Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think what you've heard in the answer to the earlier question.... I think the reason you've not heard anybody directly support the approach is that the regulatory approach is I think the most appropriate way to go. When you take that approach, a lot of these questions fall in

Citizenship and Immigration committee  We gather those resources from those whom we regulate. That's part of the regulatory scheme that we are compelled to put into place under the statute. It's a complete package. What's happening here is that you're attempting to create something that looks a little like a regulato

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Let me deal with your first question. It's important, I think, that where a group of individuals or a profession has the authority to provide service there be a public and transparent complaint process. Indeed, that's what all of the regulatory bodies run across the country. So

Citizenship and Immigration committee  If I may add this, you might as well look at section 4.2 of the Law Society Act, which states the principles that would be applied by a regulatory body. You could just adapt those. It's already set out in a statute: section 4.2.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think you also need to remember that as professions we require as part of our code professional competence in the area in which you choose to practise. So we offer specialist programs; we offer 140 programs a year of continuing education to our members, and that includes the pa

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Generally, that model has fallen into disrepute worldwide. It's pretty clear that you need to wear one or other of the hats and to some extent you heard the difference in approach here today.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That's correct.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That's correct.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  No, we are responsible for our regime, whereby independent paralegals can provide legal services. The law society is responsible for determining the areas of competence in which they can provide those services to the members of the public in the absence of supervision. As well, w

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Correct. We have exactly the same regulatory authority over those individuals as we do over lawyers.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I didn't go as far as saying immigration consultants should be regulated by the law society itself. We'd certainly be competent to do it within the purview of Ontario. The problem with immigration consultants, I guess, as you've heard, though, is that they're not only operating i

Citizenship and Immigration committee  What you're missing is that CSIC can only do those things with respect to those people who choose to belong. It's a voluntary organization.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  But in the regulatory model, the true regulatory model creates a statutory framework that says you can't provide any of these activities, including consulting advice, in the absence of being accredited by the regulator. That's not what you have with CSIC.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  You could, but you'd have to go back and pass the statute giving them that.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I would differ that you can do it by regulation, quite bluntly.