PNP rules inconsistent with charter right to reside in any province, immigration fraud trial hears

One of the lawyers representing two Island residents accused in an immigration fraud trial in P.E.I. provincial court suggested Thursday there's a "tension" between federal rules for immigrants, the rules under P.E.I.'s provincial nominee program and the freedom of mobility granted under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Ping Zhong and her brother Yi Zhong both face multiple charges of aiding or abetting misrepresentation under the federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act specifically, they're accused of assisting clients of P.E.I.'s provincial nominee program (PNP) to provide false information about their residency in Canada.

The Zhongs, co-owners of the Sherwood Motel in Charlottetown, have pleaded not guilty.

Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) investigators allege hundreds of immigrants used the motel and other addresses in Charlottetown as "addresses of convenience," to make it appear they were living in Charlottetown when they were actually elsewhere.

'Inconsistencies in the rules'

Lee Cohen, one of the Zhong'sdefence lawyers, referenced what he argued were inconsistencies in the applicable laws.

He pointedto federal law requiring permanent residents of Canada spend at least two years out of five in the country. He then notedthe rules for provincial nominees requiringthey reside in their province of nomination. He also pointed to section six of the Charter of Rights, which provides permanent residents the right "to move to and take up residence in any province."

In cross examination, Cohen asked the Crown's witness, Sarah Joncas from the federal department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, whether she saw any "inconsistencies in the rules."

Joncas agreed there are inconsistencies.

However, she described the process of being nominated through thePNP, and the priority processing those immigrants receive, as "a privilege."

In order to gain this privilege, they exchange their right, in a way, of settling anywhere in Canada.SarahJoncasof the federal department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

"In order to gain this privilege, they exchange their right, in a way, of settling anywhere in Canada," Joncas told the court.

Under questioning from federal Crown prosecutor Caroline Lirette, Joncas said cards provided to permanent residents, which are required for them to re-enter Canada if they leave the country, are sometimes referred to as "maple leaf cards."

'Maple leaf cards'

Several pieces of evidence referenced in the trial, including a handwritten note found during a search of the Sherwood Motel, referenced "maple leaf cards" to be mailed to P.E.I. provincial nominees who provided addresses outside the province.

Under cross examination,Joncas said permanent residents are allowed to have their cards sent to an immigration agent on their behalf, but said having the card sent to another third party, particularly to a different residential address from where they live, would be viewed as "highly questionable."

In her questions to Joncas, Lirette focused on the declarations made by provincial nominees to reside in their province of nomination.

She asked whether falsely stating an intention to reside in that province would be considered "inducing an error in the administration of the [federal Immigration and Refugee Protection] Act?"

Joncas answered it would be.

According to court documents, the Zhongs are both charged with aiding or abetting several immigrants under the PNP to misrepresent material facts "that could have induced an error in the administration" of the Act.

More P.E.I. news