Evidence of meeting #59 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.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Thank you.
In the last few weeks we've been watching several witnesses, and I've identified two problems. We have one problem of competency, which you've both spoken about today. That's more to do with IRB hearings, tribunals, appeal divisions. For that I think an increased level of education, increased training, is probably the answer.
The second problem we have is fraudulent dealings, charging $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 for LMIAs to say you're going to get a job, to bring somebody in. Those types of things are the ones that concern me the absolute most. The problem we have is ICCRC, even in its second formation as it is now—and we have had them here—doesn't seem to think there's a problem. It doesn't seem to think that any additional rules or regulations are needed. The model of the self-regulatory body does not seem to work for them.
What are your recommendations to prevent fraudulent practices, i.e., buying, selling LMIAs, etc., in this area, and how do you see a model that would effectively work similar to the law society for lawyers? With the law society, you get a complaint and it brings fear into a lawyer's mind, or at least a high level of concern. Therefore, the fraudulent practice levels among lawyers is very low. What we're seeing here and heard from the witnesses we've seen here is that it's very high in ICCRC. How do you two recommend they bridge that gap?
I'll start with Mr. Sharma.
4:10 p.m.
Managing Partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, As an Individual
I think you have a hold on a lawyer when there's a disciplinary proceeding. To be a lawyer is a significant part of your identity. If the law society intervenes, there's that fear, that anxiety, and the public shaming or the risk of losing that licence, and that's significant. Nobody grows up dreaming to become an immigration consultant. The loss of that calling or that profession, I think, is less of a hold for positive behaviour.
In terms of the ICCRC regulations, I'll give you an example. I had someone who hired a licensed immigration consultant. The application for her sister was in Hong Kong, and the application was there for years. The consultant said it was delayed because the consulate in Hong Kong was asking for updated IELTS results.
Ultimately it was rejected, and then she came to me. In fact, the client had done an access to information request, and she obtained information. The notes seemed to suggest this application was denied six years ago by Hong Kong. I emailed Hong Kong and told them here was this email, here was the ATIP response, could they tell me whether their office sent this email requesting further language proficiency? Hong Kong responded within three days and told me they had never sent that email. That file was closed six years ago.
I took that and sent it to the ICCRC. I got a call from an investigator, and the investigator was incredibly speculative. He told me I couldn't prove the consultant did this. It could be someone on his staff. I replied of course I couldn't prove it, but you would have to take this to the next level, so this was my impression of the ICCRC.
As a final point, LMIAs are going to be $15,000 or $20,000, as long as you can get permanent residency out of them. Take the LMIAs out of PR.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you, Mr. Sharma. Perhaps we could continue that later.
Mr. Saroya, you have five minutes, please.
May 8th, 2017 / 4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you both, Raj and Lorne. Two fine lawyers are here, but we are attacking crooked consultants. I agree with both of you, in regard to what you have said so far.
The real issue is that the previous Conservative government tried to fix the issue, but they couldn't finish it and the problem still exists. We hear it every single day. Most of the MPs have at least two staff members looking for answers on a daily basis.
I think the problem is that we have consultants. They have the subconsultants. Then they have the ghost consultants in each city back in India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, and China. I even heard from somebody who said that consultant number so-and-so is looking to hire some people back home who can find some cases. Then he will go back two to three times a year, when he can fix the fix, right?
The crookedness has gone so far that I don't think ICCRC have the courage to fix it. It hasn't worked and it won't work, in my personal opinion. Is there any other way that these consultants could work under the lawyers? If there is a complaint against a lawyer, as Mr. Sharma said, they are ashamed, they are scared, and they're afraid to lose their living and their licences, yet nothing happens here.
I asked ICCRC a question a few months back. They said there were 300 complaints in one year. It's hard to buy this sort of argument from ICCRC, who claim that there were only 300 complaints in the entire year, when God knows how many complaints we get on a daily basis.
What can it be done? How can we fix it? Either they can work with the lawyers or there should be an absolutely separate body and the government should operate it. It should not be self-regulated.
4:15 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Lorne Waldman and Associates, As an Individual
Perhaps I could provide an answer.
I think there are only two options really. I can sense a huge dissatisfaction about ICCRC and its ineffectiveness in terms of properly policing the consultant profession.
The first option is to change the model and to use a model that is not self-regulating. I think the second option would be to leave the model, but to include in the regulations, enforcement powers that CIC or CBSA could engage in independently of the ICCRC. What I'm suggesting is that you could put into the regulations the power to audit, the power to discipline, the power to suspend, and allow CIC to do that in circumstances where ICCRC does not.
That's the simpler solution than changing the model completely and going to some other form of regulatory model that alleviates some of the concerns. Allowing bills to be taxed through the regular legal process that's available to lawyers is something that needs to be considered, because as you've said, there is a huge abuse in that area.
4:20 p.m.
Managing Partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, As an Individual
You may wish to consider amending section 91. Basically, we're here because of Mangat v. the Law Society of British Columbia and that turned out to be a paramountcy issue. That's why doing federal legal work, like immigration, is allowed in the first place.
If you eliminate that, but allow the consultants to perhaps register with their provincial law societies, then the provincial law societies might be able to take jurisdiction over them, just like the Law Society of Upper Canada is taking jurisdiction over paralegals. That might be the other option.
I see where you're going, sir, and the option might be to force consultants to go through the provincial law societies.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON
How expensive would the system be if we put all these consultants under CIC, Mr. Waldman? Is it very expensive to set this thing up or is it not too bad?
4:20 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Lorne Waldman and Associates, As an Individual
I think there would be some upfront expense for sure and then there would be an ongoing expense of administering the consultants. I would think it would run into the millions of dollars. It wouldn't be just a few hundred thousand dollars to run it because there is a large number of consultants that would have to be supervised and you would have to set up a structure to supervise them.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you. I didn't expect to have time, but I'm delighted that I do.
I'm just going to continue with some of the questioning. I only have five minutes, so if you could, please respond as quickly as possible.
I'm just going to go back to the governance, and maybe start where you left off, Mr. Sharma. You suggested maybe we could have immigration consultants register with provincial law societies. If we were to do that, what would happen to the educational requirements, and what would happen with ICCRC?
4:20 p.m.
Managing Partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, As an Individual
ICCRC would be gone.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
It would be gone, so that would be an alternative system, and then educational requirements would...?
4:20 p.m.
Managing Partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, As an Individual
They would be set by the provincial law societies.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
What about the conflict? A lot of lawyers would love to see only them doing the immigration consulting, or would that just shake out...?
4:20 p.m.
Managing Partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, As an Individual
I'm sure certain lawyers didn't want paralegals to be providing legal work in Ontario either. They'll have to be cognizant that, again, lawyers don't have a monopoly on the delivery of all legal work in Canada.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Lorne Waldman and Associates, As an Individual
I think it's a good idea. I think the government looked at this before, when the ICCRC was created. I recall some discussions along those lines. The problem is that there are a lot of provincial law societies that don't seem to be interested in regulating paralegals. You would have to see if they would be willing to take that on before you created that model.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Would there be an access-to-justice issue? That would be one of my considerations if it ever went to something like registering with provincial law societies. You've stipulated this very clearly, and other witnesses have done this also. There are really two parts to this issue of immigration consultants. Just understanding what forms to fill out, and the basic admin is one part. The second part is dealing with complex cases or defending before tribunals.
Do you think access to justice would be impacted, as you suggested, in terms of provincial law societies?
4:20 p.m.
Managing Partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, As an Individual
I don't know. The CBA thinks that getting rid of consultants altogether will have no impact on access to justice. I think it will. I think it can. I think that lawyers.... There's access to justice, and the legal system is overburdened as it is right now.
4:20 p.m.
Managing Partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, As an Individual
By continuing to allow consultants to do immigration work, and not cutting them out of the equation.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
That means we would have them registered with the provincial societies.
In terms of section 91, one of the other things I came across is that some newcomer agencies or NGOs would say that they would love to be able to assist, just with basic forms as well, in terms of the administration. Section 91 is a little bit unclear around that. Because of the “for consideration,” they become a little bit uncomfortable as to whether or not they're allowed to actually provide some advice.
I personally would love to allow some newcomer agencies in my community. A lot of them speak the same languages. I have the largest Portuguese community in the country. It just helps people understand, “These are the forms I'm supposed to be filling out. This is what I need to do.” A lot of it is just basic stuff.
Do you see a problem with us amending it to make it clear, and allowing newcomer agencies or NGOs to do some of that basic stuff?
4:20 p.m.
Managing Partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, As an Individual
I'm not sure if that's an issue. I've been on the board of Immigrant Services Calgary. Settlement agencies do provide some sort of transactional or form-filling.... That service is also provided by church pastors and church groups. I haven't seen that as an issue.
Perhaps Mr. Waldman has greater insight on this.
4:25 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Lorne Waldman and Associates, As an Individual
I've seen organizations express concerns to me about that, so I think it might be an issue. I think it would be good to clarify, but I think you have to be careful as to how you define the organizations that you're going to authorize to assist people with filling out forms. I think it can be done. It's just going to take careful legal crafting.
