This paper examines the 33 year-long jurisdictional dispute between immigration lawyers and immigration consultants over the right to practice immigration law in Canada. Immigration consultants began to play a role in the immigration law field of practice in the 1980s. Their entry into this field of practice has not gone unnoticed by immigration lawyers. The paper focuses on two moments in this jurisdictional dispute; the events surrounding the Supreme Courts’ 2001 decision in the case of the Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat and the 2017 hearings of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Using an ecological framework to understanding the professions, and professional boundary disputes, this paper examines the reasons why the profession of law has not been able to exert monopolistic closure and prevent immigration consultants impinging on one of their traditional fields of practice. Part of the explanation, I suggest, is that immigration lawyers did not speak with one voice about immigration consultants at the 2017 Standing Committee hearings. The Canadian Bar Association's preferred settlement outcome was for the state to prevent immigration consultants from practicing immigration law. Other lawyers who appeared before the Committee advocated a boundary blurring outcome that would allow immigration consultants to practice immigration law, albeit under somewhat more restricted conditions than were then in place. The state rejected a ‘full and final settlement’ in favor of lawyers and eventually adopted a boundary ‘blurring settlement’ outcome to this jurisdictional dispute.

中文翻译：

---

律师，移民顾问和33年的管辖权战争

本文研究了移民律师和移民顾问之间长达33年的管辖权纠纷，涉及加拿大的实践移民法权利。移民顾问开始在1980年代的移民法实践领域中发挥作用。他们进入这一业务领域并没有被移民律师所忽视。本文着眼于这一管辖权纠纷中的两个时刻。涉及最高法院2001年关于不列颠哥伦比亚省法律协会诉Mangat案的裁决的事件，以及公民身份和移民常务委员会2017年的听证会。利用生态学框架来理解职业和职业边界纠纷，本文探讨了法律界为何无法实行垄断封闭并阻止移民顾问冲击其传统实践领域之一的原因。我建议，部分解释是，在2017年常务委员会听证会上，移民律师并未就移民顾问一事发表意见。加拿大律师协会首选的解决方案是，该州防止移民顾问实行移民法。出席委员会会议的其他律师提倡界限模糊的结果，这将使移民顾问可以执行移民法，尽管条件比当时更为严格。