Canada

Among the legal organizations’ expressed objections and flaws they contend mar the proposed regime in its application to legal professionals:

• IRCC’s proposed broad powers to inspect and search, based on an IRCC officer’s determination that there are “reasonable grounds to suspect” a violation, and to demand documents from lawyers, without safeguards, as well as the lack of any mechanism to allow lawyers to fully and effectively defend themselves, without breaching established principles of solicitor-client confidentiality;

• unfairness, expense and other negative impacts on legal professionals, and the risk of inconsistent results by needlessly subjecting them to dual regulation;

• failure to respect the fundamental principles of independence of the bar as well as solicitor/client privilege/confidentiality, which are protected by the common law and the Constitution;

• the lack of procedural protections and accountability;

• IRCC’s lack of neutrality vis-à-vis immigration and refugee lawyers who advocate for clients, often in opposition to IRCC and its counsel, including representing in court those accused of offences, including misrepresentation. “Granting the same entity the authority to discipline the very lawyers who challenge it creates a glaring conflict of interest — comparable to allowing Crown counsel to oversee the discipline of criminal defence lawyers,” the CBA asserts in its submission to IRCC; and

• Ottawa exceeds federal jurisdiction by purporting to regulate and penalize lawyers and paralegals doing paid immigration and refugee work, including by naming violators and publishing particulars on IRCC’s website, an interference with a lawyer’s ability to practise law, which is the exclusive preserve of law societies.