Evidence of meeting #25 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 muslim.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to be directing my questions to Renuka mostly.
Renuka, I'm happy you're able to join us today. Just so you know, visa screenings are a very important component of the study we're doing in this committee. We've heard a lot of testimony so far about the need for security to prevent people from entering Canada. But as you described with your example of your situation, there must be flaws with the visa screening process if families are being prevented from coming together and families are being prevented from reuniting even for a short period of time. I really do appreciate the time you took out of your day to add your perspective to this topic we're discussing today, or the study.
You have gone through the experience yourself numerous times when, as you've said, you've sponsored people for permanent and temporary visas and had different experiences, different results—just with your one example even where your two siblings were permitted and then your other sister wasn't—so I think it's important for us to hear your story. So thank you again.
We've heard testimonies from officials saying that visa officers have on average about five minutes to consider each application they get in front of them. I'm curious to hear your comments and opinions about this in light of your denial experience and the fact that you have no option for an appeal and you really are not given a real reason as to why your sister was rejected when your other two siblings were accepted.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Excuse me, Ms. Rajaratnam. Please just wait one second.
Point of order, Mr. Weston.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm aware of the very high level of importance this has for the Rajaratnam family and potentially for our committee as well. But I ask this question to my colleagues and to you, Mr. Chair. Are there any boundaries around what we are able to discuss in this committee, which are basically personal applications, appeals, or requests for reconsideration? I ask that just because I think we should be guided for the future in terms of who we request to come before us and what kinds of questions we ask. Again, it's no reflection at all on Ms. Rajaratnam; I just want to make sure we know our boundaries here.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We actually discussed this at the last meeting, Mr. Weston. I just draw to your attention that the terms of reference that the committee is studying for the security of Canada's immigration system—and I can show it to you—includes the topic of visas. So the questions and the answers are in order.
Okay, I'll start the clock.
Do you have any idea what the question was? Do you want her to repeat it? Do you hear me?
I'll give you lots of time; you'd better ask her again.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Rajaratnam, we've had officials come into our committee and say that visa officers have approximately five minutes to make their decision concerning the applications that come across their desk. I'm curious; could you add your comments and opinions, in light of your recent experience with your sister and the denial—that there's no option for appeal and that no real reasons are given in the rejection letter?
4 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. I just want to enlighten you here on the way the process takes place back in Sri Lanka. They have outsourced this whole process, so there are two individuals who just go through the documents when they're presented through a window. You get the impression that they just look at you. I do not think they go through the history of any of the files or they do not screen people properly. It's just that they give the impression of looking at their parents. I am not sure exactly how it happens, but when it's been outsourced, I really wonder whether they are screening these applicants.
I was disappointed when my mother passed away in 2007. I wanted to bring her down. She was flatly denied a re-entry visa. Then at that point, I decided to go through a lawyer, thinking I was going to do it through proper channels. It gives you this impression—whether we should do things in the proper channels, or if you should go and take a different route whether people can come through. It's kind of like giving you that disappointment if you take the wrong route, because all along I have sponsored people on visitors' visas and on permanent residency, and it has always been.... At this point, it makes me look at things negatively.
I really want to know the reason for how things are being processed at each end.
4 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you.
You're right. I think a good reason is important.
This time around, you used a lawyer, who is a legal expert and should know the requirements of visitor, temporary resident visa applications. What types of supporting documents did your sister include in her application? How much time or money did you guys spend on this process of trying to get her to come for your anniversary?
4 p.m.
As an Individual
Initial fees from the high commission came close to $200, and then the appeal cost another $200—and these are non-refundable amounts. Then for the ticket, that cost closer to $2,000, which was only refunded after giving the letter of rejection from the high commission, and they were refunded half of that.
Add to that, the way the whole process took place. They wanted the documents at the first appearance. Those were my documents, the sponsoring letter given through the lawyer, and her employer's letter, her deeds saying that she has all the links to the country, her children, and her husband's employment, and the houses' titles are in her name. All these documents, her holdings were binding her to Sri Lanka. All these documents were provided, you understand. None of those were taken into consideration, I find.
4 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
She provided deeds to the two properties she owns, you said. You also mentioned that her children were staying behind, back in Sri Lanka, and her husband was staying behind. She was gainfully employed in the country, yet was rejected because the thought was that she wasn't going to go back after the visit. She had booked a return ticket as well?
4 p.m.
As an Individual
Absolutely. She had a return ticket. At the time of booking the tickets, you always have to have it. It's very important and it's compulsory to have the return ticket. So we followed the whole process.
4 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you.
Renuka, I have about one minute left. When was the last time that you saw your sister, and when was the last time that your whole family was together?
4 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thirty-four years was the last time your family was together, and this was the opportunity for your family to come together to celebrate your wedding anniversary?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you.
I've run out of time, unfortunately.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
What a pleasure to be here, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Amble, no doubt you heard the testimony of Madam Rajaratnam, a personal narrative of a circumstance that is obviously very upsetting. Perhaps we could circle this a little, if you, Mr. Amble, could provide us some perspective on your thoughts and opinions.
In terms of radicalization, in terms of the creation of an environment of disaffection, is it important, based on your own studies, that jurisdictions achieve balance but also transparency and fairness within their application of the immigration processes, particularly visas? If there is a perception of inconsistency or unfairness, does this contribute to a sense of disaffection that could lead to or be the seed or precursor of radicalization?
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
The short answer is yes.
You're exactly right that there has to be a balance between security and transparency and all the fundamental principles free societies are based on. The difficulty arises in that.... I mentioned in the U.K., for instance, there's an over-representation of ties to Pakistan in virtually every way with respect to their homegrown terrorism threats. That's unique.
That's not the case in many other countries. I mentioned that the largest Muslim population in Germany is of Turkish origin. Yet a study done by the Hamburg state security services showed that among all the terrorism suspects they had arrested and were monitoring or had cases open against, what have you, there included ethnic backgrounds ranging from Balkan countries across the Middle East to Indonesia, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa. It's incredibly diverse.
You've seen the same thing in the United States, where, between 2001 and 2009, 125 people suspected of jihad-related activity were identified in homegrown terrorism cases. Of that group, there were 32 Arabs, 24 African-Americans, 24 individuals of South Asian descent, 20 Somalis, and 20 Caucasian converts. It's almost impossible, so because of that there has to be a level of transparency involved in the process.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Thank you very much for those perspectives.
I want to move, Mr. Amble, to your perceptions of interjurisdictional cooperation in terms of assessing and improving or rejecting applications for visas. Canada and the U.S. have some of the most integrated and shared values and processes to assist in national security. Yet Canada does not currently value or use the provisions for U.S. visitors' visas, particularly tourism visas, in our processes. Quite often visitors from other countries, as you stated earlier, will visit more than one country in any particular travel period.
Is there room to extend greater cooperation between jurisdictions, in particular Canada and the U.S., in the assessment and processing of Canadian visa applications?
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Certainly I think so. Again, I'll qualify this statement as well and tell you that I'm not an expert on border enforcement in either the U.S. or Canada. But by virtue of the strong links between the two sides and between the two countries, I think it only makes sense to foster those sorts of ties that facilitate the free flow of people but the free flow of people that is understood by both governments.