Folks have been wondering where I stand so I'll share. As many of you know, I coach several RCICs and I have come out in the past, taking perhaps a dissenting/divergent opinion, in support of the benefits of immigration consultants to aid access-to-justice, diversity, and cost of service issues.
So, rather than paint every RCIC with the same broad brush stroke, I think there are two more important questions at play for all immigration representatives to consider moving forward:
(1) How to enforce a clearer SHARED culture of disclosure around fraudulent schemes. We can debate on competence until the cows come home (especially in this AI age - is writing/disclosing more actually more competent), but if someone is literally putting together schemes and either an RCIC or a lawyer uncovers it, it needs to be reported. FULL STOP. Of course, whether something is a scheme or an overpriced, market package is itself a challenging question. However, there need to be some standards for all practitioners on the 'do's' and 'don'ts'
Right now, jurisdictionally and for many reasons reporting practitioner malpractice is unnecessarily barriered and, as such, is not serving as a necessary deterence. Many ghosts/agents are similarly able to hide their work through a representative behind the scenes - the name of a Canadian-based business or practitioner that doesn't actually do the work/supervise. Of course, the complicating factor here is that there are many self-reps who do in fact want advice but don't want representation nor want having to disclose that they sought a lawyers/consultant's help.
Make clearer that these potential third-party links will be investigated where fraud is alleged, and more accessible the ways to disclose for example when someone has provided advice but is not the representative. Enforcement does need to be stronger and I think that is one reason why lawyers who are under strict (albeit often delayed) governance perceive the College's disciplinary processes as being much weaker. More education would help.
(2) Perhaps we can start talking about division of expertise
Maybe immigration lawyers need to move beyond filing bulk work permit, visitor records, spousals, and study permits and jump into work that may require some additional legal training (judicial reviews, more complex inadmissibility, broader areas of admin law etc.). Perhaps that immigration expertise is combined wtih some other area of law to provide additional value-add advice (e.g. Employment/Business or Crimmigration Lawyers)
Similarily, for those RCICs that are choosing to dabble in areas that they should not (filing JRs, for example), there could be efforts to enforce staying in one's own lane. I do get frustrated when I get approached by RCICs asking if I can fee split or enter into a financial arrangement with them on JR files. There needs to be some understanding that this isn't how things work.
Overall, dialoguing not disparaging is the start.