Evidence of meeting #53 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 iccrc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
I'd like to welcome everyone to the committee hearing. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on October 4, 2016, the committee will resume its study on immigration consultants. Today we have two panels before us.
On the first panel, as an individual, we have Mr. Ryan Dean. Welcome. From the Canadian Migration Institute, we also have Ms. Ni Fang, the chair. Welcome.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Also as an individual, we have Mr. Navjot Dhillon.
You'll each have seven minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. Dean, you're first.
Ryan Dean As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee members, for allowing me to appear before you today.
I am not only a private citizen, but also a director of ICCRC, elected to protect the public. I am doing my elected duty. I am also an immigration consultant. I grew up in Calgary and have an MBA from Rice University. I founded a hedge fund and am currently working in New York City full-time as “that Canadian guy”.
If you hear nothing else from me today, I'd like you to hear what I'm about to say next. I am, without question, one of the harshest critics of some of the ICCRC's leadership. I can absolutely tell you that I have done a deep dive in the organization's finances and numbers, and they just do not add up. Nevertheless, ICCRC is intact and can function more efficiently if certain changes are made. There are many good people in leadership at ICCRC as well as in the organization. I can absolutely say that the problems do not lie with the general infrastructure of ICCRC, the ICCRC employees, or the immigration consultants themselves, despite the perception.
I am going to be talking about its governance from the following standpoints: the ICCRC's dicey financials; the fact that records cannot be accessed; that the disciplinary process is suffering because the organization is spending its resources protecting itself instead of the public; that discipline complaints are outsourced to a private third-party corporation; that ghost consultants who are neither Canadians nor permanent residents can now get accredited immigration practitioner diplomas; and that key positions are held by a single person—a secretary, registrar, CEO, elections officer, and there might be more.
The points that I have mentioned are a result of the unscrupulous directors and management whom I define as the “bad actors”, and who are the root cause of all the other issues we are discussing now. This is the main governance issue that is front and centre in my mind.
Removing the bad actors and keeping the good actors is easier than shutting down the regulator or starting from scratch in favour of another regulator or another entity, as there is no guarantee that any third solution will be better than where we are today.
When I decided to run for the ICCRC board, and being a financial person, I first focused on the annual reports and financial statements. All I can say is, “Wow!” The more I looked, the more I found. As I peeled the onion layer back, layer by layer, there were troubling issues at each step.
For starters, the ICCRC's equivalent of an audited certified balance sheet did not balance by $600,000, which is about 10% of the annual budget.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
I would like to caution you that this study does not have the authority to investigate private organizations.
The mandate that we have, according to our notice of motion, is to look at and to study the legal, regulatory, and disciplinary frameworks governing and overseeing immigration, refugees and citizenship consultants and paralegal practitioners in Canada. The study examines the role of oversight bodies in regulating and providing an adequate oversight of practioners.
I understand where you're coming from, but the details you're delving into have crossed over a line of the committee's mandate. I think you have some very important information to bring to the committee, and it's important that the committee hear your information. I do caution you not to stray over that line, as much as possible.
Thank you.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I appreciate your comments. I would say, though, that in terms of the scope of the committee, if the witness is presenting information that could inform the committee of process gaps, specifically as they relate to how investigations are conducted, it would, in fact, be within the scope of the committee.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
On that point, as well, I think it is important to note that ICCRC is the designated body responsible for regulating immigration consultants. In our previous meeting, government officials in fact identified them as a go-to body with respect to that.
I'm very disturbed to hear the very beginning of this presentation indicating that a body that's supposed to regulate immigration consultants seems to be having some grave difficulties—without even knowing the depth of it.
That is hugely problematic and, I think, troubling for us. It is important for us to know. It does have relevance, ultimately, for how this body does its work to ensure that the consumers, if you will, the clients who rely on the service, are best protected.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, we're here to hear about problems concerning consultants and the problems that consultants have and, quite frankly, I think Mr. Dean is perfectly in order in talking about what he has touched upon. I'd like to hear more. If there's a problem, we need to know about it.
It does affect the issue of consultants, which is what we're studying in this committee. With due respect to you, he should be allowed to proceed with his presentation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
I'd like to thank the committee members. I'd like to thank Ms. Rempel for her point of order.
Yes, this is, as I mentioned, very important information. However, I caution that there is a line. It is really important to hear this evidence, but there is a point at which I would have to once again stop you, Mr. Dean, if it crosses that particular line and the way the committee has been mandated.
Please proceed. It is important information.
As an Individual
I'll add one more thing and say that this is going to lead directly into the disciplinary process, but I am prepared to do whatever the chair decides. That is fine with me. I can come back later at another time if that's more appropriate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
I think it's quite helpful when it can be shown how it impacts on how the body is able to provide that oversight toward its membership. So please proceed.
As an Individual
That is where I'm going with my remarks on discipline and governance.
Shall I proceed?
As an Individual
Thank you.
The more I looked, the more I found. I peeled back the layers of the onion, and there were troubling issues step by step.
To date there are four sets of financial statements, all for 2016, all certified and audited by BDO and they still don't have it right.
The last time I talked about this in public, the ICCRC shut off the microphones during the question-and-answer period explaining the financial statements, and another member was physically assaulted by management for speaking his views, and the mike was torn out of his hands.
The balance sheet not balancing is the least of the financial concerns. Somebody needs to be appointed to look at these matters. I had several accountants look at my analysis and they were shocked. The membership is aware of these issues and so should you be. How can an organization go forward if they're not confident with where they've been?
The fallout from these problems and my election messages and those of the other newly elected directors about transparency, accountability, and fairness have resulted in all six incumbents losing their directorships. Three directors have resigned this past month, and one director resigned the last week or so, and they haven't told you about it.
While we think about that, let's think about this. The ICCRC was put in place to protect the public and now it has in a de facto way endorsed ghost consulting carte blanche worldwide and spends its money on disciplining members, instead of protecting the public. Those who disagree with them are disciplined.
Now, anyone online anywhere in the world can attend an immigration practitioner program and learn how to game Canada's immigration system and be a ghost consultant. This was the whole reason ICCRC was put in place, to prevent this kind of practice. I believe this has been willfully hidden from the membership, and perhaps this committee, for quite some time now. To me, the real danger of what will happen in the limit is a black swan event, the worst-case scenario, and that's a national Canadian security issue if perhaps criminal elements were able to gain access to Canada, and I'll go on from there.
Bylaws are openly broken to appoint illegal PIDs so they can cling to power, despite the howling from the membership for them to leave. The chair himself has asked me to get them some information about the finances, and once he learned I had a CPA letter being prepared and coming, he and the other directors suddenly decided that the CPA I had chosen was in a conflict of interest. The same board members gave themselves a pass and voted not to audit the organization and hide what the membership knew was the big problem in the 2011-15 financial years when they were also directors.
Now, I'm getting to my point, Mr. Chair.
The ICCRC chair gave it to me in writing that I, being a director, was not even allowed to see the records of the corporation. To date, I and other good actor directors to my knowledge have not even seen the inside of the halls of the corporation, much less the trial balance sheet either.
Recently, I found out that the discipline and investigation process had been subcontracted out to a third-party, private corporation using a residential address. Isn't that great?
The government told that ICCRC that they were the regulator, and the ICCRC turned around and has given the power and a big cheque every month for many years to the private corporation. None of us directors were even allowed to ask questions about it, because it's the black box. The contribution agreement between CIC and ICCRC has been broken on many levels. The continuing education system at the regulator is completely broken and needs to be taught by someone who is an immigration professional. The AGMs aren't even democratic, because most of the members aren't allowed to vote. Even the French language has taken a hit.
My whole point about this is that there are folks who are protecting themselves and not doing the discipline and what they're supposed to be doing, but it's only a few bad actors. We're almost there, we've almost removed them all and the organization can be saved.
My detractors are going to try to make this about me, because I'm a whistle-blower, but my response is that I'm not the one who created this problem. I am merely here to clean up all of this, along with the other goodwill directors.
Here's my final point before finishing. If we don't clean this up, maybe we will miss the next Gandhi or Einstein emigrating to Canada. What's the potential and the cost-benefit there? Canada's growth and GDP are also negatively affected by not getting this right.
Thanks for listening to me today. I'm now prepared for any questions later, and I'll be around all day to answer any questions. Thank you.
Chair, Canadian Migration Institute
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the committee for inviting me.
My name is Ni Fang. I've been practising immigration consulting since 2001. I'm one of the first group of consultants that were regulated and am now the chair of the Canadian Migration Institute, which provides immigration consulting services and advocates consumer protection and education.
I'm here today representing victims of misrepresentation and fraud. I have their consent, and they support my appearance in front of the committee today, hoping it will make a difference to protect future immigrants.
I have prepared two stories, but because of time restrictions I will speak of one. You can find the other one in my speaking notes.
Last summer, I was contacted by an entrepreneur who is making an investment in excess of $2 million on Vancouver Island. She received a letter indicating a potential refusal by the B.C. provincial nominee program, and one of the reasons was that her eligible investment was insufficient. The investment amount that the officer described in the fairness letter was significantly different from the amount in the business plan the applicant had provided in Chinese to the immigration company that was representing them. The applicant was therefore confused about exactly what plan was submitted by her immigration representative to the B.C. government, and she came to me for help.
She advised me that she was not provided with any completed documents before the submission of the application and that she had no idea what was submitted. I immediately became suspicious, because all applications need to be signed by the applicant before submission. How could she not have been provided with the final documents?
I requested a copy of her application from her previous agent. Upon reviewing her case, I discovered that this client had retained an immigration company in China and that her case was prepared by an unregulated Chinese agent; however, it included an IMM 5476 “use of representative” form in the name of a lawyer licensed by the B.C. Law Society.
When I pointed out the name of the lawyer, she said that she didn't know this person. I then pointed to the client's signature on the form and said, “But you signed it.” She looked at the form with a shocked look on her face and responded, “I've never seen this form, and that's not even my signature.” Further, I pulled out all her forms and showed the client signatures on them.
Most of the signatures were forged. She called the Chinese company and asked about the signatures. She was reminded that during her first visit to Canada the agency had asked her to leave some signatures on blank paper, which she did, and they then printed some documents on that signed blank paper. I'm not sure whether the lawyer's signature was real.
To the provincial immigration authorities, this case was presented legally by an authorized representative; yet the actual applicant did not even know what was in her application.
There are many cases like this. Unfortunately, a good percentage of these types of misconduct and fraud are hard to discover and, as such, are not being investigated or disciplined.
I would now like to discuss the types of changes that could be made to improve our legal, regulatory, and disciplinary frameworks so that this type of misconduct and fraud can be discovered and those who commit this type of misconduct be held responsible.
Among my recommendations on discovering the misconduct, fraud, and abuse, I think our first step should be finding out who prepared the applications and establish a database including everybody involved in preparing applications, regulated or not.
Currently, when an application is submitted, if there is a representative, an IMM 5476 “use of representative” form is included with the application. A ghost agent, however, will use the client's name to submit, and therefore no “use of representative” form is required. I therefore propose that everyone who submits an application without a representative include a declaration stating that they have completed the application themselves without any paid advice or assistance from a third party, confirming their understanding of misrepresentation on the statement and of the potential penalty for being untruthful.
The declaration needs to be certified and translated by translators recognized by the Canadian government, be in the applicant's native language, and be signed by the applicant in both the applicant's native language and one of Canada's official languages. The declaration can include all the information the government wishes the applicant to read and understand, such as the consequences of misrepresentation and fraud. Applications without an IMM 5476 or the aforementioned declaration of no representative will be returned to the client without processing. Concerning the IMM 5476, I suggest that all agencies or individuals who have participated in preparing the application with the authorized representatives will also need to be disclosed.
When the government has such a database to be able to identify all the players in the market, applicable laws should be in place to allow data sharing and exchange between governments and the regulatory bodies. The government can establish a black list of people who have consistently been involved in fraud.
I have recommendations on the investigation of misconduct, fraud, and abuse. Reform of disclosure of all parties involved in the application will push ghost consultants to work with an authorized representative as an agent and, as a result, they would be forced under a regulatory umbrella and their supervising authorized representative can be disciplined for their wrongdoing. However, I have serious concerns about the ICCRC's capability to investigate its own members. The feedback from many members is that their CMB department is really weak.
I have a recommendation on discipline for misconduct, fraud, and abuse. I recommend some legal changes.
Chair, Canadian Migration Institute
Okay.
I recommend a revision of IRPA's misrepresentation provision, adding “knowingly retain services involving misrepresentation advocating abuse of the Canadian legal system”, so that a client can be refused for that reason.
In terms of regulatory recommendations, I also recommend establishing a consumer protection fund mandated to educate and protect consumers and to investigate misconduct, fraud, and abuse in the marketplace.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you, Ms. Fang.
Mr. Dhillon, you have seven minutes, please.