Evidence of meeting #35 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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Bruce Perreault  Member of the Canadian Bar Association and of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC), Founding Director, Canadian Association of Professional Immigrant Consultants (CAPIC), Bruce Perreault and Associates
Ross Eastley  Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Migration Institute
Dawn Moore  Director, Canadian Migration Institute

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

I want to welcome here today, from the Canadian Migration Institute, Ross Eastley, managing director and chief executive officer; and Dawn Moore, director. We also have Bruce Perreault and Associates. Mr. Perreault is a member of the Canadian Bar Association, a member of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, and the founding director of the Canadian Association of Professional Immigrant Consultants.

It's good to have you here.

We're ready to begin. You have opening statements. Mr. Perreault has already informed me that he'll go overtime a little with his statement, and that's just fine.

Go ahead, Mr. Perreault.

1 p.m.

Bruce Perreault Member of the Canadian Bar Association and of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC), Founding Director, Canadian Association of Professional Immigrant Consultants (CAPIC), Bruce Perreault and Associates

Honourable members of the standing committee, ladies and gentlemen, I'm hopeful that my comments will reflect an attitude that comes from wanting the very best for CSIC and for the Canadian consumer of immigration services.

Let me first introduce myself. My ancestors came to this country some 15 generations ago. I'm very proud to be Canadian and proud of the very two distinct cultures that laid the strong and well-anchored pillars of our country in such a manner that we are able to accept so many from around the world who, like the founding cultures, come to these shores in search of a better life.

My name is Bruce Perreault. I'm a native son of Nova Scotia and had my early education here. I attended St. John's High School in New York, where I obtained my high school diploma. I received a bachelor of arts degree from Loyola College at the University of Montreal, and a law degree from McGill University. I completed the bar admission course of the Law Society of Upper Canada and practised law in the province of Ontario for some ten years. I was and continue to be a member of the Canadian Bar Association and of the immigration section of the bar.

I believe I have a very unique perspective on some of the issues you've been asked to report to Parliament on because I have been a member of both the Law Society of Upper Canada and CSIC. To the best of my knowledge, in Ontario there are no other CSIC members who are members of the bar and continue to be a member in good standing of the Canadian Bar Association.

I was a founding director of CAPIC, an organization that advocates for education and legal reforms in the field of immigration before the Government of Canada and was the predecessor organization to the founding of CSIC. CAPIC was initially composed of a majority of CSIC members.

Today, to be a full member of CAPIC, you must be a member in good standing of CSIC. You have already heard from the president of CAPIC, Mr. Phil Mooney, whose views I fully support; you have heard from the chairman of the board of CSIC, whose views I fully support; and today you will hear from Ross Eastley, the chairman of the board of the Canadian Migration Institute, whose views I fully support.

I did not come here to speak against anything, but for something. I came to share my views on a profession that came into being very recently, a profession that is still experiencing some growing pains, and with them, different views on how that growth should take place.

You have heard many testimonials and submissions for reform. Some have been born out of fear and anxiety, and others out of political posturing to gain an advantage by one group over another. I wish to address my own perspective as an observer of the process you are investigating.

The dilemma of men and women engaged in the practice of immigration law, other than lawyers or public notaries, was comparable to the Wild West, prior to the inception of CSIC. Apart from a vast majority of honest and hard-working practitioners, the professions also comprised a number of less than honourable people who brought disrepute to our country. The practice of immigration law was totally unregulated. Many ministers of immigration, from both the Liberal and Conservative parties, spent long hours trying to grasp the issue of how best to deal with this Wild West. It was finally decided that recommendations of this very committee would be acted upon, and CSIC was born.

There were caveats placed on the heads of CSIC members, however, and it may well be that we find ourselves here today because those warnings from this committee came at a very high price to the cowboys of the then industry.

I was appointed to the education and standards committee before any member of CSIC was a full member. It is my feeling that this committee, headed by a well-known British Columbia lawyer, Elizabeth Bryson, planted the seeds of discontent we see today. That committee demanded that all members be fluent in either the French or English language as a prerequisite of entering into the organization. It demanded that all future members be tested for language proficiency, whether they, like I, were born in Canada or came from another country whose language was different from mine. This brought a storm of protest from those who could not pass the required and mandatory language testing. This alienation remains to this very day, with organizations that have appeared before you claiming, quite wrongly, as in one case, that they represent over 9,000 immigration consultants.

They were determined to undermine the very core of what this standing committee required, and they set out on a path to condemn any measures introduced by CSIC to educate its members, and, far worse, used their connections with newspapers and indeed with politicians to scuttle the standards. They were relentless and unforgiving, and they still are. There is to be no reasoning with them unless we agree with them that standards do not apply and are irrelevant.

I take as an example the Law Society of Upper Canada, which has over 200 years of experience and resources to provide the types of regulations and protection to the public that CSIC is being asked to provide in only four years' time. The law society has over 30,000 members to draw financial resources from, while CSIC has 1,200.

I would invite the honourable members of this committee to thoroughly investigate the services provided by CSIC by first visiting their website and visiting the many operational resources that are available to the public and CSIC members, and visiting the CSIC headquarters, where a small but very dedicated staff are devoted to maintaining standards and implementing regulations that are required on a continuing basis. I am amazed, and I know you will be as well, that an organization with such few members has, in a few short years, risen close to the bar set by the Law Society of Upper Canada. With respect, this must not go unnoticed by you, for it speaks to the very issue of CSIC attempting to meet standards that are demanded by this committee, by CIC, by Parliament, and most importantly by the Canadian people.

I have had the opportunity to read some of the submissions before you on the matter, submissions made by immigration consultants as well as members of the bars of various provinces. It would seem that lawyers complain CSIC does not discipline its members who are in violation of the rules of conduct. Allegations of complaints are being made and decisions by reputable panels are being made. The discipline committee is very active and is headed by an extremely able and dedicated barrister and solicitor by the name of Wanda Woodman. With respect, a meeting with her would allay the fears of whether or not discipline is tough and fair.

On the other hand, CSIC members complain of high fees and a non-responsive and non-transparent board. The mandate of CSIC is one that amounts to a regulatory board. Transparency would be a lot different were CSIC merely a representation and an association of consultants. This is not the case. I have written extensively on the role of a regulator, the responsibilities that are inherent in it, and the distinction that must be made. Some do not wish to make that distinction and feel that the role of CSIC is to lower standards and make life easier for the members, all at the expense of the public to whom CSIC has a responsibility.

Most of the lampoons thrown at CSIC come from the fact that neither the organization nor the board of directors is able to stop what is referred to as “ghost consultants”. CSIC is blamed, but the blame should be directed elsewhere. Enforcement of the law lies with the government and enforcement agencies. Neither the government nor these agencies take action. Prior to the establishment of CSIC, people who were found to be practising law without a licence were prosecuted by the law society of the particular province they were located in. Law societies have that power granted to them by provincial legislatures to regulate and enforce their own laws and to lay charges against someone practising law without a licence. In fact today it is quite obvious, as it was not in the past. Immigration consultants must be licensed to practise and be a member of CSIC, and any law society can lay charges against a non-CSIC member for unauthorized practice. To me, that seems clear and simple. Law societies have far more substantial means than a young struggling organization such as CSIC.

CSIC members have given evidence that would be of serious concern in a free and democratic society if it were true. In June of this year, all consultant directors will have been elected by CSIC in a free and open election. CSIC will come of age this year and consultants will have the opportunity to elect or not elect their own representatives. It would be a sorry Canada if once having elected our members of Parliament we tried to go outside Parliament to complain they were not doing what we wanted. Sometimes parliamentarians do not, and the price is paid at the polls. Why should CSIC be held to a higher standard of freedom and democracy than a law society or a parliament?

This brings me back to people who failed to gain entry to CSIC because they could not meet the standards of language and education. Surely this committee would not suggest that the standards be lowered to a point where we would have immigration consultants who speak neither French nor English, or alternatively, fail the required examinations that are fundamental to the fair and reasonable operation and interaction between the licensed consultants and the immigration department.

I would be remiss if I failed to mention that while this standing committee holds hearings across the country, action is already being taken by the Government of Canada, through the Immigration and Refugee Board. On April 10, 2008, the chairman of the board issued clear and concise regulations on dealing with unauthorized representatives. It is clear that the IRB will take action against anyone who is not a lawyer, a public notary in Quebec, or a member of CSIC.

Sometimes the solutions we spend thousands on are before our eyes, but we cannot see. With respect, reading these new regulations will give you a better knowledge of the correct way that the government, in the future, will put an end to what has been known as “ghost consultants”, and I commend them for it.

There is an old song that talks about life and seeing both sides now. I have seen both sides. If I choose to be a barrister and a solicitor, I may reapply. I have little to lose if CSIC is defeated by a few who feel and desire it to be, but I know many of the more than one thousand good and decent members of the profession who will suffer tremendously. It is for them I am here today. The calibre and quality of professionalism that is being shown today in the industry, as compared to the pre-CSIC days, is astounding. Ask any immigration officer and even a member of the bar or public notary, and all will admit that there has been a stunning change in the quality of professionalism and respect of this new profession. We can give thanks and praise to the leadership and foresight of the board of directors of CSIC, who deserve, at the end of the day, some small thanks of gratitude. We can thank the members of CSIC who qualified to join by passing rigorous examinations, tests that most lawyers would fail to pass. I say this with respect to the legal profession, which I admire and was part of.

In closing, it is my hope that you let the profession of immigration consultants, known as CSIC, govern themselves in the belief and knowledge that only a strong regulator, as represented by CSIC, will be able to make the people of Canada have trust in those who represent new Canadians.

Thank you.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Thank you, Mr. Perreault, for that very interesting statement.

We'll now go to Mr. Eastley, from the Canadian Migration Institute.

1:15 p.m.

Ross Eastley Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Migration Institute

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Bonjour.

My name is Ross Eastley, and I am present today to address the committee in my capacity as the managing director of the new Canadian Migration Institute, CMI.

I am here with Dawn Moore, who will be doing part of the presentation, as well. She is a board member of the Canadian Migration Institute and is chair of the institute's education and accreditation committee.

I would like to thank the chair and the committee for allowing us the time to speak about CMI and the importance of its work to the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, the members of CSIC, and the Canadian immigration system.

Today I will outline the context that led to the creation of CSIC and CMI and explain how the two organizations help address long-standing issues related to the immigration consulting industry. I'll make some recommendations for making them even more effective.

The Canadian Migration Institute is a wholly owned subsidiary of CSIC. CMI's mandate is to educate, advocate, and accredit. Let me expand on this. CMI operates independently of CSIC to provide educational and professional developmental opportunities in both of Canada's official languages for consultants working in Canada and abroad.

It conducts conferences and workshops for certified Canadian immigration consultants and other professionals who provide immigration-related advice who are looking for continuing professional development credits. One of the key benefits of creating CMI is the promotion of a wider range of professional development opportunities, including more professional development programs and workshops in French.

Additionally, CMI is undertaking the development of an online immigration practitioner program, which is the key part of the application process for membership in CSIC. The online immigration practitioner program will be available in both English and French. By having the program available online, access will be available to potential CSIC applicants from outside the major metropolitan areas.

The advocacy arm of CMI will promote the profession to interest groups and within the immigration council community. It will foster goodwill and greater understanding of the profession by advocating best practices and by building greater public awareness of industry-specific issues.

By entrusting the work to the new CMI organization, CSIC is now able to focus on its primary role as regulator, specifically as it relates to consumer protection and member accreditation. CSIC has accomplished much in this regard. CSIC has, for example, put in place membership standards, an ongoing requirement for continuing professional development, an enforceable code of conduct, a credible complaint and discipline mechanism, and an errors and omission insurance requirement for immigration consultants.

CSIC works from an established, comprehensive strategic plan and multi-year budget plan. The externally prepared audited financial statements are provided to the CSIC membership.

Even with the long history and level of effort it took to create CSIC and move forward on regulating immigration consultants, there remains much work to do. The creation of CMI will allow CSIC to focus exclusively on this work.

Governments have been considering the regulation of immigration consultants for more than 20 years. There has been a tremendous effort expended by courts, commissions, advisory committees, governments, and immigration consultants, all of which ultimately resulted in the self-regulatory model of CSIC.

In 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat decision that the federal government has jurisdiction over matters related to immigration. The ruling came out the year following the Cory commission report prepared for the Attorney General of Ontario, and a similar report in Quebec, which recommended that paralegals be self-regulated. It should be noted that the law society did not wish to regulate paralegals at that stage.

In 2002 the third and fourth reports of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration recommended that regulation of immigration consultants be a priority. Recommendation 48 of the 4th report of the Standing Committee in 2002 reads:

Once...consultants are regulated and their marketing practices made subject to a professional code of conduct, they should be encouraged in their promotional activities.

That same year the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration created an advisory committee to identify the various problems within the immigration consulting industry and proposed recommendations on how to regulate and improve the industry. The committee comprised lawyers, immigration consultants, government representatives, members of the community groups and coalitions serving immigrants and refugees, and academics. After six months of work, the committee issued a report containing 37 recommendations, 36 of which were adopted—and again I have included a copy of the report.

As a result, the Government of Canada then made amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection regulations, which took effect in 2004. From that point on, all practising immigration consultants in Canada must be members in good standing of CSIC, a Canadian law society, or the Chambre des notaires du Québec in order to advise, represent, or consult for a fee on matters related to immigration.

Contrary to representation made to this committee earlier this month in Toronto, this means that membership in CSIC is not voluntary if an immigration consultant wishes to be an authorized representative.

April 16th, 2008 / 1:20 p.m.

Dawn Moore Director, Canadian Migration Institute

Good afternoon.

I will continue on with the creation of CSIC.

CSIC, thus created through regulation, not statutes, and cooperation between industry and various levels of government and local policing agencies, is at the heart of this model. Cooperation between CSIC and the Government of Canada is particularly crucial, since CSIC was created to oversee members, and the government retains the role of enforcement, including disciplining and sanctioning of ghost or non-authorized agents.

In addition, the provincial law societies have the power to take action against the unauthorized practice of law. The Federation of Law Societies of Canada and the Law Society of Upper Canada are in litigation with the federal government over the process used for the creation of CSIC. The Federal Court has already ruled in favour of the government and CSIC, but the law societies are appealing the decision, and we've enclosed the Federal Court decision at tab 7.

One of the main reasons for the creation of CSIC was that immigration consultants do not operate under any one single provincial jurisdiction. We deal with multiple provincial jurisdictions, the federal government, and foreign governments. Therefore the creation of CSIC means a set of standard regulations throughout Canada.

A positive development in this regard is the announcement about legislative changes in Manitoba in support of the CSIC regulations. This legislation will strengthen the ability to regulate foreign recruiters in relation to the immigration process. We have put a copy of the announcement at tab 8.

Moving forward, this is the context for CSIC and CMI. Both organizations are key parts of a model that took years to develop. That was the result of considerable thought and effort by all sectors and stakeholders. That was the direct outcome of extensive consultations by the ministerial advisory committee. That was implemented through regulatory amendments, and that requires that all parties fulfill their roles and work together. It is a model that is now in place and working on behalf of the consumers of immigration services. However, much remains to be done.

We continue to wait for the provincial law societies to take up their responsibilities. Clearly, we continue to call for the government to strengthen its enforcement by clarifying the roles of federal organizations through IP-9, by making changes to the way CIC interprets and administers the regulations—such as education agents, nanny agents, employment agents—and by implementing the last remaining recommendation from the ministerial advisory committee that recommended penalty provisions be included in the IRPA to address unauthorized and improper practices.

This is why the creation of CMI is so beneficial to CSIC, to the members and consumers. CSIC can now focus exclusively on its regulatory responsibilities and work with other key players to move forward. At the same time, there is a dedicated organization operating independently from CSIC that educates, accredits, and advocates. Together we can take this effective model to the next level and continue protecting consumers, developing the skills and expertise of the CSIC membership, and raising public confidence in the organization and the profession.

Thank you.

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Thank you.

Those were very interesting presentations.

I will go to Mr. Telegdi, for five minutes please.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Thank you very much.

May I say to the members that they really want to check out some of the reports issued by the parliamentary committee? It's very interesting how they say that this point system is going to create big problems. It's kind of sad that those recommendations were not taken into account by the department and the parliamentary secretary at the time. Anyway, that's how these things go.

Mr. Perreault, the most difficult time I have as a member of Parliament is when somebody comes forward to me and they're under deportation orders, and there's essentially very little I can do. Some have had lawyers who missed notifying them of critical dates, times for appeal. Others had unregulated consultants.

So when we called for a consultant system to be set up, we didn't expect it to be perfect, but we expected it to work. On this, too, I have heard from a number of witnesses, which causes me concern, both in Fredericton and Quebec City.

Let me first ask you, what's the cost to belong, for a year?

1:25 p.m.

Member of the Canadian Bar Association and of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC), Founding Director, Canadian Association of Professional Immigrant Consultants (CAPIC), Bruce Perreault and Associates

Bruce Perreault

To belong to CSIC, I believe--and I could stand corrected, Mr. Chair--it would be around $4,000 or $5,000.

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

I recall--back in Vancouver, I think it was--one of the witnesses mentioned $2,300.

1:25 p.m.

Member of the Canadian Bar Association and of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC), Founding Director, Canadian Association of Professional Immigrant Consultants (CAPIC), Bruce Perreault and Associates

Bruce Perreault

I apologize. Actually I paid two fees, for my wife and me.

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Yes. Okay. That's probably close to it, $2,300.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

The complaint we have heard is that the organization is not as democratic as it should be. Let me ask something, because this is a specific complaint. Is the membership of the organization made available to individual members?

1:25 p.m.

Member of the Canadian Bar Association and of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC), Founding Director, Canadian Association of Professional Immigrant Consultants (CAPIC), Bruce Perreault and Associates

Bruce Perreault

I'm not sure I understand the question, sir.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

I'm a member. I'm a consultant. I pay my fees. I'm a member in good standing. Can I access all those who are members, for one thing? And can I access their contacts, such as their address or phone number in case I want to communicate with them?

1:25 p.m.

Member of the Canadian Bar Association and of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC), Founding Director, Canadian Association of Professional Immigrant Consultants (CAPIC), Bruce Perreault and Associates

Bruce Perreault

Well, the answer, sir, is yes. What happens is if I wish to contact another member, there are two ways. First of all, we have a membership list on the website. You can go to that. You'll get the name. Then you can send an e-mail through our system to that person with a request that they reply to you.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Okay. We'll have to check it out.

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

You can record and store that.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

But if I have to go to the website, and I want to send something out to all the members, I'm going to have to go and do a lot of work. I'll have to go to each one individually and punch in an e-mail to each one individually, or phone each one individually. I'm not sure how it breaks down by the province or different regions of the country. That's an important point of concern.

When is your next general meeting that's going to be taking place?

1:30 p.m.

Member of the Canadian Bar Association and of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC), Founding Director, Canadian Association of Professional Immigrant Consultants (CAPIC), Bruce Perreault and Associates

Bruce Perreault

The next general meeting, I believe, will be after our elections, which are in June.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

How does one campaign to be elected if one wants to be on the governing organization?

1:30 p.m.

Member of the Canadian Bar Association and of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC), Founding Director, Canadian Association of Professional Immigrant Consultants (CAPIC), Bruce Perreault and Associates

Bruce Perreault

Sir, I can tell you that campaigning for CSIC is, with all respect, sir, certainly much cheaper, much more democratic, and much more open in terms of communication to everyone than is being a member of Parliament, as you are.

We do have free advertising on our website. Each name has equal space, equal time, regardless of who it is. Everyone has the same access to go out across Canada and across the world and get their message spread. There is absolutely no difference in anyone's ability to do that, sir.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

If you're running for a campaign, then you'd have to use the board website?

1:30 p.m.

Member of the Canadian Bar Association and of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC), Founding Director, Canadian Association of Professional Immigrant Consultants (CAPIC), Bruce Perreault and Associates

Bruce Perreault

If you were running for the campaign?

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

If you were running to become a member, I would think.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Not a member, because I am a member.