Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 10th, 2022

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being with us today on this extremely important study. We want to move quickly with recommendations to initiate changes without delay, so that we can implement them before the fall 2022 academic year begins.

Mr. Mulatris, I listened carefully to you. What you've told us is very intriguing. We are realizing from the testimony given before this committee in the past two weeks now that study permit applicants from French-speaking Africa are definitely discriminated against.

I'd like you to tell the committee of the resulting impact on your institution.

[Paulin Mulatris]

For us, a newly established institution, there has been a major impact. For example, this year's refusal rate was almost 75%. Add to that the fact that, as my colleague from Saskatchewan pointed out, courses were done virtually, which delayed the process. Many applicants, about 30%, never even got a response. We sent emails to our candidates to see what was happening, and 30% of them said they had never received any response from the application processing centre. We therefore assumed they had been rejected.

You also have to understand that, when students apply for a study permit, generally they wait to hear back before they decide to enroll at a university. This is detrimental to them, if you consider that they wait several months and miss out on their academic year because the response arrives maybe three, four or five months later, after courses have begun. It also tarnishes Canada's brand image abroad. That's something else to consider.

To conclude my answer, I would say that the repercussions for an institution like ours are huge, and they will stay that way until this problem is taken seriously.

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

Thank you, Mr. Mulatris.

We must find solutions. We have no choice, we need to make some changes happen. We understand that IRCC is not being very transparent. As you said, sometimes the student doesn't understand why they have been rejected and it's not explained to them either. That will need to be addressed first.

Last Thursday, we heard testimony from Thibault Camara, of Le Québec c'est nous aussi. I really enjoyed his testimony, because he gave us specific proposals. One thing he said was that creating an immigration ombudsperson position could change things.

I would like to hear your opinion on that.

[Paulin Mulatris]

I totally agree with that idea. I think it's important to have a second set of eyes on it to get to know who these individuals seeking study permits are. I hope that your committee's study will help you understand who the applicants are. It would help if what you find out is consistent with the responses given and the acceptance and refusal rates. You could also get to know the individuals who process applications, as you pointed out. It's important to put an ombudsperson in place to find out exactly what's happening in that respect.

I have another suggestion, but I know that budgets are limited. In my opinion, it's hard to imagine that a processing centre like the Dakar office receiving all applications would be able to serve almost 75% of the continent. That is simply impossible. So that needs to be addressed despite the limited budget. That would provide more time to properly analyze applications.

I'm not saying we should let individuals who do not meet the criteria come to Canada. However, the criteria must be fair and objective.

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

So we would kill two birds with one stone. It would help international students while making the process more transparent. These IRCC activities would become less opaque than they are now.

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Ms. St. Laurent, you're telling us that students have started distance education. Is that correct? So you're letting them start their courses without a permit?

Some witnesses described terrible situations where young people had to pay the fees but were subsequently refused. Do you reimburse the fees in those cases? What do you do?

[Carole St. Laurent]

We don't reimburse students because they're still getting an education. We tell them that if they start their studies before they get their permit, they will have to pay their tuition no matter what. That's a risk they take. That said, they still get an education, and they can graduate.

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

I understand. They won't simply be reimbursed.

As I understand it, IRCC's delays are ridiculous and put these students in a horrible situation. If IRCC did its job and met the deadlines, these students would not be in such a situation.

[Carole St. Laurent]

I fully agree.

It must be said that students are willing to start their studies remotely, but they want to be assured that they will be able to come to Canada later.

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

I would like to point out that we have witnesses with us today who represent institutions outside Quebec. One member of this committee implied that the Government of Quebec was perhaps part of the problem of delays. From what I understand, that's not true. The problem is with IRCC.

[Carole St. Laurent]

Absolutely. For us, that's the case.

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

I'd like to hear from the other witnesses.

Ms. Mattola, I didn't ask you that question. Do you agree that the problem is really with IRCC, and not with the provincial governments?

[Pirita Mattola]

That would be our stance as well.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much to the witnesses. I hope I'll have time to ask you more questions later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for your presentations today.

I would like to first go to Mr. Mulatris with a question on one of the issues that surfaced in this study, although some of us knew of it even before the study. The student direct stream requires the applicant to hold a $10,000 government bond, which can be cashed out later, while the new Nigeria student express program requires the applicant to have the equivalent of $30,000 in their account for six months, which of course, as you can see, is much more onerous not only in amount, but in the way the money has to be held.

By having this significant difference for different applicants from different countries, do you think this is a gatekeeper to keep people out and that doing it is discriminatory?

[Paulin Mulatris]

I think it may be discriminatory, but I would go in another direction. For the time being, it hasn't yet been proven that these students, who come from French‑speaking Africa, for example, are from poor families. No studies show this. These are middle‑class families who can afford to pay for their children's education, as other people from elsewhere would.

With respect to your question, there is certainly a huge difference between $30,000 and $10,000. Some universities charge an application fee. At UOF, it's $1,000. At the Université de Hearst, I believe it's around $5,000, but I'm not sure. We'd have to check that. Whatever the case may be, these fees must not be prohibitive. We just need to make sure that when parents are paying that kind of money for their child, they are guaranteed that the child will get a visa, because life goes on after that. Sometimes money is paid, but at the end of the day it doesn't lead to a study permit. That puts these people in very difficult situations, and in order to get refunds, they have to go through additional procedures.

To come back to my answer, I would say that it hasn't yet been proven with certainty that the issue of money is necessarily the barrier to obtaining a study permit. A study would have to establish this. In this respect, I would like to see an ombud.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, but there is a fundamental question: Why would there be a discrepancy between countries? Why apply $10,000 to some countries and $30,000 to others? What possible explanation could there be for this significant difference?

The other issue, of course, that's worth pointing out is with the approval rates. What we have heard from other witnesses is that for francophone African applicants, the approval rate is 26%, so there's a significant rejection rate. Even after you have met the requirements, you are still rejected.

You're right. It's not necessarily about the question of whether you're a wealthy applicant or not. Regardless, why is there a discrepancy? That is the issue I'm trying to get at, and having that differential treatment, to me, is concerning.

[Paulin Mulatris]

That's the question I would look at. I totally agree with you. I think it's a fundamental question. Why do these differences exist? Why are the criteria different for countries on the same continent? That defies any fair approach. Criteria like this shouldn't be applied, because they're discriminatory, in my opinion.

You mentioned Nigeria, but we also need to look at the linguistic borders within the continent.

According to the studies that have been conducted, fewer study permits are granted to students from French‑speaking African countries than to those from English‑speaking African countries. In my opinion, this is something that should be considered. The linguistic borders also exist in this regard.

If a $30,000 deposit is required, it's even more discriminatory. Since the operating principles are already opaque and discriminatory, it becomes even more serious, in my opinion.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to turn to the issue around dual intent. That has been a major, major issue, and you've touched on that as well. I mean, isn't it contradictory for IRCC to put dual intent forward and then reject people on the very basis to which...they say that they're interested in staying in Canada?

Some of the witnesses from previous panels actually suggested that the government should get rid of this dual intent component. What's your suggestion with respect to that?

[Paulin Mulatris]

That's what I think, too.

In my view, the contradiction lies at another level. All international students who graduate in Canada receive a letter asking them if they intend to obtain a work permit related to their degree. Whether we like it or not, this is something that already exists.

Why ask them if we know these students can stay in Canada? I think this is a really inappropriate way to exclude them.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to ask the same question of the other witnesses. Do you think the government should get rid of the dual intent component, and is it contradictory?

Let me go first to the University of Saskatchewan, to Ms. Mattola.

[Pirita Mattola]

I agree. I think students who are honest are being punished. In a way, if you lie you'll be rewarded. I think it sends the message that we are looking at them from a very transactional perspective: Don't you dare to dream and stay in Canada after you graduate.

I'll leave it there.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

We will now go to our second round of questioning. Ms. Falk and Mr. Dhaliwal will have four minutes each. Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe and Ms. Kwan will have two minutes each.

Ms. Falk, you have four minutes. Please proceed.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming today to share their testimony.

Ms. Mattola, you said something very interesting at the beginning that I wanted to make a point of agreeing with. You mentioned that knowledge sharing is “vital for understanding the practical consequences of policy decisions”. Just looking at where we are today in Canada, I think it's just so imperative that there's always that form of dialogue open, because tangible things can happen because of policy.

You mentioned that Saskatchewan has one of the highest rates of refusals for provincial study permits and that you are working on understanding the factors that are affecting the student approval rates. Has there been any headway in understanding why this is?