Based on survey responses from 145 industry stakeholders working with on average 80 agents, the report commissioned by the Council of Ministers of Education Canada (CMEC) found that regulation varies widely across provinces with institutions themselves often being responsible for agent oversight.

“There is a difference between recruiting as a strategy to advance institutional objectives and recruiting as a matter of institutional survival”

“Some institutions have developed robust agent-management protocols, including ongoing training opportunities and provisions for purging unproductive or non-compliant agents,” the report states.

“Others do minimal screening and rely on complaints from students and parents or information from colleagues at other institutions.”

It goes on to say that for some administrators “no news is good news- implying a lack of complaints means that agents are performing well”.

The report warns that “there is a difference between recruiting as a strategy to advance institutional objectives and recruiting as a matter of institutional survival.

“Institutions with healthy domestic enrolments can take steps that maximise the benefits of agent use while limiting exposure to the risks, institutions that depend on international students may be in a more vulnerable position.”

Language barriers and a network of sub-agents were among the reasons respondents gave as to why maintaining a protocol can be challenging.

Despite the lack of consistent measurement of agent activity, confidence levels in agency behaviour and practice are relatively high.

Ninety per cent of educational institution respondents said they are confident that agents provide accurate information to students. An additional 85% reported that they were moderately or completely  confident that agents adhere to laws and policies.

There have been efforts by the federal government to further make provinces responsible for student recruitment by only allowing designated providers to enrol foreign students.

A preliminary list of providers approved to issue study permits was published on 1 June.

Still, there has been a resistance to mandatory regulation of agent use from various stakeholders, according to respondents because it could alleviate misconduct but limit recruitment.

With the exception of Quebec, all provinces heavily rely on agents led by the country’s most popular study destinations, British Columbia and Ontario.

English language schools followed by public higher education institutions were found to use agents most in their recruitment practices. The top 10 countries where agents represent Canadian institutions is led by China, South Korea, Japan and Mexico.

Ninety per cent of educational institution respondents said they are confident that agents provide accurate information to students

A spokesperson at CMEC, which co-manages the “Imagine Education in/au Canada” brand with the Department of Foreign Affairs, International Trade, and Development (DFATD) told The PIE News that the report was commissioned to provide more insight into the sector.

“The role of education agents has been a topic in Canadian discussions about international education for some time now,” he said. “We wanted to have some basis for those discussions beyond the anecdotal.”

CMEC says the findings will be used in international education discussions in Canada, within jurisdictions and by institutions “to consider ways to continue strengthening Canada’s position as a destination country for international students who are considering studying abroad”.