Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 3rd, 2011

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here. I liked your presentation. It set out several concrete, practical and relatively simple proposals.

I would like to delve further with Ms. Arsenault into the matter of investor immigrants, including those for Quebec. I put questions to representatives of several Canadian missions overseas regarding what seems to me to be duplication. Indeed, the verification of the source of applicant funds is done twice. The answer I was given is that this verification is cursory and very brief and that officials trust in Quebec's verification. That is however not the feedback I got from people in the field.

In the context of your practice, within the association, is it your impression that a large number of the files approved by the Government of Quebec are once again processed by the federal government, that this only prolongs wait times and that this provides no added value?

[Chantal Arsenault]

It is to some extent for that reason that we have put forward our recommendation. If the evaluation already done by the ministère de l'Immigration et des Communautés culturelles were systematically granted the importance it warrants, then these files would not have to be reviewed with regard to this aspect.

Is it possible for us, from the outside, to know if these people have spent one, two or twenty days analyzing the issue before responding? We are clearly unable to know that. However, in my view, were there a clear directive in the case of those files or in that for which we are suggesting that a third party provide the assessment, then officials would follow it with the knowledge that that aspect has already been dealt with, and would move on to something else.

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

Earlier today, we were also told, in response to questions, that even if the source of the funds is verified by the two levels of government, the approach used is different. The provincial government, in this case that of Quebec, verifies that the individual does indeed possess the declared assets and funds, and is eligible under the program. The federal government, however, concentrates more on the criminal aspect.

Is this verification not already done by the Government of Quebec? To your knowledge, does the Government of Quebec check to see if the funds are the product of criminal activities?

[Chantal Arsenault]

Absolutely. I think this verification must be done, because the selection criteria for investors in Quebec deal with the legal nature of the activities in question. This assessment must therefore be done in order to ensure that the funds come from legal and not illegal sources. That is part of the assessment that must be done by Quebec.

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

In your view, it is therefore clear that it is not necessary for the federal government to redo the verification once Quebec has issued the selection certificate.

[Chantal Arsenault]

Once again, this is a risk that must be taken and balanced in order for our resources to be allocated based on a need that is real. If no verification is done elsewhere, then I would say that it would be much better...

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

Once the Quebec process has been completed, does it ever happen that applicants are asked to provide additional documents, or that an additional federal process is launched, or is the assessment always done on the basis of the file supplied by the Government of Quebec?

[Chantal Arsenault]

It does happen, on occasion, that additional documents are requested, or even that a candidate is called to an interview to discuss security issues specifically. Obviously, this would be a review of the security aspect alone, and not the selection made by Quebec.

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

Do you know what percentage of individuals selected as immigrant investors by Quebec are, in the end, rejected by the federal government?

[Chantal Arsenault]

I must admit that I do not have any statistics relating to that. I believe other witnesses would be better able to provide an answer.

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

Very well. There is no problem; we will put the question to them.

Let us now move on to the proposal for facilitating the admission to Canada, at least temporarily, of those sponsored individuals who have been accepted based on that principle, in order that they be able to maintain ties with their children. What problems do these individuals face at present? Do you feel that the fact that they are in the process of obtaining permanent residence plays against them in their efforts to obtain a temporary resident visa in order to visit their family?

[Chantal Arsenault]

In 2002, when the law was changed, the double intent principle was established, and this did resolve a lot of issues. This principle authorizes an individual to have both the intent of becoming a permanent resident and the intent of obtaining a temporary resident visa, which has, it must be said, resolved certain problems.

However, the criterion that is often problematic for these applicants is that of the ties they have with their country of origin. The parents and grandparents who come to visit their family, their children and grandchildren in Canada, are generally no longer working and are therefore not tied to a job in their home country. These aspects can create problems in the decision-making and result in rejections, still today, despite the fact that there are directives in place that say that we should be helping these people.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Chow.

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

Thank you.

You heard my question—I think you were still in the room—when we were talking about the immigration appeal division having the information sent to the visa office. One of your recommendations is that visa officers be encouraged to address the substance of the entire application and reasons for a refusal.

Don't they normally do that, or do they just say “refused” and not give the entire reason? Is it different in different visa offices or from officer to officer? Do you see a pattern there?

[Deanna Okun-Nachoff]

I would say that sometimes what you'll have is a decision on one ground saying that we are refusing on this basis. When it goes to the immigration appeal division, counsel may anticipate that further issues might be raised when the application goes back for redetermination. The challenge here is making sure that the IAD has jurisdiction to answer all of those issues so that you don't get a successful appeal on one issue that goes back for redetermination and then is refused on another basis and comes back to the IAD.

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

Oh, my gosh. Does that happen? You can just go back and forth forever.

[Deanna Okun-Nachoff]

It does happen.

We believe the jurisprudence says that in fact the IAD has jurisdiction for all those issues--

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

Right.

[Deanna Okun-Nachoff]

--but I think there would still be improved efficiencies in making absolutely certain that all issues can be addressed at one appeal and that the visa officer can cover all the eligibility criteria so that there's no doubt.

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

Don't they do that?

[Deanna Okun-Nachoff]

They do not always, no.

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

Why?

[Deanna Okun-Nachoff]

I couldn't venture a guess.

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

Do you find that the more comprehensive their reasons for disapproval, the fewer the chances for mistakes and the less chance the applicants will go for an appeal, because the evidence is stacked against them with so many reasons that they will decide to forget it? Then they would clear up some of the backlog. Wouldn't it be a good recommendation that all the visa officers, when they do a refusal, list all the reasons they have, or something like that?

[Deanna Okun-Nachoff]

Certainly.