Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 4th, 2013

[Robert Orr]

For the TRV, the temporary resident visa, with all three categories of visitors, students, and workers, we issue approximately 1.9 million visas every year. The vast majority of those 35 million would be people from the United States coming back and forth.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

So would that be 90% of the visitors to Canada, out of the 35 million...? I mean, the figure is astonishing. That's every man, woman, and child in Canada inviting someone to come in.

[Robert Orr]

It's quite small.

[Les Linklater]

Yes; 3% to 4% are visa-required.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Only 3% or 4%.

[Les Linklater]

If my math is correct, 1.2 million visas on 35 million admissions is about 4%. That's why we look to the ETA to broaden our ability to screen current visa-exempt travellers who are only first screened essentially by a border services officer when they land at a Canadian airport.

We think the ETA—as the U.S. has found with their ESTA, their electronic system, and the Australian system—screens people and pushes the risk overseas.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

I see.

For these visa-exempt people when they come in, they're allowed to stay for 60 days. Without the exit control, how do we handle that? How do we not all of a sudden have an influx of people coming in, deciding they like our generous welfare system, and deciding not to leave?

[Les Linklater]

Well, Mr. Chair, that's a very good question. We have a very comprehensive risk profile that we develop in terms of whether or not a country should have a visa exemption or a visa requirement.

As the committee is aware, the Czech Republic and Mexico before 2009 were visa-exempt. We saw significant influxes of asylum claimants, which resulted in a visa being imposed on those two countries to ensure that the risk to the asylum system was well managed.

So we would do periodic reviews of countries to determine whether or not there were significant infractions of immigration requirements or significant numbers of asylum claims. Based on our review, we would make recommendations to the government on whether or not a visa should or should not be imposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Linklater.

Ms. Sims.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

I was pleased to hear about the 48% success rate for those who reapply, but I want to explain to you how much time that takes up in an MP's office as well.

They end up going into the local MP's office, and we end up having to make phone calls, make inquiries, and provide them with the actual information that does help with the reapplication. For many of us, our offices are turning out to be like triage centres at the local emergency rooms. It's not very pleasant. I just needed to put that out to you as well.

What is the biggest argument against setting up an appeal process for rejected applicants? Is it overall costs or is it logistics?

[Les Linklater]

I would say that both costs and logistics enter into our preliminary assessment. My sense as well is that client service is a big contributor to this.

When we look at the Australian and the U.K. system—as I said, 250 days for an appeal to be heard—and what we see on the ground in terms of the 48% success rate for those who reapply after refusal, for $75, potentially, the cost and benefit...they can have their case reviewed and a different decision potentially within two to three weeks. That's a fairly minimal cost compared with what we think we would likely need to charge for an appeals process.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

There is also the human side of that, because as you know, for people to apply is not a small task. For some of them, having to do online applications is far more complex because they actually end up having to rely on consultants and others to do a lot of that stuff for them, so in many ways more barriers get created.

Now I know—

[Les Linklater]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to comment just in terms of paper applications. While we would encourage most applicants to use e-facilities, under Treasury Board guidelines we have to maintain alternate channels, so paper would remain available.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I know that whether you can support yourself financially while you're in Canada is significant, but I also know that, in my riding at least, there are many people who come in with all the businesses they own, their income tax forms, their bank accounts, the properties they own to show them. They plan to pick up all the costs of the visit, including the medical insurance, the works.

But at the same time as we're looking at the financial side, are we also looking at the reasons for which an individual wants to travel? Even though it's a TRV and we call it tourism, for many of the people it's either to attend funerals, to visit somebody who's dying and to spend last moments with them, or to attend weddings, baptisms, or significant events in one's life. Are those reasons for travel taken into consideration when looking at the granting of visas?

[Robert Orr]

Yes, Mr. Chair, those reasons are very much taken into consideration. Under those circumstances and under those very compelling family reasons, visa officers will also consider the option of a temporary resident permit. In other words, that would allow someone to travel who wouldn't meet the normal requirements of a visa but for compelling reasons should be allowed to go forward, and a permit may be issued. They are issued in those sorts of circumstances quite frequently.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Now, I don't know if you're aware, but in India agriculturalists don't actually have to file tax returns in the same way as those who are employed. So a lot of people who apply may own large amounts of land and may have a very good income coming in, but they don't have that requirement of an income tax return. How do you address those kinds of anomalies?

[Robert Orr]

Well, those are very much taken into consideration. It goes to the argument, which I think is very important, of why we have visa officers abroad. Visa officers are in those communities, and part of their job is to get to know the local culture and the way things are presented so they understand what is presented to them. They would understand those sorts of situations and thus reach far better decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That concludes the fourth round.

We now start all over, with Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the five years that I've sat on this committee, one of the prevailing questions that gets asked every single time we talk about temporary resident visas is the issue in Chandigarh and the length of time it takes to work through and process there versus a lot of other places in the world.

One question that has never been asked is whether our staff there are lazy, and whether that's the reason they can't get these done on time.

[Robert Orr]

The statistics for Chandigarh are in fact quite impressive. The normal service standards for a visitor visa is 14 days, and 80% of cases in Chandigarh are dealt with in 11 days.

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

So it suggests that they're actually working extremely efficiently and are extremely productive.

[Robert Orr]

I think there is an argument to be made there, sir, yes.

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

The issues that arise are with cases that are complicated, and as I understand it in terms of what has been presented on a regular basis, many of them certainly raise the concerns of those reviewing these files because they appear to be fraudulent.

[Robert Orr]

That's often an issue.

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

If you had to take the top three, four, or five fraudulent methods that individuals attempt to circumvent a process by cheating to get into Canada, what would those consist of?