Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 31st, 2008

[Alex Stojicevic]

I would be happy to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm sure you will have an opportunity.

Ms. Wiseman.

[Carmel Wiseman, Lawyer, Policy and Legal Services Department, Law Society of British Columbia]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for inviting the Law Society to take part in the hearings today.

The Law Society of British Columbia has its mandate set by the Legal Profession Act, and first and foremost in its mandate is its obligation to protect the public in the administration of justice. It's under that mandate that I appear here today.

You'll be pleased to know that I'm going to limit my comments to one thing only, and that's the issue of unregistered immigration consultants. The Law Society is concerned and continues to be concerned, as it has been for many years, that the public continues to be harmed by unregistered immigration consultants who provide legal services to the public with respect to immigration matters, even though they are neither registered immigrant consultants nor lawyers.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the regulations made thereunder, only authorized representatives are entitled, for a fee, to provide legal services to clients involved in immigration proceedings or applications. Authorized representatives, as set out in the regulation, are lawyers, Quebec notaries, and members of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. This is to ensure that only qualified individuals who are regulated by a responsible body are allowed to take money for representing very vulnerable individuals.

While the regulation provides that only authorized representatives can provide legal services in relation to immigration matters for a fee, unregistered immigration consultants continue to provide legal services, often very badly, or offer to provide legal services contrary to the regulation. Unregistered immigration consultants may mask their involvement in the preparation of immigration documents by having the applicant sign the documents on his or her own behalf. Occasionally, clients do not learn that the immigration consultant is not registered and will not be able to represent them at a hearing until just shortly before the hearing takes place. You can imagine how upsetting that is for these vulnerable clients. In other cases, unregistered immigration consultants say they can provide immigration services; they charge and collect a fee, but they never in fact deliver the services.

The Law Society of British Columbia, even years after the Supreme Court of Canada said in Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat that immigration consultants were a federal responsibility, continues to receive complaints from members of the public about the quality or lack of services provided by unregistered immigration consultants. Some complain that they have paid thousands of dollars to these consultants and have received little or no services or that the services provided were inadequate. Sometimes the advice they receive harms their immigration applications; they're given bad advice on how to complete the forms.

The immigrant community is vulnerable and requires protection from untrained, unregulated, uninsured, and at times unscrupulous unregistered immigration consultants. A problem with the regulatory regime as it currently exists is that there are no effective enforcement provisions in the act to deal with unregistered immigration consultants who provide services contrary to the act and regulation. To be effective, the act should specify that providing services contrary to the act and regulation is an offence. It should further specify punishment, generally in terms of a jail term and/or a fine, for persons who provide legal services contrary to the act and regulation. Finally, it should provide for an enforcement framework, either through the police or through a division of the immigration bureaucracy.

Without effective enforcement, unregistered consultants will continue to take advantage of immigrants and potential immigrants, seriously harming Canada's standing in the international community. The Law Society of British Columbia submits that the Canadian government should adopt an effective enforcement scheme to protect this vulnerable group. How are lawyers different? I'm getting this question from the committee. The answer is that lawyers are insured, they're trained, and they're regulated.

Is every lawyer a good one? No, and of course we know that. The Law Society disciplines lawyers who aren't good and makes sure they are either disciplined.... And that's all public; that's on the Law Society's website. All our disciplinary proceedings are posted. We have practice standards reviews, and we can disbar lawyers who are dishonest or lack integrity, and so on and so forth. What's more, the public, in its dealings with lawyers, is protected because lawyers are insured.

They're not only regulated, they're also insured. None of that can be said for the unregistered immigration consultant. There's a difference. Being a lawyer doesn't guarantee that you're great, although we do our best to try to make sure we get you there. The difference is that if you're a client of a lawyer, you have some recourse. If you're a client of an unregistered immigration consultant, you have little recourse.

I was reading on the Immigration site today the policy dealing with the use of representatives who are paid or unpaid. There's a section there that tells you what to do if you work in Citizenship and Immigration Canada and you get a complaint about an unregistered immigration consultant. Do you know what clients are told? When they're dealing with a non-registered immigration consultant, they're directed to inform CSIC, which has no effective enforcement ability against unauthorized representatives, and to file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, and if they can, to bring a small claims action on their behalf.

These are people who are struggling with a system. They're immigrants; they're vulnerable. That doesn't help them. They have no recourse, effectively.

Those are my submissions. I'm happy to come in under the seven minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Ms. Wiseman.

Ms. Salloum.

[Nancy Salloum, Chairperson, Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I appreciate the invitation, even though it was last minute on Friday evening and we had very little time to prepare a submission. However, we've prepared 32 pages, but as we have only seven minutes, I'm going to pick and choose some of the points.

I'm the chairperson and the registered federal lobbyist in-house for the Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners. With me also, of course, is the vice-chair, Mr. Elie Hani.

I'm glad that the chair of the CBA and Ms. Wiseman brought up a good point; however, I have a different point of view and position on the point they just raised.

I just want to give you a brief background. CSIP is an NGO, a non-government organization, non-profit, and its practitioners have been providing pro bono service since November 2005. We have over 9,000 members. Those members do not pay membership; they pay money from their own pocket to assist prospective Canada Immigration clients. Our society does not receive any type of government funding. We, as practitioners, use our homes, we pay for offices, and at the same time we look after refugee claimants who have no access to legal aid, because legal aid was cut off a few years back.

CSIP functions as a unified regulatory body for its members and represents the interests of immigration practitioners in Canada and abroad. CSIP is seeking self-regulation with federal recognition of paid representatives, and it seeks to introduce prospective Canadian immigration clients with protection.

Let us be clear, immigration practitioners are committed to acting under professional regulation, and we feel we accomplished this on April 13, 2004, when the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants was created, which we supported initially. Our opposition is that we are very disappointed in CSIC's administration and behaviour, its biased mandate and bylaws. It is not to avoid regulation, but to avoid the wrong type of regulation, which has spun into self-gain for a specific group.

The journey toward regulation for immigration practitioners has been unconstitutional, since it was not approved by the Senate. Are immigration consultants really regulated, even with the existence of CSIC? I don't think so. The consumer protection is lost. There has been no such consumer protection since 2004.

There is a gap growing between the CSIC members, immigration lawyers, and the immigration practitioners of CSIP, who provide pro bono services. Since August 2005 we have had five directors of CSIC who have resigned due to misbehaviour and mismanagement. Also, close to 1,000 immigration consultants have resigned from CSIC as well, because of the type of mandate they are providing.

CSIC membership fees are too high, and therefore a lot of consultants are moving out of that society. Five lawsuits have been issued and filed against CSIC since its creation.

Our association has been encouraged to expose the public to the concerns facing CSIC's uncontrolled members. Complaints were received from the public, from consumers, and from previous CSIC members. Recognized professionals with long-term experience in immigration law were told that they had not passed the exam--repeatedly, several times--and that was surprising to us, because among them were retired and former professional senior immigration officers and previous practice lawyers.

These members did not have the privilege to approach the administrator at CSIC and be given the opportunity to negotiate another marking of their exams. The marking had been done by the staff of CSIC, not by a recognized educational institution. Although the members were entitled to that, since they had been charged high exams fees, they were shut out from the legitimate approach. Their rights were violated behind closed doors.

We also have grave concern with regard to how the membership exam was prepared for the members. Who are these experts in immigration law who were hired by the CSIC board at a cost of $760,000? Actually, the taxpayers had to cough that up, as that amount is part of the initial $1.2 million.

CSIP recognizes that Canada Immigration in and of itself will not resolve all of Canada's immigration challenges relating to consultants' practice, but it can be--and should be--a key instrument that can address some of these challenges, of course with the honourable minister's approval.

CSIP's efforts today are to find any abuse within the federal jurisdiction, which today is not in question. In recent months we've become aware of such abuse within the Canada Border Services Agency and the Immigration and Refugee Board. In a recent letter to CSIP, the Minister of Immigration, the Honourable Diane Finley, agreed with our position on investigating two appointments that were given to CSIC consultants with conflict of interest. At the moment, this investigation is being done by the two ethics commissions.

In 2004 CSIP published and delivered a discussion document calling attention to the importance of the recommendations submitted to the former minister. However, that submission was shredded and ignored. Instead, recommendations that were provided behind closed doors were implemented to benefit former Canada Immigration officers, their friends, and their supporters.

On behalf of our CSIP members, partners, and stakeholders, we propose the following agenda.

First, allow the minister to recognize other regulators for better accountability, transparency, and consumer protection across Canada.

Ensure predictability and stability through an escalator mechanism.

Find common principles through broad engagement with Canada Immigration across Canada, including lawyers.

Measure and monitor outcomes, sharing innovation and best immigration practices free of discrimination. Allow freedom of association and freedom of expression to all consultants, whether they are CSIC members or not.

We suggest that the honourable minister go into deeper inquiries until this situation is resolved in order to save time and taxpayers' money in the CIC department.

Finally, give our society federal recognition as an authorized immigration practitioner. After a deep examination of our administration, we hope the honourable minister will give us the chance to prove our professional knowledge and honesty in this matter.

Our society membership has increased to 9,000 members in a very short time--over the past three years. To this end, several steps have been taken to ensure that CSIC, as a federally authorized, not-for-profit society.... Its administration is not able to fulfill the mandate being given to it in the $1.2 million initial funding by the taxpayer. Unfortunately, four years later, CSIC has failed in its public consumer protection.

Is there any abuse of power within the federal jurisdiction? Yes. On April 13, 2004, CSIC board members claimed to be operating at arm's length from the CIC. Since the director of CIC....

I'm done?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I think I'm going to have to interrupt here. I did interrupt Alex, so....

I think you'll have a chance to address the rest of your concerns during question period.

[Nancy Salloum]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hani, go right ahead, sir.

[Elie Hani, Vice-Chair, Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners]

Good afternoon, Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Bonjour, Monsieur Carrier, Monsieur St-Cyr, and Madame Beaumier.

I flew in from Montreal on short notice to have this opportunity to raise some important issues concerning the immigration laws. I will also raise the code of conduct for members of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

I'm talking about Quebec, because I'm an administrator, too, of a church. We try to help needy people, especially newcomers, immigrants, refugees, and so on. I can assure you that we have large numbers every week coming to us complaining about the society members, the CSIC members. They complain about financial abuse and--we've looked into this, because we have three lawyers working with us in the office--poor representation.

This was in the news lately. The RCMP invaded one of their members in Montreal, someone very well known, and they seized 700 files. The complaint came through the Government of Quebec to the RCMP.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

If you feel more comfortable in French, we do have translation.

[Elie Hani]

French or English, I'm going to speak in both languages.

The complaint filed by the Quebec government touches the health ministry and medicare cards--there was someone inside the department playing with the medicare cards--CIC on both sides, and automobile licences and insurance. Most of his clients live abroad and have never been in Canada. Among them is the son of the President of Lebanon and many diplomatic people. This was in the news, sir. I'm not creating this story.

There are many, many other members doing the same, without any control from the society. We've advised many people to write and complain to the society. Their complaints are thrown in the garbage; there is no reaction.

Besides the lack of response, I would like to point out one major issue, which is the selection of immigrants here in Canada, which has been going on for a few years. It is very bad. We have people, very well-educated people, coming here and creating jobs and investing money and everything. Their applications inland are thrown out. They came as refugees. On the other hand, many others are on welfare and in street gangs, and their files have been passed through one, two, three, and they've been accepted. This is amazing. It has touched me and touched my family, as Canadians. This is something we have to look into very sharply and very seriously. We are asking the minister to put more controls on the agents and decision-makers inland and abroad.

Especially in the Canadian embassy in Syria, in Damascus, there is a lot of mumbo-jumbo going on. We are aware of it and have the proof, to prove it at any time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'll hear a point of order from Mr. Karygiannis.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, a lot of allegations are made here by Mr. Hani. I was wondering whether we could have some substantive proof of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's not a point of order.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

These are serious allegations, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Hani is free to use his seven minutes in whatever way he wishes. It's not a point of order.

I would ask Mr. Hani to continue his remarks.

[Elie Hani]

Thank you, sir.

Also, for the types that ministers issue, for the criteria for selecting the workers and the professionals, as you know, in Quebec we have a big shortage of doctors and nurses, and of workers, too. The Quebec government is now seriously studying moving retirement from 65 to 70 years. Why? It's because they are in jeopardy in finding people to work and to fill the job market. I believe similar situations touch most of the provinces in Canada as well.

We would like to sensitize the minister to modifying the immigration criteria by increasing the numbers of selective immigrants in order to help save the situation and to impose more control on citizenship and immigration offices either inland or abroad.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Hani.

I want thank all of you, on behalf of the committee, for your presentations.

We'll now go on to about 23 minutes of questioning. I have first on the list Mr. Telegdi, for seven minutes, sir.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the delegation.

The previous delegation was talking about decency, justice, and dignity that should be afforded to temporary foreign workers. Having listened too often to the same story over the past 10 years, I really have to wonder at times what kind of system we have. I think the gentleman from S.U.C.C.E.S.S. very correctly said that the system is broken. Unfortunately, as was mentioned regarding Bill C-50, it is the wrong fix, and we're going to end up in a bigger mess.

We spent undue amounts of time on “strippergate”, if you will, not because it's a problem but because the government perceives it as good politics. When I look at what we are doing with Bill C-50, I see that we're taking a system that has some guarantees by law and we are changing it and making it into a capricious lottery.

For somebody to decide that they want to be an immigrant to this country—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

On a point of order, Mr. Komarnicki.

[An hon. member]

It's not a point of order.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Let me first raise the point of order, and then perhaps the chair can decide; that's his job.

Number one, I know Bill C-50 is much on the mind of Mr. Telegdi. That bill will come before committee and will be studied, and there will be representations made by various parties.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

That's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order, please. I will hear the point of order first, if committee members don't mind.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Let me finish my point of order, and then you can disagree with it.

We said there were three things we were going to study here, and Bill C-50 was not one of them. There is a committee that will study Bill C-50, and it will be dealt with, and there will be representation. I know this member wants to get into it, but he should stay within the general confines of the area we are studying. There will be a time to study the other one.

I know the Canadian Bar Association representative chose to indicate his comments about Bill C-50, and that's fair, but that's not what we are embarking on to study, and I'm going to raise that because there will be a time that's appropriate for that and there will be appropriate representation. I think this member should stick to what we're dealing with specifically.