Evidence of meeting #57 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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jacobus Kriek  Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant and Policy Analyst, Matrixvisa Inc.
José Eustaquio  Executive President, Alliance of Portuguese Clubs and Associations of Ontario
David Nurse  Counsel, McInnes Cooper, As an Individual
Jason Ottey  Director, Government Relations and Communications, LiUNA Local 183
Jason McMichael  Director, Government and Community Relations, LiUNA Local 1089
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Erica Pereira

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you.

All right.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

If not now, then when?

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

On that issue, some people have suggested that perhaps this work should really be done only by lawyers. The suggestion was made that perhaps it should be done by legal aid or non-profit agencies, resettlement services, or immigration services types of organizations.

Now, there's a basic question in terms of cost. It is onerous for many people, so should there be a standard for the cost of the services? For example, for certain services to be performed, an individual could be charged x amount, whether by an immigration consultant or a lawyer and, of course, on the non-profit side, that work would be done free of charge, but the government would fund these agencies to do that work. Then those who could not otherwise have somebody represent them—because they couldn't afford it—would be able to get the services they need.

Could I get a quick round again from folks in the same order that we began?

4:15 p.m.

Director, Government Relations and Communications, LiUNA Local 183

Jason Ottey

Are you asking whether there should be a subsidy in addition to a standard fee?

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Yes, so for those who are paying a consultant or a lawyer, a standardized fee would apply, and then the government also, in recognition of those who couldn't otherwise afford a consultant or a lawyer, would fund legal aid or a non-profit agency to do this work.

4:15 p.m.

Director, Government Relations and Communications, LiUNA Local 183

Jason Ottey

My gut reaction to that type of proposal is that anytime you introduce a standardized fee, you're interfering with the natural functioning of the market, and I don't know whether or not the fee would actually reflect the quality of service being offered. I think you ultimately have to address what service is being offered and perhaps standardize that, and then say that if you are making this application, this is what's included in the body of work for this application.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you. That is what they do, for example, in legal aid, with work. So if you get a lawyer to represent you in court for a criminal charge, for a summary charge, x amount would be included for that charge, and that's a standardized fee, for example. I'm just trying to get a sense of how we might be able to approach this issue in terms of affordability.

4:15 p.m.

Director, Government and Community Relations, LiUNA Local 1089

Jason McMichael

In terms of affordability, I would offer that in order to make the process more accessible, we would need to ensure the availability of the actual front-line officers. The Canada Border Services Agency is vastly understaffed at the frontier, and the fact is, if there were more access to the folks on the front line, then there would be less need for some of the unscrupulous behaviour that we heard about earlier.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

I'll jump over to those on the video conference.

Mr. Nurse.

4:15 p.m.

Counsel, McInnes Cooper, As an Individual

David Nurse

My answer has a couple of parts.

First, I would say that in my understanding, the unpaid work that, say, a church organization or another community group would do is not impacted by the regime now. People are allowed to get help from a family member, a friend, or a community group that's not compensated, and I think that's fine to continue, and as long as there's no financial motivation to overstep your area of knowledge or competence, I don't see a lot of issues coming out of a situation in which someone in a church basement is giving someone terrible advice—

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Sorry, I'm just going to interrupt for a second.

You're absolutely right on the non-profit sector people doing that work. I'm talking about the paid sector. So for the consultants or immigration lawyers, should there be a standardized fee that would apply for services rendered?

4:20 p.m.

Counsel, McInnes Cooper, As an Individual

David Nurse

My simple answer to that is no, because I think there's just so much variation among the individual cases that you could not fix a fair standard fee, even for a study permit or a work permit, because of the circumstances of the applicants. If they have past criminal convictions or other matters, I would say that there's no way to fairly fix that amount, and it would also be anti-competitive in my view. Just as a final point, I think things can be done on the legal aid side, encouraging lawyers to do more pro bono work. All of that would be positive.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

You have 20 seconds.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you for that. I guess we're going to run out of time.

In response to that, if you're relying on pro bono work, the reality is that there are not enough pro bono lawyers who would be able to take up this work. I expect that every MP sitting around this table is inundated with constituents who have issues with this. I don't think that pro bono lawyers somehow will step up and do all of this and fill the gap.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Zahid, for seven minutes, please.

May 1st, 2017 / 4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses for coming and providing their important input for the study.

My first question is for Mr. Kriek. In one of your articles in the National Post on January 14, 2016, you said that little attention was given to ghost agents and that the public is being taken for a ride. I agree with that statement. They don't fall under the purview of ICCRC, and we have heard earlier in our study that the CBSA only has the resources to go after the most egregious offenders. So we have this wide open door for those ghost agents.

It seems to me there are few options on the table. Having heard from all the witnesses, I would like to get your recommendations. One recommendation is that the ICCRC be given more authority to allow them to go after the non-registered consultants. But given how it is functioning, another option is to replace the self regulation with a more government-regulated model. As you may have heard, earlier in the study the Canadian Bar Association recommended restricting the field to immigration lawyers registered with the law society.

What do you think of these different options? Do you have any better solution, or do you agree with one of these recommendations?

4:20 p.m.

Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant and Policy Analyst, Matrixvisa Inc.

Jacobus Kriek

Obviously, I'm a regulated Canadian immigration consultant and I support the ICCRC completely, because I know that they investigate contraventions and take action against regulated members. Whether the ICCRC is closed, or a federal statute is established, irrespective of which model is used, if action is not taken against ghosts, none of it would really matter. If all consultants work for lawyers, as Mr. Nurse suggested, and the law societies don't take action, then ghosts will continue and the public will not be protected.

I took a matter to the Law Society of Upper Canada about a ghost agent and they said that the person was not a member and that they couldn't act in response. We need, on the one hand, as you suggested, to decide which regulatory model must be followed. But irrespective of which model will be followed in the future, action needs to be taken against ghost consultants. The research has shown, according to the access to information requests I've made—

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

What do you suggest is the best way to make the ghost consultants accountable?

4:20 p.m.

Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant and Policy Analyst, Matrixvisa Inc.

Jacobus Kriek

I believe the ICCRC should continue to regulate consultants on the one hand. On the other hand, it's vital that the federal government, through the RCMP and the federal prosecuting service, take action against ghosts. My stats show there's a real problem in taking action against ghosts.

There are a lot of articles in the media about consultants, but in many cases there is not a distinction made between ghost consultants and regulated consultants. At a meeting the CBSA reported that 148 consultants were being investigated. Nobody asked how many were regulated and how many were ghosts. Everybody is painted with the same brush.

To conclude, I believe the ICCRC has the tools and abilities to regulate its members. Secondly, there need to be resources given to the RCMP so they can enforce contraventions.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Do you agree with the CBSA recommendation that it should be restricted to the lawyers registered with the law societies?

4:25 p.m.

Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant and Policy Analyst, Matrixvisa Inc.

Jacobus Kriek

No, I don't.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Do you have any other suggestions about what model from the other witnesses should be adopted?

4:25 p.m.

Director, Government and Community Relations, LiUNA Local 1089

Jason McMichael

Obviously there needs to be some level of regulation. I don't agree with the self-regulation model. I think it leads down the path that we're seeing now of greater potential for ghost consultants and unscrupulous behaviour by registered consultants, because of the lack of enforcement.

I believe there will always be a need for immigration consultants. However, if there were more government-led regulation of them, it would certainly give more teeth to the enforcement side of the legislation.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Nurse, what would you recommend?

4:25 p.m.

Counsel, McInnes Cooper, As an Individual

David Nurse

I believe this needs to be taken back to first principles. The government needs to ask whether or not there's a continuing need in 2017 and the next decade for consultants to be regulated in the way they currently are.

I have not seen a lot of positive results from the current regime. I would very much encourage looking at alternatives, but I don't have any specific options I would impose on the committee today.