:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to call the meeting to order.
This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 29, on Wednesday, October 27, 2010. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 23, 2010, we are studying Bill .
We have a number of guests before us. Some of the guests are on the video conference from Winnipeg.
However, before we start, I'd like to make three announcements. One, and , perhaps, if you could tell and that if there are any amendments to this bill, we will be doing clause-by-clause a week today, which is November 3. Amendments must be at the clerk's office, or given to the clerk here, on or before noon on November 2, which is the day before.
There is a notice going out today. You could pass this on to Monsieur St-Cyr and Ms. Chow, although they will get notices: the subcommittee will be meeting on Monday after this meeting, which is at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, November 1, unless there are votes, in which case, I guess, it will be cancelled. Assuming there are no votes, we'll have a subcommittee meeting on Monday.
Also, just so you don't come down here, all meetings next week will be in Centre Block.
Those are my preliminary remarks. I'd like now to introduce to members of the committee our guests, our witnesses.
Before us here is Matrixvisa Inc., immigration law and international recruitment. We have Cobus (Jacobus) Kriek, the director, before us here in the committee room.
We have, by video conference, the Government of Manitoba, it says here on our agenda, and we have two people before us. Fanny Levy is the acting director of the Manitoba provincial nominee program and Dave Dyson is the executive director of the employment standards division with Manitoba Labour and Immigration.
Can the two of you hear me?
:
Mr. Tilson and respected committee members, my name is Cobus Kriek. I'm a member in good standing of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. I'm also the owner of Matrixvisa Incorporated. Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to share my thoughts with you today. It is a privilege and an honour to be here.
I only have two suggestions. The first suggestion has to do with proposed subsection 91(1) of Bill , and the second suggestion is about the definition of immigration law advice. I will start with my first suggestion about proposed subsection 91(1).
The proposed wording of subsection 91(1) reads that “...no person shall knowingly represent or advise a person for consideration...in connection with a proceeding or application” under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I suggest that the wording be changed or expanded to include anyone who induces, aids, abets any ghost agent to directly or indirectly represent or advise for consideration under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Such a change would discourage a federal employee inside or outside Canada from accepting submissions from or communicating with an unauthorized ghost agent about immigration cases, which I have seen happening in 2010.
This brings me to my second suggestion on defining immigration law advice. Under the current dispensation, that is, in the pre-Bill era, it is perfectly legal and, one could say, ethical for anyone to provide certain immigration law advice without being a member of CSIC, the bar, or a public notary in Quebec.
I hold in my hand chapter “IP 9—Use of Representatives Paid or Unpaid” of the department's immigration manual. Paragraph 5.4 reads as follows:
...there are many individuals who receive payment for filling out forms and applications.... However, as these individuals do not meet the definition of an authorized representative, there are functions that they cannot perform. These functions include making interventions on behalf of the applicant during processing, and requesting information about the progress of the application. In order to make interventions and request information on behalf of the applicant during application processing, these individuals must be members of one of the regulatory bodies.
It is clear that CIC believes that immigration advisers only need to be authorized representatives when intervention is needed or inquiries are made. According to CIC, any immigration law advice given prior to an inquiry can be completed by anyone.
If an unauthorized representative or ghost agent is allowed to complete forms and applications, it implies that the unauthorized representative or ghost agent may provide advice about the appropriate immigration class, such as the investor class, federal entrepreneur class, federal skilled worker class, etc., as this activity would logically precede the completion of forms and applications. The completion of forms and applications would only be possible after an analysis of the person’s experience, education, and financial status.
It is very obvious that the completion of forms and applications is not merely an administrative action, but requires in-depth knowledge of immigration law. Consumers cannot be protected if any untrained person can assist a member of the public to complete immigration forms and applications.
On 18 October, Mr. Nigel Thomson mentioned before this committee that CSIC has about 1,600 to 1,700 ghost agents in its intelligence system at CSIC. Given the wording of chapter IP 9, which I have just read, many of these ghost agents are not in contravention of any act and are conducting their immigration work completely legally. The existence of ghost agents in the immigration law industry is directly related to the wording in the immigration manual's chapter IP 9, which I have read to you. This wording in turn is the result of the policy vacuum that exists in the current legislation, as immigration law advice is not defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or regulations.
In order to prevent the continued unauthorized practise of immigration law, it is suggested that the words “advise...under this act”--or immigration law advice-be clearly defined in Bill and not be left to be defined in the regulations. The following wording is suggested:
Advice would be any guidance offered by one person to another on any immigration matter where profit is directly or indirectly a result of the advice. Specific cases (not limited to):
(a) Recruiters may not provide immigration advice or advise under the act;
(b) Education agents may not provide immigration advice or advise under the act;
(c) Recruiters for provincial nominees may not provide immigration advice or advise under the act;
(d) Assistance with the completion of forms is also immigration advice or to advise under the act.
Specific examples in the act will prevent a misunderstanding of the intention of the lawmaker. Furthermore, specific examples are already being used as a technique in the case of immigration regulation 187(2).
It must be recognized that ethical recruiters who comply with provincial laws play an important and valuable role in the immigration process, both for permanent and for temporary entry. However, recruitment is a function related to human resources management, not immigration law. Recruiters are not trained in immigration law and the immigration activities of recruiters are not regulated to ensure the protection of the public.
:
Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee on Bill to share with you Manitoba's position and some of the efforts we have made in Manitoba in regard to regulating the activities of third party immigration consultants.
We're very pleased that the federal government is proactively addressing the issue. As you may know, the protection of vulnerable immigration clients, such as temporary foreign workers, has been a priority in Manitoba that we are addressing through provincial legislation called the Worker Recruitment and Protection Act.
We believe that complementary provincial and federal regulatory systems will advance protective measures for immigrants, and we have some suggestions in regard to the selection of a regulator for immigration consultants.
We believe that regulatory capacity needs to have the power to sanction and regulate immigration consultants and to seek judicial enforcement of the disciplinary consequences imposed on the members.
We also believe that it's important that dissatisfied members and the public and others are able to influence the regulatory body's internal functioning through a formal review process.
We believe the Government of Canada should be involved in the affairs of any new regulator until it's fully functioning.
We also support the view that the relevant federal regulatory and enforcement authorities should work with their provincial partners to coordinate investigation, communication, and enforcement efforts to ensure that unregistered immigration consultants are either referred to the appropriate authorities for sanction or are prosecuted under existing federal provisions.
We believe the Government of Canada should ensure that the new immigration consultants regulator institutes a third party, no-cost complaints process in respect of unauthorized or improper representation to support immigrants who lodge complaints. We also want immigrants to be informed that their complaints to the regulator will have no negative impact on their immigration applications or proceedings and that the regulator has a prosecutor or investigator who will represent the public interest in prosecuting misconduct.
I mentioned the Worker Recruitment and Protection Act that came into force in April 2009 in Manitoba. I want to share with you some of its highlights.
First of all, it extended coverage to include the protection of children in the modelling industry from sexual exploitation, but it also protects foreign workers from unscrupulous recruiters and employers. It requires Manitoba employers to register with the province prior to undertaking any foreign international recruitment efforts.
It allows the province to provide two different types of service. First, it will educate employers about what they have to comply with in terms of the legislation. Second, it will help them access support for the ethical, coordinated international recruitment of skilled workers through international agreements with Manitoba. Employers can also receive assistance to identify a local pool of immigrants who are already in the province. There is no cost for this service.
I will list some of the key provisions of WRAPA in terms of the provisions for employers. They must register with the province. They have to declare that they are using the services of a third party recruiter, who must be licensed to provide those services in Manitoba. They must pay any recruitment fees owed to a licensed recruiter; temporary foreign workers cannot and should not be responsible for paying any recruitment fees. Also, they cannot apply for a labour market opinion before being registered by the Province of Manitoba.
Employers using an unlicensed recruiter are liable for fees charged to workers, and fines can go up to $50,000 for corporations. Of course, they may be ineligible to reapply for registration.
In terms of recruiters, they must be licensed by the province, and to obtain the licence they need to be members of the Law Society of Canada, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, or, currently, CSIC, and they must present a letter of credit for $10,000. Also, they are liable for charging any recruitment fees to workers.
To date, we have about 2,400 employers who have been registered through this legislation. We receive an average of 150 applications a month, with an average of 135 approvals. These registrations are completed in two or three weeks.
We've seen many improvements with this legislation. First of all, information-sharing agreements that we have developed with governments, law enforcement, and regulatory agencies allow the province to monitor, investigate, and enforce legislation. It gives us the ability to refuse or revoke a licence, to investigate, to recover money on behalf of workers, to prosecute offences of WRAPA, and to fine individuals up to $25,000--and $50,000 for corporations--for non-compliance with the legislation.
We firmly believe that it has been very successful in preventing countless workers from being exploited, and it provides the province with the tools needed to protect these workers once they are already in the province. We have created a new special investigation unit to administer WRAPA and to handle all investigations related to it.
Thank you.
:
I need to think about that question. Our legislation does not regulate immigration consultants. It regulates recruiters. It just so happens that most recruiters are immigration consultants.
On regulating the recruitment piece of it, prior to our legislation we didn't even know which employers were recruiting employees. From an employment standards perspective, I spent a lot of my time trying to protect vulnerable workers. A temporary foreign worker can only work for a single employer—absolutely a vulnerable worker—but prior to our legislation we didn't know where those workers were. We didn't have a clue.
Because of our legislation, we now know where those workers are. We know which employers are bringing in those workers. So I can send out my investigators into those workplaces, interview those workers, and ensure that the terms and conditions of the labour market opinion are being abided by.
So if we're dealing with an unscrupulous recruiter who does what we call the bait and switch--if in the LMO document they promise to pay $20 per hour and once the worker shows up they say, well, we've changed our minds, or they say that the worker doesn't have the skill set so they're going to pay $9 per hour--our legislation allows us to enforce all the terms and conditions of the LMO. The plane ticket home, the benefits...it doesn't matter what it is, we can enforce those.
So we can deal effectively with the employer and, because of our licensing scheme, we now can control the recruitment side of it too. It's really because we're aware of it before it occurs. They have to come to us before they even make application for the LMO document.
I will do it in French, please.
[Translation]
My name is Selin Deravedisyan-Adam. I am here today as a full member of the CSIC, and I am also the president of the Canadian Migration Institute for Quebec. I am here to make a few points that I think are essential.
While you all know that the CSIC is a young organization, you need to be aware that the organization has nonetheless come a long way in less than six years. That process has resulted in the creation of an enormous machine and a solid structure and framework. If we compare the organization to a person, I might say it is at the developmental stage of adolescence. The CSIC is also not an entirely perfect organization. We are also here today to talk about that. If I can stay with the adolescence metaphor, we are going through the pimply teenager years.
Everyone criticizes. But we have to stay objective in our criticism, and most importantly be realistic. Even I have criticisms, as a member of the CSIC. For example, client services for members are virtually non-existent. When we ask for some simple administrative information, it is very hard to get a result. Do you think this is a valid reason, for example, to bad-mouth the CSIC? No, frankly, no. Nor is it a reason to dismantle an organization the size of the CSIC.
Why consider deregulating the profession? Why let other bodies seize the opportunity and wipe our profession off the map, if we may refer to a map? Why, with this bill, invite other organizations to apply? What purpose is there in this? Now that the CSIC has achieved a majority of its objectives, what we have to do is support it. Now is when we have to give it all the support it needs and stand behind it so it can move forward. We are not a long way off from maturity; the fruit is emerging. I concede that the fruit is sometimes unsightly, but we will get there. We are reaching maturity.
The CSIC and we, its members, since I am also a member, have taken on a Herculean job. Let's not forget that the government handed the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants a minefield, and I would even say a sandpit, full of quicksand. But the CSIC has found its way, in spite of all the pitfalls. It has tried to sweep clean, to ward off the weeds, the infamous consultants you are judging today. Why should we throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why are we doing nothing to clean up the water, at least, and try to keep the lovely baby, that's healthy now and is going to continue to be?
The evidence of this is that today we have a board of directors that has diversified as a result of the various positions of the members who sit on it. So everyone is represented on that board.
Another point about the board of directors, it is also increasingly transparent. Why? Because there is a growing body of management policies, by adopting and applying strict rules, whether for discipline or for ethics. Certainly someone who does not want to comply with the rules and abide by the code of ethics and professional ethics has no business either in the CSIC or in any organization. They should absolutely not be working in immigration. This is a profession that calls for integrity, and I am hear today to attest to that.
Training is also a crucial point. In Quebec alone, for nearly a year, we have been taking training courses, one after another, day and evening workshops, all of it, to acquire skills, tried and tested professionalism on the part of everyone who calls themselves a certified member of the CSIC.
In the last year I have also observed that at the meetings and various events organized—not by me personally—there are more and more positive comments, rather than negative comments, being voiced. This is quite simply because there has been a real collective realization brought about by the new generation of consultants who are in practice and are members in good standing. In fact, there is a real sense of solidarity.
These people are fully aware of the directives and requirements of the CSIC.
I can tell you that the new generation does not feel not remotely concerned with the old disputes and tales, and the differences of opinion there may have been.
What gives me confidence is that in spite of the many criticisms voiced by some members about membership fees, for example, the CSIC also offers us a sound, working budget. On that point, I have never really heard any criticisms saying that we don't manage our affairs properly. We often hear that we charge high membership fees, but you can't have your cake and eat it. If we want to have an organization that will stay the course, that has a certain level of prestige and, most importantly, provides the public with a service, it has to have the resources to do that. So that is a sacrifice we have to make, as members, by paying the necessary membership fees, but we get what we are after.
In closing, I have two or three comments about the bill. Why did the government allow a transition period of several years when the CSIC was created?
The only result was confusion and animosity among the members and other recalcitrants who took advantage of the situation. In any event, those people were never members of the CSIC, and it is often the dissenting voices that are heard.
As well, did the CBSA not also have to play a more active role in “hunting down” crooked consultants?
And last, why use the term "consultant"? When I hear "crooked consultant" or something else, I almost feel insulted. I certainly do not see that situation as referring to me, but in terms of the bill, that label really has to be changed. They should be called either uncertified or illegal immigration representatives, call it what you want, or certified immigration “conseillers”. This word “consultant” should be banned. It's bad publicity, it puts out a bad image.
I can tell you that the people who get caught or fooled by these infamous crooked consultants, also call themselves or consultants or something else.
So I am proud to be a member of the CSIC, today, and I hope to give you as much information as I can provide.
In the over six years—it's about six and half—that the society, which is of course the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, has been in existence, they've made tremendous strides, as Ms. Adam has correctly stated.
They have taken their work very seriously as a professional regulatory body of all people who are not members of a provincial law society. They have put forward very comprehensive and detailed rules of professional conduct, for example, which all of us, as licensed members, are required to adhere to. It can be seen on their website, which is csic-scci.ca.
The rules are very sensitive for consumer protection; that's the primary mandate of the society. The rules require all of us as members to act professionally at all times and to be knowledgeable and skilful. For example, they forbid us to take on work that we're not experienced or skilful at. They define what improper conduct or professional misconduct means. They require all of us as members to prepare retainer agreements, for example, so that clients know what professional work they're getting from us and what the fee is. There are even advertising sections in the rules, which require us to advertise honestly and properly to the public.
Providing professional immigration and refugee services must be done properly and professionally and that's the main mandate of the society: to protect the public. They are vulnerable and need protection.
The society also has continual professional development seminars, which is part of the rules in that we are required as members, sir and committee members, to rack up a total of 40 professional points every two years. We must attend seminars or online videos and answer skill-testing questions, which keeps us up to date in all changes and amendments to the immigration regulations of Canada as well as the refugee regulations.
There is a strict complaints and discipline committee, and that is in order and is working very properly at the society's office in Toronto. There have been well over 200 immigration consultants who have required disciplining because they have run afoul of and have violated one or more rules of professional conduct, or they have run afoul of the act—by the act, I mean the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of Canada. This committee—complaints and discipline—takes its very work very seriously, and if people need to be suspended, fined, or have their licence revoked, it has been done, and it continues to do so. The public is aware of this, and certainly complaints can go down to the society.
We are very strict about the public money as well. Any money given to us as licensed consultants is required to go into a designated bank account, called a client's account—as I call it—and all clients's moneys must go there. Moneys must not be touched or taken out until the professional services are rendered and invoices are prepared and sent to the client. Only then are we allowed to take any money from the client's bank account.
The society also has a compliance audit, whereby auditors who are employed by the society will do random spot checks—which is very important, as it is in any profession, whether it's lawyers or engineers or doctors—to make certain that we run our practice in a proper way. They will check our files and make sure that our backup files are done properly and that our bank accounts are in good order. The society has just set up a compensation fund recently, whereby if a consultant is convicted of a criminal conviction and there was a monetary loss to the client, a compensation fund is there and available and a monetary loss can be compensated to the client.
This is a fulfillment of conditions that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has required the society to do. The society has fulfilled every single condition that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has required them to do.
There is also errors and omissions insurance, sir. If there is negligence, we are required, of course, to own up to that. We pay membership fees every year and we pay errors and omissions insurance premiums every year to cover any negligence on our part. Negligence can occur from time to time.
Any amendments to the immigration and refugee laws are sent to us immediately by e-mail. I get e-mails on a regular basis, as I'm sure all licensed members do, advising us of changes to Citizenship and Immigration Canada operational policy and proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so we can render a very proper, professional service to the public. That is most important.
Sir, annual meetings are held by the society, which we all attend regularly online. Financial statements are given to us every year and they've been audited by outside auditors. Every year, the auditors have given a positive, clean record that the financial statements of the society are proper and everything is done properly.
Membership in the society is not given willy-nilly, sir. We now have to pass a designated comprehensive immigration practitioner course--
:
I would agree with that, sir. It takes time for an organization to grow and mature. The Law Society of Upper Canada has been around for over 200 years, approximately. We have been around for six and a half and I think we can compare ourselves very honourably, sir, to the Law Society of Upper Canada.
As I indicated earlier, we have strict money requirements, strict bank accounts, and rules of professional conduct. There are discipline departments. It would be a shame to have all that wiped out. We have professional seminars. We have compensation funds, as I indicated, to recompense victims of crime committed by unscrupulous consultants.
We have strict requirements. You cannot become a member of the society without passing exams, which I had to do. All of us did. They weren't easy, I can tell you, sir. They were quite difficult. You have to pass a membership exam today and take a membership practitioner course. The people governing CSIC today have credentials in the governance field. One of them--I think it's John Ryan--has a governance accreditation from a recognized educational institution in Ontario. They have a board of directors. There are officers and staff who are available.
In my respectful submission, and as you've indicated, evolution should take us where the society will be as time goes on.
Thanks to both of you for coming. We've heard a very passionate plea for CSIC. Thank you for bringing that to us.
The fact is that we're in the process of making changes, and some pretty significant changes, to your industry. They are changes that, looking at the bill, would protect consumers. They would protect legitimate consultants. They would protect the integrity of the immigration system as well.
These are changes that in general all parties here in Parliament support. We may disagree on some of the details of the bill.
I want to speak to you about the bill that's in front of us today and is basically the reason you're in front of this committee. I'm going to ask both of you the same question. I'll ask Madame Adam to answer first.
What is the difference between you, as a CSIC member, and an unregistered consultant?
Your question, if I understand it, is about the difference between an unlicensed person and a licensed consultant. I think I've answered part of that. The unlicensed person takes advantage of vulnerable people who need to run away or want to immigrate to Canada. These unlicensed persons are not knowledgeable because they didn't study like we did. We paid money to take courses and to pass exams. We are at a certain level of knowledge and skill that these unlicensed persons cannot possibly have.
As for moneys and where our client's money goes, the bank accounts are regulated. These other people could take the money and run away and they've done that. It has been in the newspapers, in the media. We are licensed and therefore are held to a strict standard. None of us would have been licensed, Mr. Uppal, had we not proven to CSIC that we know the refugee law and the immigration law.
There are always complaints.... A disciplinary department is hanging over our heads, which is important for any professional body.
Our knowledge allows us to render a proper professional service, which I'm very proud of, because I am where I am today thanks to CSIC.
As I said, lawyers do not take immigration law in law school; I never did when I was there. I learned everything through seminars and conferences, as Ms. Adam has stated.
Therefore, an unlicensed person is now covered in this new legislation, Bill in that it's an offence for them to get involved with persons in the area of immigration and refugee law.
The only comment I want to add now is that I'd like to have some serious teeth put into this bill. Unlicensed persons who are caught practising immigration and refugee law ought to be strictly fined, with maybe even a jail term to deter them, because they're taking advantage of vulnerable people around the world who want to come to Canada.