Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 6th, 2013

[Peter Rekai]

One hopes this could take some of the burden of the backlog off your offices.

Today, processing times for TRVs have ballooned in a number of our offices around the world. A couple are actually getting better. India is pretty good. Others are not so good, and our visa offices in the U.S. are currently in a very bad way. They've been reduced to two from previously five or six offices, and they're struggling.

I could talk about that, but that is not my main concern. My main concern is that we have fewer visa offices. We have an online system, which overall makes sense, but what we are doing basically is eliminating almost all opportunities for the public to interact with those visa offices. We see this in the U.S. offices, and we've certainly seen it in the last few months, so beware if you haven't seen this or the results of this in your office yet. It makes things very difficult when it comes to emergency applications to come to Canada. If you look at the websites for the New York office and the Los Angeles office, you'll see they're open only a few hours a week, and they're open only to take in documents. You can't even pick up documents there. You cannot reach a person. Basically you are told to use a phone line, which doesn't get you anywhere. You have to use a call centre, which doesn't get you anywhere. People have family emergencies or athletes have sporting events in Canada that they need to come to the next day. Artists have events they have to perform at and they sometimes don't get more than a few days' notice. Business people have urgent meetings to get to. There are all kinds of reasons typically for these urgent situations, and there is simply no one to talk to. There must be a triage capability in each of these offices.

Let me just give you one example of what happened, what I saw, with respect to this lack of triage capability, and this is typical of what we'll see. A major Canadian bank sponsors a high-profile charity golf tournament in Canada featuring a renowned South African golfer who resides in the United States. A week before the engagement the golfer realizes he has an expired TRV. The golfer's agent can't get through to any live person at the Canadian consulate. A recording says it takes at least 30 days to issue and not to even call until the 30 days are up, because you won't get a reply. No other phone numbers are operative. No e-mails get through.

Within two days the golf club's MP has been called. The immigration minister's office has been called. The provincial trade office is involved. Another two MPs' offices are involved. The sports minister's office is involved. Finally, the ambassador to the U.S. has been alerted. All of these resources are in play because there is no human being in a position of any authority available to answer that first call, a call that would have certainly resulted in urgent processing, because when they are not insulated from the public, our visa offices are reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Ms. Taub.

[Peter Rekai]

Thank you.

[Julie Taub, Immigration and Refugee Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm Julie Taub. I'm an immigration and refugee lawyer in Ottawa and a former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I've been practising exclusively in the area of immigration since my appointment to the board, which would have been 1996. I'm a sole practitioner.

My presentation is from a very different angle, because I believe that whatever criteria are in place to issue temporary resident visas, be they for students or visitors or foreign workers, they should be exclusively for the best interests of Canada. These are not refugees we're dealing with.

And yes, I do believe that immigration officers, visa officers, should have the discretion, and they should be allowed to exercise discretion. Of course there's profiling. There's no choice but to have country profiling, because we cannot deny that there are dozens of, to give an example, terrorist-producing countries.

And yes, if you have a single male who's not married and who's young, it goes without saying that 19 out of 20 would be denied; I would have thought it would be 20 out of 20. It's based simply on experience.

But enough said about that. Currently, if I counted this right, there are about 154 countries where they require visitor visas. There are reasons for requiring visas for all of these countries. The Americans, for example, have more control on the exits of visitors.

Visitors come into this country, foreign workers come into this country, international students come into this country, and there's absolutely no monitoring. There is no follow-up. Nobody knows what really happens. Does the foreign worker go to the company where he's supposed to work? Does the international student stay in the school? Nobody knows, because there's no monitoring of compliance.

Universities and colleges are not required to report if the student has shown up or if the student has dropped out. Employers have no obligation to report to Immigration on whether the workers have shown up, whether they have quit their job, or whether they have been fired. There is no monitoring.

In the United States, if you get a visitor visa, you also get an I-94, a white paper that you must submit upon exiting the country. The airline companies are supposed to pick that up. So there is some kind of control when you exit the country.

The visa-waiver countries and visa-exempt countries receive a white paper, which you typically hand in when you exit the United States. It's not a perfect system, because the onus is on the airline companies to request the I-94. If you don't submit it, then the foreign national may have serious consequences with the United States.

However, we're here to discuss our system. An easy solution would be to have a biometric smart card visa: swipe upon entry, swipe upon exit. Then you wouldn't have to worry about where these 41,000 people that the Auditor General mentioned have disappeared to in Canada. It's very easy: you monitor entry, you monitor exit. It could apply across the whole spectrum of temporary residents, from students to workers to visitors.

I mean, the Ottawa Athletic Club and all sports clubs have had smart cards for about four decades. It's not really a high-tech solution.

Frankly, it's easier to get into Canada than it is into the Ottawa Athletic Club. That's no joke. You need a smart card. You have a smart card membership.

As well, they should require that their passports be stamped upon entry into Canada and exit-stamped when they leave Canada. Then you don't have to worry about lack of compliance and violations of overstaying or not complying with immigration regulations. That's why the requirements for issuing visas are so stringent now, because there are so many violations.

I'm quite certain that Immigration has no idea of the statistics, of the number of violations for visitors who have overstayed, students and foreign workers, because they don't know when or if they leave. They know there is a problem.

Everybody who's travelling has to go through security. When you go through security, at the other end there should be a CBSA officer who swipes your visitor, foreign worker, or student visa when you're leaving. When you come back, it's the same thing. It would not be onerous for the temporary resident visa holder because they need a passport to travel, regardless. You cannot travel internationally without a passport. You could have a smart card visa biometric in your passport. You swipe when you leave, swipe when you enter. I am pretty certain that the restrictive criteria for issuing visas would be relaxed somewhat if Immigration had more control over what happens after you enter Canada.

Exit and entry stamps should also apply to permanent residents. We have this very expensive and ineffective Immigration Appeal Division, with an enormous backlog, to deal with cases of lack of compliance with PR obligations. That could be eliminated completely with a smart card permanent resident card—swipe when you leave, swipe when you enter.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are you finished?

[Julie Taub]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

I don't know what the rest of the committee thinks, but I think it's a great idea.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing before us today.

Quite often, perhaps, the easiest thing to say is that visa officers are to blame for a lot of things. The fact of the matter is that they are very highly trained, very qualified people working with significant workloads; they have an experience level that allows them to do their job properly. However, no system is a perfect system.

I want to highlight a couple of statistics for you before I get into my questions. You know that Canada is one of the most welcoming countries in the world. We certainly see that when we compare our system to other peer countries with which we have good working relationships. We welcome a growing number of visitors, foreign workers, international students. In fact, over the last several years, that number seems to be increasing. In 2012, we issued over a million visitor visas—that's a 40% increase over 2004—and a record 100,000 international student visas, which is a 60% increase over 2004. We believe that these individuals play an important role in fostering Canadian economic development through tourism, trade, commerce, educational, and research activities. The approval rate for visa applicants in 2012 was 82%. So far in 2013, it's 83%. That leaves 17% of the people who get rejected.

Looking at the appeal process, about 48% of those who appeal are successful in getting in. My experience in my office, and certainly for a lot of my colleagues who I speak to, is that quite often the applicants themselves have not properly filled in their applications; there is missing information. When they are told what the missing information is, they bring it in. The success rate is considerably higher.

Visa officers are the first line of interaction we have with somebody who wants to come into the country. Some might think they are the first line of defence, because they're really screening who comes into our country, who walks on our streets, who shops in our malls, and who's around our children, our schools, and our families.

This week we heard from CIC officials the numerous ways that people attempt to gain fraudulent entry into Canada. Some of the fraudulent activities officials named were purposely giving incorrect information—fraudulent bank statements, fraudulent educational statements. There are cases where you have someone coming in presenting themselves as someone else. We've seen people try to get in here five and six times under different names. As you are all aware, misinterpretation is a serious offence under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, as we all call it.

What actions do you suggest can be taken up front to avoid these cumbersome cases from reaching an officer?

To follow up on that and open it up for all three of you to answer, have you seen any cases where individuals have attempted to circumvent the process of getting into Canada by cheating? What types of cases and documents have you seen firsthand? Of course, I realize you can't name your clients, but we're speaking in general terms.

Perhaps I can start with you, Ms. Taub.

Welcome back, by the way.

[Julie Taub]

Thank you.

Just to follow up on what you said before I answer that, you mentioned one million visitors, over 100,000 students, and I believe I have the statistics...you're referring to 250,000 foreign workers.

Just a minute. I have it here somewhere.

There were 213,000 foreign workers who came in, and there's a total of 338,000 now. I'm sure all of you are aware, but I'm sure Canadians are not aware, that there is no compulsory criminal background screening for all these temporary residents. There are no compulsory criminal background checks and no compulsory health checks. We have close to 2 million people coming in annually, and we really don't know who they are.

It may be onerous to impose criminal background checks, but I think it's important. After all, this is our country. We don't know who's walking in our streets. They may comply with most of the criteria to be an international worker, a foreign student, or a visitor, but do we know if they're criminals? Do we know if they have terrorist associations? This is not checked. It should be.

To answer your questions, yes, I've had occasions at the beginning of my practice when different clients would come in and openly admit to me some of the unsavoury practices that they wanted to engage in because they knew there was solicitor-client privilege. When the word got out I would not help these people.... For example, permanent residents who had not complied with their residency obligations would get a friend who owned a Canadian company to write a letter that they had been working abroad for them. They would ask me if I could help with the letter and get the contract correct, even though in fact they had not been working abroad for this Canadian company. This is one of the exemptions. These are some of the practices that commonly go on, and it is not unusual. This is what I have seen.

I have also dealt with cases where people who became Canadian citizens did so under another name. I'm thinking of two cases I had, which I could not continue because of this. The person came under a relative's passport, managed to get refugee status, managed to get permanent resident status, and even became a citizen—and then it was a revocation of citizenship. When I really got involved in the case and saw in fact that this was misrepresentation, I said I was no longer able to proceed to represent this client.

This has happened on two occasions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Taub.

Ms. Sims and Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you very much.

I want to thank our witnesses for coming here today.

Just as a side point, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to speaking on my notice of motion, after the 48-hour notice is duly given. It's the one on granting citizenship to the lost Canadians, the ones who got left out of the previous legislation that the minister said needed to be addressed. We're going to be asking for urgent action on that. Unless I have unanimous consent to address it today, I will wait until the next meeting.

Do I have unanimous consent?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're taking her time. Well, you raised the issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I think we should be clear. I don't quite follow exactly what's been asked of the committee other than unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims has given us a notice of motion, which presumably you have a copy of. There isn't 48 hours' notice, so she has asked for—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No. I didn't have a copy of it, Mr. Chair.

I do now.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It requires 48 hours' notice. If she wants it before 48 hours' notice, she needs unanimous consent, and she does not have it.

So we will proceed with your questions.

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

I'm now going to pass my time over to Rathika.

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

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here today.

From your interventions, Ms. Long, you spoke mainly about the criteria that's utilized and how unclear it is with the visa officers.

Ms. Taub, you were very clear—need exit controls; use smart card visas.

Peter, I think you've already answered my first question, so I'm going to direct my first question to Elizabeth, if I may, and Peter, if you have something to add, please do so.

One of the main reasons for the study is because, as MPs, we work every day with Canadians who are trying to reunite with their families on a temporary basis and who have difficulty with TRVs. Members opposite have mentioned that fraud prevention is certainly of concern when TRVs are denied, yet according to CIC officials we heard from at the last meeting, 48% of applicants who reapply after a denial are actually approved. Meanwhile, the persons who are making the applications have gone through emotional and perhaps also financial and other stresses through the process of submitting a second application. This certainly speaks to the discretion you were mentioning, Ms. Long, that is awarded to the officers on the notion of intent with respect to the applicant.

I'm wondering if you can speak to the impact it has on families, on businesses, and if you have any recommendations to actually improve the application criteria.

[Elizabeth Long]

I'd like to answer that question, and also the question raised by Member Menegakis.

For example, Member Menegakis, you said we have x number of students who are allowed to come in, which is fantastic, but how many of them are able to stay without their families? For example, I had a student whose husband was a highly successful businessman. They had travelled to the U.S. and had U.S. visas, Schengen visas, and they had travelled throughout the world. She was refused a visa to Canada because they wanted to keep some ties back in the country of origin. What that resulted in is this highly successful student having to return back to her country. The criteria that was applied by the officer was completely wrong, applying temporary intent instead of dual intent, whether or not that person is likely to obey the laws. All of the travel history has shown that they had not overstayed in another country, such as the U.S. or Europe.

You have other criteria where, for example, you're not allowing the families to join families. I had a case, for example, of a child, who is Canadian because his father is Canadian, who has cerebral palsy. The wife was not able to join the families as well, so the criteria results in serious consequences to the families.

[Peter Rekai]

I will go back to a couple of the comments, and to Mr. Menegakis's comment—

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

I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt because I only have another two minutes left.

[Peter Rekai]

Oh, I'm sorry.

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

I'd like to be able to put my questions on the floor, if I may.

[Peter Rekai]

I'm sorry. I thought that was addressing both.

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

No. I only have two minutes now.