Thank you, and good morning.
My name is Avvy Go, and I am the clinic director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic.
We are a community-based organization, non-profit, that provides free legal services to low-income families in the Toronto area, particularly those from the Chinese and Southeast Asian communities.
Last October we celebrated our 25th anniversary. Over that period we have served tens of thousands of clients, many of whom came to us for immigration issues. About one-third of our caseload is in the immigration area.
I would very much like to thank the committee for giving me and the organization the opportunity to talk about the temporary resident permits for visitors—or visitor visas for short—in my presentation.
In my submission, I'll try to address the three questions that were posed by the committee, namely: the integrity of the system; the costs and practical implications of introducing an appeal mechanism; and finally, comparing Canada's visitor visa program with programs in certain peer countries.
I'll start with the integrity of the system. According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, each year roughly 35 million people visit Canada. While the Canadian government currently does not have a system to keep track of visitors' exits, common sense would suggest that the vast majority of the 35 million visitors leave Canada at the end of their visit. Allowing visitors to come to Canada is absolutely essential to Canada's economic interest. This is made evident, for instance, by the efforts of our Prime Minister to lobby China to grant Canada approved destination status—a destination that makes it easier for Chinese nationals to visit Canada.
The visitor visa program is also crucial to the social and cultural development of our country, yet despite the government's effort to promote tourism and trade, many of our clients are unable to obtain visitor visas for their family members from overseas, even though for many the granting of a visitor visa is the only mechanism whereby they are able to see their family members. This is because many of our clients are either unable to return to their country of origin because of their refugee status or they are ineligible to sponsor family members to Canada as they do not meet the stringent sponsorship requirements.
Indeed, as more and more restrictions are being placed on family class sponsorship, fewer and fewer Canadians can bring their families to Canada. The LICO requirement, for instance, bars many low-income immigrants and refugees from sponsoring their families. The recently proposed regulatory amendments to the family class sponsorship, if passed, will make it even more difficult, if not impossible, for Canadians to be reunited with their families in Canada.
Under these circumstances, the visitor visa program may represent the only hope for some Canadians to see their families. Already people from the global south, including those from China, face greater hurdles in visiting Canada because of the visa requirement. If the door is closed even further, some Canadians may become permanently separated from their loved ones.
While we acknowledge that it is important to protect the integrity of the visitor visa program, the committee should also be cognizant of other objectives that are also being served and not let the interests of security overshadow other equally legitimate interests.
At the same time, I would respectfully submit that a system that is truly built on integrity must be one that promotes consistency and transparency in decision-making. A system has no integrity if the decision-makers involved are allowed to make subjective and arbitrary decisions in the absence of any accountability and oversight.
As it now stands, visa officers have wide discretion to decide whether to grant someone a visitor visa. Based on our experiences, visa officers often do not exercise their discretion in any consistent manner, and at times their decisions may be reflective of the officer's personal bias and prejudice.
For instance, despite legislative provisions and jurisprudence from the Federal Court stating otherwise, many visa officers still refuse to grant visitor visas on the basis of dual intention. This is so particularly if the applicant has a family member in Canada. So indeed, from what we can see, applicants who have family in Canada are less likely to get a visitor visa for their family members than those who don't.
The committee is rightly concerned about visitors who overstay their visa or use some other irregular means to come to Canada. In our respectful submission, however, tightening up the rules for visitor visas and for family class sponsorship will not necessarily add to the integrity of the system, and may in fact create the opposite effect.
If the government continues to put up roadblocks and hurdles to bar families from being united, people will still try to find some other ways of getting their families here. If, on the other hand, Canadians can be assured that they have a fair and reasonable chance to apply under the family sponsorship clause, they will then be less likely to use the visitor visa process as a back door to facilitate family reunification.
In short, the integrity of the visitor visa system must be balanced with the other core objectives of Canada's immigration policy, including the objective of family unification. Integrity can be best achieved if we have a system that is open and fair and that at the same time fosters objective and consistent decision-making.
I shall turn now to the second question, and that is the introduction of an appeal mechanism. Let me begin by asking each and every member of this committee to think how many times, as members of Parliament, you have received requests from your constituents asking for help to bring their family members to Canada as visitors to attend such events as funerals and weddings. How often do you wonder why the visa officer has refused a visa application in the first place?