Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 20th, 2010

[Peter Hill]

The proposed legislation has a combination of $50,000 and possibly including two years in prison.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Correct. Do you believe that's adequate?

[Peter Hill]

I believe it's a step forward, that's for sure. It definitely will--

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

But that's the existing legislation, so we're just proceeding the same way we've done up until now.

[Peter Hill]

With the extension of the application to the pre-application part of the problem, that will close a loophole and that will be helpful. So it will go beyond the existing legislation.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Oliver, do you think that's adequate as a disincentive when you've got millions of dollars potentially to be gained and that's the fine?

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

I think the important thing is that's where we would have to rely on other provisions, either of the Criminal Code, or we can actually engage criminal organization provisions where we can actually go after their proceeds of crime--those types of investigations. So there exists the opportunity to use the Criminal Code, which, for instance, for fraud has penalties up to 14 years in prison and so forth.

For the large part, our investigations involve those more serious Criminal Code offences versus--

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Shouldn't we perhaps think of a friendly amendment to the proposed legislation that's come before us that would have some sort of proportionality based on the amounts people have potentially been defrauded of? Wouldn't you find that often in other types of legislation in regard to fraud?

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

In terms of the fraud, under the Criminal Code they are very serious offences, and I think the penalty section carries--

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Proportionality.

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

Yes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to address the issue of extraterritoriality. I've addressed this before with witnesses. The size of this business means that if you shut down a business here in Vancouver--you reference one case--and if a person is making a lot of money on it they can move to the source country, and there are a number of source countries that are providing the majority of those hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Should we not consider using precedents of extraterritoriality in other legislation in this particular legislation, because quite clearly it's of a transnational character, this problem.

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

The offences the RCMP deals with, primarily frauds and so forth, are very serious, and we would invest the resources in pursuing the cases internationally.

[Gregory Israelstam]

I would very briefly add to that. Extraterritoriality is built into the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act offence section right now. Section 135 provides that an offence that takes place outside Canada that would be an offence in Canada can be prosecuted.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have come to the end.

Here they go with points of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, we had agreed on seven minutes. Since the Liberals used up five minutes, I have a short, two-minute question. We won't debate that for three minutes. Are we agreed on that?

Mr. Israelstam, you clearly explained the current requirements—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Excuse me just a second, before you get warmed up.

The clerk agrees with you.

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

You explained the evidence that had to be provided under the current legislation to show that someone was exercising the profession illegally. That's fine.

Let us suppose now that the committee decides that it would be an offence even to present oneself as a consultant or to give the impression that one is an immigration consultant, which is the case under the legislation in place in Quebec and the other provinces.

Would it be easier to prove that someone presented himself as a consultant through a business card or an advertisement, rather than having to prove what is required under the current legislation? In your work, would it be easier to provide that evidence in court?

[Gregory Israelstam]

I believe it would. One of the things I didn't include in my explanation earlier was the fact that section 91 of IRPA will be amended to make it an offence to offer to represent or advise a person as well. I think that a public advertisement to provide immigration services--

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

In your opinion, offering one's services by distributing business cards would be an offence under Bill C-35. Is that your interpretation?

[Gregory Israelstam]

If the offer would include an offer to provide those services for financial consideration, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much, sir.

We have come to an end. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for appearing and giving us your opinion on this bill.

We're going to suspend until the next group comes. Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, if you suspend for a minute, if the committee has some questions, could we ask the Library of Parliament to look them up? For instance, what was the number of summary charges? Was 50,000 a high enough number? There are a whole bunch of questions. Would we have a bit of time to submit all the questions and ask that a bit of research be done? When would that be?

[A voice]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to reconvene.

Ms. Cox-Duquette is present but not in the room. So we have one witness at the present time, and the other is going to come in a few moments.

We have Professor Sean Rehaag, who is a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University. Thank you very much for coming, sir.

You have up to seven minutes to make a presentation to the committee.