Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members. I just hope that familiarity doesn't breed contempt.
Our remarks and our presentation today will actually be very brief. We would like to leave lots of time for questions. I'd also like to apologize in advance for the simple nature of the comments I'm about to make. There was a time in my corporate life when I used to think that the more I wrote, the more I said, and the more technical language I used, the smarter I looked. Then I became a grandfather and I realized that simplicity is certainly a much better way to go. So I hope you'll accept my remarks in terms of better communication.
Thank you.
On your website, in the statement describing the purpose of these hearings you reference immigration consultants and state, I quote: “While many immigration consultants provide valuable advice and services to their clients, some unscrupulous ones provide poor and even unethical advice and services, sometimes charging unconscionable fees to a client base that is ill-equipped to seek redress.” You go on to say that you want “to identify issues and make recommendations to address abuses, within the federal jurisdiction”.
Our presentation today deals with the rules concerning authorized representatives and how the intent of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act has been subverted by a single phrase in an operations manual. As you heard Mr. Ryan state, which I think is worth repeating, regulation 13.1 states that “no person who is not an authorized representative may, for a fee, represent, advise, or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the board”.
The intent of the act is clear. Consumers must be protected, so Parliament decided that immigration consultants must be regulated. CSIC was set up to achieve that task. The wording of the regulation is clear. Authorized representatives are defined and are described as lawyers, members of the Chambre des notaires du Québec, and CSIC members.
The limitation of the regulation is perfectly clear. It applies only if a fee is charged. Yes, it was clear to everyone, except apparently CIC. Sometime after the regulations came into effect, CIC inserted in part 9 of their inland processing manual, which is the instruction by the department to its officers, one simple phrase that protects unregulated agents. That instruction reads: “It is important to understand that CIC, the IRB, and the CBSA are interpreting the regulations to mean that R13.1(1) does not apply to any representations that are made to a client before an application is submitted to CIC.” In other words, an applicant is obliged to disclose the name of their representative on the use-of-representative form only if the individual will represent them once the application is submitted to CIC, either at the time of submission or post-submission.
Now, you're holding hearings because abuse persists. Because of IP 9, unregulated consultants can not only operate with impunity, they can advertise on billboards in front of CIC offices. They can and do advertise their services on websites. They can and do advertise their services in the ethnic press. And then some are so brazen as to state, when a customer receives an inquiry from CIC after the application and is panicking about a possible refusal, that they cannot help because the application has now been filed and it's illegal for them to do so.
The intent of the act is clear. The wording of the regulation is clear. The solution is also clear. CSIC is in place to police the activities of regulated consultants, but who can pursue unregulated consultants, especially when you have IP 9 clouding the issue? Changing the wording in IP 9 to the effect that representation starts when a fee is paid or arranged to be paid for a service would allow all authorities involved to pursue unregulated agents. This would help to control abuse outside the profession, because only those actually authorized could legally be advising, preparing, and submitting applications on behalf of clients for a fee. All others would be subject to the penalties under law for issues such as fraud, misrepresentation, etc.
We can all conjure up a picture--and I think this speaks to the intent of the act--of a dingy café in a foreign land, or maybe even a bright cheerful café in downtown Toronto, where a poor unsuspecting consumer is cheated of his life savings by someone who promises him a service. That person advises the consumer on what's possible and even prepares applications to be filed over the customer's signature. We all agree that this consumer needs protection, even if the unregulated agent is actually experienced, well-intentioned, and competent, since we know that CIC will not deal with that person if problems arise at a later date.
We know that you've heard submissions on various issues concerning consultants, but in our opinion, this issue alone does more to affect consumer protection than all other issues combined. The remedy we propose is very simple. The wording of IP 9 must be changed. By changing a few words, we give the authorities in Canada the tools necessary to enforce the law as Parliament intended, so consumers are protected. By changing a few words, we give our associations and members the moral authority to write offshore publications and ask them to stop running ads for unregulated agents. By changing a few words, we bring the provision of immigration-related services in line with the provision of other legal services. By changing a few words, we restore integrity to the system. By making a recommendation to CIC to change a few words in IP 9, this committee will move closer to achieving its objectives.
I've kept my remarks simple. I would now like to yield the microphone to my associate Mr. Amlani, whose expertise in this area is unequalled and who actually has a technical explanation for some of the information that's included in our brief.
Alli.