Evidence of meeting #27 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
—for unlawful purposes, or—
Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
Then you're starting to get into consumer protection issues and you run into the difficulty that consumer protection issues are a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Even though they are coming here as temporary foreign workers, and then if the job is non-existent they end up applying for refugee status to stay here. Obviously it's not a refugee claim, but since they're in Canada already, the job is a bit of a fake. Is that under fraud, but it is for immigration purposes?
Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
You would have to try to go under fraud, or you could try to regulate this by creating some kind of new profession--for example, immigration agents, temporary migration agents--but you'll run into the same kind of problem that we're facing currently.
Senior General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
I think it's probably a better question addressed to CIC. Under this crooked consultants act, to the extent the reserved job offer is connected to getting a work visa to Canada, I think you might want to ask the Department of Justice and CIC, because it may fall under this new legislation.
Senior General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
That's a question you would have to ask—
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I'm asking the wrong person, okay.
If this is just an interim process where eventually this body can become part of the bar association, a legal society, paralegals or stand-alone consultants, there is nothing that would stop us. This is a transition period where it would go to something more permanent and independent at arm's length that would have the power to regulate.
Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
You could always make a change at a later date. You do run into jurisdictional issues. Certainly if you want to have the law societies involved, you're talking about a provincial not a federal matter. There are jurisdictional challenges and then there's the challenge of establishing the track record. The more frequently you make major changes to the regulatory bodies, the more there might be a concern about establishing a successful and stable track record.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, both of you, for being our witnesses.
My question is directed to the IRB and Ms. Cox-Duquette. You listed very clearly in your written presentation, as well as in your verbal presentation just now, how you prevent crooked consultants from representing claimants in proceedings before the IRB within the existing system and existing law. With the introduction of this new bill, Bill C-35, how will that help the IRB to ensure the integrity of your proceedings?
Senior General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
There are a couple of ways in which it helps.
Just before I get to crooked or unauthorized representatives, there can be incompetent authorized representatives. One of the things that proposed new paragraph 150.1(1)(c) of this crooked consultants act will allow us to do is to make complaints where we perceive there are clearly incompetent counsel or misconduct in proceedings before the board. It will allow us to deal directly with the regulatory body, be that the law society, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, CSIC, or whatever body is regulating the immigration consultants, without having to navigate the Privacy Act. That is helpful in terms of dealing with that aspect.
In terms of unauthorized representatives who might be appearing for a fee, I mentioned our policy. Our policy is just that: a policy. We can persuade and cajole, but it doesn't have teeth.
In the context of looking under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, where we have to redo our rules, now that this has become in legislation rather than the regulations, that opens up a space for us to bump this policy up to an IRB rule and give it some teeth. Frankly, I think that will help us greatly in dealing with this.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
Thank you.
You did mention one way that Bill C-35 can help IRB to turn your policy into something you can put into practice. What other practices will change at the IRB as a result of this bill?
Senior General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
I don't know that there are many practices that would change beyond what I've described there. One of the things we do now, and we will continue to do, is that we also have a jurisdiction that is recognized by the courts to control our own proceedings and preserve the integrity of the proceedings. We'll certainly be looking to do that.
To the extent that some things have been said here about responsibilities being clarified, that will also help in terms of dealing with any procedures we might have.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
In the existing law the rule applies only during the process. The new bill, which we're presenting to the House right now, Bill C-35, states that even before they actually go to the proceedings, whoever gives them advice is under the jurisdiction of this bill.
How would that help the IRB?
October 20th, 2010 / 5:20 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Actually, you raise a good point. To the extent that we learn about an infraction or misconduct in our proceedings--and now this misconduct has been extended to that pre-application and pre-proceedings phase--the IRB will be passing on that information to the appropriate authorities. We will be another potential source of information to preserve the integrity of the entire system.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
In other words, that rule is applied to the definition of crooked consultants, including people who are authorized and yet giving very bad advice. Even, and excuse me for saying that, with lawyers who claim they were unpaid yet they were actually paid, or they will be paid in the future.
How would that help IRB to deal with the bigger definition of the crooked consultants?
Senior General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Other than providing information on those sorts of infractions, our main remedy in dealing with these people is to either pass the information about infractions to the authorities, or in the case of unauthorized paid representatives, bar them from appearing before the board. As I mentioned earlier, I think that bumping up to a rule of our policy is extremely important.
I don't know if you want to hear a bit more about that policy. It is quite proactive. We don't simply wait for information. The member and any employee of the board are trained to observe certain things. For example, if we're in front of someone who has appeared many times in the past as a paid representative, and all of a sudden they start appearing before us with some frequency as an unpaid or pro bono representative, we're going to ask some questions. The sheer volume of cases can lead us to ask questions. Information we receive from a Federal Court file we might be watching or information we receive from portfolio partners such as CBSA and CIC are all relevant to that.
Conservative
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.
Mr. Rehaag, you made a pretty compelling case that in the situation of refugee claimants the standard has to be much higher because people's lives are potentially on the line if we get it wrong. In a case where consultants perhaps have got it wrong and the pre-removal risk assessment unit has granted protection, have you ever heard of intervention by the minister's office to vacate a PRA decision to provide protection to a refugee family?
Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
I haven't specifically looked into that. I haven't heard about the particular case you're referring to.
