Evidence of meeting #46 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was application.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Chief Migration Officer, Immigration and Border Protection, Australian High Commission
We have a legislative framework for instances like that. If an individual lodges an application for, say, citizenship by descent—as the individual has a parent who's an Australian citizen—but is in fact not eligible for that particular part of our citizenship program, then that application is deemed invalid. We can't do anything with it.
The money is given back to the applicants and they're invited to apply for the most appropriate stream or component of citizenship, as an example.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you.
My next question, just before I had it over to Mr. Tilson, is for Ms. Desloges.
In previous studies that we've had at committee, you've talked very briefly about how current immigration laws already allow officials to apply discretion in exceptional circumstances, essentially talking about section 25. I just want to give you a quick opportunity to talk about this in terms of service delivery. Because it is such a nebulous process, could you see improvements in triggering that process from a service delivery perspective?
4:40 p.m.
Lawyer, Desloges Law Group, As an Individual
Section 25 gives officers the very broad discretion and ability to waive any requirement of the act or regulation. So to the extent that certain service delivery factors are regulated—they're actually mentioned in the regulations—then I suppose section 25 could be used, but I think most procedures and most things related to service delivery are not in the regulations. These are dealt with by policies, so it wouldn't apply.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Langford, thank you for the brief that has been prepared, and obviously we have a time problem here today.
I wonder if you could tell us the top priorities of the Canadian Bar Association for recommending improvements to client service delivery.
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Thank you, Mr. Tilson.
The Canadian Bar Association's immigration law section in our brief made submissions about two types of issues that we think are really important. One is structural. We don't think that you can deal with client service delivery by improving the IRCC alone, because Canada Border Services Agency, ESDC, and Service Canada with respect to the temporary foreign worker program, are part of the overall system in Canada. Some of the problems and areas of emphasis for improvement we would like to see would be with respect to ports of entry in particular, the mindset at ports of entry in dealing with travellers, and having the resources and expertise necessary to deal with immigration issues when people are primarily focused on enforcement and goods.
One of the recommendations in our submission is that there be immigration experts embedded at major ports of entry and available by telephone or otherwise 24/7 as experts for immigration matters. You really need to look at the whole system with ESDC and the temporary foreign worker program. It's almost like that's ignored as part of the cycle, but ESDC and the issuance of LMIAs affects people's work permits and applications for permanent residence. It's very important to the whole cycle, and so if you're not talking and looking at efficiencies there, then there are problems. That's CBSA, ESDC, and we've made a number of.... Those are structural issues, and the other area is sort of programmatic issues. You can see that we've made a number of specific recommendations there.
Probably the number one recommendation with respect to program is communication and remembering that these are people.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
That's it.
Just before we move on to Mr. Davies, I'd like to thank Mr. Arnold for appearing.
I know that you have a prior commitment, a hard commitment that you have to depart for, but I also understand that you'll be potentially making a submission. We look forward to that. Thank you so much.
4:45 p.m.
Chief Migration Officer, Immigration and Border Protection, Australian High Commission
Thank you.
February 1st, 2017 / 4:45 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
I have about five questions to ask Mr. Arnold, so I'm wondering if it's possible to take time—
4:45 p.m.
Chief Migration Officer, Immigration and Border Protection, Australian High Commission
Yes, that's fine.
4:45 p.m.
Chief Migration Officer, Immigration and Border Protection, Australian High Commission
My colleague can run with it. They're probably not out of bed yet.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
In that case, Mr. Arnold, at any point please don't feel any discomfort if you have to just get up and leave.
4:45 p.m.
Chief Migration Officer, Immigration and Border Protection, Australian High Commission
Yes, it's a pleasure.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Since we have the opportunity to learn more about your system, I think it's a very valuable time for us.
Mr. Arnold, what is the approval rate and the average length of time to process, say, visitor visas?
4:45 p.m.
Chief Migration Officer, Immigration and Border Protection, Australian High Commission
Globally, I don't have the figures to hand, but I'd happy to share those.
If I look locally here, I have a very low refusal rate. It would be in the single digits, and with our commitment under our service standard for a visitor visa—noting that the individuals my office sees here are often those who might have a health or character issue—given that Canadian citizens are eligible for eTA, we look to process about 80% of those within three weeks.
4:45 p.m.
Chief Migration Officer, Immigration and Border Protection, Australian High Commission
That's correct.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
One of the frustrations that constituents in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway have experienced when they've sponsored relatives to come over here to visit for a wedding or whatever, is that when they're rejected, there is no internal appeal process. The only option is either to apply again, brand new, or to ask for judicial review, which as a practical matter is simply just not done. The amount of time and money that it would take is simply not worth it in 99% of the cases.
I'm wondering if Australia has any kind of internal review process for an applicant who has been turned down for a visa?
4:50 p.m.
Chief Migration Officer, Immigration and Border Protection, Australian High Commission
Not internally, but depending on their circumstances and the visa they've applied for, they can make application to the MRT, which is our migration refugee tribunal. They can make application to that. A good example might be an individual who is a citizen of country X who is married to an Australian but holds no permanent status. They apply for a visit visa, and the decision-maker who is not satisfied they have funds or ties to their home country may refuse that, but because they have a tie to Australia, they're eligible for that decision to be reviewed.
A visitor visa applicant, for example, who bears no ties to Australia has no right to review for their application made offshore or overseas.