Interventions in Committee
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you.
I have a limited amount of time. Specifically, from an opportunity cost perspective, the government is investing—spending—$51 million worth of tax dollars and assuming oversight and, ostensibly, liability related to an arm's-length profession that exists to interpret difficulties in an existing government system.
I'm wondering if there was any opportunity cost analysis done to apply that $51 million to ease service delivery specifically related to this particular expenditure?
Lori MacDonald
View Lori MacDonald Profile
Lori MacDonald
2019-05-06 17:04
Essentially, we looked at where we wanted to focus our attention, which was on things like addressing gap areas and addressing how we could make the process easier for the clients. We actually did costing around that, but not in relation to what gap analysis there would be in terms of spending.
View Salma Zahid Profile
Lib. (ON)
One more recommendation is that the regulatory body should establish qualifications for registration as immigration consultants and develop a tiered system as to the category of services individual consultants are permitted to provide.
Most consultants would be able to provide basic information and perform transactional work such as completing and submitting applications while a few qualified consultants should be permitted to appear before the IRB.
What's your input on this recommendation?
Michael MacDonald
View Michael MacDonald Profile
Michael MacDonald
2017-05-29 17:43
Again, I think that needs to be looked at in terms of the purpose of having a tiered model. I'm not sure, David, if you have anything more. I think it's worth assessing and seeing the value of a tiered model, and what more it gives you that perhaps doesn't exist today. What does it give to prospective and current clients?
View David Tilson Profile
CPC (ON)
I guess the question is what we do now. Do we get rid of them? Does the department take it over?
Maybe I'm alone, but my observation listening to the testimony is that it's not working.
In fact, maybe you could elaborate on this. What concerns does the department have with respect to the ICCRC and its tenure as a regulator over the last six years? You must have thoughts on whether it should continue, whether it can be fixed, and whether we should have something else.
Michael MacDonald
View Michael MacDonald Profile
Michael MacDonald
2017-05-29 17:48
Chair, that really comes down to three common areas where we've fostered the relationship and tried to move it forward.
The first area is around the complaints process. We have been having conversations with the ICCRC around the length of time it takes to resolve complaints, respecting the fact that things don't always have a perfect start and end date. That's understandable. But we feel there's more that can be done, and it needs to be done faster, and that's the message we've delivered.
The second area is around education. I think they can do a better job, and we're trying to help them do a better job, in ensuring that the consultants who are registered do have the best basis in understanding of the systems, including our forms and everything that's out there.
The third, which are the conversations we entered into not long ago, is really around the stability of the organization. Again, if there are areas where they need help ensuring the stability of the organization—the board or the organization itself—we are open to dialogue and to actively helping and sharing lessons learned and so on.
View Bob Saroya Profile
CPC (ON)
If I can follow up, the public trust is the main thing. The public trust isn't there so far. I know that you are doing your level best, but it hasn't worked for the last number of years. Mr. Tilson asked if you—the government, the body—should take over, redo the whole thing, and let this ICCRC go and—
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jenny Kwan Profile
2017-05-29 17:59
Great, thank you.
I'm going to move on to the next issue that has been brought to our committee's attention, and that is a graduated licensing process. That is to say that not all consultants are equal. They have to go through various training at different levels to be able to do different kinds of work. Is that an option that can be adopted—not under the current model but under any model? Can that be adopted as a practice for a graduated licensing process?
Michael MacDonald
View Michael MacDonald Profile
Michael MacDonald
2017-05-29 18:00
Graduated licensing could be adopted, and in fact it exists today in terms of student advisers at universities.
View Marwan Tabbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to follow up on Ms. Kwan's question. We've talked about a graduated licensing process in this committee at various times. In your response to her question, you talked about how currently university students have an advisory system. Can you elaborate on what you meant in response to her question?
David Cashaback
View David Cashaback Profile
David Cashaback
2017-05-29 18:01
In December 2014, the ICCRC adopted a bylaw that granted limited licensure to international student advisers. It was a conversation that took place within the independent body—we participated, of course—in order to find a way for these student advisers to be able to offer some degree of assistance to students, but it's not full membership in the organization.
View Marwan Tabbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Do you have any information on some of the success that came out of it or some of the responses from students?
David Cashaback
View David Cashaback Profile
David Cashaback
2017-05-29 18:02
I don't have any from the student perspective. In the spirit of the conversation we're having today, Mr. Chair, this was an example of a situation where it was not clear what kinds of services these student advisers were providing, whether they were falling within or without the legislative and regulatory framework. This was a positive step at the time to address a need. Our understanding is that it has worked acceptably for students. It gives them a service where otherwise there would be a grey zone.
Michael Tutthill
View Michael Tutthill Profile
Michael Tutthill
2017-05-15 15:55
Starting 44 years ago in 1973, Gays for Equality offered a telephone information line, peer counselling service, and a resource library on the University of Manitoba campus. The group went on to become a leader and an important resource for the gay and lesbian community, providing community service, education, outreach, political awareness, and activism.
Today, known as the Rainbow Resource Centre, our mission is to provide support, education, and resources to foster a proud, resilient, and diverse LGBT2SQ+ community in Manitoba. This diversity includes refugees, asylum seekers, and other newcomers. We offer a newcomer-led social support group called New Pride of Winnipeg. The group meets twice a month, and it is a chance for gender and sexual minority newcomers to support one another and find community. Currently the group includes six claimants, two convention refugees, 23 permanent residents, one citizen, and 13 visa holders.
We provide support to newcomers in our counselling program. Currently we have five refugee claimants, one person considering a refugee claim, two under appeal, one facing a deportation order, three awaiting IRB decisions, nine with a permanent resident application pending, and two newcomers with unknown status.
Newcomer counselling clients may be newly arrived, have had a student visa and are making a refugee claim, have been sponsored through organizations like Reaching Out Winnipeg, or increasingly have crossed the border irregularly. Our counsellors provide support to prepare for the IRB hearing; follow up on the invasive questions faced by claimants appearing before the IRB; and begin to address the trauma experienced during the clients' journey in their home country or in the country of temporary asylum, which is almost never safe for sexual and gender minority people.
Often, our counsellors are the first people to ask the question, what's the best part of your LGBT2SQ+ identity? The answer to this question is the beginning of an assessment process to provide a letter confirming someone's gender or sexual minority identity or experience. Like many Canadians, many of the gender and sexual minority newcomer clients we see may not identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or queer, but use language appropriate to their own culture and personal history.
I'd like to thank and congratulate the department for releasing the Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings before the IRB involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression. The guidelines address many of the concerns we experience during IRB hearings, and acknowledge the complexities of sexual and gender minority experience and identities. In preparing for an IRB hearing, our staff and clients' lawyers spend significant time addressing inconsistencies on the basis of claim.
Often, asylum seekers might be out to some service providers, yet not to others. Sometimes clients would be advised by settlement service workers or other service providers not to come out at all. This advice is well intentioned, given the Canadian LGBT2SQ+ people often come in contact with heterosexist or cissexist service providers. However, it does create perceived inconsistencies in the basis of claim for newcomer clients.
It is common for Canadian LGBT2SQ+ people to not be out to all of the service providers. One of our staff members has been married to a same-sex partner for five years and just came out to his doctor a couple of months ago.
IRB members have also asked our clients how they can have a child if they are a lesbian. The answer: for any of same reasons a Canadian lesbian can have a child. The guidelines provide IRB members, service providers, lawyers, and claimants with a framework of accountability in assessing claims of sexual orientation and if adhered to, will address some of these concerns.
These examples highlight our unique expertise as a community in assisting sexual and gender minority newcomers and refugees. This committee will hear from many organizations across the country that support sexual and gender minority refugees through sponsorship and settlement services. For decades, LGBT2SQ+ people in communities have been supporting one another in creating spaces to understand our identities and navigate the heterosexism or cissexism that we encounter daily.
We will continue to learn about the realities faced by sexual and gender minority newcomers, and we are well positioned to help you settle these clients in Canada.
Many newcomer clients, as I mentioned, will choose to be out in some parts of their lives but not in others. Many may be out in LGBT2SQ+ spaces, but not out within their ethnocultural community. Clients may be out to some family members, but not others. We also live with this reality. LGBT2SQ+ organizations are well positioned to make appropriate referrals, educate existing settlement services on gender and sexual minority realities, connect clients to their local LGBT2SQ+ communities and support, and create safer spaces within our own communities for newcomers to settle in. We're also well positioned to assist newcomers to navigate their new reality in a country that celebrates the achievement of same-sex marriage, but where it is not always safe to be out, where sexual and gender minorities continue to face discrimination in areas of health care, education, housing, and employment.
Continuing the rainbow refugee assistance program acknowledges and supports the communities who are best positioned to settle and sponsor gender and sexual minority refugees. Sponsorship by Canadian LGBT2SQ+ communities, like a contact with our centre, helps to ensure that gender and sexual minority refugees are met with community support upon their arrival in Canada. While we encourage non-LGBT2SQ+ people to sponsor gender and sexual minority refugees, given the humanity urgency of a situation, we also acknowledge that many sponsorship agreement holders are busy with the important work of family reunification. The rainbow refugee assistance program encourages our communities to sponsor persecuted people—
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
2017-05-01 15:57
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I want to give a heartfelt thanks to all the presenters for their excellent presentations. Thanks for your extraordinary efforts in getting here today. I know there were some plane delays because of the weather.
I'm going to focus a bit on the comments by Mr. Eustaquio and the two Jasons, Mr. Ottey and Mr. McMichael, today.
I'm delighted, Mr. McMichael, that you let us know that you were in the immigration system for a while. That is very helpful.
One of the key questions I always ask myself is, “Why do people use immigration consultants?” Part of me wonders if it's just because the process is so difficult. Is it because we only offer it in English and French? I just want your thoughts on the number one or two reasons.
Mr. Eustaquio, maybe I'm going to start with you. Why do you think members of the Portuguese community use immigration consultants? I figure that if we maybe could address some of that we could eliminate some people going to immigration consultants and some of these issues.
I'll start with you, Mr. Eustaquio; and then we'll go to Mr. Ottey and Mr. McMichael.
José Eustaquio
View José Eustaquio Profile
José Eustaquio
2017-05-01 15:58
You've put the question. Obviously, when it comes to communities like the one I represent, everything seems to start with the question, “What do you feel comfortable with?” Language is paramount. Over the years—not so much in the last decade, but in the late 1990s and early 2000s—you would even hear of individuals back in Portugal attempting to create, through town hall meetings, access to immigration or work programs in Canada. I haven't heard so much of that in the last little while, because I think organizations like LiUNA have done a phenomenal job in trying to provide communication here across Canada, especially in the Toronto area with Local 183.
My community is very culturally based and very tight-rooted with traditions and culture. Our community centres.... This has been brought up. These not-for-profit organizations are usually the first step of someone being recognized and welcomed to a neighbourhood and a community. When someone new comes to Canada, that's where they go.
They don't go there only to find and meet people—family members, people from their home town—but to access these community centres as a means of employment. Then they are looking for assistance to legalize themselves, which some of these unscrupulous consultants understand. They are smart. They're intelligent. They're at the street level, at the grassroots, so they know where to obtain those individuals.
The language, as MP Dzerowicz mentioned, is pivotal. This should always be provided in the language that people are comfortable with. The accessibility of or process to go by to get a lot of these applications properly in front of the legal sources for immigration seems to be very vague. That is where some of these people have done really well in obtaining a salary, a life, a job for themselves by providing these services.
They are making ridiculous amounts of money for a legal process that you and I can do on the Internet. For an application that normally costs about $1,100, I've heard cases of some families paying $18,000, $20,000, or $25,000. A lot of these people are just looking for the right news, and the right news is, “Yes, I can make you Canadian in a short period of time. I can make you legal.” These broken promises have been alluded to in some of the presentations today. It's vastly dark, and it is so unfortunate that it's happening in a country like ours.
Hopefully that answers your question.
Jason Ottey
View Jason Ottey Profile
Jason Ottey
2017-05-01 16:01
It's a very good point. It's fundamental. The fundamental change has to come from a recognition that we actually do need immigration to grow our economy. If we look at it with the purpose of how to facilitate bringing these people in, that changes the nature of the interaction. Streamlining the processes and having more accessibility, as Mr. Eustaquio mentioned, are critical to that. Having it in a language that the applicant understands will assist with that.
There are so many different pathways for people to apply. That alone can be burdensome to an applicant. It would be helpful if there was a clearer line of demarcation as to what the application is for, how long the process could take, and what necessary documents are required in order to facilitate an application. That way, applicants would know from the beginning what is required of them.
On complex applications, I do think there will be a need for an immigration consultant or a lawyer to assist, because not all of them will be paint-by-numbers. You could apply a similar process to what it's like to get a building permit. In order to get a building permit, there is a lot of pre-work that is done in order to establish the necessary conditions for approval. That is a very rich ground for immigration consultants to play around, and I think they take advantage of that. The more we can make that information accessible and attainable to applicants, the easier it would be for them to apply on their own, therefore taking the need away from those less complex cases.
Richard Kurland
View Richard Kurland Profile
Richard Kurland
2017-04-10 15:31
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's indeed an honour and a privilege to appear before the committee. I'd like to preface my remarks with a description of the decades of intervention on this particular issue.
The immigration consulting issue encompasses the protection of people desirous of becoming Canadians and desirous of visiting our country. I'll distill the issues plainly and simply. When it comes to the issue of immigration consultants, the key is who can fix this and how to motivate the institution to fix this.
I've read the submissions of other witnesses appearing before the committee. What seems clear to me is that there is only one single entity capable of handling the immigration consultant issues and that is the department, not the provincial level and not the regulatory authorities, provincial or federal. Only our public servants, working within the immigration department, can truly and practically get to the bottom of this. Why? It is only the department that has the capability of identifying who accesses our immigration operational system. It is the department that controls this access. The department has the tools and mechanisms to prevent contact with the departmental systems, and the department has the means to allow access.
The two obstacles preventing resolution of the immigration consultant issue for over 20 years are basic. The first level is unseen. Our governance in Canada, for social engineering purposes, in terms of multi-year, long-term strategy, emanates from the Privy Council Office. Within that office, there is a directive to prevent the judiciarization of Canadian society. We do not want a litigious society as it appears in our neighbour to the south. Consequently, when it comes to dealing with immigration consultants, there is a hidden unseen directive to prevent the legalization, the judiciarization, of the issue.
On the other hand, there is the desire to offload client contact from the department, where possible. What does this mean? This means that the department prefers to have a three-tier delivery system. Tier one includes members of Parliament and senators, preferred service; tier two has the regulated professions, lawyers and consultants; and tier three has unrepresented members of the public.
Here's where I'll conclude my opening remarks. The cheapest, easiest, most direct way to resolve this is to require third party representation on every application for service. In this manner, the applicants are driven to publicly regulated individuals: licensing, insurance, protection of the public. It allows the applicants to pay for service.
It should not be mandatory, but a preferred service system for represented applicants would go a long way to preventing abuse and would save the department money by using trained officials—lawyers and consultants who are regulated. It is going to be up to the department to make this decision. It can do it now. It has the artificial intelligence mechanisms in the incoming application processing system to do this.
To sum up, all you've been hearing to date have been different sides of the elephant, how it got into the room, and individual concerns and group concerns. At the heart of all this is the key, the central decision, on the part of our immigration public servants to allow access to third party representatives, and reward applications with third party representation with preferred service times, or more reliability in terms of the product that's entering the system.
I hear the self-interest bell ringing, but over 20 to 25 years I have not come up with a better solution, other than hiving off ever greater chunks of the operational delivery system onto the offices of our elected officials.
Those are my opening remarks. Thank you.
Maria Esel Panlaqui
View Maria Esel Panlaqui Profile
Maria Esel Panlaqui
2017-04-03 15:57
No, I started in Thorncliffe. We have a secret online Facebook group. We thought we were already connected with a lot of them, but when they started going to the churches, I saw more workers there who were isolated and vulnerable, so we started assisting those people and referring them to settlement agencies in the particular neighbourhoods where they are located.
With the phone services, I was able to rescue a caregiver in Hay River over the phone—
Maria Esel Panlaqui
View Maria Esel Panlaqui Profile
Maria Esel Panlaqui
2017-04-03 15:58
—because there are no settlement services there.
I asked her if she could wait until the next day and she said, “No, because the employer is throwing things at me. I cannot wait.” We had no choice but to ask someone to take her from Hay River to a shelter there. The settlement agency that is closest to that worker is a four-hour drive from where she works. She was isolated inside the private home.
Robert Orr
View Robert Orr Profile
Robert Orr
2017-03-06 15:32
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to begin by noting that over the last number of years, the department has made significant strides in laying the groundwork for a modernized client experience that simplifies the application process while maintaining the integrity of our immigration system. Our hope is that these continuing improvements will make it easier for people to access our services without the use of a consultant.
That said, we recognize that many prospective immigrants to Canada seek the services of immigration representatives or consultants, both in Canada and overseas, for help in navigating the immigration process. Similarly, prospective citizens may enlist the help of citizenship consultants before they seek the final step of applying to obtain their Canadian citizenship.
In June of 2011 the House of Commons passed legislation designed to better protect prospective immigrants from unscrupulous or fraudulent practices by such representatives. At the heart of that legislation were changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requiring that a paid immigration representative used at any stage of an immigration application or proceeding be a lawyer or a paralegal who is a member in good standing of a Canadian provincial or territorial law society.
In addition, an immigration representative can be a notary who is a member in good standing of the Chambre des notaires du Québec, or an immigration consultant who is a member in good standing of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council, the ICCRC.
There are also provisions in the law for the government to enter into agreements with certain organizations who provide valuable services to immigrants and applicants for citizenship.
In effect, the 2011 legislation made it illegal for anyone other than those I've just listed to operate as a paid representative at any stage of an immigration or citizenship application or proceeding. At the same time as these amendments came into force, the government of the day also designated the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council, or ICCRC, as the regulator of immigration consultants. In June of 2015, similar amendments were made to the Citizenship Act in regard to the laws governing citizenship consultants, and the minister at the time designated the ICCRC as the regulator for such consultants.
The ICCRC is a self-governing, not-for-profit organization that has an arm's-length relationship with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. There are currently more than 3,700 active members of the ICCRC. The organization manages members' entry-to-practice standards, including training, testing, and accreditation, as well as professional requirements such as education obligations. The ICCRC is also responsible for ensuring that an effective complaints and discipline process for members is enforced.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is always prepared to take aggressive action against unscrupulous and fraudulent activities by immigration and citizenship consultants when we become aware of or suspect improper activities. These damaging activities can include acting as a so-called ghost consultant; that is, providing, or even offering to provide, advice or representation for a fee at any stage of an immigration application or proceeding without being a member in good standing of the ICCRC.
When Government of Canada officials believe that an immigration or citizenship consultant has contravened any professional obligations, they have clear authority to share this information with the ICCRC, in a manner consistent with the Privacy Act.
Examples of information that can be shared are allegations or evidence of false promises made to an applicant, providing false information about Canada's immigration processes, failing to provide services agreed to between the representative and client, or counselling to obtain or submit false evidence.
The ICCRC has a mandate to govern such consultants by employing tools such as their code of professional ethics and code of business conduct and ethics. It also has the authority to investigate allegations of unethical or unprofessional behaviour on the part of authorized consultants. The RCMP and the CBSA are responsible for investigating both authorized consultants who engage in fraud and ghost consultants who operate outside of the law governing immigration representatives.
The ICCRC and the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants have approached our department and the CBSA about making changes to governance frameworks for the regulator of citizenship and immigration consultants. According to documents we've seen, they're interested in having the council operate similarly to law societies, with increased powers of investigation and the ability to discipline members.
To give the council these authorities would require significant legislative changes and could also impact the mandate of our security partners who are currently responsible for investigating ghost consultants and authorized consultants who engage in fraud.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada remains committed to continuing to meet regularly with representatives of the ICCRC to discuss governance issues and the council's overall effectiveness.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Paul Aterman
View Paul Aterman Profile
Paul Aterman
2017-03-06 15:45
Thank you.
The Immigration and Refugee Board reports to Parliament through the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Through the work of its four divisions—the refugee protection division, the refugee appeal division, the immigration division, and the immigration appeal division—the board renders about 40,000 quasi-judicial decisions per year.
The people who are the subject of those decisions are among the most vulnerable consumers of legal services in Canada. Some of them may have been in Canada only a few weeks or months. Many are unfamiliar with our legal system. Many do not speak English or French. Access to justice—that is, being able to retain competent counsel at an affordable cost—is a concern for courts and tribunals across this country, and it's a concern that applies equally to the IRB.
We do design our processes in such a way that self-represented people can navigate them, but the fact is that many of the issues we deal with are complex and technical, because the law itself is complex and technical. About one in five cases before the board involves someone who is not represented by counsel. We would much rather deal with people who have competent counsel than deal with people who are unrepresented. We are able to do our job much more efficiently in those circumstances.
To give you a sense of the numbers, of the 40,000 cases in 2016, about 8,000, or around 20%, involved people who were not represented. Around 31,500, or 80%, had counsel. Of those 31,500, about 12% were represented by immigration consultants. Last year we saw around 3,800 immigration consultants.
Integrity and competence are crucial to consultants' capacity to make a positive contribution to the immigration and protection of refugees system. From the perspective of the IRB, the provisions on consultants adopted in 2004 marked an important step forward for access to justice, as they allowed for the setting of minimal standards, and brought in complaint and discipline mechanisms that did not exist prior to that.
However, there is always room for improvement. The changes made in 2011 strengthened the system. Currently the representatives targeted by the regulation must prove to the IRB that they are members in good standing of their professional association before they can appear before the board. We check to see if they are suspended or subject to disciplinary procedures.
I think it is important for the committee to be aware of the fact that the work done by immigration consultants before the IRB is quite different from the work done by consultants when they appear or represent clients before IRCC.
With IRCC, consultants are guiding their clients through an application process. In contrast, at the board, consultants represent their clients in hearings. The IRB is the main forum in which consultants can litigate, and litigating requires very particular skills. Counsel in a hearing needs to know the difference between evidence and argument. Counsel needs to know what the right legal test is, what the best litigation strategy is, how to examine or cross-examine a witness. They have to be able to think on their feet. They have to be persuasive.
The board supports the regulators' efforts to improve standards of practice, and we also support the regulators' efforts to investigate and act on alleged breaches of professional conduct. To that end, in July 2015 we revised our disclosure policy to take advantage of the legislative changes that now make it easier to disclose this kind of information to regulators.
The board now has a transparent process for reporting issues of concern to regulators. The policy applies not just to consultants but to lawyers as well. However, we refer cases to a regulator only when we think there has been a sufficiently serious breach of a code of conduct or ethics.
Since 2015, we've made a relatively small number of referrals, 10 to the immigration consultant regulator and two involving members of the bar. However, that should not be taken as an indication that there is not room for improvement—far from it. In the view of the board, there is considerable scope for the quality of litigation conducted by immigration consultants to improve. This is why we also support education and prevention whether by the regulator itself or through our own efforts. For example, the board holds sessions for immigration consultants that are aimed at improving their standard of practice, and if we receive invitations from professional organizations of immigration consultants to offer training, we gladly accept those invitations.
We hope to build on the relationship we have with the regulator and with groups such as the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants, because we're aiming to improve the standard of litigation practice conducted by immigration consultants.
Thank you.
View Bob Saroya Profile
CPC (ON)
You don't know how hard it is for me to tell somebody who doesn't have the money that they have to go see somebody. I was coming from that point of view.
Personally, somebody came to see me over and over. They are absolutely qualified, but they were denied. When I made the phone call, they said, “Oh no, they have to reapply for it.”
Dory Jade
View Dory Jade Profile
Dory Jade
2016-12-13 16:19
What I can suggest is that we would make some arrangement, let's say, as an association, for those people, and probably our members would be offering either pro bono, which is already happening, or some reduced fee services. We have already been doing it for some time now.
Loly Rico
View Loly Rico Profile
Loly Rico
2016-12-13 16:20
Yes.
I would suggest that it should be funded by IRCC to the settlement agencies so that they can fill out the forms, because as we see it, it's part of the settlement process. At this moment, there is no funding by IRCC. The filling out of the forms is more on the settlement element, and I think that is going to help. As well, in your offices, I've been seeing a few members of Parliament who have staff who help the constituent fill out the forms in that way.
View Bob Saroya Profile
CPC (ON)
Most of the time when they come to us, the damage is done. This is the problem.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
2016-12-13 16:21
Thank you so much.
Ms. Rico, bienvenido. Gracias por su presentación.
Mr. Jade, thank you so much for being here.
I only have five minutes and I have a whole slew of questions, so try to respond as quickly as you can.
The first question is for you, Mr. Jade.
I'm always interested in why potential immigrants actually come to see immigration consultants. If I asked you for the top three reasons that they come to see you, it will help me understand the system as well. If you could respond as to what those top three things are, I'd be grateful.
Dory Jade
View Dory Jade Profile
Dory Jade
2016-12-13 16:22
Number two, the immigration process is a lengthy process. Unlike what we think, it's about numbers.
Dory Jade
View Dory Jade Profile
Dory Jade
2016-12-13 16:22
If I get whatever CRS or whatever points, I pass. That's not the way.
Number three, definitely they need advice. Even if someone is graduated from university, is an engineer or whatever, even lawyers from other jurisdictions, that doesn't mean they understand the law in Canada.
Results: 1 - 38 of 38