Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 9th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome you here today as we continue our cross-country tour.

We're the immigration committee of House of Commons. We've been mandated by the House of Commons to hold meetings on three very important matters: temporary and undocumented workers, immigration consultants, and Iraqi refugees. We're going to meet in almost all provinces—nine provinces, I believe. We've already met in five provinces. We will finish up in mid-April in St. John's, Newfoundland.

We will have heard approximately 52 panels of representatives, soliciting their views on these very important matters. At the conclusion of our meetings, of course, we will have our committee and our officials compile a report based on the evidence you've given on these matters, and we will have the report presented to the House of Commons.

Our committee has representatives from all parties on it. Some of our people are a bit tardy this morning. We have two or three more who'll be along shortly.

We will now begin hearing from our witnesses. First, we have, from the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, Mr. John Ryan, who is the chair, as well as Rivka Augenfeld and Imran Qayyum.

Thank you for being here.

I think you're aware of how our committee works. We give you opening statements, and of course, the committee members may want to interact and question later on. But you do have an hour, and we invite you to begin in whatever way you wish.

[John Ryan, Chair, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants]

Thank you, Mr. Chair; and good morning, everyone. Bonjour tout le monde.

My name is John Ryan. I'm here this morning to address the committee in my capacity as chairman of the board and the acting chief executive officer of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. I am here with my fellow CSIC board members, Imran Qayyum, who is the vice-chair of the society; and Rivka Augenfeld, who is a public interest director from Quebec and the secretary of the corporation.

I would like to thank the chair and the committee for being in Toronto today and allowing us the time to speak on the issue of protecting both the integrity of the immigration system and the consumers of immigration consulting services.

I will speak to you from the perspective of a regulator, describing our role and some of the challenges, and yes, even some of the frustrations that we have regarding the investigation of unauthorized, improper, and unscrupulous practices, and the need for enhanced penalties under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants is an independent, not-for-profit organization, at arm's length from government, whose members are recognized as authorized representatives. Since April 2004, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, only authorized representatives have been able to represent for a fee immigration applicants before the minister.

CSIC is recognized by almost all of the provincial governments, except Quebec, with respect to their provincial programs. CSIC is responsible for regulating the activities of 1,277 members, as well as setting education standards and testing for competency.

In the first few years of our existence, we have put in place membership standards, an enforceable code of conduct, a credible complaints and discipline mechanism, an errors and omissions insurance requirement in favour of the consumer, and mandatory professional development education requirements for all members. We work from an established comprehensive strategic plan, a multi-year budgeting plan, and we submit to independent financial audits that are presented to our members on a regular basis.

We carry out regular, extensive, and ongoing communications with members, we publish all decisions following the outcome of our hearings, and each year there is an open election process for CSIC directors.The board of directors is accountable to the members through the annual general meeting and special meetings that have been held and will continue to be held, and members may bring forward duly constituted motions.

[Rivka Augenfeld, Public Interest Director, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CSIC very recently established the Canadian Migration Institute, the CMI, a wholly owned subsidiary of CSIC, which now responds to a need for quality French-language training for members and programs for legitimate providers of immigration services who are not certified Canadian immigration consultants, CCICs. That's what they are called.

Over the last three years, it became apparent to the board that the marketplace had not, nor would it, provide adequate educational opportunities in French to those wishing to undertake immigration consulting as a career. At the same time, CSIC identified the opportunity to use those same educational vehicles as a means of giving back to the community by allowing NGOs and government employees access to training that was previously available only to CCICs.

In four short years, I believe that CSIC has become an effective and respected regulator of certified immigration consultants. However, more is required of the Government of Canada to deal with unauthorized representatives who seek to circumvent the Regulations and the will of Parliament. For example, it is not CSIC's role to carry out investigation and enforcement activities related to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—that remains the purview of the Government of Canada. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides for general offences and penalties. It is our view that more is required of the Government to enforce these provisions as they pertain to unauthorized representatives.

Our position is that stronger enforcement by the Government of Canada is required and that this can be achieved by clarifying roles within the federal government, adjusting the way federal organizations administer regulations, and making statutory revisions.

CSIC however believes that increased enforcement is only one of the ways in which the government can better fulfill its role under the model. Much more effort must be made by the government to inform immigration applicants of the existence of the protections provided by authorized representative bodies such as the law societies, the Chambre des notaires and the CSIC through its web site and printed materials. Empowering the consumer to make a more informed choice at the outset, when he or she is considering hiring a representative, is a far more cost-effective approach than depending on expensive enforcement after the fact.

CSIC is of the view that there is a need to clarify the respective roles of CIC, the IRB, CBSA, RCMP and local policing agencies relating to the investigation of unauthorized or improper practices and enforcement. For example, it is unclear whose role it is to investigate those who provide consulting services for a fee but are not “authorized representatives” under the Act and which of these organizations has been adequately directed and resourced to conduct investigations and take enforcement action as warranted. It is our view that there should be clearer directives as to what would trigger an investigation.

[John Ryan]

Mr. Chair, with the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, in 2004, CSIC became one of the regulatory bodies whose members are recognized as authorized representatives by CBSA, CIC, and the IRB.

“Authorized representative” became a defined term under section 2 of the IRPA regulations, and section 13.1 was added, which states in part: “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.”

In its policy manual known as IP 9, the immigration processing manual published by CIC, which is meant to be an administrative interpretation manual, CIC has interpreted this regulation so it does not apply to any unauthorized practice that sees rogue agents charge excessive fees and have clients submit their application independently to CIC. The policy should go further to enable the minister and her officers to investigate whether fees have been paid to an agent prior to the submission of the application. Further, the CIC manual also exempts education agents, for example, who advise applicants and assist in the preparation of documents, as well as organizations seeking potential immigrants and charging cost recovery fees, such as the International Organization for Migration, from having to meet the “authorized representative” definition.

We believe that CIC's interpretation of the act is not consistent with the intent of Parliament, which was to determine whether someone being paid to assist an applicant is authorized to act in this capacity. We recommend that applicants be required to disclose any assistance they paid for in the preparation of their application. This change can easily be accomplished by adopting the wording of an earlier draft of the use of representative form, the IMM5476, which is created by CIC and distributed in their kits, and that was circulated to CSIC and other stakeholders prior to adoption of the regulations. Further, we recommend that organizations seeking potential immigrants and charging cost recovery fees be required to meet the definition of “authorized representative”.

The third area of recommended action would result in stronger enforcement by the Government of Canada through its statutory revisions. “The Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants” —the same report that resulted in the creation of CSIC—recommended that penalty provisions be included in IRPA to specifically address unauthorized and improper practice. We encourage the standing committee to recommend to the minister to adopt recommendation 31 of that blue ribbon committee and to make the necessary changes to the act.

In summary, we respectfully request that the committee recommend to the minister that the government bring about stronger intelligence and enforcement provisions related to unauthorized, improper, and unscrupulous practice. This can be accomplished by clarifying the roles of the federal organizations, making changes to the CIC manual that interprets and administers the regulations, and making the statutory revisions recommended by the minister's advisory committee on the regulation of consultants.

We don't believe, though, at the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, that enforcement is the only answer. We also call upon the committee to recommend to the minister that they increase their public education in terms of communicating the fact that people should be thinking twice about who they choose as a representative at the front end, so we don't have to pay expensive enforcement costs at the back end. That's a valuable use of our resources.

We, at the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, remain committed to our role of consumer protection through regulation. We are also committed to fully cooperating with the Government of Canada toward stronger intelligence, information, and enforcement measures that would ensure the integrity of the immigration consulting profession and protect the consumers of consulting services.

Thank you. I'd welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Ryan.

The opening statements have been completed.

Do you have questions, Mr. Telegdi?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Could you tell us from your experience what percentage of people are represented by consultants who are licensed versus people who have unlicensed consultants?

[John Ryan]

To be honest with you, I was on the minister's advisory committee as one of the participants, as was my colleague Rivka Augenfeld, who co-chaired that committee.

Initially we estimated the number to be in the neighbourhood of 6,000. However, when we took a second look at it, after the committee--we did our own studies at CSIC--we lowered that to approximately 3,000 in terms of those practising inside Canada. Outside Canada, CIC doesn't have a clue. We don't have a clue simply because it's unregulated and the figures aren't tabulated. However, offshore, I would say, there is probably a much larger problem in terms of individuals who are practising as agents, certainly as education agents and employment agents.

For example, when I was in China, I visited with the public security ministry. They regulate and issue licences to 200-and-some companies that are practising in mainland China, which is one of Canada's top source countries. How many consultants and agents and people are working there legally and illegally is an open question and is certainly not one the Chinese government could give me any comfort on.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

When I visited our mission in New Delhi I was talking to officials. They told us about an individual who had applied for a visa, and while the person was standing in line, somebody came along and said,“You have to do this.” So the person submitted inaccurate information. The person would have had a visa if he had submitted the correct information, but he was talked into submitting the wrong information, and of course he didn't get a visa.

Now, the situation, on my subsequent visit to Delhi, had changed. You have licensed agents assisting both in visa applications and in landing.

As for the question of what happens abroad and to what extent we can really educate, you hear horror stories. Somebody might take a whole group of people from the former Soviet Union and convince them that Canada is the place to go and assure them that they could get here, and of course, at the end of the day it turns out to be a big hoax. People lose a lot of money, they are disillusioned, and of course it ends up giving Canada a black eye--not that it's any fault of ours, but this is the way it works out.

What kinds of experiences did you have at overseas missions?

[John Ryan]

Thank you for your question. I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think there are things we can do to address the exact problem you're talking about. We have written CIC, and we've had a number of meetings with Citizenship and Immigration Canada about this.

Simple consistency of messaging on the international websites--the DFAIT websites and the CIC websites--is an example. Let's use the example of Beijing. If you go to the Beijing website, to the mission, and you look at what's available in English, it links back to the main CIC website in Canada. Of course, most people get their information in Mandarin. Would it surprise the committee to know that there is absolutely no information in Mandarin available to the consumer about authorized representatives and the protection measures that the Government of Canada has put in place? There is nothing, nada, not even a mention. That means that you have a whole industry that has been able to carry on despite the rules being changed here by Parliament and the Governor in Council in 2004.

There are other examples. If you look at other websites, you will see similar messaging.

So I think the government, in a very cost-effective way, could simply streamline its messaging, inform consumers at the front end, and empower consumers to make the choice when they're deciding if they're going to hire someone. I think that's our obligation. We can do that through the kits and we can do that through the websites. So I think there are steps we can take.

There is a limit to our legal ability to get at offshore agents. Under the model, the immigration officers overseas are essentially administrative gatekeepers who are there to see whether an application filed is from people who are authorized representatives: lawyers, consultants, or Chambre des notaires. I think there is still a need to maintain that administrative gatekeeper role, but I think we could go miles by giving proper information to the people who are actually the consumers, the vulnerable consumers making a choice at the front side of this equation, rather than by putting a lot of our money into enforcement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Ryan.

Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

[Imran Qayyum, Vice-Chair, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants]

Could I add something?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Please go ahead, sir.

[Imran Qayyum]

Thank you.

Just to add to Mr. Ryan's comments, we at CSIC, from early days, adopted and have been continuing on a consumer empowerment and education process. In the very early days, we placed ads in many of the top source countries' national newspapers in the languages in which they were published--for example, Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu, and Mandarin--and we continue. At present we are placing ads in over 40 ethnic newspapers published throughout the ethnic communities in Canada. Again, those advertisements are in the local languages of the publication.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Good. Thank you, Mr. Qayyum.

I'll go to Mr. St-Cyr.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for being here. As you probably know, certain individuals who came to testify before our committee pointed out that there were governance problems at the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

I have a series of very simple questions to ask. I simply want to check the veracity of their remarks. As I have a number of questions, I ask you not to launch into explanations and simply to tell me whether it's true or not.

Certain individuals emphasized that the society's current by-laws did not permit anyone to request an extraordinary meeting. Is that correct?

[Rivka Augenfeld]

No. You'll find the by-laws in the kit we provided you. Pardon me, but it will be little bit longer—

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

I just want to know the section number.

[Rivka Augenfeld]

The by-laws concerning annual meetings and social meetings are in sections 11.2 and 11.3 of the by-laws that you have.

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

Thank you. It's claimed that, rather than hold an annual general meeting in person in the summer of 2007, you only held an online meeting. Is that correct?

[Rivka Augenfeld]

Mr. St-Cyr, since our members are all across Canada and in a number of countries around the world, we thought that the fairest thing for everyone would be to have an online meeting, which is permitted by by-law. We tried to hold that meeting, which resulted in no costs to members and was very fair.

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

As you'll understand, madam, I only have seven minutes. You don't need to justify yourself. I just want to check certain matters.

[Rivka Augenfeld]

Yes, I understand. That wasn't a justification. I wanted to tell you that it was possible.

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

Those same individuals claim that they introduced four motions at that general meeting, supported by 70 or 100 signatures. Those motions requested that members once again be granted the right to request a special meeting, to adopt a transparency policy, to establish a finance committee consisting of members in order to control cost overruns and to review the compensation of directors and to limit that compensation to $30,000. Those individuals claim that those four motions were rejected without even being placed on the agenda and debated. Is that correct?

[Rivka Augenfeld]

Mr. Chairman, the tabling of motions is subject to by-laws and very clear deadlines. The motions were submitted after the deadlines, which were published well in advance. We have to respect everyone, and the submissions were filed after the stated deadlines. They were rejected, but they would have been considered if they had arrived on time.

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

The witnesses who appeared before us were obviously required to tell us the whole truth, since otherwise that would be contempt against the House. With respect to the online general meeting of June 16, 2007, these witnesses told us that they could not speak out and that the only person who had that privilege was the chairman of the board. Is that correct?