I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to appear before you today.
I would say generally that I think the visitor visa system in Canada is working well. I reviewed the testimony that was presented to this committee in advance and I want to highlight some of the issues that I saw from the testimony and also to comment on my colleagues' testimony this morning.
It always has struck me that with the TRV application, CIC is not transparent and forthcoming as to what is required to get over the hurdle of a TRV application. The CIC website gives guidance as to what is involved in a letter of invitation, but there is no form, no template, as there is for every other type of application or submission to CIC.
One of my recommendations is that CIC develop a thorough and complete form that is PDF fillable and can be uploaded within the system setting out all of the details for a letter of invitation.
As lawyers, we often get requests to prepare these letters of invitation on behalf of Canadian hosts. When we explain to clients the amount of documentation and information that should go in those letters of invitation, clients often balk and say that they think it's another cash grab by lawyers. But to do a proper letter of invitation and to prepare the proper comprehensive supporting documentation that's required, a lot of thought has to go into the process.
One of my recommendations today is that CIC look to improving their transparency and create two new forms to accompany the TRV application. One would be an actual letter of invitation that sets out all the information that CIC is looking for to assess these applications, as well as the accompanying documents that may or must be included, such as tax returns, proof of status in Canada, proof of family in Canada, proof of assets in Canada.
The other thing which I think, from looking at our peer countries, would be helpful for CIC is there is such a thing as getting an undertaking or a sponsorship from those family members in Canada, similar to the undertaking and sponsorship agreement that we have for family class applicants. Of course, it would be a much shorter and simpler form. The person would be sponsoring or undertaking to support, in the same way that Mr. Kurland recommended affidavits of support or proof of support, whether it be by credit card or bond or whatever. We would have actual forms and a way to streamline the information into our system such that CIC would have a complete picture and would not have to re-review and potentially approve 48% of second-time applications.
Another practical matter that is not visible for someone assessing the TRV application process is that many times Canadian hosts are not prepared to disclose their financial and business information to their family members directly. What happens, when you give a letter of invitation, is that you are giving it to your family member in India, who must include it with their application or upload it. Many times Canadian hosts do not feel comfortable.
The way to get around this situation to date is to potentially get a copy or proof of the application that has been filed, with a number, and advise the immigration office or the visa office by submission or letter saying, “My cousin is coming, and I want to support his application by showing you my T4 slips for the last three years.” The person may not want to show his cousin his T4 slips, because that may result in some other family issues or simply a loss of privacy.
From an online point of view, having the sponsor log in to the CIC account and upload their sponsorship and upload their letter of invitation and upload as an attachment their notices of assessment, their proof of finances, their bank statements, their proof of property, and their profile, if you will, that will be accompanying this application, would be very helpful.
Now that all TRV applications are an online application and can be done via the VAC, the visa application centre, or online, there should be a way to have a separate portal for sponsors, just as there are separate portals for lawyers to go to in order to augment these applications.
This is where I see us being able to improve our TRV application process, in the case of family sponsorships or in family-related visits.
One of the things I've been asked to discuss is whether it is practical and effective to introduce a full appeal mechanism. The answer, in my opinion, is no.
Our current appeal mechanism is already bogged down with delays and is under-resourced at the immigration appeal division and the refugee appeal division at the Immigration and Refugee Board. I do not think adding to that bureaucracy will assist.
The U.K. had a family class appeal mechanism with a full appeal, and it has been terminated as of June 2013. Obviously it wasn't working; otherwise they would have maintained that appeal process.
The other thing I've been asked to discuss is the way CIC communicates its refusal letters. We all are tired of seeing those boilerplate letters, which are completely useless. We all know that the only real way to find out why the visa was refused is to either do an access to information request or to go to our members of Parliament. If CIC were more transparent on the front end and either had a larger boilerplate letter or had the opportunity to put in a few lines similar to what they're already putting in the GCMS, at least the applicant would have knowledge as to why they were refused and would stop burdening members of Parliament with requests just to verify why they were refused.
In the United States there is no appeal mechanism; you simply have to reapply, just as here in Canada. The only difference between the United States and Canada is that the United States actually presumes you to be an immigrant, while Canada allows you to have the dual intent.
New Zealand, for example, has the opportunity for a sponsor to come forth and sponsor a temporary resident visa. There are limited appeals, it appears, in New Zealand.
Australia has an appeal mechanism, which appears to be highly cumbersome and quite expensive. From my calculations, it costs about $1,600 to lodge an appeal in Australia, and the processing times can run anywhere from 90 days to 18 months to resolve the issue. That is not going to address the immediate issues for people looking to come to Canada temporarily.
Generally, I find the TRV process in Canada to be working.
The other area of concern is business immigration and TRVs that are refused on the business side. I don't have time to speak to that subject, but some of the same issues that we see for families also present in business cases. This is also hurting Canadian economic development.
Thank you for your time.