Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 6th, 2010

[Elaine Ménard]

The present corporation, CSIC, as well as this new corporation...the present one is currently a federally incorporated body under the Canada Corporations Act, and the new one--it could be either CSIC or a new governing body--also incorporated in the not-for-profit corporations--

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about the objects, not the subject. The object of your activity is individuals, not establishments. Okay, that's all.

Secondly, in Ontario, as in other provinces, a regulated body has a complaints process and then a discipline process, usually two. I'm assuming you have officials who understand this, because you've just prepared legislation. I'm a consumer. I bring a complaint. That's an arbitrated process. Then there's a disciplinary process. Those are two separate processes within the body. If the disciplinary process is successful from the point of view of the prosecutor, unsuccessful from the point of view of the professional, what is the appeal procedure in this legislation?

In Ontario it's the LAT, which is the Licence Appeal Tribunal. What is the appeal procedure?

[Brenna MacNeil]

What you're referring to, if I'm understanding the question correctly, is the complaints and disciplinary procedure within the governing body.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

The body, yes. I'm going to be disciplined because I was a bad person. I'm found guilty. I'm thrown out of the profession. To whom do I appeal?

[Brenna MacNeil]

That would be the process within the structure of the governing body itself.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

So there's no external appeal. Then I'll ask the lawyer. What is the process of natural justice with respect to always having appeal in anything we do in Canada and Quebec?

[Elaine Ménard]

I think the process would be the same as it is with regard to other entities where you have, similar to a law society, the complaint process, the disciplinary process, and the like. So there must be guarantees within the process of the governing body itself, but it isn't--

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Is it the superior court of Canada? Is it the superior court of the province or territory? Is it the appeal court?

[Elaine Ménard]

It would not be the Federal Court. It would be the provincial court system.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Okay. I'm going to ask the chair if I could get that in writing, because I don't understand. I don't see anything about appeal in the legislation, which is a natural justice.

You mentioned that you're going to--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Could I just interrupt for a moment? I think Mr. Oliphant has raised an excellent question, and perhaps Ms. Tapley or someone could provide the clerk with an answer to that comment, which in turn could be distributed by the clerk to the committee members.

Thank you.

[Catrina Tapley]

Mr. Chairman, we'd be only too happy to do that, and we'll get that to the clerk to be distributed.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

It says here that the government will make use of bilateral and multilateral opportunities to address fraudulent activities. Are there structures? Are there bodies? Or is that a phone call? Because three paragraphs down you say that you're going to send a dossier on some of the worst fraudsters in the Punjab. Is that alleged fraudsters? Who has determined these are criminals? Has there been a process, a hearing, or is it because we read a newspaper article in the Toronto Star?

These are your remarks, Madam Tapley, so I'm interested. You wrote the remarks. Are these alleged fraudsters or fraudsters? Has the minister decided or the Toronto Star?

[Catrina Tapley]

Mr. Chairman, I'll go back to the first part of the remarks. The department works within a number of bilateral and multilateral fora with a number of different countries that have faced similar challenges to ours. We would like to continue to work with them and also to support the minister's efforts wherever he has raised this interest internationally.

We talked about working with the Government of India and the government in Punjab. The dossier that the minister talks about handing over and that we have talked about involves, we feel, very solid cases of wrongdoing. We stand behind it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're way over, Mr. Oliphant; I'm sorry. They're good questions, but we'll have to continue in another round.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I have 17 more for the next witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sure they're groaning, in that case.

Mr. Uppal, you have five minutes, sir.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again for coming here to speak to us about this.

I want to speak to you a little bit about federal-provincial responsibilities under this bill. You mentioned the federal responsibility of ensuring that the integrity of the immigration program is protected. To me, that protects Canadians; it protects consumers as well. I know you said that, and I agree with you.

Would you explain what the role of the provinces and territories is on this issue? Can you explain how our approach complements and respects that role rather than infringes upon the ability of provinces such as Quebec to regulate who they deal with?

[Catrina Tapley]

Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question.

As my colleagues have already indicated, we respect the provinces' jurisdiction with respect to consumer protection and the role they play in it in regulating professions.

What we feel is that the establishment of this body complements that role by establishing this body under regulation. In our consultations with provinces and territories as we were preparing the bill, and in the first part of this, there were no objections raised to this approach. They were comfortable with it and felt that it complemented well what they've done.

As other members of the committee have commented, Mr. Chairman, provinces play an important role in the regulation of provincial law societies and of notaries in the province of Quebec. That too is complementary to this legislation and the approach the federal government has taken on it.

Concerning the second part of your question, I wonder if I could ask Ms. Harder and Ms. MacNeil to provide some additional details as well.

[Sandra Harder]

We know that several provinces right now that have already moved to address some of these issues. B.C., Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario have developed initiatives within their own jurisdictions that deal with improved regulation of third-party intermediaries, recruiters, and sometimes those who are looking to recruit under the temporary foreign worker program. Also, several provinces require that third-party representatives, either as education recruiters or as temporary foreign worker recruiters, also be members of the provincial bar or members of the existing governing body.

[Brenna MacNeil]

To add specifically with respect to Quebec, they have recently put forward amendments to their own regulations, which will come into effect, I believe, in November, that make reference to recognizing the governing body for immigration consultants that is recognized in IRPA. They've also moved to create additional measures for consultants operating in Quebec—additional requirements around French language capability, as well as knowledge of Quebec laws. So the province has moved to act in this regard.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Tapley, you said that people use consultants for various reasons. One of those reasons, from my experience in talking to people who have used consultants, is that they feel that the forms are complex and difficult to fill out.

What is the department doing to simplify the forms, the process, so that applicants don't have to resort to using immigration consultants? I know you touched on it, but if you can, expand on that.

[Catrina Tapley]

Mr. Chairman, this is an important point for the department. I want to come back and start my response to this question by saying that people use immigration consultants for very legitimate reasons, and in terms of legitimate consultants with a lot to offer, this is not the point of the bill.

To come back to your point, which is the immigration process itself and being able to have a streamlined application process, some individuals feel they can make this application process on their own. I think we've taken some first steps on this. We've talked about some online tools, some online video to look at, walking you through the immigration application process and the various steps, the wizard, which helps you do that as well. But also it is incumbent on us—and this is a process of continuous improvement in the department, I hope—to look at the application process itself and see where the stumbling blocks are. The evidence, as provided through our missions, is very helpful in that regard. What people say is the most difficult part of this application, or where they stumble around different parts. It is something I think we want to continue to improve and develop.

Although we have some online tools to help people through the process, such as I have spoken about, as we continue to examine we want to come back and look at the process itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Dr. Wong.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to comment on the fact that in B.C., for example, the provincial government successfully sued a crooked consultant for fraud and also for cheating the client out of money, so that has already happened. I definitely acknowledge the fact that provincial governments are taking action as well.

My other question is how can this bill actually build up people's trust in the system itself? You mentioned that the whole thing is to protect the integrity of the program, so can you further highlight some of those things?