Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I expect the three critics and our parliamentary secretary will be having some discussions, and the clerk may or may not ask you to come back at a future time. We'll anxiously wait for the four groups to approach the chair and tell me what they want to do.

I want to thank you for coming once again and providing the information you have. On behalf of the committee, thank you very much, Ms. Deschênes and Ms. Smith.

We're going to suspend for a few minutes until we have our next panel.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to start our second panel this morning.

We have two witnesses before us: Marc Audet, who is the vice-chair of the immigrant investor program at Desjardins Trust; and Imran Qayyum, who is with the Canadian Migration Institute.

Good morning, gentlemen. I welcome both of you here today. You each have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation to the committee, and then members of the committee may have questions for you.

A point of order, Monsieur St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Audet brought us copies of a document that has some parts in English only and others in French only.

I am asking for the unanimous consent of the committee so that this document can still be distributed. It includes a table that is only in English but that would help committee members follow the presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Some documents are in English and some are in French. Monsieur St-Cyr has asked that all documents be allowed to be filed. Does everybody agree? Is it unanimous?

Okay, that is agreed to.

Mr. Qayyum, you may begin.

[Imran Qayyum, Chair, Canadian Migration Institute]

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Imran Qayyum and I'm the chair of the Canadian Migration Institute, which I will refer to as CMI. The role of CMI is to provide a platform for authorized immigration representatives who work collaboratively to enhance their profession.

The Canadian Migration Institute came into existence in September 2007, and we currently represent over 1,500 fellows, all of whom are authorized immigration representatives belonging to the immigration consulting, legal, and Quebec notary professions. These fellows practice throughout Canada and overseas.

CMI's mandate is to educate, accredit, advocate, and act as a policy research body on behalf of fellows. As the largest professional organization of its kind in North America, we're honoured to be here today in order to share our views on the subject of processing times related to the family class and investor class of immigrants.

Let me start by sharing some of our observations on the family class, which for the purposes of today's submission we've divided up into two main categories: spousal or partner applications, which I will refer to as FC1; and parent or grandparent applications, which I will refer to as FC4.

As the committee knows, all family class cases are initiated in Canada when the application is submitted to the case processing centre in Mississauga, commonly known as CPC Mississauga. The case processing centre confirms whether or not the sponsor, who is sponsoring his or her close family relative, meets the legislative requirements to do so. In the case of FC1-type applications, this process takes between one to two months, whereas in the case of FC4-type applications, this process is taking between 32 to 36 months. Once the case processing centre in Mississauga accepts the sponsorship and confirms the eligibility of the sponsor, the application is forwarded to an overseas visa processing post or to the MICC, as in the case of sponsors residing in the province of Quebec.

In today's submission I'll be referring to statistics that were obtained through access to information requests made by Lexbase for FC1 and FC4 cases for the period of April 2008 to March 2009. These statistics show that during the 12-month period in question, overseas visa posts completed approximately 40,000 FC1 cases. 80% of these cases were completed within 11 months or less. During the same period, approximately 9,800 FC4 cases were completed; 80% of these cases were completed within 20 months or less.

Given that one of the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is to see that family members are reunited in Canada, CMI is concerned that these processing times run contrary to the spirit of the family reunification objective of IRPA. We believe more can be done, especially in the FC4 category.

Some of CMI's recommendations to address these issues are as follows.

First, we would recommend that the government allocate more resources to FC4 processing.

Second, we would recommend the perfected application for FC4 cases, wherein sponsorship forms as well as the immigrant forms and supporting documents are submitted to CPC Mississauga, as is the case for FC1-type applications.

Last, we would encourage CPC Mississauga to use electronic communications with the sponsor or their authorized representative as often as possible when acknowledging receipt of sponsorship applications or requesting additional information or supporting documentation. Leveraging electronic communication would certainly alleviate some of the current pressures contributing to lengthy processing times.

I would now like to turn your attention to CMI's views on the investor class processing times. For today's submission, I will be making reference to statistics obtained through access to information requests made by HSBC for the period of January 2009 to August 2009.

As of August 2009, the global inventory for investor class cases was more than 11,000. Given that each case requires, at minimum, an investment of $400,000 in Canada, this inventory represents a potential of $4.4 billion in available dormant and virtually zero-cost stimulus capital that could be flowing to Canada to fund infrastructure projects to stimulate the economy.

The current annual target set by Citizenship and Immigration Canada for investor class cases is 2,155. It is worth noting that the current annual target of 2,155 represents final dispositions, or FDs. These numbers include refused or withdrawn applications, not just approved cases.

For example, from January until August 31, 2009, of the 1,697 final dispositions, approximately 50% were approved cases, 25% were refused cases, and 25% were applications withdrawn by the investors themselves, who were largely frustrated by the long processing delays. If extrapolated and applied to the current inventory of cases in process, this 25% withdrawal rate represents a potential $1 billion of zero-cost stimulus capital that Canada will never benefit from.

According to our calculations, the current inventory of 11,000-plus investor applications at an annual target of approximately 2,000 represents a global average processing time of more than five years. This year to date, over 4,000 new applications have been received, representing double the current annual processing target. With new application intake rates at this level, we believe processing times for investors will continue to grow as inventories balloon.

By definition, investor applicants are successful, high-networked individuals with business experience willing to invest $400,000 of their capital for five years to be used by participating provinces for infrastructure and other economic priorities. Lengthy processing times represent a clear discouragement to such applicants and will encourage withdrawals of applications as these highly desirable immigrants turn to other, more attractive options available to them globally.

Nor is the economic impact of these individuals and their families limited to their $400,000 qualifying investment. These individuals represent a significant potential additional positive economic impact as they and their families establish in Canada and buy homes, cars, and furniture, and make other investments for their future in Canada.

Measures must be introduced that will shorten processing times in order not to miss the opportunity to quickly flow desperately needed zero-cost capital to provincial governments, who in turn can use it for much-needed infrastructure projects and related stimulus spending.

Once again, the current inventory represents over $4.4 billion in available potential capital. This statement bears repeating because it is so important.

Some of CMI's recommendations to address these issues are as follows. First, we recommend increasing the annual target for federal and investor applications to 5,000 FDs per year, which will have an immediate impact on reducing processing times. The federal immigrant investor program already appears to be losing significant market share to the Quebec immigrant investor program, which underwent changes to make the Quebec program more attractive in February 2009. Quebec has established an ambitious target for 2009 of 2,004 actual approvals and investments, not final dispositions. It's important to understand the difference.

Quebec processing times are generally much better than federal processing times, and recognizing the importance of this investment capital during these tough economic times, the Quebec trend is toward faster decision-making.

CMI would suggest the need to balance the interest of all Canadian provinces and territories and the benefits they receive individually through immigration necessitates a substantial increase in the annual federal investor processing targets.

Second, CMI would recommend establishing a centralized intake office, or CIO, for investor applicants in Canada. The establishment of a CIO would allow for more training and specialization for reviewing officers related to business cases, centralized and coordinated management of applications, and increased program security and integrity. This recommendation would also result in additional employment opportunities for Canadians. Given that 85% of federal investor cases are assessed without the need for an interview, adopting a CIO at the front end and reviewing investor cases would make it possible to address such issues as identity, available funds, qualifying business experience, and source of funds.

CMI suggests CIC establish at such a CIO an eligibility requirement step for investors, similar to the federal skilled worker program. This would be separated from the processing under the regulations. This would also remove the current investors simplified application process, which many believe is a significant cause of the current processing delays.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Qayyum, I've given you a long, long minute—

[Imran Qayyum]

My apologies, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

—but your comments are excellent, and if it's possible for you to provide your written statements to the clerk, he will distribute them at a later date to the members of the committee. I'm sure the committee members will have questions of you, sir.

Mr. Audet, do we have the documents that were referred to?

[The Clerk]

They're not back from copying yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

While you're making your presentation, members won't have them yet. They're somewhere being copied.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Can we have one per caucus, at least? You have seven copies.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sure, why not.

Mr. Audet, welcome. If you could make your presentation to us now, we'd appreciate it. Thank you, sir.

[Marc Audet, Vice-Chair, Immigrant Investor Program, Desjardins Trust]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Marc Audet, and I have been vice-chair of the Investor Immigrant Program at Desjardins Trust since 1995. I have a team of 30 people who work on this program, and this team is in direct contact with clients from 70 different countries. I thank you for this invitation.

I would invite those who have the first table in front of them to take a look at it. It summarizes the situation somewhat and gives you an overview of the Investor Immigrant Program in Quebec as well as at the federal level, since 2006. It was prepared using the statistics we have available.

On the first table....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're going to have to elaborate more when you're talking about these, because we are short of documents. For example, the analysts don't have one, I don't have one, but each caucus has one.

[Marc Audet]

Very well.

On the first table, you will find an overview of the Investor Immigrant Program since 2006. In the last few years, for Quebec and federal cases combined, there have been between 9,000 and 10,000 applications from investor immigrants per year from all over the world. This is a market that should remain at that level. It is not a market of 25,000 or 3,000 cases per year, but it should remain stable. It is relatively lower than other immigrant classes.

That said, with respect to the number of cases, both at the federal level and in Quebec, processed annually by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, it would be approximately one third. In 2008, some 3,300 cases were processed.

A little further on you will find a second block...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There's a point of order. Excuse me, Mr. Audet.

Ms. Mendes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

It's not really a point of order—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, then we're going to continue.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I can't find the figures.

[Marc Audet]

It's still on the first table.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't even have what you have, so we'll have to proceed.

Go ahead, sir.

[Marc Audet]

I can certainly come and help you individually later on.

I would like to echo what Imran mentioned earlier: the federal government does indeed make 2,000 decisions per year. That is somewhat comical. In other words, with the federal program's annual goal of 2,000, the higher the inventory, the longer the delays, the more individuals withdraw and the more CIC meets its objectives. So, if this same type and level of objective were to be maintained based on the current inventory—as mentioned, over 11,000 federally and 3,000 in Quebec—our millionaires have to wait more than five years to be told that we are interested in their application and their $400,000 investment.

I am referring to the third block for those of you who have it. It shows the number of investments, individuals who have invested $400,000 over the last few years. Every year, that amounts to 3,000 cases, at the Quebec and federal levels combined, that Canada receives. That amounts to $1.2 billion a year currently coming into Canada.

However, under Quebec's three-year plan for investor immigrants, in the coming years, Quebec alone should achieve 3,000 investments. Currently, there are 3,000 investments combined, and Quebec has a three-year plan to be more effective in the coming years. We encourage the federal government to do the same, given the number of cases and the delays, as it would mean an additional $2 billion in our economy.

There is one interesting point to note on the last line of my table. Even if CIC were to adopt an enhanced investor policy that made it possible to double the number of cases processed, for example, the relative weight of investors among other categories would remain negligible, going from 4% to 6%. So, you double the number of investments without doubling the relative weight of investors in comparison with the other classes, which are equally important.

There are currently 14,000 investors online waiting to be granted permanent residence in Canada when you combine Quebec and federal numbers. They want to invest $400,000 in the provinces and settle there. In concrete terms, that means they would purchase property and other durable goods, often at rates that would be higher than average, given their financial wealth. We are conscious of the fact that CIC has hundreds of thousands of cases in its inventory—perhaps even one million—all classes combined, that resources are limited and that choices must be made.

Considering the current economic situation, experienced economists, especially in Quebec, have shown that the program provides an economic benefit, that a high percentage of waiting investors have other options, contrary to other immigrant classes, and their situation can change quickly, that 90% of investors apply to immigrate to Canada mainly so that their children can have a high-quality university education, that they will put down roots here, that they will transfer their family assets here and that the impact in terms of the number of visas issued is negligible in comparison with other classes. It represents 3.7 visas.

Case selection in Quebec has already been done. Only the medical and security checks are left. For these already selected cases, matters could be expedited. Recently, Bill C-50 gave the minister complete flexibility in setting priorities. Canada should therefore pay special attention to this category.

In closing, if we do not take action and establish a policy, both for Quebec and Canada, that would allow this type of case to be processed within a maximum of 24 months—we believe that to be the longest period our investors are willing to tolerate—we run the risk that the most sophisticated and affluent investors will go elsewhere, and Canada will only choose second-tier investors, without meaning to be derogatory. Those investors would not be Canada's best ambassadors to their business communities abroad.

Also, CIC will run the risk of difficult inventory management when it implements, in the near future, its proposal to increase the mandatory $400,000 investment. So we will be asking these investors to make a larger investment, and telling them to wait five years. If CIC is unable to meet such objectives, other avenues need to be quickly explored in order for our schools to be able to take in the children of those immigrating investors, until those kids are old enough to attend university. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Karygiannis.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before my question to the panellists, I would like to clarify a point I made in the first session of today's meeting. I in no way claim that the panellists' motives were to block entrance to Canada of Africans. I'm deeply frustrated by the long delays and waiting times from source countries with large African populations. I do, however, see a pattern that concerns me, and that is that the applicants from African-source countries continue to wait longer periods of time to be accepted into Canada.

If I attacked verbally the two panellists, I apologize to them, and I will be following up with them.

I would like to share my time with Ms. Mendes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Mendes.