Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2013

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you for being with us today.

Ms. Kane, you did not have the time to finish your opening statement. I would like to give you a minute or two to tell us about the suggestions in the last part of your statement.

[Betsy Kane]

You'd like me to speak for two more minutes?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Maybe we can put back my time and ask our witness to put on the interpretation device. Maybe the chair should have told you before, but you can use the interpretation device to make sure you understand the question.

I will give you a short opportunity to say what you wanted to say but didn't have time to say.

[Betsy Kane]

The only other things I wanted to address were some of the issues that we see in certain visa offices. We're getting boilerplate refusals of people who have very valid reasons to come to Canada and legal grounds to be here. I'll give you a couple of examples I've seen lately that do not make sense to me.

I've seen situations where we have people from visa-requiring countries who have offers of employment and are actually holding Canadian work permits but who cannot get the TRV to re-enter Canada, because they have been profiled in the hosting visa office that's processing the visa.

I'll give you a recent case of an academic who was holding an academic position, but because his address was in a refugee camp in the Middle East, he was automatically excluded. He holds a work permit. He has an offer of employment. He has a job description from a reputable Canadian university. But because of his address, we believe, he was refused. We took the opportunity to write to the program manager of the visa office to explain the details, which were apparent on the application, and reapply. Perhaps there is someone with some common sense who could take a look at the whole application, not just the first page where you see an address.

Another type of situation where we see unwarranted refusals is the case of foreign students who marry during the course of their studies, or, following the completion of their studies, they're here on something called a post-graduate work permit, which is valid for three years. They have university under their belt. They go home over the summer and marry their long-time girlfriend and that girlfriend cannot be reunited with the student, because it's determined that she will not return, but her husband has every right to remain in Canada as a temporary foreign worker. In fact, Canada is going after this profile-type of foreign student to stream into the Canadian experience class, the PNP class, or the FSW, federal skilled worker class. We have certain offices that are not recognizing the law and the policy.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

If there are any other suggestions that you didn't have time to mention, you can send them to our committee. They will be more than welcome.

[Betsy Kane]

Well, I do concur with my colleagues Richard Kurland and Peter Rekai who both recommended an administrative review as opposed to a full appeal. I think this is important and I think it's doable. I believe it should be done online. It does not have to have a face-to-face interview, and all documents, if not already uploaded to the application, can be uploaded with regard to the review.

The only other thing I would comment on is, if there was a review, that we make the fee for that review substantial so that the review is not a waste of our resources and is actually exercised by someone who has meritorious reasons for seeking the review.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

I have a short question now.

Mr. Orr, the assistant deputy minister for operations at CIC appeared before this committee. He said that, when an application is denied, it is no longer possible to give more information because of the limited time that officers have available in which to process applications.

Mr. Kurland and Ms. Kane, can you comment on the point the assistant deputy minister made, that it is impossible to give more information because of the lack of time?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have time for one comment from somebody.

[Betsy Kane]

I think that's erroneous. The information is already in Immigration's electronic database, because when a new application is made or we do an ATIP request, the information is there, so to simply cut and paste and put it on a letter is not a problem. I did see that testimony and I think that's not 100% transparent.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. McCallum, you have up to three minutes.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Well, thank you.

I've always thought that a big country like the U.S. has obvious advantages over Canada in terms of size and power. One way in which Canada, a smaller country, can offset this is through more nimble, flexible policies, but I think we have done the opposite in immigration.

Let me just quote the Mexican ambassador to Canada who said a couple of months ago, “Canada has the most stringent visa system for Mexicans of any country in the world.” He went on to talk about what he called ridiculously long questionnaires for business travellers about where their mother was born and things of that nature. I know the U.S. has interviews and we don't, but we've compared waiting times for Americans and Canadians and typically, the American waiting times are significantly shorter.

I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot, not only in terms of family members wanting to go to funerals and weddings, but also for business reasons, tourism reasons, and Canadian jobs.

My question, perhaps to Richard Kurland, is, while I like the suggestions a number of you have made, isn't the problem more fundamental, attitudinal, structural? Don't we need something to change the mindset of these people who would require such ridiculous forms for a business person wanting to come from Mexico to Canada?

[Richard Kurland]

I'm in favour of removing the mindset altogether, sir. I think, today—

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

But how?

[Richard Kurland]

—there are more information technology people at Immigration Canada than visa officers. This visa application centre system, globally, is serving for the first time in global immigration history as the intake portal for tens of millions of private citizens who wish to go to places such as Canada, Germany, England, the U.K., and Australia. So the writing is on the IT wall.

What we are designing in concert with other countries is a standardized, uniform, consistent intake of personal information. To remove the mindset, politicians and policy analysts can gather and determine the common-thread approach in terms of risk analysis for a visitor to their respective countries. There is no reason that a visitor to the United States presents a greater immigration risk than a visitor to Canada. We may differ on our views, globally, of history, politics, and the appropriate policies with respect to certain countries. That can be filtered out. Remove the mindset. Create that common portal, a universal portal to several countries, and provide global mobility.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Leung, you have four minutes, but I'm only going to give you two.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

In that case, my question is addressed to both Mr. Kurland and Ms. Kane.

I'm impressed with your knowledge of how other countries manage this risk. A temporary visa, really, is a question of managing risk. I would like you to comment on how we manage this risk properly so that we screen out that 0.01% potential of a person causing our nation a problem because, as you mentioned, the majority of them are bona fide visitors or students who may just want to come across the border and go back to the United States. What is the best strategy we can have to manage that risk?

[Richard Kurland]

Reporting. Reporting. Why can't Immigration Canada disclose internal trend analysis by processing posts by category, and allow for the determination of what I call the abuse variable? Is it 0.001%, 1%, 3%? You monitor that abuse, and reduce the refusal rate or increase the refusal rate, based on that monitoring.

It's not rocket science.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

It would then also be contingent upon the fact that we have a good entry and exit control, which we don't have right now.

[Richard Kurland]

There are no publicly formal exit controls at the present time. That's not to say that exits from Canada are not monitored. It would be a mistake to say that exits from Canada are not monitored. On the whole, it boils down to how much immigration abuse Canadians are prepared to tolerate. When we slam the door, there's an echo that goes around the world, and injustice is done by overreacting to the odd transaction cost of having a free, open, democratic society.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Ms. Kane, go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

I'm sorry; I must apologize for cutting everybody off, but we have a strict time schedule. I try not to be rude, but I guess I have been, and I'm very sorry about that.

I want to thank the three of you on behalf of the committee. We've been busily making notes up here as to your recommendations. On behalf of the committee, I thank you for your presentations.

We will suspend for a moment, and I would ask members not to leave their chairs because we are on a tight timeframe.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will reconvene the meeting.

It's a pleasure to have with us, Ms. Patti Tamara Lenard, professor at the graduate school of public and international affairs, University of Ottawa. Welcome to the committee.

We also have James Bissett, who's been here many times before, as has Martin Collacott, who is speaking for the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform.

Good morning to the three of you. We're on a tight timeframe, so the three of you each have up to three minutes.

We will start with you, Professor Lenard.

[Professor Patti Tamara Lenard, Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Sir, did you say three minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

What did I say? Eight minutes. I'm just confused, but I try not to be.

[Prof. Patti Tamara Lenard]

That's fine, so long as this doesn't count toward my time.

I'd like to thank all of you for having me here today. It's a real pleasure. I look forward to saying things that warrant your inviting me back in the future.

I'm assistant professor of applied ethics at the graduate school of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa. My harshest critics are my graduate philosophy students, and I look forward to whether or not you will overtake them as being my harshest critics, or whether they will keep the top spot.

My area of research and expertise is immigration policy, as well as the impact of immigration on democratic states. I'm currently the principal investigator of a recently funded project, which is academic talk for a “no results yet” project, funded by the Department of Public Safety as part of the Kanishka project, the goal of which is to evaluate the impact of changes in immigration policy and border enforcement on visible minority Canadians.

I am also coordinator of the University of Ottawa's international migration network, where the research focuses on the merits and demerits of a range of migration regimes in Canada and globally. This research has led me to conclude the following statements, which I am sure we all agree with.

Canada is a world leader in all things immigration. This is a status we cannot take for granted, and it is a status that, in my view, is at risk. One of the reasons we have been a leader is that we do not look outward to judge the quality of our immigration strategies; we look inward to see whether the policies are good for us as Canadians, and whether they live up to the goals and ideals that have informed immigration policy in Canada since the 1960s. As I understand them—just so everybody's clear about what I take these to be—these goals are a commitment to openness, inclusion, and most importantly, equality.

In light of this, I'd like to made three general comments: first, about decision procedures when issuing TRVs; second, about equality between immigrant Canadians and Canadians; and third, about a possible appeals process, which has already been discussed.

The first comment is the longest one. It is transparently obvious that borders can never be fully controlled. All states, not only liberal democratic ones, face unwanted migration, and this is inevitable. The advantages of migrating are too great; borders are too porous, and they cannot be fully controlled. It will simply never ever be the case that Canada can insulate itself against those it doesn't want, and admit only those it does. This is extremely important background information to keep in mind as we evaluate requests from visitors from the very poor and sometimes refugee-producing countries.

As I understand it, the mandate of visa officers adjudicating requests from visitors is to assess the applicant's intentions as to whether he or she intends to stay in Canada at the end of the visit. Our visa officers are given wide discretion in determining whether a potential visitor is trustworthy, but, and this is very important to emphasize and to remember, it will be impossible to make the right decisions in all cases. Some individuals who are denied the right to enter genuinely intend only to come as a visitor and have no nefarious intentions, and others who are admitted will stay. There is nothing we can do about that fact.

My understanding is that we deny temporary resident visas to people for three reasons: one is because we're worried about the safety and security of Canadians; another is that we're worried they will overstay their visa and enter an underground economy; and another is that they are at risk of applying for refugee status. These are distinct worries and warrant distinct responses by visa officers.

I will only say about security that when the security of Canadians is at risk, we must err on the side of mistrust. The consequences of mistakes in this domain are too high. The visa is a symbol of trust, and where security is at risk, we cannot make a mistake. But where the concern is overstaying, we must err on the side of trust. Although we currently lack data about the number of overstayers, as many people who have been before this committee have said, I believe nevertheless that we have reasons to conclude that the cost of these lost migrants is small, and that the harm to Canadians is minimal.

What about those who we are worried might apply for refugee status? As you know better than I do, a visitor applying for a TRV must indicate as part of the application that she does not meet the criteria for refugee status in Canada. Yet denying the right to enter because we suspect an applicant of lying threatens to lodge a deep hypocrisy into Canada's refugee protection programs; programs implemented to avoid repeating the mistakes of a previous era that saw refugees rejected around the world, and that propelled a global collective commitment to protecting them.

The history of the global commitment to admit potential refugees stems from a belief that those in need of protection are entitled to it, and that having the wrong documents, or lying to get the right ones, should be interpreted as evidence of a need for protection, not as evidence for deceit. In the case of possible refugee claimants then, I believe we must likewise err on the side of trust to remain consistent with the values of the Canadian refugee protection system.

A second point is this. We must avoid thinking of the harm done in denying visitor visas as harm to foreigners who do not have a right to enter Canada. The harm we cause in denying visas is to Canadians who want to associate with them. Those who are calling their MPs and wondering why their families and friends are being prevented from visiting are Canadians. It is Canadians who are owed explanations when their visitors are denied leave to enter.

Moreover, the visa process for individuals from select countries creates a fundamental inequality between immigrant and non-immigrant Canadians, an inequality that Canada is historically committed to eliminating. Also, it introduces an additional axis of inequality among immigrant Canadians: those who hail from wealthy countries, whose ability to celebrate, mourn, and visit with their loved ones is protected; and those who hail from poor and unstable states, for whom familial and intimate milestone celebrations are less accessible.

These inequalities, I acknowledge, are unavoidable in a country like Canada that is committed to admitting immigrants. Under certain conditions, they may be unavoidable, but if they are, we owe Canadians a clear and transparent explanation for them when they persist. The bond mechanisms that some others have proposed here today, which are intended to ensure the departure of visitors, I believe, impose costs on those least able to afford them and only serve to exacerbate inequalities among Canadians, and therefore must be rejected, in my view, as unjust.

Finally, should we adopt an appeals procedure or an administrative review procedure? To be honest, I feel indifferent about this. What I think matters most is that the rejections must be contestable, either in the form of an administrative review or in a full appeals process. The reason to do so is a commitment to fairness. Allowing rejections to be contested by those who believe they have been treated unfairly by the Canadian border system will add a layer of accountability and transparency from the government in matters that are important to them. Recall that I believe those harmed are Canadians. It is Canadians who are owed this transparency and this accountability.

The U.K. closed its appeal system in June because it was very poorly run, a mistake I'm sure the Canadian government would not repeat. The process in that case was restricted to applicants who are intending to visit family members—I think this can be justified—or those who are otherwise invited to Canada by a Canadian. This limitation—