Bill C-35 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to change the manner of regulating third parties in immigration processes. Among other things it
(a) creates a new offence by extending the prohibition against representing or advising persons for consideration — or offering to do so — to all stages in connection with a proceeding or application under that Act, including before a proceeding has been commenced or an application has been made, and provides for penalties in case of contravention;
(b) exempts from the prohibition
(i) members of a provincial law society or notaries of the Chambre des notaires du Québec, and students-at-law acting under their supervision,
(ii) any other members of a provincial law society or the Chambre des notaires du Québec, including a paralegal,
(iii) members of a body designated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and
(iv) entities, and persons acting on the entities’ behalf, acting in accordance with an agreement or arrangement with Her Majesty in right of Canada;
(c) extends the time for instituting certain proceedings by way of summary conviction from six months to 10 years;
(d) gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to make transitional regulations in relation to the designation or revocation by the Minister of a body;
(e) provides for oversight by that Minister of a designated body through regulations requiring the body to provide information to allow the Minister to determine whether it governs its members in the public interest; and
(f) facilitates information sharing with regulatory bodies regarding the professional and ethical conduct of their members.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, both of you, for being our witnesses.

My question is directed to the IRB and Ms. Cox-Duquette. You listed very clearly in your written presentation, as well as in your verbal presentation just now, how you prevent crooked consultants from representing claimants in proceedings before the IRB within the existing system and existing law. With the introduction of this new bill, Bill C-35, how will that help the IRB to ensure the integrity of your proceedings?

[Sylvia Cox-Duquette, Senior General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. As you said, I'm Sylvia Cox-Duquette and I'm the senior general counsel for the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. I want to thank you for your invitation to appear before you today.

I thought I would talk about the IRB's policy for handling complaints regarding unauthorized paid representatives--in other words, those persons who are targeted by this new bill.

This is the third time I've appeared before the committee, and of course following my opening remarks I'd be pleased to try to answer any questions you may have.

By way of background, and I think most of you here have heard this before, here are some background stats. The IRB is Canada's largest administrative tribunal. Our members make anywhere from 40,000 to 60,000 decisions annually, and our mission, as you know, is to resolve immigration refugee cases efficiently, fairly, and in accordance with the law. We fulfill our functions presently through three divisions: the immigration division; the immigration appeal division; and the refugee protection division.

I'd like to speak specifically about the proposed legislation, Bill C-35. As this committee knows, the IRB has no role in policy-making. This is the responsibility of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. But I did want to assure the committee that the IRB will of course implement any resulting legislation professionally and effectively that falls within its responsibilities.

I think it would be important to begin by explaining how we categorize counsel who represent individuals who appear before the IRB. You'll recall that on April 13, 2004, regulations were introduced that defined who may for a fee represent, advise, or consult with an individual who is the subject of any application or proceeding related to their immigration or refugee status.

Obviously, the current immigration and refugee protection regulations require that a person must be an authorized representative, someone who is a member in good standing of the bar in any province, or a member of the Chambre des notaires du Québec, or a member of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, CSIC. But it's important to remember that under the current act—and this will continue under the new Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act--that hasn't been changed. Any individual can represent or advise a person with respect to their IRB proceedings pro bono, for free. If a fee is to be charged, then the person must be a member of either the applicable law society, Chambre des notaires or CSIC, or whatever body is designated to regulate non-lawyers and non-notaries.

Obviously, the legislation is designed to protect claimants, appellants, and persons concerned who typically may be vulnerable--for example, newcomers to Canada who may not have a support system, who may not know the language or understand the immigration and refugee system. We want to protect those persons from unscrupulous or incompetent people as advisors.

I won't go through the definitions further. I'll skip right to how we deal with and how we control our proceedings before the board in order to do the best we can to preserve the integrity of our proceedings, and to prevent unscrupulous or incompetent counsel from appearing before the board, be they lawyers or immigration consultants.

We have a policy. It's been in place since April 10, 2008, and is called the policy for the handling of IRB complaints regarding unauthorized paid representatives. This policy was introduced to address specific concerns regarding the charging of fees by counsel who had declared themselves to be unpaid. Under this policy, the chairperson of the IRB or his delegate may prohibit counsel from appearing before any division of the board, and it provides the board with a mechanism for ensuring that only those representatives who meet the criteria outlined in the regulations may appear before it.

This policy sets out, obviously, the IRB's approach to the treatment of complaints against unauthorized representatives who may be charging a fee for their services. While it's not the primary responsibility of the IRB to monitor compliance with the provisions of the regulations that govern counsel, we don't overlook contraventions of the regulations.

One of the things we do, which I can get into in greater detail later, to prevent unauthorized representatives who are charging a fee from appearing before the board is that when a claimant commences proceedings before the board, he's asked to say whether he will be represented and to say who he will be represented by. It's then determined whether the person he's chosen to represent him or her is either legal counsel, a member in good standing of the provincial law society or Chambre des notaires, or a member in good standing of CSIC.

If the person is proposing to have someone else represent them—in other words, an unauthorized representative—then both counsel and the claimant must sign a declaration indicating that the services of the counsel are being provided for free. It doesn't stop there, because of course someone can sign a declaration and we may get information or we may learn during the course of a hearing that we have some doubts as to whether the person is being paid, despite their declaration to the contrary. At that point, we will question the counsel and the complainant or we will look into any information received from another source on that to ensure that the person is not charging a fee.

If for some reason we're not satisfied with the explanations we are given, then at that point we go full blast into our policy. We do an investigation. If it turns out we determine the person is charging a fee for that service, then they will be prohibited from appearing before the board.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

In your opinion, offering one's services by distributing business cards would be an offence under Bill C-35. Is that your interpretation?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have looked at your presentation. I wanted to be sure that I properly understood the respective mandates of your two organizations as well as that of the organization that will be responsible for oversight of the profession.

More specifically on this last aspect, there are cases—and you have described them in your documents—of obvious fraud: there are those who take advantage of naive, gullible people in distress and get money from them by promising things they cannot deliver, by lying to them and getting them to lie, etc. Those are the kinds of situations we see on public affairs programs, where money is being extorted from people. It happens in immigration and other circumstances.

However, we have the issue of how the profession is exercised. If this bill were to be passed, one of its provisions would ban people outright from practising the profession, providing advice for a fee, regardless of whether they have the skills to do so or not. So we might end up with consultants who are not accredited by the organization, but who are very competent and do their work well, but who are practising illegally because they are not members of the organization.

To begin with, who will be responsible for identifying those people, and second, who will be responsible for investigating and potentially prosecuting them? Will it be you or the organization that will be created by Bill C-35?

[Peter Hill, Director General, Post-Border Programs, Canada Border Services Agency]

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today to discuss CBSA's role in relation to Bill C-35.

Since 2006 the CBSA and the RCMP have developed a complementary approach in relation to immigration offences. The CBSA is the lead agency for investigating most offences under IRPA. The RCMP maintains responsibility for immigration offences dealing with organized crime, human smuggling, and national security. The CBSA has lead responsibility for offences related to fraudulent documents, misrepresentation, counselling misrepresentation, and the general offence section within the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The general offence section applies to individuals who do not comply with various conditions or obligations under the IRPA. Examples include employers who hire foreign nationals without authorization, previously deported persons who return to Canada without authorization, and persons who fail to report to the CBSA officials upon entry into Canada.

Enforcement related to misconduct by consultants is complex and may cross the jurisdiction of various enforcement bodies. Depending on the nature of the consultant's activity, various criminal offences and sanctions exist under the IRPA and the Criminal Code. These would generally be investigated by the CBSA and/or the RCMP. By contrast, review of activity that is either unethical or unprofessional but does not constitute an offence falls under the responsibility of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

I will now speak to the IRPA offences most frequently related to consultants. IRPA provides for criminal sanctions to be laid in relation to counselling misrepresentation, section 126; misrepresentation, section 127; counselling to commit an offence, section 131; as well as the general offence provision under section 124.

For example, where it can be proven in court that a consultant counselled the client to provide false information with the hope of increasing the chances that their immigration application would be approved, that consultant could be charged with counselling misrepresentation. The counselling of misrepresentation could be in relation to any immigration application, for example, a temporary resident application, a permanent resident application, a spousal sponsorship, or a refugee claim. This charge could apply to consultants whether or not they are authorized to act as representatives pursuant to the regulations.

The IRPA general offence section would apply in situations where an individual who is not an authorized representative represents a client for a fee. The maximum penalty upon conviction is a fine up to $50,000, and/or imprisonment for up to two years. Presently the regulation respecting authorized representatives applies only after an immigration application is submitted. This has been problematic, as much of the counselling often occurs prior to the submission of the application. Today, activities of this nature are not regulated by the IRPA, and ghost consultants operating in the pre-application stage cannot be pursued through the courts.

The proposed legislative amendment in Bill C-35 would broaden the legislation to also limit those providing or offering to provide consulting services for a fee in the pre-application stage to persons who are lawyers, notaries in Quebec, and consultants who are in good standing with the governing body. If you're not any of those, then you're a ghost consultant. This would close a current loophole in the legislation and provide the CBSA and its enforcement partners with a further and important enforcement tool.

Obtaining evidence of consultant fraud can be time-consuming and challenging. The applicants are often hesitant to report the counselling offences to the CBSA, as they were either party themselves to the misrepresentation, or have been convinced that even though the representative is not authorized, he or she can assist in ensuring that they receive a positive outcome on their application. As a result, most alleged offences are only brought to our attention after Citizenship and Immigration Canada has rejected the applications. Even then, applicants may not come forward for fear that they be removed from Canada.

Additionally, contracts between clients and unscrupulous consultants are often verbal in nature, and payment is made in cash, leaving little documentary evidence for presentation in court. Further, many consultants operate outside of Canada, where Canadian law cannot be applied. In such cases, investigators will attempt to identify and investigate any Canadian links to the overseas consultant.

Currently, in order to lay summary charges investigators must become aware of an alleged offence, gather all the evidence, and lay charges within six months. In the case of immigration offences and the complexities required to adequately investigate such cases, six months is generally not adequate.

One of the proposed legislative amendments in Bill C-35 would increase the statute of limitations to five years, thereby ensuring that investigators have sufficient time to properly and fully investigate various IRPA offences, refer the file to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and lay charges before the time period passes.

A second type of fraud with respect to consultants involves situations where an individual accepts fees for services and fails to submit any application to the Government of Canada. Allegations of this nature are best investigated under the fraud provisions of the Criminal Code, and therefore fall primarily to the responsibility of my colleagues at the RCMP, or in municipal or provincial policing agencies.

Finally, there are cases where the alleged activity of the consultant appears unethical or unprofessional but is not a criminal offence, such as charging exorbitant fees, or the provision of poor quality advice. Matters of this nature are not the responsibility of the RCMP or the CBSA, but rather a matter for a designated body, such as the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

Under the current system, government officials are limited in their ability to share information regarding allegations of this nature with the designated body. Bill C-35 would authorize government officials to share information with the governing body and ensure that the body has the required information to undertake a review and pursue disciplinary action where appropriate.

Since taking on IRPA enforcement responsibilities, the CBSA has undertaken a large number of investigations related to various offences. The agency, in many cases in conjunction with the RCMP, is currently investigating a number of cases related to immigration consultants. The CBSA anticipates that the legislative amendments contained in Bill C-35 will assist us to continue to build on these efforts and results to date by closing the loophole that currently exists with respect to individuals who provide, or offer to provide, consulting services for a fee at the pre-application stage.

Mr. Chair, in closing, the CBSA recognizes the seriousness of this issue and its importance to maintaining the integrity of the immigration program. The CBSA will continue to work diligently with CIC, the RCMP and other law enforcement partners to address this issue.

Mr. Chair, thank you very much, and I will be pleased to take questions and pass the comments over my colleague at the RCMP.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 27 on Wednesday, October 20, 2010.

The order of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 23, 2010, is Bill C-35, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

You will note that this meeting is being recorded by video.

We have two guests with us today: the Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. With the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Peter Hill, who is the director general of post-border programs, who I gather will be speaking for the group today. We have Dale Brown, who is the acting director of criminal investigations division. We have Gregory Israelstam.... How did I do?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

I want to make sure that I have understood properly.

Statutory and regulatory organizations were discussed. My understanding is that a statutory organization is an organization created pursuant to the act, while a regulatory organization is set up pursuant to the regulations.

In addition, unless I am mistaken, you say that Bill C-35 provisions are a good starting point, but the ideal institution in the medium term would be an organization created pursuant to the act.

Did I understand that part properly?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks. This has actually been an interesting contrast in terms of presentations. It was good to have you guys sort of back to back to each other.

Mr. Mooney, I wanted to very quickly get your thoughts on the issue Ms. Chow brought up. This process we're undertaking now to choose a new regulator, or at least to go through the process to choose a new regulator.... One of the confusing parts of our last meeting, when we had the ministry staff here, was that we had almost pre-started or predated Bill C-35 through this process. But you didn't, and you aren't, considering in your application and process potentially becoming a regulator under the new legislation. You did so under the current legislation.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Bill C-35 is mute as to whether this should or should not exist. So is it an area that we should probably look at, whether the rules are too tight or whether it's important to have such a fund?

Maybe our lawyer friend can enlighten us. Is there such a fund for lawyers? If there's a criminal offence, then I could apply for some kind of support.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

In your presentation, you said that you would possibly participate in the competitive bidding process that would take place under Bill C-35 to fashion a new regulatory body. I think you also said that you have partnerships with other organizations.

Could you explain to us quickly what that's about?

[Philip Mooney]

I think the legislation does one thing, which is to give Canada the moral imperative and the moral authority to go and talk to other countries about their bad consultants, who cheat not only Canadian immigrants but also British immigrants and New Zealanders. To do effectively what the minister's been doing is to go around and say to his counterparts that we think they should enact similar legislation.

In the past and until Bill C-35 passes, individuals could come back to their own governments and say they were not doing anything wrong: they could fill in forms; they could provide advice, and there's nothing illegal about that under Canadian legislation. Now we will have the opportunity to do that.

It also gives agencies such as ours the opportunity to take our members, who advertise in many of the same places these ghost agents advertise, and talk to the editors of those newspapers and ask them if they realize what they're doing, if they realize they can prevent these individuals from putting out their false ads.

The last thing I'll say is that we hear the sensational stories. We do. We hear about all the gross, egregious things individuals do, but those things aren't the bulk of the problem. The bulk of the problem is that individuals do a few things every once in a while, and we have to let those individuals know that the cost of doing that is prohibitive and that they can't get away with it.

[Timothy Morson, Policy Director, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to briefly address the issue of designated entities under the proposed subsection 91(4), and the need for a definition of what constitutes immigration advice.

CAPIC recognizes that the growing number of arrangements between visa offices and visa application centres allows for a measure of efficiency and cost savings. VACs, as they are called, are private agencies officially appointed to assist clients in filing their applications with visa offices, for a fee.

The services offered by VACs are actively promoted on visa office websites. Officially, VACs may only assist with form filling and filing of the application. The VAC agreement between VFS Global in India and the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi states that “The Service Provider...will advise the client as to any apparent shortcomings in the application”. This agreement explicitly acknowledges VFS's role in providing advice, and it explicitly recognizes that clients may need help with the process. Our question is where exactly a line is drawn between immigration form completion and advice.

The VACs are not qualified, in any way, to offer immigration advice. If a VAC completes or checks a form, does that constitute advice? Is it possible to complete a form without offering advice?

These questions are important because, besides VACs, there are many specialized sectors that are peripherally involved in the immigration business: travel agencies, education agents, human resources recruiting firms, all offer incidental immigration services. A badly completed form can unleash a whole chain of consequences that could be detrimental to an applicant, including the outright refusal of the application.

If completing an application form does not constitute advice, then by what measure can any third party be prevented from charging a fee for completing a form?

It is not clear how Bill C-35 addresses this issue. If it does not address the issue, then one can be reasonably assured that ghost agents will exploit it.

CAPIC recommends, at a minimum, that Bill C-35 be amended to include a definition for advice, and that it require VACs to publish clear disclaimers to the effect that they are not authorized to provide immigration advice, with links to those regulatory bodies whose members are so authorized, as is the case in the U.K.

Thank you very much.

[Philip Mooney, Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants]

Thank you very much.

It's a pleasure to be here again before the committee and to welcome more new faces than at any other time I've had the pleasure to present. Welcome to everyone.

We also prepared a detailed brief and submitted it, but I believe it's in the process of being translated.

I'd like to make some general comments on the legislation. Then I'll turn it over to my associate to make some specific recommendations on one of the particular items in the legislation, and certainly allow as many questions as possible.

Just for the record, I'll say to everybody, “That's a great question, thank you for your question”, so we don't have to repeat that. We all went to the Bill Clinton school of political answers.

The Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants has worked for and supported the concept of the regulation of immigration consultants for 25 years. That is why CAPIC supports the intent and the main thrust of this bill. It is not only in the interest of consumers and the public to regulate immigration consultants, but in the interest of immigration consultants themselves.

Like many professionals, we hold ourselves to very high standards. We want to see these standards officially sanctioned and subjected to strong and enforceable regulation. Bill C-35 grapples with the very complex issue of ghost agents. The exploitation of vulnerable migrants by unscrupulous agents and unqualified intermediaries is a major global problem, part of a criminal industry worth billions of dollars. It causes incalculable harm to victims and their families. CAPIC has a number of recommendations concerning the enforcement, control, and prosecution of ghost agents.

Bill C-35 also addresses the major shortcomings identified by the standing committee in two separate reports in 2008 and 2009 on the way the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants was constituted in the first place. They recognized that the absence of any statute governing CSIC simply makes it impossible for the society to enforce its rules on non-members, and impossible for the minister and CIC to hold the society accountable or influence the society’s internal functioning. They also acknowledged the many legitimate complaints of CSIC members about CSIC's governance.

You recommended that a statutory body be established to replace CSIC. While CAPIC appreciates the degree of progress represented by Bill C-35 in making certain activities a violation of the Immigration Act--and we credit the department's ingenuity in bringing it forward in that manner--we recommend that the option of a statutory body be kept open for the future.

CAPIC has led the fight to resolve the issues of bad consultants and a poorly functioning regulator, and has continued to make recommendations for positive changes. Currently we are leading a group of concerned practitioners in preparing a bid to set up a new body, which we are calling “The Better Regulator.”

We have learned from the mistakes made in the past and from six years of imperfect regulation. We are doing this in an open and transparent manner, as volunteers, and we will ensure that our proposal is very clear on accountability and effectiveness.

Our detailed report makes several recommendations that we hope you will consider seriously, including specific recommendations that deal with third-party service providers. My colleague will explain those recommendations shortly, but I want to bring one more issue to the table first, and that is the issue of respect.

Hard-working, ethical consultants who ably assist tens of thousands of newcomers to come to Canada deserve the respect of the department and the government, as well as the respect of the general public. They choose every day to follow the rules, to serve the interests of their clients, and to forgo the fast buck and easy money that lures the unscrupulous. They do not need special recognition, but they do deserve the same respect accorded to all hard-working Canadians, be they auto workers, teachers, politicians, or millions of others.

Tackling the problem of ghost agents requires a better working relationship between all stakeholders. To be coherent, the policies that will flow from Bill C-35 must also recognize the role that authorized representatives play in support of legal immigration. It is self-defeating to deplore the ghost agent phenomenon on the one hand, while discouraging the use of authorized representatives on the other, as CIC does with its website messages. The role of authorized representatives must be validated, not denigrated; otherwise, what’s the point of it all?

Finally, as an additional sign of respect, and in agreement with my colleague who spoke earlier—thank you for stealing my thunder--we ask that you consider changing the title of this act. For hard-working, ethical consultants, it will be very difficult to accept the fact that for years to come they will be regulated by an act that specifically refers to everything they are not. The alliteration is appreciated, but the perceived disrespect is not.

Thank you.

I'd like to turn this over to my colleague, Mr. Morson.

[Warren Creates]

I only got notice of this on Thursday, so I did what I could to get prepared for the time we have together this afternoon.

Obvioiusly it's clear to all of us that we need robust laws, we need.... Unfortunately, we've come to a point in our history in this country where we need to criminalize the provision of immigration advice by those who are unauthorized to do so.

Twenty-five years ago I didn't think I'd be saying that, but it's obvious and clear to me now--and perhaps to everyone at this table and outside this room--that it's now required. Without it.... Obviously a second part of that is we need a very robust organization to be the watchdog for those immigration consultants who do become authorized.

I have a list of eight recommendations in my brief and I just want to touch on them in the limited time that I have, very quickly.

First of all, I take issue with the name of the legislation. This is not just a question of cracking down on crooked immigration consultants. If it were only that, we would be dealing with a far more robust piece of legislation. What we're dealing with in Bill C-35 are those who are unauthorized, and criminalizing their conduct.

So I recommend a name change, and I think this committee should look very carefully at that. Although there are headlines in the proposed name, I don't think it really accurately describes what this piece of legislation is doing.

Second, putting a five-year limitation period on the investigation, charge, and prosecution of offences that are chosen by election to be summary conviction offences I think is wrong. If we want robust legislation that's going to deter those who would be inclined to practise unauthorized practice in immigration law, it should be open-ended. Why put a five-year limitation clause on it? I just don't see the public policy behind it. If the objective of this legislation is to deter criminal conduct, then it should be forever over the heads of those who engage in it.

Third, I obviously--like all--want to see a new watchdog. It must be robust, independent, arm's length from the government. It must be professional. It must be fully staffed and resourced. The panel before us and others have commented before this committee on the ineffective nature of that watchdog organization, and a lot needs to be done to approve one that's going to be better resourced.

Fourth, I like the authority given to the cabinet to make regulations requiring the watchdog to give the minister information. That's of particular interest because it has the power beyond the minister, and that's often important to have. It was lacking in the last piece of legislation. It was lacking in the last watchdog, and privacy was I think given as the shadow, the reason why things couldn't be shared with the minister. So I like that.

I have some other comments, though, about what needs to be done to resource this properly. It's not in the legislation, it probably can't be, but our overseas and Canadian-based officers need tools to detect and monitor fraud. It's not enough just to criminalize it; there has to be an enforcement opportunity. Training is needed, sophisticated tracking, and audit software. There needs to be an investment by the Canadian government in those tools.

Sixth, I think the bill should contain a provision that requires everyone seeking status or renewed status in Canada to disclose the use of a representative. That was the recommendation—I think it's number five—in the June 2008 standing committee's review of the problems of the past, and I believe that should be in this bill now. So I think everyone seeking some kind of status in Canada who files an application must be required to disclose that they use a representative.

Seventh, there has to be an investment in public awareness. A media campaign and government website updates must be undertaken to warn the public of the risks and of the criminality of both using unregistered consultants and committing immigration fraud.

Finally, number eight, there needs to be encouragement and even in appropriate cases immunity from prosecution for those who've been duped, for those who have themselves committed fraud, and for employees of unscrupulous consultants to come forward with their evidence against bogus consultants.

Thank you very much. It's been a privilege and an honour to be invited to share my thoughts with you.

[Imran Qayyum]

We certainly hope so.

I can speak on behalf of CMI. As an immigration practitioner and someone who competes, who is out there, who has gone through the standards, who meets the standards, who renews his membership every two years, and who holds himself out to be competent, I absolutely do. The biggest frustration--I come from a Pakistani community--is that we see the ads in our local newspapers. They're not in English, they're in Urdu, but we see them. And there's not much we can do about that, because the teeth are not there. So now with Bill C-35 and the penalty provision specifically, the teeth are going to be there.