Evidence of meeting #28 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 csic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Consultant, Mennonite Central Committee Canada
I did make an overture like that, but it was maybe three years ago, and there didn't seem to be any openness to it. There's only one category and that seemed to be it.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
So there was no open-mindedness to the type of good work that the Mennonite Central Committee is doing?
Consultant, Mennonite Central Committee Canada
I mean, we have rotten apples, too; that's only human, you know. Still, I think we have our own fair bit of professional development and controlling systems within us, yes.
Thank you.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
If the fees were not exorbitant, would the central committee be willing to go through a certification process as well?
Consultant, Mennonite Central Committee Canada
I think so, yes. I cannot speak definitively.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I will continue along the same lines.
If I understand correctly, the cost issue is a decisive factor. If the incomes of the people you work with are much lower, it will be increasingly difficult for them to pay higher fees.
You told us about the possibility of creating categories for consultants. I have trouble seeing how we could draft that and include it in a piece of legislation. My understanding is that you would like us to grant the authority to the new regulatory body to issue restricted licences, to restrict the practice of some consultants. Is that what you are asking us to do?
Consultant, Mennonite Central Committee Canada
Yes. I think, Monsieur St-Cyr, you did understand correctly. I think if one inserted that one word in proposed subsection 91(1), then it would be less categorical--the word “prohibited”. I can read this for you. What I'm suggesting is that in subsection 91(1), where it says, “Subject to this section, no person shall knowingly represent or advise a person for consideration...in connection with”, there I'm suggesting “a prohibited proceeding or application under this Act”.
That would mean, then, that the minister or the regulatory body would have a list of some actions, or applications, or proceedings that would be “prohibited”, and there might be multiple lists for, as you say, some restricted licences. I think that one word, “prohibited”, could give the minister the authority to be a little more flexible. It might not result in more flexibility, but at least there would be a little more authority to be flexible.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Okay.
We could look at the legislation, but you are saying that a person would not have the right to give advice other than the kind that the association has approved.
But the text states that, if you are a member of the new association, you will have the right to give advice.
So there is no reason to believe that the current wording is not permissive enough or that it is too restrictive. Ultimately, in a scenario where we could break up the categories, it would still be rather permissive.
Consultant, Mennonite Central Committee Canada
I'm not a professional lawyer.
Consultant, Mennonite Central Committee Canada
When I read proposed subsection 91(1) as it stood, it seemed to me that it did not allow that flexibility.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
That means it is designed to include a general prohibition. We first prohibit people from giving advice for a fee.
Then, we include exceptions to this general prohibition, allowing the members of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants to do so. Therefore, if you are a member of the society, you can practice in all areas.
You would like to implement a system that compartmentalizes the general scope of practice.
Consultant, Mennonite Central Committee Canada
It would seem to me that one could be a class A member, a class B member, or a class C member. It would take a little bit of work to identify those clearly, but it's quite doable.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
One of the concerns I've expressed throughout this study and many witnesses have also expressed is related to the resources available to people to help them find out whether the person they are dealing with is accredited to do the job.
We are currently telling people to go on the website and check whether the person is accredited by the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. It really is simple. They are either a consultant or not. The same goes for an engineer, a lawyer and so on.
What can we do to help people find out the right information? Does that not become somewhat complicated in terms of transparency? The people think they are dealing with a consultant authorized to work with refugees, when, in reality, that consultant is only authorized to take care of tourist visas. Isn't that procedure a little risky?
Consultant, Mennonite Central Committee Canada
I referred at one point to the internal transparency system that already exists, which could be strengthened. For example, at the end of an application form, there's a question: did someone assist you in filling in this application form? There, the person could be required to respond whether they are class A or class B or class C.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll actually give you the chance to respond to that, Mr. Janzen.
Consultant, Mennonite Central Committee Canada
Thank you.
If the committee were interested, I think it would be doable, and I appreciate that there is at least some interest in exploring whether it would be. Government officials would obviously have to respond and provide very concrete answers, but it seems to me that, given the internal transparency system that already exists, if a person who helped someone else fill in that application form misrepresented himself or herself, they would be found out so quickly that I doubt one would dare to do that.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
The only problem, Mr. Janzen, is that a lot of people are doing that. That's why we had to introduce the legislation.
I understand your issue, and I wanted to pursue this a little bit further, because I realize, and many of us realize, the good work that the organization obviously does. But within the context of the bill, it actually does allow and extends to individuals offering advice if they are members in good standing of a provincial or territorial bar, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, or a member of a body designated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It also allows not-for-profit organizations or individuals who are friends or family of the individual to assist them in the process.
So it does provide for some exemptions. One option would be to fall within one of those guidelines. You wouldn't be charging a fee to any of those folks you would be helping, but if you are a not-for-profit organization, you would in fact be able to assist individuals or families.
There's another option, and I don't think it's necessarily a bad one. Why are you opposed to becoming a registered organization or a registered consultant who would report to the newly formed regulator body. Why not just become a member of it and continue to do the work you're doing?
Consultant, Mennonite Central Committee Canada
On the second question, I've thought about that from the perspective of the individuals who are doing the work and are not staff of MCC but on their own. For them, the cost of membership, the fees, and the costs of professional development run close to $5,000, and the people say they're not making enough to make it worthwhile to do that.
Plus, they say they are helping people with certain limited immigration needs, and on those needs they try to become well-informed. For them to become really competent in, say, helping a refugee claimant appear before the Immigration and Refugee Board is just beyond them, and they throw up their hands.
As an organization, maybe we could. Maybe that's another option that could be considered somehow.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I guess what I'm suggesting is that the bill does allow for some of that work to take place. It would have to be on a not-for-fee basis and someone obviously would have to be very closely related to the individual or family doing it, but it does allow for that extended type of assistance to take place.
The other is.... While I know there are costs involved, with what we're facing in the system we have now, perhaps not to the extent that you may see within the organization but certainly to the extent that CSIC sees currently, we have to make these changes and we need to ensure that we have a broader and a tighter system.
Mr. Ryan would probably like to respond to that.
Member, Board of Directors, IMMFUND-IMMFONDS Inc.
Mr. Dykstra, I think Mr. Janzen and the regulator are not that far apart, quite honestly, and there is a public protection mandate. The law societies have part-time lawyers; they have lawyers who practice within corporations. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that CSIC would entertain.... I remember the conversation from three years ago. Quite frankly, with 1,800 members, we have a limited $9 million budget to deliver a public protection mechanism. There was a real concern at CSIC at the time that we would not be able to have those graduated things.
But certainly, once Bill C-35 comes in, I think there is an opportunity again to have that conversation, because obviously the number of people--the base of consultants paying into the public protection mechanism--would be much greater, and therefore we can start looking at a graduated or restricted scope of practices, which I think Mr. Janzen is proposing. I don't think we're too far apart on that.
