moved that Bill C-219, an act to amend the Immigration Act (visitors' visas), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Madam Speaker, the background to the bill takes us into the inner workings of the Immigration Act. A bill similar to this private member's bill was presented in the last Parliament. I guess it is fair to say we are taking another crack at the issue.
The background relates to the procedures which are used by visitors who wish to come to Canada, visitors from what we call visa countries, countries where it is necessary for residents to get visas from Canada before they visit here. The bill would permit the Canadian relatives of such visitors to put up a bond or a surety. It would require a Canadian immigration officer who was considering a visa application to take the existence of that surety or bond into account when the application was made.
The best way I can describe the types of difficulties that the bill is aimed at resolving is by referring to an individual case. The individuals involved know I will be speaking about the case because I mentioned the same case a couple of years ago in Parliament. They are good enough to permit me to use it as a good example of why the bill might be of assistance.
It relates to members of the Saravia family who live in Scarborough. They have lived in Canada for about 20 years. They are originally from Bolivia. They have brothers, sisters and other family in Bolivia.
A couple of years ago after some discussion it was proposed that one of the brothers visit for Christmas. He had never met his nieces and nephews here, and everyone thought it was a good idea. The mother had successfully visited Canada with a visa about a year and a half prior to that time. In this instance the visitor, Mr. Torres, travelled to Peru because we do not have a visa issuing office in Bolivia. He made his application about a week prior to Christmas. He went with his airline ticket and a document sent to him by the family here and was turned down for a visa. Regrettably while in Lima he was robbed by some people there. The Christmas visit did not take place. That was the bottom line and my constituents were unhappy about it.
This is one case in hundreds I have had to deal with as a member of Parliament. I know all members of Parliament, particularly those of us from urban areas, have had to deal with the problem of applications by family members for visitors' visas.
In this particular case we received a letter of explanation in our office. It was a good letter, a good response. I am not in any way critical of our officials in Lima. They replied and gave their version of an explanation. I am going to read portions of the letter because they help describe some of the background. They wrote:
Visitors visas are a very tricky part of our work. As you know, a great number of aliens enter Canada each year as tourists and try to stay after their original stay has ended. We have to determine in each case, with very little information at hand if the applicant is really a visitor or if the person is an immigrant trying to enter Canada on a tourist visa. The only way an applicant can convince us that he or she is really a visitor is by demonstrating that he or she has very strong ties to his or her home country which will force him to return to that country.
This is what we expressed to Mr. Torres to show us. He explained he was leaving his wife and two children behind. He declared he had a job in Bolivia to which he wanted to return. Unfortunately he showed absolutely no proof that his financial situation in Bolivia was comfortable or that he had any property or good reasons to return.
It is very frustrating for a Canadian resident to know that a brother, sister, mother, father, son or daughter cannot make a family visit because he or she does not have financial resources, when often the family in Canada does have some resources.
Therefore the bill is intended to rectify the omission from the process. We were just speaking a few moments ago about the criminal process where the victim has been excluded from the process. Here is another process, the visitor visa process, where the resident Canadian, the relative, the person who has invited the father or mother to come and visit, has been excluded from the process and does not have role. The bill will provide for a surety or a bond that will give these Canadian families an opportunity to participate in the process and provide greater assurance that the visas will be followed through.
The surety proposed does not require cash. The amount would be set by the Department of Immigration in the ordinary course as it sets other bond amounts. It provides the resident Canadian with a role in the process. It gives the Canadian a stake in ensuring that the terms of the visitor visa are met. Because these are family members there is a reasonable amount of suasion existing. There is a bond, a relationship between the visitor and the inviting family. Surely there is a degree of what I would call suasion in having the visitor fulfil the terms of such a visit.
The current law in section 8 creates a bit of a catch-22. Subsection 8(1) reads:
Where a person seeks to come to Canada, the burden of proving that that person has a right to come into Canada or that his admission would not be contrary to this act or regulation rests on the person.
That is the visitor. It has nothing to do with the Canadian. Subsection (2) indicates:
Every person seeking to come into Canada shall be presumed to be an immigrant until that person satisfies the immigration officer examining him-that he is not an immigrant.
Basic visitors have to obtain visas and are basically presumed not to be bona fide visitors. There is a presumption that they are not bona fide visitors. They are presumed to be immigrants.
That is built right into the act. It is a great procedural device to put the burden on the visitor. If I were a Canadian with a family visitor from abroad, I would not be too happy about it.
I suggest it is a bit of a catch-22. It is not fair to these Canadians. The challenge of setting aside that catch-22 is exacerbated when there is a language barrier. Many visitors coming to Canada do not speak English as a first language. If the visa officer is looking for some subtleties in intention here, it is going to be awfully difficult to pick up on those subtleties when the language being spoken is not a first language. In the few questions that are asked the information exchanged is going to be pretty basic.
Turning to some of the statistics behind the bill on the surface do not look bad. In 1993 the department issued 545,000 visas or over half a million visas around the world. It turned down almost 82,000 around the world. That is not a bad statistic. One might say that is not too bad in the face of half a million visas issued. I think about 79,000 of those turndowns were relatives of my constituents but that is not true. It just takes two or three of them to frustrate the heck out of a member of Parliament.
Over 50 per cent of the people in my riding are immigrants. This means it is likely many of those Canadians have families and relatives abroad who want to visit. Therefore 82,000 is a big number. Even if there were only 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 affected by the bill, it is a big number when we are talking about Canadians who want family visits to take place.
There are two perspectives worth noting. One is the huge increase in the number of families in Canada with relatives abroad. People are moving all over the globe now. There are huge increases in travel and large increases in the numbers of immigrants to Canada so hopefully many more family visits can take place.
Second, the refugee claims process has poisoned the atmosphere for visitor visa applications. In all cases visa officers are on the lookout for phoney refugees. There might even be a real refugee who is trying to get here through a visitor visa. Our visa officers put their careers on the line when they grant visas. I understand and I am sure other members understand that they cannot be seen to be making many mistakes. Every time a fake refugee claimant stays here on a visitor visa the dollars start to add up. It is not $1,000; it could be $20,000 or $30,000 in costs to the federal, provincial and municipal taxpayer by the time we are done with legal aid for a lawyer, welfare support during processing, the cost of the processing, the accommodation and so on. It is a very frustrating and high stakes games. These are some changing realities we have to keep our eye on. Canadians have been neglected in this process.
I want to conclude by outlining some of the salient features of this private member's bill. It provides a formal role for resident Canadians to participate in the process. Right now all we have happening with resident Canadians is sometimes they will go to a lawyer or a notary and get a letter prepared that says: "My brother, John, is going to visit and I will support him while he is here". They get the notary to seal it. The notary charges them $50 or $100. I will not comment on the appropriateness of the fees. As can be seen in the letter from Lima, Peru that kind of intervention by the Canadian family did not carry much weight in the decision.
Second, my bill would provide a material financial assurance of compliance with the visa by the visitor.
Third, it provides a real linkage between the applicant and the Canadian family doing the inviting.
Fourth, my bill would not prejudice those applicants who do not have a relative in Canada or do not put up a surety. The bill specifically provides that the absence of a surety is not to be taken into account by the visa office.
Fifth, it provides for individual applicants who have Canadian relatives the same ability to be bonded as group visitors currently have under the existing act. Group visitors can have bonding arrangements. Individuals at the moment cannot.
Sixth, it will not change the test for visitor visas. It will not change the underlying test and we will have the same test and the same safeguards. It will provide a significant role for family members here and provide a further assurance of bona fide fulfilment of the terms of the visa.
To conclude, I am hopeful that the government will listen carefully and include this type of amendment, this mechanism, as a new feature of the Immigration Act when it next considers amending our Canada Immigration Act.
