You're seeing a rare moment of unanimity in this committee. I echo the sentiments most of my colleagues have made. The issues that were broadly touched upon in the testimony that we heard were significant issues within the IRCC governance and the board, issues with regulated consultants themselves, the ability to, as Mr. Tabbara was saying, go after ghost consultants, and also a lot of questions on why consultants are in high demand right now, linking back to some of the recommendations that came up with client modernization. The fact that there is a lack of transparency or perceived lack of transparency and ease in the application process basically creates an industry.
I've been giving some thought to this. We're essentially asking, how do we regulate a body like the Canadian Dental Association or another regulatory body? The reality is, this is a group of people who provide services to navigate a governmental process, so it's a little bit different from other professional services organizations. In that, where I'd like to echo some of the comments that my colleagues have made, I think we're in agreement that the current system is severely broken.
I'd like to get your feedback on this. To me there's a significant lack of direct accountability and reporting mechanisms. They're just not clear, right? As parliamentarians, it's very difficult for us to understand why and how certain review mechanisms aren't happening. I think we're kind of at the spot where we believe that the government and the department has to take a more direct role, and the ICCRC in its current format is not particularly functional and perhaps can never be particularly functional.
I think we're at the point where we completely dismantle this organization—that's our recommendation—because of the abysmal testimony that we've heard in the last several meetings, or we significant tighten and clarify legislation that provides the department with more accountability and responsibility in oversight of some of these gaps.
I guess what we're asking you is what's easier, but, more importantly, what's more effective? I was talking to some of my Liberal colleagues. I think this is the third or the fourth study that's happened on this. You have to realize that, as members of Parliament, we're the front line. Our offices are the front lines on these issues.
I don't want to be sitting here in two years looking at this again. As a department, you have your one minute now to say what is more effective, not what's easier for departmental officials, but what's better for the people who are being defrauded and affected by this. Is it having direct accountability with oversight within the department, where the department can look at things like perhaps more transparency or more mechanisms to make the application process easier, or is it a significantly tightened up regulatory framework with a heightened departmental oversight over some sort of existing model? What's more effective? You can speak to cost as well, but I think that's where this committee is at in terms of recommendations right now. It cannot continue unabated.
