For years, politicians have been grappling with the issue of how to end untrained and unregulated people from providing immigration advice, also known as “ghost consulting.” There is a general consensus that tens of thousands of people each year are ripped off by ghost consultants and even more are ripped off by consultants who recommend fraudulent means by which to accomplish Canadian immigration goals.
Numerous attempts at cracking down on ghost and unethical consultants have been launched, including, but not limited to, requiring licensing, creating the much maligned Canadian Society of Immigrant Consultants, and even CIC launching extensive media campaigns warning the public of the risks of dealing with unauthorized representatives.
In June, the Conservative government launched the latest attempt at regulation, with the introduction of Bill C-35 into the House of Commons, also known as the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act (the “Act”). The humor couched in the name of the Act may suggest to some that this attempt at regulation is disingenuous at worst and self-deprecating at best. Before I explain this view of the name of the Act, a quick review of the some of the highlights of the legislation is in order.
If enacted, the Act will provide that no person shall knowingly represent or advise a person for consideration – or offer to do so – in connection with [an immigration proceeding] unless the person is a member in good standing of a law society (i.e. a lawyer), or a member of a body designated by the government. There are a couple points to pull out of that sentence. First, the prohibition does not require that the person actually provide any advice. Even offering to do so is prohibition. (We’ll call that the crime of ‘attempted consulting’.) Second, the prohibition does not extend to people who will not be paid; that part isn’t new. Unpaid consultants, if disclosed to CIC, are allowed.
Second, the government will take greater control over any body designated to regulate immigration consultants (not lawyers). This appears to be a response to criticisms that the CSIC has not served its members of the public entirely well.
Third, the Act criminalizes ghost and unethical consulting. Any unauthorized person who represents or advises a person with regard to an immigration matter will have committed an offence. This applies to all stages in any immigration proceeding or application, including before the application has been made. The penalty for a summary offence is at most a two-year conviction or a $50,000 fine.
Finally, the government may make regulations permitting CIC to disclose information relating to the professional or ethical conduct of a lawyer or regulated immigration consultant to a body that is responsible for governing the conduct of those professions (a provincial law society, for example).
So will this solve the problem of ghost-consulting? Certainly amendments to the IRPA alone will be insufficient. The problem with introducing new regulations to end ghost consulting is of course that ghost consultants have no intention of being regulated. These amendments do not make it any easier to identify ghost consultants, such as by offering an incentive to an individual to disclose the existence of a ghost-consultant. Given this, and the fact of course that domestic legislation cannot do anything to address the issue of overseas ghost consultants, my initial opinion is that while the amendments will certainly result in more regulations for licensed consultants, which may or may not making them more professional than they already are (it depends on what is contained in the regulations), it certainly alone will not stop the practice of an individual saying “I can increase your chances.. I’m connected.. but we won’t tell CIC that I helped because they don’t like my clever tricks.”
Ryan Rosenberg is am immigration lawyer and partner at Larlee Rosenberg, Barristers & Solicitors, in Vancouver. Contact Ryan at 604-681-9887 or Ryan.Rosenberg@larlee.com or visit his website at www.larlee.com. This article was written with the assistance of Steven Meurrens, Associate at Larlee Rosenberg.
That is so true.
ReplyDelete