:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to thank the committee for inviting us to speak.
As Mr. Gilbert has indicated, my name is Burke Thornton, and I'm the immigration program manager in Buffalo. I am joined by Catherine Bailey, who is our deputy program manager.
I'd like to provide a short overview of the program in Buffalo, emphasizing some topics that I believe would be of interest to the committee.
We are an office of 51 people, including Canada-based officers and local staff. Approximately half our staff are Canadian citizens and residents who commute from the nearby communities of Fort Erie, St. Catharines, and the Niagara region, across the bridge daily, to work at our consulate in Buffalo.
I will start the description of the program with the temporary residence program.
Our movement is incredibly varied. We have applicants from more than 160 countries applying at the consulate in Buffalo. Only a very small part of this non-immigrant movement are U.S. citizens, because visitors are visa-exempt, and most U.S. students and workers apply directly at ports of entry into Canada.
Our temporary resident program has been characterized by continuous growth over the past few years. We have set a new record for output every year since 2005. Our intake has increased 64% since 2005, and 25% in the past two years alone.
We have now surpassed New York, our colleagues in New York, as the U.S. mission with the highest non-immigrant application intake, and we have made the top-ten list globally.
Acceptance rates are much higher than global norms, running to about 94% or 95%, as most of our applicants have already been admitted to Canada or the U.S.A. So we have the advantage of having, if you like, a pre-screening done on those applicants.
While we offer walk-in service four mornings a week, approximately 80% of applications are submitted by mail, and we have established a post office box in Fort Erie, Ontario, just across the bridge, so that our Canadian clients can submit applications entirely using the Canadian postal system. Because of the high percentage of mail-in applications, our processing times are lengthier than in most offices where walk-in service is the norm, but still approximately 67% are finalized in 14 days or less.
Here is just a word about students. Our numbers have increased 54% in the last two years. Most of our applicants live in Canada. Korea is the country from which we have the highest intake, with about 18%, and that's followed by the U.S.A., running about 12%.
With regard to temporary foreign workers, again, most of our temporary applicants reside in Canada, having entered as visitors. Buffalo received 2,800 such applications in 2010, which is an 80% increase in the last five years.
With respect to permanent residents, Buffalo is responsible for the intake of all permanent resident applications submitted by persons lawfully admitted to Canada or the United States for at least one year.
We're the regional program centre and the hub of the United States delivery network, and our partner offices are in Detroit, New York, Seattle, Los Angeles, and Washington.
Our office is responsible for the initial review of applications. This includes the creation of the paper and electronic files as well as the initiation of security and criminality checks. Buffalo keeps approximately 50% of the applications and sends the other 50% to the other four U.S. offices for processing.
In 2010, the U.S. delivery network received the highest volume of permanent resident applications, approximately 20,400, and issued the most visas, approximately 38,500, out of all visa offices and regional program centres across the world.
Approximately 15%, or one in six, of all visas issued abroad in 2010 were issued by the U.S. delivery network. We expect similar results for 2011.
A high percentage of applicants are from Canada or residing in Canada, and that is due in part to the growing uptake from the provincial nominee program and Canadian experience class.
I'd like to talk a little bit about provincial nominees and skilled workers. We received the largest volume of nominees, more than 6,000, and issued the most visas in this category, approximately 13,000.
Our application intake has seen a significant shift in recent years. In 2010 the issuance of nominee visas exceeded that of federal skilled workers for the first time in our history. Even so, we delivered a significant proportion of the skilled worker visas in 2010--almost 17,000--and that includes quite a large Quebec skilled worker caseload.
We are responsible for processing all Canadian experience class cases. That movement is going up. We issued 3,900 visas in 2010 and we expect to issue 5,000 in 2011. In the family class priority we issued 3,700 such visas in 2010, again including Quebec cases. That's the second-largest in the world.
Many of these cases are straightforward, but there can be challenges--high incidence of criminal convictions, difficulty in obtaining medical results from non-accompanying dependents, and difficulties in motivating certain applicants to comply with processing requirements. Most of these cases are finalized well within one year. And we are able to finalize 50% of our spousal cases in less than six months, once they're received.
In 2010 we issued almost 450 visas for parents and grandparents. Processing time is currently about 19 months. We expect to issue close to the same number of visas in 2011.
We believe we're in a good position to deliver on our commitments this year and will continue to try to motivate ourselves and our staff to make ourselves the most efficient visa office in the global network.
Thank you.
I thank you for being here. Olivia Chow sends her regrets that she can't be with us this morning. I thank you for the opportunity.
I appreciate my friends in Buffalo. I actually live in Welland, so we live less than a stone's throw away from one another. I think those of us who live in the Niagara region understand the difficulties and the numbers. I recognize you're here today to tell us that, but I think those of us who live in Niagara already know it, especially if you happen to be on the Fort Erie side of the border.
You outlined the different classes in your presentation--I'm sorry I was a little late and missed you actually saying it, but I've read through it. You talked about a great number of folks who actually reside in this country regardless of what class they happen to come in as.
I look at, for instance, the temporary residence class. You say that 75% of temporary residence applications are from foreign nationals residing in this country who actually come back to Buffalo to apply to come back. Is it your sense that is an efficient way to do an application process for some? I'm assuming that the vast majority or a good number of those 75% don't live in Niagara and certainly don't live in Fort Erie and are travelling all the way to Buffalo from, I would imagine for the majority, somewhere in Ontario but maybe from beyond that, to actually be processed. Does that make sense and is that an efficient use of our ability, or is there another way to do that?
Thank you very much for attending our meeting this morning.
As a fellow Niagaran, I certainly want to express to you my appreciation for all the work you do. It's not often that an MP has the opportunity to work with a consulate on such a regular basis, and I certainly appreciate all the efforts you put forward.
I know that between my office and yours we have a great and strong working relationship, including our recent trip to Albany, New York, to meet with legislators down there. I certainly want to thank you for the work you do. Please pass on my regards to the consul general. It would be much appreciated.
I have a couple of questions in regard to the fact that you are in close proximity to Canada. One thing is that if we're actually at your facility and we witness the processing of the work you do, I was surprised, certainly, at the amount of files that are actually so easily transferable between processing centres and consulates.
I wonder you could speak to that from a global perspective. In terms of our work with understanding these wait times better from region to region and country to country, a lot of us aren't aware of the amount of the transfer of files that takes place and the work that's done not just at your facility, obviously, but across North America.
I wonder if you could describe how that process works and perhaps the number of transfers that are made between your centre and those across North America.
I want to thank the committee for inviting me to speak on behalf of the Sponsor our Parents group.
My name is Felix Zhang and I am the coordinator of Sponsor our Parents group, which has more than 1,300 members who are sponsoring their parents or grandparents to immigrate to Canada.
I would like to draw the committee's attention to what our members are concerned about and what we are struggling with during the wait time for family reunification.
Firstly, the current wait time of parents' and grandparents' immigration has been significantly longer than a few years ago. Their first-step sponsorship application at the Mississauga office takes more than 41 months right now. After that, it will take an additional few years for the second-step immigration application at CIC overseas offices.
Given the current inventory and annual visa targets, those who are submitting applications now would wait 10 to 15 years or even longer to reunite parents in Canada. Our members think the wait time is way too long and becomes impractical for old parents and grandparents. Many of them do not believe their parents could live that long to make it. In fact, I'm personally aware of at least four cases where the parents passed away during the wait.
There's a comment from a group member. He said his father waited to see them again but passed away without even getting to hold his grandchild. He asked to please not make us wait too long to meet our lonely parents who we, the hardworking, law-abiding residents of Canada, turn into guilt-bearing, depressed souls. How sad is that?
Secondly, the processing times of immigration applications among CIC overseas offices are extremely imbalanced. As per the CIC website, the processing times of parents and grandparents class vary from 11 months to 44 months across the world. Our survey results suggest that most cases submitted to Buffalo in the last six months have been finalized in four or five months. However, applications submitted to the Beijing office in 2007 are still waiting.
Our members strongly believe it is totally unfair that some sponsors have to wait much longer than others solely because their parents live in different countries or even in the same country but in different provinces.
Thirdly, the wait time of the entire immigration process is highly unpredictable. CIC does not have any service standards or estimations of the processing times. It is unclear how many cases are in the backlog and how many visas will be issued on an annual basis. Our members are very stressed when their parents ask for the timeline of the immigration process. They simply have no answer, have no clue about how long it's going to take.
Our members are very frustrated with the current practices of the parents and grandparents sponsorship immigration and urge CIC to reduce the wait time within a reasonable timeframe, balance the processing times among visa offices to ensure equitable global service, and improve the transparency of the processes.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
Thanks for your work. I'm quite aware of your work. I know that you are good advocates and also good supporters of those who are enduring these wait times.
I didn't get to ask this in the last round. I'm trying to understand, and you may be able to shed some light on this, the relationship between inventories--the people who are in the queue waiting--and actual targets for this year.
I notice that in Buffalo, for instance, in the inventory in October, 300 people were waiting under family class: parents and grandparents. Yet the target for this year is 415. There were 300 people in the queue in October, and the target for 2011 is 415, whereas in New Delhi there are 5,229 in the queue, and the target is half of that, less than half of that, at 2,300. In Beijing there are 3,767 in the queue, and the target this year is 2,500. In Singapore, 1,019 are in the queue, and 795 is the target.
It seems to me that you have a very good chance of getting in if you're applying in Buffalo, because the queue is actually shorter than the target. In Singapore, the numbers are almost equal. In Beijing, it's two-thirds, and in New Delhi, it's half. I don't see any relationship between the queues--the people who are actually applying--and the targets.
I'm wondering if you have some insight into how you think those targets are actually set, whether they have anything to do with the number of people who actually apply, and whether you're having to help people in different offices or shift them around to other offices.
It's interesting that someone from among the applicants has come to talk to us about wait times. It's been more than three years since I've sat on this committee and been concerned with immigration. I've acquired the conviction that immigration wait times, contrary to what they may be in other systems, are not the consequence of a lack of resources, but of a management method. It seems quite clear to me that the method that current and previous governments have used to control the number of immigrants is to impose more or less long waiting times. It was also indirectly demonstrated by Mr. Oliphant that we don't have regional quotas, officially, but that, in actual fact, we exercise de facto control over the number of immigrants coming from a particular place through the allocation of resources to various missions around the world.
In the case of the health system, the problem is simply that we don't have enough resources to process all the applications and that we're trying to do the best we can. It seems to me this should be different in immigration, particularly since people pay when they file an application; they cover its costs. This isn't a question of money; it's really a question of control. Consequently, some people are experiencing human dramas because they have to wait a number of years to bring in a family member or to file an application for immigration, a temporary visa and so on. The system is unable to meet their needs.
What must we do to solve this problem? In my view, if we want to process applications more quickly, that's an easy matter; we need only increase the resources. In any case, people pay to have their applications processed. Obviously, however, if we do that, we will completely exceed our immigration objectives in Canada. So what do we do? Should we increase the quotas and open the door wider in order to reduce wait times? Will we set much tighter conditions instead so that fewer people wind up in the waiting line and things go more quickly? Do we maintain the status quo and use the waiting period as a brake on the influx of immigrants to Canada?
:
No one can ignore you, sir, but I'll continue.
The creation of a brand-new stream of information answering the simple question, “If I apply today, how long before I get my visa?”—a prospective processing time—would eliminate a lot of the fuss by members of the public regarding processing times. They would know at the outset, for example, that it will take ten years before a parent or grandparent will see a visa, minimum. The investors will know, as a business decision, how long it may take before they see a visa in hand.
Gone would be the hocus-pocus of statistics explaining the levels—for example, parents are not 12,000 but really 18,000. The key measurements are these. What is your inventory? In the case of parents, 150,000 parents were in queue on or about October 21, 2010. And how many do you attempt to admit in a year? In 2011, it is apparently as high as 18,000. So when you look at the 18,000 to be admitted and the inventory of 150,000—that's in October, not January 2011—you can guesstimate that you're going to have a ten-year delay.
My first point is give the consumers basic information before they pay the visa fees. They're entitled to know how long it will take if they apply today. And treat the replies to this question by the officials of Immigration Canada as you would those of elementary school students who don't want to do their homework. They'll give you 10,000 reasons why it can't be done or shouldn't be done, to wiggle out of delivering a commitment date. But if you can get a commitment date out of Immigration Canada, the lives of members of Parliament will be made easier, because you can refer to the commitment of Immigration Canada when they applied for their visa. That should improve the world for everyone.
The last point is in relation to parents' and grandparents' money and investor file processing. For the parents' money, how is it that Immigration Canada can take $50 million up front, in permanent resident processing fees, when it knows full well that the condition precedent to that permanent resident application, legally existing--the acceptance of a sponsorship--can't happen for about a decade if you apply today?
A couple that's paying $1,040 for permanent resident fees and has to wait for a sponsorship decision for a decade is giving, in effect, an interest-free loan for an application that cannot legally exist for ten years—$50 million. When Immigration Canada is ready to process that permanent resident file, it should ask for the money. It is returning documents anyway in support of that permanent residence file in this year—whatever it is—plus ten years. Why can't it collect the money then?
The reason is that Immigration Canada does not want to change the immigration fee regulation to decouple the sponsorship payment from the permanent resident fee payment. That's the main point.
The second one relates to investors—
:
I am. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to be here today.
[English]
My name is Geoff Leckey. I'm the director general of the intelligence and targeting operations directorate at the Canada Border Services Agency. I'm accompanied today by my colleague Arianne Reza, director general of international operations.
[Translation]
As this committee is aware, the CBSA is mandated to provide integrated border services that support national security and safety priorities while facilitating the free flow of legitimate persons and goods.
This responsibility is complex and wide-ranging. Our border services officers are designated peace officers, primarily enforcing customs and immigration-related legislation, in particular the Customs Act, and the Immigration and Refugees Protection Act, the IRPA, as well as over 90 other acts of Parliament.
[English]
Since 2003 the CBSA has played a key role in immigration to Canada, as it has assumed the port of entry and enforcement mandates formerly held by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
The agency works closely with its partners at Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board to administer and enforce the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, with the objective of ensuring that persons receive their due process under the law and that the Government of Canada's immigration priorities are met.
[Translation]
CBSA officers work on the front lines, screening persons entering the country and removing those who are unlawfully in Canada. The agency also has a network of officers stationed overseas to protect Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system by working to effectively screen travellers at the earliest opportunity and intercepting inadmissible persons as far from Canadian territory as possible.
[English]
As the agency's work pertains to the study on immigration application processing wait times that's being undertaken by this committee, I would like to clarify where the agency fits in the immigration process.
Integrated border services means that the agency must balance the facilitation of travellers and goods at the border while safeguarding the country's safety and security priorities.
The CBSA's role is very specific. We're responsible under IRPA to admit individuals into Canada who meet the requirements under the law, to refer refugee claims made at ports of entry to the Immigration and Refugee Board, to detain people who pose a security risk or a danger to the public, and to remove people who are inadmissible to Canada once they have exhausted all legal avenues available to them and a removal order is in effect.
[Translation]
In order to make admissibility determinations, the agency relies on its intelligence and information gathering to support the screening process, and to help in identifying individuals who may be involved in such activities as terrorism, espionage, war crimes, crimes against humanity, organized criminality, trafficking in persons, and money laundering.
The responsibility for processing immigration cases rests with CIC, Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Where CIC feels that an application may be of interest or concern based on security indicators, it is referred to the CBSA for a more detailed review. Once it is received, the agency is able to make recommendations based on its security assessments to CIC, with which the decision to accept or refuse a case rests.
The overarching goal is to ensure that persons who are authorized to enter Canada can do so, and to ensure that inadmissible persons who pose a threat to the security of Canada are not granted entry or are removed as expeditiously as possible.
[English]
As mentioned, the CBSA also maintains a network of migration integrity officers to support its work abroad. Currently, the agency has 57 MIOs in 47 key locations around the globe.
MIOs work closely with other Canadian government departments, foreign mission representatives, airlines, and host country officials. They're involved in a range of activities including interdiction, airline liaison, anti-fraud, intelligence gathering, training, and removals.
In performing their duties, officers are in regular contact with CIC program managers, visa officers, and consular staff. MIOs also work closely with airlines to ensure documentary requirements for travellers are satisfied. This results in reduced costs for airlines, which are responsible for the return of inadmissible persons, and alleviates potential pressures on the Canadian refugee system.
[Translation]
The MIO program, Migration Integrity Officers program, is successful from both a risk mitigation and service perspective. There are approximately 20 million passengers arriving in Canada each year. On an annual basis, MIOs intercept approximately 5,000 improperly documented individuals, while at the same time facilitating 3,000 legitimate travellers, the majority of whom are Canadians returning home.
Internationally, the CBSA's MIO network is looked to as a leader, with other countries, such as the Netherlands, modelling their own networks on the Canadian model.
[English]
I'd like to conclude by highlighting the relationship between CIC and the CBSA. In order to achieve the objectives of Canada's immigration system, CIC and the CBSA are committed to working together to provide a seamless continuum of service in the delivery of our programs to Canadians, newcomers, and visitors.
[Translation]
I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to tell you more about the agency. My colleagues and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Thank you.