Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 9th, 2008

[Philip Mooney]

We have approximately 670 members.

[Sean Hu]

About 200.

[Julia Bass, Law Society of Upper Canada]

We have 40,000 members.

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

I'll continue with the Law Society of Upper Canada. I find that name amusing because I imagine it dates back to its founding. It's amusing to this member from Lower Canada.

In a letter, the Canadian Bar Association expressed its concerns about the ability of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants to perform its role adequately. I believe you also share that concern.

[Julia Bass]

The society's powers commence only when a case is before the board, whereas a whole range of problems begin well before that.

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

To your knowledge, in Ontario, for example, apart from immigration consultants and lawyers, are other persons authorized to provide legal advice for a fee? In other words, are immigration consultants the only exception or are there others?

[Julia Bass]

If you're talking about authorized people, there aren't any others. There are exceptions for non-profit organizations. However, no one else is authorized to do so.

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

In Ontario, to provide paid legal advice, you have to be a lawyer, the only exception being the—

[Julia Bass]

You're talking about cases that are before the board. There is indeed a lack of regulation of the activities of consultants who provide private advice, as a number of other witnesses said.

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

I would like to know something else. Since we started these consultations, my thoughts—

[Julia Bass]

Pardon me, I'd like to add something. The Law Society of Upper Canada is now responsible for paralegals. However, the board and the minister announced that, to date, they were not authorizing the paralegals to whom we grant a licence.

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

All right. You emphasized in your presentation that there is an absence of any real regulatory and control power by the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. I have a question. In the provinces, all these structures already exist. As far as I know, in Quebec, there is the Ordre des ingénieurs, the Barreau, the nurses, chiropractors, and so on. These professions already have a legal framework. In addition, even though they are self-regulating, there is also the Office des professions du Québec, which oversees the whole structure, in the event an organization goes off track, so that it can bring them back on the straight and narrow in a lawful manner. Each of these professional associations has powers granted it by law for its implementation, whereas that does not appear to be the case at the federal level. The federal government seems to have no expertise in this area.

Wouldn't it be a more effective solution to transfer all control and regulation to the provinces, which already have the jurisdiction and legal structure to do so, rather than to control that directly at the federal level, where there is obviously no expertise in the field?

[Julia Bass]

I hesitate to take a position on exactly what we should do. The fact is that we need regulation with government powers. That's the problem. At home, we've just created a regulatory system for paralegals, within the Law Society of Upper Canada. The model is somewhat different in Quebec, where they have the Office des professions du Québec and other organizations, as you said. The fact is that, in order to have the full range of regulatory powers, you have to have government powers in a statute, not in a private society.

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

That's somewhat my point of view. There are a few sections in the federal act that creates and delegates authority to the Society of Immigration Consultants, whereas the regulations of the professions in the provinces are extremely complex, detailed and developed. Rather than reinvent the wheel and try to redo the same thing at the federal level, which would be extremely complicated, wouldn't it be better just to tell the provinces, which know how to do it, to handle it?

[Julia Bass]

If I may correct you slightly, one may even wonder whether it's actually delegated to the society. We think this is a question of actual delegation between the federal government and the society. That's the source of the problems.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Komarnicki, please.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you. I have just a couple of questions to Malcolm, and one to Mr. Mooney.

You indicate that paralegals are governed by the law society, is that right?

[Malcolm Heins]

That's correct.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Now, the paralegals themselves are not lawyers. They don't go to law school, I gather.

[Malcolm Heins]

That's correct.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

But they do provide legal services of one kind or another under the supervision of a lawyer?

[Malcolm Heins]

No, we are responsible for our regime, whereby independent paralegals can provide legal services. The law society is responsible for determining the areas of competence in which they can provide those services to the members of the public in the absence of supervision. As well, we're responsible for the accreditation of their credentials to do that.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

So you do have non-lawyers providing services similar to what lawyers provide, but they're regulated for discipline and competency through the law society?

[Malcolm Heins]

Correct. We have exactly the same regulatory authority over those individuals as we do over lawyers.