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.