Thank you for your question.
I would like to come back to some of the words used. There has been a lot of talk about opaqueness, lack of transparency and confusing criteria. In this future reform, we need more transparency. Everyone has to know the criteria, which must be really listed, explained and defined. The documentation must also be as clear as possible. All of that is understood here, but since it's being received in another culture, in another context, we have to ask ourselves whether sufficient efforts have been made in this respect.
I'll give you an example. In the documentation that students provide, they may include a letter of motivation, in addition to the completed form. In it, they may say things that could harm their own file, because what they have to say is not clearly stated. It's not a question of language or of being lost in translation.
In terms of intent, do they have to say what they want to do after their studies? Do they have to say there's a chance they’ll stay? Does that put them at a disadvantage?
People are trained to help them, they are regulated immigration advisors, and they themselves no longer know what to say about this dual intent test. Do you have to talk about your intentions in a letter of motivation that should help clarify the issue a little?
As far as consistency is concerned, we need to untangle what we're talking about. Others have talked about this. There seems to be a contradiction between the facts and Canada's stated desire to be a welcoming country, an immigrant country and all that.
Currently, we receive international students. About a third of them come to Canada for a second university degree. The others are at the undergraduate level. They spend three, four or five years with us. They are then integrated, trained, and ready to work, and they would be asked to leave to perhaps come back later. This issue of dual intent is really counterproductive.
There is one more thing I want to say about reform. Several people have mentioned the famous embassy in Dakar, which handles a very large number of files. Is it provided with sufficient resources? Reference was also made to the software or the Chinook program. What I've heard about it isn't reassuring either, but it's not clear either. There is concern without evidence, apart from the very high refusal rates we see.
Those are several things that need to be fixed. I think it could help reform the system.