Evidence of meeting #52 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 consultant.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director General, Enforcement and Intelligence Programs, Canada Border Services Agency
We believe it is an effective way to deal with this issue. I must admit that we have not looked at other ways of getting the word out.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Aterman, what would be the top couple of kinds of cases that would come before the immigration appeal division?
Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Appeal Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
For the immigration appeal division...?
Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Appeal Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
About 60%, I think, of what we deal with are spousal sponsorship cases. Most of those involve marriages, but they can involve adoptions or the sponsorship of parents or grandparents. About 20% of the cases are removal order cases. Those are people, mostly permanent residents, who are being removed from Canada on grounds of criminality or misrepresentation. About 10% are cases that involve a loss of permanent resident status because persons allegedly have not met their requirements to remain in the country as permanent residents.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
In all those three types of cases—and I understand that you can only give me some sort of ballpark answer, unless you think you can get the data—what percentage do you think are before the immigration appeal division because there is some sort of implication around a crooked immigration consultant? Would there be an implication that they have misrepresented themselves, or would you say it would have absolutely nothing to do with that?
Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Appeal Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
I can give you an anecdotal response. The anecdotal response is that from time to time we do have cases, mostly on the removal order side, that involve people who got into trouble because they were represented by consultants who weren't doing their jobs properly.
There's quite a high profile instance of that pending right now in B.C.. It involves someone who is, as I understand it, not a regulated consultant but who is offering services. Essentially, the gist of it is that people were fabricating their presence in Canada. As a result of that, those people have been declared inadmissible on grounds of misrepresentation. Some of those cases are proceeding before the board through the immigration division and the immigration appeal division.
Those people are facing removal because it's alleged that they misrepresented themselves. One of the things we hear in the hearing room is, “I did it because my consultant told me to do it.” There is a group of cases of that nature that's pending. It's an issue that comes up from time to time before the immigration appeal division and the immigration division.
I can't give you precise numbers. It's really only an anecdotal account.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
That's okay. That's helpful.
How does our system to regulate immigration consultants measure up to other systems that are comparable around the world, whether it's in the U.S., the U.K., or Australia?
We seem to have three sections. There is the framework of the legislation. There is the body that actually regulates immigration consultants. There is the CBSA section. How do we compare? Do we do well? Are we seen on the stricter side? Are there areas we could strengthen? Just give me an idea about how we compare.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm looking at my colleagues, but I don't think we have that international comparison on this particular issue. We do on many, but I don't think we do on this one. I'm sorry.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
That maybe leads to my last question. We're here because we already have a piece of legislation around immigration consultants. Obviously, there are areas we can improve.
Can each of the sections make its key recommendation for improvement?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Perhaps I can start off.
I think in 2011, followed with the 2015 changes, there was a very significant move forward to create the organization that would regulate consultants. I think that was something that was very valuable for us, and it is proving its worth.
I don't think we're where we need to be yet. I think there are issues with the organization that can be strengthened in terms of its own internal governance, in terms of some of its issues around finance, and thirdly, I think, in terms of sometimes the effectiveness of its own enforcement processes. This includes ensuring timely enforcement that is appropriately calibrated to the nature of the infraction, and ensuring that there's follow up in those areas.
I think it's an organization that is, frankly, still finding its feet. It's still fairly early days and it has made real progress, but, yes, there are areas where it can be strengthened.
Director General, Immigration Program Guidance, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
In addition to Mr. Orr's comments, I think the two important areas we talked about already are about the awareness of people, so that when someone is working with an immigration consultant that individual knows their rights and knows where they could complain. I also think with the overall challenge of ghost consultants, certainly overseas but even in Canada, greater awareness on that and any efforts that address it in the overseas context are a positive.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you.
Mr. Aterman, you talked about how the board members would prefer to have counsel representing people who appear before the board, and I understand that, and judges do too, of course. I'd like you to tell us a little about the competency of people who appear before the board. Obviously, if someone complains about a lawyer, of a counsel that appears before the board, that complaint would go to whatever provincial law society there is, I assume. If that's the case, I assume that's the end of it. They'd deal with it. The board doesn't deal with it. No one else deals with it. Could you comment on that?
Then there's the issue of the consultant, which is what we're here about today, although it could overlap into counsel. Someone complains about their competency, and it could be a board member who complains about the competency of someone before the board who is just not doing the job they should be doing in representing someone.
Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Appeal Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Thank you for the question.
The cases I mentioned where we've reported counsel to a regulator, whether it's the immigration consultant regulator or a law society, are what I would call the more egregious cases. They're the clearest of instances where we feel there's been a breach of professional standards or the code of ethics. That said, there's a large grey area. The quality of representation may not be so bad as to justify reporting the person to a regulator, but it still leaves a lot to be desired. I think that's the area we tend to focus on in terms of trying to work with the regulator and with professional immigration consultant groups to raise the standard of practice.
In my mind—and I'm only speaking from the board's perspective, obviously—there's a big distinction between the litigation work we see and the kind of work that involves assisting a client to fill in applications. Lawyers go through three years of law school, through an articling period. They have to be called to the bar. It's a more rigorous regime than the one that's expected of immigration consultants. Certainly when it comes to the question of litigation, there is considerable scope for improvement when it comes to immigration consultants acting as litigators.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative David Tilson
Generally speaking, how many complaints would there be about consultants appearing before the board as to their competency, either from members of the public or from the board members?
Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Appeal Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
I can't give you a precise number there.
Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Appeal Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
What I can tell you is that it is a concern on a regular basis and it's really only the most egregious cases that are brought forward to the regulator. For example, board members use a kind of compensatory mechanism in a hearing room. If they're dealing with a consultant who is not able to present the client's case, they get drawn into the arena and they have to start eliciting the evidence. It's not something a lot of members like to do, but sometimes they feel they have to do that in order for the case to go ahead that day and for there not to be a miscarriage of justice.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative David Tilson
Do you have recommendations to this committee as to how that situation can be improved? It's not so much the lawyer, as I expect the lawyer goes to the law society. I'm thinking of the consultant.
Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Appeal Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
I can tell you that the board is on the receiving end of this, so from our perspective—
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative David Tilson
I can't believe that a board member doesn't say, “Who in the heck is this clown?” I can't believe that doesn't happen.
Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Appeal Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
I think I've heard words of that nature before.
Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Appeal Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
There are a number of self-regulated professions that have a graduated licence. For example, with the Law Society of Upper Canada, paralegals and lawyers are all members of the law society, but paralegals can only do certain things. In other words, there's a restriction on their scope of practice. My understanding is that's true of the nursing profession. It's true of some other regulated professions. That may be an area where it might be worth making a distinction between being allowed to litigate and being allowed to do the other, what I would call, solicitor work that immigration consultants do.
Now it's easy for me to say that. I'm not a regulator and I don't know the ins and outs of regulation. However, from the receiving end, that would make a difference in terms of the quality of practice before the IRB.