Evidence of meeting #25 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consultants.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Catrina Tapley  Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Sandra Harder  Acting Director General, Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Brenna MacNeil  Director, Social Policy and Programs, Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Elaine Ménard  Counsel, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you, Ms. Tapley and Mr. Trudeau.

Monsieur St-Cyr, you are next.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here.

I listened to your presentation carefully. I have been following this issue for a long time. Like all my colleagues, I was very worried about what was happening within the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants and its serious governance problems. Like everyone else, I feel that improvements are necessary.

I wanted to make sure that I understand properly the paradigm shift this bill will bring about. As current legislation stands, the government regulates and determines whom it conducts business with, whom it will authorize to represent citizens in its own process. The Government of Quebec has also come up with its own procedure and criteria for conducting business with consultants. However, I feel that this bill takes matters much further. We are literally talking about overseeing the process and regulating who has the right to practice the profession in its broader sense, be it well before a procedure conducted by the federal government begins or even after it is completed.

Is my understanding of the proposed legislation correct?

4:10 p.m.

Acting Director General, Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Sandra Harder

Yes, you have understood this correctly.

The new approach that's outlined in the legislation is basically focused on expanding the reach of the government's powers, so it does expand the coverage from pre-application stage right through any kind of advice that's given in the process of the application period.

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

So we are talking about more than a change in organization, more than a structural change. We're talking about a fundamental change to the regulatory and legal framework with respect to immigration consultants.

Questions have been asked about the constitutional sharing of responsibilities. Since the matter is on the agenda, you will not be surprised to hear me say that one of our priorities will once again be the overseeing of immigration consultants. If I remember correctly, the courts have even spoken out on this matter already. In short, they held that the government has constitutional authority over immigration consultants who conduct business with the government on their clients' behalf. Therefore, the government has the authority to decide who can or cannot represent immigrants.

If we go as far as regulating a profession, deciding which individuals have the right to practice a profession, to establish civil contracts and to charge a fee for representation, we are getting deeply involved in a professional order. I assume that you have analyzed the constitutionality of the matter.

Based on your analyses, on what constitutional basis would the federal government be allowed to get so involved in a professional order?

4:10 p.m.

Director, Social Policy and Programs, Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Brenna MacNeil

I'll just start by saying that we completely recognize that consumer protection and the regulation of professions are provincial jurisdictions. What is under federal jurisdiction is the protection of the integrity of the immigration program as a whole. The recognition and the designation of a body is with that purpose in mind: protecting the integrity of the immigration program as a whole.

We see this as complementary with respect to jurisdictional issues, and that's the role the federal government is playing. The minister will designate, for immigration purposes, protection of the immigration program.

I'd also like to point out that the body is currently the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, and under our proposed approach moving forward that body would be recognized or be authorized under the Canada Corporations Act. It would be a federal body under the Canada Corporations Act. That's the current approach and the approach moving forward.

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Unless I am mistaken, you are saying that, even though the regulating of a profession and consumer protection do not come under federal jurisdiction, we have the right to establish an organization whose purpose is to monitor a profession, not for the sake of consumer protection, but for the sake of protecting the government and the integrity of the system. That is what the department is saying, right?

4:15 p.m.

Acting Director General, Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Sandra Harder

I would say that what we are trying to accomplish with this approach is both a continuing commitment to self-regulation of the industry and a broader and more expansive federal government oversight of the organization.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Okay, but I asked the question only to ensure that I understand Ms. MacNeil's presentation properly.

Constitutionally speaking, you are basing this bill on the protection of the government itself, the immigration system, and not on consumer protection, the protection of those requiring a consultant's services.

4:15 p.m.

Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Catrina Tapley

Yes, absolutely. From the federal government's point of view, we are talking about protecting the immigration system. I think that the federal government's mission should include consumer protection, but that falls under provincial jurisdiction. Regardless of that fact, it is a very important issue for the federal government.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Monsieur St-Cyr, your time has expired.

Ms. Chow.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

This committee quite a few months ago said we preferred at that time, when we finished the study, that it be an arm's-length corporation, like the Canadian Bar Association and engineers' society. The bill recommended something else, and I'm not necessarily opposed to it at all. The body you've recommended is basically still under the federal government. It's under the department minister, and you would have ultimately the power to oversee how this body would function. There are two different options. Well, the third option is of course government regulations. That's not being considered.

Can you go into some detail as to why you chose this route and not the route we were looking at? Is it primarily because you think this industry is not quite ready to completely, 100%, do the self-regulation, that there is a process in order for the industry to get to a stage it could regulate itself? Can you explain a bit about the philosophy?

4:15 p.m.

Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Catrina Tapley

Sure. Mr. Chairman, I'll start, and my colleagues can chime in to offer some additional detail.

In order to address the concerns of public confidence in the body currently governing immigration consultants, I think as the report from this committee had pointed out, the government wanted to move quickly. It was determined that the establishment of a governing body through stand-alone legislation would have been a lengthy, and I might also add a costly, process.

So the approach we've arrived at in Bill C-35 is really what we feel is the most practical and efficient, in terms of cost and time, to the regulation of immigration consultants. And I'd just point out as well—and then I'll ask Ms. Harder and Ms. MacNeil to comment—that governing bodies, whether it's stand-alone legislation or not, do have a responsibility for taking disciplinary action against their members, including the revocation of membership, which we see as a significant tool.

Like other governing bodies, the governing body for immigration consultants can provide for measures concerning the discipline of its members, similar to the process used by law societies in looking into complaints concerning their own members.

Madame.

4:15 p.m.

Acting Director General, Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Sandra Harder

I might add as well that in this approach there is a new criminal offence that has been created. Those penalties are in place to protect the public interest and to protect the integrity of the immigration scheme and system.

So I guess I would say in summary that we looked at a number of different approaches and did take into consideration, in thinking some of this through, the concerns of the committee to have a responsive and timely intervention.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

In terms of what this committee recommended, how would it be costly and how long would it have taken to set up something like that? And what are some of the shortcomings of that model, other than time and financial reasons?

4:20 p.m.

Acting Director General, Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Sandra Harder

In the deliberations on this, a decision was taken about an approach. Certainly time is one of the factors. We would be essentially starting from scratch if we were creating a statutory body.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

How long would that take? A few years? Two or three years?

4:20 p.m.

Acting Director General, Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Sandra Harder

I would assume at least that.

And in terms of cost, I don't think I would be able to give you an estimate. But certainly it would be substantially greater than what we're looking at right now.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

What other shortcomings would there be with that model, other than the length of time, the couple of years it would take to establish that?

4:20 p.m.

Director, Social Policy and Programs, Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Brenna MacNeil

The oversight capacity of this approach as well is important, because this committee recommended some government involvement in the organization at this stage, so that oversight capacity does speak to that somewhat. The minister has that designation authority and has the authority to require documents or information from the body to inform ongoing designation decisions. The oversight capacity of the government responds to what this committee spoke to and is an important element as well.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

I'm sorry, I didn't quite get that. What are the shortcomings for the model that was recommended by this committee, other than time and cost?

4:20 p.m.

Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Catrina Tapley

The principal shortcomings were time and cost and a little bit of oversight from the government. I don't think there was a lot more than that.

What the bill tried to do was respect the committee's excellent report and do it in a way that we felt was efficient from both a time and money perspective. I don't believe there were....

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

In terms of oversight, there is no difference between this model and the model the committee recommended. They both would have the power to have the kind of regulatory control to make sure the consultants are accountable.

4:20 p.m.

Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Catrina Tapley

In terms of oversight of its members, what you have described is indeed the case. They are very similar powers, a very similar direction in what's proposed.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you.

Mr. Dykstra.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

I want to follow up a little bit on this aspect of the bill. There were nine recommendations in the report that subsequently have helped immensely in terms of the crafting and drafting and writing of this piece of legislation.

I want to follow up a little further on Ms. Chow's questions, because they are extremely relevant. Recommendation number 3 states “that the Government of Canada assist in re-establishing the new regulator and remain involved in its affairs until it is fully functioning.” I would just ask that you expand on that a little bit. It is pretty important to understand that this is not an organization that's going to be left unto its own devices for a couple of months and then expected to be able to deliver on a pretty significant mandate.

Subsequent to that, it's the first time we have taken this broad an approach, so obviously they are going to need help. One of the things that gets described in a little bit more detail in terms of the response to the recommendations is that it could be two, three, or perhaps even more years that we would work with the organization that was successful. Perhaps you could just outline for the committee how you anticipate that partnership or that relationship would work.