Canada’s minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, Lena Metlege Diab, introduced the changes on May 6, which she said would “protect [immigration] applicants from fraud and misconduct” and strengthen the integrity of the system.
The new regulations will take effect on July 15. They include strengthening the discipline process for consultants who break the rules and expanding the public register from April 2027 making it easier to verify consultants’ credentials and harder for unlicensed consultants to go undetected.
A formal framework will be established to provide compensation to victims of dishonest acts, and the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants (CICC) regulatory authority will also be subject to increased federal oversight.
The changes have been welcomed by stakeholders for giving “more teeth” to the regulator to address dishonest consultants and provide compensation to their victims, but doubts have been raised about how far they will go in practice.
“Many regulated Canadian immigration consultants (RCICs) support the spirit of the regulations but feel they are more about optics than substance, given the Carney government’s repeated slogan about ‘taking control’ of the Canadian immigration system,” RCIC Matthew McDonald told The PIE News.
Under Canadian law, anyone who accepts payment for preparing an immigration application or providing immigration advice must be licensed by the government, but a much larger proportion of consultants are working outside the country and are not subject to the same regulations.
The Canadian government and education sector have long turned a blind eye to the many global education agents who will continue to work as unauthorised practitioners
Matthew McDonald, regulated Canadian immigration consultant (RCIC)
While hopeful the changes will provide a greater sense of justice to anyone harmed, McDonald said the rules would not prevent the “significant victimisation” that occurs at the hands of unauthorised practitioners (UAPs).
Though the regulations are not specifically aimed at education agents, they will alter the environment they operate in, with the expanded public register acting as a verifying tool as to whether an agent is working through a legitimately licensed consultant.
It aims to make due diligence more straightforward for those who follow the rules, but experts have highlighted gaps in the college’s regulatory powers.
“The new regulations might address licensed rule-breakers, but they do nothing to address the conflict of interest inherent to the work of education agents who are also UAPs. And they are globally much larger in number.”
“The Canadian government and education sector have long turned a blind eye to the many global education agents who will continue to work as unauthorised practitioners. These regulations do nothing to change that wilful ignorance,” said McDonald.
Others are more hopeful the rules will improve the quality and reputation of the Canadian sector, with Carina Dipti Mathur, founder of Canada Immigration and Visa (CIV) education consultancy in Singapore, hailing the changes a “major turning point” for the industry.
But she raised concerns about the large proportion of overseas education agencies that are still solely focused on recruitment without proper immigration and compliance support.
“From my experience across Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines, I would estimate that only around 10% of agencies involved in Canada recruitment are directly connected to licensed RCIC structures or immigration lawyers.
“The new regulations will likely push more agencies to either partner properly with licensed professionals or step away from providing immigration advice altogether,” she said.
Under the new rules, the CICC itself will also be held to greater public accountability, subject to higher reporting requirements to the federal government. Minister Diab will now have the power to intervene at the college’s board level to ensure against governance failure.
McDonald called these measures “a step in the right direction” to build trust in the regulator among RCICs – many of whom he said were “unimpressed with the college’s level of transparency and speed of communication”.
As for further consequences, the changes could see some practitioners choosing to leave the profession, depending on how the implementation costs are passed along to consultants.
“RCICs may also need to increase their own fees to cover the additional expenses associated with building the compensation fund. That won’t help with issues of accessibility,” added McDonald.
