39th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 040
CONTENTS
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Citizenship and Immigration
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the government for a third
time to explain its lack of compassion and its discriminatory
approach to visitor visas. Not surprisingly, my previous attempts
to get an answer from the government were met with empty words.
Instead of addressing the reality of our broken visa system,
the minister claimed that the real issue is “the safety
and security of those who are already here”.
The minister's deflection from the problem at hand is typical
of the government.
Is the security of our country put at risk when
a bride to be invites her parents to come to Canada for a visit
to share the joy of her wedding day? Is the safety of Canadians
threatened by a Nigerian grandmother who wants to come to our
country to see her newborn grandchild?
Of course, invoking national security is a convenient tactic
for the government, considering that no usable data are kept
on the reasons for denying visitor visa applications. Even if
security were the main reason for refusing visitor visas, we
would have no way of knowing it.
The reality faced by my constituents and by Canadians across
the country is that the decisions made by visa officers are
often difficult to understand. Some visas are denied to people
who have visited Canada many times under the previous government.
Similarly, more than once I have seen cases in which an applicant
was denied entry to Canada even after being granted multiple
entry visas to both the United Kingdom and the United States.
One of the most tragic examples of the failure of the current
visa system was laid bare in the August 21, 2007 issue of the
Toronto Star. Nicholas Keung writes of how the body of Hu Xiu-hua,
an immigrant to Canada who passed away last summer, lay unclaimed
in a Toronto morgue for almost two months. As citizens of China,
Ms. Hu's elderly parents were required to apply for a visitor
visa to claim their child's remains. Their application was denied
not once, not twice, but six times.
The ugly truth is that the vast majority of these cases involve
applicants from developing nations. How can the government claim
that the visitor visa system is fair and impartial when it so
clearly discriminates against Canadians with families from developing
nations?
I am not alone in my frustration with the visitor visa system.
I am sure that my colleagues of all political stripes deal with
many similar cases in their constituencies. The government must
stop denying that the visitor visa system is broken and start
working to find solutions that benefit Canadians and their families
abroad.
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to comment on temporary
resident visas.
There is no question that there is a lot of rhetoric coming
from the member opposite. It is clear that the intention of
the hon. member in large measure is political and is not based
on the facts.
The reality is that the overall approval rate for temporary
resident visas has remained consistent, ranging between 79%
to 82% over the past five years.
The government has an application process for temporary resident
visas in order to protect the integrity of the immigration process
and to maintain the safety and security of Canadians. The member
opposite knows that.
Visa officers assess individual temporary resident visa applications
and take into account the circumstances of the applicant, including
the reason for travel. Applications are considered on a case
by case basis on the specific facts presented by the applicant.
The government aims at being compassionate in issuing visas.
However, given the high levels of fraud and misrepresentation
in some regions of the world, it is incumbent upon visa officers
abroad to examine all visa applications very carefully.
As my hon. colleague knows, temporary resident visas are issued
to bona fide visitors, students or workers who will comply with
admission requirements. This includes leaving Canada at the
end of the authorized period of temporary stay. All of these
factors must be taken into account by our visa officers overseas.
The government has improved service for travelers coming to
Canada for business or personal reasons, using our visa application
centres in India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Indonesia, and is considering
extending such services to several other countries.
In India, for example, this means that citizens wishing to apply
as visitors, students or workers can submit their temporary
resident applications at nine visa application centres across
the country and at a centre geographically convenient to them.
In 2006 the visa offices in New Delhi and Chandigarh together
processed almost 78,000 visa applications with an approval rate
of 67.4%, or slightly more than two out of three. Those are
the overall systemic numbers. We accept more immigrants from
India than any other country but China, and 10,000 more last
year than a decade ago, from 19,000 in 1997 to more than 30,000
last year.
The overall approval rate for temporary resident visas has remained
historically consistent. In 2006 it was 81% and has remained
at just over 80% for most years since 1983.
The government is also making efforts to permit visa-free travel
to citizens from a greater number of countries. In 2006 the
visa requirement for Estonia was lifted. In October of this
year, we lifted the visa requirements for the Czech Republic
and the Republic of Latvia.
Citizens of these countries can now visit Canada without a visa.
Citizens in half of the 12 countries who have joined the European
Union since 2004 enjoy visa-free travel to this country. We
continue to review the remaining EU countries where a visa is
still required.
These measures by our Conservative government are helping families
maintain their close ties.
Visas are effective tools to protect the integrity of our borders
and to ensure the health and safety of Canadians. The Government
of Canada has no greater duty than to protect and maintain the
safety and security of its people.
Hon. Gurbax Malhi:
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the facts or the figures the
parliamentary secretary has provided. I have been to New Delhi
and Chandigarh many times and do not agree with them.
One positive step on this issue would be the creation of a system
of visitor visa bonds. Under a visitor visa bond system, immigration
counsellors would be given discretion over the creation of visa
bonds. They could establish minimum and maximum visa bond amounts
as a guideline for immigration officials and could allow the
visa bond to apply either to the sponsor or to the visitor.
Solutions need to be found on this issue. I believe the use
of visa bonds on a case by case basis would be a good start.
Mr. Ed Komarnicki:
Mr. Speaker, the figures are what they are. They indicate that
there has been no significant change downward in the rate of
refusals for temporary resident visas.
The hon. member opposite is yet again attempting to perpetuate
as fact what is not fact. He has tried a number of times to
politicize an important issue of security and procedural integrity.
The government is not refusing temporary resident visas at a
rate higher than that of the previous Liberal government. There
is no doubt about that.
The last known significant drop in temporary resident visa approvals
actually occurred under the previous Liberal government. If
that member were truly concerned about this issue, then he would
have raised it in the House before now.
The facts speak for themselves. There is no basis to the allegation.
It is really a matter of political posturing and nothing more.
TOP
