Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 10th, 2016

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Which phone line is available: the phone line to the central processing unit or to the ministerial enquiries division?

[Robert Orr]

Both lines are open.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Will both lines remain open and accessible to members of Parliament without change?

[Robert Orr]

Mr. Chair, we have made a change, and we're very much encouraging people to go through the other route because we think it is more efficient and, in the long run, better service.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Sarai.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you.

This is a question either one of you can answer.

The area that feeds the Chandigarh visa office or consulate in India has one of the highest GDPs in the country, has one of the highest concentrations of wealth, and some of the highest per capita incomes, but compared to other offices in the country, it has a substantially lower acceptance rate. My understanding is that currently it's below 50%, and in the last seven years the highest it's ever achieved was 57%. In my riding and in many other ridings, it's perceived as a visa rejection office rather than a visa acceptance office.

I want to find out if there are any plans to change that process so that we have a higher acceptance rate and our constituency offices aren't inundated with feedback about why the rejection rate is so high.

[Robert Orr]

Mr. Chair, the issue of temporary residence acceptance rates and so on is always of interest. The overall acceptance rate for our temporary resident program is approximately 82%. The member is absolutely correct. In certain offices, there are lower acceptance rates than elsewhere. I think it's important to understand that each case, each application, is looked at on an individual basis, and then the refusal rate results from that. It's not that we are working to a particular rate. Each case is looked at individually on its own merits.

We would be looking at a whole variety of different elements in terms of documentation, in terms of the purpose of going to Canada, and ties both to their home country and to Canada, and we make an overall assessment on those bases. Indeed, there are certain countries where the acceptance rate is low, and Chandigarh is certainly one of those places. The statistics you have are absolutely correct. I think that there are a number of issues that occur there. In Chandigarh we have seen a number of elements that have led to a lower acceptance rate.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Following on that, it's my understanding that when one applies for a TRV, temporary resident visa, the two things they predominantly look for are purpose and travel history. The reason I call that a rejection office is that if the travel history is strong, they are rejected because the purpose isn't strong enough. If the purpose is very strong, they say the travel history isn't there. It seems that the officers in that particular area are looking for a reason to not give a visa, as opposed to getting enough grounds to give a visa.

While sitting here, I just received an application of a person who's been to 41 countries as an athlete of the Olympic team in India. He's a decorated officer in the police force. He applied here. His email is astounding. He's embarrassed. He's never been rejected by anyone. They cite “lack of purpose”, because he's coming to a hockey tournament here.

These are appalling, and we constituent MPs are inundated. In our offices, at least 50% of our time is taken up dealing with these files, sending them back to your offices, and getting inquiries done.

However, we have no internal review process. Are there any plans to do an internal review? Currently, if someone's visa is rejected, such as the one I just mentioned, the only recourse the person has is to go to the Federal Court or reapply.

[Robert Orr]

Mr. Chair, I think it's important to understand that the visa officers are very much interested in facilitating travel to Canada for bona fide visitors. We do approach our caseload with that in mind.

We do need to look at a number of different factors and balance those to reach a conclusion. If you like a composite picture of risk, there are a number of different elements we're going to be considering before we reach our decision.

Mr. Manicom, I don't know if you want to comment, specifically having served in India.

[David Manicom]

Yes, I would just add that the refusal rate is historically significantly higher in Chandigarh over a large number of years with a large number of different officers. There's relative consistency in the refusal rate, regardless of which particular staff member is there. It's the nature of the caseload. The caseload is very different. There are a very high number of low-quality applications and of fraudulent applications.

We can't speak to any particular case, but approval rates vary widely both across countries and within countries. There are other parts of India that have refusal rates similar to that from the Punjab. I don't think we can associate it with particular officers, because that higher refusal rate persists over many years, even when officers, managers, and so forth turn over.

Having managed the office both in New Delhi and with responsibility for Chandigarh, I can tell you that the caseloads of the two offices are very different. The officers are applying a very similar standard, and normally people with repeat travel histories are approved. There are many hundreds of visas being approved in Chandigarh every week.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Saroya.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Significant reforms to the system for determining refugee claims in Canada were made in 2012. There was approximately $6.7 million available, yet these estimates indicate a decrease by that amount related to this reform. What accounts for the decrease in funding?

[Anita Biguzs]

Mr. Chair, as I may have indicated in a previous response, included in the asylum system changes back to 2012 was funding for a pilot called reviews and interventions. It was a pilot that would provide for the ability of officers of the department to intervene in proceedings before the refugee protection division and the refugee appeal division at the Immigration and Refugee Board. Essentially, that was intended to be a pilot, and we would assess how effective that pilot had been, based on information and evidence looking at the results of the pilot.

We have been in the process of assessing that now to determine whether, in fact, there would be merit and warrant, based on the results and outcomes, to suggest that this pilot be continued on a regular basis. We are reviewing overall the changes to the refugee asylum system of 2012, and this is included as part of our review, just to ensure that we have a good understanding of what has been achieved as a result of the changes to the system and whether any changes are required. It was basically sunsetting funding for a pilot initiative.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

The three-year evaluation of reform to the Canadian refugee determination system was to be completed in December 2015. Are there any budgetary implications following from this evaluation?

[Anita Biguzs]

At this point, work is continuing by officials in assessing the overall outcomes and results of the changes to the asylum system. It was a very large, comprehensive transformational change that took place. It had implications certainly not just for our department, but of course also for the Immigration and Refugee Board and CBSA. That work is taking place now.

At this point in time, it would be too early to say whether in fact there are any changes as a result of that, since the policy work and the assessment are still taking place.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

If I can go back to the Chandigarh situation, most of the people there are farmers, right? I've seen a number of reactions. Every three months or six months, there is grain, rice, or potatoes, or whatever they grow, and the amount that would come from the market would be 400,000 rupees, or 10,000—big amounts. A number of applications were rejected.

I've seen that they've assumed this was—what do you call it?—this is number two money; this money is perceived to be illegal proceeds.

Is there any way that we can train the visa officers in Chandigarh so that they understand the system? The farmers' money comes twice a year. It's not weekly money or monthly money, but for the year. A huge cheque comes in. I know personally that a number of people were rejected because they asked for the transaction in their account—one of them was for 400,000 rupees—stuff like this. It's not even big money in India anymore.

Is there any way we can train the people in Chandigarh?

[Robert Orr]

Mr. Chair, the visa officers in all of our visa offices abroad are well trained.

One of the issues they are trained in is to ensure that they are aware of their local circumstances. The local knowledge in assessing an application is critical. That is why we have officers who are based in Chandigarh, so they really do get a good understanding of how the system works, how the society works. They would be very much taking that into consideration in reaching a decision.

I believe that the elements you've outlined would be taken into consideration when a decision is made.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Orr.

Mr. Ehsassi.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am wondering if I could follow up on the questioning that Mr. Saroya first raised regarding acceptance rates at various visa application centres.

The one that I hear about most in my riding of Willowdale is the visa application centre in Ankara. I've had ample opportunity to review many, many requests that have gone in there. Much like my colleagues here, it appears to me that the staff there inclines more toward not granting visas than actually looking into it and doing a thorough job.

I wonder if you could provide me with the acceptance or rejection rate from the visa application centre in Ankara, Turkey.

[Robert Orr]

The visa caseload in Ankara is mixed, because not only are they dealing with applications from Turkey, but they are also dealing with applications from Iran. The overall acceptance rate of temporary residents is 76%. In other words, they are accepting far more than they are refusing.

I don't know if that response is sufficient or if you have further questions.

[Anita Biguzs]

Mr. Chair, if I could just make one point in terms of the role of the visa officer, it is a balance, and the visa officer does have to fulfill the responsibilities and obligations of the legislation.

The legislation is very specific in terms of the admissibility criteria. It is a balance between facilitation.... I think we would all like to be able to facilitate very quickly the ability to provide positive responses and process visas. However, it is a balance in terms of ensuring that we also have integrity in the system.

The criteria in the legislation is quite specific in terms of the different aspects and factors that a visa officer has to take into account. Sometimes the information that a visa officer has available to them is very black and white, and it makes it very straightforward in making the decision. However, these are challenging positions, challenging jobs. They have to take into account the circumstances of the country that they're residing in, the kind of integrity issues that may be at play. It all contributes to basically ensuring that we have confidence in the system, that we actually have integrity in the system, but of course recognizing at the same time that we do want to facilitate the movement of people.

It's a delicate balance. Judgment as well is required. It's not an easy job. I have sat in on visa interviews, Mr. Chair, and I know how challenging it can certainly be.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

No, I didn't mean to suggest for a second that it's not a challenge. Having looked over a lot of the applications and the reasons cited for refusals, it did seem somewhat higher than would otherwise be the case.

I had a second question. In going over the estimates, I noticed that there has been a $46-million decrease with respect to terminated applications, which occurred obviously after legislation was introduced. That leads me to the question of—because that was quite a troubling process that was in place—how many applications still remain in that inventory and need to be returned to applicants.

[Tony Matson, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

With respect to the two programs you're speaking of, I believe for the federal skilled workers we've cleared approximately 60% of the applications, which would be approximately 60,000 applications. There would be about 30,000 remaining, but I can verify those figures.

For the other program, I believe it's about half of 30,000, so we've cleared about 15,000, and there are 15,000 remaining.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

That having been said, when do you expect the entire process to be completed?

[Tony Matson]

That's a good question.

Over the last few years we've noticed a considerable reduction in the number of people applying for a refund. It's at the point now where we don't anticipate that all of the applicants will apply to have their refund. This entry in the main estimates reflects that fact. This is a statutory appropriation, and so anybody who does come in over the next few years will be eligible to receive their refund, and we will give it to them. This is just more of a forecast reflecting the fact that we don't anticipate in the near term requiring this amount of funding.