CONSULTANT BODY UNDER FIRE

Embassy, June 18th, 2008


Immigration Consulting Industry a Mess, Needs Major Reforms: Committee

A law society-like organization should replace the current Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, the Commons' immigration committee has recommended in a report.

By Michelle Collins

It was just over a decade ago that the federal government first waded into the flourishing and troubled business of immigration consultants, those who help prospective immigrants navigate the bureaucratic hurdles to settling in Canada.

With no oversight body to monitor their activities, just about anybody could claim to be an immigration consultant with the skills and access necessary to help those who want to obtain permanent residency in Canada.

But the business was rife with problems and as allegations of unacceptable practices surfaced at the federal level, the Commons' standing committee on immigration responded in 1995 by conducting a study into the matter and soon thereafter, an advisory committee was struck.

As a result, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) was established in 2003 as a regulatory body at arms-length from the government. As of April of this year, the only people the government will recognize to conduct affairs on behalf of immigrants are licensed members of CSIC, lawyers and notaries.

But four years later, yet another Commons' immigration committee study has found that the industry remains a mess and that CSIC hasn't been able to sort things out.

Following three weeks of cross-country hearings, the committee tabled a report in the House last week, and made a total of nine recommendations.

First, members found that CSIC is powerless to regulate and discipline so-called "ghost consultants"—those who are not at all licensed and who often mislead and rip-off vulnerable would-be immigrants. To that end, it found the organization is failing to protect the public from unscrupulous activities as per its mandate.

In order to fulfil its role, the committee recommended, the organization should be set up similar to a law society through stand-alone legislation, rather than as the non-profit corporation it functions as now.

In addition to re-vamping the structure of CSIC, the committee recommended the government "assist in re-establishing the new regulator and remain involved in its affairs until it is fully functioning."

But the recommendation that would have the greatest impact is that the government require the disclosure of the names of all those consulted in preparing an immigration application, even those who help with pre-submission work—that which is done before it reaches the government level.

The government would require that every one of the individuals who advises or consults a person who is the subject of a proceeding or an application be an authorized representative, "whether for a fee or unpaid."

The committee also called for better co-ordination between the enforcement bodies, such as the Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP, and that websites of Canadian embassies and missions abroad present information about immigration consultants in the local languages, along with a list of authorized representatives.

Immigration committee members have requested that the government table a comprehensive response to the report. However, with the House set to rise for summer break, this will take until the fall at least.


Cross-Canada CSIC Concerns

The findings that CSIC hasn't been working as well as it should come as little surprise to most observers and even those in the industry itself who for years have been calling on the department of immigration to address problems ranging from CSIC's lack of authority to its troubled governance and fiscal operations.

A year ago, a Toronto Star investigation uncovered that even some consultants who were licensed with CSIC were making false promises to migrants and charging high fees with no results.

In several letters to the minister of immigration over the past few years, the Canadian Bar Association has urged the minister of the day to respond to ongoing concerns that the organization has failed to put an end to rogue consultants and ongoing allegations of fiscal mismanagement by CSIC's board.

"The CBA recommends that if CSIC is not fulfilling its mandate, then its members should no longer be recognized as authorized representatives...and appropriate steps should be taken to regulate consultants," states the most recent letter, sent earlier this year to Immigration Minister Diane Finley.

While CSIC members contacted by Embassy say they are pleased the committee has recognized that the organization lacks the tools and authority needed to properly do its job, larger problems related to CSIC's governance are taking on an increasing urgency amongst some of its 1,300 members.

During the committee's study, most of the immigration consultants who testified on the issue were CISC members who expressed strong criticisms of the regulator.

Many delivered strong critiques of the overall lack of transparency and accountability that has persisted since the inception of CSIC and complained that the annual $2,000-plus in membership fees to the non-profit corporation are too high.

Other concerns included alleged extravagant compensation and spending by board members, including a spacious Bay Street office in Toronto and frequent travel that contributes to unnecessary overhead costs.

"I have watched with concern as non-legally trained directors appointed to CSIC, entrusted with significant legal powers, appeared to disregard the rule of law, interpret the mandate in self-serving ways, and run roughshod over members' rights," said Lynn Gaudet, a lawyer and Canadian immigration consultant based in Calgary, in her testimony to the committee.

In March 2007, CSIC's board amended the rules of professional conduct to make it an offence for members to bring discredit by "undermining or attempting to undermine the Society's mandate and/or governing principles."

Despite this, one of the more outspoken members has been Kay Adebogun, a Regina-based immigration consultant and a member of CSIC since it started. Mr. Adebogun said he's willing to voice his concerns publicly because all are rooted in fact.

During his time before the committee, Mr. Adebogun said CSIC lacks a strong foundation and requires the minister of immigration to become more involved.

"The initial board members have not delivered a self-governing profession, as was their task," Mr. Adebogun said. "Rather, they have usurped themselves all authority in all areas comprising a self-governing profession and have denied members their rightful role in the society. The go-it-alone attitude is, in my view, destroying the profession."

At the beginning of the committee report, several of these concerns are highlighted, reflecting the fact the committee heard from many consultants "whom expressed great dissatisfaction with the way CSIC is currently governed."

Among these are that the CSIC membership exam was prepared and marked in a questionable way; that CSIC decision-making lacks transparency and is not conducted democratically; that the ability of members to voice concerns with CSIC has been limited since the CSIC Rules of Professional Conduct were amended, making it a professional offence to "undermine" CSIC and compelling members to treat CSIC with "dignity and respect."


Chair Defends Organization

But in an interview with Embassy last week, CSIC chair John Ryan dismissed the concerns and said the organization follows best corporate practices and is transparent with its membership.

"I think there's no reason for us to respond because many of the complaints that were voiced were simply not correct, the bylaws provide for a democratic expression at the members' will," Mr. Ryan said. "I think in essence many of the comments that were made at the House of Commons committee are just dead wrong."

Mr. Ryan said he was pleased with the committee's recommendations, but that many of CSIC's problems are the result of growing pains.

"So we're certainly pleased to see the committee's recognized that CSIC certainly has to get at the other problems people to seem to want us to get at require more tools to do that...so in that sense we're pleased."

But Liberal committee member Andrew Telegdi said concerns about CSIC were voiced at each stop as the committee held hearings across Canada in April.

"We heard that loud and clear across the country," Mr. Telegdi said. He said the committee was aware members were afraid to speak out and he had to stress to Mr. Ryan that witnesses who criticized CSIC and his board were under parliamentary immunity and their comments could not be the basis for action against them.