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?