Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 6th, 2019

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Murray, the law societies in this country are statutory regimes, but they're independent of the government. This proposal being put forward in the budget is a statutory regime, but the government could interfere if it wishes. For example—you may have heard me asking questions of the minister—it can override your bylaws and rules if they don't like them. How do you feel about that?

[John Murray]

Well, we have always seen ourselves as co-operating with the government and working together towards common goals. Based on the initial meetings I've had with IRCC and the minister's office, we are not concerned that the minister would interfere very much with our activities. As long as we have our rules correct, we think the minister will support us.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Good luck.

Mr. Kurland, I think you raised the issue of veiled consultants. I assume you mean that a lawyer or consultant would have staff do things. They're not lawyers, they're not consultants, but they're doing things that, in many cases, mislead the public or the people who have come for assistance. We had evidence at the previous hearings that they're supposed to be under the jurisdiction or guidance of the lawyer or their consultant, but they're not, and there are problems. You raised that. Could you elaborate on how we should deal with those people?

[Richard Kurland]

The matter came to the attention of our Federal Court just last month. The direction and trend in policy and at the law society level, probably across the country, is that a member of the law society will take full responsibility for the conduct of employees of the office, be they consultants, paralegals or employees. Things get sticky when the applicant does not have a clear understanding of who is doing what, and who the lawyer's client is. That's going to be a matter of continuing legal education.

After this recent Federal Court decision, I suspect sanctions will be clearly evident. The alarm bell has been rung from coast to coast to coast regarding your question, sir.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I've finished.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Murray, I just want to clarify something you said. You talked about the council transitioning to a college. Have you had discussions with the government to confirm that this is the intended process, that you would transition to a college?

[John Murray]

Yes, we have, and the act is quite clear on that as well.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay, all right, that's very interesting, and I think that's new information for the committee that the intention is for the existing council to transition to a college. Now we have that on the record, so I thank you.

Mr. Murray, you also spoke about setting the rules. The legislation says that the minister would establish the code of professional conduct. Is your expectation, then, that the code of conduct would basically take your existing rules and have the minister promulgate them? Is that the direction, given that you've talked about preserving the rules you have?

[John Murray]

We're looking at this as an opportunity to review and revamp all of our rules, but that would be the process I would expect, that we would work together with IRCC and the minister's office to provide our input. Then the minister would craft that through the regulation process into a code of conduct, making sure to address any concerns of the government.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Panlaqui, thank you for your testimony, and thank you for the important work you're involved in.

I know you presented as someone who's raising concerns about the activities, in some cases, of unscrupulous consultants. It seems to me, from listening to the testimony of the government, that it might come to view an organization like yours in certain situations as falling under the regulatory regime of this act, since you're supporting people who are interacting with the immigration system and they might come to you. There are some ambiguities in my mind around what would constitute legal advice. I had asked about the application of things like “for consideration”, and we didn't finish that line of questioning, but I think it was open-ended that if somebody was being paid to provide advice and they were being paid through grant funding from a third party, even if the person they were interacting with wasn't paying them, they could still certainly fall under the ambit of this legislation.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on how an organization like yours would feel about essentially being regulated as an immigration consultant in certain situations under this legislation.

[Maria Esel Panlaqui]

At the end of the day, we want to help our clients, the newcomers, the vulnerable and marginalized members of our society, right? These are people who are new to Canada, and most of the time they're very disconnected from their own communities. We just want to be proactive in terms of improving their access to information and other resources available in the community to support them. That's exactly the reason why they get trapped into accessing these immigration consultants who are fraudulent, because they don't know where to go for help. They don't know their rights. Most of our clients are tricked about the difference between an immigration lawyer, a paralegal and a consultant, for that matter.

Under section 92 of IRPA, we're not allowed to do work related to immigration. There has been discussion whether the government should consider giving us a mandate to at least do some basic paperwork, because our clients, who are mostly vulnerable and marginalized, won't be able to get a private lawyer to represent them.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thanks very much.

My first question is to Mr. Huynh. In 2016, by the end of December, there were 1,710 complaints with ICCRC. Can you tell us how many complaints there were in 2017 and 2018?

[Michael Huynh]

We're at approximately around 350 to 400 complaints per year. I do think it is important to note that not every complaint is the same. One of the major initiatives we've undertaken over the last couple of years is to look at the nature of the complaints and, more importantly, the sources of those complaints.

A major part of our strategy over the last year was to focus on the fact that 2% of our membership are responsible for 60% of those complaints, so it's really a matter of focusing on those bad actors.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Sorry, I'm trying to get a sense of the figures for 2017 and 2018. What I'm hearing you say is 350 complaints per year.

[Michael Huynh]

That's right.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Murray, on the question of transitioning into this new college, you said this decision has been communicated to you by the government. Can you tell us when that was communicated?

[John Murray]

I think I may have misspoken. If you review the transitional provisions in the act, it is quite clear that the act intends for the council to apply to be continued as it's launched—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Sorry, my question was directed to your response to Mr. Tilson.

[John Murray]

Yes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

You said this was under way. I'm just curious: when was that communicated to you by the government?

[John Murray]

It was communicated in two meetings, one at the end of April and one last week.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Did this come from officials, or from the minister?

[John Murray]

It came from staff of the department.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

What were the positions of the staff?