Okay. That's fine. Thank you.
I could explain the context in which this issue arises for me. It has to do with Mennonite communities in Latin America. Many of the people in those communities came from Canada but have moved back, and so on and so forth.
But it also relates to charitable work in Canada. There are charitable organizations that do a lot to welcome refugees and to assist newcomers with a range of things, including citizenship and immigration questions.
There is also a question of how the bill will relate to travel agencies, which often help people apply for tourist visas. Would that be prohibited?
Then, in section 3 of my brief, I go to elements of a solution. One factor obviously is transparency. There ought to be transparency, and if there is transparency, then there will not be ghost consultants, by definition.
But I also refer to the fact there is an internal transparency system at present. When a person makes an application, at the end of the application form there is a question: who has helped you to prepare, to fill in, this application form? Our people always fill that in.
Also, if a person who does provide assistance wants to do any follow-up inquiry, they have to submit a “Use of a Representative” form, or a different authorization form that is signed by the applicant. So there is a significant internal transparency system, and I wonder whether it could be strengthened. There could be accountability requirements added to that transparency, and also investigative powers, and so on. That could go part of the way.
But then I go on to say that if there is to be a new regulatory system covering everybody who provides assistance with any kind of immigration work and charges even the smallest fee, if that is the system, then we would like to ask that it be structured with different gradations, first of all because there are significant differences in the level of complexity in immigration work. To apply for a tourist visa is fairly straightforward. To apply for permanent resident status in the family class, or even for humanitarian and compassionate consideration, is not too complex. Where it gets more complex is when one applies in the investor or skilled worker class, where it involves a provincial nominee program and so on. Then it gets much more complex.
One of the things that could be done may be that people who get certified to work at one level of complexity need not meet all the requirements or pay all the membership fees required to be certified for working at the higher level of complexity. That's one suggestion.
Another reason for gradations relates to enforcement. If every form of assistance on every immigration matter, where even the smallest fee is charged, and if everyone like this has to be fully certified, then there will be problems with enforcement. There will be ghost consultants, because people will do more such things under the table.
It should also be asked whether it is really wise to burden Canada's law enforcement agencies with the task of enforcing laws that prohibit every little thing where people are honest and there is no suspicion, where the only question is whether or not they are fully certified, and where there are no other questions about the assistance.
Those are some reasons why I think a system of gradations should be seriously considered within that regulatory body.
Then I have some concerns about what happens outside of Canada, because if this law is passed as it is, it would probably lead those consultants outside of Canada who are honest to stop working. Because they'll say, “Well, I'm not going to break the law of Canada, and I'm not going to do something that the laws of Canada don't allow”. So then the field outside of Canada will be left to unscrupulous consultants, because, as this committee has heard, the government really doesn't have much capacity to enforce the law outside of Canada. So in some ways it would really make things worse there.
Also, if consultants outside of Canada want to become certified, they will face even higher costs because of all the professional development trips they will have to undertake to come to Canada to take the courses, and people will be exploited even more.
Then I come to the last part, where I have some recommendations on the bill. Proposed subsection 91(1) reads, “Subject to this section, no person shall knowingly represent or advise a person for consideration--or offer to do so--in connection with”, and here I would like to ask for the insertion of one word, “prohibited”, so that it reads “with a prohibited proceeding or application under this Act”.
Now, why would that word “prohibited” make a difference? Well, it would immediately mean that not every small immigration proceeding or application would be subject to it. The minister would be required to provide a list of the kinds of immigration assistance, the immigration matters, whether that's a tourist visa application or a bit much more complex.
I have, I think--
