The law societies operate based on errors and omissions insurance. The rates are rather high, and it's not because there are claims against immigration lawyers that result in monetary damages that are paid out to victims of that. It's mostly, realistically, fraud.
It's an insurance policy. It's expensive to operate and administer, but it's necessary because there are going to be persons who are victimized and they need to be compensated in some way.
How do you compensate someone based on a failed or negligently prepared refugee or immigration claim? It's very, very difficult in our current system to quantify that. I don't think it's ever been tried, but it may have.
With regard to returning fees, many of the complaints we heard earlier about disputes involving clients and their consultants have to do with fees. There's a legitimate case, at times, perhaps, to be made that fees should be returned, so that they're put back in the place they were before people hired the consultant who ripped them off.
I like your question. I think there's merit to it. Obviously, it's not in this piece of legislation. If this is the opportunity for the country to regulate in this area, this is the chance to do it. Rather than doing it on a piecemeal basis, it should be done comprehensively.