Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to both of you for being here.
I'm going to start with a couple of questions for Mr. Waldman and then I have some for Ms. Javier.
So that we separate this from the structural problems of the regulatory body versus the personnel, or the people, or the effect of that creation, I want to do the structural part. We'll leave the other part out.
It seems to me that we've had a confusing set of witnesses from the government side. We thought this piece of legislation was primarily about consumer protection, but the senior officials from the department said it was really about the integrity of the immigration system. Now, those two are related, I understand that, but I'm trying to clarify your thoughts: if this is truly consumer protection, what is missing?
Obviously, I think the department is responsible, with CBSA and other agencies, for the integrity of the system. Consumer protection, it seems to me, requires accountability mechanisms for licensing, for complaints and discipline, etc., and penalties and appropriate abilities to effect that accountability.
On the integrity of the system side, you need independence from the body that these people are appearing from. It would seem to me you need resources to do your work, whether those are legal resources, such as the power to subpoena at a discipline hearing, or resources in terms of going out to the bad guys out there, who are not the ghost consultants, as we are calling them, but the really bad ones. You need resources to do that.
Is this legislation, in your mind, primarily consumer protection or is it about the integrity of the system? What can we do to try to improve both of those things, the consumer protection and the integrity of the system?