Evidence of meeting #157 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consultants.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Michelle Rempel
With much respect to Mr. Oliphant, he is technically still a member of the committee until the PROC committee change in membership.
To clarify, yes, he is still our chair, and I—
Conservative
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
We know he's not going to come. That's my point. Either you or Ms. Kwan will actually be the acting chair, and quite frankly, Mr. Maguire and I miss you over here.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Michelle Rempel
I know, and with that, I would strongly advise my colleague to get on with business.
Thank you.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
All right.
My question is to all of the witnesses.
The existing regulator has a choice. It can either disband, in which case the government would form a new regulator, or it can transition into the new regulator. The problem I see is that, around this table, the existing regulator hasn't been held in the highest esteem, for different reasons. That's why we've had a number of hearings at this committee.
Should we have confidence that this new body will succeed where the current regulator has failed with essentially the same people at the top?
Gerd Damitz Member, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
Absolutely.
I appreciate the question because a lot of the bad reputation that came up has been based on wrong statistics that have been disseminated by other groups, which are actually quite easy to verify but that didn't happen. I would like to take this opportunity to ask, if you consent, to clarify that later.
The problem was that there were deficiencies in the effectiveness of the complaints and discipline process. We have to realize that the regulator from two years ago is not the same regulator as today, so when somebody says, “Oh, you should just change the regulator,” it's actually not true.
What you are doing, which I think is a very wise business decision, is to keep the hard shell, and now we have the argument about the soft factors, which is management, and so on. We have to realize that there is a new CEO. We have a new manager of complaints and discipline, and an entirely new, restructured complaints and discipline department. We have a new manager of education, and just a few days ago there was an announcement and the new one-year diploma program was introduced.
When you look at that and you see the recommendations of the committee from two years ago, most of them have actually been fulfilled. Therefore, from our side, I can say with confidence that there is no problem in doing that. In fact, it's a very wise decision.
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
If you look at the bill, number one, there's a change in governance. Therefore, the people on the board won't be the same. The balance of the board is different. The approval of the code of ethics is different, and the approval of the bylaws is completely different. In addition, there are regulations that will be drafted probably after the bill gets royal assent to become an act.
Together, all these changes are fundamental. It's not about the people at the top; it's more about how the governance process works. We know that people change. In fact, I can confirm that, in large majority, most of the people who were there during the committee hearings in 2017 are not there anymore.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
On the point you've just been raising, essentially before this item in the budget came through, it was a self-regulatory group. However, it's not self-regulatory anymore. It's a complete arm of the government. The government can appoint who's on it. The government can set the bylaws. It can set the rules and regulations. It can tell this group exactly what to do.
The question is, should a government be in that position? I'm asking this question to consultants really when they know they have no say anymore. The say is with the government of the day, whoever that is.
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
I want to answer that question, if I may.
I'm sorry, but I beg to differ, because the say of the members is still there. When we look at the act, I would say that it is an act that would support the majority of the profession. Right now, for example, members can vote for members. In the future, the act is done in a way where it is not always supposed to have a majority of government-appointed directors. That would give either a balance or more on the—
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I'm just referring to the section in the bill that simply says that the minister of the day, by an order in council, can make bylaws, withdraw them or do whatever he likes. Is that a good thing for the good health of the consultant profession? I guess that's the question.
Member, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
If I may, I'd like to say something on that.
Basically, that's our position too. The recommendations of the committee, including this anonymous vote, actually have been implemented. You're absolutely right. However, there's one small thing. The minister built in the control valve, so you can put in self-regulation up or down. We still have something that we call self-regulatory elements, so we do have some of the directors elected by—
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
You don't say, sir. The government can tell you what to do.
Member, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
You're absolutely right, and that's what I'm saying. Basically, I think all parties should agree on this bill, because it's following the recommendations of CIMM.
Conservative
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Michelle Rempel
Wow. There's such cheerfulness from my colleagues. It's wonderful to see.
Welcome to the committee, Mr. MacGregor. You have seven minutes.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses. I'm here on behalf of my colleague, Ms. Jenny Kwan. She has asked me to look into a few questions for her.
You are of course all aware of the study in regard to immigration consultants that was completed in 2017. We also heard yesterday that a lot of people who are victimized are those who are amongst the most vulnerable of what would be newcomer groups.
As individuals arriving here, they are coming here in the more precarious or temporary streams of immigration, especially the stream for migrant workers. We have a very complex immigration system, especially for someone who is not used to the laws of our country and the kind of culture we have here. They find it extremely difficult to navigate it by themselves, especially if they don't have fluency in both of our official languages. They need help and advice. That is where you fall in: to provide that.
In many cases, of course, the cost of immigration lawyers is above their ability to pay, but we have heard in many of those cases that once they have signed up with a consultant, they really don't have a choice, even if they feel that something isn't right. They have to swallow those concerns they might have and just see it through.
They've ended up spending a lot of money. They believe they've already arranged employment in Canada. They've done everything the right way. Also, a significant amount of time has passed while they processed through the various stages. I think some of them have noted that there's a fear of.... They don't want to complain or report bad behaviour, because they feel they have everything to lose. I'm talking about the person who is applying. Also, there have been cases where people have tried to speak out, and consultants may have used their position of power to intimidate them and so on.
With respect to the provisions in Bill C-97 in clauses 291 to 300, specifically with regard to applicants, I know you had an exchange with Mr. Ayoub about it being a confidential complaints process, but is there anything else that any of you can add about Bill C-97 and provisions that will provide protection to applicants who do speak out?
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
I will take this, but I can't speak on behalf of the government, you will all agree.
This is twofold. The first one is that the government in the bill has funding in order to create more awareness. I'm sure you have seen that in the bill. However, on another side, we worked with the government in the last five years to facilitate and allow those who come forward.
This is a tricky thing, because the law is made in such a way—and I recommend that the Parliament looks at this section of IRPA—that if you do not disclose properly, then your application may be refused. I understand. I heard Mrs. Kwan speaking about this several times.
We worked with the government in the last five years saying when there are some of those vulnerable people who come forward and mention that—because we didn't have access to unauthorized practitioners—a regulated immigration consultant is involved in something like that, CIC will take this privately. And they have a channel with ICCRC at the time in order to start processing this kind of application or, I would say, complaint or coming from ICCRC internally with both bodies and allowing that individual to continue the process without being affected by the wrongdoing of the regulated immigration consultant.
What I trust may or will happen is because of the statute given to this group or to the new college, they can do the same with unauthorized practitioners. I think this would be a very good step in terms of better protecting the public.