Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 1st, 2010

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

[Michael Greene]

He's wearing out both us and his own people--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you. Let's proceed.

Mr. Oliphant, I'm restarting the clock.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.

I have a question aimed more at the law society, then. One of the things the law society does is ensure that people who aren't lawyers don't practise law. You have a certain enforcement power, ability, and resources.

Do you see in this legislation the kinds of resources that would be necessary to go out after the unscrupulous consultants who are not registered, versus the incompetent ones? We have unscrupulous and incompetent and they're not exactly the same. Is this a problem in this legislation?

[Malcolm Heins]

I think what you've heard in the answer to the earlier question.... I think the reason you've not heard anybody directly support the approach is that the regulatory approach is I think the most appropriate way to go.

When you take that approach, a lot of these questions fall into place within the regulatory scheme; for instance, the ability to not only regulate those who are members of your organization, your licensees, and the ability to prosecute those who are operating outside of those boundaries.... Each of--

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

You need resources to do that.

[Malcolm Heins]

We gather those resources from those whom we regulate. That's part of the regulatory scheme that we are compelled to put into place under the statute. It's a complete package.

What's happening here is that you're attempting to create something that looks a little like a regulatory organization, but isn't, and as a consequence, you have holes in the approach.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.

I'm going to pass it over to Borys.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Just out of curiosity, it appears that.... It's quite clear and you've actually said it in your conclusion: “History in Canada and abroad has shown self-regulation for consultants to be a failure”. That's an unequivocal statement.

You gave the example of Australia.

It appears that choice number one was to use lawyers and paralegals that you actually would oversee. Choice number two would have been a statutory body.

This is choice number three. The way it's currently written and presented to us, what would you say its chances are of success?

[Michael Greene]

You're looking at me, so my light goes on.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Notwithstanding that you've already told us you're a fan of the minister and you like that he's trying to do something on this file, notwithstanding that qualification, what are the chances of a success of the way this has been written?

[Michael Greene]

We thought something needed to be done right away. Something needed to be done about the ghost consultants to shut that gaping hole and something needed to be done to clean up the situation in CSIC.

There are many competent consultants out there. There are some who are well experienced and highly trained, and they're very good at what they do, but there are many others as well. We're hoping that this will be an improvement. We are skeptical, and our membership is very skeptical, which is why we come on pretty strong about saying that we think this is a field for lawyers.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

Monsieur St-Cyr, you have time for a question.

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

I want to come back to the triangle I talked about earlier. There are three stakeholders in this scenario: the claimant, who applies for refugee status under immigration legislation; that person's advisor, whether it be a consultant or a lawyer; and the government, whether it be the Quebec government or the federal government. So there are three relationships between these parties.

Right now—and this was the case even before CSIC was created—a claimant can always file their application with the federal government directly. As soon as CSIC was created, a level of oversight was introduced into the relationship between the advisor and the federal government. The point of creating that body was to allow the relationship to exist, to make it legal, by requiring the individual to belong to the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

Now the legislation has added a level of oversight to the relationship between the advisor and the claimant. And, in my opinion, that has a lot more to do with protecting the public interest by regulating the profession.

Do all the lawyers here today agree with me, in that the paradigm has shifted and we are now focusing more on protecting the public, not just the integrity of the immigration system, as was the case previously? Does anyone want to jump in?

[Chantal Arsenault]

I will. It is not easy to separate one from the other. In terms of protecting the system's integrity, the truthfulness of the information provided is essential. We need to go beyond the relationship between the representative and the government. We need to look at the relationship between the individual and another person, when it involves ghost consultants, whose existence we were not necessarily aware of. That is the way to maintain the system's integrity and ensure that what is said to have happened really did.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir. I'm afraid we've run out of time.

I want to thank you all for your excellent presentations. As Mr. Oliphant said, it's too bad you weren't here at the very beginning, because they were all outstanding. Thank you very much for coming.

The committee will suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to reconvene.

I notice that some media are taking pictures and interviewing. Could that take place outside, please? Thank you.

We have before us the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, the Honourable Jason Kenney.

Mr. Minister, you have a number of your staff with you. I will let you introduce your staff.

Thank you for coming. You may proceed.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Thank you, Chairman.

I am joined here by members of the public service from Citizenship and Immigration Canada who have assisted with the development of this important bill to crack down on crooked immigration consultants and to protect the people who dream of coming to Canada from exploitation by unscrupulous agents.

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, thank you for the invitation to speak to you about Bill C-35. It would of course amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to strengthen the rules governing representatives who charge a fee for immigration advice and representation.

We intend to close loopholes currently exploited by unscrupulous representatives and improve the way in which immigration consultants are regulated.

Taken together, the changes we propose would help protect vulnerable would-be immigrants, help safeguard our immigration system against fraud and abuse, and help ensure an efficient and fair system for those trying to get into Canada through legitimate means.

As we all know, Mr. Chair, immigration fraud happens around the world, and Canada is far from being the only country challenged by it. Some examples of fraudulent activity include bogus marriages, lying to an officer on an application form, and the use of fake documents, including fake marriage certificates, death certificates, travel itineraries and banking statements.

The problem we are tackling is large in scale and international in scope. The value of coming to Canada is frankly so great in the minds of so many that they are often willing to pay sometimes their life savings in cash to unscrupulous representatives, be they lawyers or consultants, with the false promise of obtaining visas to visit or move to Canada.

As you know, I spent a couple of weeks in September meeting with our international partners in Europe, India, China, the Philippines, and Australia to discuss ways we can work together to combat fraud, abuse, and wrongdoing in our immigration system.

Because large numbers of immigration consultants operate beyond our borders, I underscored the need for combined action to thwart fraud and various forms of exploitation by unscrupulous immigration agents and crooked consultants.

After all, the commission of fraud under Canada's immigration program is a crime that threatens the integrity of our immigration system, raises security concerns, wastes tax dollars, is unfair to those who do follow the rules, and adds to the processing time for legitimate applications.

Bill C-35 would amend IRPA so that only members in good standing of a provincial bar association, the Chambre des notaires du Québec or a body designated by the minister may represent or advise for a fee—or offer to do so—at any stage of a proceeding or the application process.

In short, Mr. Chairman, we propose to extend the prohibition on advice and representation to the pre-application period, or that period before an immigration proceeding begins. In so doing, we have created a new criminal offence, which would further deter those persons known as ghost consultants, who are not members of a recognized body.

As we all know, governing bodies are responsible for taking disciplinary action against their members in cases of misconduct. This includes the revocation of membership. A governing body for immigration consultants can, like other governing bodies, investigate the conduct of its members where there's a concern that a member has breached the terms of such membership. Provincial law societies use a similar process to look into complaints concerning their own members.

Protecting the integrity of immigration programs is principally the federal government's role, but because of their responsibility for consumer protection and the regulation of professions, the provinces and territories also play an important role in regulating the conduct of immigration consultants.

In this regard, Quebec's own recent amendments to its regulations recognize as an immigration consultant any member in good standing of the body designated under federal regulations.

Quebec's amendments also demonstrate a willingness to work closely with the federal government in the regulation of immigration consultants.

In addition, provinces raised no objections when we shared the changes to IRPA, proposed under this bill, with them during the course of federal-provincial consultations.

With respect to oversight of the governing body for immigration consultants, there are currently no mechanisms in IRPA that give the minister the authority to oversee the governing body.

The bill would provide the minister with the power, by regulation, to designate a body to govern immigration consultants and to establish measures to enhance the government's oversight of that designated body. Specifically, the designated body would be required to provide the minister with information for the purpose of assisting us and to evaluate whether it governs its members in a manner that is in the public interest so that they provide professional and ethical representation and advice.

Upon further review of the bill, and in response to concerns raised by this committee--and I followed closely the deliberations of the committee and commend and thank you all for your active and very conscientious review--the government is now considering an amendment in this regard. The amendment would provide broader authority to enact regulations requiring the designated governing body to provide information to the government relating to its governance.

The government is also proposing the recognition of paralegals regulated by a law society; I believe that's an issue that's come up in hearings. By recognizing the ability of law societies to govern their membership in the public interest, such recognition could help would-be immigrants.

This bill is a comprehensive proposal to provide protection to vulnerable would-be immigrants by imposing criminal sanctions on unscrupulous representatives, enhancing oversight of the governing body for immigration consultants and improving information-sharing tools.

This is being done without the significant costs associated with the establishment of a governing body through stand-alone legislation, as suggested by some. A similar approach is expected to cost Australia approximately $20 million over four years, just as an example.

At the same time that Bill C-35 moves through the legislative process, a public selection process has been undertaken, as you know, under the existing legislation, to identify a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants.

This committee's 2008 and 2009 reports on the issue pointed to a clear lack of public confidence in the body currently governing immigration consultants. This lack of public confidence poses a significant and immediate threat to the immigration program.

Public comments on the selection process were solicited in June and were followed by a call for submissions as published in the Canada Gazette last August. This open and transparent process is being undertaken to ensure that the body governing immigration consultants can effectively regulate its members, thus ensuring public confidence in the integrity of our overall immigration system.

A selection committee composed of officials from my department, other federal government organizations, and external experts will examine all complete submissions against the criteria listed in our published call for submissions. This selection committee will provide the minister with a recommendation as to which organization(s), if any, has or have demonstrated the necessary competencies. Any and all interested candidates are welcome to apply.

This ongoing public selection process, together with the legislative changes proposed in this bill, ensure, we believe, the most efficient and effective approach to strengthening the regulation of immigration consultants now and in the future.

In closing, as I have said before, most immigration representatives working in Canada are legitimate and ethical. But we must act against those who exploit and victimize would-be immigrants by charging them for bad advice, or who help them try to cheat their way into the country, thereby compromising the integrity of Canada's immigration program.

I invite the members of the committee to help us as we work together to crack down on crooked consultants and protect fairness for all applicants for immigration to Canada.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

There are questions.

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today. Obviously, we have a few questions.

First of all, you mention in your brief that Australia is going through a more expensive approach in creating stand-alone legislation to create a regulatory body. One of the hints as to why they're going that way is something that we heard in the previous testimony.

According to the Canadian Bar Association, the model of having the regulator also be the professional body has fallen into disrepute. For example, we have the Law Society of Upper Canada in Ontario, and the Canadian Bar Association, which is the professional body and the association for lawyers.

The proposal in Bill C-35 does not separate these different functions into two different entities. I'm worried that down the line we'll have to end up going the route the committee recommended we take the first time, when they came forward with the recommendations a couple of years ago.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you for your very sensible comment and question. I understand that this has been the subject of the testimony and debate here.

I can assure you that when I was first presented with options for better regulation of the sector by the department, we looked at all options, including this model of a so-called statutory body, analogous, for example, to the law societies. We didn't discount anything. We are looking for the most effective and practical form of regulation. I think we're all agreed on that.

There are several reasons why we decided not to proceed with that model. Firstly, it would take a long time to put it in place, and we need a sound regulator in place following the selection process in the very near future. It would be very expensive, and that expense would work down to the public.

I think it's a false analogy to compare it to the law societies. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of lawyers. The law societies have existed for a century or longer. They have a well-developed body of expertise in governance. None of those things can be said of the consultant industry.

There are currently 1,600 members of CSIC. They typically don't have the same level of professional education as lawyers. There's not the same body of expertise. Basically, the government, funded by tax dollars, would have to be there for the first several years, setting up such an institution. One could argue that there would be certain advantages, but I think the costs outweigh the advantages.

I believe that the model we are proposing would allow, for example, for investigations under the amendments recently adopted by Parliament under the Not-for-profit Corporations Act. It would allow for complaints from members to be considered. So whatever marginal advantage could be gained by going to a statutory body would be significantly outweighed by the cost and the expense

Frankly, I'm not sure that we're talking about an industry that has the capacity to support an organization of that magnitude. When we look at the other professional bodies created by provincial statute, they have decades of experience, large memberships, and large revenue streams. None of those things can be said about the consultant industry.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you.

On the process we're in right now, we're busy debating and amending Bill C-35 as we move forward. However, at the same time, we've had the call for submissions going on since the summer. Ideally, Bill C-35 would be complete and we'd have a framework to then turn around and say, “This is what we want you to apply for”.

Can you talk to me a little bit about why we're doing it all at the same time and how that's perhaps interfering with the quality of the process?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

That's a fair question.

I don't think it is interfering. First of all, under the current statute, under IRPA, I think the minister can and in fact has a responsibility to designate a regulator of consultants and can de-designate. I'm using the current statutory authority that Parliament has given to the minister to call for proposals on a designated regulator.

This is in response to concerns raised specifically by this committee. Quite frankly, some might ask--I suspect Ms. Chow might--why it is taking us so long. We did a committee report on this in whenever it was, in 2008, and we finally got around to opening up the process because of concerns raised about the current regulatory body.

So we didn't want to wait. We wanted to take action. What we propose in this bill would only enhance the current powers that exist in the statute for ministerial oversight of the activities of the regulatory body. It clarifies the capacity of the minister to de-designate the regulatory body going forward.

We are also now proposing an amendment to expand the requirement of the regulatory body to provide information on its governance to the minister, to ensure that we don't have the same kinds of accountability problems that have existed in the past four years.