Evaluation of CIC’s Visitor Visa Program

Research and Evaluation

Evaluation of CIC’s

Visitor Visa Program

Evaluation Division

August 2012

Ci4-99/2012E

978-1-100-21569-3

Reference number: RR20120901

- i -

Table of contents

Executive summary ......................................................................................................................................... ii

Evaluation of CIC’s Visitor Visa Program - Management response ................................................................. vii

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Organization of the report................................................................................................................ 1

1.2. Program background ........................................................................................................................ 1

2. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1. Evaluation scope ............................................................................................................................... 3

2.2. Approach .......................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3. Lines of evidence .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.3.1. Document review ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

2.3.2. Key informant interviews ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

2.3.3. Case studies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

2.3.4. Administrative data analysis --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

2.3.5. Literature review ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5

2.4. Limitations and considerations ........................................................................................................ 6

3. Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 7

3.1. Relevance ......................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.1. Continued need -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

3.1.2. Alignment with GoC and CIC objectives and outcomes ----------------------------------------------------- 9

3.1.3. Alignment with roles and responsibilities --------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

3.2. Performance – policy ...................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1. Visa policy framework ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

3.2.2. Country monitoring -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

3.2.3. Partner consultations ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

3.2.4. Visa policy recommendations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16

3.3. Performance – implementation ..................................................................................................... 18

3.3.1. Processing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19

3.3.2. Communications------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 25

3.4. Performance – Achieving integrity and facilitation outcomes ....................................................... 26

3.4.1. Integrity of the immigration system ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26

3.4.2. Integrity of the asylum system ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30

3.4.3. Facilitation of travel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33

3.4.4. Balancing facilitation with integrity ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38

3.4.5. Other impacts related to visa requirement changes ------------------------------------------------------- 39

3.5. Efficiency, economy and alternatives ............................................................................................. 41

3.5.1. Resource utilization -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41

3.5.2. Alternatives ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 44

4. Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................................. 50

Appendix A: Evaluation matrix .................................................................................................................. 53

Technical appendices are available upon request to Research_Re[email protected]

- ii -

Executive summary

Purpose of the evaluation

This report presents the findings of the evaluation of CIC‘s Visitor Visa Program. This evaluation

was completed to meet the requirements of the Directive on the Evaluation Function (TBS, 2009),

and the commitments made in CIC’s Performance Measurement and Evaluation Plan (PMEP)

relating to the visa imposition on Mexico. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the Visitor

Visa Program in relation to:

 Continued Program relevance;

 Program performance; and

 Resource utilization and alternatives.

The data collection for the evaluation was undertaken by CIC’s Research and Evaluation Branch

(R&E) between April 2011 and January 2012.

Visitor Visa Program background

Throughout the report the term “Visitor Visa Program” should be understood as comprising of the

following two components:

Policy component

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), every foreign national travelling to Canada

must obtain a temporary resident visa (TRV) before arriving, except where an exception is granted

to citizens of selected countries under section 190

of the IRP Regulations. Any changes in visa

requirements are grounded in CIC’s visitor visa framework. Ongoing monitoring, country reviews

and consultations are carried out to inform visa policy recommendations (whether citizens from a

particular country require a visa or not).

Implementation component

A foreign national needs to apply for a TRV at a Canadian visa office abroad. If the application is

accepted, the TRV is issued to the applicant and they may travel to Canada, subject to the

determination of entry by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) at a port of entry (POE).

CIC informs potential travellers about the requirements for a visa and processes the applications

once received.

Program objectives/outcomes

CIC’s Visitor Visa Program seeks to achieve a balance between facilitating legitimate travel while

protecting the integrity of the immigration and asylum system and, in the longer term, protecting

the health, safety and security of Canadians.

Section 190 of the IRP Regulations identifies which countries do not require a visa to enter Canada. In addition,

persons described in R39 and holders of Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs) are also exempted from the TRV

requirement; however, those exemptions are outside the scope of this evaluation.

- iii -

Methodology

The key areas of study are the following:

 CIC’s country-level visa policy: focuses on the assessment of the policy framework and the

evidence gathered to support recommendations for visitor visa requirement changes;

 Implementation of visa regulations: an examination of visa processing activities in missions

abroad and related communications activities; and

 Mexico visa regulatory change: an examination of the design, implementation, and impact

(performance) of the Mexico visa regulation (as required by the regulatory PMEP).

The evaluation focused on the relevance and performance of the Visitor Visa Program, as well as an

examination of alternatives. Lines of evidence drawn upon for this evaluation included interviews,

document review, literature review and analysis of administrative data. Four case studies were

examined, with a separate report on the Mexico regulatory change.

Limitations

There were a number of limitations that should be considered in the context of this report. These

include the fact that the perspectives of affected country representatives and international partners

were not included in the evaluation; and that, at the time of data collection, CIC was introducing

several initiatives intended to streamline visa processing. Because they had not been in place for a

sufficient length of time, the evaluation was not able to assess their effectiveness. However, it is

important to note that these limitations have not significantly influenced the findings, conclusions

or recommendations made in the evaluation report.

Evaluation findings

The main findings associated with each of the evaluation questions are presented below.

Relevance

There is a continued strong need to facilitate and control the movement of temporary residents.

The visitor visa addresses this need and is used by Canada to leverage the benefits and decrease the

risks associated with the temporary movement of foreign nationals to and from Canada.

The objectives of the visa policy framework are consistent with Government-of-Canada (GoC) and

CIC priorities, objectives and outcomes. Under the revised CIC PAA, the alignment of the Visitor

Visa Program under Strategic Outcome 4 (Managed migration that promotes Canadian interests

and protects the health, safety, and security of Canadians) obscures the dual nature of the

Program’s objectives, which are intended to balance facilitation of travel and protection of the

integrity of the immigration and refugee system.

With its specific dual mandate, CIC is the most appropriate federal department to design and

implement Canada’s Visitor Visa Program even though there may be some overlap with the

protection and facilitation mandates of other federal departments.

- iv -

Performance

Policy

CIC’s policy framework and monitoring and country review processes are viewed as adequate. The

criteria and thresholds largely match international practices, although few countries use refugee

claim rates as an indicator to inform their visa changes. Some indicators of system integrity risks

(such as overstays) are not currently included in the process due to lack of data collection systems.

CIC engages appropriate partners and there is adequate collaboration to inform visa

recommendations; some OGDs feel that they are not engaged early enough in the process or that

their views have not always been reflected in the final decision.

Monitoring and evidence from country reviews are regularly used to support visa policy

recommendations and the regulatory process. However, evidence is ultimately weighed and other

internal and external factors play a part in the final decision to impose or lift a visa.

Implementation

CIC has been able to meet the processing demand for TRVs to date with some extension of time

required to process applications. While CIC has the capacity to address seasonal fluctuations,

addressing major regulatory changes requires additional resources. Recent streamlining initiatives

show some positive effects on processing activities; however, it is too early to assess their long-term

impact.

The timeliness and breadth of CIC’s communication strategies related to immigration are

reasonable and address a variety of potential client information needs. As materials supporting

decisions on changes to visa requirements are subject to Cabinet confidence, CIC faces

communication constraints related to the timing of information being released to partners,

stakeholders and to the public.

Achieving outcomes

The visitor visa is an effective tool that helps protect the integrity of CIC’s immigration and asylum

system through selecting low-risk countries for visa-free travel, and potentially acting as a deterrent

for non-bona fide travellers. Its role as a mechanism to prevent immigration violations is less

certain. The impact of the visitor visa on irregular migration is difficult to measure due to lack of

data on certain indicators (e.g. overstays).

CIC’s Visitor Visa Program facilitates the movement of bon fide travellers, as evidenced by the fact

that the TRV processing requirements are similar to those in other countries; by reaching CIC

targets for approval rates; and by introducing other facilitative approaches and tools.

CIC’s visitor visa policy, supported by other tools with similar objectives, is largely perceived to

have successfully achieved a balance between protecting the integrity of its immigration and asylum

system and the facilitation of bona-fide travel to Canada. In addition, the visa policy is flexible and

has the ability to allow CIC to react to contextual changes.

The removal of visa exemptions affects Canada’s bilateral relations with countries impacted by the

change. Furthermore, the introduction or removal of visitor visa requirements can impact CIC

partners’ operations and political mandates.

- v -

There is a potential negative impact on the Canadian tourism industry when a visa exemption is

removed, as it is expected to result in a decrease in the number of travellers from the affected

country. Conversely, when a visa exemption is granted, it should have a positive impact on tourism.

The available evidence supports these assumptions, although data on the magnitude of the impact

are mixed.

Costs and alternatives

Although the evaluation framework did not include a detailed analysis of program costs, available

data suggests that there are several financial resource implications associated with TRVs.

Furthermore, according to internal financial data, the costs of processing a visa are higher than the

revenue generated from TRV fees.

There are several potential alternatives to CIC’s approach to TRVs. While they are unlikely to better

meet CIC’s facilitation and integrity objectives at the present time, some could be effectively used

to supplement existing frameworks, tools and indicator, thereby creating a more encompassing

system.

Relevance/alternatives

The visitor visa is a relevant tool as it addresses the need to manage the movement of temporary

residents. It remains widely used by peer countries. In the majority of cases, Canada’s visa

exemption list aligns with its peers. This creates an environment where Canada facilitates travel,

while preventing the entry of travellers that could pose risks to the integrity of the immigration and

asylum system and the safety and health of Canadians.

While potential alternatives to Canada’s visitor visa exist, such as an electronic travel authorization

(eTA) system, the visitor visa will remain the most effective tool to manage migration until other

tools are further investigated / implemented and their effectiveness is assessed.

Recommendation #1:

Canada should continue using the visitor visa as a tool to manage migration,

while at the same time investigate the feasibility of introducing supplementary tools to better meet its objectives

(protection and facilitation). In doing so, CIC should take into account the benefits, risks and resource needs

associated with implementing each option.

Performance

Policy

Monitoring and evidence from country reviews are regularly used to support visa policy

recommendations and the regulatory process. However, the visitor visa program, as currently

designed, focuses on CIC’s own objectives and is not taking a whole-of-government approach.

While the policy process seeks input of relevant other government departments, there is a need to

improve their involvement and participation in analysis and decision-making processes.

Recommendation #2:

CIC should assess, with its federal government partners, the strengths and

weaknesses of the current partner engagement strategy in visa policy development, to address their needs and

concerns and gauge the feasibility of broadening the considerations during the visa review process, towards an

increased whole-of-government approach.

- vi -

Processing

The evaluation presented recent CIC efforts to introduce or expand various facilitative

mechanisms; such as VACs, multiple entry visas, long-term visas, business express program, etc. to

ensure streamlining of processing of applications. Those initiatives have the purpose of creating

streamlined processes to make it easier for clients to visit Canada and reduce resource utilization at

CIC. As those are fairly new initiatives, this evaluation did not assess effectiveness of those

mechanisms at this point.

In addition, the evaluation reviewed the role of the VAC in supporting processing in Mexico,

identified some benefits but also the importance of undertaking performance and contract reviews

to ensure compliance. With expansion of the VAC network in the world, CIC is relying increasingly

on a variety of third-party organizations to support the TRV process. The expansion of VAC to a

global network is a new initiative and creates new opportunities and possible challenges.

Recommendation #3:

CIC should develop strategy and assessment tools to measure the impact of the

various facilitative mechanisms, in terms of their objectives and effectiveness in managing processing demands.

This should also include an assessment of the VAC network and its effectiveness in assisting the modernizing

of CIC operations.

Integrity of the immigration and asylum systems

The visitor visa is an effective tool that helps protect the integrity of CIC’s immigration and asylum

system by reducing irregular migration (primarily unfounded refugee claims), and potentially

playing a deterrence role. Measuring the overall impact of the visa on irregular migration is

challenging due to lack of data on certain indicators (i.e. overstays, illegally working in Canada, etc.).

Recommendation #4:

CIC should explore other, more effective methods of collecting data on irregular

migration, such as overstays, to better inform policy-makers about the success of the program in achieving its

immigration and asylum system integrity objectives.

- vii -

Evaluation of CIC’s Visitor Visa Program - Management response

Recommendations

Response

Action

Accountability

Completion

date

1. Canada should continue

using the visitor visa as a

tool to manage migration,

while at the same time

investigate the feasibility

of introducing

supplementary tools to

better meet its objectives

(protection and

facilitation). In doing so,

CIC should take into

account the benefits, risks

and resource needs

associated with

implementing each option.

CIC agrees with this finding.

As a result of this evaluation as well as initiatives under

development as part of the Canada-US Shared Vision for

Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness, CIC will

undertake a review of the visa policy framework to ensure it

continues to meet the objectives to manage migration to

Canada and it is positioned to support the introduction of

supplementary tools.

One such initiative, the Electronic Travel Authorization

(eTA), is under development to allow Canada to screen

visa-exempt travellers before travel to Canada. In the long

term, the introduction of the eTA, planned for 2015-16, will

enable CIC to explore new options to improve the balance

between protection and facilitation.

 CIC will launch and complete the

review of the visa policy

framework.

 Put in place the authorities and

tools required to support the

implementation of the eTA

programme

Admissibility

Q4 2012-13

Q4 2015-16

2. CIC should assess, with its

federal government

partners, the strengths and

weaknesses of the current

partner engagement

strategy in visa policy

development, to address

their needs and concerns

and gauge the feasibility of

broadening the

considerations during the

visa review process,

towards an increased

whole-of-government

approach.

CIC partially agrees with this finding.

Consultations with federal government departments are an

intrinsic part of the country monitoring and reviews as well as

the decision-making process on changes in visa requirements.

CIC will continue its engagement of its federal partners, and

encourages their participation, to identify the full range of

considerations and potential impacts related to changes in

visa requirements.

Ultimately, however, Canada’s visa policy and visa

requirements serve to manage migration to Canada. Thus,

while efforts are made within the review process to identify

impacts and considerations related to Government of Canada

priorities and interests, decision-making will continue to be

based within an approach that balances the facilitation of

travel with the need to protect the health, safety and

security of Canadians.

 Continue to engage federal

government departments and

agencies on country reviews and

proposed changes to Canada’s

visa requirements.

 As part of the Review of the visa

policy framework, in consultation

with its partners, CIC will review

its engagement practices and

strategies to ensure they are

relevant and sufficient to gather

and represent the considerations

and views of partners.

Admissibility

Ongoing

Q4 2012-13

- viii -

Recommendations

Response

Action

Accountability

Completion

date

3. CIC should develop strategy

and assessment tools to

measure the impact of the

various facilitative

mechanisms, in terms of

their objectives and

effectiveness in managing

processing demands. This

should also include an

assessment of the VAC

network and its

effectiveness in assisting

the modernizing of CIC

operations.

CIC agrees with this finding.

In preparation for the expansion of the global VAC network

beginning in Fall 2012 CIC is standardizing a governance

framework with a three-tiered reporting structure between

CIC and the Contractor. Regular reports will be required from

the Contractor which will be reviewed by CIC. A Performance

Measurement Plan consisting of contractor compliance,

quality assurance reviews and formal audits is also being

developed.

To better monitor the progress of modernization initiatives,

CIC has developed a Modernization Performance Management

Framework that provides a structured approach for

measuring and reporting on modernization outputs and

outcomes over the next three years. In order to respond to

increasing processing demands, CIC aims to maximize

effectiveness through modernization initiatives that will

increase centralization of intake and processing of

applications, increased network-wide flexibility of workload

distribution, improved risk management and program

integrity. In addition, CIC will gain efficiencies through

improvements to application submission options, including

e-applications for TR and implementation of paperless

processing using e-storage and e-payment.

The new global VAC contract will

include a standardized framework of

governance including a three-tiered

reporting structure including a

Performance Management Plan is

being developed and will be

implemented with the deployment

of each VAC as part of the global

network.

Monitor and Report Modernization

through:

 Modernization Measurement Plan

 Modernization Roadmap

 Modernization Dashboard

Operations/

International

Region

Operations/

OPMB

Ongoing

4. CIC should explore other,

more effective methods of

collecting data on irregular

migration, such as

overstays, to better inform

policy-makers about the

success of the program in

achieving its immigration

and asylum system integrity

objectives.

CIC agrees with this finding.

While the Government of Canada does not yet systematically

collect data on overstays, it is expected that the Entry-Exit

Information System initiative, which is to be implemented

under the Canada-US Shared Vision for Perimeter Security

and Economic Competitiveness and led by the Canada Border

Services Agency (CBSA), will provide CIC with additional data

on irregular migration which will bolster CIC’s visa policy

framework and review process.

 Undertake a review of data

requirements to support country

monitoring and visa policy

changes as part of the Review of

the Visa Policy framework.

 Work in collaboration with the

CBSA to identify and leverage the

potential for new data and

information sources.

Admissibility

Q4 2012-13

Q4 2014-15

(and

ongoing)

1. Introduction

This report presents the findings of the evaluation of the CIC Visitor Visa Program. This

evaluation was completed to meet the requirements of the Directive on the Evaluation Function

(TBS, 2009), and the commitments made in CIC’s Performance Measurement and Evaluation Plan

(PMEP) relating to the visa imposition on Mexico. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the

Visitor Visa Program in relation to:

 Continued Program relevance;

 Program performance; and

 Resource utilization and alternatives.

It is important to note that a “Visitor Visa Program” does not exist in the Department as a

traditional program; rather, CIC’s Admissibility Branch is responsible for the development and

maintenance of Canada’s visa policy that governs whether or not citizens from a particular country

require a visa to enter Canada. This policy is operationalized through CIC’s International Region by

processing temporary resident visas abroad. These two components fall under the Program

Activity Architecture (PAA) element 4.2.2 – Visitors, which is part of Strategic Outcome 4 –

Managed migration that promotes Canadian interests and protects the health, safety, and security of Canadians.

Therefore, for the purposes of simplification, throughout the report the term “Visitor Visa

Program” should be understood as referring to both of these components collectively.

1.1. Organization of the report

The report consists of four sections: Chapter 1 provides the background of the program; Chapter 2

describes the methodology used to conduct the evaluation; Chapter 3 presents the evaluation

findings and evidence; and Chapter 4 contains recommendations based on the findings and

conclusions of the evaluation.

1.2. Program background

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), every foreign national travelling to Canada

must have a temporary resident visa (TRV) before arriving, except where an exception is granted to

citizens of selected countries under section 190

of the IRP Regulations.

A foreign national who wishes to come to Canada from a visa-required country needs to apply for

a TRV at a Canadian visa office abroad (CVOA). If the application is accepted, the TRV is issued to

the applicant in their travel document and they may travel to Canada, subject to the determination

of entry by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) personnel at a port of entry (POE).

There are many potential benefits that result from the temporary migration of foreign visitors to

Canada, such as the development and growth of the tourism industry, increases to trade and

international understanding, and cultural exchanges. While Canada may benefit from international

travel, it may also be exposed to risks ranging from the potential spread of infectious diseases,

admission of persons who pose a safety or security risk, transnational crime, and human trafficking.

Canada assesses countries against several criteria and risk factors when deciding whether to lift or

impose a visa requirement. From 2002 to 2012, visa exemptions were extended to nine countries,

Section 190 of the IRP Regulations identifies which countries do not require a visa to enter Canada. In addition,

persons described in R39 and holders of Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs) are also exempted from the TRV

requirement; however, those exemptions are outside the scope of this evaluation.

while visa requirements were introduced for five countries. Citizens of 55 countries and territories

are currently visa-exempt for travel to Canada, while citizens of 142 countries and territories are

visa-required.

For the countries for which a visitor visa is required, the processing of visitor visa applications from

persons intending to travel to Canada is carried out by CIC in the missions abroad, in cooperation

with its federal partners. In total, there are 86 offices with CIC presence abroad in 72 countries;

currently 64 are processing visitor visa applications. In 2010, CIC processed applications from over

one million persons seeking temporary resident visas as tourists and business visitors to Canada,

and issued visitor visas, permits and extensions to around 865,000 persons.

Visitor Visa Program

The following sections describe the key activities and outcomes of the Visitor Visa Program (see

Technical appendices) stemming from the two components of the Program: policy and

implementation.

Visa Policy: The following activities take place to inform recommendations on the exemption or

re-imposition of a visa requirement:

 Visa policy framework development: In 2005, CIC established a set of formal criteria to be

used to guide the development of visa policy recommendations; including indicators and

threshold values.

 Country monitoring: This refers to the activities that gather evidence on country conditions,

to support ongoing risk analysis, as well as the development of recommendations.

 Consultations/coordination: To support the development of visa requirement

recommendations, CIC conducts consultations with other federal government partners.

The above activities are designed to enable CIC to make recommendations that are evidence-based,

risk-based, and consultative (immediate outcome).

Implementation: The implementation component of the Visitor Visa Program has the following

key activities:

 Processing: CIC officers assess applications, in cooperation with federal security and health

partners. If the application is accepted, the TRV is issued to the applicant as a secure

counterfoil document affixed to their passport and they may travel to Canada. It is important to

note that a TRV does not guarantee entry to Canada; entry is still subject to determination by

the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) personnel at the POE.

 Communications: Regular communications are required in order to provide potential

applicants with timely information on application requirements, processing, timelines, etc. In

the case of changes to the visitor visa policy, these decisions must be communicated to the

affected stakeholders.

These activities should result in informing relevant stakeholders about visa requirements and

meeting the demand for visitor visas (immediate outcome).

At the intermediate level, both components of the CIC’s Visitor Visa Program seek to balance the

objectives of facilitating legitimate travel while protecting the integrity of the immigration and

asylum system and, in the longer term, protection of Canada’s interests and the health, safety and

security of Canadians.

2. Methodology

2.1. Evaluation scope

Data collection for this evaluation took place between April and December 2011, with the

evaluation covering April 2005 to March 2011. Some recent events are reflected in the report as

context for the purpose of capturing further developments in the visitor visa program. The key

areas of study are the following:

 CIC’s country-level visa policy: focuses on the assessment of the policy framework and the

evidence gathered to support recommendations for visitor visa requirement changes;

 Implementation of visa regulations: an examination of visa processing activities in missions

abroad and related communications activities; and

 Mexico visa regulatory change: an examination of the design, implementation, and impact

(performance) of the Mexico visa regulation.

There are several issues directly or tangentially related to the visitor visa continuum that are beyond

the scope of this report and will be assessed within other evaluations. These issues include: health

and security screening and the in-Canada asylum system. While this evaluation does not

comprehensively examine these issues, they are described in the context of the visitor visa

continuum.

Prior to the completion of this report, in November 2011, the Office of the Auditor General

(OAG) released its Fall report, one chapter of which pertained to the issuance of visas. Although

there is some overlap between that report and this evaluation, the focus of the OAG audit was “to

determine whether CIC and CBSA have managed the risks associated with determining

admissibility under the Act’s provisions related to health, safety, and security before issuing visas to

foreign nationals,”

rather than the broader visa policy framework development and

implementation examined in the current study.

2.2. Approach

The evaluation focused on the relevance and performance of the Visitor Visa Program, as well as an

examination of alternatives (see Appendix A: Evaluation matrix).

The evaluation did not use an experimental design as it was not possible to create a control group.

Certain elements of a quasi-experimental design were applied when comparing the pre- and post-

situations of the case study countries, and when comparing the visa-required and non-required

countries.

2.3. Lines of evidence

Several lines of evidence were used for this evaluation, including both quantitative and qualitative

sources. Each evaluation question was assessed using at least two lines of evidence. Using multiple

Office of the Auditor General, 2011. “Fall Report of the Auditor General, Chapter 2: Issuing Visas”.

www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201111_02_e_35934.html

Note: Both CIC and CBSA have accepted the recommendations made by the Auditor General, and have provided

action plans for addressing the issues raised in that report.

lines of evidence allowed questions to be examined from several perspectives, providing greater

reliability and validity of the findings when these lines of evidence converged.

2.3.1. Document review

A document review was conducted to provide descriptive information on the two components of

the visitor visa program, as well as information to address evaluation questions relating to program

relevance and performance. Documents reviewed included legislation, policy documents, process

and procedure documents, operational manuals and bulletins.

2.3.2. Key informant interviews

Interviews with key informants were held to address all evaluation questions. Only one

comprehensive interview guide was developed, as many interviewees had been involved in different

components of the program, and could thus potentially respond to the full set of questions. The

evaluation aimed to obtain perspectives from both sides of the spectrum – the facilitative and the

protective one. A total of 31 interviews were completed, as follows:

 CIC managers and officers at NHQ (n=15)

 CIC managers and officers at selected missions (n=7)

 Representatives from other federal departments, focused on protective aspects, such as

partners participating in the policy working group and involved in screening activities (CBSA,

RCMP) (n=4)

 Representatives of partners and stakeholders with facilitative mandates, such as DFAIT,

Industry Canada, and the Canadian Tourism Commission (n=5)

Interviews lasted between 45 minutes and two hours. Not all informants responded to all

questions; this was taken into account when analysing the data (Technical appendix). Where

qualitative evidence is presented, the following scale was used to report:

Interview data analysis scale

All

Findings reflect the views and opinions of 100% of the key informants in the group

Majority/Most

Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least 75% but less than 100% of key informants in

the group

Many

Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least 50% but less than 75% of key informants in the

group

Some

Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least 25% but less than 50% of key informants in the

group

A few

Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least two respondents but less than 25% of key

informants in the group

2.3.3. Case studies

Case studies provided a means of examining key visa requirement changes, as well as the

implementation of these decisions. Two of the case study countries had a visa exemption removed

and two had visa exemption granted in the period under review. The case study countries were as

follows:

 Czech Republic (2009 visa exemption removed)

 Mexico (2009 visa exemption removed)

 Poland (2008 visa exemption granted)

 Taiwan (2010 visa exemption granted)

These case studies included a review of planning documents and interviews with key informants

who had first-hand involvement with the development and/or implementation of these policy and

implementation activities, such as processing and communications, especially as related to the

Mexico case study. An assessment of administrative and operational data pertaining to the missions

serving these countries was also conducted. For the Mexico case study, a field visit was conducted

in September 2011 that included a site examination, as well as interviews with personnel located in

the Mexico City mission and Visa Application Centre (VAC). While information on all case study

countries is provided throughout the report, a separate report was developed for the Mexico case

study as required by the PMEP. It is included in the Technical appendix.

2.3.4. Administrative data analysis

CIC has several information systems (CAIPS, GCMS and FOSS) that provide administrative data

on the monitoring criteria and processing of visitor visa applications. The analysis of these data was

a key source of information for program performance. Data was also provided by program delivery

partners (e.g., the number and type of inadmissibility reports issued by CBSA) and other

government departments and agencies (e.g., StatsCan data on the number and origin of travellers to

Canada).

2.3.5. Literature review

Context review

A review of literature discussing temporary resident migration management was conducted by the

evaluation team to obtain perspectives and information regarding trends in the temporary

movement to support the assessment of relevance. The literature reviewed focused on the need for

border and entry control and for the facilitation of travel.

Alternatives study

As a means of obtaining an additional perspective on the relative merits of Canada’s approach to

the management of temporary resident admissions, an external academic expert was commissioned

to undertake a comparative study of the frameworks employed by Australia, the U.S., and the

European Union. Key issues examined through the study related to the rationale for these different

approaches, the contexts under which they were introduced, the strengths and weaknesses of these

approaches with respect to balancing travel facilitation and security safeguarding, the impacts, and

lessons learned to date. The report is provided in the Technical appendix, and includes a list of the

literature and documents reviewed.

2.4. Limitations and considerations

There were a number of limitations that should be considered in the context of this report.

However, it is important to note that these limitations have not significantly influenced the

findings, conclusions or recommendations in the evaluation.

 Perspectives of affected country representatives: Given the sensitive nature of the visa

requirement decisions, representatives of affected countries were not approached for

comments. Their input could have been affected by the nature of the decision and it was

deemed not appropriate for the analysis. To mitigate this, attention was paid to information

about country reactions to visa requirement decisions coming from other sources (e.g., media,

Canadian representatives abroad, and policymakers).

 Perspectives of international partners: Given the difficulty in reaching international

partners and the limited value of this perspective in informing the evaluation, interviews with

international partners were omitted, in favour of the analysis of alternatives used in other

countries. This allowed for a more in-depth and objective assessment of the effectiveness of

various alternatives.

 Process streamlining initiative results: At the time of data collection, CIC was introducing

several initiatives intended to streamline visa processing (e.g.; Visa Application Centres,

multiple-entry visas, long-duration visas). Because they had not been in place for a sufficient

length of time, the evaluation was not able to assess their effectiveness.

3. Findings

3.1. Relevance

Using information from the document review, interviews, administrative data analysis, literature

review, and case studies, this section presents the key findings regarding the relevance of the Visitor

Visa Program.

3.1.1. Continued need

The objective of CIC’s Visitor Visa Program is to facilitate the movement of bona fide travellers

while protecting the integrity of Canada’s immigration and asylum system, and the health, safety,

and security of Canadians. The need to control and facilitate the temporary resident movement,

and the need for the visitor visa as an instrument are reviewed in this section.

Finding: There is a continued strong need to facilitate and control the movement of temporary

residents. The visitor visa addresses this need and is used by Canada to leverage the benefits and

decrease the risks associated with the temporary movement of foreign nationals to and from

Canada.

As noted in the literature, “global international migration has undergone a transformation in the

last decade and one of the main elements in this has been the substantial increase in non-permanent

… migration between nations.”

In Canada, the number of visa applications (persons) has

increased since 2007 (from 1,231,081 TRV applicants in 2007 to 1,367,831 in 2011, representing an

11% increase). Furthermore, according to the United Nations World Tourism Organization,

international tourist arrivals globally grew by over 4% in 2011 to 980 million, with growth expected

to continue, on track to reach one billion tourists in 2012.

This trend is linked to the development

of means of transportation, communication technologies, increased knowledge of other countries,

and the growth of social networks that extend beyond one’s own country/community.

The document and literature review and almost all interview respondents indicated a strong need

for Canada to continue to control the movement of temporary residents, including visitors, for

several reasons: need for managed access to Canada; protection of the health, safety and security of

Canadians; program integrity; and the facilitation of travel to leverage benefits.

Manage access/control movement

Historically, the ability to precisely define (and control) borders is one of the hallmarks of the

modern state.

Growing internationalization makes it harder to retain control over one’s borders

and the policies enacted therein.

In this vein, most interviewees confirmed that there is a need to

manage access to Canada in order to ensure an orderly flow and that those who enter Canada meet

the requirements of entry.

Globally, visitor visas are an internationally accepted and prevalent practice. Each country

determines who is allowed to enter and for how long. The EU’s Schengen Zone is the most

noteworthy visa-free zone; however, even in the EU, while there is borderless travel within the

Circular migration, keeping development rolling. Graeme Hugo, University of Adelaide, IOM. 2008.

media.unwto.org/en/press-release/2012-01-16/international-tourism-reach-one-billion-2012

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010. “Sovereignty.” plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/

Hall, Stuart et al., eds, 1996. Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies. Maidenhead: Open University Press

zone, there are still visa requirements for countries to enter the external border of the EU. The

prevalence of visa requirements around the globe suggests that Canada’s visitor visa tool, with its

broad requirements and country exemptions, is aligned with those employed by other countries to

achieve similar objectives.

Some interviewees commented that the visa has been one of the few tools a country has to control

access. The majority of interviewees described the need for the visitor visa mechanism as relating to

the fact that it is more difficult to remove that individual if they do not abide by the terms and

conditions of entry than to pre-emptively deny them entry. Even the interviewees who stressed the

need to facilitate travel for economic purposes and other benefits affirmed the need for a

mechanism, such as a visitor visa, to control against the risks associated with over-generous

facilitation.

Protection of the health, safety and security of Canadians

The literature, documents and key informants frame the need to control the movement of

temporary residents as a mechanism to protect the health, safety and security of Canada. Events

such as Sept 11th, 2001, and major health disasters such as the SARS and the H1N1 pandemic,

have contributed to migration policies becoming more concerned with heightened security, and

global health issues. In particular, this need for control is similar to the rationale for controlling the

admission of those who seek to become permanent residents of Canada. In both cases, the benefits

of allowing people into the country (e.g., economic, intellectual, and cultural exchanges) need to be

weighed against the risks presented by those seeking to enter the country (e.g., threats to the health,

safety, and security of Canadian residents). The temporary resident visa aims to serve as an

admissibility and screening tool that helps to ensure the balance of these factors.

Furthermore, the

majority of interviewees noted that threats from drug and human trafficking, terrorism, as well as

potential criminal activities, result in a need to control who enters the country.

Program integrity

Internal CIC documents and many key informants clearly articulated a need to control temporary

migration due to potential risks to program integrity, the most commonly cited threat being

irregular migration. One of the key forms of irregular migration associated with temporary

residents are overstays: the risk that temporary residents will not leave the country by the date

specified by the border officer at the Port of Entry (POE) is a key concern. Additionally,

unfounded refugee claims made by temporary residents are viewed as a significant problem in

Canada, as they require resources that could be used for the processing of legitimate asylum

claimants. The admission of visitors without appropriate documentation also constitutes a risk in

terms of potential identity fraud. Similarly, people with prior criminal records and/or ties to

criminal organizations pose a risk of engaging in similar activities in Canada; controlling the

movement of temporary residents helps prevent inadmissible people from entering Canada, thus

contributing to the integrity of Canada’s immigration system. In order to assess the bona fides of

those seeking to enter Canada, officers in missions and Ports of Entry assess the backgrounds and

travel documents of those people passing through inspection points.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada, n.d. “Overview of Canada’s Visa Policy and Visa Review Process.” Internal

document.

Leveraging benefits

In literature, benefits of facilitated travel were identified as economic (e.g., growth in tourism and

trade), social (e.g., cultural exchanges and strengthened family linkages), political (e.g.,

improvements to diplomatic relations), or even as related to international security (e.g., increased

collaboration in terms of information sharing and ongoing cooperation).

Some interview respondents, particularly those who worked in fields related to international

relations, trade, or tourism, stressed the need to facilitate the movement of temporary residents in

order to access the benefits associated with international travel. These interviewees also saw the

need to facilitate travel as being linked with improving international relations.

3.1.2. Alignment with GoC and CIC objectives and outcomes

To assess alignment of the Visitor Visa Program with GoC and CIC objectives, its objectives were

compared with GoC Results for Canadians and the CIC’s strategic outcomes.

Finding: The objectives of the visa policy framework are consistent with GoC and CIC priorities,

objectives and outcomes. Under the revised CIC PAA, the alignment of the Visitor Visa Program

under Strategic Outcome 4 (Promotion of Canadian interests and protecting the health, safety and

security of Canada) obscures the dual nature of the Program’s objectives, which are intended to

balance facilitation of travel and protection of the integrity of the immigration and refugee

system.

Alignment with GoC objectives and outcomes

Overall, the visa policy program is largely aligned with all four of the Government of Canada’s

outcome areas as defined in the Results for Canadians framework: economic affairs, social affairs,

international affairs and government affairs. A review of the Program objectives– facilitation and

protection - suggest that it supports the GoC objectives of economic and international affairs on

the facilitation side, and the social and government affairs on the protection side (i.e. re-imposing

visa requirements, security, health and criminality screening).

Alignment with CIC outcomes

The Visitor Visa Program is currently one of the elements under the departmental Strategic

Outcome 4 of Managed migration that promotes Canadian interests and protects the health, safety and security of

Canadians.

In the revised CIC PAA (Technical appendix), which took effect in the beginning of the 2010-11

fiscal year, the Visitor Visa Program is linked directly to Strategic Outcome 4 – Promotion of Canadian

Interests and protecting the health, safety and security of Canada. This Strategic Outcome is not

well-described to enable assessment of the alignment between the Visitor Visa Program objectives

and this Strategic Outcome. In addition, the result 4.2 – Migration Control and Security Management, to

which Visitor Visa Program contributes, states in its description that the TRV requirement is seen

as Canada’s primary means of controlling migration and allows for the screening of individuals for health, safety and

security risks before they begin travel to Canada. While the aim of the Visitor Visa Program is to balance the

twin objectives of facilitation and integrity, the focus of result 4.2 is mainly on protection, with

limited mention of facilitation.

The alignment of the visitor visa objectives with CIC’s program activity areas was more evident

under the previous PAA structure (2005-2010), where it was located during most of the period

under review, together with other temporary resident programs, under the previous Strategic

Outcome 1 – Migration that significantly benefits Canada’s economic, social and cultural development, while

protecting the health, safety and security of Canadians. The dual objectives of the Visitor Visa Program were

directly aligned with the previous Strategic Outcome statement. Currently that link may not be as

clear, although the Program does include facilitative elements, such as granting a visa exemption on

a country, as well as the introduction of processing streamlining mechanisms.

Lastly, the majority of interviewees held that Canada’s visitor visa policy objectives are broadly

aligned with the Government of Canada and CIC’s objectives with respect to the facilitation of

travel and ensuring protection. Some interviewees stated that this alignment is a matter of degree:

that the objectives are aligned, but the magnitude of some of the potential consequences, such as

decreased tourism to as a result of a visa imposition, is unintended. A few interviewees held that

Canada is moving towards being able to achieve both objectives. Canada does not want to hinder

investment or other opportunities, but this could occur following changes to visitor visa

requirements.

3.1.3. Alignment with roles and responsibilities

This section reviewed the federal role vis-à-vis immigration as well as roles of federal departments

involved in the visitor visa policymaking.

Finding: With its specific dual mandate, CIC is the most appropriate federal department to design

and implement Canada’s Visitor Visa Program even though there may be some overlap with the

protection and facilitation mandates of other federal departments.

Federal and provincial roles and responsibilities

While immigration is a shared responsibility, defining immigration policies and processing

temporary resident applications falls within the federal sphere. The federal government has the

authority to make decisions regarding the admissibility of those who intend to enter Canada.

Immigration agreements with provinces place some responsibilities on the federal government to

consult with provincial governments when visitor visa applicants are coming to Canada for the

purpose of receiving medical care, and when the applicant could potentially be medically

inadmissible to Canada. Additionally, some federal-provincial collaboration occurs with regard to

the promotion of provinces to potential visitors. In terms of policy-making and regulatory changes,

provincial considerations are taken into account when assessing the impact of potential refugee

claims on social and health systems. As with most immigration programs, provinces may be

involved in applicant selection, however, admissibility screening remains a federal responsibility.

Federal departments’ roles and responsibilities

As defined in IRPA, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has the ultimate authority for the

establishment of visa requirements. However, other departments and agencies have mandates that

align to varying degrees with the Visitor Visa Program’s objectives of facilitating and securing

foreign travellers’ access to Canada.

A review of the mandates of CIC, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the Department of

Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), and the opinions of most interviewees suggest

that the objectives of the Visitor Visa Program are most explicitly aligned with the mandate of CIC.

These objectives (facilitation and protection) are not as directly aligned with the mandates of

DFAIT or CBSA; DFAIT emphasis is on facilitation, while the CBSA focuses on the protection of

Canada and Canadians.

The majority of interviewees commented that the respective roles of these departments in support

of the Visitor Visa Program were generally clear and appropriate. They are involved in discussions

and consultations concerning country monitoring and country reviews, and are able to present their

particular perspectives and interests in the visa decision process. However, some interviewees

noted that the division of roles between CBSA and CIC may lack clarity, due to the fact that the two

organizations both administer the same Act. They perceive CIC as the facilitators and CBSA as the

enforcers, despite the fact that CIC also performs protection/security functions, and CBSA also

performs facilitation functions.

In terms of the implementation of the Visitor Visa Program, CIC’s role is aligned with its

responsibilities, as outlined in IRPA. Visa officers screen foreign nationals and issue Temporary

Resident Visas in compliance with IRPA and IRPR requirements. Other government departments

participate in policy development and processing of TRV applications and include: DFAIT, CBSA,

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and, if needed, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service

(CSIS). In addition, DFAIT also plays a role vis-à-vis the implementation of the visa program as it

provides information, services, and infrastructure to CIC’s immigration services overseas, and is

involved in communications with country representatives and trade partners as part of its role in

managing foreign relations.

While CIC is the main author of visitor visa decision communication

messages, DFAIT representatives are frequently the official spokespeople presenting these

decisions.

3.2. Performance – Policy

CIC’s Admissibility Branch undertakes several activities when developing recommendations for

the Minister regarding whether or not Canada should grant or remove a visa requirement (a visa

policy decision). These activities include: the development and maintenance of a visa policy

framework, ongoing monitoring for all countries and in-depth reviews for selected countries. This

also involves bringing together multiple partners and stakeholders from within the Canadian

federal government, and may involve seeking information from the governments of affected

countries or other stakeholder groups. Through these processes, evidence is gathered in order to

assess whether a change in the visitor visa requirement is required, and to support any subsequent

decision. It should be noted that the final authority regarding changes to visa regulations rests with

the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and

Multiculturalism.

This section presents findings regarding the performance of the visitor visa policy component, and

discusses the activities and achievements of the related immediate outcome.

3.2.1. Visa policy framework

CIC established its visa policy framework in 2005, which includes a set of main categories, criteria

and thresholds. The evaluation assessed the criteria, indicators, and thresholds that were developed

to support the country monitoring and review processes and development of recommendations.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2010. “Performance Measurement and Evaluation Plan: Regulations

Amending the Immigration And Refugee Protection Regulations (Mexico).” Internal document.

Finding: CIC’s policy framework and monitoring and country review processes are viewed as

adequate. The criteria and thresholds largely match international practices, although only select

countries use refugee claim rates as an indicator to inform their visa changes. Some indicators of

system integrity risks (such as overstays) are not currently included in the process due to lack of

data collection systems.

Appropriateness of visa policy framework design

Before 2005, CIC did not have a formalized visa policy framework. CIC established its country

monitoring criteria (visa policy framework), indicators and thresholds, to provide an objective

framework for the assessment of country risks, and to support the development of evidence-based

recommendations.

The framework includes more than forty criteria grouped into seven categories: socio-economic

indicators, immigration issues, travel documents, border management, safety and security issues,

human rights, and bilateral cooperation on removals (Technical appendix). There are nine

indicators known as threshold criteria, which are monitored on an ongoing basis. Three criteria are

quantitative in nature, and are instrumental in determining whether further investigation of the

country through the country review process is warranted. The quantitative threshold criteria consist

of the following: TRV refusal rates; immigration violations;

and the number of refugee claims

made in Canada by foreign nationals. Other indicators with thresholds that are not quantitative but

have defined parameters, include: passport security; passport production; the treatment of lost and

stolen passports; national security; bilateral cooperation on removals; and bilateral cooperation on

immigration integrity and law enforcement.

Information for these indicators is drawn from a number of sources, including statistical reports,

open source reports and media articles, and information provided by other departments and

agencies, such as CBSA, DFAIT and the IRB. Once there is an indication that the country meets or

exceeds the stated thresholds, it triggers internal discussion in the Admissibility Branch and at the

senior management level; this may result in a full assessment through the country review process.

This is an in-depth investigation of areas of concern or opportunities for a potential change in the

country’s visa requirement. The criteria and thresholds contribute to the assessment of risks

associated with specific countries, and thus guide the decision to recommend granting or removing

a visa exemption for nationals of those countries.

The media review indicated that at the time of introduction of the framework, the affected country

representatives appreciated the existence of the framework as it provided them with a set of

objective criteria and an understanding of where they need to make changes to increase the

potential of visa removal for their countries. Most of the interviewees agreed that the indicators and

thresholds are appropriate and very comprehensive. The framework provides a good tool to assess

various countries using the same criteria and thus allows for a consistent, comparable, and holistic

assessment.

While some interviewees commented that the framework is too extensive, others mentioned a

number of additional indicators that could be useful in the monitoring framework. For example:

This threshold refers to all documented cases of non-compliance with requirements of the Immigration and Refugee

Protection Act. This incorporates all reports of non-compliance prepared under Section 44 of the IRPA. It also takes

into account all instances in which foreign nationals are determined to be inadmissible to Canada at a port of entry and

allowed to voluntarily return to their country of origin.

measuring overstays, working illegally, or rates of permanent resident applications filed within

Canada after being admitted as visitor, could be effective indicators of irregular migration.

Currently, these indicators are not collected due to the absence of control systems for tracking

purposes.

Some interviewees noted that CIC’s current targets and thresholds do not measure all push and pull

factors that affect the temporary movement to Canada, such as the features of the Canadian asylum

system which were frequently mentioned as the most generous in the world. In addition, the visa

policy framework does not include a detailed assessment of internal Canadian concerns, such as the

potential effect of a visa requirement change on the volume of trade, or implications for the

Canadian economy, cultural, or social context. Those are assessed, to some degree, as part of the

consultative decision-making process in cooperation with Canadian partners.

Consistency with international practices

A comparison of the Five Country Conference members

and the EU suggests that Canada’s

framework is very comprehensive, and includes almost all criteria used by other countries. Some

differences include: Canada and Australia are the only countries reviewed that use asylum claims

directly as an indicator. While some other countries assess economic, cultural, and

social/reputational impacts related to potential visa imposition in their review process, Canada

takes these impacts into account through consultation with partners and the regulatory process.

3.2.2. Country monitoring

The established framework is used to conduct ongoing country monitoring and guides the country

review process for selected cases. To assess appropriateness of country monitoring, the evaluation

looked at ongoing monitoring and country review process.

Appropriateness of ongoing monitoring

The ongoing monitoring conducted by the Admissibility Branch examines the key indicators

through which country risks are measured. This monitoring is facilitated by a variety of

administrative data that are collected from CIC databases and other government department

(OGD) systems. Monitoring data are collected and updated regularly, which allows for the rapid

assessment of emergent issues for specific countries with respect to the quantitative thresholds.

CIC’s Admissibility Branch maintains a database that tracks the status of quantitative threshold

indicator information. Other monitoring activities include the regular review of domestic and

international media articles, and input from security or international partners. CBSA maintains and

provides data on immigration violation rates that is shared with CIC. Statistics Canada tourism

volumes are also used to compare data collected internally to the total number of travellers from a

given country. Collectively, this data is used to inform the need for further investigation through

the country review process.

Overall, many interviewees felt that CIC’s ongoing monitoring was adequate. While CIC regularly

receives data from its security partners, interviewees noted that, as a result of the separation of

CBSA and CIC in 2003, CIC must rely on partners for a great deal of information. The

effectiveness of this information-sharing relies on working relationships that are built between

partners. Some interviewees note that, at times, good information-sharing exists between partners,

but it might not always be as proactive as it could be.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

Appropriateness of country review

 Country reviews can be carried out for a number of reasons. Some of these reasons include:

 When either the grant or removal of a visitor visa exemption is under consideration;

 A change in the thresholds as identified through ongoing monitoring, including changes in

patterns of immigration violations or in–Canada asylum refugee claim rates;

 An identified change in country conditions, including changes in organized crime, a country’s

security situation, or national security concerns;

 An identified change in document security, integrity or misuse of documents;

 A request from a foreign government received via the Department of Foreign Affairs and

International Trade (DFAIT) or another department.

Country review reports are developed to support recommendations and the development of

regulations. There is no established schedule for country reviews. Unlike the process in the U.S.,

which is embedded in legislation and requires a country review of visa-exempt countries every two

years, Canada’s visa review schedules are based on ongoing monitoring and employ a flexible,

risk-based country review schedule. In interviews, most of the stakeholders mentioned that this

approach is more adaptable, focused, and efficient than the U.S. process.

A country review consists of an assessment of all or a majority of indicators under the seven

criteria. A document review is carried out using information obtained from various sources, as per

the ongoing country monitoring process described above. When considering granting a visa

exemption, a technical visit to a country under consideration may be undertaken; however, this is

not typically conducted in advance of removing a visa exemption. Technical Visit Delegations are

working groups sent to specific countries to conduct technical visits. These delegations, which seek

to resolve specific information gaps and issues of concern, bring together, on the Canadian side,

those equipped to ask probing questions and assess local conditions and, on the host country side,

those officials who can answer questions and address issues. Canadian delegation members are

typically drawn from groups within CIC, anti-counterfeiting officers from within the RCMP,

members of Public Safety Canada, and representatives from Canada’s relevant embassies,

consulates, and/or high commissions. These visits are performed to confirm existing information

and/or to close information gaps, and would include, for example, visiting passport production

centres to validate the security of passport production and distribution. These visits were perceived

by some interviewees as helpful in creating contacts with government representatives of the

affected countries, and providing an opportunity to not only gather data but explain the criteria and

the rationale for the potential change.

A review of the country reports for each case study country revealed that quantitative indicator

information was available in all of the cases, while qualitative indicator information was limited. It

was not clear whether this lack of qualitative indicator data suggests that a judgement was made

regarding the usefulness/quality of the data, or whether there was an inability to collect desired

information.

Some interview respondents noted that CIC always looks at the same issues consistently for all

countries, which was viewed as positive. They noted that evidence is not always weighed equally in

the country review process (i.e., some indicators are more significant in certain countries); a feature

that allows for more flexibility and is inherent in the review framework.

3.2.3. Partner consultations

While CIC is the federal government department responsible for developing visitor visa policy,

consultations with internal, external and international partners take place to support the

recommendations. This section examines to what extent those consultations are adequate.

Finding: CIC engages appropriate partners and there is adequate collaboration to inform visa

recommendations; some OGDs feel that they are not engaged early enough in the process or that

their views have not always been reflected in the final decision.

Mechanisms for partner engagement

Internally, within CIC two main branches are involved:

 Admissibility Branch has overall responsibility for visitor visa policy development, including

consultations with partners;

 International Region is responsible for processing visitor visa applications and is consulted

on visa-related policy issues.

Other internal CIC units play a supporting role in terms of consultations, and the provision of

information or advice. Other external partners involved in policymaking include DFAIT, the

Department of Public Safety (PS), the CBSA, RCMP, and CSIS, and may, when relevant, included

others such as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), the Department of Justice Canada

(DoJ), Industry Canada (IC), and Transport Canada (TC). International stakeholders participate in

the discussions on the development of visa policies, or are interested in decisions on changes in visa

requirements.

The work of CIC in reviewing country conditions and generating recommendations regarding visa

requirements is facilitated by several working groups. The domestic working groups involve

relevant branches within CIC and OGDs mentioned above. Some examples of Canada’s

international engagement include the Canada-United States Visa Policy Working Group (VPWG),

which hold regular consultations, exchange information, and share best practices with regard to

visa, admissibility, and screening policies; and the Canada-Czech Expert Working Group, which

was set up to discuss visa issues and conditions following the decision to remove the visa

exemption for the Czech Republic in 2009.

Effectiveness of partner engagement

Analysis of the engagement mechanisms and the range of stakeholders involved indicates that

appropriate partners are included in consultations that support the development of visa policy and

recommendations. Stakeholders included in this process represent both sides of the visa

continuum; those that focus on the facilitation of travel and those that focus on the

security/protection of Canadians. The majority of interviewees (both CIC and OGDs) felt that the

mechanisms through which CIC engages and collaborates with program partners and stakeholders

to inform visa recommendations are generally sufficient. It is important to note that many OGD

interviewees commented that the majority of engagement has been ad hoc (they are involved only

when a visa policy recommendation is moving forward or when information is needed) and that

they are not engaged as early in the process as they would like. The reason for this lack of early

engagement, as reported by some CIC interviewees, is the difficulty in managing the engagement

process within the short timeframes that accompany visa recommendations, and the level of

sensitivity surrounding proposals. Because visa policy decisions are secret and are developed closely

with partners, CIC only brings key internal stakeholders in at the start and eventually expands

consultations outwards.

Many OGD interviewees stated that while they are engaged in the discussions to inform visa

recommendations, they felt that their stance was often not reflected in the final decision. There is a

lot of consultation, but the perception was that there is a need for further integration – a

whole-of-government approach. It was perceived that the role of OGDs in an integrated visa

policy remains an idea, not a reality. Interviewees at CIC commented that, while partners may feel

they are not sufficiently included, from a departmental perspective, their input is sought as needed.

3.2.4. Visa policy recommendations

The immediate outcome of the visa policy development, monitoring and consultations result in

recommendations that are to be evidence-based, risks based and consultative. This section

examines the extent to which this is achieved.

As a result of the country review process and consultations with stakeholders, as described in the

previous section, a recommendation may be made to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and

Multiculturalism, who would make the final decision. This recommendation would be to:

 Maintain the status quo;

 Remove the visa exemption for nationals from that country; or

 Grant a visa exemption.

There may also be further recommendations on the conditions imposed or actions taken, to better

balance the desire to facilitate the entry of bona fide travellers to Canada with the need to ensure the

health, safety, and security of Canadians. These could include:

 Continued monitoring of a country’s conditions;

 Implementing a public awareness campaign regarding the reviewed country;

 Assigning a CBSA Liaison Officer to the country; and/or

 Granting a visa exemption to particular nationals that possess specific types of travel

documents.

Overall, the process of developing recommendations and changing regulations can be lengthy for a

number of reasons: the conditions are monitored to assess longer-term trends, each individual

change must be accompanied by appropriate regulatory documents, and there exists a necessity to

manage relations with the affected country.

Government of Canada, 2008. Canada Gazette, vol. 142, no. 26 – December 24, 2008. “Regulations Amending the

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Visa exemption requirements for Lithuania and Poland).”

gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2008/2008-12-24/html/sor-dors308-eng.html

Finding: Monitoring and evidence from country reviews are regularly used to support visa policy

recommendations and the regulatory process. However, evidence is ultimately weighed and other

internal and external factors play a part in the final decision to impose or lift a visa.

Evidence-based, risk-based and consultative recommendations

A review of documents for the four case study countries indicates that recommendations appeared

to be informed by the evidence collected through monitoring and country review processes. Many

interviewees also confirmed that information collected from country review and monitoring

processes is used to support visa requirement recommendations.

While the evidence is always taken into account, the information/evidence is ultimately weighed

and a holistic assessment is used, rather than focusing on one factor that may be not in line with

thresholds. The use of evidence is particularly noticeable in cases of removing the visa exemptions,

with Mexico and Czech Republic having significantly surpassed key risk thresholds. In case of

Poland, the decision was to grant an exemption, even though the country surpassed at least one of

the thresholds (10% refusal rate) and there were concerns related to passport security. The passport

risks were subsequently addressed with the additional e-passport requirement regulation.

Some interviewees held that, in some cases, evidence from monitoring and country reviews may be

used to support country-level visa requirement changes that had already been considered as a result

of other pressures/political considerations. Even in those cases, country reviews were conducted

and evidence was gathered to support the decision by providing a risk assessment.

Many interviewees suggested that other factors come to bear on the final decision to remove a visa

exemption or grant a visa exemption by the Cabinet and the decision to change a visa requirement

is also strongly informed by GOC interests and priorities. The final decision is seen as a question of

the right balance and the right timing. In the cases of Taiwan and Mexico, evidence in support of

the visa exemption and the removal of the visa exemption existed for several years before the actual

change was made. In the case of Hungary, where asylum claims rates have surpassed the threshold

for several years, the recommendation to re-impose a visa is not being addressed. This suggests that

the decision to grant an exemption or re-impose a visa is carefully considered within a context of

other national and international factors.

Regulatory processes

After the recommendation is approved by the Minister, a regulatory change to section 190 of the

IRPR is required. This must be accompanied by a Regulatory Impact Assessment Statement (RIAS)

prepared by the Regulatory Affairs Unit at CIC. The RIAS explains the background and the

rationale for a decision, as well as the alternatives, provides a cost and benefit analysis, details the

consultative process that informed the decision, describes the compliance and enforcement

required, and explains what the impacts of the decision could be, and the risks and benefits of the

regulatory change. The evaluation examined RIASs prepared for each case study to assess the use

of evidence to support the regulatory change. An analysis of RIASs for the four case study

countries confirm that the information contained within the RIASs was largely informed by the

evidence gathered though monitoring and country reviews.

One of the weaknesses of RIAS documents is the cost-benefit analysis section. While the section

addresses additional impacts to Canada, such as the impact on the Canadian economy, social

assistance costs, or costs that will be incurred by other federal departments, most of the analysis is

fairly qualitative and does not provide a quantitative assessment of these impacts (Technical

appendix). While there may be challenges in assessing the cost/value of some of the elements, such

as deterrence of irregular migration, other elements, such as aggregated cost to the asylum claim

processing, or the loss to economy may be easier to assess using quantitative estimates. The

intention of the cost-benefit analysis as per the Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide for

Regulatory Proposals (TBS, 2007) is to quantify both the costs and benefits of the regulatory

change, the current method, which focuses largely on qualitative descriptors, reduces the strength

of the evidence.

3.3. Performance – Implementation

The responsibility for processing visitor visas lies with CIC’s Operations Sector, which is divided

into domestic and overseas operations. Overseas operations fall under the responsibility of the

International Region and its network of visa offices abroad. Processing of visitor visas takes place at

Canadian visa offices overseas;

only visitor visa extensions are processed in Canada. Visa offices

are usually located within a Canadian mission (e.g., embassies, high commissions).

Administrative services are shared with DFAIT under the terms of a Memorandum of

Understanding, whereby CIC transfers resources to DFAIT to secure accommodation and some

administrative support. Some visa offices offer a full range of processing, while others offer limited

processing services (for example only permanent or temporary resident applications). The office

may cover one or more countries. In large countries like China, India and the U.S., the volume of

applications is such that there is more than one office to serve each country. Applications from

clients must be directed to the office in their country of permanent residence or in a country to

which they were lawfully admitted.

CIC processing of TRVs is guided by the Operations Manual (OP 11). According to the Manual,

temporary resident applications will be given as much priority as possible within the restraints imposed by other

processing priorities at the visa office. All applications are reviewed and decided on a case-by-case basis.

The applicant is required to satisfy the visa officer that their visit to Canada is temporary, they will

not overstay their approved time in Canada, they hold a passport or travel document, have

sufficient financial means to support their stay in Canada, are in good health, do not have a criminal

record, and that they are not a security risk to Canadians.

Each application for a visitor visa is processed abroad, but each person is also examined, to various

degrees, at the port of entry by the border officer. The foreign nationals must satisfy the border

officer that they have both the ability and the willingness to leave Canada at the end of the period

for which they are authorized to remain in Canada and that they will not engage in activities that are

not authorized by the visitor visa – i.e., work, study, or apply for permanent residency from within

Canada.

There are three categories of visa offices or missions abroad: regional program centres (RPCs), full-service centres,

and satellites and specialized offices. RPCs and full-service centres both deliver the full range of immigration services

for the countries they serve, but RPCs also oversee satellite offices. The full range of immigration services includes the

processing of permanent and temporary resident applications as well as other immigration applications, such as

requests for travel documents or temporary resident permits. Satellites and specialized program offices do not deliver

the full range of immigration services.

3.3.1. Processing

To facilitate the flow of temporary residents, visa offices need to meet the demand for TRVs. The

following section describes the performance of the Program as it relates to the processing of visitor

visas. This includes a description of trends in demand, visitor visa processing trends and ability to

align capacity with fluctuations in demand and visa policy changes.

Finding: CIC has been able to meet the processing demand for TRVs to date with some extension of

time required to process applications. While CIC has the capacity to address seasonal fluctuations,

addressing major regulatory changes requires additional resources. Recent streamlining initiatives

show some positive effects on processing activities; however, it is too early to assess their

long-term impact.

Demand for temporary resident visas

The following section demonstrates that the overall number of TRV applications has increased

since 2006, although these increases are more apparent in certain regions, and that travel patterns

fluctuate seasonally. As a result of this demand and fluctuations, the impetus is placed on CIC to

find ways to meet this demand by taking into account travel patterns and leverage the benefits

(economic, social, etc.) associated with temporary travel to Canada.

Demand for TRVs can fluctuate in response to changes in economic conditions, regional and

seasonal travel patterns, and changes to visa requirements. The number of applications for

temporary resident visas remained fairly stable from 2006 to 2010, with a slight dip in 2008 and

2009, presumably as a result of the economic recession (see Figure 3-1). In 2010, there was an

increase in the number of visa applications (by approximately 130,000 applications) compared to

the previous year. Fifty percent of this increase was the result of the removal of the visa exemption

on nationals of Mexico in mid-2009.

Additionally, an analysis of the data shows that, in general, there are different trends in the demand

for TRV applications per region over the years under review. As shown in Figure 3-1, the number

of applications received in the Americas Region recently surpassed the number from Asia and

Pacific. While applications received by European offices decreased, there was a slight increase in

applications received from African and Middle Eastern countries.

Figure 3-1: Applications received by region (2006-1010)

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Asia & Pacific

Americas

Europe

Africa and Middle East

Source: OPS Statistics, CIC

While the overall number of applications remains relatively stable, the rate of change in the number

of applications received for particular missions has been quite high.

In addition to changes by region and by mission, travel patterns fluctuate seasonally with a higher

number of travellers in the summer months. This pattern is consistent across all regions (see Figure

3-2).

Figure 3-2: Application patterns within a year

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Oct/

2010

Nov/

2010

Dec/

2010

Jan/

2011

Feb/

2011

Mar/

2011

Apr/

2011

May/

2011

Jun/

2011

Jul/

2011

Aug/

2011

Sep/

2011

Africa and Middle East

Asia & Pacific

Europe

Americas

Source: OPS Statistics, CIC

Ability to meet TRV demand

In order to assess CIC’s ability to meet the demand for TRV applications, the evaluation examined

TRV processing statistics and CIC resource capacity.

Processing rates: As shown in Figure 3-3, which compares the number of applications processed to

the number of applications received, a large majority of applications are processed to completion;

however, there has been a slight decline in processing rates in 2009 and 2010; 98% of files were

processed in 2007 compared to 95% in 2010. The percentage of unprocessed applications relates

mostly to the fact that applications received at the end of the year may only be processed in the

following year.

Figure 3-3: Applications received and processed, by year

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Applications received

Applications processed

Source: OPS Statistics, CIC

Processing times: In order to meet the demand in applications and provide good service to

clients, TRVs should be processed in a timely manner. From 2006 to 2010 processing times (for

80% of cases) have increased from 7 to 14 days, overall, and in almost all regions (see Table 3-1).

An analysis of processing times for the 65 offices that existed between 2006 and 2010 shows that:

 Processing times increased in almost 50% of the offices, decreased in 14%, and remained the

same in 38%;

 The highest increases in processing times were in Islamabad (from 14 days to 56), Tehran (from

28 to 42 days), Abidjan (from 7 to 21 days);

 The largest decreases in processing times were in Warsaw (from 7 days to same-day processing

due to the granting of the visa exemption), Guatemala (from 14 to 7 day processing), Harare

(from 42 days to same-day processing), and Chandigarh (from 28 to 14 days);

 In 2006 there were 15 (22%) offices that processed applications within one day; this number

decreased to 9 (14%) in 2008, where it remained for the rest of the period under review.

Processing times are influenced by the number of applications received, the level of effort to

process visa applications in certain areas and whether additional health or security screening is

undertaken. Some interviewees suggested that one of the reasons for longer processing times

relates to the time it takes for CIC’s partners to perform security and health checks.

Table 3-1: Trends in temporary resident visa processing, 2006-2010 (averages)

Region

Application

received

Approved Refused

Total/

Total

finalized

Approval

rate

TRVs

issued

80% of cases

finalized

within X Days

Asia & Pacific

300,340 233,575 63,272 296,847 79% 233,575

Steady, at 7 days

Africa and Middle East

104,609 69,435 30,628 100,063 70% 69,435

Increased, from

14 to 21 days

Europe

110,127 90,346 17,492 107,838 84% 90,346

Increased, from

7 to 14 days

Americas

282,286 235,365 41,038 276,404 85% 235,365

Increased, from

7 to 14 days

Total points of

service

803,605 629,683 152,437 782,120 80% 629,683

Increased, from

7 to 14 days

Source: OPS-Statistics, CIC

An overall examination of the two indicators mentioned above (processing rates and time) suggests

that CIC is meeting the demand in TRV applications. As previously noted, some trends in TRV

processing indicate that CIC’s performance has declined slightly over the last five years (i.e.

increased processing times, decreased processing rates). Some interviewees suggested that while

CIC manages to meet the demand, at some point CIC will not be able to cope with processing more

TRVs without increasing resources or compromising security/program integrity, due to

insufficient human resources issues.

Capacity to process TRVs

In total, the number of visa offices that process applications has remained fairly constant (68 offices

in 2006 and 65 in 2010)

. Visa offices generally consist of an Immigration Program Manager (IPM),

one to two Deputy IPM/Operations Managers, and several Canada-Based Officers (CBOs). There

After office closures in 2012, the number of offices is currently 56.

are also Locally Engaged Program Officers (LEPs), Locally Engaged Staff (LESs) and local

administrative staff. Circa 2011, there were approximately 340 CBOs and 1,320 locally-engaged

staff working for the immigration program abroad (including those performing CIC and CBSA

related tasks). There are significant variations in terms of how many countries and people each of

the visa offices include. For instance, the mission in Singapore is responsible for a territory that

covers 600 million people in 10 countries and is staffed with eight CBOs and 28 LESs. The biggest

mission, in New Delhi, has 150 staff, including 28 CBOs.

To assess CIC’s capacity to process TRV applications, the evaluation examined the level of

operational support provided by CIC; whether CIC has the HR capacity to adjust to meet visitor

visa demand fluctuation.

Operational support: Materials are available to inform staff about operational procedures, policy

changes, and any other form of change occurring in the IR network. Ongoing support is provided

by NHQ and bulletins are published throughout the network to ensure that staff are aware of any

changes. Recent initiatives include the Wiki page for international staff, which includes a section on

questions and best practices. Recent audits (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) of visa programs in nine

missions suggest that the decisions are made by the appropriate level of staff and that staff followed

the required procedures.

Overall ability to adjust TRV workload: The first concern mentioned by CIC interviewees was

workload pressures related to TRV processing. In particular, because visa processing units are

staffed based on permanent resident applications processing levels, TRVs are treated as a lesser

priority. The focus is to ensure that the processing of permanent resident applications allows CIC

to meet the stated permanent immigration targets. There are no targets associated with TRVs. Due

to the fact that staffing is done through an interdepartmental committee for overseas staff, creating

one position in the field takes about one year. This results in a lack of flexibility or responsiveness as

it is a cumbersome process to reassign permanent staff to missions and even more difficult to add

a position. Instead, resources are shifted between permanent and temporary processing and other

strategies are used to address workload challenges. In internal CIC reports for 2010, difficulty with

processing due to increased demand was mentioned by managers of almost all missions.

Ability to meet TRV demands due to annual/seasonal fluctuations: The majority of

interviewees commented that while there are some challenges, overall, CIC has the ability to meet

visa processing demands due to annual/seasonal fluctuations. In general, January to September is

considered temporary season; students are also included in this group because they have to get their

visas in the spring in order to attend school. When the demand for temporary resident visas

increases in the spring and summer, mission resources are shifted from processing PR applications

to TRVs. In general, many missions focus on processing permanent resident applications in the low

season (winter, early spring).

Ability to meet TRV demand due to changes to visa regulations: Respondents were divided

when asked whether CIC has the ability to meet visa processing demands due to changes in visa

regulations. Many interviewwws noted that the sufficiency in resources to meet the new demand

relating to a visa imposition depends on the country on which it was imposed (size, yearly number

of travellers to Canada, etc.). While the majority believe that Mexico received sufficient resources,

this is not always the case. An examination of the Mexico and Czech Republic case studies show

that while there were some initial challenges, sufficient resources were provided to address the

demand.

 Mexico: Prior to the removal of the visa exemption, there was one immigration program

manager, two visa officers, a migration anti-fraud officer and some locally engaged staff

working in the immigration section of the mission in Mexico. During this period, the majority

of processing work related to permanent resident applications, study and work permits.

According to interviewees, after the removal of the visa exemption, the office increased its

number of staff to approximately 70 people almost overnight. In the year since the imposition,

there were more than 100 temporary duty (TD) officers that operated in the Mexico office; the

cycle of officers coming to Mexico was between one to three months each, from the date the

visa exemption was removed until about September 2010. Because the majority of processing

officers sent from Canada for the first year were TD officers, some interviewees said that the

high turnover made it more difficult to manage. After the first year, the office became more

stable with a steady team of people, receiving officers who will likely remain in the office for 2-3

years, who can understand Spanish, and who had the time to understand the socio-economic

situation in Mexico and apply this to their work. As illustrated in Figure 3-4, below, the mission

in Mexico processed almost all applications received within the first two years of the visa

change.

Figure 3-4: Mexico: applications received vs. applications processed

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2009

2010

Applications received

Total processed

Source: OPS Statistics, CIC

 Czech Republic: In the case of the Czech Republic, processing was delegated to CIC’s Vienna,

Austria office. Recognizing that it would be a significant change for Czech nationals to have to

apply for a visa in another country, various avenues were created to submit applications.

However, in order to be more responsive to concerns raised by Czech nationals, CIC

introduced a two-person office in Prague (1 CBO and 1 LES). While the Vienna office could

have handled Czech applications, the Prague office was necessary to improve client service and

Canada’s reputation. In 2010, the mission in Czech Republic processed 99.3% of all the

applications received.

2009 data for the Czech nationals was not available, as applications were processed by the Vienna mission (data is

available by mission rather than nationality).

Main mitigation strategies to address capacity challenges

As previously noted, there are challenges in managing TRV resources because missions are funded

based on their permanent workload and because TRV demand fluctuates. Therefore, CIC employs

a number of different strategies to mitigate capacity challenges, such as Temporary Duty (TD)

arrangements, and introducing streamlining processes; such as VACs, and multiple entry and

longer term visas.

Temporary Duty: CIC relies on TD officers to mitigate capacity challenges in missions due to

annual/seasonal demand, visa requirement changes and other factors. TD officers are staff with

several years’ experience working at CIC, who receive theoretical and practical training on

processing immigration applications. These individuals are assigned to process applications to

relieve officers during the busy season, or to replace those on leave. While the TD officer is

intended to assist with processing, this practice has other positive effects, such allowing the TD

officer, who may have a substantive position in the policy sector, to bring back to their branch their

experience learned working in an operational environment. This should help inform future policy

work. Over the last few years, the overall number of TD assignments (for TR, PR, etc.) has

increased from 133 in 2007 to 341 in 2010 and number of work weeks from 723 to 1740 with a

minimum of 30% of those allocated to processing temporary applications.

Streamlining processes

Visa Application Centre (VAC): VACs are independent service providers and international

organizations that are operated on a user-pay basis by third-party service providers, and that charge

user fees (at levels set by the service provided and agreed by CIC) to assist clients with the visa

application process. Canada is currently served by 60 VACs in 41 countries. VACs have two main

objectives: to facilitate in-person assistance for clients and to support the ability of CIC to meet the

demand for TRVs. This section focuses on the use of VACs to support demand/capacity

challenges within missions (the facilitation objective will be discussed in the section on facilitation).

In its support role to CIC, VACs are intended to improve missions’ processing capacity by

providing administrative support services to applicants. VAC staff are strictly prohibited from

providing evaluative advice or consultancy and play no role in the decision-making process. In

Beijing and Mexico, VACs have the ability to scan applications with 2D barcodes, which is

uploaded to the system in Ottawa, validated, and provided to mission through GCMS to facilitate

processing of applications. While definitive, quantitative information on their success was not

available for the evaluation, based on the interviews from the mission in Mexico, the VAC has had

a positive impact on addressing demand and capacity challenges. In particular, staff at the Mexico

mission mentioned that VAC contributes to the completeness of application packages, which

reduces the rejection rate for incomplete/incorrect forms. This provides staff with time to

concentrate on assessing complete applications. While staff positively assessed the impact of the

VAC on operations, an internal review of the Mexico VAC files for July/August 2010, in which

1,000 applications were reviewed, indicated that the applications received from VAC in Mexico had

a 78% error rate, and 43% of these applications were incomplete. However, corrective measures

were taken by mission staff to provide feedback to VACs on the most frequent mistakes and

subsequently the error rates has significantly reduced. This underlines the importance of regular

feedback and communication between the visa offices and VACs. .

Other Changes: There are other mechanisms being introduced that are intended to improved

CIC’s processing capacity and efficiency. Examples include: long-term and multiple-entry visas,

which aims to decrease the number of transactions with clients; e-applications (2D barcodes); and

the introduction of a new system to collect data on applications, Global Case Management System

(GCMS), which includes features such as uploadable information and group processing. While the

missions expressed some concerns that GCMS added processing time, particularly during the file

creation process, during the Mexico site visit interviewees commented positively about the initial

impacts of these mechanisms, however, the longer term impact will have to be assessed when more

information is available.

3.3.2. Communications

There are three main communication activities related to visitor visas: communicating application

requirements to potential TRV clients, communications related to changes in visa regulations, and

communications related to sensitive TRV cases. As it was not possible to locate temporary visitor

applicants (due to privacy and cost issues), the evaluation could not gather their direct assessment

of the impact of communication activities; therefore, this section relies on qualitative assessment of

the breadth and depth of communication efforts.

Finding: The timeliness and breadth of CIC’s communication strategies related to immigration are

reasonable and address a variety of potential client’ information needs. As materials supporting

decisions on changes to visa requirements are subject to Cabinet confidence, CIC faces

communication constraints related to the timing of information being released to partners,

stakeholders and to the public.

Communication: visitor visa application requirements

To assess regular communications, the evaluation conducted interviews, a document review, and a

review of the information available on-line to assess the comprehensiveness and breadth of the

information provided. The evaluation found that information regarding temporary resident visas is

readily available online and the CIC website appears comprehensive and provides information that

may be helpful to those who have access to the internet. In particular, CIC’s website provides

information for potential clients on current visa requirements, as well as any changes introduced.

This information includes links to application forms and guides, TRV exemptions, processing

times, and means of extending one’s stay in Canada. Additional information is contained on

mission specific websites, including information on temporary travel requirements. Missions

provide information in English and French but also sometimes in local languages. These websites

have a common look and feel and the information provided is almost identical. One issue noted in

some interviews was that some complaints were received from clients in Mexico about TRV forms

only being available in English and French, which made them difficult for clients to complete.

Communicating changes regarding visitor visas regulations

Information about proposed regulatory changes to visa requirements is made available through the

Canada Gazette. Key stakeholder groups within Canada, such as provincial and territorial ministries

of immigration, as well as the Canadian Council for Refugees, are subsequently provided notice of

See, for example, www.cic.gc.ca/english/visit/index.asp and

www.canadainternational.gc.ca/mexico-mexique/visas/index.aspx?lang=eng&menu_id=5. Note that mission

websites are provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

these changes by a departmental spokesperson. Communications are also undertaken for the

benefit of the Canadian public – both the general public and those who may have business or family

ties to the affected country. These communications include an explanation of the rationale for the

decision. In addition to these governmental channels, news of visa requirement changes is often

disseminated through Canadian media, whose reporting of the changes may include reference to

prepared communications materials and/or comments from departmental spokespeople. The level

of public notification with respect to visa requirement changes is lower than for other forms of

regulatory change, as the visa policy process itself is sensitive owing to the national and

international information involved.

Timing of visa requirement change communication

Due to the sensitive nature of decisions to remove a visa exemption, they are communicated at the

last possible moment to prevent a surge in travel (and, potentially, in-Canada asylum claims) by

citizens of affected countries. Communication materials are prepared well in advance of the

announcement. Because visa requirement changes come into effect very shortly after their public

announcement, these requirements must be communicated swiftly to reduce the risk of traveller

confusion abroad. Nevertheless, according to some interviewees, because of the short notice of

these types of changes, travellers who are travelling the day of, or shortly after, the announcement

can face difficulties getting their visas in time for the travel. It should be mentioned that CIC usually

allows a grace period of a few days for these circumstances.

A review of documents and interviews pertaining to the Mexico and Taiwan visa decisions show

that there is an approach to consult with affected international stakeholders with respect to visa

decisions. In the Mexico case study, the ambassador and staff at the Canadian mission were highly

involved, not only in informing their counterparts about the decision, but also in providing the

rationale for such a decision. In the case of Mexico, while CIC put some public notices in the

papers, it also benefited from existing media interest in the issue. The public appeared to be fairly

well-informed about the need to apply for visa as evidenced by large line-ups in front of the

embassy the day the announcement was made. Many interviewees from the mission and NHQ felt

that the Mexico visa change was effectively communicated. Some mission staff commented that the

large number of Mexican citizens applying for a visa immediately after the imposition was an

indication that they were aware of the new requirement.

3.4. Performance – Achieving integrity and facilitation outcomes

Using data from interviews, administrative systems and case studies, the evaluation examined the

extent to which CIC’s Visa Policy Program contributed to the achievement of the intermediate

outcome of the visa program: protection of the integrity of Canada’s immigration and asylum

systems and facilitation of travel for bona-fide travellers as well as balancing both.

3.4.1. Integrity of the immigration system

The evaluation examined the following aspects of integrity:

Integrity of the immigration system: At the outcome level, the impact of the visa program on

protecting the integrity of the immigration system was assessed by looking at the effectiveness of

the Program in deterring non-bona fide travellers from applying, preventing irregular migration,

and preventing immigration violations.

Integrity of the asylum and refugee system: The impact of the Visa Program on the integrity of

the asylum and refugee system was assessed by examining the effect of the visa on asylum claim

rates, especially those presumed to be unfounded, and the costs/savings associated with processing

such claims.

Finding: The visitor visa is an effective tool that helps protect the integrity of CIC’s immigration

and asylum system through selecting low-risk countries for visa-free travel, and potentially being a

deterrent for non-bona fide travellers. Its role as a mechanism to address immigration violations is

less certain. The impact of the visitor visa on irregular migration is difficult to measure due to lack

of data on certain indicators (e.g., overstays)

Deterrence effect

The existence of a visa plays a role in preventing people who may not meet eligibility/admissibility

criteria from applying. Interviewees noted that the existence or re-imposition of a visa requirement

on a country is a deterrent for non-bona fide travellers. They noted that a visa requirement in theory

should have a self-selection or deterrence effect on ineligible/inadmissible travellers to Canada.

This is supported by evidence in the case study countries (e.g., Czech Republic and Mexico). While

it is difficult to generalize and quantify this effect across all visa-required countries, travel patterns

after removing the visa exemptions suggests that there is a link between visa requirements and

deterrence of non-bona fide travel. For example, in the Czech Republic, visa refusal rates were very

low when a visa was required; in 2010, the TRV refusal rate for Czech Republic nationals was

around 1%. This may suggest that potential applicants self-assess their likelihood of obtaining a visa

to come to Canada.

Irregular migration

Once visitors obtain a visa and gain entry into Canada, they must comply with the terms and

conditions of their stay: they should not engage in unauthorized activities, such as work and/or

study; they should leave the country as stated; and they should not use their temporary entry to

pursue permanent residency. Any temporary visitor who pursues other activities is in direct conflict

with conditions of admission, which undermines the integrity of the immigration program.

Due to the weaknesses of the data collection system, it is not possible to assess the number of

people who remain in Canada longer than authorized (overstays), those who engage in illegal work

while under temporary visitor status, or those that apply for permanent residence while in the

country. While CIC considers these indicators relevant to measure irregular migration as described

in its PAA, Canada and many other peer countries do not have exit control systems, so it is difficult

to know how many people remain in the country when their period of authorized stay ends. In

2008, the Auditor General report estimated that there were 63,000 people with enforceable

removal orders in Canada; however, since there is no information on who has left the country, the

number of illegal migrants may be higher. The report stated that Canada does not monitor the exit of

travellers from the country, and therefore (..) does not know whether individuals have left the country as required in their

temporary permit.

Auditor General Report, Chapter 5 – Citizenship and Immigration Canada – Control and Enforcement.

www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200304_05_e_12911.html

Immigration violations

Immigration violations are documented infractions of Canadian immigration laws, such as

interceptions of individuals en route to Canada, of inadmissible individuals identified at a Canadian

port of entry and those identified in Canada. In this section, immigration violation rates, for both

visa-required and visa exempt countries, are compared in order to determine whether the visa has

been successful at protecting the integrity of Canada’s immigration system. Inadmissible travellers

attempt to enter Canada on an ongoing and regular basis, which presents a risk to the integrity of

Canada’s immigration system. The risks are that travellers may repeat previous unlawful

behaviours, or that admitting those with criminal records will tarnish Canada’s international

reputation by suggesting that it is a country that provides a haven for serious criminals. Another risk

is that people with health risks will either directly impact the health of Canadians (e.g. through the

spread of tuberculosis) or will constitute a drain on public health services (e.g. through treatment

for chronic illnesses or conditions).

Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 show that the number of immigration violations remains fairly comparable

between visa exempt (EXM) and visa-required (REQ) countries, with the exception of intercepts

(improperly documented people en route to Canada). However, comparing the rates of

immigration violations from visa exempt and visa-required countries must take into account that

the majority of international travel to Canada comes from visa exempt countries (between 95% to

97% of annual travel volumes depending on the year – see Number of Travellers statistics in Table

3-2). Therefore, while the number of violations is comparable, immigration violation rates are

much lower for visa exempt countries. As noted in Table 3-2, the rate of immigration violations

from visa exempt countries is 14 to 20 times lower than visa-required countries depending on the

year. This suggests that visa exempt countries were appropriately selected for visa-free travel as they

do not pose the same level of risk in term of immigration violations.

These numbers also indicate that a visa requirement does not completely eliminate immigration

violations, which would presumably be higher if a visa exemption had been granted. Data from the

Czech Republic and Mexico case studies support this presumption. The highest rates of

immigration violations for the Czech Republic occurred in the years following the granting of the

visa exemption (from 2007 to 2009) primarily as a result of the high number of asylum claims. The

immigration violation rate then diminished following the removal of the visa exemption in 2009.

For both the Czech Republic and Mexico, the years following the removal of the visa exemption

align with a drop in the immigration violation rate, therefore suggesting that visas are effective in

reducing immigration violation rates. In terms of the impact of granting visa exemptions, there was

no noticeable increase or decrease in immigration violation rates is the cases of Taiwan and Poland.

Therefore, there was no impact on the integrity of the immigration system. While the data shows

that both visa exempt and visa-required countries are sources of immigration violations, the

removal of the visa exemption helped control the immigration violation rate in the case of Mexico

and the Czech Republic. However, it is difficult to determine the degree to which immigration

violations would change (increase) without visa requirements for current visa-required countries.

Table 3-2: Violation rates for visa-exempt and visa-required countries

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number of Travellers

EXM

32,290,184 29,229,676 26,206,439 23,417,882 23,382,569

REQ 1,035,009 1,076,740 1,092,824 1,210,447 1,388,505

Grand Total

33,325,193 30,306,416 27,299,263 24,628,329 24,771,074

Intercepts

EXM

272 693 530 1,038 1,011

REQ

4,076 3,670 3,347 3,746 4,765

A44 Inadmissibilities

EXM

17,005 19,198 21,862 11,560 10,655

REQ 15,488 17,681 20,828 29,128 17,115

A42 Inadmissibilities

EXM

52,916 48,837 50,443 31,938 41,270

REQ

19,812 19,420 23,519 24,365 22,641

Total Immigration Violations

EXM 70,193 68,728 72,835 44,536 52,936

REQ 39,376 40,771 47,694 57,239 44,521

Total 109,569 109,499 120,529 101,775 97,457

Rates of Immigration violations

EXM

0.22% 0.24% 0.28% 0.23% 0.23%

REQ 3.80% 3.79% 4.36% 4.73% 3.21%

Grand Total 0.33% 0.36% 0.44% 0.46% 0.39%

Ratio (REQ to EXP) 17.50 16.10 15.70 20.19 14.16

Legend: ECM - Vixa exempt countries; REQ - Visa-required countries

Source: CBSA administrative data

Number of Immigration Violations

Note: The above are annual immigration violation rates. In addition to visitors, it includes immigration violations related to students

and temporary workers. These rates relate to cases identified en route to Canada (intercepts) and those that are identified at the

port of entry or inland (A44 and R42

). These rates do not include inadmissible cases identified in missions abroad.

It is important to note that the majority of visitors to Canada do not pose much of a threat to

Canadians. There are; however, individuals who may pose more direct risks to the Canadian public,

such as those with previous criminal histories. Interviewees suggested that those with links to

organized crime or human trafficking are of particular concern, as the individuals involved may

continue unlawful activities within Canada. A comparison of the type of immigration violations

between visa exempt and visa-required countries (see Table 3-2 and Table 3-3) shows that:

 Visa-exempt countries are not a major source of security or human right violations (related to

section A34-35 of IRPA).

 The number of criminality-related inadmissibility cases (related to section 36 of IRPA) among

visa-exempt countries is higher than visa-required countries, suggesting that a visa requirement

may be effective in decreasing the number of criminality cases.

A44 inadmissibility cases are those relating to sections 34-42 of IRPA (See Table 4 for detailed categories. R42

inadmissibility cases are those relating to determination if a foreign national could become a temporary or a permanent

resident or make a claim for refugee protection; direct a person to leave Canada or to return to the United States; allow

the withdrawal of an application to enter Canada or refuse the entry to a person who does not satisfy the requirements

of the Act; authorize a person to enter Canada for further examination or an admissibility hearing.

 The top country among non-visa-required countries with immigration violations is the United

States which accounts for about 75% of the total immigration violation rate. However, given

the volume of travellers from the U.S., the proportion of immigration violations from that

country remains very low at 0.2%.

 In Mexico, the number of immigration violations decreased significantly, from 9,000 in 2006 to

3,500 in 2010, after the visa re-imposition. This may suggest that the re-imposition had an

effect on either deterring or screening out inadmissible applicants/applications.

Table 3-3: Number of inadmissibility reports per year, by visa status and IRPA

section

Visa Status / Inadmissibility Type 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

34 - Security grounds

- 3 6 1 1

35 - Human Rights Violations

1 - 2 3 1

36(1) - Criminality - Serious 3,540 3,135 3,115 2,420 2,199

36(2) - Criminality - Lesser

4,331 3,636 3,293 2,604 2,252

37 - Organized Crime

23 25 43 36 29

38 - Health

12 7 11 12 12

39 - Financial

61 49 55 46 45

40 - Misrepresentation

103 120 96 74 96

41 - Non-compliance

8,760 12,057 15,135 6,296 5,949

42 - Inadmis. family member

174 166 106 68 71

TRV-exempt (total) 17,005 19,198 21,862 11,560 10,655

34 - Security grounds

23 22 21 30 74

35 - Human Rights Violations

13 19 19 20 13

36(1) - Criminality - Serious

480 477 517 706 569

36(2) - Criminality - Lesser

494 507 536 602 482

37 - Organized Crime 24 29 35 78 85

38 - Health

10 20 14 14 15

39 - Financial

17 16 13 16 10

40 - Misrepresentation

240 167 142 186 254

41 - Non-compliance

14,159 16,387 19,484 27,405 15,523

42 - Inadmis. family member 28 37 47 71 90

TRV-required (total) 15,488 17,681 20,828 29,128 17,115

Source: FOSS data – port of entry and inland enforcement inadmissibility reports.

Even though the number of inadmissible cases for visa-required countries is not large, the

following questions remain: does this represent an acceptable level of risk? Should these cases have

been identified abroad through health and security screening (even though some of the violations

will have occurred in Canada)?

3.4.2. Integrity of the asylum system

Canada’s existing asylum system faces an ever-increasing number of new claims every year, with

claims taking years to process. The perceived generous nature of Canada’s asylum system may

encourage submissions of unfounded asylum claims, which serves to reduce Canada’s ability to

help those who truly need protection. The analysis below includes an assessment of the impact of

the visa on asylum claim rates as well as an analysis of claims made by the case study countries

under discussion. The impact of the visa program on the integrity of the asylum system was

assessed by examining the effect of the visa on asylum claim rates and the costs/savings associated

with processing unfounded claims

Asylum claim rates

CIC uses asylum claim rates as one of the quantitative thresholds to inform changes in visa

requirements and defines it as one of the indicators pertaining to Managed Migration outcome

results in the PAA/PMF document. Figure 3-5 shows that the proportion of asylum claims, from

both visa-required and visa-exempt countries, have shifted over time. Even though the majority of

claims have consistently been from visa-required countries, from 2006 to 2008 there was nearly a

20% increase in the proportion of asylum claims from visa exempt countries. This increase was

mostly due to increasing numbers of asylum claims from Mexico. In 2009 and 2010, this trend was

reversed due to the removal of the visa exemption granted to nationals of the Czech Republic and

Mexico, which were major sources of asylum claims. Furthermore, Figure 3-5 shows that there has

been an overall increase in the total number of asylum claims from 2006 to 2009, followed by a

large decrease in 2010, mainly resulting from the removal of the visa exemption for nationals of

Mexico. It is evident that CIC monitors and makes changes to the visa exemption list when

necessary; and when possible removing from this list countries that are becoming major sources of

asylum claims.

Figure 3-5: Total number of asylum claims made, by visa requirement

13,341

15,343

16,312

26,369

16,650

6,047

7,624

12,218

6,883

6,521

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Visa required

Visa not required

Source: OPS Statistics, CIC

CIC’s administrative data confirms that the removal of the visa exemption for nationals of Mexico

was very effective at reducing the number of asylum claims. Figure 3-6 shows the increase in

Mexican asylum claims from 2001 to 2008 (from 1,730 to 9,462 claims) and the significant decrease

since the removal of the visa exemption in July 2009 (from 7,570 claims in 2009 to 1,199 claims in

2010). This represents a substantial decrease (87%) in asylum claims from 2008 to 2010.

Figure 3-6: Total number of asylum claims made, by Mexican nationals in Canada

1,730

2,090

2,597

2,810

3,455

4,921

7,228

9,462

7,570

1,199

416

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

(Jan-

Sep)

Source: OPS Statistics, CIC

Table 3-4, below, presents the proportion of asylum claims made (per year) by each case study

country (2005 to 2010). The cells highlighted in red indicate the years in which each country was

visa-exempt. The data indicates that the introduction of TRV requirements was effective in

reducing the proportion of asylum claims made in Canada by nationals from the two case study

countries.

In particular:

 Czech Republic: The granting of a visa exemption in 2007 was followed by an increase in the

asylum claim rate. The removal of the visa exemption in 2009 resulted in a significant decrease

in the proportion of asylum claims made in Canada coming from Czech nationals, from 6.58%

to 0.18%.

 Mexico: The removal of the visa exemption in 2009 was very effective in reducing the asylum

claim rate. In 2009, 23% of the asylum claims made in Canada were from Mexican nationals,

which decreased to 4.7% in 2010 following the removal of the visa exemption. It is expected

that the asylum claim rate will further diminish as many of the asylum claims that occurred after

July 2009 (date of the removal of the visa exemption) could have been made by Mexican

nationals present in Canada before the imposition.

Table 3-4: Asylum claim rate proportion from case study countries, 2005-2010

Country / Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Mexico

17.23% 21.32% 24.85% 25.48% 22.56% 4.73%

Czech Republic

0.06% 0.00% 0.39% 2.32% 6.58% 0.18%

Poland 0.21% 0.20% 0.13% 0.26% 0.31% 0.28%

Taiwan

0.02% 0.02% 0.01% 0.03% 0.02% 0.03%

Source: OPS-Stats

To compare the rates of asylum claims made by citizens from the case study countries and those

from other countries in the world, asylum claim rates made in Canada and in other countries are

included in the Technical appendices. The data shows that in-Canada asylum claim rates were

While monitored, asylum claims for Poland and Taiwan are not a concern.

consistently higher for the two case study countries when a visa was not required (In 2009, 95% of

asylum claims from Czech nationals made globally and 80% of those made by Mexican nationals,

were made in Canada).

Outcomes of asylum claims

CIC’s mandate includes affording protection to people in need of protection. Therefore, reducing

the asylum claim rates alone is not sufficient to assess the effectiveness of the Visitor Visa Program

in protecting the integrity of the asylum system. The evaluation examined the legitimacy of the

claims using asylum claim outcomes (rates of approval/refusal as adjudicated by the Immigration

and Refugee Board (IRB), and withdrawal/abandonment by claimants).

Overall, from 2000 to 2010, the asylum claim approval rate for all countries was around 43% (see

Table 3-5). Over the period examined, Table 3-5 shows that asylum claim outcomes for all case

study countries differed from this average. The proportion of negative decisions diverged the most

in the case of the Czech Republic, with a rate half that of the 10-year overall average. In all other

case study countries, the proportion of negative outcomes was greater than the average. The case

study countries also displayed higher rates of abandoned or withdrawn asylum claims than the

international average. Unfortunately, data are not systematically collected on the reasons for the

abandonment or withdrawal of asylum claims.

Table 3-5: Asylum claim outcomes, case study countries, 2000-2010 (summary)

Country

Finalizations Positive Negative Abandoned

Withdrawn

/Other

Positive Negative

Abandoned/

Withdrawn

All countries

312,307 134,923 124,172 22,661 30,549 43% 40% 17%

Czech Republic

2,355 311 451 81 1,512 13% 19% 68%

Mexico

36,878 5,925 20,328 2,678 7,947 16% 55% 29%

Poland 1,654 520 747 268 119 31% 45% 23%

Taiw an

65 8 33 8 16 12% 51% 37%

Source: OPS Stats

Percent

Number

2000-2010

While it is not possible to make a definitive assessment of the legitimacy of the claims, the high rates

of abandoned claims plus the different pattern of negative decisions suggests that many may be

unfounded. If this is the case, then the imposition of a visa in these cases does contribute to

protecting the integrity of the asylum system.

3.4.3. Facilitation of travel

The following section assesses the achievement of the Visitor Visa Program’s facilitation objective.

To assess this objective, the evaluation examined the extent to which the visa application process

facilitates travel, in comparison to other countries, and the impact of visa requirement changes on

travel patterns. This section also presents some mechanisms and tools that aim to facilitate travel to

Canada for bona fide visitors.

Finding: CIC’s Visitor Visa Program facilitates the movement of bona fide travellers, as evidenced

by the fact that the TRV processing requirements are similar to those in other countries; by

reaching CIC targets for approval rates; and by introducing other facilitative approaches and tools.

Processing requirements

The visitor visa process and processing requirements can be a travel barrier if the process is not

timely and the requirements are more extensive than those used by other countries. Canada has

faced criticism from stakeholders, such as the Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC), regarding the

extensive information requirements. In 2010, CIC conducted an internally-led comparison study of

the TRV application processes and requirements between Canada and other countries competing

for international tourists. Information was gathered and analysed for the American, British, French

and Australian visitor visa programs in certain key locations comparing processes and requirements

for nationals of China, India and Brazil. The study showed that Canada collected more information

than the other countries reviewed (see Table 3-6). It has the highest number of fields to be

completed by applicants. Also, some information requested varies between different Canadian visa

offices. For example, Details of Past Work Experience and Details of Travel History were not

systematically requested by visa officers in all missions. On the other hand, Canada asked a similar

number of security questions as other countries and requests a similar number of supporting

documents.

Table 3-6: Comparison of Canadian and other countries visitor visa application

requirements

US UK France Australia Visa Canada

Number of required forms to be filled

1 1 1 or 2 1 or 2 2 or 3

Number of pages to fill on the main

application form

Not clear* 10 3 8 4

Number of fields to fill on all required

forms

100 98 49 to 84 95 to 137 101 to 146

Details of Education Required Not required Not required Not required Required

Details of Past Work Experience Required Not required Not required Not required Required*

Details of Travel History Required Required Not required Not required To Canada only*

Family Composition Information Required Required Not required Varies Required

Number of Security Questions

12 6 0 9 5

Number of additional required

documents

6 to 8 16 15 to 23 13 to 19 7 to 17

Source: CIC Internal Review . * updated information

Note: The information in the table presented on the Australia visa excludes eTA related processes

The study showed that Canada offers more options to submit an application, and the vast majority

of applications are processed on paper without an interview. The absence of interviews for

Canadian applicants could explain the need for a higher number of supporting documents than, for

instance, the U.S., where all applicants are interviewed. Fees requested by Canada to process a

single-entry TRV application are the lowest of all comparison countries. Moreover, Canada offers

comparable processing times in the locations reviewed (see Table 3-7).

Table 3-7: Comparison of application processing

US UK France

Australia Visa

Canada

Application Submission Process Online* VAC

In person +

VAC

In person + VAC +

mail +Online*

In person + VAC +

mail + online*

Interview 100% If needed If needed If needed If needed

Biometrics Yes Yes Yes No No

Fee (excluding VAC fees) $140 CAD $115 CAD $80 CAD $104 CAD

$75 CAD (single

entry visa)

Processing time in working days 14 to 93 days 1 to 10 days 5 to 10 days 5 to 15 days 1 to 21 days **

Source: CIC Internal Review . * updated information. ** 80% of cases.

CIC International region has reviewed all mission requirements, such as forms and supporting

documents requested, with a view to having a more consistent approach for supporting documents

throughout the network. CIC’s TRV streamlining exercise in 2011-12 has largely eliminated visa

office differences on forms and reduced the number of questions asked. Since January 2011,

applications are only accessible online and must be completed online to ensure that the 2D barcode

is created for each application. Applications are no longer mailed to clients, nor are they available

for pick up in the missions. It is not known what implications this may have on client perceptions

of the ease of access to application and on the number of applications received.

Approval rates

TRV approval rates show the extent to which visa officers approve or reject TRV applications,

which could be considered an indicator of facilitation. CIC administrative data indicates that the

majority of TRV applications, between 79% and 81%, are approved across all regions for the years

under review. By-mission approval rates vary, with a minority having approval rates below 50% (six

missions having approval rates below 50% in 2006-2008 and two offices in 2010). Between 17 and

20 offices (depending on the year) have approval rates of over 90%. Overall, during the last five

years, CIC has consistently met the established approval rate target of 80% for visitors.

Facilitative approaches

To meet its facilitation objective, CIC employs different approaches to facilitate the movement of

bona fide travellers from visa-required countries. Several facilitative approaches are described

below. The effectiveness of these approaches is difficult to measure due to their relative infancy;

however, some early positive results were observed.

Visa Application Centres (VACs): One of the travel facilitation mechanisms that aim to increase

convenience for the client in the visa application experience is the establishment of VACs. VACs

assist clients with the visa application process by providing computers for self-service, providing

one-on-one application completion service, providing photo and photocopy services, checking

applications for completion, sending completed applications to the missions via courier; scheduling

interviews between applicants and immigration staff at the mission; and receiving sealed visa

decisions for distribution to clients. VAC staff also provide services such as answering questions

for clients, providing a tracking system so clients can monitor the progress of their application, and

operating Call Centres and websites to facilitate the application process for clients.

Their services are based on cost-recovery established by the service provider (as approved by CIC)

and their services are optional. The establishment of VACs may yield one or more benefits, which

include:

 Easier access – The ability of VACs to provide more places of service and additional hours of

operations was noted by several interviewees. This allows clients more opportunity to access a

point of service, therefore potentially reducing the time, effort and cost associated with travel

required to submit an application. Canada currently has 60 VACs in 41 countries, almost

doubling the points of access available through missions only. By 2014, CIC wants to expand

the VAC network to 150 points of services. In an audit of the Mexico VAC performed by CIC

in July/August 2010, a large majority of the respondents found the VAC location (86%) and the

hours of operation (93%) to be convenient.

 Personal contact – The ability to obtain in-person help with completing and verifying an

application is one advantage of the more client-focused environment that VACs can create.

Some interview respondents included among the advantages of the VAC the ability to deliver

face-to-face service and to deliver services in local languages.

Although VACs provide a number of facilitation benefits, a number of concerns were raised during

the evaluation. These include:

 Increased cost of obtaining a visa - While use of VACs is not mandatory, if a client chooses

to use the services of a VAC, the VAC fees are an additional cost. However, this may be offset

by the savings on travel, should such travel to the mission be required to submit the

applications in person or courier cost to submit the application.

 Use of VACs - In Mexico, over 90% of applications are submitted through VACs, which

indicates it is a popular service; however, a review of some mission websites suggests that it may

not be clear to the client if the use of VACs is optional. Therefore it is not clear if VACs are

popular because of the service they provide or because clients are not sure if they are required

to use their services.

 Applicant privacy – While CIC and clients may be interested in VACs as a travel facilitation

mechanism, some concerns related to client privacy have been raised. During its operations,

VACs gather, temporarily, a great deal of client information even though the information that

the VAC can collect are limited and the applications and documents are sent daily to the visa

office and are not kept at the VAC. Although service agreements stipulate privacy-related

mitigation strategies, not all had been implemented as visible in the review of the Mexico VAC

(e.g., VACs use of Google’s email service to contact CIC). As a result of the review, privacy

protection processes were strengthened. Privacy and information security concerns were raised

by a few interviewees. A Privacy Impact Assessment and a Threat and Risk Assessment were

conducted and the risks were defined as being of medium concern by the Canadian Privacy

Commissioner. Most of the suggestions for improvement were incorporated in the agreements.

This speaks to the importance of undertaking performance and contract reviews to ensure

compliance. This will be an integral component of the global contract. In the future, some

VACs will also be charged with the collection of biometric information, which, while

convenient for clients, may increase privacy-related risks. This is currently being reviewed by

the Office of the Privacy Commissioner though a Privacy Impact Assessment.

Business Facilitation: Another facilitation measure targets business travellers. Facilitation

measures for business travellers have been developed in selected missions abroad and were in use

for several years in India and China, and introduced in Mexico following the removal of the visa

exemption. CIC is now in the process of applying these approaches more widely and, in 2011,

introduced broader guidance for such measures. These mechanisms aim to make the process more

efficient for low-risk cases, while maintaining integrity and improving customer service. Such

initiatives include the Business Express Program (BEP), which offers rapid visa processing and

simplifies application procedures for employees of pre-qualified businesses and/or priority

processing of business visitor applications. In addition, some missions conduct outreach activities

with local business people and business associations in collaboration with the DFAIT Trade

Commissioner Service in order to answer their questions, review existing procedures, and present

an overview of visa processing for business visitors.

Visa-fee-exempt entry for special events: To facilitate the travel of persons participating in

special events held in Canada, CIC introduced, on a case-by-case basis, an exemption from the visa

fee. Recent participants to a women’s conference on empowerment, a commonwealth conference,

and a conference on maternal and child health, have benefitted from this initiative.

Transit without Visa (TWOV):

Another mechanism that facilitates the travel through Canada

for foreign nationals of some countries is the exemption from a TRV requirement while travelling

through Canadian airports, allowing them to transit through Canada without having to first obtain

a Canadian temporary resident visa.

Multiple-entry/Long-duration visas: CIC has increasingly moved towards the issuance of

long-term multiple-entry visas. The maximum validity period of a multiple-entry visa can be given

for the validity of the passport (generally less one month), which may be up to 10 years. This

reduces the need for the clients to return to visa offices every time they need to travel, thereby

facilitating travel to Canada for visitors from visa-required countries.

Impact on travel patterns

To assess the effect of visa requirements on travel patterns, the evaluation examined the impact of

the recent visa changes for the case study countries under review. Table 3-8 presents information

on the annual number of travellers to Canada from each case study country. This information is

presented separately by status of visa requirement (visa-exempt/ -required), and reports the yearly

number of travellers when each visa condition applied. For the case study countries under review,

as illustrated, the removal of the visa exemption had a noticeable impact on the number of

travellers coming to Canada. Specifically, the number of Mexican travellers to Canada dropped

considerably since the removal of the visa exemption in 2009, although it is not clear to what extent

larger global events (such as the financial crisis and ensuing recession) played a role in the

magnitude of this decrease. In the case of the Czech Republic, the table also shows a noticeable

decrease in the number of travellers since the removal of the visa exemption.

The impact of granting a visa exemption is less pronounced; however, the data show some increase

in travel after granting a visa exemption. For example, the number of travellers from Poland and

the Czech Republic increased greatly in the years in which nationals of these countries could travel

to Canada without first obtaining a visa. While it is clear that visa requirement changes have an

impact on travel patterns, it is difficult to assess the extent to which bona fide travellers are affected.

In particular, when a visa exemption is granted, it is difficult to determine whether the increase in

travel to Canada is the result of non-bona fide travellers (unfounded asylum seekers, those who

would otherwise be found inadmissible); similarly, the same can be attributed to decreases in travel

due to the removal of a visa exemption (ineligible/inadmissible people are screened out or are

deterred from applying). However, the magnitude of this is difficult to estimate, especially in

cicintranet/CICExplore/english/guides/bulletins/2011/297-eng.aspx

conjunction with the many other factors that either hinder or encourage travel to Canada (i.e.,

economic conditions, geographic location, ease of application process, etc.).

Table 3-8: Number of travellers under different visa requirement conditions, case

study countries

Country

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Czech Republic (Visa Req.)

10,226 11,118 11,570 11,791 11,144 -- 8,108 12,003

Czech Republic (Visa Non-req.)

-- -- -- -- 1,536 15,917 8,339 --

Total Czech Republic

10,226 11,118 11,570 11,791 12,680 15,917 16,447 12,003

Poland (Visa Req.)

20,445 23,007 22,767 25,634 24,012 2,054 -- --

Poland (Visa Non-req.)

-- -- -- -- -- 32,728 -- --

Poland (e-passport req.)

-- -- -- -- -- -- 28,592 29,565

Total Poland

20,445 23,007 22,767 25,634 24,012 34,782 28,592 29,565

Mexico (Visa Req.)

-- -- -- -- -- -- 74,316 123,763

Mexico (Visa Non-req.)

144,061 177,269 194,344 213,945 250,633 270,828 97,690

Total Mexico

144,061 177,269 194,344 213,945 250,633 270,828 172,006 123,763

Taiwan (Visa Req.)

69,273 108,611 100,635 94,917 82,524 63,455 51,608

Taiwan (Visa Non-req.)

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 54,445

Total Taiwan

69,273 108,611 100,635 94,917 82,524 63,455 51,608 54,445

Source: Statistics Canada

Note: The Mexico, Czech Republic and Poland decisions took place mid-year, therefore some travel data shows both visa regimes

Also see Technical appendices for graphical representation of the table data.

Many interviewees confirmed that when a visa exemption is removed, there is a negative impact on

the travel of bona fide visitors to Canada. A visa requirement can be an irritant and have a

psychological effect on bona fide travel to Canada, suggesting that in certain cultures and countries

not granting a visa exemption could be a sign of Canada being a ‘closed’ country, thus deterring

travel by its citizens.

Some interviewees noted that while there is an initial negative impact on travel when visa

exemption is removed, their perception is that this impact is only short-term. Because visas are

common across the world and the fees are competitive in Canada, travellers become accustomed to

the requirement and travel patterns should return to pre-imposition levels.

3.4.4. Balancing facilitation with integrity

To assess the balance between the facilitation and system integrity objectives, the evaluation

focused on the perceptions of key informants. Respondents were asked to comment on whether

CIC’s visitor visa policy was successful in meeting its overall objective: balancing the protection of

the integrity of Canada’s immigration and asylum system with the facilitation of temporary resident

travel.

Finding: CIC’s visitor visa policy, supported by other tools with similar objectives, is largely

perceived to have successfully achieved a balance between protecting the integrity of its

immigration and asylum system and the facilitation of bona-fide travel to Canada. In addition, the

visa policy is dynamic and has the ability to allow CIC to react to contextual changes.

The majority of respondents felt that CIC’s visa policy has achieved a balance between the

facilitation and protection objectives. A few commented that the balance has been achieved to a

large degree with a slight emphasis on protection, as evidenced by the recent visa imposition

decisions. Only a minority of interviewees considered the policy to be more facilitative than the

context requires, and suggested that visa policy may be influenced by stakeholders interested in

promoting economic benefits to Canada.

Respondents who felt that CIC has achieved the necessary balance, frequently cited some of the

new tools and program as important components of this balance.

Many interviewees commented that while visa policy is a crude, blanket approach intended to

protect Canadians, there are other tools, policies and programs that CIC and OGDs offer that help

achieve/refine this balance. As previously noted, initiatives that help facilitate travel include:

programs that facilitate travel for business people, workers, and certain groups travelling with tour

companies; and Visa Application Centres (VACs). Other initiatives, such as biometrics, attempt to

increase security and protect Canadian borders.

Overall, interviewees suggested that the balance between security and facilitation shifts depending

on the political climate or international events (e.g., September 11, 2001) and visa policy decisions

should have the ability to address those emerging risks and opportunities. Most respondents agreed

the visa policy is dynamic and has the ability to allow CIC to react to contextual changes.

3.4.5. Other impacts related to visa requirement changes

A number of additional impact of visa changes identified during the evaluation on bilateral

relations, partners, and the tourism industry are examined in this section.

Finding: The removal of visa exemptions affects Canada’s bilateral relations with countries

impacted by the change. Furthermore, the introduction or removal of visitor visa requirements can

impact CIC partners’ operations and political mandates.

Impact on bilateral relations with other countries

Many interviewees acknowledged the fact that Canada’s visa policy may have an impact on bilateral

relations. However, this impact is very difficult to anticipate because it depends on many external

factors, such as how the impacted country interprets the change. Many interviewees stated that the

visa change processes, including the country visit, aim to address in advance any potential bilateral

or multilateral issues with the impacted countries.

Nevertheless, two of the recent cases may have had a negative effect on bilateral relations. The

removal of the visa exemption for nationals of the Czech Republic affected Canada’s bilateral

relations with that country in three ways: the Czech government retaliated by imposing a visa

requirement on Canadians travelling to the Czech Republic on diplomatic and official passports; it

recalled its Ambassador to Canada; and it continues to warn that the visa requirement may affect

the Czech Republic’s position on bilateral or multilateral initiatives (such as the Canada-EU

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement). The Czech Republic case is also a key source of

strain between Canada and the European Union due to the fact that Canada does not adhere to the

European Union’s policy of reciprocity. This may also prove an irritant with Romania and Bulgaria,

both EU states still requiring Canadian TRVs who may use the trade negotiations and ratification

issues as possible leverage in discussions on the continuation of the Canadian visa requirement.

In the case of Mexico, interviewees noted that the removal of the visa exemption created negative

feelings towards Canada. During many bilateral or trilateral meetings with Mexican government

representatives, the topic of the visa requirement was broached. In addition, the Government of

Mexico introduced a visa for Canadian diplomatic personnel.

Impact on OGD partners

The majority of interviewees indicated that some of CIC’s immigration and enforcement partners

(i.e., CBSA, DFAIT, RCMP, IRB, P/Ts) are impacted by CIC’s visitor visa policy and associated

visa changes. The magnitude of this impact depends on the role of the department and may depend

on what country is affected by the decision. The following notes several impacts on certain

partners:

 CBSA: Interviewees noted that CBSA’s ability to meet its protection mandate may be affected,

especially when a visa exemption is granted and results in an increased number of asylum claims

at the border and eventual need to remove unsuccessful claimants or visitors that overstay.

Conversely, visa re-imposition supports the CBSA mandate to large degree as it reduces those

activities related to large numbers of asylum claims at the border from a particular country.

 DFAIT: Many interviewees suggested that DFAIT is affected in its ability to meet its

facilitation mandate when a visa exemption is removed because it receives many complaints

from business and government officials. DFAIT’s role in promoting trade is also affected by a

change in visa requirements, as well as by its role as a government representative in the

international arena. This is visible in the impact on dealings with the European Union with

regards to the change in visa requirements for nationals of the Czech Republic.

 RCMP: A few interviewees noted that the RCMP is likely to have some possible resource

implications if more criminality screenings are required.

 IRB: To the extent that changing a visa requirement has an impact on the number of refugee

claims, it will also have an impact on the workload of the IRB; either increasing in refugee

claims as a result of a visa lifting or decrease in case visa exemption is removed.

 P/Ts: Provinces are affected by the number of asylum claimants in terms of the costs

associated with the provision of social services. On the other hand, provincial tourism is also

affected with the potential decline in travellers from certain countries (e.g.; Mexican tourists to

British Columbia ski resorts).

Finding: There is a potential negative impact on the Canadian tourism industry when a visa

exemption is removed, as it is expected to result in a decrease in the number of travellers from the

affected country. Conversely, when a visa exemption is granted, it should have a positive impact

on tourism. The available evidence supports these assumptions, although data on the magnitude of

the impact is mixed.

Impact on Canadian tourism industry

As noted previously, re-imposing a visa requirement on a country has an impact on travel patterns

to Canada. The expectation is that the removal of a visa exemption will decrease the number of

travellers to Canada, thereby decreasing tourism revenue, and the reverse is expected when a visa

exemption is granted. Some key informants believe that there was an impact on the Canadian

tourism industry due to the potential decrease in travellers from countries following the recent

changes to visa requirements. However, they also believed that any potential impact can only be

considered on a case-by-case basis. Partners who represent the tourism industry identified the

potential risks, which include decreased revenues and employment. An analysis of the potential

impact of the Mexico visa requirement on the Canadian tourism industry, provided by Statistics

Canada, suggests that for the first two years since the change in visa requirements, the Canadian

tourism industry potentially lost approximately $340 million dollars in tourism revenue.

This must

be compared with the cost of the processing of unfounded refugee claims for the two countries (as

presented later in the Section on Efficiency and Economy). Analysis of the Taiwan tourism data

from the Canadian Tourism Commission shows that the gain in the Taiwanese tourists brought an

additional $5 million into the Canadian economy (vis-à-vis $33 million predicted in the RIAS). The

information on Poland, another case study country where a visa exemption was introduced, shows

some increase in travel but the impact cannot be estimated due to lack of data.

3.5. Efficiency, economy and alternatives

A review of costs associated with the Visitor Visa Program, potential alternatives and

supplementary approaches, as well as a literature review of tools used by peer countries is contained

within the following section.

3.5.1. Resource utilization

This section briefly reviews Program cost, cost per visa as well as resource saving associated with

introduction of visa.

Finding: Although the evaluation framework did not include a detailed analysis of program costs,

available data suggests that there are several financial resource implications associated with TRVs.

Furthermore, according to internal financial data, the costs of processing a visa are higher than the

revenue generated from TRV fees.

CIC Program cost

The total costs associated with the CIC Visitor Visa Program (processing, policy and management,

and corporate support services) are presented in Table 3-9. Using data from CIC’s Cost

Management Model (CMM)

, these costs were estimated at $68M in 2007/08 and $87.5M in

2009/10. A part of the cost of the Program is CIC’s corporate services, allocated as a percentage of

the overall CIC expenditures across all CIC programs. With growth in the overall CIC budget the

cost appears to grow significantly between the two years. A review of the direct visa processing cost

associated with CIC, LES and CBSA integration officers in the missions shows that around

$23-24M (33% of the total for 2007/08 and 27% of the total for 2009/10) was allocated to

processing visas overseas (including screening, processing applications, conducting anti-fraud

activities, and providing outreach to the public). This amount has not changed significantly

between the two years for which data is available.

www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/arts38a-eng.htm

CMM combines visa processing efforts estimates from CIC units and the TRV volumetrics obtained from

operational systems to establish the total costs related to the processing of Visitor Visas. Visitor Visas processing costs

shown in the table above include operational processing, program management and policy and corporate services.

CMM allocates the costs of program management and policy and corporate services based on weighted costs

percentage attributed to the TRV program.

Table 3-9: TRP program cost

2007-08 2009-10

CIC Visitor Visas Processing CIC

$10,253,749 $10,553,399

CBSA - Integration Officers

$416,227 $634,348

Locally Engaged Staff

$11,881,769 $13,182,410

$22,551,746 $24,370,157

Program and Policy Support

$22,649,653 $31,239,956

Corporate Support $22,868,037 $31,925,107

Total Program Costs* $68,069,435 $87,535,219

Source: CIC Cost Management Model - 2007-08 and 2009-10 Strategic outcomes cubes.

Partial Costs for CIC Visitor Visa processing

Cost per visa

The resources presented above represent CIC costs associated with processing TRVs, including

CIC, LES and Integrity Officers from CBSA whose salaries are covered by CIC. Table 3-10 (below)

uses the latest available TRV cost calculations from CIC’s Finance Branch, which includes costs

borne by other government departments (DFAIT, Department of Justice, additional CBSA

functions, RCMP, etc.). It shows that the revenues and costs associated with processing temporary

resident visas for visitors remained fairly stable over the years (2001/02-2007/08). Table 3-10 also

shows that the revenues and costs associated with processing temporary resident visas for visitors

were lower than the revenues and costs associated with processing temporary workers and

students. The table also indicates that full cost recovery of TRV processing was not achieved. This

means that, for the period under review, the cost of producing a visa was higher than the revenue

generated through processing fees. Furthermore, the literature review suggests that all reviewed

countries have had difficulty fully recovering the cost of processing visitor visas through fees.

While raising application fees to ensure cost recovery may be an option, it may also result in

diminishing tourism and trade.

Table 3-10: Total cost of TR processing

Revenue Cost

2001-2002

$125.00 $148.85

2002-2003

$125.00 $182.16

2004-2005

$125.00 $216.35

2006-2007

$125.00 $185.46

2007-2008

$125.00 $195.97

2001-2002

$150.00 $205.23

2002-2003

$150.00 $221.15

2004-2005

$150.00 $284.39

2006-2007

$150.00 $186.26

2007-2008

$150.00 $215.59

2001-2002

$92.75 $147.38

2002-2003

$92.01 $150.51

2004-2005

$94.62 $134.52

2006-2007

$94.54 $137.01

2007-2008

$95.18 $151.19

$150

$223

$186

$125