Evaluation of the Federal Business Immigration Program — 4. Management Outcomes

CIC was expected to undertake activities to ensure that efficient policy and procedures for the BI program delivery were in place and that selection processes were consistent, objective, and efficient. As such, the Management Outcomes section addresses whether policies and directives supported effective program delivery, whether selection decisions for BIP have been timely, consistent and objective, and how effective the ongoing monitoring of the EN class terms and conditions was.Footnote 18

4.1. BIP Application Management

BIP application management and program delivery outcomes need to be examined in light of immigration targets to better understand what the program was able to achieve within the prescribed parameters. As such, this sub-section provides an overview of the BIP levels target for admission and the numbers of BIP applications received, processed, and approved.

4.1.1. BIP immigration levels target

Finding #4: CIC successfully managed the number of BIs accepted into Canada within the upper and lower levels target for three of the five years under review. However, in the face of the high number of applications and a low immigration level allocation, CIC did not succeed in managing the intake of BIP applications and preventing a large inventory from building up.

One indicator that CIC uses to determine whether an immigration class is being effectively managed from an operations perspective is immigration levels target achievement. The GoC establishes a planning range and, within it, an operational target for the number of immigrants to be admitted into Canada in general and under each immigration class more specifically. The levels target includes principal applicants as well as their spouses/common-law partners and their dependent children (this represents the number of persons in Table 4.1). CIC operations manage its workload to admit a certain number of persons within a given immigration class between established upper and lower levels target.

From 2007 to 2011, the average annual targets for all economic classes (including BIP) have been from 145,440 (lower level) to 159,340 (upper level) persons per year (Table 4.1). During this period, the levels target for BIP remained relatively consistent between 9,000 (lower) and 13,000 (upper) persons per year. In addition, BIP levels target remained constantly low in comparison to overall levels target for all economic classes during this period. The average targets for BIP were 10,520 (lower level) to 11,924 (upper level) persons per year which was 7.2% to 7.5% of the lower and upper levels target for all economic classes. These targets include both the federal and Quebec BIP.

Table 4.1:  Government of Canada levels target for Economic Immigrants, 2007 to 2011 (number of persons)
Government of Canada Immigration Levels Target Calendar Years Total Annual average
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
BIP targets (Federal and Quebec)
Lower Level 9,000 11,000 11,000 10,800 10,800 52,600 10,520
Upper Level 11,000 13,000 12,000 11,620 12,000 59,620 11,924
Levels Target 10,000 12,000 11,500 11,210 11,400 56,110 11,222
Actual number accepted 10,181 12,408 12,158 13,302 11,641 59,690 11,938
Targets, All Other Economic Classes (Federal and Quebec)
Lower Level 132,000 128,000 129,300 145,500 139,800 674,600 134,920
Upper Level 147,000 141,000 144,600 155,180 149,300 737,080 147,416
Levels Target 139,500 134,500 136,950 150,290 144,550 705,790 141,158
Sub-Totals, All Economic Classes Including BIP (Federal and Quebec)
Lower Level 141,000 139,000 140,300 156,300 150,600 727,200 145,440
Upper Level 158,000 154,000 156,600 166,800 161,300 796,700 159,340
Levels Target 149,500 146,500 148,450 161,550 155,950 761,950 152,390
BIP as % of Targets All Economic Classes 6.7% 8.2% 7.8% 6.9% 7.3% 7.4% 7.4%

Source: CIC Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration, 2007 to 2012.

As evidenced in Table 4.1, for three of the five years under review, CIC successfully managed the number of persons accepted into Canada within the upper and lower target. However, for the remaining two years, the number of persons accepted into Canada slightly exceeded upper levels target. Levels were exceeded by 1% in 2009 and even more significantly in 2010 (by 13%).

4.1.2. BIP application processing and inventory management

BIP applications are received at CVOA and placed in a queue (inventory). Applications are first reviewed for completeness, and to ensure that the principal applicants meet the selection criteria, with the minimum score of 35 points. This process includes assessment of business experience and the provenance of funds for each applicant (if applicable). The final stage in application processing is the assessment of admissibility (medical, criminality and security screening). Following this, the visa officer completes a final review of the application and determines if the application is approved or rejected.

Table 4.2 summarizes the information on BIP applications processed from 2007 to 2011 (cases).

Table 4.2: Processing of BIP applications, 2007 to 2011, number of cases

Entrepreneur Class (EN)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
Applications Received 722 568 461 566 261 2,578
Positive decisions 491 389 267 208 135 1,490
Negative decisions 497 512 196 210 142 1,557
Acceptance Rate (%)Footnote B 50 43 58 50 49 49
Withdrawn 145 161 150 118 112 686
Total Processed 1,133 1,062 613 536 389 3,733
Net Inventory Impact -411 -494 -152 30 -128 -1,155
Self-Employed Class (SE)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
Applications Received 500 367 298 519 622 2,306
Positive decisions 153 144 150 112 80 639
Negative decisions 178 301 238 155 107 979
Acceptance Rate (%)Footnote B 46 32 39 42 43 39
Withdrawn 61 69 139 85 74 428
Total Processed 392 514 527 352 261 2,046
Net Inventory Impact 108 -147 -229 167 361 260
Investor Class (IN)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
Applications Received 2,877 5,431 8,506 11,184 2,950 30,948
Positive decisions 1,023 1,351 1,306 1,554 1,404 6,638
Negative decisions 344 315 493 703 372 2,227
Acceptance rate (%)Footnote B 75 81 73 69 79 75
Withdrawn 289 371 579 1,122 761 3,122
Total Processed 1,656 2,037 2,378 3,379 2,537 11,987
Net Inventory Impact 1,221 3,394 6,128 7,805 413 18,961
BIP - Federal (All Classes
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
Applications received 4,099 6,366 9,265 12,269 3,833 35,832
Positive decisions 1,667 1,884 1,723 1,874 1,619 8,767
Negative decisions 1,019 1,128 927 1,068 621 4,763
Acceptance rate (%)Footnote B 62 63 65 64 72 65
Withdrawn 495 601 868 1,325 947 4,236
Total Processed 3,181 3,613 3,518 4,267 3,187 17,766
Net Inventory Impact 918 2,753 5,747 8,002 646 18,066

Source: Dwsweb;(5) Selection/all_imm_e from download of October 1, 2012

These data show that 17,766 BIP applications were processed from 2007 to 2011. A total of 8,767 BIP applications were approved with an acceptance rate of 65%. The acceptance rate is the highest for the IN class (75%), followed by the EN class (49%) and the SE class (39%).

Overall, the number of BIP applications received increased steadily from 4,099 in 2007 to 12,269 in 2010, with a drop to 3,833 in 2011 as a result of the pause on the EN class pause and the cap on IN applications. As evidenced in Table 4.2, BIP inventories varied across the three classes during the time period under review. Out of the total applications received during this time period, the EN class processed 1,155 more applications than received and the SE class' inventory grew slightly by 260 applications. In contrast, the IN class's inventory significantly increased during this time period by 18,961 applications, in part, a result of the steadily low level allocated for admissions under the IN class and growing interest in the program.

Figure 4.1: Federal Business Immigrants inventory over time

Figure 4.1: Federal Business Immigrants inventory over time described below
Text version: Figure 4.1: Federal Business Immigrants inventory over time
Year Federal BIs Investors Entrepreneurs Self-employed
2007 37,665      
2008 42,443 25474 10439 6530
2009 74,694 57532 10887 6275
2010 96,618 79807 10496 6315
2011 99,077 81366 10401 7310
2014 (Feb) 82,832 66368 8150 8314

NOTE: Information on inventories for the federal EN class, federal SE class and federal IN class was not available in 2007.

Sources: Books of Basics; and dwsweb;(4) International Region/IMM_caips_e from download of December 5, 2008; December 11, 2009; December 5, 2010; December 2,

As a result, the overall BIP inventory grew between 2007 and 2011 by over 60,000 persons (see Figure 4.1). Despite the current program pause on IN and EN applications which allowed CIC to start reducing its inventory, CIC had an inventory of 24,976 cases, representing 82,832 persons as of February 4, 2012.

4.1.3. Average processing times and perceptions of timeliness

Finding #5: From a client service perspective, BIP applications took longer to process compared to FSWP and PNP, from the time of application to a final decision. Entrepreneur and self-employed persons applications took significantly longer to process than investor, FSW and PNP files.

Table 4.3 shows processing times from 2007 to 2011 across economic immigration classes under review. These data show that the processing time for 80% of BIP applications declined from 63 months in 2007 and 2008, to 50 months in 2009 and 43 months in 2010. However, the processing time for each of the three BIP classes increased during this time period. For the EN class, the duration increased from 69 months in 2007 to 81 months in 2011; for the SE class, the duration increased from 62 months to 82 months; and for the IN class, the duration increased from 32 months to 38 months. As such, the processing times increased by 32% for the SE class, by 17% for the EN class and by almost 19% for the IN class.

From 2007 to 2011, there were increasing proportions of INs admitted to Canada as part of BIP, rising from 69.5% in 2007 to 88.5% in 2011. The proportions from the EN and SE classes each declined substantially, from 22.8% to 7.2% for ENs, and 7.5% to 3.3% for SEs. Since processing times for the IN class were less than half the processing times for the EN and SE classes, the higher proportion of INs in the BIP total resulted in shorter average durations for BIP as a whole even though processing times for applications in all three class increased.

Table 4.3: Processing times and percentages of BIs accepted by class (including Federal and Quebec BIP)

Overseas processing time (in months) for 80% of cases Footnote C
Class 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
EN 69 72 73 77 81
SE 63 67 71 79 83
IN 34 34 35 36 43
BIP - Federal 63 63 50 43 49
FSW 68 62 39 40 48
PNP 11 11 11 13 15
Percentages of BIs admitted by Class
Class 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
EN 22.8% 13.9% 11.3% 8.3% 7.2%
SE 7.6% 4.8% 5.0% 4.9% 3.3%
IN 69.5% 81.2% 83.7% 86.8% 88.5%
BIP - Federal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: dswweb; (5) Selection/all_imm_e from download of Oct 1, 2012; and GCMS/FOSS

Although the FSWP and the PNP are distinct programs and processes from the BIP, and in that regard do not constitute absolute benchmarks against which the BIP should be assessed, these programs can be used to determine how the BIP positions itself among other CIC economic immigration programs in terms of processing time. In comparison with FSW and PNP, processing times for BIP applicants were on average longer during the time period under review (Table 4.3). However, the processing times for FSW were similar to the BIP average from 2007 to 2011, declining from 62 months in 2008 to 48 months in 2011. When only comparing the EN and SE class' processing times, FSW applications were processed much faster.

From 2007 to 2011 processing times for the PNP were significantly shorter than for both BIP and FSW programs; Provincial Nominees were processed between 11 and 15 months over these years. However, as CIC is responsible for only a partFootnote 19 of the PNP application processing and as PNs receive priority processing, it is expected that CIC's overseas processing times would be shorter for this group.

BIP clients surveyed were asked if their applications had been processed in a timely manner. Approximately 70% of BIP immigrants surveyed said that they either strongly or somewhat agreed that their application was processed in a timely manner. However, there are statistically significant differences between the business classes. In particular, only 43.8% of ENs felt that their application was processed in a timely manner, in comparison to 65.9% for SE and 73.8% for INs. The IN class, which has the shortest processing times, are the most satisfied with the processing times of the three BIP classes based on the data.

Timeliness was also examined through interviews with CIC staff. The majority of both NHQ and CVOA interviewees indicated that BIP processing times are not timely from a client service perspective; however, from an overseas operational perspective CVOA are processing applications within levels target every year. Because levels target remained low, application intake exceeded what CVOA were allowed to process every year, contributing to large inventories and lengthy wait times. Interviewees also noted that the complexity of cases and varied business, financial reporting and accounting systems from country to country affected processing times. A few key informants noted that the large volume of applications received in advance of CIC policy changes added to the size of the inventory.

Processing times for business immigration programs in other countries were also assessed. The evaluation found that processing times are considerably shorter in other countries than in Canada: applications are processed in 9 to 28 months in Australia; in 3 to 5 months in New Zealand; and up to a maximum of 4 months in the UK.Footnote 20 The US does not publish information related to the time taken to process business immigration visas. However, it was not possible to conduct a detailed analysis of factors affecting processing time, as this would have required more comprehensive information on comparative application requirements, processing steps and activities, staffing and resource levels, etc.

Nevertheless, one significant factor may be that most similar programs in other countries provide temporary resident visas to business immigrants as a first step, rather than up-front processing for permanent residency as is the case with the BIP. All of the international program representatives contacted mentioned efficiency gains through the adoption of measures such as the use of electronic applications, application process automation, or consolidating or streamlining visa processing branches. However, they all noted that establishing the legal provenance of applicant funds was challenging and time-consuming. To offset this, two countries delegated responsibility for screening applications and monitoring compliance to third parties, and another hired economic analysts to help assess visa applications.

4.2. Application Processing and Effectiveness

This sub-section provides the assessment of the effectiveness of application processing based on the following criteria: coordination, consistency, objectivity, quality assurance, and timeliness.

4.2.1. Coordination

Finding #6: Program delivery coordination across the business program was generally effective. In particular, coordination between NHQ and CVOA and within any given CVOA was rated very highly by key informants.

Those interviewed during the case studies were asked to rate the effectiveness of coordination of BIP delivery between CIC's National Headquarters (NHQ) and the CVOA, across CVOA and within CVOA.

When asked about the effectiveness of coordination between NHQ and CVOA, interviewees rated this coordination as somewhat effective (rating: 3 out of 5).Footnote 21 Coordination was viewed as effective in the establishment of immigration levels and for high-level direction. However, coordination between NHQ and CVOA at the operational level was viewed as being less effective where it was sometimes seen as being lengthy and difficult to obtain guidance for questions dealing with specific BIP processing issues. Noted examples of issues related to coordination included: difficulty in getting help as a result of inquiries going to a generic e-mail address, not knowing who in NHQ is actioning the request, and detailed questions not being clearly answered or answered in a unspecific manner.

When asked about the effectiveness of coordination between CVOA, key informants found it to be somewhat effective (rating: 3 out of 5), noting that there is some communication between CVOA mostly at the Immigration Program Manager (IPM) level or through area director meetings. They also noted that NHQ needs to be involved before any decision can be made between missions, which limits the amount of coordination between CVOA without NHQ. In general, most case study interviewees felt that there was less of a need for formal mechanisms to coordinate across CVOA, in part because of variations in conditions among localities and availability of standard guidance and systems (GCMS) that promote autonomy.

Within CVOA, case study interviewees rated coordination as very effective (rating: 4.5 out of 5), mainly due to the use of small teams of individuals working closely together, having regular meetings, and by raising unique cases to unit supervisors.

4.2.2. Consistency in processing

Finding #7: BIP met immigration levels target with a high degree of objectivity and consistency in application processing. BIP selection criteria were found to be objective while still allowing for some flexibility. While there is a high level of consistency in the processing of BIP applications within CVOA, processing practices vary somewhat between CVOA due to country-specific differences and operational realities.

The evaluation asked NHQ and case study interviewees about consistency in the processing of applications, namely how the regulations were interpreted and implemented, across and within CVOA. Most interviewees felt that there is a high level of consistency in processing BIP applications within an individual CVOA (4.5 out of 5). Factors that contribute to consistency within CVOA are: ongoing consultations with team members within the CVOA regarding processing of BIP applications; and, project management processes, internal working guides and checklists that promote consistency.

When asked about whether there is consistency in processing applications across CVOA, many case study interviewees said that there is a low to moderate level of processing consistency between CVOA (rating: 2.5 out of 5). Although interviewees noted that CVOA follow the same guidance and selection criteria which ensure a certain level of processing consistency, some CVOA staff explained that there are different operational realities (such as external tools available to help assess the application) when working in different countries, which may lead to differences in interpretation of guidelines. For example, some countries have access to Government business registries that makes it easy for officers to validate the information related to business ownership, while such information is not readily available in other countries.

Case study interviewees also indicated that policy advice and directives (OPs and OBs) from NHQ support consistency in the processing of BIP applications. Some interviewees suggested that the processing of BIP applications would benefit from greater specificity, details and guidance on some aspects of the regulations. In particular, policy guidance leave some room for interpretation on aspects like the definition of ‘world class athlete’, or what constitutes applicable farming experience as it applies to Canadian farming, or how to define ‘actively manage a business’, etc. It was also noted that the OBs should provide examples that are more specific to regional differences and challenges.

One method to ensure the consistency in processing of applications is for CVOA staff to routinely undertake quality assurance (QA) activities. For the three CVOA under review, no studies or quality control reports were found that specifically examined the consistency in the processing of BIP applications.Footnote 22 However, over the period of the study, CIC conducted audits of offices responsible for handling BIP files. These audits looked at the adequacy of the governance and management framework in place and at the degree of compliance of practices and procedures with applicable legislation and policies associated with the delivery of the immigration program. Among other things, audits of CVOA included the review of some BIP applications and audits of inland CIC offices discussed the monitoring of the EN class.

QA in CVOA consists of internal due diligence processes employed during the processing of BIP applications. The case studies found that each CVOA developed a different approach in response to their operational environment to ensure QA for their BIP application process. In CVOA that process small volumes of BIP applications, QA involved the use of checklists, and having senior staff do the occasional review of particularly different or difficult cases. For CVOA that process higher volumes of BIP applications, QA involved having more formal interviews targeting specific cohorts, regions, or random draw of applications for interview, as well as further investigation on references provided by applicants.

4.2.3. Training of Visa Officers

CIC provides six weeks of training for Canadian Visa Officers before they are posted overseas. Some locally engaged staff and all Designated Immigration Officers (DIO) receive training in Canada after they have been working in the CVOA for a year or more.

Many case study interviewees noted that, while the initial training in Ottawa is effective, it is lacking in BIP specific information. They noted that BIP specific training is needed due to the challenging nature of assessing business applications stemming from the complexity of assessing financial documents and determining the provenance of funds. Interviewees suggested that training could be improved by the addition of refresher courses, and specific sessions on business and financial reporting. In addition, more training could be beneficial to both Canada-Based Officers (CBO) and DIOs; although CBOs get more opportunities for training than do their local counterparts.

This was identified as less of a challenge for the Hong Kong visa office as a result of the large volume of applications they receive, thus enabling them to develop the required expertise and processes to process applications more efficiently.

4.2.4. Objectivity

When asked whether the selection criteria (i.e., how they are implemented) allows for an objective selection of BIP applicants, many NHQ and case study interviewees rated the objectivity of the selection criteria as high, with an average rating of 4.5 out of 5. They noted that there is a good balance between the objectivity of the selection criteria and the needed flexibility in the decision making process by visa officers. This was noted in particular for the SE class, where flexibility can prove useful when assessing what constitutes ‘world class in athletic and culture’ and ‘experience in farm management’ because of the wide variety of applicants. In addition, some interviewees noted that the standards of documentation available vary from country to country, which creates challenges in assessing applicant qualifications. Furthermore, a few key informants noted that more specific criteria could also help potential applicants to self-screen prior to submitting an application.

4.2.5. Clarity of application process

BIP clients surveyed were also asked whether they understood the application process. On average, 88.6% of all clients surveyed agreed that they understood the application process. In addition, 85.6% of clients surveyed widely agreed that it was easy to access the information they needed to complete their application. Differences between the three BIP classes for these variables were not statistically significant.

Lastly, the BIP survey asked applicants whether they received any assistance in filling out their application form. On average, 82.3% of BIP clients said they received help; however, responses from these groups differed. Specifically, only 45% of SEs received help in filling out their application, in comparison to EN and IN applicants at 73% and 86% respectively. Of the clients who said they received help, 47% said they used an immigrant-serving organization, 44% used an immigration consultant and 22% used a lawyer. Out of the 47% who said they used an immigrant-serving organization, ENs used them the least (19%) and INs the most (51%). The reverse was true for those who said they used a lawyer; ENs used them the most (39%) and INs/SEs the least (20%). There was no statistical difference between classes for those who used an immigration advisor (lawyer or consultant) to fill out their application.

4.3. Monitoring the EN Class

Finding #8: During the time period under review, limited monitoring was conducted by CIC on entrepreneur terms and conditions. Reasons for this mentioned by CIC key informants were that monitoring was time-consuming and costly, that terms and conditions were difficult to enforce and that limited training was provided on how to monitor ENs. As a result there was insufficient data for CIC to assess whether entrepreneurs’ terms and conditions were being met.

As per the operational guidelines on the EN class, CIC was responsible for monitoring entrepreneurs for the first three years after their arrival in Canada. The EN class terms and conditions require that for at least one in three years after becoming a PR, ENs must: (i) control at least 1/3 of the equity in a qualifying Canadian business; (ii) actively manage the business; and, (iii) create at least one additional job (FTE) in the business for a Canadian citizen or Permanent Resident other than the admitted EN or a family member. In the case of an EN who does not comply with the conditions, the CIC officer responsible for the monitoring should prepare a report documenting the issues, recommending for or against an admissibility hearing, which could ultimately lead to the undertaking of removal actions.

Analyzing the 2007-2011 period, a review of available information in the EMIS database found that the vast majority (88% to 96%) of the data on EN business activities and almost all information on inquiries as well as Ts&Cs enforcement were missing. As such, CIC does not have records on the extent to which entrepreneurs met their Ts&Cs and whether any enforcement actions were taken.

NHQ interviewees who were asked and were able to speak about EN Ts&Cs noted that monitoring was minimal to moderate. The following reasons were given for this minimal to moderate assessment: monitoring Ts&Cs was too time-consuming, costly, and difficult to enforce; and, although manuals were available, there was no training for staff on how to monitor ENs and staff lacked the required financial expertise. Furthermore, having Ts&Cs may have encouraged business activities solely designed to fulfill the requirements, acting as a disincentive for ENs to take business risks or to undertake certain types of businesses. As such, ENs may have been less inclined to engage in innovative business activities, but rather engaged in more secure type of businesses which allowed them to fulfill the requirements of the program more easily. It was noted that, although Ts&Cs were not widely enforced, it may have been useful to make CIC’s expectations for this immigration class clearly known and to deter applicants who were not serious about starting a business.

Additionally, a few key informants stated that some cases of non-compliance were identified and referred to the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA), but they were unaware of any cases involving entrepreneurs being removed from Canada for non-compliance. Therefore, lack of enforcement was an identified issue.

While CIC did not consistently monitor the EN class, the BIP survey compiled information that allows assessing the extent to which ENs complied with their Ts&Cs. These data are discussed in Section 5, Program Performance.

Page details

Date modified: