Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 25th, 2010

[Lorne Waldman]

Well, on the preferred course, number one would be a self-regulating body. Number two would be a government regulator, and this would be the least preferred option, because it's the one that provides the least ability to exert any kind of public control over the regulatory body.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

So what we're discussing, actually, is how to fix the least optimal choice.

[Lorne Waldman]

That's my view.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

One of the suggestions you made was for an amendment that would allow the minister to regulate standards, but although you can call on documents, it still doesn't allow the government to do a full financial or performance audit, does it?

[Lorne Waldman]

No.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So I guess we're onto another amendment, perhaps an amendment to allow the Auditor General to go in and audit this body. It almost seems as though we'd have to make a series of amendments to this. I'm actually getting somewhat unnerved, because you also made a statement—and we've heard it from others—that the way the process has been structured by the government, there's most likely going to be only one body that's going to end up being the regulator.

[Lorne Waldman]

I looked at the call for proposals, I discussed with people what it would take to come up with a reasonable proposal and also the amount of money it would take to get together everything that's required, and it would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Given that I don't see any interest in some of the bodies that might have applied, like the law societies or the Federation of Law Societies, which would be the obvious choices, I can't really see how any other body would come forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think that's it. Are you finished?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes. Has it been five minutes already?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, it's 4:30, and time has flown--and I'm going by the slow clock, too, I might add.

I want to thank you, Ms. Javier and Mr. Waldman, for your contribution to the committee today. Thank you very much for coming.

Before I suspend, I'd like to say something to the committee for your thought. There are five undertakings that have been given to the committee, and none has been given. I'll leave you with that.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

What do you mean “undertakings”?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I mean undertakings by witnesses to give us things.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

You mean that witnesses are to submit and respond back to—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

They are to give us things, to give us information, to give us statements.

This meeting is suspended for a moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll reconvene.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, on a point of order.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes, Chair. On the matter that was raised just before we recessed for a moment, I think it's important that the committee set a time for the various witnesses who had obligated themselves to provide information to the committee. I think that by the end of this week.... If we request it today or tomorrow morning, all of these individuals--they've had some time--should provide the information that they're obligated to provide to the committee by this Friday. If that could be put in writing to them, it would most likely encourage them to get that to us forthwith.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The clerk and I will do a letter to the witnesses.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you for that direction.

We now have our second hour. We have two witnesses. From IMMFUND, we have Holly L. Gracey, who is the chair, and John Ryan who is a member of the board of directors. We also have, from the Mennonite Central Committee Canada, William Janzen, who is a consultant.

I welcome the three of you to the committee.

Ms. Gracey, are you making your presentation?

[Holly L. Gracey, Chair, IMMFUND-IMMFONDS Inc.]

Yes, I'm making the presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have up to seven minutes, please.

[Holly L. Gracey]

I'll try to be fast.

Thank you for inviting me here today to speak to Bill C-35. I'm the chairman of the board of directors of IMMFUND.

IMMFUND was established in 2008 to offer consumers of immigration services an added layer of protection against the potential criminal activities of immigration consultants who are members of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. It is a wholly-owned not-for-profit subsidiary of CSIC, which has its own staff and board of directors. Since its inception, the fund has collected just over $1.2 million from CSIC members, who are required to make an annual contribution.

I'd like to take a moment to describe how the fund works. If a CSIC member is convicted for a criminal act in a court of law, and if that act resulted in the loss of a client's money, IMMFUND will reimburse the client for their loss. To date, there have been no claims against the fund, but we are aware of five cases currently before the courts that could result in claims.

l'II now turn to IMMFUND's position on Bill C-35. The provision for clear penalties is strongly supported by IMMFUND, because it should discourage those operating in Canada from continuing to practice outside of regulation. IMMFUND strongly supports Bill C-35 because it offers consumers added protection by closing a loophole that allows ghost consultants to front-end services and further prevents them from openly advertising their services.

Of particular concern to IMMFUND is the provision that gives the immigration minister the unilateral power to designate a regulatory body with a simple notice in the Canada Gazette. This awesome power could create instability in the immigration system. It is of paramount importance that Bill C-35 be amended to allow for the Governor in Council, and not the immigration minister, to select the regulator of immigration consultants and establish criteria under which this power would be exercised.

I want to take the opportunity to stress the instability that would ensue should any body other than CSIC be designated regulator as a result of Bill C-35. If CSIC ceases to exist, so too would IMMFUND, and make no mistake, IMMFUND provides an added layer of stability to the Canadian immigration system by offering protections to consumers that would not otherwise exist.

I was disheartened to hear one of my fellow CSIC members last week talk about the possibility of dismantling the fund. This viewpoint shows a complete lack of respect for consumers and a lack of understanding about how to run an effective regulatory body. It's important to remember that the job of a regulatory body is to protect consumers, which goes to the very heart of why it's necessary to create IMMFUND as a subsidiary of CSIC. Further, the foundations of its very existence guarantee that the assets of the fund would not be used for CSIC operations.

If CSIC is not recognized as the regulator, the $1.2 million that CSIC members have already contributed will not be returned to them, but would instead be repatriated to the parent corporation to cover any costs associated with the wind-down of its operations. I don't have to tell you that this would leave consumers without any source of potential compensation for criminal acts perpetrated by CSIC members until a new fund could be established.

IMMFUND is just one of the ways that members of CSIC work together to protect the consumers of immigration consulting services while contributing to the integrity of the immigration system. I urge this committee to act on the recommendations that IMMFUND has presented to you today in the interests of consumer protection and the immigration system as a whole.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gracey.

Mr. Janzen, you have up to seven minutes. Thank you for coming.

[William Janzen, Consultant, Mennonite Central Committee Canada]

Thank you.

This committee has heard stories of big swindlers, of big fish, and criticisms that this bill does not do enough to enable the government to go after them.

My approach or my emphasis is very different. I'm concerned about some small fish: small fish who are actually honest, well-informed, and transparent, but who do this work on a small-scale basis, on a part-time basis, and charge modest fees, partly because they're motivated in part by charitable considerations.

For them to go through the certification process, to take all the training, pay the membership fees, and go through all the professional development requirements, would simply put them out of business. They wouldn't do it anymore.

So this is a very different issue that I'm bringing forward and I appreciate that the committee is willing to also listen to these concerns. I did bring a document. I'm sorry that I couldn't bring it out earlier. I was invited to make this presentation on Friday, so I finished writing it only today. I brought some copies to the clerk. I don't know if all of you have received it or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Janzen, they will eventually reach the committee. Our problem is that they must be in French and English. Your documents will eventually reach committee members.