Evaluation of the Federal Business Immigration Program — 2. Methodology

2.1. Evaluation Issues and Questions

This evaluation assesses the extent to which immediate and intermediate outcomes of the program have been achieved. Evaluation questions addressed during the evaluation were developed to determine the extent to which the program is meeting its expected outcomes.

The first immediate outcome of the BIP is to have a selection process that is consistent, objective and efficient. Second, the admission of entrepreneur immigrants is expected to contribute to new business start-ups, job creation and job retention in accordance with the conditions for this economic class. Thirdly, investors' funds are expected to generate additional provincial investment in economic development.

The following intermediate outcomes are anticipated to occur in the longer-term as a result of the three above-mentioned immediate outcomes:

  • Selected and admitted BI class immigrants are economically established in Canada
  • Additional job opportunities for all Canadians
  • Benefits of expanded economic development activities are shared across Canada

Ultimately, the BIP is intended to contribute to the migration of permanent residents that strengthens Canada's economy.

The evaluation issues and questions addressed were:

Relevance

  • 1) Is there an ongoing need for the Business Immigration Program?
  • 2) Is the Business Immigration Program consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities?
  • 3) Is the Business Immigration Program consistent with federal roles and responsibilities?

Program performance – management outcomes

  • 4) Have policy advice and directives supported effective program delivery?
  • 5) Have selection decisions for the Business Immigration Program been timely, consistent and objective?
  • 6) How effective was the ongoing monitoring of the Entrepreneur Class terms and conditions?

Program performance – program outcomes

  • 7) Has the Entrepreneur Class contributed to the creation of new business start-ups or acquisitions and jobs creation?
  • 8) To what extent are business immigrants becoming established economically?
  • 9) To what extent are the economic benefits of business immigration being shared across Canada (BIP overall) and participating provinces (IN only)?
  • 10) Have there been any unintended impacts associated with BIP?

Program performance – efficiency and economy

  • 11) Are the selection criteria of the BIP effective in identifying applicants who will establish themselves economically?Footnote 10Are there alternative selection criteria that could meet policy objectives more effectively?
  • 12) How cost-effective is the current approach to selecting business immigrants?

For each of the evaluation questions, performance indicators were identified. They are presented in Appendix B, Evaluation Issues, Questions and Indicators.

2.2. Evaluation Scope

The evaluation examined the BIP program delivery from 2007 to 2011, as well as the performance of the program during this time period.

Although administrative data were available beyond 2011 after data collection for the evaluation had been completed, the last year of administrative data to be considered for the evaluation was 2011. Although the addition of data beyond 2011 was considered, the timelines for the evaluation did not allow it. Using data up to 2011 also ensures alignment with the time frame covered by other methods (such as key informant interviews, case studies and survey).

It should be noted that, under the terms of the Canada-Quebec Accord, the province of Quebec has the sole responsibility for its selection programs. Therefore, business immigrants selected by Quebec would be processed under the Quebec Business Immigration Program (QBIP). This evaluation excludes business immigrants with a Certificat de Sélection du Québec (CSQ), and only includes business immigrants admitted under the federal BIP and destined for provinces and territories outside of Quebec.

2.3. Data Collection Methods

The evaluation questions and performance indicators were addressed using multiple lines of evidence to gather qualitative and quantitative data from a wide range of perspectives including program managers, stakeholders and clients.

The multiple lines of evidence approach included six methods. The data and information gathered were incorporated into an evidence matrix that supported triangulation of information across lines of evidence, which was then used to develop the key findings, conclusions and recommendations.

A hybrid approach was employed for this evaluation, where both Citizenship and Immigration Canada's (CIC) Research and Evaluation Branch and contracted consultants jointly conducted all phases of the evaluation.

The evaluation employed the following six lines of evidence: a literature and document review, key informant interviews, case study site visits, a telephone survey, administrative data analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis.

2.3.1. Literature and document review

A combined literature and document review was conducted to provide background and context, informing the assessment of the relevance and performance of the BIP. The review examined relevant background policy and program documents related to the BIP, as well as reports and research articles published in Canada and abroad on business immigration programs. International programs were included in the review. The bibliography of referenced documents is presented in the Technical Appendices.

2.3.2. Key informant interviews

Thirty-nine key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted, both in-person and by telephone, to obtain the perceptions of key stakeholder groups on the relevance, design, implementation, and performance of the BIP. The table below shows the number of interviews by type; the Key Informant Interview Guide is presented in the Technical Appendices.

Table 2.1: Summary of interviews completed
Interview Group Number of Interviews
CIC NHQ 8
CIC regions 3
Provincial/Territorial representatives 8
Financial institution facilitators 10
Immigration advisors 6
Other country representatives 4
Total 39

2.3.3. Case study site visits

Case study site visits were conducted at Canadian Visa Offices Abroad (CVOA) to interview staff with knowledge of operational and international context issues. Three case study site visits were conducted in CVOA: London, Paris, and Hong Kong. These CVOA were selected to ensure the evaluation had a good representation of the different CVOA delivering the BIP across the CIC network (i.e., offices for which BIP is representing a small and high share of their case load), while still representing a high share of the applications processed. Two of the CVOA visited were receiving significant number of BIP applications and the other one was receiving low volume of BIP applications, thus providing a balanced perspective in regards to the operational context. The Case Study Interview Guide is presented in the Technical Appendices.

Where qualitative information was presented in the report, the scale shown in the table below was used.

Table 2.2: Interview data analysis scale
Term Meaning
All 100% of respondents
Majority / Most At least 75% but less than 100% of respondents
Many At least 50% but less than 75% of respondents
Some At least 25% but less than 50% of respondents
A Few At least two but less than 25% of respondents

2.3.4. Telephone survey

A telephone survey was conducted with BIP immigrants admitted to Canada between 2007 and 2011, in order to obtain information on their application experience and their economic establishment in Canada. Two mail-outs were sent to the 12,364 of 12,402 BIP immigrants for whom complete addresses were available, in order to obtain their informed consent to participate in the telephone survey. As a result, 1042 positive consents were obtained, representing 8.4% of the population contacted. 877 immigrants were interviewed, providing a margin of error of ± 3.2% using a 95% confidence level for the survey data collected. The number surveyed corresponds to 84.2% of those who provided their written consent to the survey, and 7.1% of the total population contacted. The survey was conducted in seven languages (English, French, Mandarin, Cantonese, Farsi, Korean and Japanese). The BIP Survey Questionnaire is presented in the Technical Appendices. As further discussed in the Limitations section of this report (see Section 2.4), survey results were weighted to ensure appropriate representation of the BI population, so that survey results can be used with confidence.

2.3.5. Administrative data analysis

An administrative data analysis of existing Government of Canada (GoC) databases was completed to provide information on the application processing, characteristics of immigrants admitted, and the economic outcomes for immigrants. These databases included the Global Case Management System (GCMS), the Computer-Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS), and the Field Operations Support System (FOSS), which provided information about BIP applications and admissions.

This analysis was also supported by information from the Longitudinal Immigration Database (IMDB)Footnote 11 and the Canadian Employer-Employee Dynamics Database (CEEDD) on economic outcomes for BIs. The CEEDD provided information on the population of businesses and business owners reporting corporate income tax, and the IMDB provided information on the population of individual tax filers. In addition to addressing the economic outcomes of BIs, the IMDB also provided information on out-migration and interprovincial mobility.

Although representing the full population of individual tax filers, not all immigrants admitted are found in the IMDB. Various reasons can account for this, such as never having filed an individual income tax report, or not being linked to the IMDB despite having filed an income tax report. Overall, most of the BIs admitted between 1995 and 2010 were captured in the IMDB. The capture rate of all immigrants admitted who file an income tax report each year since admission is similar among BIP classes. The lowest capture rates are found either for the admission year (year 0) or the last year of observation considered for a given cohort in the study, and reach a low of 58% of ENs, 48% for SEs and 52% for INs for specific cohorts. Highest capture rates are generally found between the first and third years since admission, and reach up to 85% of ENs, 82% of SEs and 86% of INs for specific cohorts (for more information on capture rates, see Appendix C).

While the primary focus of the evaluation was on the BIP from 2007 to 2011, the evaluation examined longer-term trends in the applications received through the BIP (from 1995 to 2011), as well as the mobility and economic outcomes of BIs (from 1995 to 2010).

Consequently, there are some considerations when triangulating the information provided by the IMDB, CEEDD, and the survey of business immigrants. IMDB results include multiple cohorts and taxation years (1995-2010); CEEDD results are provided for only one taxation year (2009) and for multiple cohorts (1995-2009); survey results were captured for 2007-2011 cohorts in 2013. In addition, IMDB results do not capture the activities of incorporated businesses, whereas CEEDD and survey results reflect both un-incorporated and incorporated business activities. As such, it is expected that results from the different lines of evidence will differ to some extent, as they draw from different cohorts, taxation years and capture different concepts. Results drawn from these different data sources will need to be interpreted differently to account for methodological specificities.

2.3.6. Analysis of program costs

In order to examine the resource utilization by the BIP, program delivery costs were examined in relation to the volume of applications processed. CIC Cost Management data, including federal processing costs for BIP immigrants under both the federal and Quebec BIP, were used to that purpose. The data did not allow distinguishing between costs incurred for the federal BIP program and those incurred for the delivery of the Quebec BIP program.

2.4. Limitations and Considerations

The evaluation employed a balance of qualitative and quantitative lines of evidence, enabling the triangulation of research findings. Mitigation strategies were used to address the limitations, and along with the triangulation of multiple lines of evidence, were considered sufficient to ensure evaluation findings can be used with confidence. Yet, the following limitations and mitigating strategies of the evaluation methodologies should be considered:

  • Gaps in literature and document review: Although CIC has a good collection of documentation on the BIP, there is a lack of academic literature focused on the economic activities of business immigrants. Rather, the available literature examines more generally the self-employment activities of immigrants, with no distinction made about the class under which they were admitted to Canada.

    Mitigation strategy: This deficit was addressed by gathering direct information on the economic outcomes of BIs through the telephone survey and administrative data analysis of incomes they report to the Canadian Revenue Agency on their income tax report. However, information obtained though these other lines of evidence only apply to the specific cohorts studied, and cannot be generalized to all cohorts admitted since the program was introduced. As such, mitigation strategies could not completely counter the lack of relevant academic literature on economic activities of BIs.

  • Representativeness of survey respondents: The survey sample obtained through the informed consent process differed from the total BI population admitted between 2007 and 2011, with ENs being over-represented and INs being under-represented. Additionally, there was an under-representation in the survey sample of respondents from Asia.

    It is also possible that the results of telephone survey of BIs could have been positively skewed by those respondents more compliant with the terms and conditions of the EN program. This self-selection bias is however the same that would be expected in any survey undertaking.

    Mitigation strategy: The survey results were weighted to address these imbalances identified in order to ensure that they were representative of the total BIP population (for more information on weighting, see Appendix D). The sample size in the BIP survey was sufficient to report averages for BIP and its three classes for all indicators.

  • Gaps in administrative data: Gaps in several administrative data sources were noted. First, because of inconsistencies in selection criteria point information in CAIPS and GCMS, the evaluation was unable to use this information to get a description of the points received by BIs on the selection grid and to explore which selection criteria would explain better economic performances.

    Mitigation strategy: The application and admission records capture similar types of information (i.e., information related to the socio-demographic characteristics of individuals) although in some instances to a lesser level of detail, which was at least sufficient to support socio-demographic analysis of the BIP cohort. In addition, the evaluation gathered qualitative data on this topic.Footnote 12

    Second, the evaluation had planned to use information from the Entrepreneurship Monitoring Information System (EMIS) and the Investment Monitoring Information System (IMIS) to assess the economic activities of ENs and INs, as well as the degree of monitoring of and compliance with EN terms and conditions. Unfortunately, these CIC databases had a high rate of missing values, especially for the years under study. As a result, the evaluation was unable to draw upon these sources of information.

    Mitigation strategy: This limitation was anticipated when planning the evaluation. As such, the evaluation was designed in a way that allowed to gather the information needed through other lines of evidence, namely from the KIIs with CIC representatives and the telephone survey with BIs.

    Third, although administrative data on application, admission and tax records became available to cover additional years after data collection for the evaluation had been completed, analysis focused on the original scope period for the evaluation (2007 to 2011). This ensured alignment with the time frame covered by other methodologies (such as key informant interviews, case studies and the survey), so that the respondents across lines of evidence were reflecting on the same period of the BIP.

  • Definition and interpretation on economic performance: Economic establishment and performance are concepts difficult to define. Once defined their operationalization and interpretation also poses challenges. Given the nature of the business activities that BIs are likely to undertake in Canada and of the Canadian tax system (such as deductions that can be obtained), the extent of BIs economic performance is difficult to fully assess.

    Mitigation strategy: The evaluation adopted a conservative approach in defining and measuring the economic performance of BIs. As such, results provide a minimum estimate of their economic performance in Canada. For more details on the assessment of the economic performance, refer to section 5.1.

  • Gaps in financial data: In CIC's Cost Management Model (CMM), Federal and Quebec business immigrant financial data are captured in the aggregate form. This limited the Evaluation's ability to focus only on costs incurred by the federal part of the program. As such the examination of costs presented in this report includes both Quebec and Federal costs associated with the BIP. Additionally, the scope of the financial information available was limited due to the absence of CMM data for the 2008/09 fiscal year.

Despite all the limitations mentioned above, the design of the evaluation and data collection approaches were able to mitigate the impacts. Strategies were taken to ensure the evaluation presented valuable, reliable information to support strong findings. Where possible, multiple lines of evidence were used to inform the evaluation questions. Despite the different methodological approaches, the results from the different lines of evidence generally converge towards common and integrated findings. The use of different lines of evidence was also designed in a way that they would complement each other in order to fill information gaps.

The evaluation methodologies and limitations are discussed in greater detail in the Technical Appendices.

Page details

2017-10-16

Evaluation of the Federal Business Immigration Program — 3. Relevance

This section addresses the need for a business immigration program, consistency with departmental and government-wide priorities, and consistency with federal roles and responsibilities.

3.1. Continued Need

Finding #1: Based on the documents reviewed and the key informant interviews, the evaluation found that there is a continuing need to facilitate the migration of business immigrants to Canada in order to contribute directly to the creation of jobs and businesses in Canada. The majority of key informants felt that Canada needs a program like the BIP; however, some were critical of the ability of the BIP, as it was designed, to achieve its objectives.

The need for business immigration was identified many decades ago. As such, business immigration has been a component of the Canadian immigration system since at least the 1952 Immigration Act, which allowed visa officers to admit individuals with sufficient financial resources to establish themselves, and whose business was deemed reasonably likely to be successful. Since its beginnings, the objectives of business immigration have been to stimulate economic growth and to create employment opportunities for Canadians.Footnote 13 However, it was only in 1978 that the Regulations set out for the first time two categories of businesspersons (entrepreneurs and self-employed persons). While the EN and SE classes were formally established in 1978, the IN class was only established in 1986. The need for such classes has been and continues to be based on the expectation that business immigrants contribute to Canada's economy beyond the general economic impact of immigration.

The objective of the Entrepreneur Program (EP) is to attract experienced business persons who will own and actively manage businesses in Canada that contribute to the economy and create jobs. The SEs are expected to have the intention and ability to create their own employment in Canada, and are expected to contribute to the cultural or athletic life of Canada, or have experience in farm management and intend to be self-employed in farm management in Canada. The IIP was designed to attract experienced businesspersons and capital to Canada. As such, the expected outcomes for the BIP overall were to select and admit BIs who would be able to economically establish themselves in Canada, to create additional job opportunities for all Canadians through business start-ups and additional provincial investment in economic development, and to share the benefits of expanded economic development activities across Canada.

Interviewees were asked to provide their opinion on the need for a business immigration program. International program representatives interviewed viewed business immigration as a niche of economic immigration, with the potential to support job creation and expand the global economy. The majority of the other key informants interviewed felt Canada needs a program like the BIP, mentioning benefits like enabling access to foreign capital and skills, creating jobs, expanding international linkages and access to capital through the provincial funds.

However, some key informants were critical of the ability of the BIP, as it was designed, to achieve its objectives. BIP critiques raised by interviewees included uncertainty over the economic impact of BIs, particularly related to business and job creation for ENs and to the economic activity generated for Canadians through the SE class, and the limited effective use of provincial investment funds to support economic development. Moreover, many interviewees felt that the contributions of BIP to Canada's economy were minimal, largely because BIP immigrants are a small group (volume-wise compared to the overall economic immigration), and links to economic activity have not been clearly demonstrated. Supporting those critiques, the literature and document review found very limited past research or information on the contribution of the BIP to Canada's economy, or on the impacts of business immigration programs in other countries. The exception to this was for the IIP, for which reports have been produced by participating P/Ts regarding investments made using funds provided by investors, as well as jobs created or sustained through these investments.

Almost half of case study respondents felt that other economic immigration classes such as FSWP are performing better than the BIP and that, because expected results for the BIP were not being achieved, the rationale for the current EN and IN classes was unclear. The other half of case study respondents said there is a need for Canada to attract immigrants with business skills and bring capital into the country, and the majority felt that there is a need for SE because it fills a niche immigration need.

While there are perceptions that the BIP, as it was designed and implemented, may not be a strong contributor to Canada’s economy, Section 5 discusses program outcomes, and assesses the extent to which BIs have economically established in Canada and contributed to Canada’s economy.

3.1.1. Rationale for the SE class under BIP

Stemming from the need for such a program, the evaluation examined both the rationale for including the SE class under the BIP and the rationale for grouping together athletics, culture, and farm management activities under the SE class.

Based on the documents reviewed, the original rationale for Canada’s SE class in 1978 was to provide opportunities for immigrants who could generate employment for themselves and up to five Canadians, or who could make a significant contribution to the cultural or artistic life of Canada. This distinguished the SE class from the EN class, who were at that time expected to create five or more jobs for Canadians or permanent residents.Footnote 14

While a few key informants felt that the SE class belonged under BIP as immigrants admitted under this class are not intending to pursue paid employment in Canada, many, however, thought that there is no natural fit for SE under any of the economic programs, including the BIP. As such, these individual were neither seen to belong under the Federal Skilled Worker Program as they were intending to be self-employed, nor were they perceived to belong under the BIP as they were not business persons that would undertake entrepreneurial or investment type of activities in Canada. In addition, key informants could not express a clear rationale as to why cultural, athletics and farm management activities were grouped under the SE class, nor was a description of this rationale found during the literature and document review.

Among the three types of occupations under the SE class, farmers were the ones that were most perceived as business people as they intend to operate a farm once in Canada. However, some key informants suggested that immigration related to farm management could be moved to the PNP.

SE class immigrants admitted based on their past experience in cultural or athletics activities were not seen as entrepreneurs or business people. These people are admitted for the cultural and reputational benefits they bring to the country, and not for the potential to create jobs for Canadians, or to take up employment in Canada. The view is that those immigrants would create their own employment through self-employment and would be self-sufficient.

In light of these results suggesting that there is no natural fit for SE under the BIP, especially for SEs admitted based on their experience in cultural or athletics activities, the evaluation performed a review of programs in other countries and found that while some jurisdictions provide specific categories for ‘self-employed persons,’ some others provide programs for people with ‘exceptional talents’ as an avenue to admit candidates who may not qualify under other provisions.Footnote 15 The selection for ‘exceptional talents’ programs is generally done by third parties specializing in the designated field (like academies), as they are the ones who are in the best position to assess and to refer candidates for immigration. Although these tend to be small programs in terms of the numbers of persons admitted, they are generally viewed by KI respondents as useful options in the jurisdictions where they are offered.

Overall, given that SEs are not expected to generate additional job opportunities for Canadians, the rationale for grouping SE class under BIP is now less obvious. Although the SEs admitted to pursue farming activities in Canada can clearly be recognized as business people, the rationale for grouping those admitted to pursue activities in the cultural or sports domains under a business immigration program is less apparent. Exceptional talent programs, as implemented in other jurisdictions, could address CIC’s need for immigrants currently admitted under the cultural and athletics streams of the SE class.

3.2. BIP Consistency with Priorities

Finding #2: As an economic immigration class, the BIP is broadly aligned with GoC and CIC objectives with respect to strengthening the Canadian economy; however, the BIP had become less aligned over time with current CIC and GoC priorities emphasizing innovation.

A review of Speeches from the Throne and Budget Speeches from 2007 to 2011 did not show business immigration noted specifically as a priority, but identified job creation as a priority, and as job creation is one of the objectives of the BIP, the program was aligned in that regard. However, the 2011 Speech from the Throne expressed the Government of Canada’s interest in foreign investment in Canada to facilitate innovation and growth in Canada. Additionally, while the pause on the EN stream was in effect, the Department launched a Start-Up Visa pilot in 2013, in order to provide Canadian private sector organizations with access to a broad range of entrepreneurs in whose ideas they can invest.Footnote 16 The 2013 Speech from the Throne also expressed the Government of Canada’s intentions to reform the Immigrant Investor Program so that these investors make a real contribution in exchange for the security and pathway to citizenship that Canada provides.

These developments suggest that the BIP, the way it was designed, may not be in alignment with evolving Government of Canada priorities.

The relative priority of business immigration as compared to other economic classes may also be inferred, in part, from the annual targets in CIC's Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. As discussed in Section 4 of this report, levels target for BIP have accounted for roughly 4% of total immigration and 7% of economic immigration from 2007 to 2011. Therefore, while BIP targets are modest relative to the skilled worker targets, BIP has continued to be aligned with government and departmental priorities as a component of economic immigration policy from 2007 to 2011. Although the 2014 Economic Action Plan proposes to terminate the federal investor and entrepreneur programs, business immigration remains a priority to the GoC as the Plan indicated that development of other avenues to facilitate the migration of business immigrants will be pursued.

Many stakeholders interviewed also noted that the BIP and its three classes are small programs. Some felt that this implies the BIP is a lower priority for Canada as compared with other economic classes. On the other hand, the literature review and interviews conducted with representatives of business immigration programs in other countries found that the business share of economic immigration in Canada is similar to that in other jurisdictions. In other countries, business immigration programs are viewed as a complementary tool to worker immigration programs, each addressing different objectives.

3.3. BIP Consistency with Federal Role

Finding #3: The BIP is aligned with roles and responsibilities outlined for the Federal government in federal legislation. The majority of key informants felt that the federal lead on business immigration was appropriate, and some noted that there was also a role for P/Ts to play, through PNPs, for example.

Federal legislation provides a framework with several pathways for business immigrants to enter Canada, including both federal and provincial immigration programs. Within this framework, the federal government is responsible for determining overall immigration targets, for delivery of a federal business immigration program, and for making a final eligibility determination and assessing the admissibility of those applying to immigrate under provincial immigration streams.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act authorizes and outlines Canada's immigration programs, including business immigration, and establishes roles and responsibilities at both the federal and provincial / territorial levels of government. As such, there is a clear federal legislative framework through the IRPA for a federal business immigration program, and such a program is consistent with overall federal government responsibilities for Canadian immigration.

In addition to this role in the selection and admission of BIs, CIC is as well responsible for transferring the IN capital contribution to P/Ts, while the P/Ts are responsible for investing the funds for the purpose of economic development.Footnote 17 The structure of the federal IIP is described in the Technical Appendices.

Through PNP business streams, P/Ts also have a role in the selection of business immigrants. In terms of constitutional authorities, Section 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867, allows the provinces to make laws with respect to immigration into the province, subject to compatibility with federal immigration laws. The IRPR enables P/Ts to establish business streams under their Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs) for immigrants destined to their jurisdictions to meet their specific priorities and objectives. The IRPR however contains a specific prohibition on passive investment programming in the PNP, but allows for P/Ts to recruit BIs who will actively manage businesses in their regions of Canada. During the period considered for the evaluation, PNPs offered streams to facilitate the immigration of entrepreneurs, self-employed immigrants and active investors. As such, some overlap can be perceived between the BIP and the PNP as both provide business immigration avenues for immigrants seeking to own and actively manage a business in Canada. It would necessitate further research to determine to what extent the two programs compete or complement each other, especially in light of the current lack of alignment between BIP and priorities, as discussed in the previous sub-section.

The Province of Quebec has established the most comprehensive Federal-Provincial agreement (the Canada-Quebec Accord), under which the Quebec BIP operates. The eligibility requirements for the Quebec BIP are aligned with those of the federal BIP. Quebec uses its own selection grid to select BIP immigrants destined for its Province, and issues a certificate of selection to qualified applicants. CIC carries out the admissibility assessments and issues visas to qualified applicants destined for Quebec.

When asked about the consistency of BIP with federal roles and responsibilities, KIs interviewed indicated that BIP was aligned with federal legislation (IRPA) and consistent with federal roles. Some key informants said that there is a role for both federal and P/T governments in business immigration.

Page details

2017-10-16

Evaluation of the Federal Business Immigration Program — 6. Resource Utilization

This section focuses on the efficiency and economy of the BIP. As provided in the Directive on the Evaluation Function, the demonstration of Efficiency and Economy is defined as an “assessment of resource utilization in relation to the production of outputs and progress toward expected outcomes”.Footnote 56 This assessment of efficiency and economy provides information on cost of delivering the program and its efficiency. In addition, it looked at the perceived impact of the selection criteria and alternatives.

6.1. Efficiency

Finding #20: During the time period considered, and based on CIC cost-management data, the average cost to process a BIP application was $2,654 which was 2.5 times the average cost for FSW and PNP. As such, the FSW program and the PNP are considerably less costly than BIP, as BIP applications are more complicated and take longer to assess. Cost per application however varied for the different classes under the BIP.

6.1.1. Program budget and costs

The cost analysis focused on the total costs for program delivery. The total and per-unit costs of BIP delivery were obtained from CIC’s Cost Management Model (CMM) in order to examine trends in costs over time and to compare with other economic programs (FSW and PNP). The cost data available for BIP, FSW, and PNP by fiscal year from 2006/07 to 2011/12 are summarized in the following table.

Table 6.1 includes costs related to both the federal and Quebec immigration programs. These data include internal CIC costs, as well as costs incurred by other departments and agencies (excluding costs incurred by Quebec for the selection of its candidates)Footnote 57 related to the delivery of these programs.

Table 6.1:  Total annual costs for BIP, FSW & PNP by fiscal year (in $million)

BIP Program 		2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Average annual (ex. 2008/09)
Average % by class
EN $7.14 6.05 n.a. $4.20 $3.66 $5.08 $5.23 39.53%
SE $0.90 $0.73 n.a. $0.84 $0.51 $1.22 $0.84 6.35%
IN $5.21 $5.97 n.a. $12.63 $6.68 $6.92 $7.48 56.60%
BIP Total $13.25 $12.75 n.a. $17.67 $10.85 $13.22 $13.55 100%
FSW $83.48 $90.07 n.a. $116.97 $74.58 $71.69 $87.36 100%
PNP $6.71 $9.22 n.a. $17.38 $11.98 $19.42 $12.94 100%

Source: CIC Cost Management Model (Data not available for 2008/09). It includes internal CIC costs, as well as costs incurred by other departments and agencies.

While there were year-to-year fluctuations, the average annual cost for BIP was $13.55M, ranging from $10.85M in 2010/11 to $17.67M in 2009/10. The estimated total BIP costs for the five-year period from 2006/07 to 2011/12 were $67.7M.

Costs by BIP class show that the average annual costs were highest for the IN class ($7.48M), followed by $5.23M for the EN class and lowest for the SE class ($0.84M). As a percentage of total BIP costs, 56.6% of the BIP costs were related to the IN class, 39.5% to the EN class and 6.3% for the SE class (which had small numbers of applications processed). However, 82% of those admitted in this period were in the IN class compared with 13% in the EN class. Therefore, the data indicate a higher average cost for ENs processed as compared with INs processed, which is discussed below.

Comparable data for FSW and PNPFootnote 58 showed considerable variations in annual costs over this period. This trend was related to changes in the volumes of applicants processed in these two classes as a result of changes in targets. Average annual costs for FSW ($85.14M) was higher than for BIP as a result of the considerably higher volume of applications processed whereas annual costs for PNP (averaging $12.64M) do not include P/T costs for applicant selection and nomination.

6.1.2. Efficiency of BIP

One indicator of cost-efficiency across programs is the average unit cost per application processed;Footnote 59 this is summarized in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2: Unit costs by program ($ cost/application processed)
Program Average $ Cost /year Average applications processed per year Average unit cost ($/applications)
EN $5.23M 855 $6,114
SE $0.84 431 $1,950
IN $7.48M 3,770 $1,984
BIP Total $13.55M 5,057 $2,680
FSW $87.36M 81,143 $1,077
PNP $12.94M 11,997 $1,079

NOTE: Averages were calculated based on 2006/07 to 2011/12 data, excluding 2008/09 for which no cost information was available.

Source: CIC Cost Management Model.

Based on the average number of completed applications processed per year, the average unit cost for BIP ($2,680) was 2.5 times the average unit cost for the FSW program and the PNP. These data also indicate that the average unit cost for the IN and SE classes ($1,958 and $1,926) were almost double the average unit cost for FSW program and the PNP ($1,053 and $1,054). For the EN class, the average cost ($6,094) was 3 times the average unit cost for IN and SE class applications.

Based on per-unit costs, close to two applications for FSW or PNP could be completed for the cost of processing each IN or SE application. Further, six FSW or PNP applications could be processed for each EN application. Therefore, strictly in terms of output cost, FSW and PNP are considerably more cost-efficient than BIP.

However, a range of factors may contribute to higher processing costs for BIP and for the EN class in particular. Interviewees noted that processing BIP applications can be more complex and challenging than most of the other economic classes because of the review of financial information, verification of business experience, and establishing the provenance of funds where required (for personal net worth and capital investment amounts). These financial reviews are not required for FSW applications for example. Other factors that may contribute to the unit cost per application being higher for ENs include:

  • the number of times a file is touched (and the requirement to update certain documents) to reach a final decision on the application due to longer processing times for this class;
  • a higher proportion of EN cases being interviewed due to the complexity of assessing entrepreneurial background;
  • the high refusal rate for EN applications, and increased level of effort required to process cases that are refused;
  • the low concentration of EN files within specific CVOA (as a high concentration of files in a few offices, as seen for the IN class, lead to increased efficiency); and
  • the monitoring of Ts&Cs for the program and any related enforcement action that may be taken where Ts&Cs are not met.

Therefore, processing costs are higher for EN and IN applications than for the other economic programs.

6.2. Selection Criteria and Alternatives

Finding #21: Stakeholders felt that certain selection criteria could be improved to better meet the objectives of the program (namely economic contribution to Canada).

Finding#22: Through interviews and the document review, a variety of alternative approaches to program delivery were identified as ways to potentially improve efficiency and economy, including changes to the language requirements, business experience, investment capital and third party involvement.

The evaluation considered whether the selection criteria (as described in Section 1) were effective in identifying applicants who have established themselves economically in Canada.

NHQ interviewees and case study representatives felt that current BIP selection criteria could be improved to better meet the objectives of the program (economic contribution to Canada). Some noted that the current selection criteria are not specific enough to ensure BIP attracts the kinds of business immigrants needed in Canada. Improving selection criteria would, in this regard, increase efficiency, as resources invested would be better targeted to achieve expected results. As shown in Section 5 of the report, over 80% of BIs have incomes from various sources, and very few BIs receive employment insurance or social assistance benefits. Based on this data, the BIP selection criteria appear to be relatively effective in selecting BIs who economically establish. However, as discussed in the previous section, the economic performance of BIs is low compared to that of other economic classes.

The evaluation also considered whether there were any alternative selection criteria that could meet policy objectives more effectively and whether there were any alternatives that would improve the program’s cost-effectiveness. This information can be summarized in the following proposed alternatives:

  • Language: While the selection grid includes points for official language proficiency as a criterion, there are no minimum language requirements for selection. Applicants can obtain sufficient points to qualify (35 out of 100) without any points for language proficiency. As background data has shown (Section 1.2 Program Profile), 59.2% of BIP immigrants arriving from 2007 to 2011 have no knowledge of English or French. Some interviewees suggested that adding a minimum requirement for language proficiency would help immigrants function more effectively in business, self-employment and/or investment fields in Canada. Consequently, it would ensure program resources are best invested to admit BIs with the most potential to establish in the country and to generate the most economic outcomes.
  • Business Experience: Stakeholders identified a need to better define previous business experience for the three BIP classes, such as to consider the size and type of businesses previously owned because the ‘business’ sector differs from Canada in many other source countries. However, it was recognized that assessing past business experience abroad is challenging and that it may take some time for new immigrants to establish businesses in a different business environment. In order to address this issue, some countries still use a points system, but they also provide temporary resident visas as pathways to permanent residency. This provides the opportunity for immigration officials to assess progress by new immigrants toward meeting business program requirements before permanent residence is approved. Such an alternative to the way business experience is currently assessed would increase cost-efficiency as less time and effort would be required to assess this aspect of applications, while ensuring links to expected program results.

  • Investment Capital: With respect to the IN class, some interviewees suggested raising the investment to $2M or $3M to make the amount more worthwhile for Canada since it is fully repayable after 5 years. A few respondents also suggested that IN funds could be placed at risk. Review of the investor immigrant programs in Australia, the UK and the US shows that these countries require that investor capital be placed at varying degree of risk. The Australian program requires that applicants take no legal action if their investments lose value. The US program requires that investment funds to be at-risk and disallows the use of loans to secure the required investment funds. As for the other two countries, the UK also requires investment funds to be at-risk, while allowing loans in some instances (in which case it requires proof of assets in excess of the loan amount).

    While increasing benefits generated through the program, increasing the investment amount (and consequently the personal net worth) would also constitute a gain in efficiency for application processing according to case study interviewees. Case study interviewees mentioned that when the investment required for INs was raised from $400,000 to $800,000, it became easier for them to assess the personal net worth. Prior to this change, they saw a lot of non-business people applying through the program; increasing the requirements by 100% led to better quality applications.

  • Third party involvement in the selection process: With respect to BIP delivery, some interviewees suggested the use of third parties for the verification of assets. Interviewees also suggested the involvement of private companies or businesses in the selection of business immigrants. Representatives from two of the four countries interviewed said that they had had success in delegating responsibility for screening applications and monitoring compliance to sponsoring institutions (e.g. for the UK’s Graduate Entrepreneur and Exceptional Talent programs). For example, in its Graduate Entrepreneur program, the interviewee noted that they were able to leverage a list of institutions already developed for its student immigration programs and had sanctions if partners did not fulfill conditions. Third party involvement would lead to increased efficiency, capitalizing on the expertise of partners (which officers often do not possess), and ensuring officers would not have to devote as much time to assessing an application. Officers would then rely on the analysis provided by those third parties to make decisions on applications, instead of doing the full assessment themselves.

  • Other cost-effective alternatives: During the case studies, interviewees noted a number of alternatives that could improve cost-effectiveness. Centralized processing was noted as a possible alternative, however, it was mentioned that local knowledge about the business environment in countries of origin is important for effective review of applications. Increased use of online applications was also noted as a possible efficiency improvement. This approach was echoed in interviews with officials in other countries who noted efficiency gains through measures such as: the use of electronic applications, application process automation, consolidating or streamlining visa processing branches and placing caps on applications received, which assisted in managing the volume of applications. However, the majority of the CVOA case study interviewees responded that the current application review process was already challenging in balancing processing efficiency with quality of the application review and that no additional risks should be undertaken in an attempt to increase cost-effectiveness.

    Alternatives to improve cost-effectiveness were also considered by reviewing approaches used in similar business immigration programs in four other countries (Australia, New Zealand, UK, and USA). Interviews with officials identified the following approaches used successfully. Australia has adopted an on-line ‘expression of interest’ approach for applications to streamline and automate the application process. With this approach, the states or territories then select applicants they wish to nominate and applicants remain for only two years in the ‘pool’. The USA Regional Centre (RC) approach allows for bundled investments and coordinated economic development projects put together by the RCs. This approach is more efficient than approving each individual investment project and also allows for a coordinated economic development strategy over a number of years. The USA Targeted Economic Area approach links the investment amount required from the business immigrants to the investment location and local economic conditions. Approaches to the design and delivery of business immigration programs vary considerably in other countries. It would be important to assess alternatives used elsewhere in relation to the objectives of Canada’s BIP and its classes to determine their applicability in Canada.

Page details

2017-10-16

Evaluation of the Federal Business Immigration Program — Appendix A: Business Immigration Program Logic Model

Appendix A: Business Immigration Program Logic Model described below
Text version: Appendix A: Business Immigration Program Logic Model

Appendix B illustrates the BIP logic model that serves as a visual description for the program.  This logic model contains three main sections: activities, outputs and outcomes.

The logic model is divided in two components, one related to the program management, and one related to the program delivery.

The Program Management component relates to the following activities: policy, guidance, liaison, research and monitoring. These activities then contribute to the following outputs: new operational tools, manuals, protocols, program procedures and processes. In turn, these outputs contribute to the immediate outcome of having ‘efficient policy and procedures for BI program delivery’.

This program management immediate outcome then contributes to the program delivery component of the program.

The Program Delivery component is divided into three sections that relate to: the three classes of BIP, Entrepreneur Immigrants and Investor Immigrants more specifically.  A set of activities, outputs and immediate outcomes relate to each of those three sections.

There is one main activity that relates to the three classes of the BIP: attracting and processing of the three classes of business immigrant applications. This activity then contributes to the output of making ‘selection decisions on business immigrant application’.  In turn, this output contributes to one immediate outcome, which is that the ‘selection process is consistent, objective and efficient’.

There is one main activity that relates more specifically to Entrepreneur Immigrants: compliance monitoring of Entrepreneurs’ business activity. This activity then contributes to the output of ‘Documentary evidence of compliance or non-compliance with Entrepreneur Program conditions’. In turn, this output contributes to one immediate outcome, which is ‘New business start-ups, job creation and job retention’.

There is one main activity that relates more specifically to Investor Immigrants: Receipt and allocation of investor funds and provincial fund monitoring. This activity then contributes to the output of having ‘low-cost capital for provincial investment’. In turn, this output contributes to one immediate outcome, which is having ‘additional provincial investment in economic development’.

The three immediate outcomes identified for the three classes of the BIP, and for Entrepreneur Immigrants and Investor Immigrants more specifically all contribute to three intermediate outcomes:

  • Selected and admitted  BI class immigrants are economically established in Canada
  • Additional job opportunities for all Canadians
  • Benefits of expanded economic development activities are shared across Canada

Together, these intermediate outcomes contribute a final outcome: Migration of permanent and temporary residents that strengthens Canada’s economy. This final outcome is the Strategic Outcome 1 of the departmental Program Alignment Architecture.

Page details

2017-10-16

Evaluation of the Federal Business Immigration Program — Appendix B: Evaluation Issues, Questions and Indicators

The evaluation issues, questions and performance indicators used to guide the evaluation are presented in the following table.

Table B–1:  Evaluation issues, questions and performance Indicators

Relevance

1. Is there an ongoing need for the Business Immigration Program?

  • 1.1. Consistency in policy directions for the IN, EN and SE Classes
  • 1.2. Trends in the number and profile of applications under each of the three Classes
  • 1.3. Trends in the number and profile of admissions to Canada under each of the three Classes
  • 1.4. Number of principal applicants remaining in Canada after 2, 5, 10, 15 years
  • 1.5. Economic activity generated by each of the three Classes

Investor class

  • 1.6. Type of investment activity by each participating province [and territory]
  • 1.7. Stakeholders view on IN (reasons for provinces to participate or not participate to IN, view on economic activity generated by their participation)

Entrepreneur class

  • 1.8. Stakeholders view on jobs created by the EN Class
  • 1.9. Stakeholders view on the number and type of new businesses started or acquired by EN Class in proportion to the number of entrepreneurs admitted
  • 1.10. Number of ENs with conditions remaining in system beyond the prescribed time frame compared to the number of entrepreneurs admitted

Self-employed persons class

  • 1.11. Evidence of economic activity in Canada in the arts, athletics or farm management
  • 1.12. Rationale for and need to group the arts, athletics and farm management under this category

2. Is the Business Immigration Program consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities?

  • 2.1 Stakeholders’ perceived alignment between the BIP and departmental and government-wide priorities
  • 2.2. Alignment between BIP policies/ directives and departmental and government-wide priorities
  • 2.3. Government wide policy/directives suggesting the need to revisit any of the categories of the Business Immigration Program

3. Is the Business Immigration Program consistent with federal roles and responsibilities?

  • 3.1. Alignment with legislative and federal obligations
  • 3.2. Comparison of federal program to Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) and the Quebec program
  • 3.3. Stakeholders’ perceive BIP consistent with federal role and responsibilities

Program performance – management outcomes

4. Have policy advice and directives supported effective program delivery?

  • 4.1. Consistency in BIP case processing in CVOA
  • 4.2. Consistency in quality assurance in BIP application processing
  • 4.3. Evidence of coordination within CIC
  • 4.4. Identification of issues related to the selection process and mitigation strategy to address identified issues
  • 4.5. Evidence of program revisions

5. Have selection decisions for the Business Immigration Program been timely, consistent and objective?

Timely

  • 5.1. BIP application processing times (and inventories) by CVOA and overall (over time) compared to other economic classes and other countries

Consistent

  • 5.2. Consistency in BIP case processing in CVOA
  • 5.3. Consistent training for visa officers across CVOA
  • 5.4. Comparison of BIP application acceptance, withdrawal and refusal rates overall and by CVOA (over time and reasons if available)
  • 5.5. Consistency in quality assurance in BIP application processing
  • 5.6. Evidence of coordination within CIC

Objective

  • 5.7. Number, nature and outcome of complaints and legal challenges regarding selection decisions
  • 5.8. Number, percentage of BIs admitted with points below the pass mark (and reasons for being admitted)
  • 5.9. Perception of stakeholders on consistency, timeliness and objectivity of BIP processing

6. How effective was the ongoing monitoring of the Entrepreneur Class terms and conditions?

  • 6.1. Percentage of ENs being monitored and percentage of landed entrepreneurs not reporting to CIC
  • 6.2. Number and percentage of ENs meeting conditions
  • 6.3. Number of enforcement actions in proportion to those not complying
  • 6.4. Number (percentage) of ENs having conditions:
    • successfully removed from their permanent resident status
    • removed on officer’s discretion (i.e. conditions not technically met)
  • 6.5. Number (%) of ENs with conditions remaining in system beyond the prescribed time frame
  • 6.6. Estimated total costs of compliance monitoring (including estimate from CBSA, if available)
  • 6.7. Average time taken to assess an EN’s application to have terms and conditions cancelled
  • 6.8. Number (%) of ENs who have not met Ts&Cs, and have filed applications to remain in Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds
  • 6.9. Stakeholders and clients’ perspectives on the values of Ts&Cs

Program performance – program outcomes

7.Has the Entrepreneur Class contributed to the creation of new business start-ups or acquisitions and jobs creation?

Business start-ups

  • 7.1. Trends in the number and types of businesses acquired or created by entrepreneur immigrants relative to provincial and sectorial trends
  • 7.2. Business ownership retention rates once Ts&Cs have been met (whether the entrepreneur kept the original business, started a new business, or entered the labour market)
  • 7.3. Evidence of business “flipping” – existing businesses flipped to entrepreneurs for purposes of meeting Ts&Cs
  • 7.4. Comparative profile of entrepreneur businesses successful in meeting terms and conditions vs. those that do not meet Ts&Cs in terms of business types (sector, size, etc.)

Creation of jobs

  • 7.5. Trends in the number and types of jobs created by entrepreneur immigrants
  • 7.6. Job retention rates by province and sector (for acquired and created businesses)

8. To what extent are business immigrants becoming established economically?

  • 8.1. Trends in gross and net self-employment income of business immigrants by demographic profile
  • 8.2. Comparative economic profiles of business, skilled worker and provincial nominee immigrants who reported self-employment income (gross and net), employment earnings, both simultaneously and composition of total income
  • 8.3. Evidence of secondary investments in Canada by business immigrants, by province and sector (other than the required program investment/business activity)
  • 8.4. Percentage of business immigrants relying on social assistance and employment insurance (incidence rate) as compared to general population, skilled worker and provincial nominee immigrants

9. To what extent are the economic benefits of business immigration being shared across Canada (BIP overall) and participating provinces (IN only)?

  • 9.1. Intended province of destination versus the province of residence at admission (by three business immigration classes)
  • 9.2. Distribution of interprovincial migration over time (compared to other FSW & PNP)
  • 9.3. Net changes between in-migration and out-migration between provinces
  • 9.4. Rate of estimated out-migration of business immigrants compared to skilled worker and provincial nominee immigrants
  • 9.5. Distribution of IN funds to participating provinces

10. Have there been any unintended impacts associated with BIP?

  • 10.1. Evidence of fraud/misuse in the Business Immigrant Program
  • 10.2. Changes in policy and program direction
  • 10.3. Unintended results of programs and policies

Program performance – efficiency and economy

11. Are the selection criteria of the BIP effective in identifying applicants who will establish themselves economically?
Are there alternative selection criteria that could meet policy objectives more effectively?

  • 11.1 Comparison of federal and provincial recruitment activity targeting business immigrants (for entrepreneur and self-employed programs only)
  • 11.2. Comparison of achievements under federal and provincial business immigration programs (as measured by the success indicators in the previous section - amount of investment, number of new jobs and number of new business created)
  • 11.3. Identification of the most important selection criteria (business experience, language, education, age, etc.) on the economic outcomes (propensity to be self-employed, propensity to be employed, actual self-employment earnings, actual employment earnings) of business immigrants
  • 11.4. Trends over time and across CVOA in selection scores for language, education, age, adaptability and experience
  • 11.5. Alternative selection criteria of business immigrants under PNP or in other countries
  • 11.6. Comparative economic profiles of business, skilled worker and provincial nominee immigrants who report self-employment income (gross and net) and employment earnings.

12. How cost-effective is the current approach to selecting business immigrants?

  • 12.1. Total CIC budgets and expenditures (O&M, salary) by the three programs, by year?
  • 12.2. Average cost over time per BIP applicant compared to FSW and PNP
  • 12.3. Other means to deliver the program that would be more cost-effective

Page details

2017-10-16

Evaluation of the Federal Business Immigration Program — Appendix C: IMDB Capture Rate

Table C-1: IMDB Capture Rate by immigration class and years since admission

BIP Class – ENs
Admission Cohort Years since Admission
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1996 65.6 80.0 81.2 79.4 78.4 76.8 74.4 72.5 70.4 65.9 66.8 65.2 63.9 61.8 60.7 59.9
1997 65.4 76.6 77.8 77.0 77.0 73.4 71.8 70.2 64.8 66.2 64.8 63.0 61.9 60.3 58.7  
1998 68.5 79.7 79.0 79.0 76.9 75.1 74.8 69.5 69.9 69.5 68.1 67.1 65.3 63.9    
1999 70.7 83.0 83.7 83.3 80.7 80.3 75.3 75.7 73.8 72.6 70.7 69.2 66.9      
2000 74.0 84.4 85.1 85.1 83.7 79.0 79.0 78.7 76.5 74.0 73.6 71.5        
2001 75.8 84.8 85.5 84.0 81.0 81.4 79.2 77.7 75.8 75.1 73.2          
2002 77.0 85.5 85.5 83.0 84.5 81.5 80.0 76.0 75.5 74.4            
2003 70.6 81.7 81.7 81.7 80.2 77.0 77.0 75.4 73.8              
2004 69.8 77.5 81.4 82.4 81.4 79.5 77.5 73.6                
2005 64.4 77.6 80.0 80.0 78.4 74.3 73.4                  
2006 72.9 82.3 83.7 83.0 82.3 79.4                    
2007 68.6 76.9 76.9 78.0 78.0                      
2008 66.8 79.7 79.7 79.7                        
2009 64.0 75.8 75.8                          
2010 61.6 70.8                            
2011 58.0                              
BIP Class – SEs
Admission Cohort Years since Admission
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1996 62.0 76.1 78.4 78.4 76.1 75.7 73.5 71.2 70.0 66.6 66.9 65.8 65.4 63.1 61.6 60.1
1997 63.5 76.8 78.0 77.2 75.9 73.8 70.8 69.5 66.9 67.3 66.0 64.3 63.0 64.3 62.2  
1998 65.6 76.5 77.2 77.9 76.5 74.5 72.4 68.3 68.3 66.9 66.3 64.2 64.2 63.5    
1999 64.6 78.9 80.2 80.8 78.1 76.1 76.1 76.1 75.4 74.0 72.7 71.3 70.0      
2000 65.8 79.9 82.7 82.7 82.0 78.5 77.8 76.4 75.7 74.3 72.1 70.7        
2001 68.2 81.5 79.9 79.0 78.2 79.0 76.5 74.9 74.0 73.9 71.4          
2002 66.3 73.3 77.7 76.9 76.9 76.0 74.2 71.6 72.4 69.8            
2003 62.5 77.2 77.2 77.2 75.9 75.9 73.2 71.8 70.5              
2004 64.7 73.4 76.9 78.7 78.7 73.4 73.4 73.4                
2005 65.0 74.8 78.7 80.7 78.7 80.7 78.7                  
2006 59.6 71.2 76.9 75.0 75.0 71.2                    
2007 52.5 61.7 64.8 71.0 67.5                      
2008 63.4 70.9 74.6 74.6                        
2009 60.2 63.9 71.4                          
2010 48.9 56.4                            
2011 60.2                              
BIP Class – INs
Admission Cohort Years since Admission
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1996 68.0 84.9 86.2 85.3 83.7 82.5 79.3 74.9 71.7 66.4 65.2 63.2 60.4 59.6 56.4 54.3
1997 64.8 79.1 81.7 80.7 80.7 77.5 72.7 70.1 64.8 63.7 62.1 58.9 57.3 54.7 52.0  
1998 64.8 80.8 83.2 84.0 82.4 79.2 75.2 70.4 69.6 66.4 64.8 60.0 59.2 57.6    
1999 63.1 82.0 83.8 85.6 82.0 81.1 74.8 75.7 72.1 68.5 64.9 64.0 61.3      
2000 72.4 81.0 82.9 82.9 80.0 77.1 75.2 72.4 69.5 65.7 63.8 61.9        
2001 72.5 85.5 85.5 84.6 82.0 79.4 79.4 73.4 70.8 68.2 68.2          
2002 75.0 83.8 85.8 86.7 85.8 80.9 78.0 75.0 72.1 71.2            
2003 62.9 75.5 78.6 81.8 78.6 75.5 72.3 66.0 62.9              
2004 57.5 77.5 80.0 81.3 80.0 76.3 73.8 71.3                
2005 65.6 79.2 82.0 82.6 81.4 79.2 76.4                  
2006 63.8 77.8 77.8 80.1 78.5 76.2                    
2007 63.3 78.8 78.2 79.5 79.5                      
2008 62.4 76.5 79.5 80.6                        
2009 61.6 76.6 81.8                          
2010 60.8 75.5                            
2011 58.0                              

Note: This was extracted from cubes information and does not capture the 1995 admission cohort.

Source: IMDB

Page details

2017-10-16

Evaluation of the Federal Business Immigration Program — Appendix D: Weighting of the Survey Results

The following table presents a comparison of the distribution of the three immigration classes, the actual total population (column 2) versus the percentage of those that consented to participate (third column). The table demonstrated that the Entrepreneur class is over sampled by a factor of 2.75 (35.2% / 12.6%) while the Investor class is under sampled by a factor of 1.39 (58.2% / 82.1%).

Table D–1:  Percentage of participants versus the population
Immigration Classes As a Frequency of the total population
(n = 12,402)		 As a Percentage of the total population
(n = 12,402)		 As a Frequency of the survey sample
(n1 = 12,364)		 As a Frequency of the survey sample
(n1 = 12,364)		 As a Frequency of those surveyed
(n2 = 850)		 As a Percentage of those surveyed
(n2 = 850)
Entrepreneur 1,565 12.6% 1,554 12.6% 299 35.2%
Self-employed 657 5.3% 654 5.3% 56 6.6%
Investor 10,180 82,1% 10,156 82.1% 495 58.2%

Given the under-over sampling situation it was decided to weigh the results of those surveyed so that the % of each of the three classes was more proportionately representative of the total population (n1). Sensitivity analysis on different weighting options was conducted and the decision came down to three options:

Option 1: Immigration Classes

  • Entrepreneur (EN)
  • Self-Employed (SE)
  • Investor (IN)

Option 2: China plus Immigration Classes

  • Residency is China
  • Immigration Classes
  • Entrepreneur (EN)
  • Self-Employed (SE)
  • Investor (IN)

Option 3: Asia plus Immigration Classes

  • Residency is Asia
  • Immigration Classes
  • Entrepreneur (EN)
  • Self-Employed (SE)
  • Investor (IN)

While the weighting exercise did bring the sample to more closely represent the population of the program, variances are still present, as depicted in the table presented on the following page.

      OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3
Weighting Options  Completed Surveys n=850 Population
n=12,402		 Weighted by TYPE (EN, SE, IN) Variation in % with weighting Weighted by TYPE and China Variation in % with weighting Weighted by TYPE and Asia Variation in % with weighting
Immigration class
Entrepreneur 35.2% 12.6% 12.6% 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 12.6% 0.0%
Self-employed 6.6% 5.3% 5.3% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0%
Investor 58.2% 82.1% 82.1% 0.0% 82.0% 0.0% 82.1% 0.0%
Gender
Female 19.5% 17.5% 20.9% 3.4% 23.0% 5.3% 22.8% 5.3%
Male 80.5% 82.5% 79.1% -3.4% 77.0% -5.3% 77.2% -5.3%
Year of Admission
2007 25.2% 17.6% 23.8% 6.2% 23.0% 5.5% 22.9% 5.3%
2008 22.7% 23.0% 21.1% -1.9% 20.0% -2.6% 21.9% -1.1%
2009 17.5% 21.9% 16.6% -5.3% 17.0% -4.9% 16.6% -5.3%
2010 20.0% 21.9% 21.8% -0.1% 23.0% 0.7% 22.0% 0.1%
2011 14.4% 15.6% 16.6% 1.0% 17.0% 1.4% 16.6% 1.0%
Age group
0 to 14 years of age 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
15 to 24 years of age 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% -0.3% 0.0% -0.3% 0.0% -0.3%
25 to 44 years of age 40.1% 44.7% 42.9% -1.8% 46.0% 1.2% 45.3% 0.6%
45 to 64 years of age 57.3% 53.6% 54.7% 1.1% 52.0% -1.4% 52.8% -0.8%
65 years of age or more 2.5% 1.3% 2.3% 1.0% 2.0% 0.5% 1.8% 0.5%
Mean age 46.9 45.7            
Country of last permanent residence, world area
Africa 20.2% 0.1 16.5% 3.7% 13.0% 0.6% 10.5% -2.3%
Asia, Australia, Pacific 62.1% 0.8 68.0% -11.5% 74.0% -5.7% 79.6% 0.1%
Europe and UK 10.9% 0.0 9.7% 4.9% 8.0% 3.2% 6.1% 1.3%
United States 3.8% 0.0 3.2% 1.5% 3.0% 1.0% 2.1% 0.4%
South America  3.1% 0.0 2.7% 1.5% 2.0% 1.0% 1.7% 0.5%
Education
0 to 9 years 5.6% 0.1 4.6% -4.5% 5.0% -4.2% 4.7% -4.4%
10 to 12 years 15.2% 0.2 13.6% -6.6% 13.0% -6.8% 13.5% -6.7%
13 or more years 7.5% 0.1 6.9% 1.6% 7.0% 1.5% 6.2% 0.9%
Trade certificate 6.2% 0.1 6.0% -0.7% 7.0% 0.0% 6.1% -0.6%
Non university diploma 31.5% 0.2 22.8% 0.9% 25.0% 3.5% 24.5% 2.6%
Bachelor's degree 20.7% 0.3 31.1% 4.8% 29.0% 3.1% 30.9% 4.6%
Master's degree 11.4% 0.1 12.8% 4.0% 12.0% 2.9% 12.5% 3.7%
Doctorate 1.8% 0.0 2.1% 0.5% 2.0% 0.1% 1.5% -0.1%
Knowledge of official languages
English 56.2% 0.4 51.0% 11.9% 44.0% 4.7% 45.6% 6.5%
French 0.4% 0.0 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%
Both 3.1% 0.0 3.5% 2.0% 3.0% 1.3% 2.2% 0.7%
Neither 40.4% 0.6 45.0% -14.2% 53.0% -6.1% 52.0% -7.2%
Main countries of last permanent residence
People's Republic of China 35.0% 0.5 42.0% -11.1% 53.0% 0.0% 49.3% -3.8%
Taiwan 7.0% 0.1 8.9% -1.1% 7.0% -3.1% 10.6% 0.6%
Republic of Korea 7.0% 0.1 6.9% -1.8% 5.0% -3.3% 7.9% -0.8%
Iran 10.0% 0.1 7.4% 1.0% 6.0% -0.3% 4.9% -1.5%
United Arab Emirates 4.0% 0.0 4.2% 1.3% 3.0% 0.4% 2.4% -0.5%

After reviewing the three options, Option 3 was selected as most closely representing the total population n1.

Page details

2017-10-16

Evaluation of the Federal Business Immigration Program — Appendix E: Glossary of Economic Concepts

Business income – gross:

Gross business income is the entire income of the taxfiler's unincorporated business (e.g. dentist, accountant, physician, etc.), before costs and expenses are deducted. If the enterprise is a partnership, each partner reports the income of the whole operation.

Until 1994, reporting of self-employment income was on a fiscal year basis and the fiscal year end was the end of the taxation year for reporting this income. Beginning in 1995, most individuals are required to report self-employment income on a calendar year basis. However, eligible individuals may be able to use an alternative method of reporting whereby the fiscal period does not end on December 31. Due to this rule change, individuals reporting self-employment income in 1995 may have reported more than one fiscal year‘s income (i.e. more than 12 months).

Capital gains/losses, net taxable:

A capital gain or loss occurs when there is a disposition or deemed disposition of capital property, only a fraction of net capital gains are taxable.
The following is the percentage of capital gain that is taxable:

  • 50%, 2001 to 2007;
  • Three different percentages in 2000;
  • 75%, 1990 to 1999;
  • 37.5%, 1997 for certain property donated to charity;

For the year 2000, taxfilers include in their income 75% of capital gains realized before February 28, 66.67% of gains realized from February 28 to October 17 and 50% after this date. The cumulative capital gains deduction limit is $250,000.

Commission income – gross:

Gross commission is the entire income of the taxfiler's unincorporated business, where commission is earned, before costs and expenses are deducted. If the enterprise is a partnership, each partner reports the entire gross commission income of the operation.

Until 1994, reporting of self-employment income was on a fiscal year basis and the fiscal year end was the end of the taxation year for reporting this income. Beginning in 1995, most individuals are required to report self-employment income on a calendar year basis. However, eligible individuals may be able to use an alternative method of reporting whereby the fiscal period does not end on December 31. Due to this rule change, individuals reporting self-employment income in 1995 may have reported more than one fiscal year‘s income (i.e. more than 12 months).

Deductions:

As per Canada Revenue Agency, businesses can deduct any reasonable current expense paid or that will have to be paid to earn business income. Personal expenses or expenses incurred to buy capital properties cannot however be claimed. The following business expenses can be deducted: advertising; allowance on eligible capital property; bad debts; business start-up costs; business tax, fees, licences, dues, memberships, and subscriptions; business-use-of-home expenses; capital cost allowance; current or capital expenses; delivery, freight, and express; fuel costs (except for motor vehicles); insurance; interest; legal, accounting, and other professional fees; maintenance and repairs; management and administration fees; meals and entertainment (allowable part only); motor vehicle expenses; office expenses; prepaid expenses; property taxes; rent; salaries, wages, and benefits (including employer's contributions); supplies; telephone and utilities; travel; other expenses. In addition to those businesses expenses, individuals can claim: Employee home relocation loan deductions; stock option and shares deductions; other payments deductions; Limited partnership losses of other years; non-capital losses of other years; net capital losses of other years; capital gains deductions; northern residents deductions and additional deductions on their income tax report.

Dividends:

Dividends are, for tax purposes, defined as a share of the profits of a Canadian corporation, which are distributed to its shareholders. Dividends should be reported as income on the T1 Tax Form in the year they are received.

Employment income:

Employment income is the sum of total employment income from T4 slips (which includes all paid-employment income, i.e. wages, salaries, and commissions, before deductions) and other employment income (which is comprised of any taxable receipts from employment other than wages, salaries and commissions). For example other employment income includes tips, gratuities, or director's fees that are not reported on a T4 slip, and some other components that have changed through time. Employment income excludes self-employment income.

For the purpose of the evaluation, individuals were considered to have employment income if they declared more than $1000 for that type of income.

Employment insurance benefits:

Employment insurance (EI) benefits, other than payments related to the cost of a course or program destined to facilitate re-entry into the labour force, are included in Taxable income. Employment insurance is income paid to individuals experiencing paid-employment income interruptions. There are also Employment insurance benefits for persons who stop working because of sickness, injury, pregnancy, birth, or adoption of a child. If a taxfiler receives EI benefits and his or her net income before adjustments (Line 234, not available on IMDB) is more than the specified limit, the individual must pay back part of these benefits (see Employment insurance repayment (EICRP)). Note that prior to 1996 these benefits were referred to as Unemployment insurance benefits.

Farming income – gross:

Gross farming income is the total income from the taxfiler's unincorporated farming operation, before costs and expenses are deducted. If the enterprise is a partnership, each partner reports income from the entire operation.

Until 1994, reporting of self-employment income was on a fiscal year basis and the fiscal year end was the end of the taxation year for reporting this income. Beginning in 1995, most individuals are required to report self-employment income on a calendar year basis. However, eligible individuals may be able to use an alternative method of reporting whereby the fiscal period does not end on December 31. Due to this rule change, individuals reporting self-employment income in 1995 may have reported more than one fiscal year‘s income (i.e. more than 12 months).

Fishing income – gross:

Gross fishing income is the total income from the taxfiler's unincorporated fishing operation, before costs and expenses are deducted. If the enterprise is a partnership, each partner reports income from the entire operation.

Until 1994, reporting of self-employment income was on a fiscal year basis and the fiscal year end was the end of the taxation year for reporting this income. Beginning in 1995, most individuals are required to report self-employment income on a calendar year basis. However, eligible individuals may be able to use an alternative method of reporting whereby the fiscal period does not end on December 31. Due to this rule change, individuals reporting self-employment income in 1995 may have reported more than one fiscal year‘s income (i.e. more than 12 months).

Interest and investment income:

Interest and investment income is an income that is earned from interest and other investments during the tax year. This type of income can be received as a result of Canada Savings Bonds, corporate bonds, trusts, bank or other deposits, mortgages, notes, foreign interest, foreign dividend income and other property.

Investment income:

Investment income is composed of capital gains/losses (net), dividends and interest and investment income.

For the purpose of the evaluation, individuals were considered to have investment income if the investment income was above $2 or below -$2.

Professional income – gross:

Gross professional income is the total income from the practice of an unincorporated profession (e.g. dentists, accountants, doctors, etc.) before costs and expenses are deducted. If the enterprise is a partnership, each partner reports the income of the entire operation.

Until 1994, reporting of self-employment income was on a fiscal year basis and the fiscal year end was the end of the taxation year for reporting this income. Beginning in 1995, most individuals are required to report self-employment income on a calendar year basis. However, eligible individuals may be able to use an alternative method of reporting whereby the fiscal period does not end on December 31. Due to this rule change, individuals reporting self-employment income in 1995 may have reported more than one fiscal year‘s income (i.e. more than 12 months).

Self-employment income – gross:

Self-employment income (gross) is the sum of all gross income earned from self-employment. Sources of self-employment income are: business, professional, commission, farming, and fishing income.

Until 1994, reporting of self-employment income was on a fiscal year basis and the fiscal year end was the end of the taxation year for reporting this income. Beginning in 1995, most individuals are required to report self-employment income on a calendar year basis. However, eligible individuals may be able to use an alternative method of reporting whereby the fiscal period does not end on December 31. Due to this rule change, individuals reporting self-employment income in 1995 may have reported more than one fiscal year‘s income (i.e. more than 12 months).

For the purpose of the evaluation, an individual was considered as drawing income from self-employment if he/she declared at least $1,000 on either one of the sources of self-employment (business, professional, commission, farming, or fishing income).

Self-employment income – net:

Self-employment income (net) is the sum of all net income earned from self-employment. Sources of self-employment income are: business, professional, commission, farming, and fishing income. Only the taxfiler's share of active self-employment partnership income is included.

Social assistance income:

Social assistance is designed to provide income to meet the cost of basic requirements of either a single person or a family when all other financial resources have been exhausted. Line 145 includes social assistance income provided by a provincial or municipal program. If applicable, the spouse with the higher net income (line 236) must report the social assistance payments.

Taxable income:

Taxable income is total income (Canada Revenue Agency‘s definition, TIRC) minus deductions reported on the tax return.

Taxes paid:

Taxes paid is the sum of the federal tax, provincial tax and other taxes paid. The federal taxes paid equals to the net federal tax (the amount of income tax that the taxfiler is required to pay the Federal Government of Canada), minus the amount of Quebec abatement (a rebate on federal tax that individuals are given) and the goods and services tax (GST) credit that the taxfiler received. The provincial tax is the amount of income tax that a filer is required to pay to a provincial government after deducting various provincial tax credits. Other taxes include the amounts paid for the Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan, Employment Insurance and Social benefits repayment.

Total income:

Are included in the total income definition: Total earnings from T4 slips, other employment income, self-employment net income, Old Age Security pension, CPP/QPP benefits, pension and superannuation income, employment insurance benefits, dividend income from T4, interest and investment income, limited partnership income net, rental income net, capital gains/losses calculated, alimony or support income, RRSP income, other income, non-taxable income.

Page details

2017-10-16

Evaluation of the Federal Business Immigration Program — Appendix F: Income Profile

The following table looks at the combination of the different source of income declared by individuals. The individual may draw its income from one source of income only (employment, self-employment or investment income), from the combination of two of the three sources considered (employment and self-employment income, employment and investment income or self-employment and investment income), or from all three sources of income considered (employment, self-employment and investment income). It is also possible that some individuals did not declare receiving any of the three types of income sources considered.

Table F–1: Income profile of PAs per years since admission and immigration class, 1995-2010 admission cohorts
  Years since admission
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Entrepreneurs
EI only 8.9 12.3 16 17.1 18.3 19.2 20.4 20.9 21.3 20.5 20.2 18.9 19 19.4 19.2 18.3
SE only 3.9 7.4 10.3 11.3 11.5 11.6 12.3 12.2 12 11.6 10.6 10.1 9.7 9.7 10 10
II only 38.8 31.4 21.8 20.8 21.4 21.2 20.3 19.8 19.3 20.4 20.8 22.3 23.1 22.6 22.5 22.3
EI and SE 0.4 1.2 1.8 2 1.8 1.9 1.8 2 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.7
EI and II 10.3 21.2 23.8 22.8 20.5 19.5 18.2 17.9 18.1 18.1 18.2 18.3 17.5 16.9 16.1 15.6
SE and II 3.6 9.3 11.5 10.5 9 8.3 7.9 7.4 7.3 6.9 7.2 7 6.5 5.8 5.5 6.3
EI, SE, and II 0.5 1.7 2.1 2 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.4 1
No EI, SE or II  33.5 15.5 12.7 13.5 15.6 16.8 17.8 18.5 18.9 19.1 19.6 20 21.2 22.6 24 24.9
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Self-employed
EI only 12.8 14.3 15 15.8 16.9 16.6 17.3 17.8 17.1 15.9 14.9 15.3 16.1 17.1 17 15.6
SE only 12.2 15.7 17.4 18.5 18 18.3 19 18.2 17.7 17.5 17 15.8 14.8 14 15.1 14.7
II only 25.6 21.4 18.4 17.4 16.4 16.1 15.8 15.8 16.5 17.9 18.4 19.3 20.6 21.4 20.7 21.1
EI and SE 1.5 3.2 3.8 3.9 3.7 4 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.1 3.3 2.8
EI and II 9.7 14.4 15 14.3 13.9 13.8 12.4 13 13.3 13.2 13.9 13.9 14.4 12.9 13.3 12.8
SE and II 13.5 16.3 16.4 16.5 17.3 16.4 15.8 16.3 15.8 15.6 15.9 15.5 13.8 13.3 12.9 12.8
EI, SE, and II 1.9 3.2 3.8 3.7 4 4 4.1 3.8 3.9 4 3.9 4 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.7
No EI, SE or II  22.8 11.5 10.2 9.8 9.9 10.8 11.6 11.3 11.8 12.4 12.7 13.1 13.2 14.5 14.4 16.5
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Investors
EI only 8.2 7.4 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.6 8.2 9.3 9.4 9.7 9.1 8.5 8.4 9.5 9.2 10.3
SE only 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.9 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.3 3 3.5 3.5 3.8 4.3
II only 48.8 51.5 49.8 48.8 49.4 49.5 48.7 47.7 45.6 45 45.8 46.6 46.8 46.3 45 47
EI and SE 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4  
EI and II 12.5 21.1 23.3 24.3 23.5 22 20.2 18.7 18.3 18 16.1 15.7 14.7 14.6 13.8 12.8
SE and II 2.4 5.2 5.9 6.5 6.5 6.8 6.5 6.1 6.2 6 5.9 6.1 5.7 5.4 5 4.3
EI, SE, and II 0.1 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.8 1 0.7 1 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4
No EI, SE or II  26.1 11.7 10.3 9.6 9.6 10.1 12.3 13.5 15.6 17.2 18.5 19 19.8 19.5 22.3 21.4
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
BI Federal
EI only 9.5 11.2 13.3 14.1 15.1 15.7 16.8 17.6 17.6 17 16.5 15.8 16 16.8 16.6 16
SE only 5 7.5 9.5 10.6 10.7 11 11.8 11.8 11.5 11.3 10.7 10 9.6 9.4 9.8 9.6
II only 39.3 35.5 29.2 27.6 27.5 27 25.8 25 24.5 25.2 25.6 26.8 27.6 27.4 27 27.5
EI and SE 0.5 1.3 1.8 2 1.9 2 2 2.1 2 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7
EI and II 10.9 19.7 21.7 21.3 19.7 18.8 17.2 16.8 17 16.8 16.6 16.6 16.1 15.4 14.8 14.3
SE and II 5.2 9.5 11 10.8 10.3 9.9 9.5 9.3 9.2 8.9 9.1 8.9 8.1 7.5 7.1 7.2
EI, SE, and II 0.7 1.7 2.1 2 2.1 2 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.3
No EI, SE or II  28.9 13.5 11.5 11.6 12.7 13.7 15 15.5 16.4 17 17.6 18.1 19 20 21.4 22.4
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
BI Quebec
EI only 10.7 10.3 11.5 12.7 13.8 13.9 14.9 15.2 15.9 16.8 16.6 16.5 15.3 15.4 14.1 13.8
SE only 2.4 4.5 5.7 6.4 6.4 6.7 7.5 8 8.5 8.4 8.9 9.2 9.3 8.6 8.7 9.2
II only 39.3 40.1 36.7 34.3 33.7 33.3 32.8 32.2 31.3 31 30.5 30.5 30.3 30.7 26.2 26.2
EI and SE 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.5 2 1.5
EI and II 13.2 23.8 25.3 25.7 24.7 23.2 20.5 18.5 17.8 16.6 16.2 15.2 16 15 16.1 13.8
SE and II 2.1 5.7 7 7.4 7.3 7.4 6.9 6.9 7.1 7 6.9 6.2 5.5 6 5.4 6.2
EI, SE, and II 0.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.5
No EI, SE or II  32 13.8 11.9 11.4 11.7 13.3 15 16.6 17.2 17.8 18.3 19.6 20.8 21.7 26.2 27.7
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
FSWs
EI only 42.7 44.7 42.7 42.2 42.1 42.2 41.6 41.4 41 40.4 39.1 38.1 37.7 37.7 37.5 37.7
SE only 2.5 3.4 4.2 4.8 5.3 5.7 6.1 6.5 6.7 6.8 7 7.1 7.1 7.2 7 6.7
II only 7.9 7 6.2 5.8 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 5 5.2 5.7 6.1 6.6 7 7.7 8.1
EI and SE 1.3 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.8 4 4.1 4.2 4.1 4 4 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.3
EI and II 15.5 26 28 28.9 29 28.7 28.7 28.6 28.5 28.7 29.1 29.5 29.2 28.6 28.1 27.6
SE and II 0.9 2 2.4 2.7 2.9 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.7
EI, SE, and II 0.7 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.3
No EI, SE or II  28.4 12.2 10.9 9.6 8.9 8.8 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.9 9.1 9.4 9.8 10.3 10.6
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
PNs
EI only 61 58.8 54.7 53.1 51.1 52.2 53.5 54.9 56.4 58.2 63.9 66 76.9 88 85.7
SE only 1.5 2.5 3.7 4.5 5.8 6.4 6.8 7.1 8.5 8.5 6.7 7.5 - - -
II only 4 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.2 3.5 3.3 2.3 2.1 1.7 - - - -
EI and SE 1.7 3 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.4 5.5 4.2 5 5.7 - - -
EI and II 17.9 23.1 24.3 23.9 23.9 23 22.1 20.7 19.5 19 16 15.1 15.4 8 9.5
SE and II 1 1.8 2.6 3.2 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.1 2.6 3.2 1.7 1.9 - - -
EI, SE, and II 1.1 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.3 1.6 1.7 1.9 - - -
No EI, SE or II  11.8 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.6 4 3.6 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.4 1.9 7.7 4 4.8
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100  
  • EI: Employment income
  • SE: Self-employment income
  • II: Investment income

Source: IMDB

The following table identifies which of the three income sources considered (employment, self-employment or investment income) accounts the most in the total income received by those sources.

Table F–2: Main type of income of PAs per years since admission and immigration class, 1995-2010 admission cohorts
  Years since admission
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Entrepreneurs
Employment income 28.2 38.9 45.5 46.6 46.2 47.2 47.6 48.7 49.5 48.5 48.4 47 46.8 47.9 46.6 45.6
Self-employment income 11 19.1 24.6 24.6 24.4 23.7 24.2 24 23.7 22.7 22 21.1 20.3 19.7 20.5 21.7
Investment income 60.8 42 29.9 28.8 29.5 29.1 28.1 27.4 26.8 28.8 29.6 31.9 32.8 32.5 32.9 32.7
Self-employed
Employment income 31.1 35.5 38 37.9 38.5 38.9 38.8 39.5 39.5 38.2 37.1 37.6 38.9 38.5 38.4 39.1
Self-employment income 30.1 34.6 35.3 37.2 37.1 37.6 37.8 37 36.2 36 35.7 34.1 31.5 31.6 31.9 30.4
Investment income 38.8 29.9 26.7 24.9 24.4 23.5 23.4 23.5 24.3 25.8 27.1 28.3 29.5 29.9 29.7 30.4
Investors
Employment income 25.7 28.4 30.2 30.6 30 29.6 29.7 30 31.3 31.1 28.9 27.9 27.4 29 28.2 27.7
Self-employment income 5.1 7.1 7.5 8.2 8.2 8.8 9.2 9.5 10.6 9.7 10.2 10.5 10.4 10.1 10.4 10.6
Investment income 69.2 64.5 62.3 61.2 61.8 61.6 61 60.5 58.1 59.1 60.9 61.6 62.2 60.9 61.4 61.7
BI Federal
Employment income 28 34.8 39.3 40.1 40 40.5 41.1 42 42.8 42 41.2 40.4 40.6 41.3 40.6 40
Self-employment income 13.2 18.7 21.9 23 23.1 23.3 24.2 24.1 24 23.4 23.2 22.3 21.2 20.7 21.2 21.1
Investment income 58.8 46.5 38.8 36.9 36.9 36.2 34.7 33.9 33.2 34.6 35.6 37.3 38.3 37.9 38.2 38.8
BI Quebec
Employment income 33.1 36.4 39 40.7 42 41.2 40.3 40 39.9 40.3 39.6 39.6 39.3 39.2 42.7 38.3
Self-employment income 6.2 11.4 13.9 15 14.9 15.5 16.5 17.2 18 17.8 18.9 19 18.9 18.7 19.1 21.3
Investment income 60.7 52.3 47.1 44.3 43 43.4 43.2 42.8 42.1 41.9 41.5 41.4 41.8 42.1 38.2 40.4
FSWs
Employment income 83 84 83.7 83.4 83.2 83.1 82.7 82.3 81.9 81.3 80.3 79.5 78.8 78.4 77.7 77.3
Self-employment income 5.6 7.3 8.6 9.4 10 10.4 10.9 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.1 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.1 11.9
Investment income 11.4 8.6 7.8 7.2 6.7 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.5 6.8 7.6 8.1 8.8 9.3 10.2 10.9
PNs
Employment income 91.4 88.5 86.1 84.3 82.6 82.9 83.2 84.1 83.9 84.2 87 90.2 100 100 95.2  
Self-employment income 3.5 5.7 7.5 9.1 10.6 11.2 11.7 11.4 12.8 13.1 11.3 9.8     4.8  
Investment income 5.1 5.8 6.4 6.6 6.8 5.9 5.1 4.5 3.4 2.7 1.7          

Source: IMDB

Page details

2017-10-16

Evaluation of the Federal Business Immigration Program — Management Response Action Plan

In light of the current context, where two of the three classes under BIP will be terminated and replaced with new pilot programs, CIC should consider the following to improve program design and implementation in order to ensure better program monitoring with the view of increasing impact:

  • Maximizing the benefits of investments for Canada;
  • Using a phased approach to permanent residence;
  • Leveraging third party expertise;
  • Improving the management of application intake; and
  • Collecting appropriate data to support performance measurement strategies
Recommendations Response Action Accountability
Component #1 – Maximize benefits of investments for Canada:
CIC should develop a strategy to maximize the benefits generated by the investment funds, related both to the investment required as well as to how the funds are used.

CIC agrees that investment capital raised from its investor programming should be used to obtain maximum benefit for Canada and that the amount of the investment could have been set significantly higher than it has been in the past.

CIC has announced its intention to terminate the existing Immigrant Investor Program (IIP).

In 2015 CIC is planning to introduce a high-value pilot program expected to generate at-risk investments to fill an important financing gap in the Canadian economy. The parameters of the pilot are still under consideration. CIC will consider the recommendation in the design of business immigration programs. (Q4 2014-15)

The pilot program will incorporate a Performance Measurement Strategy (PMS) that will allow for the assessment of how the funds are used in the Canadian economy in due course. (Q3 2014-15)

Immigration Branch and Industry Canada

Immigration Branch/Research and Evaluation Branch
Component #2 – Phased approach to permanent residence:
CIC should consider using a two-phase approach where candidates would be required to first reside in Canada on a temporary basis and demonstrate meeting the programs' requirements prior being eligible to apply for permanent residence.

CIC generally agrees that if there is an action expected of a class of immigrants post arrival – for example, the establishment and active management of a business in Canada - a phased approach to permanent residence (PR) for that class may be warranted. In addition, it is recognized that such a model may work to ensure prospective immigrants have a firm commitment to residing in Canada prior to being granted entry as PRs.

Evaluation results and program review of the EN program have led CIC to move away from a program model that awards up-front PR with post-arrival conditions to avoid the risk of conferring an important benefit like Canadian permanent residence in cases where businesses have not been established as required.

PTs PNP business streams allow them to recruit ENs suited to regional/local needs. Provincial evaluations point to increased program outcomes under their business streams in those jurisdictions that have a phased approach to PR.

Under an Immigrant Investor Venture Capital (IIVC) pilot, a phased approach to PR for the new immigrant investor pilot program would not be feasible given that the investor will not be obligated to fulfil requirements outside of the initial investment.

Under the Start-Up Visa program, an applicant must have first received a commitment of support from a designated Canadian business incubator, angel investor group or venture capital fund before they can apply to CIC for permanent residence. Given this context, it was determined that a phased approach to PR would not be feasible for the Start-Up Visa Program.

With the Self-Employed program, there are no expectations post-arrival that would warrant a phased approach to PR. It is understood that the majority of SE applicants work in their declared field, which is very specific and which they must demonstrate at the time of application. If future changes are considered to the SE program, this recommendation will again be considered.

CIC has and will continue to consider this recommendation in the design of business immigration programs.

CIC will support PTs wishing to adopt a phased approach to PR under the PNP business streams where an action is required of the immigrant post arrival. (To be completed as new programs are developed.)

 Immigration Branch
Component #3 – Leverage third party expertise:
CIC should consider leveraging third party expertise in the assessment and validation of some aspects of applications.		 CIC agrees that to improve the efficiency and reliability of the application process in areas outside the expertise of CIC (such as assessing the value and source of an applicant's wealth) third party expertise should be leveraged. CIC will explore how the services of a designated third party could be used in future business immigration programming to provide an independent assessment of the value and source of the applicant's wealth. (Q4 2014-15) Immigration Branch/Operational Management and Coordination Branch
Component #4 – Manage application intake:
CIC should develop a strategy to improve the management of BI application intake.		 CIC agrees with this recommendation, which is why it obtained the ability to cap intake with Ministerial Instructions (MI), which were employed to cap intake of EN and IIP applications in 2011 and 2012.

CIC will also consider using Ministerial Instructions authorities to implement intake limits of less than the maximum possible of 2,750 in new business immigration programs, to keep the number of applications received in line with available space in the Annual Immigration Levels Plan. (Q4 2014-15)

Intake of applications under the Start-Up Visa and Self-Employed Programs will be monitored on an ongoing basis to determine if intake controls are necessary. (Q4 2014-15)

 Immigration Branch and members of the Ministerial Instructions working group
Component #5 – Collect appropriate data to support performance measurement strategies:
CIC should ensure appropriate data is available to support performance measurement strategies.

These types of pilot programs automatically sunset after five years if they are not made permanent and written into regulations. A PMS was developed for the Start-Up Visa program, and implementation has begun.

For the IIVC pilot (and business skills pilot if applicable), a performance measurement strategy (PMS) will be developed in order to facilitate the decision as to whether the pilot programs should be made permanent.

The immigrant investor pilot and any other business related pilot program will incorporate a PMS, which will be presented to the Performance Measurement Steering Committee (PMSC) for endorsement, and to ensure data collection procedures are in place. (Q3 2014-15)

The immigrant investor pilot program will be assessed according to the PMS within three years of launch against its short and medium term objectives. (Q1, 2018-19)

The Start-Up Visa pilot program incorporates a PMS that allows for the program to be assessed three years from initial launch. CIC has begun implementing the Performance Measurement Strategy, with the support of program partners, by collecting qualitative and quantitative data. (Q2, 2016-17)

 Immigration Branch/Research and Evaluation Branch / Operations Performance Management Branch

Page details

2017-10-16

Evaluation of the Federal Business Immigration Program — Acronyms

BI
Business Immigrant (this refers to immigrants admitted under the Business Immigration Program)
BIP
Business Immigration Program
CIC
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
CAIPS
Computer-Assisted Immigration Processing System
CBO
Canada-Based Officer
CBSA
Canada Border Services Agency
CEEDD
Canadian Employer-Employee Dynamics Database
CSQ
Certificat de Sélection du Québec
CSIS
Canadian Security Intelligence Service
CVOA
Canadian Visa Offices Abroad
DG
Director General
DIO
Designated Immigration Officer
DOJ
Department of Justice
EI
Employment Insurance
EMIS
Entrepreneurship Monitoring Information System
EN
Entrepreneur Immigrants (this refers to immigrants admitted under the Entrepreneur class)
EP
Entrepreneur Program
F/P/T
Federal/Provincial/Territorial
FOSS
Field Operations Support System
FSW
Federal Skilled Worker
FSWP
Federal Skilled Worker Program
FTE
Full-Time Equivalent
GoC
Government of Canada
GCMS
Global Case Management System
IIP
Immigrant Investor Program
IMDB
Longitudinal Immigrant Database
IMIS
Investment Monitoring Information System
IN
Investor Immigrants (this refers to immigrants admitted under the Investor Immigrant class)
IPM
Immigration Program Manager
IR
International Region
IRPA
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
IRPR
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
KII
Key Informant Interview
NHQ
National Headquarters
OB
Operational Bulletin
OMC
Operational Management and Coordination Branch
OP
Overseas Processing (Manual)
PA
Principal Applicant
PN
Provincial Nominee
PNP
Provincial Nominee Program
PR
Permanent Resident
P/T
Provincial/Territorial
P/Ts
Provinces and Territories
QA
Quality Assurance
QBIP
Quebec Business Immigration Program
QC
Quality Control
SE
Self-Employed Immigrants (this includes immigrants admitted under the Self-Employed Person class)
SME
Small and Medium Enterprises
Ts&Cs
Terms and Conditions

Page details

2017-10-16