Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 8th, 2017

[Voices]

Yes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Given that this is the problem, how do we deal with this? There have been a number of different suggestions.

Should we move to a model of government-regulated oversight bodies? I want to get a quick response from folks around Ms. Go's suggestion on that.

We'll start with you, Mr. Jade.

[Dory Jade]

All right, it's very simple. We said it in three words. Exclude it from CNCA regulation under federal statute, such as the law societies in this country. Therefore, this body, which is ICCRC, can investigate under that legal statute, can send letters to cease and desist, and can go further if necessary, depending on the act passed in Parliament. That's it, in short.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Barker, what is your quick thought on that suggestion?

[Lawrence Barker]

Mr. Jade had an interesting suggestion. We did try to issue a cease and desist letter several years ago to someone who was acting as a ghost, and they shoved back at us and said we didn't have any legal mandate so don't threaten us.

So under CNCA, as a private company right now, with no statutory powers to investigate, compel witnesses, or obtain documents, we are limited to doing nothing more than referring to CBSA.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Ms. Go.

[Avvy Yao-Yao Go]

Of course, we are proposing a regulation, but that's not sufficient, as I tried to explain in my paper as well, because there is no incentive for people to complain about a consultant when you get penalized for hiring the wrong person.

So I think the government has to look at that as well. You understand that these people are vulnerable when they get duped and they get penalized, so they are not going to report those unethical consultants. You have to deal with that issue as well.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay. So applications get submitted through ghost consultants, unlicensed consultants, for example; that's bad representation. The suggestion was that the application should continue to proceed, be processed, and then if you're not registered with the government on a list of some sort, then that representative is not allowed to represent someone.

Is that the fair approach?

[Donald Igbokwe]

That's currently what happens with IRCC.

If an unauthorized representative assisted an applicant, and IRCC determines that this individual is not authorized to represent the applicant, they will notify the applicant that they should not use the unauthorized person, and that they can either continue with the application by themselves—meaning that the IRCC will continue to process it—or they will have to retain an authorized representative.

[Avvy Yao-Yao Go]

But we know that they have also stopped processing all of the applications that come from the same ghost consultant in China.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

So theoretically, they're supposed to continue to process, but they're not. That's what you're saying, Ms. Go.

Okay.

I think this is critical from the applicant's point of view. Where this is a case of misrepresentation or misinformation, unbeknownst to the client or to the applicant, the suggestion is to not do that any longer—because our act as it stands right now makes them responsible for that. If in the case where you find misrepresentation by your representative, then the client should be given the opportunity to correct the application, and then the representative is penalized. That suggestion is a recommendation.

Can I get a quick round from everybody of your thoughts about this approach as a remedy?

[Dory Jade]

I believe it is how it's working right now.

The applicant is not supposed to be penalized, and that was said before this committee two days ago by IRCC representatives. If the practice is different, I can't speak for the Government of Canada.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Well, in section 10 of IRPA, it says something entirely different. The act itself says something entirely different.

Mr. Daw.

[Christopher Daw]

Yes, I'm a practising immigration consultant so I can speak to that. It is the case, though, that the applicant is punished for indirect or direct misrepresentation. The idea that you've proposed is possible, but it would require the applicant to become aware of the misrepresentation somehow while the application were still in process. If an application goes in with false information or misrepresentation, it is possible in theory, if it were an honest mistake and you discovered it, to contact the office before an error is induced in the act by the information, and correct the information, and there was no harm no foul in some cases. But it would be difficult to determine how....

The problem we're hearing is that people don't know that misrepresentation is happening. So by the time an officer realizes there was misrepresentation, it would be at the stage of refusal of an application, and they wouldn't know whether it was the representative or the applicant who was responsible for the error.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Ms. Go.

[Avvy Yao-Yao Go]

One simple way of resolving that is to add the word “intent”. If intent were part of the misrepresentation test, then it would require intent on the part of the applicant, and then you could go after the consultant if you wanted to.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Barker, as we were talking about CBSA and so on, you mentioned that you don't have the mandate or authority to investigate these other situations. Would ICCRC like to have the authority to do so?

[Lawrence Barker]

We are currently investigating what powers and authority would be appropriate to have as well as the structure in which to do that. I could say yes, but obviously going after unauthorized representatives Canada-wide involves due process in terms of complaints and discipline. I would say that right now, internally, we are looking at both the governance structure and mandates and what we would consider appropriate to effectively represent the public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Ms. Zahid, you have seven minutes, please.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. My first question is for the ICCRC.

When the former immigration minister, Jason Kenney, announced that the ICCRC would be the new regulator of the registered consultants back in June 2011, he expressed concerns about transparency, accountability, financial management, and lack of appropriate disciplinary action by the previous regulator. Do you feel these concerns have been addressed since you became the regulator?

[Lawrence Barker]

Yes. Since ICCRC became the regulator—we are six years old—we have received, as of the end of December, 1,710 complaints filed against consultants. Of those, all but 500 have been closed.

We have, as I mentioned, a service contract with external investigators who are RCMP officers. We are moving that in-house and hiring more. We have doubled the number of administrative staff in complaints and discipline. We have hired an additional prosecutor to more effectively and quickly prosecute where necessary.

Just this past year we've also introduced two streams for offences. Serious streams go through our complaints and disciplinary process, as they always have. For lesser offences, we have introduced what I may affectionately refer to as the “traffic court model”, whereby we are hoping to dispose of those matters in approximately 60 to 90 days, as opposed to a long, complicated and, in some cases, expensive disciplinary process. With those added resources, I feel that we are effectively maintaining public confidence and working more effectively in complaints and discipline than the previous regulator.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you. My next question is for Ms. Go.

On Monday, witnesses from the CBSA mentioned that obtaining evidence of consultant fraud can be very challenging. For example, most alleged offences are brought to the CBSA's attention only after the immigration application has been rejected. Even then, many victims may not come forward out of the fear that they will be removed or deported from Canada. Do you have recommendations to make sure that more people come forward? How can we convince those people and create more awareness? You deal with clients all the time.

[Avvy Yao-Yao Go]

As I said, because of the way the system works against the clients who come forward and the fact there is no incentive because they get penalized, you first of all have to deal with that issue so they at least don't get penalized if they become a victim of an unethical or incompetent consultant.

Second, I think the whole immigration system itself is seen as a very scary system, and these clients are very vulnerable. Because they may face deportation or have family members that they want to bring over to Canada, there is a lot at stake. The government needs to send a message out there that, “We recognize your vulnerability. We want to work with you. We want to give you the opportunities to correct any mistakes your representatives may have made.” If you send those messages, then I think that slowly and gradually, people will come forward. As of this moment there's no incentive whatsoever for them to come forward.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Jade.

The ICCRC was set up to regulate and monitor registered immigrant consultants, but of course, consultants who don't register are outside its purview. Since this committee last studied this issue back in 1995, major reforms have been made by the government, but we are still hearing about ghost and unregistered consultants who are exploiting vulnerable clients.

Do you have any suggestions how we can deal with this issue?

[Dory Jade]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My answer is twofold. In 2011, many representations were made before this committee asking for a federal statute. They came from the lawyers' group, the CBA. They came from other provinces too, namely Manitoba, and from other groups. That was not something the government at the time chose to do; they went with the ICCRC model that is available now.

My suggestion is also clear. This committee, in my humble opinion, should really look at how we can resolve this problem under an act. Let's face it, why don't we have this many—excuse my language—ghost doctors? It's because every group of people ensures that the consumer is protected; they are hands-on. With due respect, when we gave the Government of Canada power, from national security to the little criminal act.... I'm sorry. I'm using the word “little”; it's in quote marks. That doesn't give immigration fraud its merit.

That's my opinion. This is why an act from this committee is important.