CIMM – CIMM 87.5 - Vulnerable Agriculture Worker Cases – February 7, 2024

IRCC’s response to a request for information made by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on December 5, 2023

Question

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Ms. Fox, when you last appeared before the committee, I told you about a problem raised by the RATTMAQ, the Réseau d'aide aux travailleuses et travailleurs migrants agricoles du Québec.

We recently heard from representatives of RATTMAQ as part of our study on closed work permits. I told them about the problem they had observed, that is to say that a significant number of open work permit applications they had made for vulnerable workers had been refused at the beginning of January 2023. The RATTMAQ had received eight negative decisions. However, the files were very similar to the previous files, which had always been approved.

Following an intervention made jointly by my office and that of Mr. Lightbound, we met with the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at that time. Then there was a fairly dramatic change in that case. The situation came back to order shortly after our intervention.

However, we didn't know in detail what had happened. What I learned was that the refusals came from the same official, because each time it was the same officer number.

When I asked you last time, I had the impression that you had some information on the subject, unless I misunderstood. Could you elaborate on that?

Ms. Christiane Fox: When you raised this issue last time, I told you that I had indeed met with representatives of the Réseau d'aide aux travailleuses et travailleurs migrants agricoles du Québec during our strategic review consultations. At that time, they told me about some cases that had been refused, without giving me any details, however.

After you asked me the question in committee, I went back to my team to find out the approval rate of applications. As you noted, that rate was indeed low in Quebec. It was 47% in 2022, and now it's 57% in 2023.

I'm looking at the program as a whole. As for the evidence to be demonstrated, the bar is intended to be lower, given that these are vulnerable people. We have issued open permits to vulnerable workers, but I think we need to continue the training with our public servants who are making decisions, so that they are in a position to make the right decisions. As to whether it was a specific official, I don't have those details with me today. I'll ask my team. However, I would say that there is a need for ongoing training for our officers who make decisions about very sensitive cases.

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: …My question is about the officer in question. If I'm aware of the fact that it was one and the same officer, since the officer number was always the same, who almost systematically refused the same type of request when they were normally accepted, I can't believe that the department isn't aware of this situation. If RATTMAQ is aware of it, and if I, as opposition MP, am aware of it, then you must be aware of it. Am I mistaken?

Ms. Christiane Fox: As a deputy minister, I don't know if those decisions were made by the same official. I'll follow up. No, I'm not aware of that.

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: However, I talked about it the last time in committee. You told me that you were going to provide us with an answer later, but I didn't receive one.

There's a hypothesis out there, but it may not be true. According to this hypothesis, an official in your department with the authority to decide whether to approve or refuse open permits for vulnerable workers apparently held far‑right views. Suddenly, the department apparently came to the conclusion that this was what had happened. The problem was apparently solved in the end, without it being reported publicly. That's just a hypothesis.

So my question to you is, is it credible? Is that a possibility, Ms. Fox?

Ms. Christiane Fox: …There are often people who assume that some activities are the result of bad intentions, but sometimes there may be other reasons. For example, it may be a matter of training, a new file to learn or a new employee. I wouldn't be prepared to tell you today that there was harmful intent. However, I'm prepared to tell you that we often talk about the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, because it's important in an organization like ours.

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: …If it turns out that such an activity has occurred in your department, in other words, a person with decision‑making power has systematically refused all applications for open permits for vulnerable people based solely on their opinion, which borders on the far right, will you commit today to coming back to the committee and telling us so publicly? Will you commit to being fully transparent, once this has been discovered, and tell us what actually happened within the department and what the consequences were?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Absolutely. I'm prepared not only to report to the committee if that's the case, but also to report to the committee on any action taken with regard to that officer.

Response

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) takes such allegations seriously and would like to thank Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for sharing his concerns.

There is no evidence to substantiate the allegation that negative bias caused an officer to disproportionally refuse applications.

IRCC provides systematic training to all its employees that reflects the values and ethics of the public service. IRCC provides mandatory conscious and unconscious bias training to all staff as part of our commitment to creating a culture of anti-racism, diversity, equity and inclusion, and we provide specific training on bias in decision-making for officers. Officers are required to make decisions based on the merit of individual cases, including all available evidence, facts and existing legislation, policy and procedures. We also systematically examine potential sources of bias in our policy and program delivery, and explore new ways to balance risks in operational contexts. Additionally, specialized training grounded in trauma-informed approaches has been developed to help immigration officers assess open work permit for vulnerable workers applications using a two-step decision-making process and to interview vulnerable clients and process their applications in a sensitized manner.

We can confirm that after an initial review of approval rates per officer specific to the office in question, we did not find any evidence of bias, discrimination or racism in refusing applications. However, there were some cases of inconsistency or irregularity in assessment, and therefore IRCC is currently conducting a broader review of our procedures across all our offices to ensure that any other irregularity is dealt with swiftly.

The Department also has a quality assurance program that includes monitoring the quality of officer decisions in general to ensure consistency and to identify potential biases in decisions. When errors, training gaps, or inconsistencies are identified, actions are taken immediately to address specific situations. Such actions can include the redetermination of decisions, providing additional training or clarifying procedures to ensure consistency.