Evidence of meeting #31 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 quebec.
Conservative
Human Rights Educator, Education and Cooperation Department, Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission
The commission is currently conducting two investigations into allegations of discrimination in the exercise of rights of seasonal agricultural workers. We are also examining the situation at [Inaudible - Editor] and the protection of live-in caregivers regarding occupational health and safety.
Lastly, the commission emphasizes the importance of respect for the rights of migrant workers, in particular those of agricultural workers and live-in caregivers who are vulnerable. Consequently, we believe that the Government of Canada should ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Joining that convention would make it possible to revise the program as a whole in order to offer the best possible protection for the rights of temporary migrant workers, but also to guarantee them internationally recognized human rights protection.
We thank committee members for receiving us in the context of these hearings.
Conservative
Representative, Consultant, Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec
In conclusion, I'd like to say that I'm very comfortable with the proposal that Ms. Folco has made. Workers who come here on a temporary basis and who have the opportunity to diversify, as Ms. Folco said, could advantageously fill jobs that we don't want to occupy for all kinds of good or bad reasons.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you very much again for coming in today. We really appreciate it.
We'll have a two-minute break and we'll get ready to bring our third panel to the table.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
We'll try to bring our meeting to order.
We welcome an individual from the Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners, Mireille Gauthier, chief executive officer; and Mr. Prashant Ajmera, as an individual, who will be presenting today.
You have seven minutes each, please, and then our committee members will ask questions or make comments.
You first, Ms. Gauthier.
Mireille Gauthier Chief Executive Officer, Montreal, Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners
May I point out before I start that my colleague is representing himself, obviously, but he is also a member of the association in question.
Conservative
Chief Executive Officer, Montreal, Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners
Mr. Chairman, members, my name is Mireille Gauthier. I'm officer 6901 and a member of the Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners, commonly known as CSIP, which was created in the year 2005.
Bloc
Chief Executive Officer, Montreal, Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners
I'll do a small part in French.
Chief Executive Officer, Montreal, Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners
For the moment, the text is in English, and it's easier to read. I'll deal with that a little later.
Chief Executive Officer, Montreal, Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners
Thank you. The accent is obvious, I'll give you that. You do your best.
Obviously CSIP is never to be confused with CSIC, which is the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, counting approximately 1,000 members who have indicated to us their desire to join and leave CSIC.
CSIP is chaired by Mrs. Nancy Salloum, and her association regroups 9,170 satisfied accredited members throughout the world, anxious to profess immigration duties with honour, competence, experience, and honesty.
Our philosophy as a unified regulatory body for our members is to represent the interests of the practitioners in Canada and abroad. We are therefore seeking self-regulation with federal recognition as paid representatives.
Mrs. Salloum requested that I be here today to represent her as CEO and as a member of her association since March 1 of this year. Now, if you permit me, I would like to give you a very brief overview of my business experience to date.
I started working as a senior information officer for two federal departments, Transport Canada, followed by Statistics Canada. They were temporary positions, and when my term was over, I was hired on a full-time basis by Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, from 1982 to 1987. I was given the title of Director of Communications for Quebec. That position was intended to bring together the main communications components, such as press relations, advertising, sales and so on. When I headed the communications service in Montreal, I was assigned to Ottawa to the same duties for three years.
Then, from 1987 to 1999, I was employed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which is a federal department, as an officer responsible for presenting cases, and I presented immigration cases in court. I was subsequently promoted to the position of minister's representative at that time. I had to appear in various immigration courts to defend the department's interests and those of the minister of the day. Since 1999, I have managed my private practice, where I advise clients and prepare the best programs to meet their needs, again in immigration.
I'll continue in English, with your permission.
I'm here today, however, to prove that CSIC has built up prejudice against certain individuals who, in the year 2004, were anxious to join their society as willing and experienced consultants. I am one of their victims, and I was not able to find out to my satisfaction why the society had created a wall of resistance against me.
To elaborate on the subject that I just mentioned, I would like to give you as proof two examples of the “less than acceptable” treatment that CSIC has given me in the past.
I took the knowledge test six times—March 27, 2006; June 26, 2006; October 30, 2006; December 17, 2006; March 25, 2007; September 30, 2007—at a cost of approximately $553 each time, payable in advance. I failed the written test every time. When I requested results of my failures, it was to no avail.
It is difficult for me, obviously, to understand, if my knowledge of the immigration law regulations was not sufficient, why did the government or Immigration Canada retain me on their staff for so long? My knowledge is also definitely superior to others with only one or two years of immigration experience in the private sector, as I have 12 years of experience in the private sector.
I entitled my number two example “Non-Respect of Confidentiality”.
On November 30, 2004, Maître Andrea Snizynsky of Montreal filed a complaint against me to CSIC, based on her opinion that only lawyers could file an application for judicial review with the Federal Court. Three years later CSIC exonerated me for lack of evidence.
Afterward, a very strange incident occurred while I was sitting in my office. I deposited the documents as proof with your secretary. On April 17, 2007, I received an anonymous fax containing signed letters and elements of my personal claim file. After research, I could not find the origin of the fax number, which was 514-344-8134.
I immediately informed CSIC's Maître Setton-Lemar, of the complaints and discipline department, of the incident. She agreed with me that the breach of confidentiality on the part of CSIC was evident and she would secure an investigator to look into the matter. May I point out that I never heard from her again on this subject, nor did anyone else contact me on said subject.
Now, this incident is a serious one. Who within the association had access to my personal file? Why are the claim files not kept in a secure environment? What were the intentions of the person who faxed me a copy of my file, making certain that his or her identity would be kept secret?
Perhaps the individual faxing me the documents had entertained the intention of sending them to the media, tarnishing my image forever. Was the CSIC investigation clean, exchanging evidence without my knowledge? These concerns were never answered.
There are two things to remember here: the lack of security for the protection of members' private files, and the lack of action on the part of CSIC to find out who sent me the documents and why.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Madame Gauthier, may I interrupt you for a moment? We're into 12 or 13 minutes now, and I realize you have quite a number of pages there that you wish to present to us. When we get into the question and answer period, you may be able to give us some information in the answers you give us. But could I now go to Mr. Ajmera? It's in the interests of time management that I have to do it, and I'm sure our members have questions that they want to ask as well.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Ajmera.
Prashant Ajmera As an Individual
Before we start, I just want to ask whether everybody has a copy of my presentation.
Conservative
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Mr. Chair, this is just a reminder that the witness can submit it to you, and through you, we can get it in both French and English versions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Yes, we'll have it translated and we will certainly have it.
Mr. Ajmera.
As an Individual
Let me start officially by saying thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of Parliament, for giving me an opportunity to present my views on the immigration industry, which is the only profession I practise or which I know how to do in Canada.
Let me give you a brief introduction about myself. My name is Prashant Ajmera. I am an Indian lawyer, and in India I practised in provincial high court, in the federal government attorney's office, for six years before I immigrated to Canada. I have been associated with an immigration law firm here in Montreal since I arrived in 1993 and have been practising as an immigration consultant since 1995.
Before coming to Canada, I was living and studying in the United Kingdom, where I completed my third degree, which was in corporate management. I applied for immigration to Canada under the Quebec program and arrived with my family—my wife and a daughter—in 1993.
The next point I want to talk about is in general the Canadian licensing system and CSIC licensing. As we all know, the Canadian Constitution has accorded the provincial governments the power to regulate the professions, except the profession of immigration consultant. However, over a period of time, the provincial governments gave these powers to professionals in each respective profession, who then formed the self-regulating licensing bodies for more than 45 professions in each province across Canada.
These self-regulating bodies are governed and managed by professionals who are practising in the same profession. It is but human nature that these professionals have had and will continue to have a vested interest in protecting their practice and interest by limiting the number of new professionals entering the profession. Certainly these self-regulating bodies cannot stop Canadian-educated professionals from entering into their profession. But each and every professional licensing body in Canada has been successful in making it difficult, or in many cases impossible, for foreign-trained professionals to acquire a Canadian licence to practise their profession in Canada.
These self-regulating bodies have successfully achieved their objective by setting impossibly high and impractical standards in the name of consumer protection and Canadian standards.
The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants is a classic example of this flawed licensing system in Canada. It is managed by people who have vested interests in the immigration industry in Canada and set unrealistically high standards for consultants to obtain a licence to practise immigration law, in the name of consumer protection. This has resulted in the elimination of more than 800 consultants from the society. Many of these consultants continue to practise immigration without being a CSIC member or hiring the services of a CSIC member or a lawyer.
Concerning my experience with CSIC, rather than regulating and disciplining immigration consultants against whom complaints have been received by CSIC, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants began to intimidate hand-picked consultants who had resigned and raised their voices against the society and its operation. This was very well orchestrated by the former CSIC investigator, now an Immigration and Refugee Board member, who appeared before this committee on March 12, 2008.
I myself was a victim of CSIC's high-handed policy. You can read about my experience in the detailed submission provided.
Regarding regulating immigration consultants in Canada, one of the general recommendations I would like to make is that there should be several classes of consultants, as most consultants do not and cannot provide services in every area of immigration law. These classes of consultants can be divided into consultants who wish to practise only refugee and detention law and wish to appear before the Immigration and Refugee Board; consultants who wish to process cases belonging to the economic class, temporary resident class, and family class; and consultants who wish to practise in every area of the immigration law.
The Law Society of Upper Canada in Ontario makes such a distinction when it certifies the lawyers who specialize in different areas of immigration law. In order to identify the problem in the immigration industry and regulate it, we need to look at each area of temporary and permanent immigration with a category to understand in which area the consumer may be most vulnerable and most likely to be exploited by an immigration consultant or a lawyer.
One is visitor visas. The only consultants who can be regulated in these categories are consultants who hold a Canadian immigration consultant's licence.
Second is the student visa. Due to the difficulties in obtaining an immigration consultant's licence and long delays in immigration processing, many consultants operating outside of Canada are now involved in an immigration practice for foreign student recruitment by becoming an agent of a Canadian education institute. This class of consultant is specifically exempted from IRPA and from being regulated by CSIC or any such licensing body. The Canadian education institutes should be asked to hire the services of only licensed consultants.
Third are work permits and job offers for permanent immigrations and PNP skilled workers. This is the area that needs to be regulated very closely. Due to long delays in the immigration process, job offers for temporary workers and permanent immigration applications are being arranged by immigration consultants and lawyers to expedite the process. Immigrating to a new country with a job offer provides a sense of security to the applicants and it also helps to expedite the immigration process. As a result of this, the largest number of frauds committed by lawyers and consultants within the immigration industry occurs in this category, where the consultants can arrange to obtain job offers from Canadian employers and charge high fees to prospective immigrants.
Also, the latest policy by Citizenship and Immigration Canada to fast-track permanent immigration processing of applicants with a related job offer will add fuel to the fire. The applicants are ready to pay any amount of money to consultants or a lawyer who can arrange an HRSDC-approved job offer from a Canadian employer.
Similarly, except for in the province of Quebec, all provincial nominee programs have a prerequisite of a related job offer, and in those cases also, these problems exist.
A fourth category includes refugees, detentions, and IRB tribunal cases. This is another area of immigration practice where many frauds are being committed by consultants and lawyers. The foreign person claiming refugee status is most vulnerable in this category for a simple reason: that economic, political, or social conditions in the applicant's home country are not favourable. The applicant may have taken help from some agent or individual to reach Canada, may have little or no money, and may have minimum qualifications or understanding of the English and French languages. These are the people who have little hope, and in such situations, anyone who gives them any kind of hope is a godsend. Hence, they become easy targets for greedy consultants and lawyers.
Most immigration frauds are committed within Canada, and if the right action is taken to find this fraud, a major problem in the immigration industry can be solved, at least within Canada.
The last point is on the skilled workers and the business class. These applicants live outside Canada and they may be represented by consultants or lawyers from Canada as well as consultants originating outside Canada. However, a very small problem exists in this class, and no special measures are warranted, in my opinion. However, it is important that the consultants in and outside of Canada be regulated by means of a fair, transparent, and reasonable licensing system operated by the federal government.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Ajmera, how long did it take you to get to Canada once you applied?
