Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 6th, 2019

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

Good afternoon, colleagues. We'll call meeting 156 of the 42nd Parliament of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to order.

Could you indulge me by having some conversations on the record about what we've discussed informally, for the benefit of the clerks?

First of all, my best wishes and congratulations for the elevation of our current/soon-to-be former chair. I thank him for his service.

It's my understanding that there has been agreement among the parties to reschedule the latter component of the agenda today, scheduled to take place at 6:30, to a date to be determined, but preferably—for the benefit of our colleagues sitting at this table—as soon as possible.

I would look to the will of the room for a motion to that effect, or a general consensus that we are good with that approach.

Mr. Whalen.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

If we can squeeze it in quickly within 15 minutes, we might get it in this week, but if we feel we need the full hour, then I don't think it will be able to happen this week. It will have to be next week, before we break. We have to provide the instructions before the constituency week.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

That is understood, so perhaps we can commit to having some discussions among ourselves on scheduling that as soon as possible, and provide direction to the clerk and other clerk staff as soon as possible.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

That's wonderful.

This afternoon, we have the minister in front of us.

Minister, you have seven minutes to present your remarks, and then we will open up the floor for questions.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Colleagues, it's a pleasure to appear once again before this committee.

I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for its work on studying the issue of immigration consultants.

The committee produced a very thorough report, which we carefully studied and relied upon in developing the government's proposal. I am very pleased to say that we are implementing the vast majority of the committee's 21 recommendations.

The work of this committee put an important light on the dishonest and predatory practices of some unregulated or unscrupulous consultants, and the real harm they cause to people's lives. This is exactly why our government took the time to develop a thoughtful, multi-faceted plan to address the current gaps and to strengthen the way we protect the public.

Madam Chair, like all my colleagues around this table, in my role as a member of Parliament I have heard harrowing stories of exploitation and suffering from my constituents. Prior to that, when I practised immigration law, I saw the real impacts and harm that unscrupulous and unregulated consultants cause to our clients. It is the responsibility of governments to do all we can to stop this kind of unethical, damaging behaviour.

At the same time, we must acknowledge that there are many honest and ethical professionals who provide important services to clients, and help them to navigate the immigration system. They, too, suffer from the damage inflicted on their reputation and their profession by the bad apples among them.

It is imperative to create a system that better protects everyone involved. While fraudsters will always seek ways to benefit themselves, we can make it harder for them to succeed, and deter others from seeking to do the same.

I have been intently focused on improving the immigration system. We have made great strides in reducing processing times, eliminating backlogs, modernizing client experiences and enhancing our service delivery. Our hope is that by making these improvements, it will be easier for all clients to access our services, without necessarily relying on a lawyer or an immigration consultant.

That being said, there will always be a demand for service providers, particularly as more people than ever before are choosing Canada as their destination to visit, study, work or build a new life.

While there have been several attempts in the past, the reality is that the field of immigration consulting has never been properly regulated. The current framework fails to provide the tools, the mandate and the oversight the regulator needs to effectively carry out its work of regulating. When the previous government designed the current regulatory body, for some reason it failed to set up the statutory framework that the body required, despite previous studies that had recommended it be done.

Our government is proposing a three-pronged strategy.

First, we will overhaul how consultants are regulated by creating a new statutory regime for the profession. The college of immigration and citizenship consultants will have the explicit responsibilities and new authorities necessary to govern the profession properly, ensure consumer protection, and hold consultants to a very high standard of professional and ethical conduct.

A first-ever statutory regime puts consultants on the same footing as other regulated professionals in Canada, including lawyers, doctors and other trade professions. Clients of licenced consultants who do not receive ethical or competent advice will have, as recourse, a robust complaints and disciplinary process, which includes new powers for the college to effectively investigate complaints against its members. This includes the ability to enter the premises of a consultant to investigate when wrongdoing is suspected, as well as the ability to request court injunctions against unauthorized consultants.

Under the new legislation, the college will be required to establish a fund to compensate people who have been victimized and exploited by a consultant. In addition, the college will establish tiered licensing for providing different types of services. It will also introduce new educational and training requirements for anyone who wants to become a consultant.

The new regulatory framework will be coupled with very strong government oversight. This includes the authority for the Minister of Immigration to appoint public interest directors to the board, design a code of conduct, designate a civil servant observer to the board, step in if the college is failing to perform as expected and make regulations that govern the conduct of the college.

The second area of focus is compliance and enforcement. Budget 2019 commits $51.9 million to strengthen protections against fraudulent consulting practices. While the regulator will be responsible for discipline and professional conduct, the government will be responsible for enforcing the law. Therefore, we will be providing more resources to the Canada Border Services Agency to pursue criminal investigations. We will also be increasing criminal penalties. We will also establish a new administrative regime to penalize non-compliance that doesn't amount to criminal behaviour. The bill proposes the establishment of monetary penalties and bans to be administered by IRCC.

Finally, the government will launch robust public awareness activities in Canada and abroad to help clients protect themselves. This includes placing dedicated community outreach officers in our visa offices abroad. Budget 2019 will also be used for the translation of materials into other languages, making them more accessible to our clientele; social media messaging; and posters, pamphlets and other materials to be placed at visa application centres abroad.

Madam Chair, this committee's recommendations on stronger oversight, more effective regulation, better deterrence mechanisms and expanded public awareness activities were key in helping the government develop this plan. Our primary objective is to protect our clients from fraud and to stop those who choose to prey on vulnerable people.

Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

Thank you, Minister.

The first round will go to Mr. Whalen.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for coming, Minister. This is a great opportunity for us to have a second look now at some solutions to long-standing issues with immigration consultants that not just this government has faced, but previous ones as well.

After the 2008 study that the Conservatives undertook, they amended the college, but there has always been some concern that there weren't strong enough enforcement mechanisms.

Can you provide us some assurances that you believe that the current enforcement mechanisms are sufficient and maybe summarize the key ones for us?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you. That's a really important point to make.

I think the previous government's establishment of the body was a step in the right direction. However, unfortunately, the ICCRC was not given adequate tools to really enforce its mandate. There were limitations in the ability of the professional body to, for example, enter the premises of a business when there was a suspicion that an immigration consultant was not upholding the standards of the ICCRC. Also, there were other issues around its ability to provide enough deterrence in its mandate—to set up a compensation fund, for example, which is what we are proposing here.

They will be moving forward a requirement to set up insurance that will be available to people to pursue. In addition to that, we're coupling all these measures for the college with our own enforcement—more investigations, more enforcement and certainly more oversight in terms of making sure there are penalties and consequences to this behaviour. The criminal penalties are being doubled, and there will be a new regime of administrative monetary penalties that will be introduced for behaviour that doesn't quite meet the criminal threshold but is egregious enough to warrant intervention. In those cases, we'll be able to do that.

Finally, the college will be empowered to also publish the names of folks who are undergoing disciplinary processes, just like any other professional regulator.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

That might be a good segue to my next question. It seems that our government has had the opportunity to put in other self-regulatory bodies in this mandate. Intellectual property professionals have a college now.

What teachings has your department relied on in coming up with this model of self-governance yet strong governmental oversight in terms of the accountability on the board and also in terms of additional and stronger criminal penalties?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

We looked at all the recommendations in the committee's report, and I really want to thank the members of this committee for their really important work on the report. The recommendations that were contained in that report were very crucial to our crafting of this policy, and the vast majority of the proposals that I'm presenting are actually based on the recommendations from the committee.

In terms of self-regulation with greater government oversight, this is the standard for many professions. It is to make sure that the self-regulating professional body has a code of conduct for its members; that there is a compensation fund; that there is insurance; that there is adequate training to make sure folks are receiving the training necessary to become competent and meet the expectations of our clients; that there is a mechanism in place with the body to take really strong action against its members who do not meet the standards expected of them; and finally, to empower the college to also go after the unauthorized consultants by going to court and seeking injunctions against them.

Again, that is coupled with the steps that I spoke about, increasing the criminal penalties—in fact doubling them—and introducing this administrative monetary penalty regime, which I think will have a serious deterrent effect on those who seek to prey on our clients.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

My final question is a quick one. Although I wasn't a full-time member of the committee at the time, I did attend one of the meetings during the study and we heard a lot about fraud committed overseas, not by Canadians at all but by overseas actors who are taking advantage of their fellow citizens who are trying to emigrate to Canada from those countries. What steps is the government taking in this regard to address those types of fraud?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

There are a number of steps. This is a really good question. Of course, due to jurisdictional issues, our law enforcement does not have reach there; however, there's a lot we can do.

The first thing is to simplify the immigration process so that our clients don't necessarily have to go to an immigration lawyer or an immigration consultant, and in that, we've done a lot. We've updated more than 500 web pages to make the information easier to find. We have streamlined a number of application forms for things like spousal sponsorship. One of the reasons we were able to make a lot of headway in reducing the processing time there was that we simplified the number of forms that people had to fill out. We also invested heavily in outreach and information-sharing with our key markets, so that the clients, the foreign nationals, can see who to rely on and avoid the unauthorized consultants and those who have a bad record.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

Mr. Whalen.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I have one quick question. The not-for-profit act was the mechanism the previous government established. Now we're doing a stand-alone act for consultants. Is there any particular rationale for that?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Yes. I believe that this piece of legislation will enable the college to finally become a fully functional, self-regulatory professional body with the tools to do the job we require.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

Thank you.

Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's good to be here and to see you, Minister.

You said the changes made by the Conservatives were steps in the right direction. Given the things you normally say about Conservatives, I'll take that, and thank you very much.

Of course, those were always intended as a first step. After three and a half years of not seeing any action on this, I think people recognize that further steps are needed. We've been calling for those.

Minister, we've talked about the legal framework. I want to make this concrete because I think there are some ambiguities. We talked about a code of conduct that has yet to be developed. Let me give you a hypothetical. Actually, it's not that hypothetical—it might be something you've heard in your own riding. Say a person comes to Canada under a temporary visa. They're coming to visit. They're coming from a safe country. They're getting advice from an immigration consultant and they want to look for ways to stay longer. The immigration consultant suggests that they claim refugee status, which is not something we want people doing if they're coming from a safe country. Subsequently, that person's refugee claim is rejected. They're removed, and they become subject to other kinds of limitations. Essentially, they're acting on advice, and it's advice they shouldn't have been given.

What would happen to the consultant in that case? Would the person who is affected have any recourse, given that they were acting on the advice of a consultant? Do you envision this sort of thing being covered by a code of conduct?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

On the issue of why we're acting at this time, we had to make sure that we got this right. Many governments have tried to tackle this issue, and they have failed. We took the necessary time, including studying the report extensively, to make sure that this happens.

This will be sorted out in the code of conduct, the training, the disciplinary processes, and the tiered licensing systems that will be set up by the college. That's our expectation. They'll do the work necessary, and the government will set the direction.

As to what the college will map out for its members—what is and what is not ethical or unethical conduct, or what is competent advice and what is beyond the training—that is something they'll develop. They'll develop that training. They'll develop that licensing process. This is something they'll work on with their members to ensure that clients are protected.

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

I understand you're saying that they're going to develop a code of conduct and work with the members, but people who are affected, potentially, by the very real type of situation I've described—in which somebody is given bad advice and they're trying to navigate the system—will be looking for a clear answer from you on this type of case. For example, if somebody comes in on a temporary visa and claims refugee status even though they're not actually a refugee, should the code of conduct lead to the disciplining of a consultant in that case? Should the code provide for recourse for the individual who was affected?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I'm not going to get into what the college training will look like, or the different levels of licensing the college will establish. Those are granular details that the college will grapple with.

Having said that, I can tell you that our first priority will be to equip the college, for the first time ever, to be able to protect clients. That includes making sure that the immigration consultants who are members of the college provide competent service and good advice to their clients.

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

Minister, I think people are concerned about the existing regulatory body, and this has been highlighted in a unanimous report by this committee. You've left the door open, in this legislation, to having the same body take over under the renamed and relatively similar framework you've established. You're telling us, on all of these important detail questions, real-life situations of people giving bad advice, that you don't want to get that “granular”.

I would submit to you that this is not fair to people out there who are trying to form opinions about this legislation and trying to understand what the impact on them will be. The door is being left open to a flawed body to take over this work, and you're saying you don't want to get into such a granular level of detail. Is that really fair?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

No, you asked me about a specific set of circumstances—

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

Yes.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

—on a specific case. What I can tell you is that there will be proper recourse for discipline and compensation. For disciplinary issues and compensation of people who have received—