Third Round of Questions (NDP) from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

Jenny Kwan:	Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. Again, I think it's most unfortunate that we can't get on with a debate with a motion that I table and a motion that really calls for a study on a critical issue that's before us. If we don't do this, the fear mongering will continue and it's not good for our country. It is not good for all of us together in a multi-cultural society. I implore the government members to think about that and maybe we can get on with it and do the work that is so very much necessary. With that, I'll turn my attention back to the study at hand.
	As I was saying, I thank both the witnesses for their comments. I do want to follow up on some specific questions. First off, given the situation that we have with ICCRC, which frankly on all accounts is not doing their job, most certainly not doing their job properly, the issues being raised from other witnesses, "Should consultants be self-regulated?" I wonder if I can get Mr. Sharma to answer that question and I'll turn to Mr. Waldman on that.
Raj Sharma:	I think for ... I don't know why there is a presumption that self-regulation is or should be the default. In this regard, I'm going to refer to the Clementi report which studied the legal profession and the regulation of the legal profession in the United Kingdom. That report came out some time ago. That was critical of lawyers, regulating lawyers. I guess foxes sometimes shouldn't be guarding hen houses. In this regard, I think we need a more consumer-centric model.
	I think that [inaudible 00:32:57] speaker, Mr. Richard Kurland, a lawyer from Vancouver suggested that regulation can be done by the government. I see no good reason why Immigration Consultants require independence. There are strong arguments why the Bar needs to be independent of the government, the executive. I see almost no justification why Immigration Consultants should be self-regulated and indeed that regulation can probably be done by the government or using a sort of consumer-centric model and again, I would probably refer to the Clementi report and adopt those recommendations here.
Jenny Kwan:	Thank you. Mr. Waldman?
Mr.  Waldman:	Well, I hear what Mr. Sharma's saying and I agree that the regulatory models we've now ... This is now the second incarnation of a self-regulatory mock regime, and both of them have not, I believe, really been effective in regulating consultants so we need to look at other alternatives but any alternative that we look at has to protect, to some extent, the independence of the consultants because it's true they're not lawyers, but they are representing people in an adversarial process, at least before the tribunals, and so we have to make sure that any other type of regulatory regime protects that independence.
Jenny Kwan:	Thank you very much. You're exactly right. This is a second iteration. To some degree, perhaps self-regulations should be earned. If you can demonstrate that your industry is doing an effective job, then government can consider that self-regulatory model in which case I would argue that lawyers have done that. I'll move on to another area. Ghost consultants, it is a huge huge problem. We're heard it over and over again, so my question then is this: should government reject applications done by ghost consultants, and is there a provision or way in which the applicant in that process, we can mitigate the penalty against those applicants, not for the consultants but to provide protection for the applicants? Mr. Sharma?
Raj Sharma:	The government already rejects applications by ghost consultants. If that IMM 5476 form has an individual who's not registered with ICCRC or a member of a Provincial Law Society, the government won't process that, so that's already there. The reason why they're ghost consultants is that their names don't show up anywhere on the forms. What I would suggest is a more robust reconsideration regime.
	We have so many cases where applications are just refused and where someone is prejudiced by ghost consultants or incompetent advice. I think there should be a mechanism to review an application. I don't think the default should just be to reject an application. There should be a more thorough, robust reconsideration or review mechanism within or above for certain applications.
Jenny Kwan:	Thank you. Let me just then bring it to the next level, then along those lines, should government create a black list? So bad actors in that industry, people who have not delivered their service and so on, and then for those applications, again not for the person who's making the application for the application to be rejected but for that consultant to not be able to practice.
Raj Sharma:	Well, we created a black list for employers that weren't complying with the Labour Market Impact Assessment or LMO regime, and that black list was a blank list for three or four years, so creating a list is only as effective as implementing it and enforcing it.
Jenny Kwan:	I think that brings us to the question of enforcement, which you also highlight in your presentation, Mr. Sharma, around the lack of enforcement if you will with respect to that. I wonder if I can turn to Mr. Waldman for a minute and just ask him to comment on those points that I've just made.
Mr.  Waldman:	In terms of the ghost consultants, I think that is very difficult to deal with them because we don't know, we have no way of establishing that they're doing their job and what they're doing, so I agree with Mr. Sharma when he said education of the community is crucial. Then I think a more robust enforcement through CBSA when ghost consultants are discovered. I think on that point, that's what we can do.