Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 7th, 2019

[Ravi Jain]

The operations people in the department always want to make things simpler, and the policy people are always the ones who understand that life is very complicated. It's very difficult to simplify in the way that you want. We look at this in terms of, why our area of law? To your point, MPs' offices spend so much time on this. Law is just one facet of society. Immigration law is just a tiny little sliver. From an immigration lawyer's perspective, we wonder why people aren't calling for more criminal consultants in other areas of law.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

With the time I have left, I would also be very interested if the Bar Association would be willing to table with our committee a comparative rate schedule. You raised the issue of rates. Is there any work on that? What do immigration consulting lawyers charge versus immigration consultants? That's the research I'm doing right now, and that would be helpful. As well, what is the potential impact of referral fees not being regulated?

[Ravi Jain]

Okay I'll take that back.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

Lastly, with regard to the code of conduct, do you have any specific recommendations, if the government proceeds with this, that would limit liability; or can this just not be done within the model that's being proposed?

[Ravi Jain]

My view is that it can't be done. We're going to be sitting here in another three or four years. All the examples of fraud and negligence are going to continue.

I wonder again, why us? Immigration lawyers are the most bleeding-heart types who go into this area to help people. We're not—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jenny Kwan]

Thank you. Sorry, we've reached that time. Maybe you can finish that thought in the next round.

We're just going to switch out.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

Thank you.

We need a chair. It's perhaps not the most efficient system, but work with us.

Ms. Kwan, you have seven minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It's an example of what not to do, self-regulate.

Mr. Jain, one of the issues you highlighted was the impact of ghost consultants for the end-user. The government in this proposal suggested that especially for international consultants or lawyers, there would be an educational program, five people in five countries.

Do you think that's sufficient, or would you have any suggestions as to what needs to be done to address this issue properly?

[Ravi Jain]

We heard yesterday that they're going to use some of the VACs as well to try to spread the message, but obviously one person in a country such as India is not a huge amount of resources.

My submission on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association last time I was here was that when you just say that only lawyers can represent for a fee, it's such a simple message that you could put it on a form. You could put it on a form in multiple languages so that people understand.

People unfortunately don't get that they're hiring people who are calling themselves lawyers, or maybe they're calling themselves people who are authorized to practise overseas as ghost consultants. Maybe they're saying, “Don't worry about it; I'm a travel agent and I can do this”, or whatever.

If the message is really that only lawyers can represent for a fee, it's a very simple message and you can say, “You can look up your lawyer”, and even provide a link.

It could even be right on the forms. That's the best way to deal with the ghost consulting issue, otherwise what's going on now and propping up this whole thing is going to be here for years. For years and years, we're going to have this ghost consulting problem. You're never going to get rid of it otherwise.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

On the question around the applicant at the end, if they encounter an unscrupulous immigration consultant, or a lawyer, for that matter, and they've been led down a bad path, they've lost their status and know they're faced with deportation. Their pathway to permanent residence is forever lost. Do you think the recourse for that in this piece of legislation will actually insure and protect the end-user?

[Ravi Jain]

No. It has always been “buyer beware”. That's the way the system is set up and the unsuspecting public doesn't know that they're not hiring lawyers.

With this Queen's University and Université de Sherbrooke program, people are going to graduate with a 500-hour online course and they're going to say, “I went to Queen's law school.” It's just getting worse and worse. Absolutely, people are going to be duped by this.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Do you think there should be provisions in recognition of this situation, that for individuals who have encountered those experiences, the government allow for them to resubmit an application and provide an open work permit to them, for example, so that we can try to right the course?

[Ravi Jain]

It's a very difficult problem, because then you're going to have people who are going to make these complaints against consultants because they think they can get an open work permit out of it, even when the consultant may not have actually done anything wrong. You'll just go down this path. If there's a clear example, fine.

I'm just saying that the better solution is to just say that only lawyers can help these people because the complaints.... It's a false equivalent. I keep hearing about how there are bad lawyers, too. If you look at the period from 2011 to 2016 in British Columbia, do you know how many disciplinary measures there were against lawyers? This was the time when CSIC was in existence, from 2011 to 2016. Zero. There were zero disciplinary matters in B.C.

Yes, there are some bad lawyers who, through greed, or apathy, or whatever, make some mistakes, just like there are some bad doctors and some bad engineers, but they're few and far between. You can't compare them.

Yesterday we heard there are 350 complaints, and the person from the disciplinary committee said that of the 350 a year only 2% take up 60%. Okay, so let's take that off. What's the math? It's 140 a year. That's only reported. You have to understand; I see these people every day and 99% don't want to proceed because they say, what's the immigration benefit for me? What am I getting out of this? They don't want to complain. You can imagine the volume of harm you're talking about. That's what motivates me on this issue.

It's disappointing to me. I look at the witnesses here and yesterday, and I just think that I'm a lone voice. What motivates me is just seeing, day in and day out in my practice, so many people who are hurt. I think there are some good consultants who try to be diligent—I'll say that on the record—but they can partner with lawyers like they currently do. They can work with lawyers and law firms. They can rain-make and bring business in. They can do marketing initiatives. They can benefit from the reputation of a law firm that can carry their practices forward. They can work together with lawyers.

There is a value. It's not like WebMD. You can't just go to CPDs for five years and then say, okay, I'm just as good as a lawyer. It doesn't work that way. Lawyers are trained to interpret statutes. They don't just go to the website. There's a system of ethics that's ingrained in us over three years in law school and beyond.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you for that.

On the issue around compensation, I think it has been raised that if you've lost your pathway there is no way to really compensate for that. With respect to this fund that is being established, do you have recommendations as to what procedural standards should be established to access this compensation?

[Ravi Jain]

Firstly, if you're going to go down this route you have to have a huge increase in dues to cover the professional liability and the compensation fund. It has to be massive. The fees that have been paid to date have been nothing relative to.... The law society benefits from economies of scale. There are so many lawyers out there. They charge us a few thousand dollars, but there's this whole economy of scale thing happening. If you're talking about just a whole regulatory body just for immigration consultants, then it's going to have to be massive.

In terms of the threshold to access it, I think you have to establish, obviously, that there was negligence. That's going to come out with their professional ethics and code of conduct, and all that. It should be relatively low in terms of accessing it, but it has to be funded properly.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michelle Rempel]

Thank you.

Mr. Ayoub, you have seven minutes.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

Let me turn to the recommendations of the 2017 report. I believe you have read it. These recommendations were unanimous, but from what you're telling us, Mr. Jain, we were all way off the mark.

From what you said, everything should be done by lawyers. You do not agree that there should be immigration consultants, because their work always has a legal aspect. However, it's not just consultants whose administrative work has a legal aspect. There is a legal aspect to everything people do in general. This is especially true when professionals provide services that cost money. I would like to come back to the notion of cost.

Mr. Jain, are you saying that only lawyers could perform that role? Right now, what is preventing lawyers from doing so?

[Ravi Jain]

I see this as just a way to protect consultants to continue to practise immigration law, but the best way to protect the public is if a lawyer is on the hook.

Why? It's because a lawyer doesn't just go to a community college course and then start hanging out his shingle, right? A lawyer has to invest, and a lot of graduates come out with $200,000 in debt. By the time you're through that system and have invested so much, you're not going to risk it. Your ethics are ingrained in you during the whole law school program.

How does this protect the public? It's because if a lawyer is signing an application form or is the one litigating, they're going to take their role very seriously. They're not going to engage in that kind of fraud or, obviously, the competency issues that we're talking about.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Only because they're lawyers?

[Ravi Jain]

Well, there will be some, as I mentioned. I said that there will always be a few bad apples, but it's a false equivalence when you look at the sheer volume here. I think we missed the boat last time. I think that in 2017, you looked at it, and you're so used to having consultants that you don't question.

Why aren't you calling for consultants in all the other areas of law? Would you trust a non-lawyer to represent you in a criminal matter? Probably not. Civil liberties are at stake, right?

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

You need to go to court for that. You don't go to court for immigration—

[Ravi Jain]

But it's a tribunal. It's life and death at the Immigration and Refugee Board, sir.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Dean, do you want to react?

[Ryan Dean]

I'm going to have to differ with my co-worker, Mr. Chair. I think an immigration consultant costs less. They're more accessible. Immigrants can sue an immigration consultant, or at least file a discipline complaint, but who sues lawyers? Immigrants aren't going to be so apt to sue lawyers because everyone knows not to sue a lawyer.

Also, you can't escape the fact that there are many immigration consultants working for law firms because the law firms themselves can't handle the immigration work. The immigration consultants have more expertise. That's a fact.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I want to come back to the issue of costs.

As you said, Mr. Dean, it costs more to deal with a lawyer. The average hourly rate of a lawyer can be very high. The fees of dealing with a consultant vary depending on the case. There is no particular fee mentioned in the report or in the recommendations that go with the legislation. It is also illegal to guarantee an outcome. All of this means that, ultimately, the client needs an administrative entity to be protected.

In the case of a college of physicians or real estate brokers, there are always escrow accounts, ways to secure the money and get it to the right place, if necessary.

Isn't there a way to set rates and limits? Clients cannot be guaranteed the result of the service, but they could be guaranteed affordable quality services.