Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 7th, 2019

[Gerd Damitz]

I don't see a correlation between the call centre at IRCC and its regulation for the college.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I guess the point is that the new law that's coming forward is going to have a regulatory body, and it's going to be the same one that we had before, by the sounds of it. Your group is part of that, as are others, independents as well, as Mr. Gagnon has pointed out. Maybe he could comment on this as well.

How do you see the system really improving? I'm worried about the bottom line and getting clients dealt with.

[Gerd Damitz]

We're talking about improvement of the college bill, right?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Yes.

[Gerd Damitz]

When we look at that, there was a mistake in the set-up right from the beginning, a system-inherent mistake. There was a corporation created under the CNCA. No powers were given for inside and outside Canada to do something against unauthorized practitioners—something law societies have.

Problems were created, and my belief is that at that time, it may have been because of time. Everybody was looking for a fast solution to have improvements to the previous regulator and forgot to make it a comprehensive solution. Now we have it, and these are the powers inside and outside UFPs. As many asked for, we have government control. They raised the standards—

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thanks.

Mr. Gagnon, do you have a comment? Then, I'll turn it over to my colleague.

[Louis-René Gagnon]

I have a very quick one. I will speak from my experience as a teacher. When I taught, I said to my students that immigration is a bit like income tax. We all wish that it were very simple. In some cases it is, but very often it's baffling for people who are not.... Just the fact that we're a federation, for many people who are not from the federation, is totally confusing.

Of course, it's the government that makes it complex. It creates a demand for advice and support. If it were very simple, there would be no need for consultants or lawyers.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you. I'll turn it over to my colleague.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

You have a minute and a half, Mr. Tilson.

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

Mr. Jade, you raised the issue of consultant privilege. You're going to get the legal and judicial professions all excited because this issue has come up in the past for church members. Priests and ministers—should they be privileged? Should doctors be privileged? The answer is no.

I suppose if you happen to be a consulting lawyer, you have a privilege—and I'm speaking personally—but there's no way in a million years that I believe consultants should have the same privilege as lawyers.

I don't know why they would. They're not as qualified as lawyers to handle very complicated matters. There's a whole slew of reasons. I'd like you to clarify that because, quite frankly, I think that's just a pie-in-the-sky dream.

[Dory Jade]

Thank you for the question and bringing up this issue. I really want to discuss this.

First of all, it's not a matter of what you know; it's a matter of how you protect the public. The client owns the privilege, and we have a very extensive letter by one of Canada's prominent constitutional lawyers and professors, Peter Hogg—

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

I'll bet you he's one of a kind. I know the issue with respect to priests and doctors.

[Dory Jade]

I would appreciate if you would let me continue.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

With that, we are well out of time for this meeting. I'm going to briefly suspend so we can set up the next panel.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

We will resume the meeting with comments from Mr. Roman by video conference for seven minutes.

Mr. Roman.

[Andrew Roman, Retired Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for inviting me.

ICCRC, as a new professional regulator with a small budget, did an excellent job in the four years that I was its legal counsel, or one of its legal counsellors, which was 2014 through 2017. I've had no connection with the organization since I retired from practising law at the end of 2017.

ICCRC hasn't had any statutory authority, which meant that it was always open to legal challenges. A lot of those challenges caused delay, which permitted the bad actors to continue to be bad actors during the delay and to profit from unprofessional conduct.

I had been recommending that ICCRC obtain an authorizing statute since I started working with it. I have to say that the proposed law is well drafted, and I would commend everyone involved in drafting it. I don't say this too often, but this is a really good law.

I must caution you still about expecting too much too soon. There are still problems of education and administration that even the best law can't fix immediately. There will still be a backlog of cases that have to be resolved.

It's important to think about ICCRC's budget and size, because it had many critics, but I think those have been based in large part on looking at things like law societies and comparing them to ICCRC. The membership at the present time is about 5,000, according to the ICCRC 2018 annual report, but the Law Society of Ontario, of which I used to be a member, in only one Canadian province, has approximately 50,000 members. The average ICCRC member, contrary to what you may read in the papers, will earn typically about $60,000 a year after expenses and will have a hard time paying the membership fee of approximately $1,800. Meanwhile, the Ontario law society has a budget of $125 million, which is more than 10 times the size of the ICCRC's budget. This has been until recently a reason for understaffing and a serious limit on the ability to deal with the bad guys.

The proposed law is really good. I've attached to my paper a list of things that I prepared back in 2016 as to what should be in such a law and, as I checked off the boxes while reading the law, I think almost everything has been covered.

There could be one improvement I would suggest, which is to give the explicit power for ICCRC to seize property in Canada and perhaps also abroad, with the co-operation of other governments, so they can enforce monetary penalties. There's no point imposing a penalty and then having people say, “Well, I'm just not going to pay it, too bad for you.” The same thing would be true about giving them the authority to order an award of costs to recover investigation costs and legal fees spent in prosecutions. I would suggest, although this is not usual, that the power should be retroactive to cover existing cases.

I want to talk briefly about how members can abuse the discipline process, because, in the course of my work, I've read hundreds of these files of complaints and seen how it works in practice. It's still too easy for members who are being disciplined to abuse the system in a variety of ways: concealment of evidence, increased delay in costs and avoidance of the payment of penalties.

The new law fixes two of the three of those, because the investigators can now enter premises and seize documents, which they haven't been able to do until now. They can also avoid the delay and the adjournments because they have the power to deal with things more expeditiously.

In most professional discipline cases, the parties resolve the issues through negotiation, which usually results in a guilty plea and an agreement to a negotiated penalty.

Typically, 70% to 80% of cases are decided that way, but that has not been the case at ICCRC. That's because after long delays and weak investigative evidence, ICCRC either has to go to a costly hearing or agree to a trivial slap on the wrist with no monetary penalty. Without a law, if a member is finally found guilty of professional misconduct, the member can just refuse to pay the penalty and say “I have no money, goodbye”. Meanwhile ICCRC will have spent a lot of money and time on legal fees and will get nothing back for the victims and nothing back for itself.

The bad actors know that they can get away with paying nothing. They have no incentive to negotiate a settlement and to pay the agreed penalty. The law could be toughened up a little bit to make sure they have the power to do those things.

I would also mention that there are a few members who have sought electoral power at ICCRC by making unsubstantiated allegations of corruption and other such claims. They have repeatedly sued ICCRC and then withdrawn their legal actions before a hearing or before losing in order to avoid paying adverse costs.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

Mr. Roman, you have about 30 seconds left. I just want to give you a heads-up.

[Andrew Roman]

I'm just about finished.

The new law doesn't fix these abuses, and I'm going to suggest that it should. In part, the minister's ability to appoint public interest directors will help with that.

I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

Thank you very much, Mr. Roman.

We will proceed to Mr. Amlani, for seven minutes.

[Alli Amlani, President, Inter-Connections Canada Inc., As an Individual]

Madam Chair, and esteemed members of the committee, thank you for having invited me here today.

My name is Alli Amlani, and I participated in meeting number 55 in 2017, so I'm very familiar with the subject.

I've been an immigration consultant since the beginning of 1988. I've served on various boards of immigration consulting associations since 1992, including almost eight years in total as an elected director at both the regulatory bodies, CSIC, and thereafter, ICCRC— as the vice-chair of CSIC and a chair for two years at ICCRC.

I was also the co-founder of the immigration education program, which is the prototype immigration practitioners certificate program that remains the entry requirement for the profession today.

Having built the profession from almost the very start on principles of ethical practice and provisions of professional services to the needy, who are the real people, I repeat from what I said the last time that it's a serious undertaking when people put their full trust in another with their and their family's aspirations and dreams that could be shattered due to the smallest of oversights or a perpetrated plan.

I have, in the past 31 years, become very conversant and intimately familiar with schemes some people adopt to defraud others and to undermine the integrity of our immigration policy. They exploit people around the world. They are overseas and in Canada and include, but are not limited to, travel agents, student advisers, articulate business people, unauthorized representatives and, unfortunately, authorized representatives as well. I'm very familiar with their practices.

Coming back to the point of today's meeting, looking at clauses 291 to 300, first of all, I'd like to congratulate and compliment the standing committee for having made the 21 recommendations, each one of them well-thought-out and detailed. Some of them were already in practice, but not under statutes. I continue to have concerns about some of the recommendations. A few would need a phenomenal amount of funding—I use the word “extravagant”—or probably appear impractical, and those are the questions that I've heard in the little while that I've been here.

I salute the unprecedented and herculean effort of IRCC to have accepted the key recommendations and brought them to fruition through the budget implementation act and clauses 291 to 300 that we are going to address today. I say “unprecedented” because, as I stated in my last appearance, attempts to implement federal statute regulations as recommended by three previous standing committee reports had not been successful.

I will get down to what my exact concerns are about the present proposal. While we await regulations and bylaws, a few proposed changes need to be further examined or discussed, and if consensus is reached, tweaked. I have already provided a 45-page version that is highlighted and synchronized with my speaking notes, which carry the clause numbers. It'll make it easier if that's how you want to refer to it.

We discussed the compensation fund this morning, and I'm going to address it further. This was part of the contribution agreement with the first regulator body in 2004 that was provided $700,000 in funding and $500,000 as a conditional loan, which was eventually written off. Experience has shown that a target collection of $1 million and maintaining that balance was mostly spent on administration, even while there were no claims made during that period. The funds in CSIC's compensation fund disappeared with the demise of that body, which was replaced in 2011.

In 2011, when the new regulatory body came in, they again started with the requirement of the compensation fund. The contribution agreement mentioned that as part of the condition, but after long, in-depth deliberations by all committees, the ICCRC board and IRCC found it did not serve a useful purpose, and it was subsequently deleted from the contribution agreement in 2015.

Having seen the abuse of professional insurance that all the consultants are covered by—and I don't want to go too deep into what kinds of abuses are there—I feel that it creates an exposure for the college to introduce the compensation fund at the additional costs. Besides the exposure, there are additional costs in terms of administration, human resources, and an undue financial burden on the members in terms of fees.

We must remember that this was one of the reasons that the past regulator was replaced. After 15 years of self-regulation, no claim for compensation has ever been made. In 15 years, no claims. A compensation fund could always be established. My recommendation is that it's too premature to do it right now; it can always be done later if needed.

With regard to board meetings on one of the recommendations, it suggests only one board meeting. I suggest four meetings for accountability. One meeting is an overseeing board, which, by the way, just looks at it. Accountability requires four meetings.

On committees—and this is your last panel of questions—where is the involvement of members? They should be on the committees. My suggestion is that the committees be populated by licensees—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

You have about 30 seconds left, Mr. Amlani.

[Alli Amlani]

—so that they could be chaired by a director.

The powers of the registrar are too strong, and they need to be curtailed or examined, or have an appeal mechanism.

I don't know who is being exempted from insurance. Everybody should be insured, so that needs looking into.

On deemed interest, the government and the minister can appoint one person to take over the whole body.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

Thank you. I'm sure people will want to follow up with you during questions.

Mr. LeBlanc, for seven minutes.

[David LeBlanc, Managing Director, Senior Immigration Consultant, Ferreira-Wells Immigrations Services Inc., As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members.

It is a privilege and honour to have been invited here today, and I am very grateful for this opportunity to talk to you today.

For the past 17 years, I have had the opportunity to help thousands of immigrants come to Canada to study, to work, to immigrate and to bring partners and spouses from overseas. I watched as our very young profession grew and overcame challenges, starting with Mangat in the Federal Court, which allowed us to practise in immigration and citizenship, to where we find ourselves today with your committee.

The work that your committee does is vital. Critical issues were raised and needed the right solution. Time will show that the most worthwhile outcomes will have been realized as a result of your questions and concerns focused in this room. As public protection is centre in your hearts, the recommendations from the Honourable Minister Ahmed Hussen, the department and the course proposed in Bill C-97 are solid, important, timely and the right path to follow.

For practitioners like me, listening to others refer to us RCICs in the same breath as unauthorized agents, recruiters and those who prey upon good, simple folk overseas was quite hurtful. We found ourselves easy, unwitting targets for those who spin, editorialize and promote their own agendas at our expense. Many in this room have said that this is the third kick at the can for the self-regulation of our profession.

Let's examine the facts.

The first regulator, CSIC, appeared on the scene with little due process. They registered as a private corporation for some reason, and when they left, the key perpetrators absconded with a compensation fund of approximately $1.5 million as their parting gift to themselves. The resignation letters of the first directors who jumped ship were the canary in the coal mine, hinting at what the members were in for next. No sane person could ever lay claim to the fact that this was a legitimate regulatory body that had been struck, because our own members were persecuted, oppressed, extorted and denied any due democratic process.

Too many years later, with a lot of abuse in between, Jason Kenney was our ghostbuster, for which I personally am still very grateful. ICCRC was chosen as the successful bid for the new regulator. If you had the chance to attend the first meeting, every single announcement made by Merv Hillier was met with standing applause. It was like the whole group of us had been taken out of a dark coal mine, and we were taking our first breath of fresh air and seeing the sun for the first time in a decade.

Many years on, the flaws of the current model itself are beginning to show: a regulator that had limited resources and no mandate or authority to be able to curtail the tide of unscrupulous practitioners overseas.

Internally, the complaints and disciplines process has become strained and backlogged. The public and our critics began to heap blame on the underfunded fledgling regulator for things they had no control over, responsibility for or sufficient resources to fix. It was impossible to win in the court of public opinion with this structure. Those with their own agendas added spin to discredit good, honest practitioners and the regulator.

With the proposed changes before you now to the regulatory structure, authority, and finally coming under federal statute, ICCRC transitioning into the new college will be able to fulfill the mandate of public protection.

It is unfair to compare a regulator founded in 2011 to the Law Society of Ontario, which was founded in July 1797. A lot can be said for having a 222-year head start. Even the CBA was founded in 1896 and currently has over 37,000 members. That rich history creates a lot of strength in organizational and educational integrity, resources and deep pockets to be able to police those unauthorized to practise, resources that were simply never available to ICCRC. If the historical roles were reversed, I can only imagine that lawyers today would be no further ahead in stemming the tide of overseas sharks than we are today.

I have been blessed with great teachers over the last two decades, including Lorne Waldman, Barbara Jackman, Stephen Green and Chantal Desloges, who was supposed to be here this morning, in their many CBA and law society CPD events and teachings at Seneca. Phil Mooney, Gerd Damitz, Lynn Gaudet, Alli Amlani, who is beside me today, Camilla Jones, Bruce Perreault and numerous other regulated consultants who are skilled, ethical and compassionate practitioners were extremely generous in their sharing of knowledge and best practices and stand as equals alongside our colleagues at the immigration bar.

Whether lawyer or consultant, our most precious gift is our reputation. Those with impeccable character are celebrated far and wide. As for those who undertake sharp practice, their reputation precedes them, as Buddha said, like the shadow of the wheel of an ox cart.

There is an elephant in the room: the sheer vast expanse of unauthorized, unscrupulous agents and recruiters overseas and internationally. It is important to be fair in examining what would truly put an end to this dark shadow and the blight on the immigration profession. Scapegoating our regulator for decades-old overseas issues is like having expectations of emptying the entire Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon.

There is also a boy who cries wolf, who has already presented to you at this committee and will be presenting again. Their earnest attempts to huff and puff and blow our house down are as transparent as they are. They now believe their own stories, their own grievances, the grievances that are held tightly, like a lump of coal burning in their own hands—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

You have about 30 seconds, Mr. LeBlanc.