That's fine, so long as this doesn't count toward my time.
I'd like to thank all of you for having me here today. It's a real pleasure. I look forward to saying things that warrant your inviting me back in the future.
I'm assistant professor of applied ethics at the graduate school of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa. My harshest critics are my graduate philosophy students, and I look forward to whether or not you will overtake them as being my harshest critics, or whether they will keep the top spot.
My area of research and expertise is immigration policy, as well as the impact of immigration on democratic states. I'm currently the principal investigator of a recently funded project, which is academic talk for a “no results yet” project, funded by the Department of Public Safety as part of the Kanishka project, the goal of which is to evaluate the impact of changes in immigration policy and border enforcement on visible minority Canadians.
I am also coordinator of the University of Ottawa's international migration network, where the research focuses on the merits and demerits of a range of migration regimes in Canada and globally. This research has led me to conclude the following statements, which I am sure we all agree with.
Canada is a world leader in all things immigration. This is a status we cannot take for granted, and it is a status that, in my view, is at risk. One of the reasons we have been a leader is that we do not look outward to judge the quality of our immigration strategies; we look inward to see whether the policies are good for us as Canadians, and whether they live up to the goals and ideals that have informed immigration policy in Canada since the 1960s. As I understand them—just so everybody's clear about what I take these to be—these goals are a commitment to openness, inclusion, and most importantly, equality.
In light of this, I'd like to made three general comments: first, about decision procedures when issuing TRVs; second, about equality between immigrant Canadians and Canadians; and third, about a possible appeals process, which has already been discussed.
The first comment is the longest one. It is transparently obvious that borders can never be fully controlled. All states, not only liberal democratic ones, face unwanted migration, and this is inevitable. The advantages of migrating are too great; borders are too porous, and they cannot be fully controlled. It will simply never ever be the case that Canada can insulate itself against those it doesn't want, and admit only those it does. This is extremely important background information to keep in mind as we evaluate requests from visitors from the very poor and sometimes refugee-producing countries.
As I understand it, the mandate of visa officers adjudicating requests from visitors is to assess the applicant's intentions as to whether he or she intends to stay in Canada at the end of the visit. Our visa officers are given wide discretion in determining whether a potential visitor is trustworthy, but, and this is very important to emphasize and to remember, it will be impossible to make the right decisions in all cases. Some individuals who are denied the right to enter genuinely intend only to come as a visitor and have no nefarious intentions, and others who are admitted will stay. There is nothing we can do about that fact.
My understanding is that we deny temporary resident visas to people for three reasons: one is because we're worried about the safety and security of Canadians; another is that we're worried they will overstay their visa and enter an underground economy; and another is that they are at risk of applying for refugee status. These are distinct worries and warrant distinct responses by visa officers.
I will only say about security that when the security of Canadians is at risk, we must err on the side of mistrust. The consequences of mistakes in this domain are too high. The visa is a symbol of trust, and where security is at risk, we cannot make a mistake. But where the concern is overstaying, we must err on the side of trust. Although we currently lack data about the number of overstayers, as many people who have been before this committee have said, I believe nevertheless that we have reasons to conclude that the cost of these lost migrants is small, and that the harm to Canadians is minimal.
What about those who we are worried might apply for refugee status? As you know better than I do, a visitor applying for a TRV must indicate as part of the application that she does not meet the criteria for refugee status in Canada. Yet denying the right to enter because we suspect an applicant of lying threatens to lodge a deep hypocrisy into Canada's refugee protection programs; programs implemented to avoid repeating the mistakes of a previous era that saw refugees rejected around the world, and that propelled a global collective commitment to protecting them.
The history of the global commitment to admit potential refugees stems from a belief that those in need of protection are entitled to it, and that having the wrong documents, or lying to get the right ones, should be interpreted as evidence of a need for protection, not as evidence for deceit. In the case of possible refugee claimants then, I believe we must likewise err on the side of trust to remain consistent with the values of the Canadian refugee protection system.
A second point is this. We must avoid thinking of the harm done in denying visitor visas as harm to foreigners who do not have a right to enter Canada. The harm we cause in denying visas is to Canadians who want to associate with them. Those who are calling their MPs and wondering why their families and friends are being prevented from visiting are Canadians. It is Canadians who are owed explanations when their visitors are denied leave to enter.
Moreover, the visa process for individuals from select countries creates a fundamental inequality between immigrant and non-immigrant Canadians, an inequality that Canada is historically committed to eliminating. Also, it introduces an additional axis of inequality among immigrant Canadians: those who hail from wealthy countries, whose ability to celebrate, mourn, and visit with their loved ones is protected; and those who hail from poor and unstable states, for whom familial and intimate milestone celebrations are less accessible.
These inequalities, I acknowledge, are unavoidable in a country like Canada that is committed to admitting immigrants. Under certain conditions, they may be unavoidable, but if they are, we owe Canadians a clear and transparent explanation for them when they persist. The bond mechanisms that some others have proposed here today, which are intended to ensure the departure of visitors, I believe, impose costs on those least able to afford them and only serve to exacerbate inequalities among Canadians, and therefore must be rejected, in my view, as unjust.
Finally, should we adopt an appeals procedure or an administrative review procedure? To be honest, I feel indifferent about this. What I think matters most is that the rejections must be contestable, either in the form of an administrative review or in a full appeals process. The reason to do so is a commitment to fairness. Allowing rejections to be contested by those who believe they have been treated unfairly by the Canadian border system will add a layer of accountability and transparency from the government in matters that are important to them. Recall that I believe those harmed are Canadians. It is Canadians who are owed this transparency and this accountability.
The U.K. closed its appeal system in June because it was very poorly run, a mistake I'm sure the Canadian government would not repeat. The process in that case was restricted to applicants who are intending to visit family members—I think this can be justified—or those who are otherwise invited to Canada by a Canadian. This limitation—