Second Round of Questions (from the Conservative Members) of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Chair:	Thank you Mr. Waldman. Thank you. Mr. Tilson, seven minutes please.
David Tilson:	Lawyers don't like consultants and they don't like paralegals. I can quite frankly understand why. I think we need paralegals, and I think we need consultants. All of the issues that you're raising are good ones. Paralegals, as I understand it, can only do certain things. They're restricted from doing all sorts of things. I guess what the committee is looking for is recommendations from witnesses such as you so that we in turn can recommend to the government changes.
	If we maintained having consultants, you mentioned education, but are there certain things that perhaps they just don't have the training for, may never have the training for, and should be restricted to doing certain things? Mr. Sharma, perhaps we could start with you as to what, if you could recommend to the committee what consultants should not do.
Raj Sharma:	Look, in terms of, let's say we get the 320 hours, and I'm very mindful that lawyers may be perceived as being anti Immigration Consultants ... I don't want my, and I don't want to come across as this as being self-serving in any way, I think access to justice is important. I think consultants provide a valuable service. I agree with you that even paralegals are restricted. Paralegals, by the way, need two years of education. Far more than 320 online hours.
David Tilson:	[crosstalk 00:22:49] education, I'm looking as to what ... Paralegals clearly are restricted from doing certain things.
Raj Sharma:	I think-
David Tilson:	Therefore, I'm asking what your recommendations are, both of your recommendations are as to what they should not do because they will never have the qualifications that lawyers have to do those things.
Raj Sharma:	I do not believe that a consultant, based on the current regulatory framework, I do not believe a consultant has the core competencies to represent any individual before any tribunal of the Immigration Refugee Board. I do not believe that they should be doing [detention 00:23:25] reviews at the Immigration Division or determinations that someone is a member of a terrorist organization at the ID. I don't believe that they should be representing refugee claimants at the Refugee Protection Division.
	I don't believe that they should be doing appellate level written advocacy at the Refugee Appeal Division. I don't believe that they should be appearing before the Immigration Appeal Division because that is a court of competent jurisdiction, and it is very much, if not identical to a court.
David Tilson:	Excellent answer. Should the government pass legislation or recommend legislation to do what you just said?
Raj Sharma:	I believe that Section 91 can be amended to the extent that it can allow Immigration Consultants to, based on current framework, to do transactional level work within immigration, work permits, other applications for permanent residence, sponsorship applications, that's it based on ... What I would propose then is another division that will allow a different class of Immigration Consultants to appear before the IRB. I want to be clear on this. The IRB actually is a [inaudible 00:24:36]. It can control its own procedures.
	In fact, some tribunals have banned some consultants from appearing before them because we're not doing our job, the government is not doing its job to protect the public and ICCRC is not doing its job, and so the tribunal sometimes has to say, "Okay. We're not going to hear from this person anymore," so we can-
David Tilson:	That's another story. Mr. Waldman, do you agree with what Mr. Sharma has just recommended?
Mr.  Waldman:	Yeah. If I understood it correctly, I think that there should be two levels of consultants, ones who are authorized to do processing and they would need a lower level of education and a lower level of licensing and then I think that the legislation should authorize consultants to appear before the Board, but only if they have a higher level of qualification. The way the situation is now, any consultant with a minimal education can appear anywhere and that's unsatisfactory.
	There are some very good consultants who appear at the Immigration and Refugee Board who do work that is as good as many of the lawyers I see. I would be loath to say that they shouldn't be allowed to do that, but I believe that the educational requirements that are now in place are not sufficient, so I think that the focus of any legislator or regulatory change should be ensuring that the educational requirements, and the government has the power to impose on ...
	This is the point I was trying to make. The government has the power to impose on ICCRC minimal requirements so that a person who appears before the Immigration and Refugee Board has the minimal knowledge necessary to competently represent someone. The ICCRC is not doing that but it has the power to do that, and the government can insist that they do that.
David Tilson:	Mr. Waldman, one of the complaints we have from witnesses that have come forward said consultants charge thousands and thousands of dollars to essentially fill out forms, $20,000, $30,000 and up which just absolutely shocks us. Lawyers, of course, can have their accounts assessed. Perhaps you can familiarize us as to what can be done, or what is being done, or what should be done with these outrageous fees that some consultants are charging.
Mr.  Waldman:	What could be done, for example, is you could ... The ICCRC should be doing this, but if they're failing to do it, what I'm suggesting to you is you could put into the regulations that authorize the ICCRC to be the supervisory body for consultants requirements that they do their job or you could actually put into the regulation a provision for the legislation, a provision that allows a person who has been represented by a consultant to tax their bill before the same process that would be applied to a lawyer taxing the bill. I think that would be a good measure.
David Tilson:	Should we have a system of tariffs?
Mr.  Waldman:	That's another possibility is to have a system of tariffs, but that's more difficult because there's such a broad disparity in terms of what people charge, and the complexity. There has to be an ability to tax an account. Lawyers are cognizant of that. I've taxed lawyer's accounts, and my accounts have been taxed, so I think that there should be the same provisions applying to consultants.