Evidence of meeting #24 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was person.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
No, no.
We have a report, but I'm not sure that it has been translated. It has been translated?
4:45 p.m.
A voice
Yes.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
Okay. I will ask you, then, to refer to the sections on procedural fairness.
Our TRV process is such that I'm given to understand by former colleagues of mine that a visa officer at a busy post has about five minutes to assess an application. This means that all of the time and the efforts that go into trying to make a case for something like ties to one's home country are basically ignored: boxes are checked and an invitation is made for the applicant to apply again if new information comes to light.
We are discrediting Canada's reputation for fairness, I think, as well as our immigration system, in pursuit of a process that really doesn't satisfy any of our basic security concerns or even concerns about overstaying in Canada during the visa process. So one wonders what the point of continued processing overseas is, given the two sins that it's guilty of, in my opinion. That's basically the gist of my submission.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you very much.
We have some questions from the committee.
We appreciate your introductory comments, both of you.
Ms. James has some questions.
March 1st, 2012 / 4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Greenholtz and Mr. Randev.
I appreciate both witnesses being here, either by teleconference or in person.
I'm a little miffed, though. Our study is actually on border security, so I'm not sure where the miscommunication was on how you're here to speak about visas—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Actually, Ms. James, it is relevant. It's in the terms of reference.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Okay.
I have a series of questions that actually deal with border security and biometrics and so forth, so I'm going to forge ahead. Hopefully, one of you can answer some of my questions. I'm not sure if that's your area of expertise.
I'm going to start with Mr. Greenholtz.
We're actually studying inadmissibility. In previous committee meetings, I've been asking various witnesses about how we determine inadmissibility and so forth. I'm just wondering what kinds of proposed changes you would suggest to existing inadmissibility provisions. We can talk about permanent residents, people applying to come here to Canada, or even refugees or asylum seekers.
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I actually think that the inadmissibility provisions in the Immigration Act are fairly comprehensive and fairly useful. As the Auditor General pointed out, inadmissibility in medical terms might be a bit behind the times in the conditions that are tested for and their likely impact on Canadian society. But in terms of criminality—crimes against humanity and security concerns—I think our grounds for inadmissibility are quite reasonable.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you for that answer. I'm just going to reference something that the prior witness said in the last hour. It had to do with mass arrivals of people coming to Canada. The witness actually talked about people arriving by boat. There was a kind of implied suggestion that we need to process those mass arrivals much faster. But in actuality, in a past committee, we had someone here who said that he had reviewed the cases of 25 terrorists and suspected terrorists who would enter Canada and found that almost two-thirds of them had come in as refugee claimants.
My concern, or my question to you, sir, Mr. Greenholtz, is, in your opinion, do you think the safety and security of Canadians and Canadian soil should be trumped by people coming to Canada in mass arrivals without any documentation? Should we be integrating those people in society and more quickly releasing them, or do we really need to do a thorough investigation to make sure their stories are correct and to make sure who they really are?
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
It's a fairly loaded question; terrorists don't necessarily arrive en masse. They sometimes come one at a time, so the question is a bit disingenuous in terms of focusing on mass arrivals.
Mass arrivals do put the spotlight on processing times and the amount of scrutiny those cases get. So in terms of the publicity they attract, they're certainly more significant than solitary arrivals, but I don't think the security issues differ with the mode of arrival.
But having said that, I don't think the Canadian public.... I personally don't have an issue so much with the measures that are taken to scrutinize arrivals and mass arrivals. I think that if there is an issue, it is how people are treated during their detention and during their waiting periods, in regard to how detention is decided, what safeguards are in place in terms of reviewing the necessity for a detention, and the length of detention. I think those are issues. I personally—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thanks. Sorry, I just wanted to.... You were questioning why I referenced the mass arrivals. The prior witness actually indicated that for people coming in as refugees or asylum seekers there is very little risk. There are few exceptions or exclusions. That's why I was talking about the mass arrivals. But certainly people who do come here fraudulently are trying to get into Canada multiple times.
I was just referencing the prior witness who stated that the people he had interviewed who were terrorists or suspected terrorists had actually come into Canada as refugee claimants. That's why I was talking about the mass arrivals, but I do thank you for your answer, sir.
I just want to switch over to biometrics, fingerprints, and photographs. I'm going to direct my question to Mr. Randev.
Are you familiar with the biometrics and—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
—with the fact that Canada is forging forward with that?
4:50 p.m.
Immigration Consultant, As an Individual
Yes, we're changing over to biometrics.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
It's the same with other countries, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States.
I think you may have mentioned it, or someone mentioned it here today, that when people are here illegally or fraudulently, it sometimes can take four to five years and, I think someone mentioned, $1,500 to $15,000 to try to remove someone.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
I'm just wondering whether you agree that the strategy of moving to biometrics so that we can stop the person from actually crossing Canadian borders and being here in Canada is a good thing to do. Is it a good strategy for Canada? I'll give you the example of someone who has come here multiple times with fraudulent documentation, who has changed their name multiple times, etc. Do you think biometrics will stop that kind of person from getting back into Canada?
4:55 p.m.
Immigration Consultant, As an Individual
I'm totally in favour of biometrics. As you mentioned, I am aware of the biometric mechanisms where we take a person's fingerprints and a live picture of that person. In my view, that will definitely help in protecting our security system.
If a person comes here multiple times, for example, and we have that same person's information already in our system, if that person tries to enter Canada again by some other way—changing his or her identification or something—then definitely biometrics will help in checking for that kind of person.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
The Privacy Commissioner actually claims that there is a failure rate of 1%, which is common to the biometrics system. I'm just wondering what remedies, if any, you think should be available to people who are erroneously matched through biometrics—so a mistake.
4:55 p.m.
Immigration Consultant, As an Individual
In that case—I'll put forward my opinion here—even when the applicant is asked for a security check overseas, that person usually goes directly to the security authorities. In India, for example, if the visa officer asks for a police clearance certificate, it is already done by the authorities in that particular region. That is submitted to the visa post. Why don't we make it so that the visa post asks for the security check from the concerned authority directly in that country? That way, the information being provided by the applicant will be correct, and that way, we will be directly connected with the officials of that country—