Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 1st, 2012

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Greenholtz, most of the applicants for visas are accepted. The acceptance rate is in the high 80% range, or even 90%. But we've accomplished one of the goals of pre-screening, and that's eliminating who we don't want to come to Canada, as a Canadian people, right?

Again, I think you're agreeing that better pre-screening is a goal, but you're saying the current pre-screening isn't fair. Is that your position?

[Dr. Joe Greenholtz]

I'm saying that in such countries as particularly India and China—perhaps our experience with Mexico is too young to make a final judgment of that—there is no actual screening of the individual. Decisions are made on the basis of profiling.

So we're not adding any layer of security or protection to Canada with the current visa process. That's what I'm saying.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Okay, so let me ask it in a different way: what's your opinion of those who take advantage of our generous immigration system by obtaining fake passports to get entry to Canada? How do you suggest we eliminate that trend?

[Dr. Joe Greenholtz]

Well, you're speaking to a former immigration control officer, as you know. They're now called “MIOs”, I think, migration integrity officers. They're stationed overseas at departure gates of flights for Canada. There they do actual screening, mostly in terms of the legitimacy of the documents.

I did that job for two years. In Narita I prevented hundreds of people from getting on planes to Canada. I have no misgivings about that whatsoever, because those people were perfectly capable of making a refugee claim in Japan, where I happened to be stationed, and none of them did.

So in terms of measures that actually screen, I'm entirely in favour. There are resource implications, but the current cursory review of a paper application that constitutes our TRV is not, I'm saying, actual screening.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

What kinds of questions should officers who interview applicants face to face be asking, again with a view to protecting international security?

[Dr. Joe Greenholtz]

I would hesitate to give you a list of questions. We have established protocols.

As an immigration control officer, I was concerned with the validity of the document and the legitimacy of the person's routing to Canada. Those were usually the two markers of someone who was trying to get to Canada to make a refugee claim.

Our brethren at CSIS could give us an idea of what sorts of questions to ask if security were our primary concern. And our brethren in the medical department could give us questions to ask if medical conditions were our primary concern. It depends on what it is exactly that we're trying to uncover in that interview.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

As someone who actually worked at the Canadian trade office in Taipei before it had any visa-issuing authority, I was intrigued by your comment about the change in policy towards Taiwan. As you've mentioned, those coming from Taiwan do not need a visa. Do you have any comment on the security considerations for countries that don't need visas, places like Taiwan that now don't need a visa?

[Dr. Joe Greenholtz]

Instances of security, terrorism, or people who wish Canada harm are sometimes associated with national profiles but are basically concerned with individuals. We have decided, through long and hard policy thought, to make visas necessary for some countries and to make other partners visa-free. I think only a historical analysis can justify those decisions. Our track record is pretty good. Our experience, prior to the lifting of the visa with Taiwan, was that it was not problematic.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Randev.

You mentioned that the denials of temporary resident visa permits have an impact on our tourism industry, and you mentioned the specific city in British Columbia where you come from. From working with your clients and from the experiences you've had, can you describe some of the impacts on Canadian families when a family member is denied access to come visit on important occasions such as a funeral, as in the example you gave? Could you expand a little bit on some of those examples?

[Rajesh Randev]

Thank you for asking the question.

You asked first about the tourism industry. You know, I'm really feeling sad here for Canada, because we are down to number 15 in the world now. In the year 2000, we were in eighth place. Now we are not in the top ten: we are in 15th place and going down and down. As for the main reason behind this, people want to visit Canada and explore Canada, but they are not being given the opportunity to explore Canada, to come here and spend money. The refusal rate is so high that people are getting discouraged.

One of the opinions in their minds is that if Canada refuses their visa, the U.K. and Australia will refuse their visas. That's why they don't even go for Canada, just to try to see if Canada will issue them a tourist visa or not. In this way, we are losing a lot of revenue in this industry. Also, just for security's sake, if we were disturbing the other industries, if we were losing billions of dollars in other industries.... I don't think it's fair treatment that in the name of security the visa officers are refusing these applicants.

In terms of families, as you know, families in Canada have their roots overseas. They have their families and their friends who want to visit Canada. In those cases, they should be given an opportunity to visit Canada. I don't know what kind of integrity we have in our system when a son cannot attend his mother's funeral or a woman cannot see her mom in her last stages.... We are not known for this kind of integrity in the world. Our standards are going down. That's why it's time to act now; otherwise, it will be too late.

If you see this report by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, you will see that they asked people's opinions of what they knew about Canada. Do you know what the answer was? This is what was said:

When I've travelled abroad, few people in other hemispheres have any clue about Canada's tourist destinations. Their view is that the entire nation is snowy tundra with polar bears and caribou roaming the mostly unpopulated countryside.

They have no clue as to what Canada is, so we have to promote the visitor visa so that people can visit. I totally understand that security is also one of the issues, but on the other side, we are also affecting the other industries.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You now have a minute.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Apparently I have a minute, Mr. Greenholtz, so now I'm going to ask my five-minute question.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Five minutes doesn't seem like a very long time to evaluate an application, so we could actually be letting in people who probably shouldn't be granted visas into our country. As you said, the false positives could be many.

What recommendations would you make, to make the system more effective, considering the infringements on resources or the lack of resources that you said you experienced as a visa officer and that people are probably continuing to experience?

[Dr. Joe Greenholtz]

I think that thought needs to be given to the enforcement versus facilitation equation. It's difficult for a visa officer, under the best of circumstances, to make judgments on a person's intentions. Visa officers are meant to be mind readers, and it's a very difficult task.

So if we are particularly concerned with catching our mistakes, so to speak, then I think the emphasis needs to be on “in country”, on giving more resources to CBSA, and perhaps it's achieving exit controls. As much as I enjoy Canada's open system, if security is the concern, then these are the kinds of measures that need to be taken. I'm not necessarily advocating that, but I think it's—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Dykstra is going to take this round.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thanks.

Mr. Greenholtz, I was just reading an article that you wrote a bit ago. It was in the Richmond News. Do you recall it?

[Dr. Joe Greenholtz]

It's nice to have a fan on the committee. What was it about?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I follow you, sir. You're a great writer.

I found it fascinating. One part of your article was about how vigorously we probe through questions on personal, legal, medical, and family matters, as well as those on financial histories, in such intimate ways it would make a proctologist blush. I found that kind of humourous, and I got your point very quickly and succinctly.

“But”, you said, “nowhere do we ask them about their value systems and their beliefs.” I've been listening to what you've been saying today, and I think you made that comment based on your experience and the work you did as an officer, and also, obviously, on the work you're doing now. So I wonder if you could expand a little on that to say why we should...because obviously the difficult part of all the interview process is trying to get face to face.

You bring up a very intriguing alternative to the face-to-face interview, and that is to get into the questioning of values and beliefs. I wonder if you could expand on what you mean by that and how we would possibly...because I do think, whether it's agreed or not, it certainly would allow for a further undertaking and understanding of security.

[Dr. Joe Greenholtz]

I have to confess it wasn't my intention to suggest that we add questioning of values and beliefs to the processing. What I was saying was that we check out people in various ways, but we don't ask them whether they're going to set aside their home values, their home country values when they come to Canada and wholeheartedly adopt Canadians values.

I guess I'm not a particularly good writer if I failed to convey that accurately. The way we look into people's belief systems is through their associations right now—and that referred to permanent residence applications, not to visitor visas. We ask people to detail for us all—

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Joe, our whole review is not just on visas. I'm not even referring to visas. I'm referring to exactly what you're talking about, and that is the security of those who want to come to this country to call it home. Because you spent the other half of the article actually....

In fact, I think the way you wrote this, that sentence actually becomes the thesis upon which you have constructed this article. The rest of the article goes on to defend why we should in fact talk about values and beliefs based on the murders that took place. You give some very good examples from the Shafia case and the trial and their convictions.

You really build a strong case that in fact values and beliefs should be questioned when going through the interview process, whether for permanent residency or any other part of immigration it might consist of, and that it's a fair question to ask. At least, that's what you're suggesting.

[Dr. Joe Greenholtz]

I have to apologize again, because in my mind I've mixed two articles that I've written. I didn't realize you were talking about the one that ended with the honour killings question.

I don't think that kind of probe is consistent with democratic values, and I think our democracy demands that we treat people as innocent until proven guilty and not try to discern their motives or perhaps punish them for motives that go unacted upon. So, again, if I conveyed the wrong impression in the article, I apologize, but—