:
Oh, of course, you can bring motions. We're getting into an area, and we'll make it clear. I think I've expressed my view privately to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. The practice of this committee, since I've been chair, at least, which is about two years, is that we normally hear government bills first, and Bill is before us. We are now proceeding with that.
Ms. Chow has a couple of motions, quite frankly, that I think have been on the books since March. It is possible, if we find there's a break in proceedings for whatever reason--that witnesses aren't available or if something unusual happens--that the matter could be disposed of at that time.
Otherwise, members could bring motions continually, and essentially the committee could be hijacked. I'm not suggesting you're trying to hijack the meeting; I didn't mean it like that, but that could be the gist of it.
My suggestion is that you speak to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. I would suggest that if your motion or any other motions wish to be debated--Ms. Chow, for example--we will have an opportunity, after we have concluded our deliberations on Bill , to dispose of your motion and any other motions, or whatever else we want to talk about.
We have a private member's bill that's before us. It's up to the committee when we're going to deal with that. We have a study on wait times that we're right in the middle of somewhere. I have no idea when the committee wants to deal with that. We have Ms. Chow's motions. If the practice of the committee is normally followed, you follow all that. But anything's possible.
:
No, no, it keeps me alert.
I'd like to call this part of the meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 25, Wednesday, October 6, 2010. Our orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 23, 2010, are Bill , an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
I probably should have done that earlier, but here we are.
We have three witnesses before us who are all from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I hope I pronounce all your names correctly. I'll take them in order. We have Catrina Tapley, associate assistant deputy minister, strategic and program policy; Sandra Harder, acting director general, immigration branch; and Brenna MacNeil, director, social policy and programs, immigration branch.
I would like to welcome all three of you today. You have done this before, so perhaps you could make some introductory comments from your perspective as to . Then, as you know, the different caucuses will probably have questions for you.
You may proceed, Ms. Tapley.
We are pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill , which would protect potential immigrants by strengthening the rules governing those who charge a fee for immigration advice.
[English]
The bill would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act--IRPA--so that only lawyers, notaries in Quebec, and consultants who are members in good standing of a governing body designated by the minister could provide advice or representation for a fee at any stage of a proceeding or application. This includes the period before any application is submitted or a proceeding begins, thereby closing a loophole in the current framework that regulates consultants.
Under current legislation, the involvement of consultants in the pre-application or pre-submission period is not regulated. By casting a wider net, unauthorized individuals who provide paid advice or representation at any stage would be subject to a fine of not more than $50,000, or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or both. This would include undeclared ghost consultants, those who conceal their involvement in an application or proceeding.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canada Border Services Agency, and other enforcement authorities take immigration fraud seriously. By closing the current legislative loophole, we add another legislative tool for taking action against ghost consultants. The tools provided by the introduction of this legislation will support ongoing compliance, enforcement, and prosecution activities crucial to immigration program integrity.
In addition, would give the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism the authority by regulation to designate a body to govern immigration consultants and to establish measures to enhance the government's oversight of the designated body. This body would also be required to provide information that would assist the minister in evaluating whether it is governing its members in the public interest. The information would also help ensure that members are providing representation and advice in a professional and ethical manner.
[Translation]
Currently, CIC is limited in its ability to disclose information about individuals who provide unethical or unprofessional representation or advice.
The bill would allow CIC to disclose such information to those responsible for governing or investigating that conduct. An investigation could be undertaken more readily and, where appropriate, disciplinary action pursued.
I would add, Mr. Chair, that unpaid third parties, such as family members and friends, would still be allowed to act on behalf of an applicant. Furthermore, under the new rules, there would be exceptions for certain groups, such as visa application centres and other service providers, when acting in accordance with an agreement or arrangement with the Government of Canada.
[English]
It is primarily the federal government's role to protect the integrity of the immigration program. The Government of Canada recognizes, however, that the provinces and territories play an important role in regulating the conduct of immigration consultants, as they have responsibility for consumer protection and the regulation of professions. ln this regard, Quebec's own recent amendments to its regulations recognize as an immigration consultant any member in good standing of the body designated under federal regulations. In addition, during the course of federal-provincial-territorial consultations, we also shared our proposed legislative amendments with senior provincial public servants, who raised no objections.
Canada's immigration system can be accessed at any number of missions in other countries or at CIC offices in Canada. Overseas or in-Canada applicants seek assistance from immigration consultants for a variety of reasons. Given the fact that Canada cannot directly investigate matters in other countries, the investigation and prosecution of third parties residing abroad is challenging. While much of the problem lies overseas and beyond our reach, it is anticipated that enforcement in Canada of proposed new offences could disrupt overseas networks by removing their Canada-based links. The Government of Canada will also continue to make use of bilateral and multilateral opportunities to address the fraudulent activities of unscrupulous immigration representatives abroad.
The international component was initiated during the minister's trip to India in January 2009, and further developed in his recent international meetings in Europe and Asia. During those meetings, the minister underscored the need for combined action to combat fraud, abuse, and wrongdoing in Canada's immigration system. Indeed, as the minister recently said, the Government of Canada will soon send a dossier on some of the worst fraudsters in the Punjab to that Indian state's government, which would follow up with appropriate enforcement action. Meanwhile, efforts to raise awareness of the risks of engaging crooked consultants will continue, including updating of websites in Canada and at visa offices abroad, to carry warning messages for potential immigrants.
[Translation]
Service improvements, including web-based tools and video tutorials, are also being developed by CIC and will make it easier for applicants to independently apply to immigrate to Canada.
One such web-based tool is the Visa Wizard, an interactive tool that, based on an individual's specific circumstances, provides specific instructions and forms that best fit their situation. It will be launched shortly.
CIC has also recently launched a process under existing authorities to identify a governing body for immigration consultants, as part of the broader strategy to better regulate immigration consultants.
[English]
A call for submissions from candidates interested in becoming a regulator of immigration consultants was published in the Canada Gazette on August 28, 2010, and interested parties are given until December 29, 2010, to deliver their submissions.
This selection process follows a notice of intent published on June 12, 2010, in the Canada Gazette announcing CIC's intention to launch a public process to identify a governing body to regulate immigration consultants.
Candidates must demonstrate that their organization has or will have the capacity to effectively regulate immigration consulting activities in the public interest. This enhances public confidence in the immigration process and preserves the integrity of the immigration system.
In regard to the investigative powers of the regulator of immigration consultants, governing bodies continue to be responsible for taking disciplinary action against their members, including the revocation of membership. Like other governing bodies, the governing body for immigration consultants can investigate the conduct of members where there is a concern that a member has breached a term of membership. This is similar to the process used by provincial law societies to look into complaints concerning their own members.
Most immigration consultants working in Canada are legitimate and ethical, but as the minister has said, it is clear that immigration fraud remains a widespread threat to the reputation and integrity of Canada's immigration system. Bill would strengthen the rules governing those who charge a fee for immigration advice, close loopholes in the immigration system currently exploited by crooked consultants, and improve the way by which immigration consultants are regulated.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now ready to answer any questions the committee may have.
:
Thank you for the question.
I think I would like to start by coming back to the factors that we have published for selection of a body, and then I'll ask my colleagues, Ms. Harder or Ms. MacNeil, to provide some more specific information around this.
I think I'd just like to note that what we've looked at is competence. So among other factors candidates must demonstrate that the employer will employ individuals with demonstrated knowledge and experience, and that would include practice and ethical conduct, official language status. But I think also when we get into accountability and integrity, which are two of the other competencies that we talked about in our factors, those become as important as well in addressing some of the concerns the member has raised.
Integrity: the development of a code of conduct, the code of ethics, the conflict of interest for immigration consultants has to be clear. Accountability: that they are accountable to their membership, including the democratic election of directors, annual public meetings, external audits, and regular reporting, which I think will help to get at some of the issues you have identified.
The other two factors we are looking at are good governance, which I think once again speaks to some of the issues you have raised, as well as viability. So these plans include ensuring a membership base that will provide for sustainability of the body, and to promote membership candidate entities must be incorporated or capable of incorporating, and what they need to provide to us is demonstrated expertise in financial management and reporting to ensure the same on an ongoing basis.
:
Sure. Mr. Chairman, I'll start, and my colleagues can chime in to offer some additional detail.
In order to address the concerns of public confidence in the body currently governing immigration consultants, I think as the report from this committee had pointed out, the government wanted to move quickly. It was determined that the establishment of a governing body through stand-alone legislation would have been a lengthy, and I might also add a costly, process.
So the approach we've arrived at in Bill is really what we feel is the most practical and efficient, in terms of cost and time, to the regulation of immigration consultants. And I'd just point out as well—and then I'll ask Ms. Harder and Ms. MacNeil to comment—that governing bodies, whether it's stand-alone legislation or not, do have a responsibility for taking disciplinary action against their members, including the revocation of membership, which we see as a significant tool.
Like other governing bodies, the governing body for immigration consultants can provide for measures concerning the discipline of its members, similar to the process used by law societies in looking into complaints concerning their own members.
Madame.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
I have to say I had high hopes for the idea of this legislation. I had some concerns about it, but now having heard the questions and the answers, I'm really concerned about what we're trying to do here.
We have indicated that we all agree there's a terrible problem with vulnerable people being taken advantage of by unscrupulous, crooked consultants--it's even in the name of the bill--but we have heard there are not going to be any extra resources or money to this new body to address some of the flaws in the existing system. There is no more money for enforcement. The CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, is responsible for going out and finding those people who will end up with these $50,000 fines or two-years-in-jail punishments, but there are no extra resources for them to go after these people.
I'm really worried that the proposal that has been put out, which was published in the Canada Gazette on August 28, is not going to get anyone who wants to take up the challenge on this legislation that has been thrown together without any proper due diligence on what the requirements of such a body would be. Obviously, the answer is they have until the end of December of this year, another three months away, to apply, but how many different parties have indicated their interest? Surely, up to this point, any serious party that would want to take on such an important role as a regulator would have consulted, at least semi-casually, with officials at CIC about making sure they achieve this.
So I'm curious to see how many different parties have approached...about possibly being their regulator.