Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 18th, 2010

[Nigel Thomson]

If I might answer that, I would refer back to two issues that I think are ongoing. In terms of our educational programs that are offered with educational partners for original accreditation and membership, probably the biggest issues we have are cross-cultural communications and learning differences.

The educational institutions that are offering the educational standards and curriculum approved by CSIC are being challenged with the membership of the classes coming in. The students coming forward often come from very different backgrounds from the normal student loads they see. Educational institutions have had to adapt their teaching techniques, their approaches to involving students, their approaches to language requirements.

In terms of our own standards--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

That concludes the seven-minute rounds. We're now into five-minute rounds.

Mr. Oliphant, you have up to five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming today. I have two sets of questions, first on the legislative side, then on governance, because you're here for both reasons.

On the legislative side, I'm growing more confused about this. I had thought this legislation was about consumer protection. Officials from the department came and at our last meeting said this legislation is not about consumer protection; it's about integrity of the immigration system. So I'm confused. All my thinking on this bill has been about how this protects consumers. That's what your presentation is on, but senior officials from the department said to us two weeks ago that this is not about consumer protection. What is your thought on this?

[Nigel Thomson]

I have an opinion. I believe it comes down to departmental and governmental issues with the constitutionality of the regulation of a profession, such as immigration consultants, on a national basis, given Canada's constitution and normal practice on the governance of professions.

Perhaps Mr. Brunet has some comments to add.

[Patrice Brunet]

I don't think the two concepts are opposite, one to the other. As members of the bar, as lawyers, we have a duty to preserve the integrity of the regulatory system and the legislation.

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

Officers of the court.

[Patrice Brunet]

It's a professional duty. We are officers of the court. So our members of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, in their own code of conduct, have a similar duty to preserve the integrity of the immigration system through the policy, the regulations, and the legislation.

So I don't think the two concepts are at opposite ends. They're actually complementary.

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

So it's just semantics?

[Patrice Brunet]

I heard the recordings of the previous session, and your word is well qualified. I think it would be semantics rather than anything else.

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

I'm still concerned, because consumer protection for me is about accountability of a professional--discipline, education, qualifications, and penalties--and actually supervising the profession.

The Law Society of Upper Canada, for instance, is responsible for someone who hangs up a shingle and is not a lawyer. It's actually the Law Society that can prosecute. CSIC cannot prosecute someone who hangs up a shingle and acts outside the law. That has to be done by someone else. So consumer protection is actually not embedded in CSIC. Only part of it is, and that's the professional accountability part, not the penalties.

Is that a bother to you?

[Patrice Brunet]

It has always been an irritant to us, and I think it's systemic rather than a lack of opportunity that any of the bodies have taken.

The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants was a new body in a very new environment aiming to regulate consultants, not just based in Canada, but outside of Canada as well. As you can very well imagine, we can only regulate our own members. If you're drawing a parallel with provincial law societies, I have to remind you that there is provincial legislation allowing the law societies to prosecute those hanging out shingles without being authorized to do it.

So the legislative authority does not exist right now for us to do it.

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

If it's a balance--and I don't really see consumer protection in here enough--if it's integrity of the system, you need resources and independence.

I'm hearing in the presentation from CSIC that resources are lacking and independence is compromised for two reasons. First, the minister can get rid of the regulator by Canada Gazette notice. Second, the minister is also implicated in the strange way that the discipline process doesn't go to justice; it goes to that minister. So it's a problem.

So consumer protection seems to be weak in this legislation. Integrity of the system requires resources--if not to you, to CBSA and the RCMP--and independence. So it seems to me this bill is also flawed in those two areas. Do you agree?

[Nigel Thomson]

We certainly agree that on the independence issue there is an issue with the minister having absolute control of who is the regulator and, at the same time, members of the regulator having to present cases to the minister's officers for decisions, so that actions by the members might influence the minister's view of the regulator. That's an issue of independence and neutrality.

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

Oh, I'm--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

The exchanges we just had, including Mr. Oliphant's comments and the question I asked earlier, reflect our confusion over the difference between the protection of the system, which is a legitimate concern of the federal government, and the protection of the consumer, which is something everyone recognizes as a necessary measure, but which, constitutionally speaking, comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces. I think this adds to the confusion. Here we have a bill whose first clause clearly forbids the practice of a profession in order to protect the consumer, but that consideration happens to fall completely under Quebec's and provincial jurisdiction. That is why the government and its representatives do not want to clearly state that this is the bill's objective.

I would like to get back to the figures you provided regarding members. You said that you have some 1,700 or 1,800 members. In your presentation, you say that, since 2004, you have shut out 800 members—unless I am mistaken—that you have disciplined 225 members and that there are 400 open investigations. Clearly, I am not familiar with all the professional orders—I am a member of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec—but it seems to me that your exclusion and investigation numbers are extremely high.

Doesn't the fact that you had to shut out 400 of your 1,600 members point to a problem in the selection process? You have shut out a quarter of your members since 2004.

[Nigel Thomson]

That's an excellent point.

In fact, this year we have received a total of 502 complaints. Those complaints generally break down to be some complaints against members of CSIC, but a great number of the complaints we receive, because essentially CSIC is a lightning rod for complaints, are against ghost agents.

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

The 800 agents you have shut out are CSIC members, right?

[Nigel Thomson]

Exactly.

[Patrice Brunet]

Yes, they were CSIC members. However, the society's transition period should be taken into account. In 2004, when CSIC was recognized by the federal government, it—

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

You were more generous and accepted pretty much everyone.

[Patrice Brunet]

We were more generous. We did not have a grandfather clause. Our eligibility criteria were fairly open and flexible, but they were conditional on successful completion of a written exam about 24 months after admission. Once the exam results were known, we had to shut out almost 800 members, since they had simply not passed the exam or even the language proficiency test for that matter, whether in French or in English.

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

I have already discussed my concerns about the fields of jurisdiction in terms of federal regulations. This committee has already adopted a recommendation that Quebec should have jurisdiction over legislation concerned with overseeing consultants in that province.

If the committee were to go with that recommendation and you were the organization appointed by the federal government, would you be open to discussing with the Government of Quebec what needs to be done so that you can also be appointed the regulatory body in Quebec, but under the provisions negotiated with that government?

[Patrice Brunet]

We are constantly holding discussions, not only with the Government of Quebec, but also with the governments of various other provinces that do not even have immigration legislation, but that do have rather specific problems, such as the recruitment of foreign workers and employment agency issues.

CSIC has always pursued a dialogue and has even looked beyond the obvious problems to ensure that the public is protected.

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

So you recognize that someone could be very qualified to practice in Ontario, but at the same time would not be qualified to practice in Quebec.