Ottawa has launched new rules that allow immigration authorities to share information involving crooked lawyers and consultants with their regulators.
The move came almost five years after a Star investigation found authorities and regulators worked in silos, allowing unscrupulous immigration practitioners go unpunished.
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said sharing information on misconduct of immigration representatives is crucial to the integrity of the system.
To the bad apples in the industry, Kenney said: “We are on to you. Your days are numbered.”
The minister said the new rules, announced Friday, are the final piece of the government’s overhaul of the immigration consulting regulatory regime, after the old industry watchdog was dismantled and new regulations were introduced to criminalize unregistered or so-called ‘ghost’ consultants.
Under the new rules the immigration department, refugee board and border service agency will tip off provincial law societies and the new Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) if their members are suspected of coaching clients to lie to authorities or fabricating documents.
In the past, authorities were prohibited from sharing such information with regulators and the crooked practitioners were left unscathed if the allegations were not criminal in nature. Now they can be pursued professionally and risk losing their licence.
According to Phil Mooney, CEO of the ICCRC, the 2,300-member regulator, has received 350 complaints since its inception in 2011. The regulatory body has referred 130 complaints involving non-members to authorities. While 115 cases have been resolved, 90 are still under investigation.
“The type of information we now are being able to receive from immigration helps us prevent one of the most serious cases of fraud that otherwise would have been invisible to us,” said Mooney.
“That’s where an authorized representative colludes with an immigration applicant to defraud the government and comes here with false credentials. Now we can take action and remove the individual’s rights to practise.”
No comments:
Post a Comment