Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 1st, 2008

[Michael Toal]

I didn't name a particular company.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You didn't name Golden Horizon?

[Michael Toal]

They're a broker in the Philippines.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

So they're a broker and they recruited temporary workers for a specific employer here in Alberta.

[Michael Toal]

It was actually for Tyson Foods in Brooks.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

So you do not want to name the company in question. It's not in the public domain?

[Michael Toal]

I just did name Tyson Foods as using Golden Horizon in the Philippines to bring in the workers.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Okay.

According to what you said earlier, do you believe the Government of Alberta has come up short with regard to labour standards? I'm from Quebec, with the Bloc Québécois, and we don't hear about such problems in Quebec. I want to know why the situation is so serious here in Alberta and why there's such a great need.

Mr. McGowan said there were 24,000 temporary workers last year here in Alberta. Why can't local workers meet the demand? Do you find it normal that we're in a situation where a country is risking its international reputation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We are eating into the time of our next panel, and we have to be out of here by 5 o'clock. It's essential. As Don Newman says, I have to manage time.

[Al Brown]

Mr. Chair, I can answer a bit of that.

You asked why we don't hear of these employment standards violations, etc., so much in Quebec. Quebec has the highest union density of all provinces in Canada. Alberta has the lowest. That tells you something about the employment standards legislation in this province.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

This has been a very interesting afternoon, a very interesting hour. Thank you very much. You made some great submissions, and I think we're going to be able to use a lot of what you said.

We'll take a short break while our next witnesses come to the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I want to welcome today Lynn Gaudet, immigration consultant; Tanveer Sharief, immigration consultant; and Peter Veress, founder and president of Vermax.

I think you know the way we operate. You can make an opening statement, and then we will go to committee members for questions and comments. Feel free to make your statements in whatever order you like.

Thank you.

Ms. Gaudet.

[Lynn Gaudet, Immigration Consultant, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity. It is not with pleasure that I come before you, but with a heavy sense of responsibility. I speak as one member of CSIC, but as you can see from the consultants at the table and in the audience who have come from Calgary today to support this submission, I am not alone.

I have been a CSIC member since the outset. I also maintain my membership in the Canadian bar and am active in the immigration section in Calgary. I have supported the CSIC initiative in a myriad of ways, and continue to do so through my time and leadership in various industry initiatives.

For over 20 years, in the course of my legal career, I have worked with non-lawyers in one way or another, teaching and writing about the law, to allow them to take up roles in the legal system responsibly for the public benefit. I left a copy of my CV with the clerk, if the committee is interested. This initiative is no different, but I know that the long-term success of CSIC requires the mandate to be carried out with transparency and accountability, and that is not happening.

The public's interest here is that all consultants be competent and ethical, and the board itself is making many questionable decisions in that regard. So I raise my voice before such a worthy initiative as this, designed to counter one untenable situation, becomes a blight on the good reputation of Canada's immigration program.

Accreditation and discipline are the core of the mandate. Indeed, if these were tackled diligently, the education part would look after itself. There are numerous education tools in the immigration marketplace today, and CSIC could simply support them and focus on the unique aspects of its core mandate.

It could, for instance, develop a five-year plan, including such things as the number of consultants that could feasibly be brought on stream each year and absorbed into the industry. The plan should be debated and endorsed by the members so that we are all on the same page. But the members have gradually come to realize that the board has no intention of seeking members' approval for any direction of the society, now or ever.

On the contrary, it has adopted a go-it-alone attitude that is damaging the initiative greatly. At CSIC there is no plan or transparency on important matters of interest to members, especially financial affairs. There is no democracy in decision-making, as members have been denied all normal means of holding the board accountable. I outline 10 of these in my brief, but the main ones are: the denial of an in-person annual general meeting, the denial of the ability to compel a special meeting of members, and the denial of the right of members to bring forward motions for changes we want to see in the society. Hence, there is no accountability.

We see the results. Decision after decision seems to many of us to be too ad hoc, ill-considered, outside the letters patent, overly extravagant, poorly implemented, etc. But members have no ability to act, as the board does not consult with us or meet with us. I think it is a dangerous path for program integrity.

Because the board has systematically denied members their rightful role in overseeing the society, members are powerless to prevent any abuses or excesses of the mandate. They also cannot take up that responsibility now because specific institutional barriers have been erected to prevent that. These need to be dismantled.

There are five main rights denied to CSIC members that must be reinstated immediately. First is an AGM. Despite the bylaws that provide, in my view, for an in-person AGM, we have not had one because the board will not call one. The board refuses to meet with members in person to discuss the affairs of the society. So we need the right to an in-person AGM.

We have no ability to requisition a special meeting no matter how serious the concern and no matter how many members sign a written request. The board simply deleted the provision for special meetings in the final version of the bylaws, which it passed unilaterally without member input or consultation.

We have no right and no fair process to put motions forward for discussion. We need the right to put motions forward so that changes that a member seeks can be made.

We have no transparency. We need a transparency policy. There are very few things in a member-funded organization that would not be known to members. If there are exceptions, they can be listed, but the principle should be openness.

Minutes of board and committee meetings must be available to members so that we can exercise our right to oversee the affairs of the society and to call special meetings when necessary.

And finally, on financial oversight, we have no finance committee of members that is advising the CEO and the treasurer concerning the financial affairs of the society, with a careful eye on members' funds.

If we had these tools, we would not likely have the issue we now have, which is a second organization. By some sleight of hand, CSIC has morphed into two organizations with two CEOs and the concomitant dilution of the core mandate. Now CSIC members are compelled to pay for two organizations. The costs, the conflicts of interest, the inefficiency, and the distraction from the core mandate have not been justified to members.

If directors can form commercial subsidiaries without the members' approval, as happened here, where does this end? Next year will we see the world migration institute with three CEOs and a branch office in China?

Frankly, I think that CMI Inc. is a vivid illustration of the type of nonsense that members would have outright rejected if they had a voice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm sorry, I have to interrupt you.

[Lynn Gaudet]

Are we pressed for time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We're going to need some time for questioning, so maybe you can get the rest of your comments in when we go into the question and answer period.

Could I just go to Ms. Sharief, and I'm sure there'll be plenty of questions for you, Lynn, about what you had to say.

[Lynn Gaudet]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Ms. Sharief.

[Tanveer Sharief, Immigration Consultant, Commissioner for Oath, Immigration Plus, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Distinguished members of the standing committee, colleagues, and ladies and gentlemen, good evening. I'm honoured to be here today as a member of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. I'm here to point out some of the items related to the high costs of CSIC and its effects on the members and the public.

Members pay a very high membership fee of $2,562 a year, which includes an administration fee of $100 for payment by installment, an insurance fee of $150, and an administration fee of $75 to pay the insurance. Members also must accumulate 40 CPD points per year, at a very high cost, to retain their membership.

Last year, to receive 15 mandatory CPD points, members paid $800 plus air travel, hotel, and other expenses to attend CSIC's two-day mandated CPD seminar. You can imagine for the rest of the 25 we have to have thousands of dollars to buy those CPD points. Those who could not attend the conference had to buy the video for $800, even though much of the information would be outdated. Excessive penalties for late payment and NSF cheques are applied.

CSIC's board requires a lot of funds to maintain its lifestyle. The expensive Bay Street office's lease costs about $238,000 a year. The board members have paid themselves a high compensation package without input from the members. There is no ceiling on the number of meetings, phone conferences, trips to Toronto, etc., and there are monthly flights, hotels, meals, and additional perks. Both chair and vice-chair have taken $12,000 courses to learn how to be a director—at our expense.

Last year, they announced international trips to China, Australia, and New Zealand. The board chair as well as board members and the CEO have made trips at the expense of members.

There is also conflict of interest. They have set up CMI Inc. Actually, CSIC is a non-profit organization, yet CSIC directors have incorporated a for-profit organization, which is CMI Inc., to sell education courses at a very high cost in their own personal capacity, which is against the letters of patent of CSIC. They're awarding substantially more points for expensive courses that generate large revenue, while discounting education that members find very useful by giving fewer points.

For example, CMI Inc.'s two-day course in Toronto costs about $800, and the instructors are CSIC directors and staff. It is worth 20 CPD points, whereas the two-day CBA conference is awarded only 10 CPD points. So they're discouraging members from taking something that has educational value.

CSIC has entered into a competition with other education providers in the industry, like the CBA conference, the Immigration Consultants' Listserv, the Immigration Practitioners' Handbook, and CAPIC's courses. They are available, but CSIC will not advertise them on its website.

On March 20, we heard that the CEO, Mr. Ross Eastley, was moving over to CMI Inc. to be the managing director and John Ryan will be the CEO of CSIC. So we're going to be paying for two sets of directors' fees and two sets of books and websites.

The AGM is another conflict for us because the current bylaw requires an in-person AGM. The CSIC board of directors has insisted on an online AGM only, so it doesn't have to answer the members. All of our petitions for a special meeting and an in-person AGM are ignored. All of our motions for the AGM were rejected. The motions were actually submitted by Lynn.

There is a desperate effort being made by the CSIC board to raise funds. Now CSIC has invited Ontario paralegals to join CSIC without having to do any immigration practitioner program, which is against CSIC bylaw 10.13, sections (b) and (c), which require an applicant to go through an immigration practitioner program, meet the language requirements, and pass a full membership exam.

There are hundreds of students in Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary. They are planning to have student membership fees and the CPD again from the students.

The high cost of learning fees have an impact on the mandate. It's affecting members as well as discouraging potential members from joining.

The membership fees could have been used on discipline, because fraud and incompetence is the reality that is hurting the industry.

My request to the standing committee will be to recommend that the visa board establish a finance committee of members to oversee the financial operations of the board and also to set up a commission of inquiry to investigate the directors' compensation and to set up the managing audit so they can be reported to members.

I don't think this board is working with the members and it should be removed and an interim management team should be appointed.

Some way should be found to reduce the membership fees, alternative premises for CSIC offices should be found, and an alternative to current CPD requirements should be set up by other means, because this is not working out for the members.

It is really difficult for us to communicate, to compel them to listen to members--and they're not listening to us--so we can have some kind of transparency, accountability, and democracy in CSIC so members can communicate to the directors.

Those are all my requests for today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Ms. Sharief. Very well said.

Mr. Veress.

[Peter Veress, Founder and President, Vermax Group Inc., As an Individual]

Thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

Today I appear before the committee to speak about two issues. One is immigration consultants, and, more important, the other is the undocumented workers. Unfortunately, due to an administrative oversight and problems, I have to forgo the second issue. In the interests of time, I'll leave my speaking notes with the members so they can look at them at their leisure.

The issue was that we were looking specifically at the rights of the employer as opposed to just the workers' rights. I think it's an important piece that's missing from the discourse about foreign workers.

I invite you to take a look at those speaking notes and perhaps take those notes into consideration as you deliberate.

On the matter of regulation of immigration consultants, I wish to go on record as adding my voice in support of the points made by Ms. Gaudet and Ms. Sharief. Both submissions speak to the main challenge facing the regulating body and the members it purports to regulate, the society's lack of accountability, and its seeming inability to fulfill its mandate due to the gross inefficiencies and lack of focus that created quite a bit of grief for the system and I think for the members it purports to regulate.

I do not wish to take up the very valuable time of the committee reiterating the points that were made. There is little I can add, but I would certainly be here to entertain any questions you may have.

Thank you for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you. We have plenty of time for questions, so I will go to Mr. St-Cyr first. Everyone will get a chance.

Mr. St-Cyr, Mr. Komarnicki, Ms. Chow, and Ms. Grewal. Go ahead.

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

C'est bon.

I listened to your presentations and I read through the briefs you submitted to us, Ms. Gaudet and Ms. Sharief.

In your presentation, Ms. Gaudet, you used the term “Kafkaesque”, and I find that really describes appropriately what you've said. It's disconcerting to see that a society that was created by federal statutes and that receives money from the federal government can be so mismanaged.

A few years ago, I was in a student movement when I was at university, and not a single student association would behave in such a grotesque manner, at least not in Quebec. It's quite unfortunate to see what's happening.

I have a few questions for you, to better understand the situation.

First, you said the federal government would have to intervene. It seems very obvious. I would like to know whether you approached the government on this issue, and if yes, what its response was, what its attitude was.

Second, when I read this, I wonder if another solution would simply be to put the society under another authority, or perhaps there could be a less drastic solution that you could tell us about.

[Lynn Gaudet]

[Inaudible--Editor]...brought this first to the attention of the current minister, Diane Finley. The Toronto Star published an exposé last summer in which it made a concerted effort to find out what was happening with the area of discipline. They produced an award-winning series of news articles. Members were very concerned about that, as were other immigration watchers in the country. I actually wrote to the minister at that time, because someone on the minister's staff was quoted in that article as saying that it was up to the members to evaluate CSIC.

I wrote a lengthy letter to the minister, setting out the specific steps that the board had taken to make sure that members did not have any such ability, even though, of course, that was the intention, that was the vision. I can understand why anyone would think the organization was operating that way, as most organizations do, but in our case that was not happening. I sent that out in July to the minister, and I received a non-committal letter, indicating that they would look into it.

On your second point about another authority, I'm not aware of another authority that would be the logical one here, with a federal mandate like this. I think the matter of principles has to be established. No matter who is sitting in the chair, there have to be expectations that in this country things work on accountability—that is what protects the mandate—and if the members who are interested, and have been involved for as long as some of us have, had the ability to make a plan.... We have lots of experience; we have lots of good ideas, but the principles have to be established, and that's what has happened here.

It's a unique operation in that for three years the board did have the legal right to make all decisions unilaterally, and there was a reason for that: there were no members. But still and all, I put myself in that situation. If I knew that it was a team effort here and that you people were all going to be members, I would have been consulting, and certainly on the bylaws, which are the contracts between the members and the board. There was lots of opportunity. Unfortunately, what happened was that the board became increasingly enshrined in the lack of input, and now we have the situation we do.

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

I'm not sure I was quite well understood. I used the term in the sense to be put under a certain form of control; there should be some independent, external body appointed by the government that should perhaps make decisions. Given what the board has done, and if what you're saying is true, I don't see how you can get out of the situation. I don't want to rain on you right now, but it seems to be an extremely difficult situation.

I would ask that the society appear before us and explain their actions, and I do hope that the other parties support me in calling them to appear. If unfortunately they are not accountable to you, but if other parties will support the Bloc Québécois, I believe they will have to appear before the committee and be accountable before the committee here.

I find it quite astounding that in a democratic society such as ours an organization that isn't a private organization but an organization created by federal statute can act in the manner that you've described in quite some detail. I don't usually make such long comments. I like to leave time for people to respond, but the situation seems to be so astounding that I thought it was important to underscore that I believe the society will have to be accountable before the committee.

However, I would like to ask you a question. In Quebec, and as far as the same situation in other provinces is concerned, we have legislation governing professional boards. For instance, I'm an engineer, so there is legislation governing us and other professions, whether those be nurses, notaries, lawyers, etc. Do you not believe it would be better for consultants if their profession could be regulated by the provinces, provinces that have competencies to regulate professional orders, rather than at the federal level where there is no such expertise?