Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 6th, 2010

[Catrina Tapley]

We're going to play this in parts again. I will start and then I'll ask my colleagues to add their own opinions to this as well, or their own experience.

First, the legislation expands the period under which you can look at what consultants are doing, so we take it to the pre-application process as well. That step is crucial in terms of the integrity in the system. That, coupled with our advice and warnings, lets people understand that if this person is helping you for a fee, or you've engaged this person for a fee, that even throughout the process there is no loophole or hiding behind a certain part of the legislation. That, in itself, is an important step in terms of adding that integrity.

I wonder if Ms. Harder or Ms. MacNeil might want to add more on other elements of this bill.

[Sandra Harder]

Sure. I might add that the fact that we are actually creating a new offence speaks very strongly to protecting and taking seriously the activities of unscrupulous immigration consultants, and that is a new tool for the federal government.

Also, the work will be complemented by the public education component of this, as well as the work we have been doing around removing some of the need, perhaps, for people to seek out immigration consultants by making access to the system a little bit less onerous and by providing online tools and electronic applications as well as the visa application centres, etc.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

I will share the rest of my time with Mr. Rick Dykstra, please.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

You have alluded to the issue regarding the new offence to address whatever penalties may be applied. Could you actually speak to what those penalties are?

[Sandra Harder]

The new offence actually allows for a conviction of two years and a fine of up to $50,000 for those who are found to be in contravention. Does that answer your--

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

That's what I was looking for. Thank you.

Another aspect, which hadn't been touched on, and it sounded like we were going in this direction, is just clarifying how the actual selection of the committee will take place and who would potentially sit on the board.

[Catrina Tapley]

Again, others should please feel free to expand on this.

The application closes at the end of December this year, in 2010. The board or the people who will be assessing the application--those factors have been listed clearly--will include officials from Citizenship and Immigration Canada as well as other departments, as well as external members to that committee to look at assessing those applications. They, in turn, will make a recommendation to the minister for his consideration.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I have to say I had high hopes for the idea of this legislation. I had some concerns about it, but now having heard the questions and the answers, I'm really concerned about what we're trying to do here.

We have indicated that we all agree there's a terrible problem with vulnerable people being taken advantage of by unscrupulous, crooked consultants--it's even in the name of the bill--but we have heard there are not going to be any extra resources or money to this new body to address some of the flaws in the existing system. There is no more money for enforcement. The CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, is responsible for going out and finding those people who will end up with these $50,000 fines or two-years-in-jail punishments, but there are no extra resources for them to go after these people.

I'm really worried that the proposal that has been put out, which was published in the Canada Gazette on August 28, is not going to get anyone who wants to take up the challenge on this legislation that has been thrown together without any proper due diligence on what the requirements of such a body would be. Obviously, the answer is they have until the end of December of this year, another three months away, to apply, but how many different parties have indicated their interest? Surely, up to this point, any serious party that would want to take on such an important role as a regulator would have consulted, at least semi-casually, with officials at CIC about making sure they achieve this.

So I'm curious to see how many different parties have approached...about possibly being their regulator.

[Catrina Tapley]

I'll let Ms. MacNeil talk a little more about specifics, but I want to come back to the period of notice of intent. In the notice of intent the department had a fair bit of interest in terms of individuals wanting to have input into what those criteria looked like. We take that as an optimistic sign that there was a great deal of interest out there.

I'm hoping that Ms. MacNeil might be able to contradict me a bit on this. I can't comment that we have had individuals phone or organizations phone and say, “I'm telling you now that I'm submitting my application”. But given the interest we had in that notice-of-intent period, I'm optimistic that over the next few months we will indeed have some proposals to assess when it comes to the end of December.

I think people are considering this thoughtfully. The statement and the number of factors there were easy, so I think considerable thought needs to go into this application and into what's being provided.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

I'll let Ms. MacNeil respond if there have been parties that have indicated their serious interest.

[Brenna MacNeil]

There have been no parties that have come forward to us. Some organizations have made public statements about their potential interest or to play a role in that process, but none have come forward to us directly.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Unfortunately, Ms. Tapley, it actually worries me that you say that in the period between June 12 and August 28 there was a lot of interest and a lot of people came forward with suggestions, and then since the moment that the actual parameters were published and the selection process was published on the 28th, nobody has been coming forward with you. I wonder if that's because there was no indication in the June 12 notice that there wasn't going to be any extra funding for a body to be able to do the process right, and then on the 28th they discovered that was the case.

[Catrina Tapley]

It would be difficult for me to speculate on that, Mr. Chair, but again, it has been five or six weeks since that August 28 notice went out, and given some public statements that Ms. MacNeil indicated, we remain optimistic that we will have applications to assess.

[Sandra Harder]

I would just say that we didn't really have an expectation that we would get early signals, necessarily, from anyone in this process. There's an opening date and a closing date. So I think it might be premature to assume that there wouldn't be viable candidates.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

I certainly hope so.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. St-Cyr, you are next.

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

I will begin with a short technical question.

I feel it's pretty clear that the legislation is proposing to regulate the practice of the profession, and so to prevent certain people from performing immigration consulting tasks. However, I didn't see anything in the bill about regulating people calling themselves immigration consultants or using that title. For instance, under provincial law, someone cannot pretend to be an engineer or a doctor.

Does the bill contain a provision prohibiting those who are not members of the organization from claiming to be immigration consultants?

[Sandra Harder]

I would just underscore that there is in the legislation not only the notion of providing advice, but the offer of it.

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

So it's about the offer. Do you feel that someone putting up a sign in his front yard reading “Roger Duquette, Immigration Consultant” is in fact offering his services? Do you feel that, under the bill, that person would be breaking the law? Is that how you interpret the bill?

[Sandra Harder]

If they actually then proceed to undertake “business”, then yes.

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

If someone's business card says “Immigration Consultant,” strictly speaking, it does not constitute a violation like it would if the card read “doctor.”

[Brenna MacNeil]

Well, it's certainly evidence towards proving the offence. What has to be proven is that they are offering to do that for a fee.

So there are different elements that have to be proven, but certainly that is--

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

Unless I am mistaken, as the bill currently stands, it is truly just the practice of the profession that is exclusive to the organization members, and not the mere fact of using the title.

Earlier, you mentioned that the committee's report was rather well answered, overall, and its core recommendations are included in the bill. However, at that time, the first recommendation the committee adopted was to have Quebec's immigration consultants covered by Quebec legislation rather than by federal legislation. That recommendation was stated emphatically.

What made the department reject the committee's first recommendation?