Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 7th, 2019

[David LeBlanc]

I was leading a tribunal downtown when there was a consultant in the room, prior to my refugee hearing—it was an overlap in occupying the room— and he was being given a dressing-down by the IRB member, who then informed him that he was going to be reported to ICCRC.

So I am aware of the fact that there is a process to do that. The one thing that isn't in place yet—and I think we're probably going to be copying this in the future—is the mandate that is used at the IRB where you can make an argument, a presentation, about inadequate representation of former counsel, and of course, the law society has a whole process in place for that where you inform the other lawyer first and allow them to respond to you. Then you may register the complaint with their law society so you can use that as relief for going forward, for reconsideration of a badly represented client.

[Alli Amlani]

To add to what David said earlier, there has been a disciplinary process for the past six years; we're a new profession. They've been spending a whole bunch of time developing the processes. As they see the first example, as they see the person defend themselves, they've been tweaking the program, and that's where Andrew got gray hair. He designed, redesigned and finalized the process so that in 2017 we had an alternative dispute resolution and a lot of other tools, and that's the reason cases moved.

But it is true that the regulatory bodies spent so much time designing and redesigning the program that a backlog occurred, which is now gradually being attended to.

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

Right.

I'd like to talk about education. To become a lawyer, you must be a graduate of a recognized law school. You must do these LSAT exams and you must pass the bar admission course. Then you can become a lawyer. I'd like all three of you to talk about what you should have in order to become an immigration consultant.

Mr. Roman.

[Andrew Roman]

I don't think I'm qualified to address what an immigration consultant needs to know. I would leave that to people who are preparing and designing the education program.

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

Well, Mr. Roman, there have been great criticisms about the consultant profession, that they're not....

I'm not speaking generally; I'm just saying individuals. They've come to this committee and have talked about their competency, so I can only conclude that one of the issues is this: How do you become an immigration consultant? Maybe you're right; what is an immigration consultant? Certainly, what are your qualifications? You're advising people on very serious issues and going through the process. There should be an education process.

Mr. LeBlanc.

[David LeBlanc]

Would it be fair to share how I got there?

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

Yes, that would be good.

[David LeBlanc]

I joined a firm that was 25 years old. It was founded by a former immigration officer with the government, someone who had been in the department for 18 years. When I sat in on my first client meetings, I knew nothing. I was answering the phone. I couldn't answer any questions. A year later, when I was still not advising clients, I went to Seneca and studied in the one-year program that existed at that time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

Mr. LeBlanc, could you wrap up your answer very quickly? We're over time.

[David LeBlanc]

Okay.

I do 50 hours of CPD every year and I attend every immigration law conference going.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

Thank you.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. One of the key reasons this college is being established is so that the end-users, the applicants, will have protection in that process. We heard at our previous committee meetings, in our study on this issue, that there were a lot of situations where the applicants were taken advantage of and cheated in this process.

With that in mind, with Bill C-97 before you and with the establishment of this college, do you think there are sufficient provisions for protecting the end-user, the client? There's a compensation fund being established. Do you think that's sufficient in addressing the concerns that are paramount among the applicants who have had the unfortunate circumstance of having had a bad immigration consultant handle their case?

Perhaps I can start with Andrew.

[Andrew Roman]

The discipline process can only be as good as the people administering it. You will need people who are tough enough to say “You're out” to somebody, whom I'd call a bad apple, if they need to revoke a licence or impose a penalty. So far, from what I've seen, the people who have been running it are willing to do that. They're willing to be tough but they keep getting taken to court because they have no legal authority.

I think you're going to see for the first time that the end-user can be much more effectively protected, because there is the legal authority in the act. Let's say I'm a lawyer representing the ICCRC and I get dragged into Federal Court. If the judge asks me for my authority to do that, I can point to the act and say, “It's right here.” Until now, they have not been able to do that.

So I think they can shut down the appeals, they can shut down the delays and they have, for the first time, the legal authority to actually discipline people with finality and clarity. That's important.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Amlani.

[Alli Amlani]

Andrew is absolutely right. Previously, if you operated or gave immigration advice—as Madam Chair said yesterday, we have to address the definition of “legal advice”—it was an immigration infraction. Now it would be against the law to do that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay.

Maybe I can also ask this more specific question, in terms of protection for the end-user. Cases have surfaced in which individuals have embarked on their application process, and realized partway through that they've received very bad advice from their lawyer or immigration consultant. Some of them have even lost their status in this process. They've lost their jobs, and are faced with deportation. Now, they have no way of going back to try to fix this, because they've been led down the garden path, so to speak.

In those circumstances, what is the recourse for those individuals, aside from perhaps filing a complaint? Under this bill, there may be an outcome for the immigration consultant in this process, but what about individuals who have lost their status—whose paths for permanent residence may well have been lost forever, and who may be faced with deportation? Should they be given, for example, an open work permit, or an opportunity to resubmit their applications? I would like your thoughts on that.

[David LeBlanc]

We have made submissions on behalf of clients who have suffered under former counsels' misdirection. By the way, that includes both lawyers and consultants. We have asked the department to review and reconsider. We try to make the submission as soon as the client retains us, making it early so there's no gap between the time they filed an out of status and the request for reconsideration. I would say that about 70% of the time, if you're eloquent in your storytelling, and present the right issues around section 25, under humanitarian grounds, the department actually does step forward. There are real people reviewing those submissions, and there is relief in the act for that.

I also want to point out that when we have people coming in who have been cheated, lied to or told to misrepresent, and have filed an out of status as a result, most of them are extremely reluctant to approach the regulator for either ICCRC or the law society to complain. We've encouraged them to do so, but we don't want to take up the baton and say that we'll register that complaint for them. The applicants themselves have to take that initiative.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I think that is the big problem, because people are afraid.

[David LeBlanc]

Yes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

They fear that all would be lost, and they would have no recourse. To try to get through the barrier for people coming forward to seek additional help, some of whom may not have the resources to do so—your clients obviously did, but a lot of people may not have access to that recourse—how can IRCC assure individuals that they can in fact come forward with their complaints, and that there will be some protection for them? Hopefully, they could then find someone, whether that is a lawyer or an immigration consultant, to help them with their application, without the applicant being penalized for the previous situation. That is at the crux of it. It is what we need to address to allow this process to unfold as we all hope it should.

[David LeBlanc]

I would agree with you. A lot of that mandate falls on the shoulders of the department itself.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

We are moving on to Mr. Whalen.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

One of the issues we have heard about in our hearings is that there are certain aspects of the law that people think don't go far enough. I want to get the sense from you of whether this is the right iterative step to take now, whether you have confidence that the group is able to take these steps being proposed and that it's the right organization to do it.

As well, if there are things on the wish list for the future, do you think it's good to be living with the organization as proposed in the act now, or should things be added now, in terms of extraterritorial enforcement, and some of the other things we have heard about, such as solicitor-client privilege protections in the act, and things like that?

[Alli Amlani]

Sure, absolutely. The act goes miles ahead of where we expected it to go, but we very clearly do not have an alternative. It's very simply put in the act that if the current regulator does not adopt it, it will be reinvented, which means it will be set up anyway. Therefore, there's not much of a choice.

However, I think most members will welcome this, because it's a move in the right direction. It's a move to bring in the unscrupulous, and gives you the authority, as Andrew said, to take people to court. We can make international agreements with like-minded countries, where those people who operate with impunity could be taken to task.

We can't eradicate the existence of those people who promote misrepresentation and fraud, but we can at least put a dent in their activities, by making an example of a few.

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

Mr. LeBlanc.