Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 18th, 2010

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

How many members does your organization have?

[Philip Mooney]

We have approximately 450 members.

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

How many of them are in Quebec?

[Philip Mooney]

Mr. Allam?

[Tarek Allam, President, Quebec Chapter, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants]

Sixty.

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

In your presentation, you said that you would possibly participate in the competitive bidding process that would take place under Bill C-35 to fashion a new regulatory body. I think you also said that you have partnerships with other organizations.

Could you explain to us quickly what that's about?

[Philip Mooney]

We have a dedicated group of volunteers, ranging in number from 30 to 50 right now, who are working on all of the provisions that are necessary to build a better regulator. Combined, the individuals have hundreds of years' experience in the business. Many of them are long-time former employees of the department.

We are in the process right now of sharing with our members all of our discussions to date. Then we will be formulating our bid, with assistance from some professional resources that we have added on to do that. We will be looking for endorsements from other stakeholders in the process.

I'm happy to share as much as I can with you about this process, given the understanding that some of the information is--

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

Unless I've misunderstood, your organization oversees the discussions of a number of participants. They discuss, as individuals, what the new organization should be like.

[Timothy Morson]

That's exactly right. CAPIC has no intention of appointing itself the new regulator.

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

As part of those discussions, you have probably read the first recommendation of the committee's report on immigration consultants, which calls for the Quebec Government to regulate consultants practising in Quebec.

If the committee were to go with that recommendation and to introduce amendments in response to the bill, the Government of Quebec would have the opportunity to create a professional order, to appoint or create an organization of its choice, or to negotiate an agreement with the organization selected by the federal government.

I understand that my question is hypothetical, but let's assume that an organization based on and inspired by your work is designated by the federal government. Do you think it would be reasonable to believe that that organization could agree with the Government of Quebec on regulating Quebec consultants, taking into consideration the distinctive Quebec regulations, especially those pertaining to Quebec immigration legislation and knowledge of French, which is a requirement in that province?

[Philip Mooney]

I believe that is not only a desirable outcome but also a very workable solution. The difference between now and two years ago is that the Province of Quebec has already enacted rules that all of us--including me, if I want to practise in Quebec, and my compatriots--must follow. We look forward to complying with these rules.

Rest assured that if we're involved in the structure of any better regulator, they will be heavily involved directly in the province of Quebec to facilitate that process.

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

As things currently stand, Quebec consultants shoulder a double burden. They have to be members of the current regulatory body, CSIC, in addition to having to pass Quebec exams, French tests and so on.

Do you not think it would be better if those consultants came directly under the authority of a single organization that would have negotiated an agreement in advance with Quebec to ensure that consultants meet federal and provincial requirements?

[Philip Mooney]

Yes, I believe that would be a desirable outcome.

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

If memory serves me right, Mr. Morson, you talked about the issue of defining the prohibition we are currently discussing, that is, amending section 91 as suggested in clause 2 of the bill. Holding the title of immigration consultant is not explicitly prohibited, unlike the prohibition in the case of professional orders. I am a member of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, and those who aren't members of that order cannot call themselves engineers and put that title on a business card.

It seems to me that no provision in this legislation precludes someone who is not a member of one of the recognized organizations from handing out business cards with the title of “immigration consultant” on them. Is this how you interpret this provision as well? Does this concern you? Do you think that we must protect not only the practice of a profession, but also the title itself?

[Timothy Morson]

Yes, I agree with you.We should probably have a provision protecting the title. However, there is also the extraterritorial issue. It was brought up earlier, but I don't know how we could apply the regulations abroad. That is why we are wondering what the expression “conseiller quelqu'un en matière d'immigration” means. The English version uses “advise,” which is a very vague term. Let's consider third parties, legitimate organizations, such as travel agencies, which, in good faith, complete basic visa forms for travellers who want to visit Canada. Would a travel agency, for instance, be breaking the law by doing this? I think that situations like these force us to pay more attention to detail when it comes to wording.

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

Very well.

Let's talk about extraterritoriality. The Government of Quebec has adopted new measures requiring applicants to state whether they paid someone for immigration advice. This measure was adopted in order to try to keep track of consultants from around the world and to possibly exclude some of them.

Do you think that the federal government should also add this measure to its legislation?

[Philip Mooney]

Absolutely. We think that's essential to closing the loop in making sure that individuals who are paid for immigration consulting services are either attorneys or immigration consultants. If there's no onus on the individual who's paying for the service to report that, basically we have a broken system. Individuals could very easily cooperate with ghost consultants to get their applications done, without ever disclosing that they had done so. So we support the rules that Quebec has implemented, and we encourage, in the detail that comes out on Bill C-35, that this also be included.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Chow.

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

CSIC has a fund that is supposed to compensate people. It's IMMFUND. Do you plan to have something like this that would give an added layer of protection against the fraudulent activities of immigration consultants? So if you've been cheated, you would get your money back. Is that something that a regulator should do, or is it an area that is a bit grey?

[Philip Mooney]

That was a requirement in the original contribution agreement with the federal government. They said we had to establish a fund. We have errors and omissions insurance. It costs about $220, and I think $75 of it is an administration fee. So the cost of our errors and omissions insurance is very low, because the number of complaints and the monetary rewards to individuals for errors and omissions have been very low in the past five years.

However, there are times when an individual will commit an actual criminal offence against an individual in terms of fraud. That isn't covered under errors and omissions insurance. So the federal government asked that a fund be set up designed to assist individuals in claiming for damages because of criminal acts of members of the society.

In the first two years, we have never heard of a case where a claim has been made. We have all contributed substantially to the fund, to the tune of $800 to $900 per member. The fund sits at over $1 million, I believe. The only thing we know about the fund is that there are administrative costs--it has a board of directors and staff--but there have never been any claims. We have asked repeatedly for more information on that, and it has not been forthcoming.

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

Do you think this kind of fund is necessary with the new group? Is it a good idea to have a fund like this?

[Philip Mooney]

This was considered to be a really important step in the early days, but if in two years there hasn't been a claim processed under the fund, or very few complaints, either the rules are too tight--and the rules are fairly restrictive--or there is really no need for such a large fund and as much administration.

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

Bill C-35 is mute as to whether this should or should not exist. So is it an area that we should probably look at, whether the rules are too tight or whether it's important to have such a fund?

Maybe our lawyer friend can enlighten us. Is there such a fund for lawyers? If there's a criminal offence, then I could apply for some kind of support.

[Warren Creates]

The law societies operate based on errors and omissions insurance. The rates are rather high, and it's not because there are claims against immigration lawyers that result in monetary damages that are paid out to victims of that. It's mostly, realistically, fraud.

It's an insurance policy. It's expensive to operate and administer, but it's necessary because there are going to be persons who are victimized and they need to be compensated in some way.

How do you compensate someone based on a failed or negligently prepared refugee or immigration claim? It's very, very difficult in our current system to quantify that. I don't think it's ever been tried, but it may have.

With regard to returning fees, many of the complaints we heard earlier about disputes involving clients and their consultants have to do with fees. There's a legitimate case, at times, perhaps, to be made that fees should be returned, so that they're put back in the place they were before people hired the consultant who ripped them off.

I like your question. I think there's merit to it. Obviously, it's not in this piece of legislation. If this is the opportunity for the country to regulate in this area, this is the chance to do it. Rather than doing it on a piecemeal basis, it should be done comprehensively.