Good afternoon. My name is Steve Sloan and I am the director of the criminal investigations division at the Canada Border Services Agency. I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our role in relation to the issue of immigration consultants.
CBSA is responsible for investigating criminal offences committed against Canada’s border legislation, including, as of 2006, criminal offences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Prior to that time, responsibility for criminal investigations under IRPA rested with the RCMP. The RCMP has, however, maintained responsibility for immigration matters dealing with organized crime, such as human trafficking and national security.
As already noted, the issue of enforcement actions against the misconduct of consultants is a complex one that crosses several jurisdictional lines. Aside from the regulatory role played by CSIC, there are criminal sanctions available under IRPA and the Criminal Code, depending on the nature of the offence, which can involve a wide variety of scenarios, as you know. IRPA provides for criminal sanctions in relation to various offences, including counselling misrepresentation under section 126, misrepresentation under section 127, counselling to commit an offence under section 131, and general contravention provisions under section 124.
Actions taken by consultants, whether authorized or unauthorized representatives, either with or without the knowledge and/or assistance of the applicant, in an attempt to circumvent legislated requirements for entering Canada can result in criminal charges being brought against them by CBSA under IRPA.
Criminal matters involving unscrupulous persons who purport to be consultants and who defraud their clients rather than the government would generally fall under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada, rather than IRPA, and are the responsibility of the police of jurisdiction, which can be the RCMP or provincial or municipal law enforcement.
Criminal investigations regarding consultants are challenging for a number of reasons:
Consultants may operate outside of Canada’s jurisdiction.
Clients may be reluctant to come forward to assist authorities in the investigation for fear of removal or charges by the government, fear of threats from the consultant, language difficulties, etc.
The action of the unscrupulous consultant may be outright fraud perpetrated against their client and therefore not a violation of IRPA legislation.
Promises to clients by consultants regarding the acquiring of status or entry into Canada are usually made verbally, thus eliminating any documentary evidence to assist CBSA or the police with a successful conviction of the consultant.
Payment for fees are often done in cash transactions, making the tracking of the money extremely difficult.
Finally, there is a distinction between what we might categorize as bad advice versus misrepresentation by the consultant, or quality of service versus illegal conduct. However, the agency recognizes the seriousness of this issue and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the immigration system. It is working with its partners to address the problem as best it can.
The agency can point to some very positive results in relation to IRPA enforcement. Since assuming the responsibility for criminal offences under IRPA in June 2006, CBSA has laid over 550 criminal charges under the various IRPA offences, including some 47 charges related to counselling misrepresentation and other counselling offences. Our conviction rate has been over 90%. We hope to continue to build on these efforts and results.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.