Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 3rd, 2017

[Jennifer Stone]

Yes. Certainly my colleagues at other clinics and I have our fair share of war stories. We've seen these cases from consultants, from a friend who did the application, even from lawyers. I do have to say that the robust investigation and prosecution through the law society mechanisms in Ontario are not as good as they could be. I think I agree with my friend, Alli, that this problem will never be eradicated by any one solution alone. There are so many different factors that play into people being in situations.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Just to follow up on that then, do you think that immigration consultants should be self-regulated?

[Jennifer Stone]

No.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I'm going to ask Mr. Jain the same question.

Do you think that immigration consultants should be self-regulated?

[Ravi Jain]

No, again, I don't think they should be.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay.

And with regard to the structure it should go through, how do you think it should be dealt with?

Ms. Stone can answer, and then I'll come back to you again, Mr. Jain.

[Jennifer Stone]

I really see so many cases that have ballooned into a giant legal problem that really just beg a common-sense solution. I think that our points are specifically to take this really blunt tool that has been created through subsection 91(1) and section 21.1 of the Citizenship Act and ensure that people who are really vulnerable and really having trouble accessing counsel aren't sort of pushed into the arms of unscrupulous practitioners by this fear of their service provider organization signing the “use of representative” form. Right now with the way the legislative framework is structured, anybody who submits an application has to get on the record and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

You have ten seconds.

[Jennifer Stone]

—subject themselves to some very, very serious penalties should a mistake be made and they are not licensed. And I think they're kind of driving the problem underground.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Mr. Tabbara, go ahead for seven minutes, please.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thanks to all of you for being here today.

My first question is for Ms. Stone and then I'll work my way down.

The brief submitted by the Canadian Bar Association suggests that we should restrict representation or advice to lawyers, as was mentioned in the testimony earlier, who are members in good standing of the law society of a province or to notaries who are members in good standing of the Chambre des notaires du Québec.

I have three different questions. I'll ask all of them and then maybe you could comment on all three.

Under the current system, do you see any possible improvements to the existing regulatory body of immigration consultants, which is ICCRC? Do you see possible solutions through a system similar to those of the U.K. and Australia, which are government regulatory bodies? How do you visualize the possible transition of nearly 4,000 authorized consultants working alongside lawyers and notaries to a system comprising only immigration lawyers?

[Jennifer Stone]

Okay. You started your questions by highlighting the submission of the Canadian Bar Association, which advocates that, because of the complexity of this area, it should really be undertaken only by lawyers. In an ideal world, I certainly would agree. I agree about the complexity point. But from a legal aid perspective, I feel as though we're always trying to think about the biggest bang for the biggest buck in the service of our clients who are really impoverished.

I'm sorry if I'm not squarely answering your questions as you've posed them, but I think there is a place for specialization and areas of service that different groups can be undertaking across the spectrum of service providers. I do think that in the rich network of settlement agencies, newcomer refugee-serving NGOs that do not operate with a profit motive are a really important piece in the continuum of immigration services, and I think it's incumbent upon this committee to turn its attention to that group, which is providing some really key on-the-ground supports.

[Alli Amlani]

I don't want to take up too much of your time but I'm part of the solution. Answer number one, Ms. Stone already told you that they're struggling with the interpretation of section 91. The way it stands, settlement agencies cannot advise on immigration, period. That's the interpretation.

The Canadian Bar Association recommends that section 91 be amended to have only lawyers represent. In other words, it is also suggesting eradication of settlement agencies.

Answer number two, alternatively when we're looking overseas, yes, I've studied all three models, and the Canadian model is the best model. The final solution, again, is to give the current regulatory body more authority than simply to regulate its members so it will have the authority to put a dent in the activities of the unregulated.

Thank you.

[Ravi Jain]

We don't come to this position lightly at the Canadian Bar Association. It's been over 20 years that we've been comfortable with the idea of giving it a shot with respect to the regulatory bodies for consultants, right?

We've had two chances now. We've had two regulatory bodies that have failed. Seventeen hundred and ten complaints for 3,600 members over five years is a lot.

Lawyers swear an oath to protect the public. You're coming to see a professional. You're coming to see someone who has to have your interests at heart. There are times in a consultation of a few hundred dollars when you can save someone tens of thousands of dollars in heartache related to going to a consultant or trying all these different avenues.

Someone comes in, says, “I haven't been living in the country, but I want to set up a Canadian corporation so that I can meet my residency obligations”, and asks if that is going to work. No, it's not.

Someone says, “I want to appeal because my dad has renal failure, so I want to go to the IAD and I want to pay you $6,000 for an appeal.” No. I'm sorry. It's not going to work. You've looked at the case log, you say. It's not going to be a successful case.

A lawyer will save you that kind of hardship. Lawyers see this day in, day out in their practices. The reality is that when a lawyer is supervising—and it could be junior lawyers they're supervising, or consultants, or people with immigration training, whether they are consultants, paralegals, or whatever —the lawyer has the responsibility. The lawyer has a lot to lose: four years of a B.A., three years of law school, and a year of articling. That's a lot on the line for a $400 work permit application. You have to be sure that what's going in.... You have an obligation. The law society says you have an obligation to supervise everyone under you.

If you want to protect the public, that's how to protect the public. There's no evidence that we have to be worried about lawyers' fees. There's no evidence that lawyers are doing this after 20 years because they want to make more money.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

You have a minute and 45 seconds.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Do you want to add to that?

[Kathleen Terroux]

No. I will let Mr. Jain answer this one.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Okay. I want to add a bit to what Ms. Stone and Mr. Jain said. I want to relate it to the Australian system. I have a couple of things that I'm going to read out to you.

They have their code of conduct, which includes honesty about your chances of securing visas and keeping you informed about the progress of your application and any changes that may affect it.

Ms. Stone, you mentioned earlier that if there's a mistake by the consultant, the client can correct it. That's what they have here in the Australian system: not to act for you if there is a conflict.

Can we take some recommendations from the Australian system?

[Ravi Jain]

I'm sorry. It just doesn't work, because our system is such that if you.... We've tried that.

Early in my career, I said, “Okay, this person is saying to me that the consultant made the mistake, so can you please rectify this? They've missed the limitation period. Is there any way they can get what they are searching for?” You feel bad, because you see this person who has gone to a consultant. It's no fault of their own. They're crying in your office.

You totally believe them, but the immigration system is not set up that way. It's set up as “buyer beware”. If you want to hire this person, it's your problem. It's the same thing with a lawyer. If you hire a lawyer and he shows up drunk in court.... You pretty much have to show up drunk in court to have a judge overturn it, right? This is the problem with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Stone? You have 10 seconds.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I just wanted to add that the Australian system is the governing body that looks at immigration lawyers. That's what I was trying to get at—

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Tabbara. We're over time.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee today.

We will suspend for a minute to allow people to leave, and we will be going in camera. Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]