Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Micheline Aucoin]

For example, a few years ago, in certain regions, we were faced with cases of fraud. We therefore put in place measures to sift them out. Given that we did not know the extent of the problem, we set up a systematic document verification process. After two years, we reviewed what we had done and realized that the fraudulent cases accounted for only 2 or 3% of our caseload. As for the verification process, it targeted our entire clientele and added three weeks to processing times. We then said to ourselves that we would have to manage the risk, study this small percentage of cases and determine if there were any patterns that stood out.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Madam Thi Lac.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is also for Ms. Aucoin.

During your presentation, you talked about the investor program. You said that, last year, at the Manila office, you received fewer than 20 applications for the federal program and fewer than five for Quebec's program. You however stated that some 100 investor applications have yet to be processed. Does that mean that more than 75 applications are more than three years old?

[Micheline Aucoin]

Last year, we received 20 applications, of which 5 were from Quebec. However, approximately 100 people have indeed been on our list for more than three years. Investor class applicants are not priority cases, except for Quebec.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

At that pace, how are you going to go about reducing this list of 75 applicants? What means are you going to use?

[Micheline Aucoin]

As I was saying, we have priority cases to which we devote our resources. We work with set targets and priorities.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

My next question is for Mr. Frank.

You said that at the Beijing office, 33% of applicants in the family reunification category are called to an interview. You also said that the marriage of convenience risk is high. Are the majority of these marriages mixed or are they marriages between men and women of Chinese ancestry?

[Sidney Frank]

We have no statistics that tell us if the spouse in Canada is of Chinese ancestry or not. However, I would say that the majority of individuals who sponsor someone in China are of Chinese descent.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

You have no statistics regarding these 33% of applicants invited to an interview?

[Sidney Frank]

No, we do not study that aspect.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Manicom, you stated, with regard to sponsored grandparents, that it is sometimes difficult to establish the family relationship. What means do you use to confirm this kinship?

[David Manicom]

There are two main mechanisms, or perhaps three. The first one is that of document verification by the Indian authorities, and these documents are sometimes fakes. The second tool, that is mostly used when the documentation is not verifiable or when the results are not clear, is DNA testing. In some situations, we visit the village where the family lives and we question neighbours in order to try and determine who really lives in a given dwelling.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Very well. Thank you. Do I have some time left? Thirty seconds?

I have a final question for Mr. Frank.

You stated that, in the case of students, the new rules pertaining to medicals had greatly reduced processing times. We know that, in the majority of cases, when individuals present sponsorship applications, they must submit to a medical examination. They must provide the results upon application. However, when the individual is invited to an interview or when the file is complete, the person must often undergo a new medical, the first results no longer being valid. Would there not be some way of proceeding, in the case of medicals, in order for sponsorship applications to be processed more efficiently? Would you have any suggestions to make to the committee?

[Sidney Frank]

In the case of applications to sponsor a spouse, these individuals undergo a medical before applying, but I do not believe that this is compulsory. Furthermore, it is rare that the results are no longer valid when the person is invited to an interview. In the case of China...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to have to move on. I'm sorry, you're well over.

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I noticed that in New Delhi traditionally it's been, like, 2,000 or 3,000, over the last ten years or so, whereas in 2005 about 4,271 came in--just parents.

What actually happened there? Did you do a backlog clearing? Because in the ten-year trend, that's the only year it all went up.

Does anyone choose to answer that?

I don't have a lot of time, so....

[David Manicom]

I was the director in headquarters at that time, and Mr. Frank was in Delhi doing the work.

At that time, the government had reduced for a brief period the levels objective for parents to 6,000. Early in the calendar year, there was considerable public discussion of that and the number was increased to, I believe, 18,000. So we had to meet that objective very quickly. We had a large inventory available in New Delhi. We sent large SWAT teams of officers to New Delhi to achieve that objective.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Well, in Beijing in the same year, it dropped to 297. Then if you look at the six-year trend from 2005 to 2010, it hovers between 600 and 500. But if your target is about 1,000, it's about half that number. So how does that work?

If there was an intake, the target went up, then why New Delhi and not in Beijing at that period? The reason I ask is that....

Go ahead.

[David Manicom]

I'm afraid I don't recall; to my memory, we focused on the oldest inventory globally.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

In Beijing, then, if the target is around 1,000....

Maybe, Mr. Gilbert, you can tell us. In 2009 the number was 637, and 2010, 513. So it's consistently short. That's not the target.

[Rénald Gilbert]

I don't have the same number as you do, I think.

[Sidney Frank]

I can say that in the time that I've been in Beijing, which has been since 2006, we've always come in right on target for the target we were allocated.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I'm talking about parents.

[Sidney Frank]

Yes, definitely.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

The number that I received from the House of Commons request probably is not correct, then.

So from 2006 and 2010, it's—