CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, December 2, 1998

• 1537

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): We will proceed.

I welcome the witnesses in front of us, Mr. LeBane, Elizabeth Tromp, and Joan Atkinson. But before we proceed with the presentation and questions and answers for the members, with your indulgence I would like to read a statement.

At our informal meeting held on November 26, 1998, which was attended by Mr. Leon Benoit, Mr. John McKay, and myself including staff, there was consensus that the Committee meet on December 2, 3 and 9 to consider Visitor Visas and the appearance of the Minister on the Performance Report of the Department for the period ending March 31, 1998 and Immigration Targets for Economic Immigrants. It was suggested that in the new year, when the House reconvenes in February 1999, an information meeting be scheduled “regarding countries where there are conflicts which may well cause an increase in the numbers of political refugees and where there are violations of human rights or a possible violation of human rights”. The Committee would also commence a study on Economic Immigration.

For your information, Wednesday December 2 and Thursday, December 3, 1998 have been set aside for the consideration of “Visitor Visas” with the officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. On Wednesday, December 9, 1998 the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, will appear on the subjects stated above.

It is anticipated that a Bill containing amendments to the Citizenship Act will be referred to the Committee by the House.

The reason I'm reading this statement is that we could not convene a quorum of the steering committee, but we had to proceed with a plan of action. So I am putting our statement on record now, and I hope we have concurrence on this. But that is not the point. I just read the statement.

Any questions on the statement? Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Is it expected that the bill on citizenship will be referred before the House adjourns or rather in February or March?

• 1540

[English]

The Chairman: The latest news I have, very informal, is that it may happen before we rise for Christmas. But I have no written documentation.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Is that a Christmas gift on behalf of the Minister?

[English]

The Chairman: It may well be, because a bill is always a good gift.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You seem to believe in Santa Claus. That's normal.

[English]

The Chairman: On that note, we would like to welcome the witnesses before us. We are examining the question of visitor visas, as you may know. How would you like to proceed? Would you like to make an opening statement?

Please go ahead, Ms. Tromp.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp (Director General, Enforcement, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you.

I'm pleased to be able to come before the committee today. I'd like to make a brief opening statement to address the issue of visitor visa policy. My colleague, Mr. Jeff LeBane, will then speak to the issue of visitor visa processing.

Canadian visitor visa policy attempts to balance the requirements of facilitating the movement of legitimate travellers across our borders and protecting Canadian society from those who would seek to abuse our immigration systems and/or pose a threat to the safety and security of Canadians.

The Canadian visitor visa is a first-level screen for persons who want to travel to Canada. It is a very effective screen, but not the only one we use. The air transporters are required to screen all passengers for genuine documents before they board aircraft for Canada. The port of entry officers also serve as an effective screening point for any inadmissible travellers. Finally, our inland staff along with our partners, the police and other enforcement agencies, serve as effective filters inland should any criminals successfully elude our other screening mechanisms.

The general policy regarding visitor visas is that all countries require one and that, where conditions warrant, a visa will be lifted. The visa is only issued outside of Canada by Canadian officials. In order to obtain a visa, a person must demonstrate his or her admissibility to Canada; that is to say, they must not have any criminal antecedents, have the means to come into and leave Canada, and have a specific purpose and time period for the trip.

Canadian visitor visa policy is based, not surprisingly, on Canadian interests. Visas are generally imposed for countries whose citizens have abused or are judged likely to abuse a visa-free policy.

Now, the visa policy itself is based on the following general factors: first, the visitor visa refusal rate in a particular country; the level of security for the travel document, that is, the degree of difficulty there is in misusing or abusing that travel document; the integrity of the travel document issuance procedures; the socio-economic position of the country; and Canada's economic and foreign policy interests.

A decision to impose or lift a visa is taken only after consultation with appropriate stakeholders, including the Department of Foreign Affairs. Recommendations are sent to the minister, who then refers the issue to the special committee of cabinet. Visa waivers and impositions are based on the recommendations of two ministers, though: the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Currently, nationals of more or less 130 countries must obtain visitor visas, and I believe you have been given a list of all of those countries. Approximately 60 countries, comprising almost 99% of all travellers to Canada, do not require a visitor visa.

In conclusion, the visitor visa is, in our view, an effective policy instrument to help manage the access of people to Canada, again, in that attempt to achieve an appropriate balance between control and facilitation.

I'll turn to my colleague, Mr. LeBane, to make further remarks.

Mr. Jeff LeBane (Director General, International Region, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members.

I know your interest this afternoon is on visitor visa processing, in part. Visitor visa processing overseas is one of the most challenging, demanding and, in part, subjective decision-making processes for an immigration officer. He must make decisions quickly and be fair and careful. Decisions on who will enter Canada for a temporary purpose from overseas, whether a visitor, student, or temporary worker, rest with the visa officer.

• 1545

Authority for the granting of a visitor visa obviously is found in the Immigration Act and regulations. In that you'll find the key principles, the presumption and the burden of proof. There are only certain persons who have a right to come into Canada, and those are Canadian citizens, permanent residents who are not under a deportation order, and aboriginals who are registered for that purpose.

When a visa officer overseas interviews somebody, the act is very clear. There is a presumption under section 9 of the act that states every person seeking admission to Canada is viewed to be an immigrant seeking permanent entry to Canada. There is a presumption. If a person seeks to enter Canada for a temporary purpose as a visitor, that person has to satisfy the officer that he is coming for another reason, that he is coming for a temporary reason, and the burden of proof rests on him. He has to disprove the assumption under the act. That is a tremendous challenge.

A great number of persons make applications each year. In 1997, we processed 726,000 applications at our posts abroad and accepted approximately 90%. So for every ten persons who applied for visas, nine received them. You have an attachment that shows you which were the busiest posts in terms of the number of people who applied and the actual numbers of visas issued.

When an officer has an application before him and a client—and this is in part a subjective decision—he has to gather before him and examine all available information. So when a client approaches an office for a visa, the better prepared he is, the better the chance he will succeed in proving he's coming for a temporary reason.

Documents we ask for, or the client can present on his own, include evidence that he has financial means to travel, that he has ties to his home country and is gainfully employed. Does he have family in Canada? Is he going to visit family? If he is going to visit a business, does he have some proof of that? What are the reasons? What evidence can he give to establish why he wants to go? Is there a reason that makes good sense?

We acknowledge when we're processing three-quarters of a million applications, we do make mistakes. Sometimes we're too hard on a particular client; sometimes we're too facilitative, and we try to achieve a balance there. But where a client is refused, he may always make another application, and where the office is large enough, in fairness to the client, he will be interviewed by another officer.

There are many persons overseas today who attempt to use the visitor visa route to gain admission to Canada rather than going through normal immigration processing. It is a faster means in some persons' eyes to circumvent legitimate immigration legislation. But it is one of the most challenging aspects of our work abroad.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I hope we can answer some of your questions today.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We will start with Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming to shed some light on some of these issues for us. I have a few questions for you.

First of all, at the end of your comments, Mr. LeBane, you mentioned trying to maintain a balance between those cases where there might be leniency and those cases where there might be a more rigorous treatment of an individual. What specifics do you put in place to try to maintain that balance with individual staff members abroad?

• 1550

Mr. Jeff LeBane: To give you a good example, we have 79 missions abroad, and some of them are geographically distant from Canada. Because we assign officers on a rotational basis, they may be going into a part of the world that is brand-new to them—for example, a posting to Delhi, which has different cultural norms. As an example, in terms of Delhi, every officer who goes on a posting there will receive an intensive one-week training program explaining the culture, the social and religious rights, and why persons may travel to Canada for unique circumstances. We try to orient the officer to the clientele and perhaps to different expectations from what we would normally have in Canada.

Mr. Grant McNally: You mentioned about halfway through your discussion that this is often a very subjective decision as to who gets a visa and who does not get a visa. You said the person has to be quick, fair, and careful. Are you saying they receive just one week of training? Do you mean in addition to this, or for that one area only?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: All of the officers who are posted abroad get a very rigorous immigration—

Mr. Grant McNally: What do you mean by rigorous? What do they have to do?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: They usually have a one-year training program in Ottawa where they get very detailed and intensive training on the Immigration Act and the regulations. They usually do a temporary assignment abroad to expose them to an overseas office and the challenges of the work there. They get some legal training, and travel across Canada to meet with provincial representatives on occasion. They get a very intensive training in Ottawa.

Mr. Grant McNally: What is the one-week training? Is that just on the particular region where they're going?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: It would be on that particular post and would be supplementary.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm a little concerned that it's just one week to get up to date with that area. That's a very important job for an individual to have. They're the front-line person for the security of individuals coming to the country.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: There are trained using a universal program, so they will apply the rules and regulations of the program everywhere in the same manner. The supplementary one week is to ensure they understand the clientele, the cultural norms, and the unique social laws.

Mr. Grant McNally: So they're expected to know that within one week of training? How many other individuals would there be? I realize all the posts are different, but do they then work with somebody who has been there a fairly long time, as a practicum almost, before they make major decisions themselves?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: In a post like Delhi, for example, we have designated immigration officers, which is our most senior cadre of locally engaged officers. They have the ability to issue and refuse visas under the authority of the act. They would also have that expertise to assist them.

Mr. Grant McNally: Do you have statistics on how many individuals who have visitors visas apply for inland refugee claims once they arrive here?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: It's very difficult. The majority of persons who make refugee claims at ports of entry and inland usually do so without documents. I did a run to see how many persons who were issued visas abroad and made refugee claims in Canada presented their passports with visas in them. The number was approximately 1,300.

The Chairman: In terms of a percentage, what would that be?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: In terms of the total number of visas we've issued, it's a very tiny percentage—it's 0.002%.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Proceed, Mr. McNally.

• 1555

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

When somebody is turned down from getting a visitor's visa abroad, you said they have the ability to reapply for a visa.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: Within what time period? Do they have to wait?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: There is no timeframe. They can reapply the following day.

Mr. Grant McNally: I guess there are always concerns with that process and people not being able to appeal the process, or if they've been turned down once in a particular area, the likelihood of them being turned down again, which I'm assuming in their own eyes is a high probability.

I know there were some cases recently in Vancouver, in the past week, I think, with the slaying of Mr. Heyer and some of the individuals who wanted to come for the funeral who were denied visitor visas. Of course reapplying or going through the process again is not going to make a difference for those types of individuals, who have a real need to come for a very short period of time.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: To that I would say there are many, many people who do reapply, and they reapply several times, so there must be some faith that our system is fair and that we will look at them again. It is known at many posts that where we can, where we have sufficient resources, they will be interviewed by another officer. We always tell people that if they are going to reapply, if they are bringing new information, additional information, we're always prepared to look at it, and sometimes it does change the original decision.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay.

Do I have some more time?

The Chairman: You have a couple of minutes.

Mr. Grant McNally: Going back to the training of staff and individuals, because those people obviously are the most important people in the post abroad if they're making the decisions as to who's going to come and who's not going to come, you talked about the training program and them getting experience with the Immigration Act and a little bit of law training as well. I'm assuming these individuals are also coming with university requirements.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: Is there an evaluation process in terms of not just their performance abroad but while they're going through their training also knowing the act, knowing the regulations, knowing the procedures?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Yes, there's a very rigorous training program. There are exams through the process. There's an ongoing evaluation process.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Before I get to my questions, I would like us first to pause a moment and think of our colleague Ms. Folco, who is in terrible anguish since she just lost her husband. I hope we can come back to this matter at the end of our meeting; we should also try to be with her tomorrow for the funeral.

You mentioned that the citizens from 60 countries do not require a visa to visit Canada. We have the list of countries whose citizens do require one. Therefore, those 60 countries are all the rest—it might be a good idea for us to have that list. How do you distinguish between the two categories?

I recently visited the three Baltic States. In each one, the presidents, the prime ministers and the foreign affairs ministers told us over and over again that Canada should relax its visa requirements on their behalf. Tell us what criteria is used to determine who needs a visa and who doesn't.

[English]

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I'll go back to the general criteria I mentioned at the outset, which are in fact the criteria or factors against which a decision would be taken, and which in effect, globally speaking, make a difference between those that are on the list you have and those that are exempt—again, the visitor visa refusal rate.

In other words, if a particular country has a high rate of visa refusals, that suggests that removing the visa requirement would potentially bring with it a significant control problem, more people arriving at our borders who we otherwise would be refusing. That's one factor we look at.

Again, on the level of security for the travel document from the country in question and the integrity of the travel document issuance procedures, some countries' documents are not as secure as others, quite frankly, and they are more subject or open to abuse by nationals of that country or nationals of other countries. The same goes for the issuance procedures for the travel documents, where they are not very secure.

• 1600

I mentioned the socio-economic position of the country in question. This I guess goes to the push-pull factors you hear one speak of. Clearly the poorer countries where the socio-economic conditions are much different from those here in Canada would create a pull factor for individuals to want to come to Canada—economic migrants, if you will. Our concern, of course, is that they would come and claim refugee status here while not being genuine refugees. That would be another control factor.

Finally, we have Canada's economic and foreign policy interests. That's very broad, I know. For example, on trade interests, clearly we want to facilitate trade and facilitate the movement of travellers. So where we see an interest in doing so, balanced against the other factors I have cited, that might be a reason to....

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: There's been a lot of talk in the press lately—in Quebec at least, I don't know about the rest of Canada—about an elected official from Northern Ireland who is involved in the peace process, as is his party. This person was not granted a visitor's visa. It appears he was badly served by the system.

I know that citizens of the Commonwealth, as well as those from the 60 countries, do not generally need a visa to come to Canada. However, you have told us that a person from a non-visa requiring country would need one if that person had had run-ins with the law or a criminal record. When granting a visa, shouldn't some factors weigh more than others, particularly in the case of a committed international speaker who wants to attend an extremely important conference? How do you explain the run-around your department gave Mr. Maskey, who first went to Boston, where he did not get satisfaction, and then was shuttled off to New York where he did not get his visa despite the fact that Canada had invited him to speak at an international conference?

I don't want to dwell on this particular case, but I would appreciate a little clarification.

The incident greatly discredited the system.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Director General, Selection Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you.

Citizens of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, would not require visas in their passports because that is one of the countries that is visa-exempt. I would think that in this particular case you've raised there must have been some grounds of inadmissability for this particular individual, either in terms of criminality in the past or other issues that must have caused this individual to be inadmissible.

As you know, when we are dealing with individuals who are inadmissible, we are unable to allow entry under normal provisions. An individual in that situation would therefore require a minister's permit in order to be able to enter the country.

Certainly when we look at individuals who are inadmissible for whatever reason and who wish to come forward to Canada for the purposes you identified, such as attending a conference, we would normally consider those reasons quite closely. We would weigh the risks to Canada of allowing an otherwise inadmissible person to Canada forward on a minister's permit or through discretionary entry at a port of entry against the desire and the need to have this individual come to Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: If you could get to the bottom of the matter and send me something in writing, I'd appreciate it. It is well known that this person had a criminal record but that his boss, the leader of Sinn Féin, did come to Canada despite his criminal record. This case was probably not the subject of mid-level discussions, but rather high-level ones.

How do you deal with requests made by members of Parliament? You said that 89% of people who come to the 79 offices seeking a visa are approved. That's what we heard from the deputy ministers. But some of our constituents have family members who are included in the 10% that don't make it.

• 1605

We get the impression that it's a very arbitrary decision, and that in some cases it is unfounded and without appeal. I'll come back to that, but it is an aspect of the bill which must be changed come January.

I realize that members from Montreal and Toronto are in contact with you more often, since most immigrants or visitors head towards these two major cities. We get the impression that members' requests and their influence—pardon me, I should never use that word, Mr. Chairman, I apologize—rather, their representations do not carry much weight when you make a distinction, and that's a little worrying. How do you handle calls or letters from members of Parliament?

[English]

Mr. Jeff LeBane: We get many representations from abroad, you are quite right, from members of Parliament. They are taken very seriously. As I said, at the end of the day the onus is on the applicant. That's the way the act is written. The onus is on the client to prove that he's not coming for a permanent reason.

When a member sends a representation, it does get the attention of the program manager. We usually look in the letter for additional information, new information that may have been omitted at the interview. Obviously we are looking to you: if you know if your constituent is a family member, if you have some knowledge of the constituent, it is looked at very seriously.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But there is a problem. The Act as it currently stands gives the officer a lot of discretionary power. I understand that the officer has to use his or her judgement to decide whether to approve a visa; it's certainly not only a question of training, but also of experience and judgement. But what if I'm right, what if I'm committed and can guarantee certain things, and what if I know for sure that a certain Algerian will come to Canada and then leave if asked? I will be is guarantor and tell you in writing that I know this person's background, that he is a businessman with no attachment to Canada who will return to his native country. Will this affect your decision? Can a member of Parliament be a guarantor, argue his case forcefully and be taken seriously?

[English]

Mr. Jeff LeBane: You can say that you are convinced that the client's family in Canada is of very good faith, that you believe in that and you are prepared to make a guarantee. You are making that statement, and we would certainly listen to it. However, for the officer, again, the onus is on the client. For a member of Parliament to say “I will guarantee his return to the country he comes from”, even if it is made in the best of faith, it cannot be enforced. The legislation is such that, for example, if a person comes as a visitor and makes a refugee claim, he is into a different process, and a member of Parliament cannot take that person out of the process and require him to leave the country.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, but that's a different matter.

[English]

The Chairman: Monsieur Ménard, your time is up.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I could come back. Sure.

[English]

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I want to follow along Mr. Ménard's line of questioning.

What we're concerned about is the 10% turndown, all of whom appear to be in my office, all seventy-odd thousand of them. When my staff learned that we would be looking at visitor visas, they literally went to the filing cabinets and hauled out boxes of things that drive us all crazy. So that's really the focus of our questioning, and also to try to drive to some sort of a more reasonable solution.

I'm just looking at your turndown rate. It's somewhat misleading to say it's only 10%, because in some of the posts you virtually turn down nobody. Really, you're dealing with Beijing, New Delhi, Manila; they're your top three, it looks like to me, just doing it in percentage terms—and some of them are pretty darned high.

• 1610

I suppose what I'd like you to address is the arbitrariness of some of the decisions, as we look at the decisions from this side of the ocean, sitting in our constituency offices literally with families, whom we may or may not know, putting us in very awkward positions, but clearly legitimate people, saying they are inviting people to this country to visit for whatever reasons—sick mama, whatever—and we have difficulties in communicating...not difficulties, that's not fair, because with your posts we've had very good communications. So I don't mean to criticize in that respect.

But in some respects the officer is only looking at half the picture, and can only look at half the picture, can only look at the person in front of them, their attachment to the country, the ties to the country, etc. How can we resolve this, whereby the family that is doing the inviting communicates to the officer, absent the MP, absent other interveners, so that there is a fuller picture going to the officer, and whereby, if a guarantee is made, it is an enforceable guarantee? I think you do have authority under section 18 to require actual security, if it comes to that.

Can we move the conversation to that level, as to how to improve this system, because this absolutely drives us all insane.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Maybe I could start off by talking about the issue of guarantees.

We have no provision in the legislation at the moment to ask for an enforceable sponsorship or undertaking for visitors, as we do, for example, for family-class immigrants under the legislation. You're correct in stating that under the current legislation, at the port of entry, a senior immigration officer can require a visitor to post a bond, but a bond is only requested as a means of trying to ensure compliance with terms and conditions that have been imposed on that visitor.

Mr. John McKay: Excuse me, let me just interrupt you, because I want to go through this point by point.

So it's only the senior immigration officer at the point of entry.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right.

Mr. John McKay: So how did the person get to the point of entry, to begin with?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Because someone considered that they were a bona fide visitor.

Mr. John McKay: So the officer back in New Delhi, for instance, has already said this is a bona fide visitor.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Correct.

Mr. John McKay: So why can't we shove that point back?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Because, first of all, going back to the original point, we don't have a mechanism to have an enforceable guarantee that the person to whom we issue a visitor visa will leave Canada at the end of their visit. The bonds that are currently in existence or possible through the Immigration Act are only issued for those individuals who have already been determined to be bona fide visitors, where there's no question as to the bona fides of their temporary visit to Canada.

I guess if we were to ask what would be a reasonable sum put forward as a bond to try to guarantee that someone would leave Canada, you would get into questions about what is a reasonable sum, how much it costs for a person to go through the refugee determination system, and go through all the appeals and so on that follow from a refugee determination system.

Mr. John McKay: Let's get the conversation back to.... First of all, if we're at the point of entry, it strikes me that the horse is out of the barn—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Quite right.

Mr. John McKay: —and this is a useless provision. So let's it back to the point where the officer is sitting opposite the applicant and thinking very seriously that this person does not have sufficient ties to the country to issue a visa. Meanwhile, the family back in Canada, or sponsors, or whoever, are saying they disagree with that assessment and they are prepared to put their money where their mouths are, if you will. And I'm talking legal security at this point.

First of all, you're saying you do not have the regulatory or legal authority to do that.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right.

Mr. John McKay: So that would be a useful area to discuss at this committee, whether that's a good idea or not a good idea.

• 1615

I'm assuming that you have gone around this mulberry bush more than once. Can you give a synopsis of the department's view on moving security to that point and posting it, so that MPs aren't asked to guarantee on something absolutely unenforceable that only besmirches the reputation of the MP?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay, maybe I could say a few words and then I'll invite my colleagues to jump in.

I think our difficulty is in trying to envisage a system that could be enforceable. It would have to be enforceable in order for it to really be effective. That's one point.

Mr. John McKay: I agree.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think the second issue that's difficult here is that we are in many cases dealing with people's intent. Part of what makes the decision-making difficult for a visa officer in deciding whether to issue a visitor visa is that, as Mr. LeBane has said, they have to take into account a whole range of the push and pull factors Ms. Tromp was referring to. It often comes down to whether you think this person would intend to leave Canada. An intention is often difficult to define. It's frequently difficult to really get a handle on intent.

I think that poses the real problem for us in terms of trying to look at a system of enforceable guarantees, however that would be constituted. At the end of the day, the visa officer is still left with trying to assess the individual in front of him or her, looking at all the potential push and pull factors impacting on that individual and trying to assess what that individual would intend to do in the future.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: I'd like to go back one step. First of all, your representations as members of Parliament often result in a visa being issued. I cannot provide you with statistics, but I can provide additional information. Also, when I served overseas we would get very detailed representations from members of Parliament, and sometimes affidavits and detailed information on the constituent, which would suggest there's great legitimacy. We do see the other side.

Now sometimes you get into a very, very difficult situation, and it is a judgment call. It's subjective. The officer under the legislation is trying to be balanced.

And there is a third route we use. It's a misnomer, but it's called the minister's permit. An officer who thinks there may be merit in allowing this person to come forward but who still has concerns can go to the program manager and make a recommendation that a minister's permit be issued to allow someone to come forward to Canada for a temporary purpose—say a sick relative, a funeral, a wedding. When that person comes forward on a minister's permit, he has no appeal rights. That's another vehicle we use. Often when we get representations on those types of difficult cases, we will use a permit.

Mr. John McKay: My concern is even where the member of Parliament feels that this is a legitimate claim, that these are family hardships, the meaninglessness of the guarantee is not readily apparent to all members. I guarantee like a little boy scout that this individual is going to go home. Well, I have absolutely no way of making sure anybody gets on an airplane—none.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right.

Mr. John McKay: It becomes a bit of a fool's game, a mug's game. I'm trying to take us all out of this mug's game so that representations made by families to say that an individual is coming for a visit are enforceable.

I move back to this business of enforceability. Is there any good intellectual reason why a bonding mechanism at the point of embarkation could not be set up in the same manner as we bond people for removals? Presumably under section 18 the senior immigration officer bonds people or requires conditions at point of entry, things of that nature. Is there any reason, intellectually, why that can't work?

• 1620

Ms. Joan Atkinson: First of all, I'd have to say that our preferred approach is always to try to refuse admission to those who are are not coming for a temporary purpose, rather than deal with them after the fact if they're here. Even if we had a bond that was posted, if the individual breaks the terms and conditions of that bond and we collect on that bond, we're still faced with the situation of dealing with this individual and ultimately trying to effect that person's removal potentially.

I think as a basic principle our preference is always to try to deal with the individual overseas and make the best judgment we can in terms of that individual's ability to meet the legislation as it's currently in place.

Mr. John McKay: I don't think any of us—

The Chairman: Perhaps with your permission I would direct part of your question to Ms. Tromp, because it raises a question of potential change in policy. If you could address that, then I will go to Mr. Doyle.

Mr. John McKay: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Well in fact Ms. Atkinson and I share a policy responsibility on this file. The additional context point I would like to make, again in terms of how one could set this up so it would work, is around the cost factor. What would be a reasonable cost? What would be a reasonabe cost first of all to balance off the cost to Canada if that person does arrive and makes a non-genuine refugee claim, but reasonable also in the context of people-smuggling movements right now?

We know for a fact now that people will pay up to $50,000 to be smuggled to this country. So in that context, how much are we talking over and above that amount that would stop these people, would act as a deterrent, and would not simply be adding to the cost of coming here, which is still for them the better alternative of what they're looking to do? The issue of what you would set that bond at where it would become an effective deterrent is really quite an issue.

Mr. John McKay: I could come back on that, but I'm sorry, I've run out of time. If I get another shot at this I'll go at it again.

The Chairman: Mr. Doyle.

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): We'll be able to get back to you in a minute, because I only have one brief question.

What about a country that happens to be a NATO ally, would that make a difference in the ability of the individual to get a visa? For instance, I notice Greek citizens don't need a visa, but Turkish people do, except for diplomats, and both are NATO allies. Why is there a difference?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: The primary reason is that previously Turkey was a visitor-visa-exempt country. There was abuse of that privilege in the 1980s, and for this reason, after review with the foreign affairs department, the government decided to impose a visa requirement. There was an abuse of the system. In the Greek case, we've never had an abuse significant enough to warrant a visa imposition.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Can you be a little more specific? What kinds of abuses would you be talking about?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: People making refugee claims.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Non-genuine refugee claims.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Persons going underground, working illegally, persons seeking to enter Canada with the intention of really accessing the United States—a whole range of issues.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Doyle.

The chair acknowledges Ms. Augustine, then Mr. Benoit.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I liked Mr. McKay's line of questioning simply because those are the questions that face us as members of Parliament in our offices, so forgive me if I continue along that same line.

I want to go back to the question we just left. How does a country get removed from the list? For example, I know that in fairly recent times there are countries you've put on the list because of, as you say, abuses. If those abuses are corrected, or if you do the analysis and see that things have changed, is it in a specific time period? How do you take countries off the list?

• 1625

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Again, I think it's a question of changing circumstances and where conditions change significantly enough to warrant a review of the initial decision. Where there are new factors that come into play, that would certainly would trigger a formal review of the situation.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Guyana was put on fairly recently. Was it Guyana or was it one of the—

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Maybe I could give another example.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Okay.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Look at the example of Chile. That's not necessarily the best example, because we reimposed the visa. But there was a visa requirement. A significant number of people were coming to Canada for reasons other than temporary purposes, so we imposed a visa.

We continue to monitor the situation in Chile. There was a return to democracy. The democratic system was strengthened. The economic situation of the country improved. All the push factors, all the reasons that would encourage people to leave the country and seek to abuse Canadian law, were, at least initially, removed. Their passport was a secure document. All of those conditions were reviewed, and the decision was taken to lift the visa.

Ms. Jean Augustine: The other surprising issue that just came up is the week of in-house training in preparation to go into a cultural or social situation that's different from Canada's situation. I wondered what one can learn in one week. Think of the hardships experienced by individuals in terms of travel from one part of the country to the visa office, wherever that office is. We hear those stories in the case of of Delhi. It takes hours to go from one part of the country. Then you may be denied. We hear stories like that from different places.

For example, say you live in Mali. You're a student who wants a visa. Even though you have a Canadian scholarship, in order to come, you have to go to Côte-d'Ivoire, which is another country far away, in order to pick up a visa. It's expensive to get there. There's the chance of being turned down in another country, and you may have to work your way back to your own country. That seems to be a strange experience.

I just wondered how, in one week of training, people can get that whole notion of hardship that individuals experience in terms of religious and cultural norms. For instance, a wedding is an important aspect in the life of a certain community. Therefore, when I have a wedding, I want my uncle, aunt, grandmother, and all of these people. It's a big celebration if I'm baptising my child. There are all of those things. We hear in MP's offices how they just want this individual to come for this special ceremony.

I want to go back to this whole business of the credibility of MPs' letters. There are instances where MPs—I have done this several times—go through the process of getting the hall where the wedding is booked, and establishing with the church, priest, synagogue, or temple that there's going to be a wedding on a specific date. We know the family. We've seen all of this. We put it all together. We get all the pieces of paper to document the fact that this event is going to take place. When we put it all together, they may still be turned down on the other side.

I'm just wondering about the validity of this. As John was saying, here we go round the mulberry bush. We go through a whole process that takes up a lot of our staff time, energy, and frustration all for a refusal on the other side.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Maybe I could start by speaking a little bit about some of the training issues that have been raised. I'm a former training officer. I was involved with the training of foreign service officers. I was locally engaged to these officers and to immigration officers.

• 1630

In terms of cultural awareness, that is certainly something we do pay particular attention to in the context of our training programs for new Canadian foreign service officers going out on their first posting. Mr. LeBane alluded to the fact that we provide the technical training in terms of what the legislation says—the Immigration Act, the policy guidelines and procedures, and so on. But in the context of that training, we also attempt to provide cultural awareness training that is generic in its approach, because these individuals can be posted anywhere in the world. They need to be able to apply the laws, procedures and guidelines in a consistent fashion, regardless of where they are. They also need to be culturally sensitive to the environment in which they find themselves, again regardless of where they are in the world.

As we know, a lot of adult training or adult learning takes place on the job. We try to provide classroom training to give some grounding, but a lot of the learning takes places once they're out there in the field. A lot of the best kind of experience and the best kind of learning tends to take place once they begin their job. There are some opportunities—Mr. LeBane also alluded to those—to have training experiences on the job during the course of the year that they spend in training. Certainly when they arrive at their first posting there is a period of time when that learning continues before they are expected to be on their own in terms of making decisions.

So we're very much aware of the need to provide the cultural sensitivity training, and we certainly try to do that both in terms of a classroom setting in Ottawa before people go overseas, and in terms of on-the-job training once they get to the post overseas. And I would say that in all of our posts there is a period of orientation training for new arrivals at the post in order to orient those individuals to the specific cultural issues that they need to be aware of when they're dealing with the clientele in that particular environment.

The Chairman: We'll now go to Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My line of questioning isn't going to be really a line of questioning. I have a few questions that are here and there. I do appreciate the questions that have been asked.

The first question I have has to do with the comments on interventions by MPs, the credibility of letters that Ms. Augustine brought up, and that type of thing. I would hope that the only influence from an intervention by an MP would be to maybe bring up information that has been missed, and to have it added to the collective information. Is that a good summary of the influence?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: We obviously look very closely at the contents of the representation, yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But it wouldn't have any influence beyond that.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Well, given the fact that it comes from a member of Parliament, we obviously have to read the contents with care.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In terms of minister's permits, it strikes me that minister's permits really are a demonstration of a conflicting evaluation of the same information or the same evidence. Is that the case, or is there some justification beyond just allowing a different decision to be made with the same information? Is there some other justification for minister's permits?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: In general, minister's permits are issued to allow persons who are clearly inadmissible to come forward to Canada when there are compelling reasons to do so and the risk to Canada is minimal when allowing for the entry of these individuals. Most minister's permits are issued on the basis of grounds of inadmissibility as defined in the Immigration Act.

Mr. LeBane was referring to a possible minister's permit issuance to individuals to whom we cannot issue a visitor's visa. Those persons may be inadmissible because they have not satisfied the visa officer that they are coming to Canada for a temporary purpose. They therefore do not rebut the presumption in the act and do not meet the requirements of the act. However, there may be very compelling reasons for this individual to come to Canada, and the risk to Canada when that individual is admitted is considered to be minimal.

• 1635

I would have to say that the number of times we issue a minister's permit for reasons other than technical ones—for not meeting the act, for criminality or others—to a visitor who does not meet the requirement to be coming to Canada for a temporary purpose are fairly few and far between. It would have to be an exceptionally compelling reason for us to issue something.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So when you get that compelling reason and a permit is issued, is there a way to track at least those individuals to ensure that they do leave the country after their visit?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think we've probably spoken before about the difficulty that we have in terms of tracking individuals once they're in the country.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Even those individuals who are issued a minister's permit because they don't qualify can't be tracked so that you can ensure that they do actually leave?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Because we don't have any form of exit control or any form of tracking people who leave the country, it's difficult to track those individuals.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That seems almost unbelievable. I can understand that when you have 700-some thousand people, to set up a system like that—something being looked at here and in other countries—is a huge job and a huge expenditure. But you're saying it's a very small number. Roughly how many a year would get these minister's permits when it comes to visitors' visas?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I can tell you the total number of minister's permits and I can tell you roughly the percentage that are issued for technical reasons and criminality reasons, but I don't know that my database allows me to break the numbers down in terms of how many of those were issued for technical reasons.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Would it be a rough total of 1,500 a year?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No, we're talking about 4,000 minister's permits annually, and we're talking about 1,500 of those minister's permits that are issued for technical reasons. Those reasons would include early admission, persons who don't have a travel document, or other things like that. I would think our visitors'—

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you would expect that they would qualify, but you want to speed up the process for some reason.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: In the case of early admission, for example.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So that's down to about 2,500.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes.

On criminal inadmissibility, we issue approximately 1,500. I can't give you a precise number of how many minister's permits are issued to those visitors.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You've given me enough—

The Chairman: Your time is up, Mr. Benoit. I will permit you to conclude the question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Seeing that it's is a relatively small number, I just can't imagine it taking a very complex system to track those few particular individuals who are a higher risk when it comes to the visitor category. Have you examined tracking at least those individuals? It's a manageable number, I would think.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think it's part of the larger issue of our system's ability to be able to track individuals in Canada. I would place that within a larger context.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But it's quite a different thing when you're looking at tracking 2,500 as compared to over 100,000 or 700-some thousand visitors.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Benoit, but I cannot allow that question to be answered at this point. You have exceeded your time.

Mr. Leon Benoit: All right.

The Chairman: I will go either to Mr. Ménard or Mr. Telegdi. Normally I would go to Mr. Ménard, but Mr. Telegdi has not had a chance. Would you yield the floor at this point to Mr. Telegdi?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, of course.

[English]

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. LeBane, you say representations by MPs often resolve things successfully in terms of the decision. I wonder if you would have some stats for us.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: We don't keep those types of statistics.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: The one I have in my office is totally different, and it's the same with most MPs that I talked to. We have a problem there.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: As I said, we don't keep those types of statistics. Also, where there might have been decisions to issue because of the representation and the material—that's one statistic—what could skew it a little bit more, too, is a case in which your representation has made a difference and a minister's permit has perhaps been issued as a consequence.

• 1640

I could give you an example of a difficult case. We've talked about what kinds of minister's permit cases a visitor would be justified to have. To follow up on Ms. Atkinson's comments, where there's minimal risk.... For example, let us say you were at a post where you had a client who had repeatedly made a visitor application or an immigration application, and it had been refused many times, particularly, let's say, the immigration application. You know that over a five- or six-year period this person wanted to migrate permanently. You knew that all of her or his family, or most of the family, were in Canada and well established, and they had sponsored her or tried to have her come.

Let's say there was a very important family or religious ceremony, a death in the family, a wedding. There you struggle with the fact that there was something very humanitarian in this. You struggle, and a minister's permit could be looked at.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Just in view of the fact that we will be reviewing the act, I know that when they have concerns about individuals, as to whether or not they are going to reoffend or show up for their court date, the courts have a whole process in place. Part of it is bail, putting up cash, what have you.

It would seem to me—and this is getting to Mr. McKay's problem, as well—that if we have some people coming forward and issuing guarantees, I think we should look at that. We should see how that might possibly be implemented, because I think it's a possibility we could deal with.

Now, if a person makes a deposit when they come in the country, or some people on their behalf make a deposit, you know when they're going to leave, because they're going to go and pick up that money. What kind of things would we have to look at if we were going to put some of that into the legislation?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: I'm not a policy expert, and I know Ms. Atkinson will want to speak further to it.

It would have different parameters and consequences in other aspects of the law. So if somebody posted a bond or guarantee, would that person have rights to make a refugee claim? That's a consequence. And you know that Canada very much guarantees that persons who are in fear should have access to Canada to make refugee claims.

Some people would argue with the suggestion you made. One issue, one challenge, is that if somebody was being persecuted, used that route to come to Canada, and a bond was placed for that person at the port of entry, would that person enjoy the right he now has to make a refugee claim? That's one consequence.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think we go back to the issue Ms. Tromp raised in terms of a reasonable sum that would be effective enough to act as a deterrent, and would be significant enough to be effective.

I think there are some Canadian charter implications in terms of the effect of a bond. Does it preclude people from having access to certain things in Canada in terms of the refugee determination system? What are the appeal rights if you have a bond against you?

I go back to our fundamental problem with the issue of bonds, and that is enforceability and our ability to be able to actually enforce bonds if we were to consider putting up such a system.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: The judicial system enforces it all sorts of times. I have seen some pretty hefty bonds being put in place for a person to be allowed out of custody, if you will, as a form of guarantee.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: But we then go back to our other fundamental point. Our preference is to deal with individuals outside of Canada in terms of making a determination on whether this is an individual who is coming to Canada for a temporary purpose, as opposed to dealing with them once they're here and trying to ensure that they leave.

I suppose you could say that it's much cleaner and less risky for us to deal with them outside Canada, as opposed to dealing with the issue after the fact, once they're here.

• 1645

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I really appreciate what you're saying, but you have situations where tragic circumstances happen in this country. Given the kind of country we have, they are relatives who should be here for the burial.

If the family then comes forward and gives a pretty hefty guarantee—and in some cases they put their houses on the line and guarantee that this individual is going to go back—then I think that for those compassionate situations we have to have something that can respond to that.

What happens now is that the system takes too long. Without some kind of special movement at this end, many people get buried without their loved ones being there when they should be there.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: One of the issues you would have to respond to is rewriting the legislation—

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Well, that's fine.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: —because to suggest posting a bond as a solution right now, in terms of existing legislation, is a contradiction. The interviewing officer overseas—

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. LeBane, I said we were going to be reviewing the act. So I would like some suggestions when we're redoing the act. That was the spirit in which I put forward those questions.

It would be good if the department could think about it, and see if you can look at it as an option when we're doing the review of the act. I don't expect an answer right now, but it's a problem, and we all have to deal with it.

The Chairman: So perhaps later some answers may be forthcoming on your option.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: What I really want our guests to understand is that there is something deeply wrong with the system. And that is that a single person, a man or a woman, should have the sole power to decide whether another person, who is more often than not in a desperate situation, will be admitted into the country. It doesn't make sense.

There should be room for an appeal, and I am strongly committing myself to fight for one, with force and conviction, when the bill comes up for study. There has to be some form of appeal, as there is in many other administrative areas. It's not right that everything should depend on a visa officer, who may make an open- minded and informed decision—or not.

I truly get the impression that there are places in the world whose people have no chance of coming here. I know of some Algerians who couldn't come to Canada and were killed. They were rejected at every turn. Despite the fact that some people were willing to sponsor them, despite the fact that the member of Parliament was willing to commit himself, despite the fact that we were dealing with the businessman who would have returned home—there was nothing to be done.

The system is a failure at some level. There are places throughout the world which just don't work—nothing works there. It's not right that just because a country is in shambles we should think that people won't go back and reject them out of hand. On the contrary, when there is trouble we should show our humanitarian side.

Of course, I understand that you're enforcing the law and that you have to deal with it. You're not the one who drafted it. You simply follow the rules. We shouldn't be having this debate with you.

I want to ask you the following question: what role does the Minister play when someone has to decide which citizens from which country require a visa? You stated earlier that officials had the power to make those decisions. So, are Canadian officials the ones who decide whether a visa is required or not, or does the Minister have the final say?

[English]

Mr. Jeff LeBane: The department will look at the situation in the country. It will analyse the circumstances. There will be intradepartmental meetings. Often officials will be invited from the Department of Foreign Affairs, and a recommendation will be made from departmental officials to the minister.

The minister makes a final decision. She or he will often consult with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Last question. The case of Chile has caused an uproar recently, because between January 1995 and June 1996, the Government of Canada unilaterally lifted all visa requirements for Chileans coming to Canada. This caused a wave of 3,000 Chileans to enter the country, of whom 80% settled in Quebec, and very few of whom had been approved by the IRB.

• 1650

Of course, you're not responsible for this stage in the process—I recognize that. But it indicates that if you drop a visa requirement, there will be consequences. In doing so, you create expectations and people will flood into the country.

Does the law require the Minister to consult with the provinces when deciding which countries require a visa and which ones don't, or does it fall entirely under federal jurisdiction?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: As the law is currently constructed, and according to the way in which we implement it, it is a federal decision. Under the legislation the federal government does not have any obligation to consult with the provinces on the issue of when to impose a visitor visa or to lift the visitor visa.

The Chairman: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you for this interchange. I think we're moving the ball forward somewhat.

I want to go back to our last conversation with respect to people smuggling, and things of that nature, and bring it back to where it is at our desk.

I asked my staff to bring up a couple of files that, to my mind, seemed to put a human face on our situation. That is the basis on which I would rather deal, rather than getting into the whole issue of people smuggling, notwithstanding that I realize there's a policy issue there.

Our constituent has been here for 22 years. She is a Canadian citizen, as are her husband, mother, and other members of the extended family. Recently her mother took ill. The family got together and decided that as a Christmas present to the mother they would bring another sister and brother, the son and daughter of the ill mother, to Canada from Guatemala for a surprise visit. After much back and forth paperwork and guarantees—now the trip is no longer a surprise—the brother received the visa, but the sister didn't. Our constituents are very distressed and surprised.

There is a second case. The mother is very ill and wishes to see her daughter living in Jamaica. The trip is refused because her Canadian income is too low to support a visitor for two weeks. Her Canadian daughter's income is $1,700 every two weeks; this was submitted. The daughter's husband's income is $64,000; this is not taken into account. The mother, who is now confined to a wheelchair, is booking Wheel-Trans for Monday to bring in supporting documents. This is certainly enough income to cover a two-week visit.

However I slice these, the decision seems to be quite arbitrary. In effect, I'm now faced with the position of gathering information for the department to review the decision, and writing some letter that says I guarantee something.

I've been practising law for 22 or 23 years now, and I don't guarantee anything for anybody. I just don't do it, because my standard of guarantee is somewhat similar to a judge holding me in contempt if I've said anything in an affidavit that is not true.

I cannot meet that standard out of my office. I'm not resourced, nor am I inclined, to go to that level of “guarantee.”

I want out of this dilemma. I really want out of this dilemma. I'm sure you do as well.

There are various levels of undertakings that can be given. We've kind of jumped to the concept of bond a little quickly.

I'm wondering whether you have given any thought to levels of undertakings that our Canadian citizens as hosts can give to the department that would satisfy the department. They would not obviate the requirement for information—I'm not getting into that point—but would satisfy the department. They would not necessarily require security, but would be, if you will, a first step in this process.

I want to be out of this triangle. I want the relationship to be between the department, the person extending the invitation, and the visitor as well. We can do that as a triangle there.

• 1655

I really want to get out of this. So what undertakings that are meaningful could be set up? You could ratchet up the undertaking according to security and move over into the level of security at some point. Have you given any thought to that kind of approach?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'll start. On the issue of undertakings, I guess my first comment is that when we look at undertakings in the context of a temporary entry movement, it's very different from undertakings in an immigrant movement.

With undertakings in an immigrant movement, you're looking at the potential sponsors' finances, their income, all those issues that you touched on. But you're looking at those in the context of their ability to be able to support the individuals who are coming forward to live here permanently.

Again, if we look at exactly those same sorts of issues with respect to a potential sponsor for a visitor, we're looking at something entirely different. We're saying show us how much security you have, how much money you have, how much your house is worth, what your income is. We're asking you to guarantee this person's intent at the other end of the line.

Mr. John McKay: Yes, I appreciate that it's difficult to guarantee anybody's intent, because intent changes from day to day—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Exactly.

Mr. John McKay: Circumstances change. I appreciate that. But having said that, I ask if there is a low-level undertaking.... You know, you do your analysis. Nobody is objecting to that. The MP's office contributes to the analysis or not, as the case may be. Is there a level of undertaking that says we will seek redress? You undertake to make sure that this person is on the airplane going home at the end of the visa. It's pretty simple. We the department will seek recourse against you.

Now, I appreciate that you have no security at this point. But we will seek recourse against you if that person fails to get on the airplane.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, let's take this a step further. Let's say we did that, and we say we will seek recourse against you. We allowed your relative to come in to visit your very ill mother, or to attend the funeral of your family member who has died. That family member who came didn't leave, but submitted a refugee claim, and has done whatever. Are we now going to go out as a federal government and seize their house, because that's the security they put up to guarantee that person's intention?

Mr. John McKay: Well, I hadn't got to that point of security.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: But if we take it to its logical conclusion, are we faced with that kind of dilemma? Do we want to be faced with that kind of dilemma?

Mr. John McKay: Well, I've done mortgage remedy law for years.

The Chairman: John, can you...?

Mr. John McKay: Yes, okay, I'll narrow this one right down.

I'm perfectly happy with the federal government seeking recourse, because this person entered into a contract to buy the house. This person sought out a lawyer to search the title. This person entered into a mortgage contract. This person has entered into contracts left, right, and centre in order to be able to own a house.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: But they weren't doing that on the basis of trying to guarantee someone else's intent.

Mr. John McKay: But if you force them into a position of—

The Chairman: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I'm sorry, Rey.

A voice: Oh, oh.

Mr. John McKay: You may actually focus their minds on this visitor.

The Chairman: I think we have to leave it at that then.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would like to get an answer to the question Mr. McKay asked.

Mr. John McKay: It's always scary when the opposition is non-partisan.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John McKay: Well, you see, we have to do both sides of the job. We have to do the government job and then we have to do the opposition job.

The Chairman: That time will be counted on his time.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What I'm looking for is an answer to Mr. McKay's question.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: And the question was...?

Mr. Leon Benoit: It was kind of a long, rambling question. I understand why you're having a little problem with it.

Mr. John McKay: Well, I think it's a matter of almost a sea change in thinking here. When you give an undertaking, an undertaking has the force of law. The undertaking as a force of law will have consequence and remedies. It's a remedy the government has to have the guts to pursue.

• 1700

And don't give me a lot of Mickey Mouse excuses about “I didn't really know what they were doing here”. I'm sure you have the list of excuses that you've heard a thousand different times. When I was doing mortgage remedy law I heard, “I didn't know what I was signing. I didn't know the interest rate. I didn't know that I had to make monthly payments.” That stopped the banks.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In terms of the undertaking, I actually wanted to go along that line of questioning anyway. You made a comment earlier that if there's an undertaking for someone who is looking for a temporary stay, as compared to someone who is looking to come permanently, you view them differently. Could you quickly explain exactly how you view them differently?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: When I talk about sponsorship or undertaking for an immigrant, I'm of course talking about the family class. The whole principle behind the family class immigration movement is that there is a Canadian resident or citizen who wishes to bring their family member to live with them permanently in Canada—a spouse, dependent children, parent, grandparent, orphan, brother, sister, all those family members who fall within the family class.

The undertaking is a guarantee that the sponsor in Canada will provide for the necessary essentials, care, food and support for the individual who's coming to Canada to live permanently. So the undertaking is you will be responsible for this individual's care in Canada.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Right, but why should there be any less of an undertaking for someone sponsoring a visitor?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: For the person who would “sponsor” a visitor, we're not necessarily interested in whether they have the finances to provide for the care and support of this individual. What we're really getting at is we want you to guarantee that this person will leave Canada. We want you to put, if I understand what we're talking about here, these securities on the line that you can guarantee this person's intent that they will leave Canada at the end of their stay. They're very different.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But how would you ever know? There's no tracking. How do you really have any idea whether this person does leave or not? That was kind of what my question was founded on. It's a pretty serious commitment, and you have no way of knowing whether that commitment has been fulfilled or not.

Mr. John McKay: If it's a proper undertaking, you don't care.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We would still need to know whether people had left or not in order to be able to see whether we had to follow through on it. But I think we go back to the statistic we gave previously, that the number of individuals who are issued visitor visas who actually claim refugee status is 0.002%.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But it's not those I'm concerned about. That seems like a reasonable number, quite frankly, out of 700,000 or so, but you have no way of knowing how many of the 700,000 and some visitors a year actually ever leave the country.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We would surmise by those kinds of statistics that most of them do.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But why? There will be visitors who will certainly come with the intent of establishing a permanent base in our country—for example, people who may be involved in organized crime. And they're going to know how to use the system very well, those who tend to be involved in any crimes. So they're going to know how to use the system and you have absolutely no way of knowing whether they're leaving or not.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: As we said before, we don't have exit controls. So we don't track individuals in Canada and we don't know at what time they leave Canada. But in order to go underground in Canada and to establish yourself without going through the refugee determination system, it takes a lot of effort. It's not an easy proposition.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I want to approach that from a little bit of a different angle.

In terms of the approval rate for visitors under the visitor visas, it's roughly 90% in Canada. How does that compare to the acceptance rate in the United States or Australia?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: We don't have those statistics.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You must have looked at it, though.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. We'll see if we can provide them for you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You must have a pretty good idea. Even if you don't have the exact information, I'd appreciate even an estimate, because you work with this all the time. Is Canada higher or lower in terms of approval rate?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't think we really know. We'll get back to you on that one.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm a little surprised you wouldn't know that offhand.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We don't have it off the top of our heads, anyway.

• 1705

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. That makes the rest of that line of questioning a little bit difficult.

To ask about the variation in acceptance rates between countries, from what country would you have the lowest acceptance rate, and from what country that requires a visitor visa would you have the highest acceptance rate, that type of thing? We have the list here, but I'm looking for the ones that aren't on the list.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: If I may, first of all, there was an earlier comment about China and the refusal rate being very high. The refusal rate for China is approximately 13% of all visitor applicants. For India it's 26%.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, I believe we have the information on the highest countries.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: The lowest one?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm looking for the acceptance rates of those that aren't on the list. I'm looking particularly for countries that have an extremely high rejection rate, and I'd like to know why.

The Chairman: So you'd like to know which country has the highest rejection rate.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Bangladesh.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Why would that be?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: It's because we know from experience that a significant number of persons who come here go underground, are subject to orders of removal, make refugee claims.

For example, for the number two country, Colombo, Sri Lanka, our refusal rate is very high. Only as an example, there are a lot of people-smuggling issues related to Sri Lanka. In terms of refugee claims in Canada, Sri Lanka has the highest number—

Mr. Leon Benoit: What about former Soviet bloc countries, and Russia, in fact?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: The refusal rate for Moscow, say Russia, is 12%.

One of the challenges, however, of our statistics—and this is something we grapple with—is when we look at a post, for example New Delhi, we assume the great majority of applicants are Indian, but persons could apply at that post from Islamabad or from Colombo. But with larger posts, like London, England, when we say there's a refusal rate of let's say 5%, British nationals don't require a visa to come to Canada, so you're talking about nationals from all over the world. We have to be careful with the statistics.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I notice for New York, for example, you have 40,000 applying, 37,000 being accepted. They're obviously not Americans.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Correct.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm surprised—

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, I have to interrupt you.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: To pursue the line of questioning, I think Mr. McKay would know from the courts that there are different undertakings and different levels of guarantee sought. If somebody puts up a house guaranteeing something, or whatever guarantee they put, then that house is gone after.

I think it would be useful if we had some options to look at, options such as if the individual comes in—and they're usually sponsored by more than one person, it's usually a group that's involved, with all sorts of family members—and they get together and come up with some kind of undertaking, but a deposit as well, so we actually know when they are leaving the country, because then they can go and pick up their deposit and we could keep track of it. Let's have some system that doesn't cost the taxpayers any money, so if that individual then goes on and decides to apply for refugee status, just as the family-class people are guaranteed financially, we could put some kind of similar guarantee on it.

It would be useful if we had an option to look at, which in some way would address some of the real problems we have. This is a problem that happens regularly up in my area. People are quite willing to do all sorts of things to get those people in, because they know the person is returning. They see the decision as being arbitrary and wrong. So they will not bet the farm on it, but it should be their right, going into it with their eyes open.

• 1710

Mr. Jeff LeBane: If I may, to try to respond to that issue would require possibly a very significant redefining of a visitor visa, perhaps with a subcategory of a family visit with the inclusion of an affidavit, and that could be spelled out. But somewhere in the process you would have to build in the clear understanding that there are no appeal rights. Now, there may be extreme humanitarian situations, but you're dealing with a very fundamental reworking of long-accepted definitions, involving, for example, a visa and a subcategory for family, which is a very significant change in legislation.

Mr. John McKay: Are these doable from a regulatory standpoint, or do they require a legislative initiative?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I would say that this would require legislative change and that it would require, as Mr. LeBane is saying, a fundamental rethinking of how we define a visitor visa. I think there would be significant resource implications for the government in putting in place such a system. There are significant issues, for sure.

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi, are you done?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: One of the things I wouldn't want to see happen is that all of a sudden everybody who comes in is put under this category. I'm looking for a special category where they're not allowed in and where there's a guarantor on this side.

Mr. John McKay: For 90% of the people it works.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Yes, but I don't want to all of a sudden see the whole 90% of them going through the same system.

Mr. John McKay: No, that's what he's talking about. He's talking about—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Let's not forget that in that 10% of people who are refused, we're also talking about people who are refused not just on the case of bona fides but because there are real and legitimate security concerns, criminality concerns, medical concerns, and so on. As Mr. LeBane has said, you'd have to try to define some special category of family visa or something, which would require a fairly fundamental rethink of our approach.

The Chairman: The chair would like to pose a few questions for the information of the membership.

Mr. John McKay: No permission is given.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Are you satisfied that there is a uniformity in the approach of visa officers within the same office in handling visitor requests?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Yes, I am satisfied. What we do in large offices, such as in New Delhi and Hong Kong, is that we rotate officers through different positions in the program so that they're exposed to all aspects of it. The average length of an assignment overseas is three years. We like to rotate them, because it's not good for the officer and it's not good for the program. Where there are what we call quality of concern issues, the program manager will look at, if necessary, the performance of the officer. As we've said, where there is a refusal on a visitor visa, Mr. Chair, we will have another officer do a second interview if there's a second application; and if there is a third application, it would involve another officer. So we try to ensure that all officers are being exposed as much as operationally possible to all aspects of the program, that they work in all aspects of the program, and that the program manager—and at larger posts, the deputy program manager—is monitoring their work.

The Chairman: In light of the repeated requests your foreign posts have received on this issue and in light of concerns raised by members of Parliament during today's discussion, has your office given any thought to providing a guideline of procedures, which you can convey to us in writing, to assist us as members of Parliament as to how best we can improve our way of representing the interests of those people who seek our assistance?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: In terms of assisting you, my first question to a constituent would be, are you sure that your relative, your client, has made known all possible information? Is he aware of the information you have as a constituent? That's number one.

• 1715

Number two, in terms of assisting you, if you are completely at a loss as to why the application was refused in the case you cited, I would go to the program manager and say “I have this constituent, and he has made these representations. These are the facts I know in this case. I am really at a loss as to why this case was not visa'd. I would welcome your comments, specific or general—or have you considered other options?”

The Chairman: In terms of uniformity, I did ask another question on that. The other question I would ask is are you assured that foreign offices do require certain and specific documentation that all other offices do require?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: When a person makes a visitor application they are invited to provide as much proof as they can in support of their visitor application, because the onus, the burden, is on them.

We suggest in our letters around the world that the following documents might be helpful: a letter of invitation, and bank statements. The provision or the lack of these, in themselves, does not result in direct correlation to the refusal of the visa; they are documents we invite applicants to submit in support of their application.

The Chairman: Would not this very request and having produced this documentation lead to cynicism about the process?

What we hear from constituents are stories like they provided the affidavit of support and the letter of invitation that was asked of them, and so on, and then all of a sudden it was still refused them. Have you examined the negative implication of making requests like this, which at the same time will not play a critical role?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Again, I think we need to go back to the principles and the fact that the burden of proof is on the client, as well the other side of the coin, which is that it's incumbent upon the visa officer to consider any and all evidence the client has presented in order to discharge that burden.

So there is a list of documentation that people are invited to submit with their application. It is incumbent upon the visa officer to consider all of that documentation that is presented as the evidence and to make a decision based on all of that documentary evidence, plus, in many cases, a personal interview, a face-to-face interview. Let's not forget that in the case of visitor visa processing, in many cases there is a face-to-face interview with the decision-maker, so the client has an opportunity to present the documentary evidence, plus all the case, and the visa officer has the opportunity to clarify whatever information is being provided in that documentation, ask additional questions, and then take all of that information into account and make the decision.

The Chairman: What value does an affidavit of support, notarized by a commissioner of oaths, or a lawyer or a notary public, have when the contents of that document are not enforceable?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: First and foremost, it establishes that there is a relative in Canada, and it provides some information on the relative in Canada.

Remember, the officer overseas is seeing in a year, at a busy post, thousands and thousands of persons. It helps him to make the decision as well informed as he can be.

The Chairman: Does it have to be under the signature of a lawyer?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: No, it does not.

The Chairman: Okay.

Members have asked this question in various ways, so I will ask Ms. Atkinson and Ms. Tromp: is there a need for a study? I am not asking whether we should do it or not; I am asking if there is a value to doing a study and looking at those cases that were refused by the visa office, either the first time, the second time, or the nth time, and then, on representation by a member of Parliament, are granted either a normal visitor visa or a minister's permit and then how many of these renege on the promise. Do you see a value to that?

Secondly, to make that kind of a study even more valuable research-wise, you would like to know—and I think Mr. Benoit had asked this question—how many of those in fact, assisted by the visa offices, have been allowed to go in without representation on the part of all others, and then what happened to them. What it will show is the quality and certainty of that subjectivity that is there and will continue to be there.

• 1720

Do you see a value for such a study for a greater assurance of the objectivity of subjectivity, if I may say?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, I think if we had the kind of system that would allow us to extract that information, it might be a worthwhile thing to do. What I fear is that, as we've been discussing with Mr. Benoit, we don't have the systems that allow us to extract that information.

The Chairman: That's right. I mean, firstly—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: What we do have is the ability to know when we've issued a visitor visa whether that individual has claimed refugee status. This is information that is available and is sent back to the issuing post so they can look at the decision that was made in this case and see if there are any lessons to be learned. Oftentimes we find there are no general lessons to be learned from this particular case. It was, as all cases are, an individual case examined on its own merits based on the individual circumstances. We did our best assessment of intent of that individual at that time, and intent changed or we were wrong in terms of our assessment of that person's intent.

The Chairman: But you would agree, and I think I heard it from you, that when you see a pattern of cases coming from a single visa office, coming from a single officer in the given office or offices, when you see this data in front of you, if you asked a group of experts from the field of research methodology, they should be able to tell you that you will be able to glean a good deal of information that can improve upon the system.

Now you alluded to that and that there is no structure at the present time. My first question, which was.... I premised my question with “if indeed there is a value”. We can progress from the point of view that there is a value to it to doing such a study. It may not be doable on a cost basis, or whatever, but if there is a value, then we must examine the next step: is it doable, or what have you.

Do you share my sentiment?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, I would say as a general principle that we're certainly in favour of doing quality assurance across the board in the immigration program. There are obviously resource issues, systems issues, and so on, but as a general principle, yes, doing quality assurance studies of the kind you've indicated is something we would aspire to do.

The Chairman: So I will pause here and open the panel. Remember, though, tomorrow we can still have the witnesses before us. Do we still need them for tomorrow?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Oh, yes.

The Chairman: I think you have a continuing invitation.

Who's the next in line? Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. LeBane, you mentioned that we know that people go underground. I think that's a comment you may have—

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Some people.

Mr. Grant McNally: Do you base that on the fact that some people do make the refugee claims, or are there other indicators you have that people go underground?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Some of this is anecdotal, but we know of some investigations into restaurants where people are working without permits, without proper status in Canada.

Mr. Grant McNally: So people are detected in ways other than through the immigration stream?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: In other ways, yes. Sometimes informants will say “Are you aware that Mr. X is working illegally?”

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. I have another question. You mentioned that for a country to be put on the visa requirement list there needs to be a certain level of abuse of the system happening from individuals within that area, which seems to indicate there is an acceptable level of abuse before it gets to an unacceptable level. What is the determination from point A to point B before the country goes from the non-visa list to the visa list?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I don't think there is a simple answer to that question. There isn't a magic number at which point one turns the corner, because it has to be looked at in the context of what exactly is going on in that case, what is that movement all about, and what all the other factors are, all the other criteria that play on that situation, and whether or not the imposition of a visa in this case would be warranted.

Mr. Grant McNally: So there's no one person who makes that determination. It would be, I think you mentioned earlier, somebody from the Department of Foreign Affairs and the immigration department. They kind of get together and say there are problems here. But there is no clear-cut process in place as to how that's determined; it's almost as though instead of individuals on a case-by-case basis, it's a country case-by-case determination as to who gets put on the list.

• 1725

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: No, again, it would be a significant.... We monitor things and we have systems that allow us to track—

Mr. Grant McNally: You mention that word “significant” again. I'm trying to find out from you what is significant. In order for that determination to be made, even though it's somewhat subjective, there have to be some.... Somebody I would hope has some indication of what “significant” equals. What is the operational definition of that?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: One aspect of that would be large influxes of persons from countries that did not require visitor visas—sudden unforeseen, large influxes of persons, as was the case with Chile, as was the case last year with the Czech Republic.

Mr. Grant McNally: It would seem, though, that if there was a visa requirement lifted, then it's obviously going to be easier for individuals to get to Canada. So there is obviously going to be, without a doubt, an influx of individuals from that country where the visa requirement is lifted. Certainly that can't be the only determining factor.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No, I think we're talking about things like an influx of non-genuine refugee claims.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay, so the amount determinations—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Would be against one issue.

Mr. Grant McNally: Finally, Ms. Tromp, you mentioned that you know there's people-smuggling going on and you're aware of it. People can pay up to $50,000, I think you mentioned. What information do you have about that in terms of how widespread it is and what your department has in terms of information as to this very serious abuse of the system?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: It is a serious abuse of the system. It's a global problem and it is a priority for us as a department and for the government.

We're working very closely with other countries in terms of information sharing, and our own intelligence systems in terms of tracking illegal migration of peoples, significant routing, and significant movements, to be able to better target people smugglers with our interdiction activities.

We also are working in multilateral fora—for example, the United Nations. Right now we are working quite actively in the development of two protocols under the UN convention on organized crime—one on the trafficking of migrant smuggling and the other on trafficking of women and children. We're very active in that area.

Mr. Grant McNally: I think we heard about interdictions last year, and I talked to some RCMP officers who were involved in it as well, as being a very positive way to.... It seems to me you're indicating today that the front end of the system, putting the resources there before individuals get to Canada, is where the best benefit is in terms of the process and what happens, because it gets very convoluted and troublesome to remove somebody if they're not deemed to be admissible here.

What kinds of interdiction programs are you aware of that are happening now? I know we heard about the two-week one at Kuala Lumpur. Are there regularly scheduled interdiction programs to particular spots for particular lengths of time?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: First of all, we have a network of immigration control officers—

Mr. Grant McNally: Is it 12 officers, or 20?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: No, it's more than that. It's 27.

Mr. Grant McNally: Worldwide, so in all the 79 posts—

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: There are 27 immigration control officers, and their responsibility would be for a specific region. They would have responsibility for working closely with the airlines, in terms of training and on interdiction, and recognizing fraudulent documents or documents that have been abused in some way.

We are very successful in that regard and quite active, and in fact a number of other countries are now following that example in setting up networks of their own.

Mr. Grant McNally: So how many interdiction plans are there in place for the next year? Have you determined, for the next year, we're going to target x amount of interdiction programs and x amount of regions, or x amount of—

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: In addition to that ongoing interdiction training that takes place by our immigration control officers, we do also, I suppose, take on specific interdiction initiatives or activities, again targeting a specific location, going overseas and working with the airlines in a particular location where there has been a significant problem.

• 1730

The Chairman: I will allow Mr. Benoit one short question and one short answer.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's just a follow-up on a question Mr. McNally asked about.

You know people are willing to pay $50,000. I'm wondering where this figure came from. There's got to be a reason you used the figure of $50,000. I'm just wondering how you know that and where it came from.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Again, it is based on our intelligence gathering. It is information we get when we catch smugglers or information we get from individuals. Often it is anecdotal, such as when they explain how they arrived here and what they did to come here. For example, someone who arrives undocumented may then go on to explain that he gave his documents to such and such an individual. He may or may not say who the individual is and he may say he paid certain sums of money. So we often gather this information from those who are smuggled and other intelligence efforts.

The Chairman: I would like to conclude this meeting and invite you to come again tomorrow. There is a lot of interest in this issue, as you may know.

I would like to thank you on behalf of the committee.

I only request that during your appearance tomorrow you provide the committee with a list of countries that have the highest rejection rate—the top five or the top ten—and the actual rate of rejection, if possible.

I remind the committee members that the meeting tomorrow will be at 9 a.m. in Room 362 East Block.

Thank you so much.

The meeting is adjourned.