:
I call this meeting to order.
Good morning. Welcome to meeting number 19 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Given the ongoing pandemic situation and in light of the recommendations from the health authorities, as well as the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on Thursday, November 25, 2021, to remain healthy and safe all those attending the meeting in person are to maintain two-metre physical distancing and must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It is highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when seated. Those attending must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the provided hand sanitizer in the room.
Please refrain from coming to the room if you are symptomatic.
As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute and your camera must be on.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will continue our study on differential outcomes in Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada decisions.
I would like to welcome our witnesses.
We have today as witnesses officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration: Caroline Xavier, associate deputy minister; Tara Lang, director general, central network; and Farah Boisclair, director, anti-racism task force.
Before we go on, Ms. Kwan is raising her hand.
Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Before we begin, I would like to raise a concern with officials and ask for their explanation and response regarding the situation.
During a meeting held at this committee on February 15, which was on processing timelines and acceptance rates, I made a request to IRCC department officials to table, by the end of that month, a breakdown of application backlogs in all streams. When I made that request, Mr. Daniel Mills, the senior assistant deputy minister of operations, said, “I will be happy to provide that information because I have it here on hand.”
Even though Mr. Mills clearly indicated that he already had the information on hand and I requested that the information be tabled by the end of the month, it took 44 more days after the deadline for that information to be tabled. The committee received it on April 13.
However, nearly a month before IRCC's response to the committee, the CIC News website published tables that were provided by IRCC in response to a media request in March. These contained the exact same breakdown requested by me at the committee meeting. The data IRCC provided to them was also more current, with updated figures as recent as March 17, 2022, while the information provided to the committee was current to December 31, 2021.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice notes:
The Standing Orders state that the standing committees have the power to order the production of papers and records, another privilege that is rooted in the Constitution and which is delegated by the House. In carrying out their responsibility to conduct studies and inquiries, standing committees often have to rely on a wide array of papers to aid them in their work.
It is therefore extremely concerning that IRCC is providing timely responses to media requests while withholding document requests—which an IRCC official explicitly said were already on hand—from this committee, which has a legal mandate to study its affairs. This constitutes, in many ways, a breach of privilege by preventing parliamentarians from being able to do their work.
I should note that it's often clear that the text of previous IRCC responses were written shortly after the request was made but took months to make it to the committee. I'm interested to know who was blocking that and why there was such a delay.
Madam Chair, I would like to ask officials to table a response as to why it took so long to provide information they said they already had to the committee, while providing more up-to-date information on shorter notice in response to media inquiries. I ask them to also provide a timeline indicating where the document was held up, why the document was held up and any email records relating to responding to that request. I would like to get a response regarding IRCC's delay in sending documents requested by this committee until the information is out of date, while more quickly providing more up-to-date information in response to the media.
This is not acceptable, Madam Chair. We have officials coming before us whose job is to answer our questions and accept undertakings, per a motion. If this is the approach they are taking, it is not good enough. I want to state that very clearly.
I would like to get a clear explanation from officials, tabled to the committee, as to why this happened. Furthermore, Madam Chair, I have a list of items for which I am still awaiting responses. I painstakingly put together a binder of all the undertakings that I have requested from officials. I have a series of them for which I have yet to receive a response.
I can put all of this on the record, unless the officials have actually tracked them to see where the responses are. We're supposed to get this information so we have it in advance of writing our reports. In many instances, that deadline passes and we don't have that information.
We're now into another study with respect to differential treatment. This is all kind of related, so it is absolutely essential that we get this documentation before we begin that work. Otherwise, we will not have sufficient information to proceed. That's a disservice not only to the committee and our members but also to the community that is waiting for answers, Madam Chair.
I will ask for your direction on whether I should read into the record the list of all the items that I have not yet received or whether officials will actually track that information down and provide it to us in a timely fashion.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
All right, then; I will read into the record the pieces that are still missing.
This was my question to officials:
Is the minister still exercising his authority to bring in special procedures secretly?
This was in reference to Afghan processing. I indicated that I was being very specific:
I'm not talking about general immigration measures. There are some specific actions that the ministry is taking that are not made public. People do not know what those specific actions might be, what it would look like or whom it would apply to. Is that still being done by the ministry right now?
I would like to get a response, then, from the minister or from the department with respect to that. That's a request that I've made and have not received a response on.
The other piece I asked for reads as follows:
Ms. Campbell Jarvis told us at committee that there is an IRCC playbook used as a level of oversight for bias in IRCC. Could the officials table this playbook and also provide documentation or information on how it is being used by officials?
That has not yet been received.
There was another document:
To what extent has IRCC processed the emails that Afghans were directed to send to the government? In other words, how many of those emails have received a response from IRCC, and how many are being processed? By response, I don't mean the automatic response they get.
I also asked this:
Perhaps I can get the officials to send those numbers in....If I can get in detail for the committee the numbers [of] how many applications have been processed, how many of them have been completed, and how many of them are still waiting for completion, I would appreciate it.
That has not yet been received.
I continued:
What about the applications for people who are not interpreters or collaborators, which is to say those who may have family members who are here in Canada and who have connections that way? If any of those are being processed at all, how many...?
I asked:
If I could get those specific numbers, not “half”—
which was the response I got,
—but exact numbers and under which category, that would be appreciated. Perhaps [that] could be submitted to the committee then.
That has not yet been received.
I asked this as well:
Could the officials provide a breakdown of that representation right now, so that we have a baseline on which to evaluate the outcome of this work?
I asked if we could get the baseline number so we could evaluate the progress, and further to that, if interim progress reports would be put on the public record. I have not received a response.
If you're wondering, Madam Chair, what I'm referring to in terms of that representation, it's referring to equitable representation amongst staff at IRCC, both agents and among medium and upper management positions. One of the key issues is to actually have a baseline of evaluation so that we know where things are. If there's going to be improvement or changes down the road, we need to be able to see it. I have not received that data, or the committee has not.
I asked for other information:
If you can table for the committee, then, the timelines of when that further study will be done and the mandate for those studies, I would appreciate [it].
That is in reference to independent studies. Ms. Caroline Xavier had explained to the committee that “further independent studies” were being planned on this strategy. I would like to know the timeline with respect to that. I have not yet received a response to those questions.
The other issue is that I have asked officials to provide the pathways to the committee. The pathways are in reference to a question around Afghans and other racialized minorities that are in Ukraine. As it stands right now, as far as we can tell, the immigration measures do not apply to them. The special Ukraine immigration measures do not apply to them. I asked this question, and Ms. Caroline Xavier responded that “the options and pathways exist for them to be able to indicate that, and we would be able to assist them”. I was asking what pathways, and for the officials to table that. I have not yet received that information.
Those are all of the undertakings that.... Sorry, there's one more. There's one last piece that is missing. It asks for the work being done by the department to coordinate and facilitate the generosity of Canadians who wish to help Ukrainians arriving in Canada. I was asking for information with respect to that, and we have not yet received it.
Those are all the undertakings that are still to be provided to the committee, Madam Chair.
:
Thank you. I'm going to respond to that.
These undertakings were asked for prior to this committee, and they should have been provided to this committee. Just now we heard from the officials that they can provide us with the information as we engage in this meeting. I have six minutes, Madam Chair, to question officials, and time runs just like that, and then if I'm lucky, I might get another round.
It's simply not acceptable. Here we are with yet another example of officials saying on the record that they have the information, but somehow, and I don't know why, they have not presented it. With this kind of practice, we are heading directly into a question of privilege being breached. I hope that is not the case. I hope that I can get full answers and acceptable answers from the officials. I hope that this practice will not continue.
More to the point, how is it possible that committee members ask for information that staff say they have readily on hand, and it's not provided to us after 44 days from the request? That information is then provided to the media, and it's more up-to-date information to boot. Goodness gracious, what are we doing here?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon.
I am pleased to join the committee, and I would like to take a moment to acknowledge that the land from which I'm joining you today is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.
As associate deputy minister with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, I recognize there is no institutional tolerance for racism or discrimination and that IRCC must be committed to diversity and inclusion.
[Translation]
To inform the committee how the department is pursuing this principle, I'd like to look back at what we have been accomplishing recently through our anti-racism initiatives.
[English]
I want to add that I have personally noticed a shift this year at IRCC. We have delved deeper into more complex aspects of racism, and many more participants have respectfully but frankly challenged the practices of the government and the department than had been the case in past years.
For example, on February 11 we held an IRCC all-staff session to discuss systemic racism within IRCC policies and programs. It was one of the few times I've seen people talk so openly about the history of systemic racism and its lasting impacts on our programs and policies, specifically the temporary foreign worker program. It felt like we were finally confronting systemic racism in our own backyard, acknowledging it for what it has been.
[Translation]
On February 18, we held an employee town hall with guest speaker Dr. Rachel Zellers—a lawyer and scholar who focuses on race and diversity—as a chance to discuss vocabulary for leaders to use when faced with resistance, ignorance and questions relating to race.
[English]
It certainly was an event with profound timing, given the police actions against the protests in downtown Ottawa that were taking place that same day.
Also in February, we joined with colleagues from Global Affairs Canada, The Department of National Defence and the Department of Justice to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and to hear from Dr. Robert Livingston of the Harvard Kennedy School.
As well, we have taken action through various trust circles with indigenous, Black and racialized employees, in addition to trauma workshops and other gatherings, to give participants the opportunity to share their experiences with leaders, such as myself, without fear of reprisal.
We are also employing disaggregated data collected at IRCC. It provides us with the ability to clearly spot disparities and to set a baseline from which we can measure progress so that we can see if we are actually addressing systemic biases that may affect not only our employees but our clients, policies, decisions, and service delivery.
All this is more than just talk. I am convinced that our actions to address anti-racism are producing results and that our employees at IRCC are developing a new competency to examine our business lines and processes through an anti-racism lens.
[Translation]
This tells me change is beginning—that behaviours and our culture are evolving. Of course, we are all at different points in our journeys to learn about racism.
[English]
However, I believe that all employees and especially leaders in the organization are truly understanding how fundamental diversity and inclusivity are now, and will be, to achieving our mandate.
[Translation]
Reaching these conclusions about race may be difficult and uncomfortable, but we must address them, because some employees at IRCC still feel they face systemic racism.
[English]
Madam Chair, looking forward, the next phase for IRCC will be to build on these efforts by pulling the pieces together into a departmental strategy and action plan with performance indicators to hold ourselves accountable. We hope to release the next phase of the strategy and action plan to employees and stakeholders by the middle of 2022.
In addition, IRCC has developed a quarterly anti-racism tracker to monitor the department's progress and to transparently report on it to employees, deputies and the minister, who has expressed a keen interest in keeping abreast of our collective efforts.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I do want to stress to the committee that our work at IRCC is still a work in progress. And as we move forward with it, we will continue to be flexible and we will strengthen diversity and inclusion in our workplace and workforce.
[English]
The key principle is that achieving greater diversity and equity is not only the right thing to do, but it is the smart thing to do. We have an obligation to our employees and to all Canadians to do better, and we will.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To those members who are complaining about not having access to the excellent food, I'd say, “You snooze, you lose.” I'll be thinking of you while I eat it.
I want to highlight in my remarks the issue of transparency. Some of our concerns on that have been well articulated by Ms. Kwan. There's some additional information, and a number of witnesses have told us that in terms of understanding the problems of racism within IRCC, it's very important that they have data to look at.
I'm going to ask a series of questions. I'm not asking you to provide the answers to these questions; I'm asking you to tell me if you are able to provide these documents in writing. Hopefully the answer will be yes. I'll then be able to proceed through this list.
The first thing that we have been asked for by witnesses is any and all documents and data in the department's possession that show acceptance and rejection rates for visa applications, broken down by processing office, application category, country of origin of the applicant, race and religion. Are you able to provide that data to the committee?
:
Madam Chair, I thank the member for his question.
More than 500 agencies help us provide assistance to newcomers to this country. These agencies have an agreement with us in which the funds that we have given them and what they are to be used for to give assistance to newcomers are very well defined.
That said, we also do an evaluation on a regular basis of how services are being delivered. Through the established governance, we keep a very close relationship with them. Also, depending on how the newcomer is doing in their community and how the communities themselves are doing, we have the opportunity to talk to the agencies to see if the goals and objectives, as we had defined them in the agreements that we signed, have been met.
In each of the agreements, the expectations are very well detailed. So is the funding and what we expect from it in relation to the objectives.
:
Madam Chair, I thank the member for his question.
The types of relationships that constitute family relationships are very clearly outlined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. There are very clear protocols as to how to identify family relationships and how to ascertain the existence of the relationship.
There is also a program in place to ensure the integrity of the way programs are delivered to newcomers. As I mentioned earlier, we do evaluations fairly regularly to ensure that expectations and goals are being met. We even survey newcomers to see if the expectations they had when they arrived or the promises that were made to them have been met.
We combine all of this information, including the act and the guides we provide to our agents, and we do an assessment to make sure that the newcomers' relationships are legitimate and that the help they receive is legitimate.
:
Madam Chair, I thank the member for his question.
I could not make any recommendations off the top of my head. However, I can say that, through surveys, studies, analyses and with the support of newcomer organizations, academic institutions and institutions that do research in the field of immigration, we are in the process of assessing and understanding, with our colleagues at Employment and Social Development Canada, the importance of ensuring that immigration demands meet labour needs.
This is part of what we analyze to put in place the immigration plan, which is reviewed and retabled annually in Parliament. By having discussions with our provincial and territorial partners, we make sure that we understand the challenges and where the gaps are so that the immigrants coming to Canada can meet the economic needs primarily, but also the social needs, and so on.
I thank all the witnesses for being here with us today to continue this important study and to help us write a report that will normally contain important recommendations for the ministry.
I will address Ms. Xavier.
In the brief submitted to the committee by the Association of Regulated Nigerian-Canadian Immigration Consultants, we are told of the ways in which Nigerian and other foreign students are treated differently.
I would like to know why the Nigeria Student Express, or NSE, program is not published on the IRCC website.
:
Madam Chair, I thank the member for his question.
It is clear that the volume is considerable, in general, in terms of IRCC. We are trying to reassess the situation and determine where our resources are and whether we need additional resources. There is a process in the budget for requesting resources.
That said, one of the things that we have improved and continue to improve in the department, especially since the pandemic, is how we move, reallocate resources and reallocate work around the world, rather than just to the mission where the request may have been received. We are again looking to ensure that the quality of information has been respected and that the law has been applied correctly. We also seek to respond more quickly and efficiently to needs.
It is my understanding that when Chinook was deployed, the department actually had a number of different modules, including a sixth module, which was to deal with the quality assurance component. It was discovered that there were software bugs with respect to that, so then it was never applied.
One would think, then, that the department would go about fixing the bugs so that you would actually have an application of quality assurance to the Chinook system, but it sounds like there isn't. There have been significant concerns with the use of Chinook raised by witnesses, and understandably, then, the witnesses are calling for an independent assessment of Chinook.
It sounds like the department is actually not doing any quality assurance on Chinook at the moment with this application.
Maybe I can then ask the officials, Madam Chair, to table to the committee their quality assurance program and its application for all of the tools that it applies to and how it is applied. Maybe the officials can also provide the data on what stream and what country these quality assurance programs are being used for and the results coming out of them.
With respect to the results, if, for example, the application of quality assurance is being applied and the results don't check out—you looked into it, and even in this instance with Chinook, with individuals making the assessment, the outcome does not check out—what are the next steps? Are applications then re-evaluated by someone else? How do the officials or the department deal with that? If I can get that information, then—
:
I want to switch to talk about the production of papers motion, which directly relates to this racism study.
As you're aware, I put forward this production of papers motion back in February, supported unanimously by the committee, requiring the department to provide documents related to racism. The officials were given a deadline of March 30, which they complied with. However, until last week, we as committee members didn't know that the department had failed to comply with the rule of having to submit everything in both official languages. We had to get it translated after the fact.
The department also failed to abide by Parliament's absolute authority when it comes to examining original and unredacted documents. I just want to read a passage from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 137:
By virtue of the preamble and section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Parliament has the ability to institute its own inquiries, to require the attendance of witnesses and to order the production of documents, rights which are fundamental to its proper functioning. These rights are as old as Parliament itself....
As stated in a report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in 1991:
The power to send for persons, papers and records has been delegated by the House of Commons to its committees in the Standing Orders. It is well established that Parliament has the right to order any and all documents to be laid before it which it believes are necessary for its information. … The power to call for persons, papers and records is absolute, but it is seldom exercised without consideration of the public interest. The House of Commons recognizes that it should not require the production of documents in all cases; considerations of public policy, including national security, foreign relations...
and so forth.
My motion explicitly excluded national security and cabinet confidence, yet the redaction of documents provided to this committee by your department on the basis of solicitor-client privilege, as found in the Access to Information Act, disregards this absolute power of Parliament.
Our committee received a letter from the House of Commons's law clerk that stated, “The House’s and its committees’ power to order the production of records constitutes a constitutional parliamentary privilege that is not limited by the exemptions found in the Access to Information Act.”
As a result, our committee met and decided that our chair would write to the deputy minister with a deadline of 4 p.m. yesterday for the documents to be sent to this committee unredacted, yet the deputy minister wrote back to reaffirm redactions on the basis of solicitor-client privilege. She said, “Redactions have been applied to two documents under section 23 of the Access to Information Act for the protection of solicitor-client privilege.”
Madam Xavier, can you confirm that your department—Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada—is aware that you have breached parliamentary privilege?
Basically you're able to respond to where we're at based on the work that you've been doing since 2020, but when we address some of the issues that have been brought up in IRCC around, let's say, refusal rates or other comments around.... Some of the witnesses mentioned racism in the Chinook program, in the processing or the refusal rates for African countries. I personally don't think that's something that you can answer. I personally think that it's unfair for you to have to answer that question.
I'm going to go to Madam Xavier.
There have been comments around the response as to why there are higher rates of refusal in African francophone countries. One of the responses that we received was that perhaps some students switched streams when they arrived here.
Has that number changed over the last 10 or 15 years? Has that number ever shifted, or is it still the same number of people who are switching streams?
:
Perhaps you're trying to say that the language has no play in this.
One of the suggestions we heard from witnesses is that we open more offices across the continent to make sure that we reduce or tackle this higher rate of refusals. Can you comment on the tools that you intend to use?
I really hope that you have the same data we have, because if you don't, we're going to be having a different conversation. Witnesses have come forward and have provided us with some things that we can do to address that, and if we don't have the same numbers, we're going to have a harder time addressing that situation.
Can someone in your department who has this information comment?
:
Madam Chair, I thank the member for his question.
No, we do not open offices in particular locations because we find one continent more important than another. We are considering the possibility, especially because we want to increase francophone immigration, of opening an office in Cameroon, for example. So the answer is that we do not consider one continent less important than another.
As I said before, it is important to continue to analyze how and where we assess applications. We need to consider whether we need to open more offices, as has been recommended to us. That would be a possibility, but we would need to ensure that we have the resources to meet the needs that arise.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Just to clarify from my last question, I would like the officials to provide information on the kind of training that middle management and executives are undertaking with respect to anti-racism training. How is the effectiveness of the training being evaluated? What recourse is there if the evaluation indicates that the training has not been effective? If officials could get that response to the committee, I would appreciate that.
Next, witnesses have indicated that there is differential treatment for resettlement organizations whose primary mandate or focus is on women. They indicated that often they are being asked to provide extra accountability measures, with extra requirements layered on them, and that even, to some degree, their assessment officer feels compelled to do so because otherwise that assessment officer is mocked by colleagues in the department.
This is absolutely extremely concerning. I would like to ask the officials to table the practices that the department undertakes for accountability measures for resettlement organizations and if they're being applied to organizations in the same way. If not, how do they differ, and why are they different, then, in their application? I would appreciate it if I could get that information from the officials.
Earlier we were talking about processing delays. I'm interested in this information. With respect to processing delays, could the officials provide information to the committee to advise us on how often the processing delay is related to the lack of immigration levels numbers? In other words, it's not so much that the staff hasn't processed the application; rather, the processed application is sitting on a shelf in somebody's office somewhere, because they don't have the immigration levels numbers to accommodate it. I would love to get that information from the officials, if I might.
Finally, Madam Chair, oftentimes applications are delayed. There might be differential treatment or something else, but the steps where they are hung up are often tied to CBSA with respect to security screening. I would like to know how many applications are delayed as a result of the security screening not having been processed. If we could get that information broken down by country and region, that would be appreciated.
:
Madam Chair, thank you for the question.
Our intent is very much to ensure that when people are submitting their applications, and in particular medical exams, they have access to certified panel physicians. We do aim to try to ensure that there's availability of panel physicians throughout the world. There are 577 panel physicians certified throughout the world, but to that point in the question being posed, they may not be in every country.
Having said that, when we certify a panel physician, we have to ensure that they will be able to adhere to the standards that we're looking for, and that may be the reason certain countries may not have panel physicians. The availability of those physicians has to exist as well for us to be able to certify them, and they have to be willing to be part of the network and adhere to the evaluation standards and processes.
It's hard to give a more specific answer unless speaking to a specific country. I just want to generally say that the intent is to minimize delays with regard to examinations and to try as much as possible to make panel physicians available throughout the world so that this is not an additional delay for applicants.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
First of all, I'd like to thank each and every one of you for being with us today.
I've been thinking a bit about the question my colleague asked earlier.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada data on the refusal rate for study permits indicate that people applying from African countries, particularly francophone Africa, have a much higher refusal rate than those applying from other parts of the world.
So I have three questions about this.
According to the department, what are the causes in this agreement that explain these refusal rates?
How is the department addressing this issue?
What steps, if any, is the department taking to reduce these refusal rates?
:
Depending on the part of the country you are in, you are subject to the same regulations and the same laws when you are applying to come to Canada as a student. You are correct that right now we are seeing higher refusal rates from African countries for those destined to study in Canada.
In terms of what we are doing to examine this and where we can go from here, we are delivering unconscious bias training to all officers across Canada and the world. Regardless of whether they're situated in Africa or Ottawa, they will all receive that training.
We're also trying to support the review of all policies and programs to identify systemic racism barriers and disparate impacts on racialized groups.
I think my colleague Farah Boisclair spoke earlier about disaggregated data. As we learn more from disaggregated data, we can dig into issues we should be focusing on specific to certain continents, certain decisions, with Africa in mind, and not only Africa, but all countries that Canada welcomes.
We're also implementing mitigation plans to reduce racial disparities across programs and procedures based on systemic review, data mapping and external sources to identify and address bias in decision-making and risk management, including our automation practices.
As mentioned earlier, we conduct quality assurance exercises on a regular basis across all of our lines of business. We are committed to looking at the higher rates of refusal for African countries, and if there is anything we can do differently to determine if there is a reason behind that, beyond it simply being a just and law-based refusal.
:
Thank you very much for that response.
I might like to reopen the discussion, because I have a question about what you just said.
On that point, Ms. Xavier, are there any opportunities to see how we can develop best practices with other countries?
I understand the issue of financing and the banking system in these countries very well. However, are there any solutions that the committee could recommend to help us achieve goals that I think we all care about? We want a stronger immigration system and, in particular, we want to try to demystify this refusal rate prevalent in French-speaking African countries.
:
Madam Chair, I'd like to thank the honourable member for her question.
We have observed that the applications are not filled out properly in some countries. That is not limited to African countries. They may actually be having trouble figuring out how to fill out the application.
We know that some countries have consultants to help people fill out the forms, but the level of service they provide isn't always up to par. In addition, the integrity of those consultants is sometimes questionable.
We have seen better results when consultants are on site to provide that assistance because the forms are filled out fully and properly.
That is something we are trying to improve by providing education through the missions and by talking to clients, consultants and all those who have a hand in supporting the process of immigrating to Canada.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am aware that some of these items may overlap with things that other members have asked for, and I want to recognize the good work done by all members on this issue. We are being asked by stakeholders for this kind of information because it's in the interest of transparency and it helps them to understand how to hold the government accountable and how to advise Canadians about the way these decisions are made.
In the remaining time, in response to another member it was said that quality assurance is done on the staffing side, because the systems like Chinook inform decisions made by staff as the staff making the decision. At the end of the day, if those systems are informing those decisions, those systems require some quality assurance mechanisms as well.
Have I understood the dynamics right? What is your response to that?
:
To add to what Madame Boisclair has shared, as part of the training and requirements for our decision-making officers, we provide them with cultural training with regard to being culturally sensitive, even though they may not come from that culture.
To Madame Boisclair's point, the intent is to continue to diversify our workforce throughout the world and throughout the domestic world as well in order to continue to ensure that we have an inclusive view and diverse views when people are reviewing a decision.
In particular for our international network, there is also the addition of our locally engaged staff, who are very helpful in providing advice with regard to the local culture and what could possibly be influencing some of the applications. That is taken very much into consideration as part of the work we do.
The locally engaged staff have responded to surveys and have provided information to help us continue to strengthen our cultural awareness with regard to the applications that are being submitted across the globe.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let's move into problem-solving mode. After all, it's not all about expressing opposition or support; it's also about coming up with solutions.
Ms. Boisclair, I have a question for you.
A few weeks ago, we heard from a witness who recommended that interviews with visa officers be recorded so that the officer could focus on the interview, not on taking notes or writing their report. That way, a record of the interview would be available if the decision were ever appealed.
What do you think of that recommendation?
Maybe I can ask, then, for the officials to table with the committee all of the various different kinds of work you're doing to address the issue around racism and system racism within IRCC.
If I could actually get information from the officials, I would like to know to what extent applications are being refused because of the economic conditions of a country. If we could get that broken down by streams, I would appreciate it. I don't know if they collect the data, but if they do, I would like to get that data.
I would also like to get information on the backlog. The response from the officials, as I understand it, is that paper applications are still stuck in the system, and those are not being counted in the backlogs. I wonder if the officials can advise the committee on how many offices are still dealing with a paper backlog in the mailroom. Could we get that information listed by country and offices? If they have the information on how many applications are still stuck in that circumstance, I would appreciate it.
Madam Chair, after this I do have one other point of order issue that I would like to raise before the committee adjourns.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Xavier, I want to read our exchange from March 24. I said as follows:
The high commissioner appeared at this committee, asking for the country of Bangladesh to be admitted into the student direct stream. I specifically asked the minister on March 3 if he could make every effort to have Bangladesh enter into the direct stream program for foreign students, and his answer was that he was certainly open to it.
For the associate deputy minister, it's been 20 days or so. First of all, has the minister talked to you about getting Bangladesh into the student direct stream?
Then I said:
Can you confirm that Bangladesh is in the process of being considered for SDS right now?
Your response was:
I cannot personally confirm it, but I can double-check.
To recap, I wrote the in December on this issue. He hasn't responded. I asked the minister at this committee and I didn't get a response. Then I asked you on March 24, and you said that you would double-check. I've been waiting 152 days, and of course Bangladeshi students have been waiting much longer than that.
I'm going to try once again: Can you confirm for this committee that Bangladesh is in the process of being considered for SDS right now? Failing that, can you confirm if the minister is going reply to my original letter of December 2, or not?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, in the past this committee has heard about difficulties with family class applications. The immigration and refugee act requires spouses going through a sponsorship process to prove, number one, that their marriage is genuine, and number two, that when they entered into the marriage, their intentions were to be husband and wife and not to be in a marriage of convenience.
I see many decisions in which it is very difficult to grasp the reasons that their failure are based on. I would like to ask a question, through you, to the department. What are some of the factors used to assess the legitimacy of a spousal relationship, and how often do you see that the spousal sponsorship applications are refused due to a concern with the genuineness of the relationship?
:
In general, family class applications have a very high approval rate, so I am sorry to hear that you have a number of instances of what you believe are disingenuous refusals.
We do request a lot of documents, and if we are not satisfied, if the officers making the decision in the department are not satisfied, applicants can be convoked to an interview to try to establish genuineness of relationship.
However, rest assured that as part of our anti-racism efforts, if there are things we are not seeing from a cultural bias perspective, we hope to uncover those in our evaluation of programs and policies, and we absolutely would like to do better if there is a way to do so.