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.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
One of the other things we've heard is that there's federal-provincial overlap around the regulatory regimes, around some of the regulations.
Have you guys heard about this, and what would you recommend in this area?
4:25 p.m.
Managing Partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, As an Individual
Are you talking about section 91, or the provincial law societies versus the ability to practise immigration law?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I think it's more the immigration. I don't know exactly, to be honest. There just seem to be some interjurisdictional issues.
4:25 p.m.
Managing Partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, As an Individual
There are provincial nominee programs—
4:25 p.m.
Managing Partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, As an Individual
—and they have their own blacklists, which they actually enforce.
For example, the Saskatchewan immigrant nominee program has done that. The provincial nominee programs seem to be far more responsive to this issue.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Okay, but there is overlap at this moment so you think that we should try to eliminate that.
4:25 p.m.
Managing Partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, As an Individual
No. I don't think so.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their insights before the committee today. We will now suspend for a couple of minutes to allow the next panel to assemble.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
The committee will now resume.
This afternoon on our second panel, we have Ms. Gabrielle Frédette Fortin, a regulated Canadian immigration consultant; and Mr. Robert Kewley, a retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer.
Welcome. The floor is yours, Ms. Fortin, for seven minutes.
4:30 p.m.
Gabrielle Frédette Fortin Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant, As an Individual
Hello, Mr. Chair and honourable committee members.
My name is Gabrielle Frédette Fortin. I'm here today as an individual.
I'm one of the youngest regulated Canadian immigration consultants, or RCICs, in the profession. I believe I can speak to you today as a representative of this new generation of RCICs, who are looking to the future, focusing on the objectives, and learning what was done in the past, but without dwelling on it.
When I chose this profession, I quickly understood that I would have to deal with a rather negative label. I tolerate this label, but sometimes I defend my profession. Some criticisms are completely justified, while others seriously and unnecessarily damage the reputation of my profession and undermine the integrity of the immigration system.
People need to stop blaming us in this fight against unauthorized representatives, or those you call ghost consultants. The Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council, or ICCRC, has no power under the legislation to investigate or discipline these individuals. I also recommend that we immediately stop using the term “ghost consultant”, because it ridicules my profession and thereby undermines the integrity of our immigration system. We could just as easily use the term “ghost lawyer”, which designates unauthorized representatives who practice Canadian law illegally.
With all due respect, I'm asking the committee to pay particular attention to the recommendations made by my colleagues and the credible witnesses on the limits of the profession and on the regulatory body, as well as on how we can better protect the public together.
I'll focus on the following recommendation. The ICCRC and the regulatory body should develop a close relationship and work together on an ongoing basis, since that's how we'll manage to better protect the public. The committee's other priorities should be clearing up the ambiguity and preventing individuals from providing immigration advice without authorization under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The government can pressure settlement agencies, international student recruiters, adoption agencies and human resources professionals to comply with the act. A regulatory body will help us protect newcomers from this scourge of unauthorized representatives.
First, let me tell you about the international student advisors case. It's a good example of the success resulting from this joint work and of how we can apply the rules to the groups mentioned previously.
At the time, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, or CIC—now IRCC—determined that international students constituted a group of vulnerable consumers. It was crucial that the students receive advice from qualified Canadian immigration professionals. CIC informed educational institutions about the issue and made it known that international student advisors shouldn't provide immigration advice to international students. The ICCRC and CIC worked together to reach a consensus and create a new professional designation, the regulated international student immigration advisor, or RISIA. Since the government funds these organizations, it's logical that they comply with the immigration legislation.
Settlement agencies help newcomers settle in Canada and integrate into their community. The agencies are largely funded by the government, most of the time directly by IRCC.
Some settlement officers are very competent and qualified. However, most of them don't have any immigration training. They work with vulnerable consumers, such as refugees and illegal immigrants. Since these officers don't have the training required to properly understand immigration issues and legislation, they can easily provide very harmful advice. This can lead to misrepresentation, the refusal of an application or even deportation.
IRCC could make a major difference by funding the ICCRC. The ICCRC could therefore create a professional designation that would provide a framework for the practice of these workers.
There's also the issue of international student recruiters. In 2012, the ICCRC contacted schools to warn them that international student recruiters shouldn't prepare the students' immigration applications. It's quite common for recruiters to prepare the immigration application and for the student to submit it. The goal is to hide illegal activities. Since they're paid by an educational institution to recruit students, it constitutes an indirect compensation. This contravenes section 91 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
By ensuring that student recruiters operate under a regulatory body, we would help better protect these students, who are looking for an opportunity to study in Canada.
Human resources professionals often end up working on labour market impact assessments, or LMIAs, or on immigration cases. They lack training, and they're unable to establish the essential ties the way a qualified professional would establish them. These professionals can place foreign workers in very precarious situations. Employers such as Deloitte and the Cirque du Soleil work with immigration consultants, a practice that should be recognized and bolstered by the government.
We must give the regulated immigration consultant profession the respect it deserves. Immigration is an integral part of Canada's social fabric. I served my country as a military member, and I'll serve it again as a regulated Canadian immigration consultant. Each day, I help build Canada's future by promoting the country, protecting the public, and helping to ensure the integrity of the system.
Thank you.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you, Ms. Fortin.
Mr. Kewley, please, you have seven minutes.
4:35 p.m.
Robert Kewley Retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.
My name is Robert Kewley. I spent 26 years serving our country in the RCMP, including about 10 years investigating immigration fraud and other related cases. I was the director of complaints and discipline for ICCRC, in charge of the investigations and intake team from 2011 to 2015. In 2015, I took over the investigational team.
It is so easy for people to get off track in their thinking about unregulated or ghost consultants. Unfortunately, in my opinion, regulated consultants get tarnished in the public eye and with authorities, because all anyone hears is the word “consultant”. Before 2004, when the first regulator was set up, these consultants were on every street corner. There was no such thing as a ghost consultant. Once the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants was formed, these consultants had to go underground.
In 2011 the government changed IRPA so that unless a consultant was a member of the new regulator, or a lawyer, it was against the law to provide services, advise individuals, or process immigration cases for a fee. With the appointment of the new regulator and this change to IRPA, we took the next step in the fight against ghost consultants. The new regulator became for consumers a contact point for complaints against ghost consultants. The ICCRC accepted the complaints and forwarded them to CBSA. The truth is that by having a regulator and this change to IRPA, we began to address the problem of ghost consultants.
We know that some ghost consultants saw the light and went the extra mile to finally become regulated member consultants. I think the increase in ICCRC membership confirms this. Having a regulator is crucial. On the issue of how the complaints and discipline process works at ICCRC, I believe you have already received this information, but I can go into specific details during questions. I can say now that the ICCRC complaints and discipline department does an excellent job overall regarding complaints about members. They do what they can about ghost consultants, but the problem is very clear. We have not gone far enough to have the impact that we all want on ghost consultants.
In 2011 CBSA was given the task of taking over ghost consultants and the problems on their own. CBSA is a professional, well-organized, dedicated group of individuals. I take my hat off to them in every regard. When I was in the RCMP dealing with immigration cases, we would wait until we had at least 10 complaints against an individual or consultant, and then the matter was reviewed. It didn't guarantee that the case would go any further than that. A decision had to be made as to whether prosecution in the case could be successful. The main focus was to deal with the major cases that would have had an impact in terms of deterrence and numbers of victims.
As an investigator, I've had the honour of co-operating with CBSA for a number of years. Communication is crucial, but credibility is also very important. There are areas where improvements can be made. ICCRC having ex-RCMP officers as investigators builds the credibility part. For the communication part, I believe more can be done, including regular cross-country meetings with the ICCRC investigating team and the local CBSA offices. We have found that our shared knowledge and experiences working as investigators with proven track records can help significantly. However, CBSA cannot be seen as a complete resolution here, as they must focus on high-level cases.
In my opinion, we should think about the next step toward a complete solution in battling ghost consultants. If, for example, ICCRC were given powers via statute to deal with these ghost consultants, then these investigators would bring to the table the evidence required to bring these villains to justice and finally make a serious impact in the battle to protect consumers.
There are solutions, but they require unique authority available under statute. I believe we also need investigators with credibility and experience who are respected by CBSA, to ensure co-operation in the fight to deal with the ghost consultants.
I believe that the average annual number of ghost consultant complaints would require two to three investigators dedicated to these complaints. From my experience, it involves a lot of work—interviews, preparation of briefs—so that we meet the standards, so that these cases can move forward through the judicial system, which is crucial. I think that tools such as cease and desist letters are a must, and prosecution of all offenders, not just the worst ones, is essential to get the job done.
I want to thank you for taking the time to listen to me today. Thank you very much.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you, Mr. Kewley.
Mr. Sarai, you have seven minutes, please.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Thank you, both.
To reiterate what this committee has been seeing, I believe that most of the ICCRC members who have come here are not the people at issue. What we do see, though, from the witnesses we've heard, is that the complaint process has not been very effective. I don't think anybody has come here with a negative thought process about ICCRC members.
The witness before you stated that he, as a lawyer, told somebody at ICCRC in the complaints division that somebody six years ago had been told that his or her file had been denied. They kept charging the person and telling them that it was still happening and not checking. At the end, the investigator just said, “Oh, well, it could have been his or her staff, so we can't say.” Try telling that to a law society. If a lawyer said, “Oh, I'm sorry, it was my staff”, they would not stop at that. The buck doesn't stop with the staff. It stops at the lawyer.
We don't see any enforcement.
I'll start with you, Mr. Kewley. How do you see ICCRC getting out of this glut and showing effective enforcement, effective discipline to its existing members, in coming up with a positive solution on how to deal with ghost consultants?
4:45 p.m.
Retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
With regard to ghost consultants before 2004, before there was any regulator, and even up to today, the number of ghost consultants out there has increased and nothing has been impacted. You need the tools to work with. We need seasoned investigators, people who know how to do an investigation. You can't just put anybody on the street to deal with these people. We have to get prosecution. We have to get the statutes out there so that it gives us the powers to take them in.
If you're looking at the witnesses, the victims, and God knows there are many of them, most of them are back in their own countries. You can't get them here. With the ones who aren't and are other status, they've gone underground. I spent 40 years in police work, 26 years in the RCMP, of which I spent 15 years in major crime—one homicide after another—and I'm telling you that you have to get out there and work. You have to collect the evidence. There's evidence out there.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
But ICCRC is in denial. They're not even stating that anything needs to be overhauled. They have very few recommendations, if any. Their status quo is that things are going well and they don't need to change anything.
4:45 p.m.
Retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
That's one of the reasons I'm here today. I want to make it clear. There's a misconception out here on complaints about consultants.
There are definitely two sets of complaints. There are complaints against the regulated immigration consultants, and there are complaints against the ghost consultants. What's happening here is that it's getting mixed together, and the ICCRC, the regulator and so on, is taking a bad hit for it. They've alway tried to work with CBSA, sending on these ghost consultant complaints.
As a matter of fact, I'm an investigator who was involved from day one. We were collecting evidence. We were going out to storefronts and everything where these ghost consultants were. We were talking pictures. We were confirming that there was an address. If there was a call centre there, we got in the position to record it. We could hear things happening. We sent this on to CBSA.
I'm not criticizing CBSA here. They're tremendous. They do a lot of work. What I'm saying is that there's a lot of effort put out there, but you have to focus. There are more problems with ghost consultants than with regulated consultant complaints. They are dealt with, and things are investigated—
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Maybe I can ask Ms. Fortin this.
The other issue we have is vulnerable clients. When clients are duped or led on a path that is either wrong or illegal, when they've come into this country and are put in a shoddy hotel or bunked with 10 or 15 other people and not given the job they were told about, when they are told to return money or pay more otherwise they will be returned, they're abused, obviously, and they're fearful of coming forward to place a complaint against their consultant—let's just say in this case an ICCRC consultant.
Can you recommend a mechanism that would allow individuals to come forward without fear and without jeopardizing their immigration application or status?
4:50 p.m.
Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant, As an Individual
The example here refers to an immigration consultant. However, I think it's very important to remember that the ICCRC has no power under the legislation to investigate or discipline unauthorized representatives. We work with the authorities. Complaint and discipline mechanisms can then be implemented. You asked witnesses whether they filed a complaint, and many of them answered that they did not, but that they heard about someone who did.
The mechanisms in place must be used. That's what I want to say.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Do you know of ICCRC members being expelled or suspended from their memberships, and if so, do you have any idea how many?
4:50 p.m.
Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant, As an Individual
I have no idea. However, I know that people can be suspended or that their licences can be revoked. The process is in place, and all these options are available.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Mr. Kewley, do you know the number of people who have been suspended or expelled from the ICCRC?
4:50 p.m.
Retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
Since 2015 to date, my sole responsibility to ICCRC is investigations. We complete an investigation, and we send the investigational report on to the complaints and discipline section, which then, in turn, sends it to the discipline section, which then makes that.... I know that on the website on a regular basis there is noted—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Do you know, sir?
I only have a few seconds left. Do you know how many have been expelled or how many have been suspended?