Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 20th, 2010

[Dr. Sean Rehaag]

I think that's the general argument that I'm making, but I think it's important to take into account the context here. I'm not taking the position that in principle, a well-regulated immigration consulting industry could not have people who are qualified to provide services to refugee claimants. If there were a properly functioning immigration consulting industry, maybe they could satisfy the public that the level of services they were providing were sufficient to justify their being involved in these serious refugee determinations.

My argument is that's not the case right now. There is a series of problems with respect to the immigration consulting industry. In that situation, if we're going to have an immigration consulting industry at all, my argument would be that it should be restricted to the less serious context.

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

Thank you. So we need to leave those in the industry to prove basically that they are able to deal with such a serious issue.

Can you tell us how the professional fees charged by immigration consultants compare with those of immigration lawyers? I understand that fees vary from consultant to consultant, but do consultants generally charge more than lawyers or less for handling a file?

[Dr. Sean Rehaag]

I don't have that data. That would be a good question to ask CSIC, whether they collect some of that data.

Anecdotally, I have heard both situations where claimants will say “I was charged the same or even more to go a consultant”, and situations where people will say “The reason I went to a consultant was because I didn't get legal aid and I couldn't afford a lawyer, and this guy was offering to represent me more cheaply.”

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

You gave a comparison between the success rates of files handled by consultants and lawyers, respectively, depending on the country. You have obviously made a scientific effort to try to isolate the variable as far as possible.

Did you take into account the impact that the type of client has on the success rate? In other words, is the difference really attributable to the type of professional representing the applicant or to the fact that clients dealing with consultants may have more difficult files than those dealing with lawyers?

[Dr. Sean Rehaag]

It is not something I have been able to look at in detail. I've tried to account for that a little bit by looking at different averages for success rates for claimants from particular countries. So I can tell you, for example, whether there is a difference in the success rates for claimants who are represented by lawyers and claimants who are represented by counsel where the claimant comes from India. I can do that kind of analysis, but I can't go further and look at whether the consultant serves a particular sub-community that might have serious financial difficulties, for example.

So you're right to suggest that there are other factors that might be relevant here, but the difference is so striking and so large that I think even if I'm not accounting for all of those factors, the differences are still significant.

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

We have looked at the theoretical question of who should be allowed to exercise this profession. But we also need to provide oversight for the profession. I have raised this in my earlier questions. Where lawyers are concerned, we have a fair degree of confidence: every province has clear rules, and the bar associations have legal and technical tools to prevent people from claiming that they are lawyers when they are not.

The situation involving consultants is more difficult. I am giving this some thought. Should the committee not simply prohibit people from presenting themselves as consultants when they are not consultants, as is the case for lawyers, engineers and other professions?

In my opinion, the bill before us does not specifically make it illegal for people to present themselves as consultants. Do you not think that this is a minimum requirement in order to provide oversight for the profession?

[Dr. Sean Rehaag]

I think it's a good point. In the course of my research I've looked at people who were representing people and who were not members of CSIC and not lawyers, and I did actually find online advertisements where people were saying that they were members of CSIC but they in fact were not.

I think that is a concern. I think it is more of a concern in the context of immigration law rather than refugee law, because with respect to refugee law, the issue is not so much ghost consultants as it is representatives who don't have basic competence or who don't follow the rules of professional conduct. So I think it is an important issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Chow.

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

Do you think the $50,000 maximum fine or a maximum two years in jail for a summary conviction is too low, given that they probably charge $10,000, $15,000 per case? Is that something you have an opinion on?

[Dr. Sean Rehaag]

It does seem low, but my sense is that the real problem is not going to be how significant the punishment is but how easy is it going to be to secure convictions. I think it is highly unlikely that most immigrants and refugee claimants who suffer mistreatment by immigration consultants are actually going to report that mistreatment. So I think there are other more serious challenges with this strategy.

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

Right. So to make it easier for them to report, would it make sense for a place where they could just phone in, probably under CIC, so that it is very straightforward, well publicized? Because they get bounced between police and RCMP in our experience, or CBSA or CIC. Would that make sense?

Also, do you think there should be a stay of removal until the criminals are convicted? If not, how are you going to get them convicted?

[Dr. Sean Rehaag]

I think a stay of removal would certainly make it easier to secure convictions. And I think on the issue of having a central location with a phone number where people could go to report all complaints, irrespective of whose jurisdiction it falls under, is a good idea, not just for the immigrants and the refugee claimants themselves but for advocacy groups that are working with them, just because it is really complicated at the moment.

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

Thank you.

Maybe I will ask the IRB, if there is a one-stop shop, should it be CIC? I think there is a secretariat. Maybe you're aware of a place within the CIC that people from the IRB or refugee claimants or whoever can lodge their complaints. Are you familiar with that?

[Sylvia Cox-Duquette]

No, I'm not.

Obviously, because we are part of the same portfolio and there are certain practical matters we have to deal with, we have our contacts at CBSA and CIC. So if something comes to our attention we certainly know at the regional level where to send those complaints or that information.

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

You do—

[Sylvia Cox-Duquette]

No, I personally don't.

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

I don't think any one of us knows.

[Sylvia Cox-Duquette]

The IRB knows.

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

Back to our lawyer friend, what happens is that there are recruiters who say “I'll find you a job in Canada if you pay me $10,000”, and sometimes the job doesn't exist. Then, of course, they submit their applications, whether it's for temporary foreign workers, refugee status, visitor visa, or any number of things.

As the law is written right now, even with the amendment, does it include the recruiters for employment? The complaints against those people go to human resources, HRSDC. It's a bit confusing. They are the ones who are recruiting jobs for the purpose of immigrating. Are they really immigration consultants, or are they employment recruiters?

[Dr. Sean Rehaag]

That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that question. There are other provisions in the Criminal Code that could be used where there's kind of widespread fraud. I think your question points to the complexity of undocumented and illegal migration.

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

Can we actually tighten up the IRPA in order to include those people?

[Dr. Sean Rehaag]

You could create a specific offence for recruiting—

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

For the purpose of immigrating to Canada.

[Dr. Sean Rehaag]

Right. But you'd have to figure out what the nature of that offence is: is it for coming to Canada—

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

But charging a lot of money.