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.
10:25 a.m.
Managing Director, Senior Immigration Consultant, Ferreira-Wells Immigrations Services Inc., As an Individual
—hoping the other person suffers pain. I have faith that you will not be fooled.
Honourable members, Madam Chair, I thank you for allowing Honourable Minister Hussen's recommendations in Bill C-97 for the formation of the college to come to fruition.
In 222 years from now, all of those whom you helped protect today will join me in thanking you as well.
Thank you.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Michelle Rempel
Thank you very much.
We will begin the first round, with seven minutes going to Mr. Sarai.
May 7th, 2019 / 10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Thanks to all of you for giving us your insights and to many of you for coming back.
My first question is for Mr. Roman. You said that the one lack in this new legislation would be that it doesn't give the power to seize property in Canada, and therefore if you impose and enforce property.... Can you explain that if somebody gets fined? You're saying that if a registered consultant or someone else acting as one has a severe penalty imposed and gets fined, say, $100,000, this body will not have the power to collect via seizing property. They can only impose a fine.
10:25 a.m.
Retired Lawyer, As an Individual
Well, they may go to court to try to collect it, but it's always easier and better if you have a clear statutory mandate to do so, because the person being challenged will say, “Show me where you can do that.” If you can point to a place, the litigation takes 30 seconds instead of two years.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Do other bodies, such as the board of physicians and surgeons, or your previous law society, have that power in theirs?
10:30 a.m.
Retired Lawyer, As an Individual
I believe so. I haven't read the Law Society Act lately, but I would be surprised if there weren't such a power. The other part of that is the power to collect costs in hearings. If somebody needlessly goes to a hearing and says, “nyah-nyah, prove it”, and you do prove it, and you've spent $100,000 on legal fees to prove it, they should be required to pay a portion of that. You can't enforce that if you don't have the statutory power.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Amlani, you stated that compensation should not be a part of this, because none was paid in the previous whatever number of years. However, would it not be the case that if you have no claims against you, your compensation, usually on the law society model, is that you pay a basic amount of insurance? If you have no claims, you pay the basic amount, and if you've had claims, you get a surcharge. Therefore, people who are acting in good faith and have no claims would not have to worry about paying too much insurance.
10:30 a.m.
President, Inter-Connections Canada Inc., As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Sarai. I'm glad you brought it up, because nobody else did, and my arguments were falling on deaf ears.
That's what the law society's has adopted: a minimum insurance to insure that particular liability. On the compensation fund suggested here, and what we've been running for the last 15 years without claims is an accumulation of $1 million by levy, all used up in administration of the $1 million—no claims. The insurance is the way to go, not this compensation fund.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
A compensation fund could not be used for general expenses of the college. It would be a separate pool of funds or they would never be able to pool it out.
10:30 a.m.
President, Inter-Connections Canada Inc., As an Individual
It should be but unfortunately there's collection; levies have to be collected and there are administrative costs. What happened, as we saw in financial statements, was that the fund was depleted, and every year the previous regulator went back to the members, levied them again and topped it up again. It kind of went out of control. I'm saying, do away with it right now, insurance is a good—
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
It would be a self-insured fund. It wouldn't be a privately insured fund. Members would pay into it.
10:30 a.m.
President, Inter-Connections Canada Inc., As an Individual
Yes. It's generally referred to as a criminal compensation fund so it's only in cases of criminal activities. Members already have an errors and omissions insurance, which covers that line.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Mr. LeBlanc, you said there has been no claims against licensed.... You made it sound like the only unscrupulous activity has been by unlicensed consultants abroad. In this committee, almost all the complaints we heard—whether in camera or not—were of scrupulous activity by registered consultants here in Canada. Our evidence at that time and anything else that we've seen since has shown that very little or no action has been taken against any of them. As of yesterday, I understand that six have been stripped of their licences. Other than that, we haven't heard about much happening against unscrupulous activities here in Canada.
10:30 a.m.
Managing Director, Senior Immigration Consultant, Ferreira-Wells Immigrations Services Inc., As an Individual
I hear you loud and clear.
My comments were to focus on what was realistic. My comment about overseas activities was to focus on the fact that there shouldn't be unrealistic expectations about the reach of the regulator. I am aware of the fact that there are legitimate complaints, and there are some that have famously hit The Globe and Mail recently. There's a lovely photo of somebody in B.C. driving around in a Testarossa, smiling. That's despicable and why that person hasn't lost their licence already is also something that everybody worth their salt in our industry is embarrassed about.
10:30 a.m.
President, Inter-Connections Canada Inc., As an Individual
I just wanted to add to what David said.
Two years ago—time actually makes you forget right there—I had provided documents that I was asked for to tell you that of the examples we looked at at the last standing committee, 12 were unauthorized consultants. Two of them were definitely members. That was the end part of the 2017 findings.
Thank you.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
You're the lawyer for the society, Mr. Roman, so I'll ask you.
ICCRC and the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants were witnesses during the committee's study of consultants in 2017. In your opinion, does the establishment of the college respond to their preoccupations and concerns?
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Thank you.
I'll be quick.
Do you think this third iteration of a regulatory body is different and better? Will it solve the problems that the previous two incarnations did not have?
10:35 a.m.
Retired Lawyer, As an Individual
This is the first one really, because now there's a law that gives them authority. Before that, there wasn't.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Yes, I think all the members of Parliament in this room have had constituents come to them on immigration issues and talked about incompetent lawyers and incompetent consultants, and the lawyers and the consultants have charged outrageous fees.
Mr. Roman gave a presentation on bad apples—to use his words—and Mr. LeBlanc touched on that as well. As I understand it, in the legal profession there can be complaints by the clients, the opposing counsel, the judge or the hearing officer to the law society: conduct unbecoming a lawyer, incompetence, negligence, all kinds of things, and the law society then deals with that. They contact the lawyer who has been complained about. They see whether there's a fair argument because some clients just call because they didn't like the result and they blame the lawyer. That's the way it is, and the same thing with consultants, I'm sure.
If it gets beyond that, they have a hearing and those hearings—I've never attended one but I've sure read about them—are dreadful. You're raked over the coals. You can be suspended, disbarred, fined. They can have their pound of flesh if they wish.
Mr. Roman, you got into this. There doesn't seem to be a similar process—and I realize, Mr. LeBlanc, you talked about the history of consultants and lawyers. I understand that, but there doesn't seem to be a similar process before or now with respect to how we deal with consultants the way the legal profession deals with lawyers.
I'd like Mr. Roman to start, followed by Mr. LeBlanc followed by Mr. Amlani.
10:35 a.m.
Retired Lawyer, As an Individual
There is such a process, and I've sat through several such hearings where members have been raked over the coals. The complaints can come from anybody. There's no limit to who may complain and if the complaint appears to be serious, the regulator has to deal with it, and when there is a hearing, an investigation report will allege what the complaints are just as there would be with the law society. The disciplinary process is quite similar.