Department of Citizenship and Immigration Ombud Act

Summary#

Bill C-212 would create the proposed Department of Citizenship and Immigration Ombud Act and amend the Language Skills Act and several other federal Acts. Its stated goal is to examine whether the Department of Citizenship and Immigration’s practices and decisions are fair and free from bias and discrimination. The supplied material does not state the bill’s current parliamentary status; these provisions are not in force unless the bill is passed and receives royal assent. If enacted, the Act would start 180 days after royal assent.

• The bill would establish an Office of the Ombud, led by an Ombud appointed by the Governor in Council after consultation with party leaders and approval by resolutions of both the Senate and House of Commons. The Ombud would serve a seven-year term and could be reappointed once.
• The Ombud could examine department practices, review policies and programs, receive complaints, and investigate on their own initiative, at the Minister’s request, or in response to a complaint. Investigations could examine individual or systemic unfairness, bias, racism, or discrimination in department decision-making.
• To investigate, the Ombud could summon people to give evidence, require information and documents, and examine things produced. The Ombud could refuse or stop a complaint investigation in listed circumstances, including if other reasonable options have not been used or another process is more appropriate.
• The Ombud would make recommendations, not issue orders in the powers listed here. The Minister must tell the Ombud what action has been taken or proposed, or why a recommendation was not followed.
• The Office would have its own employees and could hire temporary experts with Treasury Board approval. The Ombud would report annually to Parliament, could issue urgent or important special reports, and must publish these reports online.

What it means for you#

• People dealing with the department: Anyone could complain about unfairness, inequity, bias, or discrimination linked to a department decision, act, or omission. The Ombud could decline or stop an investigation for reasons set out in the bill, and the bill does not give the Ombud power to change a department decision or award a remedy.
• Department staff and others asked for evidence: The Ombud could require people to attend, give evidence, provide information, or produce relevant documents or things. Knowingly obstructing the Ombud or knowingly making a false or misleading statement would be an offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine of up to $2,000.
• The Minister: The Minister could ask the Ombud to investigate or examine a matter. After receiving a report, the Minister must respond within the time set by the Ombud.
• The public and Parliament: The Office must publish annual and special reports. The bill does not change immigration or citizenship eligibility rules in the supplied text.

Money#

No publicly available information on the estimated cost.

• The bill requires the Office to have the employees needed for its work. It does not give a staffing number or total cost.
• The Governor in Council would set the Ombud’s pay. The Ombud would also be entitled to reasonable travel and living expenses for work-related absences.
• The Ombud could hire temporary technical or specialized advisers, with Treasury Board approval to set and pay their remuneration and expenses.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not include the parent Acts, so existing arrangements and the full effect of the amendments to those Acts could not be verified.
• The bill does not define key terms such as “unfairness,” “bias,” or “systemic discrimination.”
• The Governor in Council may make regulations setting complaint and investigation time limits, among other matters. The supplied text does not include those regulations or say when they would be made.
• The Ombud may issue complaint-handling guidelines, but the bill does not set out a detailed intake process, investigation timelines, or an appeal from a decision not to investigate.
• The Ombud could disclose information considered necessary for an investigation or that may be used in a prosecution. The supplied text does not explain how this power would be balanced with privacy interests. The Ombud cannot access certain Privy Council confidences.

Case for#

• A dedicated Ombud could provide a way to examine complaints and identify patterns of unfairness or discrimination in department decisions.
• The Ombud could investigate systemic problems, not just individual complaints, and review department policies, programs, training, and processing standards.
• The Ombud’s ability to require evidence and documents could help investigations obtain relevant information.
• A multi-party consultation process and approval by both Houses of Parliament for the appointment could give the office a degree of cross-party backing.

Case against#

• The Ombud could make recommendations, but the bill does not give the office power to require the department to change a decision or follow a recommendation.
• The Ombud could refuse or stop investigations, including where another process is available or a matter is not reasonably practicable to investigate. The bill does not set detailed rules for applying these grounds.
• The bill requires staff and permits paid expert advice but gives no cost estimate or staffing plan.
• The Minister receives investigation reports and can request investigations; the bill does not explain how the Ombud would manage any appearance of dependence on the department or Minister being examined.