Evidence of meeting #27 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consultants.
Downtown Legal Services
Absolutely not. They don't have a statute that empowers them to do any of those things, and that's the problem.
Staff Lawyer, South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario (SALCO)
One of the most important things we all have to consider about whether the statute should be federal or provincial is the perspective of the clients we're dealing with. We are regulating professionals, but it's the clients out there--the vulnerable and marginalized individuals--who are going to be bringing forward these complaints and need to be more educated about where to go.
If we're looking at something federal, it is a huge task to coordinate the activities of the regulatory body all across the country and educate various communities within each jurisdiction. That is something we need to look at. Provincially, if you localize it, you may have a better ability to have a network to reach people in terms of outreach, education, knowledge, promotion, and keeping track.
I'm not an expert on whether something should be federal or provincial; I'm just telling you that from the perspective of our clients, they need something accessible. So accessibility is a key thing to look at when we're thinking about how to regulate.
Director, Communication (Toronto), Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners
May I add something?
Director, Communication (Toronto), Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners
We can compare the provinces regulating their own to the provincial nominee programs. You can base it on a framework like that. But there has to be an appeal mechanism, and the law society of each province would be a good recommendation. The law society regulating consultants would be a conflict of interest. It doesn't make common sense. We can go down a list of things. Immigration is worldwide. The law society is provincial; each province has a law society.
Conservative
Wajid Khan Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Mr. Hechter, would you like to comment on that? Is there a conflict of interest?
Conservative
Downtown Legal Services
I don't perceive there to be a conflict of interest. That's our position.
One of the models we're looking at is a federal statute that could contain a clause for a provincial opt-out, in a sense. In provinces such as Ontario, where paralegals are already regulated by the law society, discipline and enforcement could be handled by the law society, which has centuries of experience and a proven track record. In other places where they don't have that kind of provision, the federal statute would cover it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I have a few minutes for Mr. Carrier and a few minutes for Nina Grewal.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
The question we're debating today is important. I'm an engineer, as is my colleague who spoke earlier. So we know that profession. A few years ago in Quebec, the École de technologie supérieure trained technicians who were virtually engineers, but who were not recognized as such. That matter was discussed for a number of years and, following negotiations, the École de technologie supérieure added certain types of training to its programming so that its graduates would be recognized as engineers by the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec. We see that, with time, certain things can be corrected.
The major benefit that my colleague mentioned is that, in Quebec—and I cite the example of Quebec because that's the place I know best—the Office des professions du Québec governs and controls the professions. To my knowledge, we have at least 20 professions or so, if not more. For example, there are the naturopaths, the osteopaths, as well as certain professions that may be considered minor in some cases, but that are supervised by a professional association, which is overseen by an organization.
Mr. Hechter seemed to be reluctant and to say that immigration is a federal matter that it would be difficult to apply at the provincial level. Let's take the example of the Bar Association. Lawyers have to know the federal as well as provincial statutes. They are recognized for the purpose of handling immigration cases because they, in principle, know the immigration laws. Perhaps it would be a good idea to create an immigration consultant specialty. We would ensure that immigration consultants receive minimum training, thus making it possible to supervise them more effectively. That would be one route, since a number of people want that profession to be regulated, no matter by what organization.
Do you want to respond to that?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Please make a brief response, and then we'll hear a question from Mrs. Grewal.
Downtown Legal Services
I'm happy to begin to address that. I think my colleagues probably have something to say about it as well.
What really makes me happy, hearing your question, is that ultimately we're talking about the details. Everybody here seems to agree that we need a statute, and whether that statute is federal or provincial, okay, we'll figure that out. There are certainly arguments on both sides.
We're going to be presenting you with a proposal in writing not too long from now with those arguments laid out, I think, a little bit more clearly than I am in a position to do right now because we haven't finished our research. But the bottom line is that we need a statute, and if it's a provincial statute that happens province by province, or if it's a federal statute with provincial opt-out, or if it's just a federal statute that regulates across the country, that's what we need.
Member of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, Co-Chair, Education Committee, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants, As an Individual
I totally agree.
Director, Communication (Toronto), Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners
I'll go ahead. Well, you go ahead, because I forgot what I was going to say now.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
That's fine. In any case, since we have to leave soon, I'll be satisfied with that answer.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I'm sorry about that. Now we need a couple of minutes from Ms. Grewal, and then we'll have to break for lunch, because the next group is scheduled for one o'clock.
Conservative
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would just like to echo what Mr. Khan said, and here today we have discussed a lot about these unscrupulous immigration consultants. So my question to each one of you is this. What new or further consequences should be imposed on these unscrupulous immigration consultants? Please, could each one of you answer my question?
Director, Communication (Toronto), Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners
I'll start.
First of all, the unscrupulous consultants will exist no matter what you do, because there have been just too many of them for such a long time, and by the time you go through the system and get it down to a manageable level, a long, long time will have elapsed. This is why I go back to saying that there's more accountability if each province takes care of this matter. The government has to set up something national to take care of the immigration consultants who are outside of the provinces' jurisdictions, and there has to be a whole new regulatory binding for people who are practising outside. I know lawyers practise outside the country, but lawyers are held to the higher standard and immigration consultants are not. So you're not really comparing the same thing.
So we're all talking the same language. We all agree that it's not working now, and we all agree that changes have to be made, so I'm saying that provinces should do their own thing. The provincial nominee program could serve as a model. The appeal mechanism is the law society of the province, and these people have to do their job. If these people do their job, this is going to discourage phantom—that's the word that is used at CSIC—immigration consultants—
Conservative
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you. I would like to give a chance to other people. Thank you.
Director, Communication (Toronto), Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners
I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Member of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, Co-Chair, Education Committee, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants, As an Individual
I don't think I'm in a position to say what should happen to such a consultant, but whatever should or would happen should be clear and transparent, and everybody should know what the consequences are. Right now there are no consequences.
Staff Lawyer, South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario (SALCO)
One of the things we do at SALCO that I think maybe should be specified as a role for the Canadian government is to provide better education and knowledge to people in the communities about what their rights are and about what an immigration consultant is. I don't know if CSIC is doing this adequately or not. They need to know what to expect from an immigration consultant, what type of behaviour is and is not acceptable, what type of conduct is criminal in fact, and what type of conduct they can complain about and how. I think having those types of materials available to the community is very useful.
So I think that is something the Canadian government should take into consideration, whether or not we have a statute in place at this time.
The second thing I wanted to say is that any statute that is going to be disciplining immigration consultants not doing their job should be based on what's already in place in different jurisdictions—for example, lawyers. You can be fined. You can be suspended. There can be an expulsion of your membership from the law society. There are warnings that can be put into place. Perhaps there is not adequate training for certain consultants so that they don't know what their professional code and ethics should be, so training should be provided as well.