Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 25th, 2010

[Lorne Waldman]

One of the recurring complaints I've received from members of CSIC, who have approached me in different capacities, is a complete lack of transparency of the organization. There is a failure to hold public membership meetings. They attempt to hold them on the Internet or by teleconference, which has resulted in several failures because they don't get a quorum.

There is a lack of transparency in how money is spent and how much money is being paid to the board of directors. There are concerns about conflict of interest between the Migration Institute and CSIC, with both being directed by similar people. There are allegations by people that the discipline process is being used as a means of preventing people from running for the board of directors.

Those are all things I've heard about CSIC from people who I've been in contact with. Some of these matters are now in the course of being litigated in the courts. I'm involved in three cases, and in all three cases, the Federal Court judges who had to give leave found that there was a serious issue that warranted the court considering the judicial review. The cases are going to be scheduled some time in the next few months.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

In your reading of Bill C-35--and you've mentioned that we may end up in a situation where only the current regulator, CSIC, actually has an application and is chosen to be the future regulator--how much changes within this system? How much of a real level of transparency is the minister going to be able to compel with the modifications brought forward by Bill C-35?

[Lorne Waldman]

The only governance provision in the bill, the only new power the minister has, is the power to demand documents. That's why I've said there would have to be amendments.

The minister can demand financial statements or other documents from CSIC, but that's not enough to answer all of the other concerns. There would have to be a power added in the bill to ensure that the minister can create minimum standards of governance, so that a regulation could be passed requiring an annual public meeting, requiring that any new organization allow the members, or 20% of the members, say--

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

So I'm--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sorry, but you're out of time.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

I would like to go back to the question of jurisdiction.

You mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court. Since I am not a lawyer, I will do my best with this. In my opinion, since current legislation essentially allows the federal government to decide on who will appear to represent a client, the Supreme Court determined that the government could say who it wanted to deal with and that it was its choice.

In my view, Bill C-35 is heading towards something much broader. It is not only a question about regulating who represents a client before the federal government but it is also about regulating the whole profession. This would include consultants who only do preliminary consultations, even before getting to the applications.

Would you agree with me that there is a change in the scope of the legislation? Do you think that, with this new legislation, the Supreme Court could now arrive at a different decision in terms of the federal government's jurisdiction to regulate the profession of consultant?

[Lorne Waldman]

I think Mangat made it pretty clear that the federal government has jurisdiction to regulate consultants. That would allow them to create a regulatory body like CSIC and then to impose conditions on the body. I don't think any constitutional issues would arise from this legislation.

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

Earlier, I pointed out the two meanings of the French word “compétence”.

In Quebec, if a professional body goes off the rails, the Office des professions du Québec could eventually take action and put a professional organization under administrative supervision in order to set it straight.

Could you tell us whether you have this in Ontario and the other provinces?

[Lorne Waldman]

In Ontario there are a lot of provincially regulated professions: architects, engineers, lawyers.... I think most professions are regulated provincially.

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

Is there something beyond that, which would allow action to be taken if a professional association was not doing its job?

Let's take Quebec, for example, because that's the situation I am familiar with. If the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec decided to no longer consult its members, to no longer hold general meetings and to no longer have elections, the Office des professions du Québec would have the authority to intervene, to place the association under its trusteeship, to hold elections and restart everything.

The federal level does not have that. You have clearly showed it. There is no way to intervene in an organization's internal affairs. Does the system that we have in Quebec also exist in Ontario or other provinces?

[Lorne Waldman]

Well, for example, I've looked at the legislation of the law society of which I'm a member. It allows the Attorney General to intervene in certain situations to require documents and things like that.

I think the same would be true with most other regulatory bodies. The ministers responsible would have the power to intervene if they believed that the body was not running its affairs in accordance with the public interest. I'm not aware of there being some kind of superbody in Ontario.

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

Okay.

Again, to continue comparing what is already in place in terms of professional associations, not only do most of them regulate the practice of a profession, but they also protect the title, making sure that only the members of the organization are allowed to describe and present themselves as engineers, lawyers and so on.

It is not clear whether the bill will prohibit people from distributing business cards on which they claim to be immigration consultants, although they are not members of that association.

Is that your understanding too? If so, do you think we should introduce an amendment to explicitly forbid the use of the title of immigration consultant by those who are not members of the association?

[Lorne Waldman]

That's a very good idea. You're precisely right. It wouldn't be breaching the law if a person handed out cards saying, “I'm John Smith, Immigration Consultant”. People only breach the law when they start giving immigration advice. I think it's a good idea to regulate the use of the term.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Uppal.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Javier, for your presentation. It's quite obvious that you're very passionate about what you do and are very concerned about the would-be victims of these crooked and ghost consultants. You mention the different types of ghost consultants. You're right when you say that there was a time when it could have been just a family friend or somebody who was trying to help somebody out, but this has obviously become a very large business now.

From your experience--because you've dealt with a number of these cases and hear a lot of these stories--how significant an issue or problem are these unscrupulous immigration consultants or ghost consultants? Do you have a percentage of the number of people who come to see you?

[Maria Yvonne Javier]

In the last couple of years, there have been more. I don't really have numbers, but they're significant enough for it to cause a problem or to cause some concern.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

You mentioned that one bill is not going to solve all of the problems. We agree. I agree with you. Any piece of legislation cannot solve the whole problem, especially some of the concerns you raise about other countries, about things that happen outside our borders. Sometimes a lot of this fraud happens where the application originates, and it's very difficult for a Canadian piece of legislation enacted here to apply outside of our borders and regulate the industry there.

But here in Canada, would you agree that because the bill regulates consultants, or applies a penalty or a fine on these crooked consultants at any stage of the application, it would help in cracking down on some of these people?

[Maria Yvonne Javier]

I don't mean any disrespect, but I don't agree.

If the title of the bill were about cracking down on CSIC and the industry itself, the immigration consultants, perhaps, but when the title of the bill is about cracking down on ghost consultants--

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

On crooked--

[Maria Yvonne Javier]

--on the crooked consultants.... Because they're not even part of the equation. You see, here's the way it is: there is a desperate person who wants to come in, and there is a swindler, and they're both outside. This operation is not going to work at all without the cooperation of the immigration officer and CBSA. But with this, it works. CSIC and all the other immigration consultants are out of the picture. They're on this side; the problem is on that side.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

If somebody were to set up an immigration consulting company--and I'm talking about setting one up that's not registered, not with CSIC or any other regulatory body--how does that person get others to know that he or she is running this business? How do they get the word out? How do they reach out? In my experience, from what I've seen, they will advertise in different ethnic newspapers and that type of thing. Is that your experience?

[Maria Yvonne Javier]

Yes, they advertise, and it's by word of mouth. When they are able to bring somebody in successfully, people find out about it.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

People find out about it even though they're not registered.

[Maria Yvonne Javier]

They do, yes, even though they're not registered.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Providing that advice and not being registered actually is breaking the law, and now this bill would give the authorities the ability to go in and stop them. So there is a way now for these ghost consultants to be caught, in the sense that they can no longer advertise and they can no longer freely go out and tell people what they do. Because definitely, as you said, the word would get out. Correct?