Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 20th, 2010

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

So the bottom line is that you're going to have to reallocate resources from elsewhere, and stop looking at some crimes, in order to continue your investigations.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

Thank you very much.

I have looked at your presentation. I wanted to be sure that I properly understood the respective mandates of your two organizations as well as that of the organization that will be responsible for oversight of the profession.

More specifically on this last aspect, there are cases—and you have described them in your documents—of obvious fraud: there are those who take advantage of naive, gullible people in distress and get money from them by promising things they cannot deliver, by lying to them and getting them to lie, etc. Those are the kinds of situations we see on public affairs programs, where money is being extorted from people. It happens in immigration and other circumstances.

However, we have the issue of how the profession is exercised. If this bill were to be passed, one of its provisions would ban people outright from practising the profession, providing advice for a fee, regardless of whether they have the skills to do so or not. So we might end up with consultants who are not accredited by the organization, but who are very competent and do their work well, but who are practising illegally because they are not members of the organization.

To begin with, who will be responsible for identifying those people, and second, who will be responsible for investigating and potentially prosecuting them? Will it be you or the organization that will be created by Bill C-35?

[Peter Hill]

We would likely find out about that kind of activity through various means. We might find out from our own migration integrity officers who are abroad. There may be information that Citizenship and Immigration Canada provides to us as a result of their presence overseas, for example, at visa application centres. We may have referrals as a result of port-of-entry information, and then we would undertake to review that referral and to assess whether there is sufficient reason to pursue an investigation in that regard.

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

If someone is practising illegally as a consultant, it will not be up to the regulatory body, which remains to be designated by the minister and which will oversee these consultants, to carry out an investigation and take the person to court, but rather it will be up to the agency. Is that correct?

[Peter Hill]

That's right. When it comes to questions of unethical or unprofessional conduct, that would be the society's responsibility, the governing body. When it's a question of an illegal activity, that would be the responsibility of either the CBSA or the RCMP, or both, depending on the nature of the investigation. If it was, for example, an organized crime network, then the RCMP would likely have the lead.

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

I do not want to go that far.

I am trying to compare this with what is done by the professional orders in the various provinces, such as Quebec. In Quebec, if someone is practising as a lawyer or an engineer without being a member of the professional order, it is an offence. The professional order can launch an investigation and even take people to court, not because they have been dishonest or exploited people or been involved in organized crime, but simply because they are practising a profession without being authorized to do so.

I believe that the first clause of this bill will prevent the profession from being exercised in Canada. I simply want to know who will investigate potential offences and who will initiate legal action against those who practise the profession without authorization, against those who have not committed fraud but who have simply practised illegally? Which organization will do that?

[Peter Hill]

I invite my colleague Mr. Israelstam to comment.

[Gregory Israelstam]

The governing body, as with all governing bodies, would not have any authority to discipline somebody who is not a member of that body, just as the Law Society of Upper Canada cannot impose sanctions on somebody who is not a member. Therefore an investigation for the offence of being a consultant without having the authority to do so would have to fall to the CBSA. It would have to come to the CBSA's attention.

It may well be that the organizing body or the professional body may have information that would be relevant to that offence, and we would certainly invite them to pass that to us so we could begin an investigation.

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

Thank you. That answers my question.

Professional orders with these oversight responsibilities actually find it very difficult in many cases to provide evidence that someone is practising the profession without being a member. It is something that can be difficult to prove. That is why in most cases, at least in Quebec, there is protection for professional titles. For example, Quebec law states clearly that I cannot claim to be an engineer and give out business cards that say "Thierry St-Cyr, engineer" if I am not a member of the professional order.

In your work to try to provide oversight in this profession, would it perhaps be easier for you if you had to prove only that someone was presenting himself as an immigration consultant, rather than having to prove that he has actually provided advice and has actually been paid for doing so?

[Gregory Israelstam]

The provision itself requires that in order for a criminal offence to be made out, the person, the ghost consultant, if you like, “shall knowingly represent or advise a person for consideration”. So we would have to demonstrate in fact that they provided advice or representation.

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

Very well.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you. Your time has expired. I am sorry.

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

A person will tell you they have been ripped off by one of these folks but they are about to face deportation because their application is all mucked up. So the question is to Mr. Hill. Would you stay the removal until the criminals are convicted? Or are you going to proceed to deport them because that criminal will never be convicted and they will continue to smuggle, give bad advice, cheat, etc.?

[Peter Hill]

The answer to the question really is on a case-by-case basis. It would, I think, depend on the nature of the offence.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

How would you proceed with the charges? How would you ever convict someone, whether smuggling, trafficking, giving bad advice, acting as ghost consultants or crooked consultants, or any number of things, unless the victim can speak out? They can't speak out if they are back in Mexico or deported somewhere else. How would that work?

[Peter Hill]

Based on our experience, we see that oftentimes the crooked consultants are in the game for many cases. What we are seeing is a series of activities--

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

You deport one and they get another one. You deport another one, and you never get the person charged--or you never convict them. Out of 200 charges, probably there's a 1% success in getting conviction.

What's the percentage of success in convicting right now?

[Peter Hill]

We've laid three charges. We have two cases where the charges have been successful, and one case is still before the courts. These are complex cases, there's no question about that, and they're time-consuming. It often takes up to a year or more to successfully conclude a case.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Yes.

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

If I may follow up, one element of evidence is having somebody who will actually testify. In other cases we could rely heavily on document evidence, video evidence, records that they keep in their computers. We could use undercover techniques to infiltrate and actually put forward an undercover operator as a victim--

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

So out of the 200 cases that you're looking at, how many convictions have you gotten in the last four years?

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

I don't have that statistic.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Ballpark.

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

I would mislead the committee.