More on the problem of unregulated consultants in today's Globe and Mail newspaper. The comments by the consultants' regulator are somewhat naive and self-serving. The problem extends not only to unregulated consultants, but also to their own membership, as the CSIC standards are manifestly lax, and they "grandfathered" hundreds of "consultants" whose knowledge of the law and ethical standards are questionable. CSIC was created as a result of a flawed Advisory Report that assumed that the prohibition of "consultants" was not a tenable political option, as many of them have considerable sway in their own ethnic communities and have been aligned with Liberal party politicians for decades, so the then Liberal government did not wan to impose an outright ban, something that can be done by amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Ms. Chow's comments in the article also reflect a lack of understanding of the regulatory process, as she seems to imply that the government should regulate the consultants directly, which would create a conflict of interest situation, because those who are regulated will be making representations to their own regulator in immigration cases and there would be no arm's length dealings. However, her comments are understandable, because she is with the NDP which wishes for the government to control every facet of life, over-regulate and socialize the law.
The best solution is an outright prohibition of non lawyers who practice immigration law, as done in the United States, and to enforce that strictly by requiring government agencies to refuse to deal with any non-lawyer. Lawyers practice law, doctors practice medicine, etc. That is why professionals are trained and regulated in their own filed. There is absolutely o need to allow non lawyers to practice law, it is dangerous to the public and, as the current allegations of fraud show, it opens up the system to rampant abuse. We, as members of the Bar have been warning about situations such as this one for decades. This is not new, and the government is at fault for tolerating constant irregularities.
The second best alternative would be for the federal government to allow the provincial Law Societies to regulate immigration consultants in the same manner that they are now regulating otter areas of law, such as family, criminal and small claims, imposing strict limits on what the paralegals can and cannot do. There is absolutely no reason why immigration law should be treated any differently from other types of law, particularly when it has such a large impact on people's lives and aspirations. It is time for the federal government to admit that the CSIC regulatory experiment has failed, that the problem of immigration fraud is getting larger every day, and that strict measures are now necessary before people develop the impression that committing fraud is more rewarding than telling the truth when applying for immigration or citizenship.
Of course, there should also be strict penalties for those who participate and stand to benefit form fraudulent schemes by obtaining citizenship or immigration status fraudulently to protect the integrity of the system and the value of immigration and citizenship for those law abiding. Such penalties should include an automatic withdrawal of status, fines, administrative and criminal penalties. What is lost in this debate now is that"it takes two to tango" to commit this kind of fraud: those who counsel and provide the means to do it, and those who go along with it knowingly to gain from it.
‘Ghost' immigration consultants unacceptable, regulator says - The Globe and Mail
No comments:
Post a Comment