:
Good afternoon. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motions adopted by the committee on October 4, 2016, and April 3, 2017, the committee will resume its study on immigration consultants.
We had Mr. David Arnold from the Australian High Commission scheduled, but I understand that an hour ago we unfortunately received a message that he had to stay on post. There will be a written submission. If there are any questions that have been prepared for this witness, please submit them. They'll be passed on to Mr. Arnold and responded to.
Before us today are Mr. Raj Sharma, managing partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi; and Mr. Lorne Waldman, barrister and solicitor, Lorne Waldman and Associates. Welcome, gentlemen.
Mr. Sharma, the floor is yours, for seven minutes.
First of all, I'd like to say that it's an absolute honour and privilege to appear and participate in your study of the legal, regulatory, and disciplinary frameworks governing and overseeing immigration consultants in Canada.
By way of background, I am an immigration lawyer in Calgary. Before I went into private practice, I was a refugee protection officer with the refugee protection division at the Immigration and Refugee Board. That is Canada's largest administrative tribunal. As a former immigration hearings officer, now as an immigration lawyer, I've done hundreds of hearings, probably fewer than Mr. Waldman but still quite a few. My partner and I and our associates appear regularly before the Federal Court of Canada, which requires a review of the record below.
Over the years I've also had the opportunity to host a Punjabi language radio show in Calgary, and for obvious reasons, immigration is a matter that is very near and dear to my community. I've seen lawyers and immigration consultants at all three divisions of the IRB. I've seen their work, transcripts of their hearings, and their applications. I've seen first-hand the consequences of bad advice.
There are good lawyers and bad. There are bad consultants and good ones. In my opinion, very few consultants are competent enough to represent and advocate for clients at the IRB. I've had the opportunity to review the briefs of the Canadian Bar Association and the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic. I share many of those concerns.
I disagree, however, with the CBA call to restrict representation for fees only to lawyers who are members of good standing of a provincial law society. There are two important concepts at play: access to justice and protection of the public.
I've had the opportunity to work with immigration consultants who have prior experience in immigration, including former immigration officers or CBSA officers, former lawyers, and others who know their limits. They do provide a valuable service. I don't think that lawyers automatically have a monopoly over all aspects of immigration law. The fact of the matter, however, is that ICCRC seems to favour promoting the easy entrance of consultants to the practice of immigration law over the protection of the public.
Right now, after getting admission to and passing a 320-hour online course—and this is what Ashton College's website says—the program gives students the opportunity to become part of this exciting field, without forcing them to be on campus. There are no courses on legal research, evidence, or administrative law principles. Once you complete this completely online course, you need to pass the ICCRC exams. By the way, even if you fail the skill exam, you still get three more kicks at the can. Anyone over 18 with a language proficiency test who passes this skills exam, on day one, can represent a refugee before the RPD.
To represent a refugee means knowing the substantive law in this area, terms like “state protection”, “internal flight alternative”, or exclusion clauses such as crimes against humanity, war crimes, or serious international non-political crimes. That same person can also, on day one, appear before the immigration division to represent a permanent resident being charged with a serious crime outside Canada. That requires an equivalency of a foreign charge with a Canadian criminal law. A loss at that division could result in the loss of status and removal without further appeal. That same person can represent a permanent resident at the immigration appeal division with a criminal conviction in Canada, or a permanent resident facing an allegation of misrepresentation, or a Canadian sponsor appealing against refusal by a visa officer to a family member overseas. There is no way that a six-month online course can give you grounding in the substantive law needed to be an effective advocate.
Look, we don't allow 16-year-olds to drive 18-wheelers. There needs to be a graduated licensing for consultants. Just because you can fill out a work permit doesn't mean you can appear, represent, and advocate for a refugee, a permanent resident facing criminal charges abroad, a permanent resident with a conviction inside Canada, or a Canadian looking to appeal against a refused visa to a family member.
We're relying on immigration consultants, individuals, to self-police, to restrict themselves when it is in their financial pecuniary interests to take on work, even work that they are not competent to do. They've paid thousands of dollars for the education, the skills exam, registration, insurance, marketing and advertising, and more. Obviously, they'll want a return on that investment.
My recommendation is to split the baby. In the United Kingdom, the legal profession is split between solicitors and barristers. Solicitors do transactional types of legal work. This is probably what 320 hours of an online course will allow for—a consultant to provide advice on and assist in completing immigration applications. Barristers represent clients as an advocate before a court or a tribunal. This requires training in evidence, ethics, court practice and procedure, and legal research. There's no way that 320 hours of an online course, and maybe a mock interview module, will allow for a consultant to practise competently before the IRB.
There should be a different process to license certain immigration practitioners or advocates to appear before the IRB. These individuals should either possess direct prior substantial experience, and/or prospective immigration advocates should be required to complete substantial legal courses, and undergo articles or train under the supervision of a lawyer, or a consultant who has the requisite experience.
Frankly, I think regulation has failed because the ICCRC sets up consultants to fail. They are knowingly or ignorantly—take your pick—arming their members with a knife and allowing them to go into a gunfight. Ultimately, it is the refugee claimant, the spouse separated from her partner for years, the permanent resident facing removal and loss of status from a country that he has called home for decades, who will pay the price.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
I just want to say that I hadn't discussed this with Mr. Sharma, but you'll be surprised to hear that our positions are very similar. I'm going to build on what Mr. Sharma just told you as I agree completely with him.
The problem with the immigrant consultant situation is that there's a perception that the regulatory body, the ICCRC, has not done enough to properly protect the public. There are still many instances of abuse, and there are many examples of incompetent representatives. That applies to processing, but much more so to the examples Mr. Sharma gave of people who appear before the board.
It's important to note, as Mr. Sharma did, that it's not only a problem with consultants. There are incompetent lawyers. There were three lawyers in Ontario who have been recently disciplined due to incompetent representation of hundreds of Roma refugee claimants. I was an expert witness on two of the three cases, so I'm well aware of the problem and the scope of the incompetence. Two of the lawyers received six-month suspensions and one was disbarred. This to say that the problem of incompetence is not one that's restricted to consultants.
Having said that, I agree with Mr. Sharma. A lawyer, before he is licensed, has to get an undergraduate degree, three years of law school, 10 months to one year of articling, and then pass a professional competence exam. It's far different from the 320 hours that you need to do before you can apply to write the consultant's exam.
I agree again with Mr. Sharma. The CBA recommends doing away with consultants. I have a broader perspective than Mr. Sharma, having been practising for close to 40 years. Before consultants were regulated, they existed, and if you tried to stop regulating, they will continue to exist. I think, given the choice between regulating and not, we're far better off regulating, but we have to regulate better.
How do we regulate better? In order to improve the regulations—and, again, I'm picking up on what Mr. Sharma said—the government must do more. The government has the power, in the regulations, to set proper minimum standards in place to ensure that anyone who is licensed as a consultant meets minimum standards of education.
I'm not going to tell you today what I think those would be, but I agree that they have to be far more than the 320 hours, especially if people are going to represent people at the Immigration and Refugee Board. Minimum standards of study have to be in place, followed by a period of practicum. A lawyer, before he or she can practise as a lawyer, has to do a period of articling. Consultants pass the exam, and the next day they can hang out their shingle. This is completely unacceptable.
How do we achieve this? We achieve this by enacting regulations. The immigration act, section 91, allows the government to promulgate regulations in relation to the ICCRC. I looked at the wording, and I'm not sure if in its current form the regulatory power is sufficient to allow it to put in place the type of regulation that I'm suggesting. We have to look at that more carefully. However, what I'm suggesting to you is that the government put into the regulations minimum standards of education, the minimum requirements, that a consultant spend a certain minimum period of practicum before he or she can be licensed.
We require this because, I agree with Mr. Sharma, the ICCRC has not put in place sufficient requirements to ensure that consultants are competent.
I also agree with Mr. Sharma that there's a fundamental difference between a consultant who does processing and a consultant who appears before the Immigration and Refugee Board. There should be different requirements of competence. There should be additional training required before a person represents someone before one of the tribunals of the Immigration and Refugee Board. All of this can be done by putting in place minimum requirements into legislation that any consultant would have to meet in order to become a member of the ICCRC.
In this way the government would ensure that any consultant is qualified. It wouldn't dependent on the ICCRC alone to set the minimum qualifications, because—I agree with Mr. Sharma—the qualifications that are now set requiring an online course of 320 hours is not enough to protect the public.
Finally, I think the regulations should allow the government to also conduct audits, in addition to the enforcement powers of the ICCRC. The government should not be dependent on the ICCRC to deal with situations of abuse when CBSA or CIC becomes aware of a consultant who is doing illegal activities. It should be free to conduct audits and enforce the regulations to ensure proper representation.
Thank you.
Thank you both for joining us and sharing your perspectives.
I think one of the major challenges we are facing, apart from the regulated consultants, is the issue of ghost consultants and those who are effectively operating under the radar. I know that in Ontario, for example, the law society regulates those who are providing legal services, and if they're not licensed to do so, there are provisions for the law society to enforce against those people, as there are in the medical profession, as well as in dental practice.
What can we do to address the issue of those who are not licensed and who will probably never be licensed? What kind of enforcement mechanism should we use and what is the right authority? Is it the CBSA, or is the RCMP the right organization to do the enforcement, whether it's in Canada or outside?
I'll start with you, Lorne.
:
I think we'll never get rid of ghost consultants and there's a myriad of reasons why. First of all—and I'll try to translate this from Punjabi—ghost consultants suck the blood of their own. They victimize their own communities, whether the Chinese, Vietnamese, or Indian.
There are barriers for those individuals who might be vulnerable, aged, lacking in education, or having other impediments, and they're not going to come forward. Because they're not going to come forward, we're just not going to have prosecution even if we have sufficient resources for prosecution, which we don't. We, apparently, don't even have sufficient resources to combat marriage fraud.
We're not going to get rid of ghost consultants, and I would suggest—and I'll refer to the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic's brief on this matter as well as my experience on the radio—that we really need to reach out to the ethnic communities via their media, radio, etc., and talk about this pernicious problem of ghost consultants.
Prevention has to be the best sort of cure. I don't think after-the-fact exercises and prosecution of someone who's obviously a crook or a criminal is going to deter it.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I thank both witnesses for your presentations. I very much welcome your comments and your positive suggestions on how to address the critical issue.
Mr. Chair, before I go into further questioning in this area, I would first like to move that the committee return to the debate that was adjourned on April 10, 2017, on my motion that reads as follows:
|
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), that the Committee immediately undertake a study of land arrivals at Canada's southern border, including: the impact of current realities at the border on safety and security of both refugees and Canadian society; the effective management of refugee claims at the border, within the context of Canada's international human rights obligations; and how to ensure an efficient and effective refugee determination process. That this study should be comprised of no less than five meetings; that IRCC department officials be in attendance for at least one of the meetings, that CBSA officials be in attendance for at least one of the meetings, and the RCMP officials be in attendance for at least one of the meetings; that the study be concluded and that the Committee report its findings to the House prior to June 9, 2017; and that Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response thereto. |
I understand it is not a debatable motion, Mr. Chair, and I fully recognize that the committee members have rejected going forward with this, or at least holding a debate on this matter so we can make a determination, but it is imperative that we get on with it, so I am going to once again move that we return to the debate.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
I think it's most unfortunate that we can't get on with a debate on the motion that I tabled, a motion that really calls for a study on the critical issue that's before us. If we don't do this, the fearmongering will continue, and it's not good for our country. It is not good for all of us together, in a multicultural society. I implore the government members to think about that, and maybe we can get on with it and do the work that is so very much necessary.
With that, I'll turn my attention back to the study at hand.
As I was saying, I thank both of the witnesses for their comments. I want to follow up with some specific questions.
First, given the situation we have with ICCRC, which frankly on all accounts is not doing its job—most certainly not doing its job properly—the issue has been raised by other witnesses of whether consultants should be self-regulated. I wonder if I could get Mr. Sharma to answer that question. Then I'll turn to Mr. Waldman on it.
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.
:
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.
:
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.
:
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.
:
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?
:
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.
:
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.
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?
:
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—
:
That's a good point and, as I said, I have a default here. I'm not a sitting member, so I've probably missed much of the discussion.
I keep pictures of my constituents or those living in my constituency who are looking to gain entry. I do that to remind myself that I need to advocate for these people. Oftentimes, in all of these cases, they didn't go through the normal channels, but having spoken to them, I am impressed that they need my help.
I have found that many of them who have come to me have made their complaints. I'm going to shift over to you, Madame Fortin. I would say most in my riding have complaints with their lawyers. They have found that their services have been poor or haven't been adequate. Subsequently, they were given a deportation notice. I wonder if you want to respond to that. Again, I'm in southwestern Ontario. We have a lot of farm workers as well as refugees. There were a number from the Middle East who were seeking refugee status.
I'm hearing a lot of complaints about your profession, the consultants, but I'm going to give you a chance to have a backlash. Do you experience the same things that.... Many people are having the same problems with lawyers, and the only problem I see is possibly that the consultants don't have the ability or the know-how on how to keep working the system, how to keep going back to the courts.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to get this on the public record to be clear in terms of the “glut”, as my good colleague sitting next to me here might have mentioned, around the immigrant and refugee community. To be clear, the refugee community number for the immigration levels planned for this year is at about 40,000. That's within the context of 300,000 overall, so that is about 13%. This is the “glut”, if you're talking about that. Within the context of the international community, there are some 65 million refugees out there. Within the context of what Canada is doing in terms of our part, that is 0.00061538%, or less than 1%. This is just be clear and to get this on the record.
To turn to the issue around the situation we're faced with, whether you're a regulated consultant or an unregulated consultant, we are hearing from witnesses that there is a whole host of problems. The interest I'm wanting to focus in on is about the people who use these consultants and how they are penalized. Often for these people who make these applications, unbeknownst to them, there might be unregulated consultants out there, or even regulated ones who are not doing a very good job.
My first question was touched on in the previous presentation with the other witnesses. For the so-called ghost consultants, as it stands right now, the application is such that you don't make clear who your representative is. If the information with respect to the representative is wrong, it's the applicant who bears the brunt.
The Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic made a recommendation that the responsibility for the information about the representative should lie with the representative, who should then sign a declaration as to its accuracy. If the representative is not an authorized representative, the application should not, on that account, be considered incomplete. Instead, the applicant should be informed that the government will not accept that person as their representative, but the application will still be processed and that any appropriate disciplinary measures should be pursued against the representative without penalizing the applicant.
On this issue, I'd like to ask both witnesses if they agree with this recommendation.
Thanks to both the witnesses for coming today.
One of the biggest concerns I have heard all throughout this study is about the unregulated ghost consultants working here in Canada, and both of you have also raised this issue. They don't fall under the purview of the ICCRC. We heard earlier in our study, when the CBSA representatives were here, that they only have the resources to go after the most egregious offenders, so we have this wide open door for those ghost consultants.
It seems to me that there are few options on the table, having heard from all the witnesses on this study. I would like to get thoughts from both of you on that. Should we give the ICCRC more authority to allow them to go after non-registered consultants, given what we have heard about how they are functioning? I'm skeptical of that, but can it be reformed and improved?
The second thing is whether we replace this self-regulation model with a government regulator?
The third thing is that the Canadian Bar Association recommended restricting the field only to immigration lawyers registered with the law society. What do you think of these options and do you have any other solutions?
Perhaps I can start with Mr. Kewley and then go to Ms. Fortin about all these questions.