{"id":11460,"date":"2025-01-29T09:10:29","date_gmt":"2025-01-29T14:10:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cila.co\/?p=11460"},"modified":"2025-02-04T07:24:54","modified_gmt":"2025-02-04T12:24:54","slug":"cila-calls-on-ircc-to-exclude-lawyers-from-proposed-administrative-penalties-and-consequences-apc-regime","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cila.co\/fr\/cila-calls-on-ircc-to-exclude-lawyers-from-proposed-administrative-penalties-and-consequences-apc-regime\/","title":{"rendered":"CILA calls on IRCC to exclude lawyers from proposed Administrative Penalties and Consequences (APC) regime"},"content":{"rendered":"

CILA strongly opposes IRCC’s proposal to include immigration lawyers in its proposed reforms to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations<\/em> et au Citizenship Regulations<\/em>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CILA is calling on IRCC to exempt lawyers from its proposed Administrative Penalties and Consequences (APC) regime because it lacks the evidence-based justification demanded by the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Cabinet Directive on Regulation<\/em>, overlooks existing sanctions under the IRPA, and does not recognize the rigorous accountability of law societies. Moreover, by imposing stringent penalties, a prejudicial procedure, and mandatory public disclosures on a profession already facing stringent regulation, IRCC jeopardizes not only the independence of the bar but also the public\u2019s access to legal services\u2014especially for vulnerable clients and vigorous legal advocacy.<\/p>\n

CILA requests a more focused approach that respects the proven capabilities of law societies to regulate and, where necessary, discipline licensed lawyers. An evidence-based strategy that carefully delineates responsibilities between IRCC and law societies will serve the public interest far more effectively than a duplicative, burdensome APC regime that undermines the carefully balanced regulatory framework governing Canada\u2019s legal profession.<\/p>\n