more analysis on this, and I hope that the committee will ask IRCC to produce the data.
That is why I have tried to identify other factors that may explain the discrepancy. Here are some theories.
Media reports have suggested that Chinook, a processing tool developed by IRCC, is responsible for the decline. My colleague Wei William Tao will discuss the processing of applications in Chinook, Excel‑based software used to process visa applications in bulk. You can refer to appendix C where you can see if Chinook is used in a given office.
In summary, at this point, based on our limited information, it is not clear whether or not a causal link exists between Chinook and the acceptance rate. What is clear is that we are seeing a decline in confidence in the system when talking to clients, the international students. Again, I hope that the committee will request the data from IRCC.
Are there other factors? I'm wondering if there is a lack of resources for visa offices in Africa because applications for study permits from African countries are not processed in the same country as shown in appendix C.
Conversely, applications from major source countries, including China, India, the Philippines, and the United States, are processed locally. Some of these countries even have several offices. In French‑speaking Africa, however, most applications are processed in Dakar, Accra or Dar es Salaam. The majority of them are processed in Dakar.
The advantage of having an application processed in your country is that the decision‑makers on site are more in tune with the realities on the ground. Moreover, it is no secret that inter‑African racism exists. Mixing applications as if they were homogeneous is a big problem. Is it about racism? That's the question.
This is all against the backdrop of the recent immigration report on anti‑racism. Widespread internal references to certain African nations as “the dirty 30” have been noted. The committee may wish to inquire further with IRCC to list these countries. It would be interesting to see if they are French‑speaking countries.
All this exposes IRCC to costly litigation. Having study permit applications adjudicated by the courts is a waste of taxpayer dollars and judicial resources.
I have four recommendations.
First, more resources should be allocated for visa processing.
Second, race‑based data should be collected, as we submitted to this committee last year.
Third, offices with high refusal rates should be automatically audited. This audit should be done by a third party. If the committee recommends the creation of an immigration ombudsman, this function can be incorporated into its mandate. Perhaps the Auditor General could be tasked by Parliament to investigate. We see that the vast majority of applications are processed in Dakar for francophone Africa, and we wonder about that. What happens in that office? Are there any measures to prevent bias? Do such measures exist?
Fourth, IRCC needs to undertake genuine public consultations on the deployment of new technologies such as Chinook and artificial intelligence. There needs to be more transparency. Stakeholder engagement is essential, and IRCC should engage with immigration and privacy lawyers.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.