Global Mobility Dispatches with Ray Rackham
Canada recently sharpened the consequences of unauthorized paid immigration advice, with penalties that can reach CAD 1.5 million. But, most countries regulate the provision of legal advice, so what’s the big deal?
Reputable commentators are advising employers that – if they have teams managing immigration in-house – they might want to examine whether their teams’ activities require an authorised representative. From my reading of the changes, this seems a little excessive, yet it poses a rather awkward conundrum.
We’ve spent years telling mobility to become more strategic; shaping workforce deployment through the intrepid interpretation of immigration developments. And then Monday morning arrives. An employee asks whether they can work during a business trip. A manager wants to know which permit to use. HR asks whether a promotion affects immigration status. Routine questions, and according to some commentators they now pose potentially consequential answers.
When does sharing information become applying immigration law, or coordination become regulated advice? The answer varies by jurisdiction, and – trust me – Canada’s rules most certainly do not make internal HR conversations unlawful, nor does every mobility professional need to be a lawyer.
But experience, however extensive, isn’t the same as authorisation. And our industry has evolved in ways the architects of most immigration frameworks may not have considered, even five years ago: from outsourcing, near-shoring, shared-service centres, and all manner of assessment tools. Add AI overlays that confidently announce, “you don’t need a work permit”, and the ownership of conclusions becomes a complex tapestry of relationship, contract, and reality.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting every question goes to external (and costly) counsel. And having built one of the world’s first corporate immigration teams over 15 years ago, this certainly isn’t a criticism of capable professionals who are the backbone of talent mobility. It’s a challenge to the operating models; or rather, a call to regularly review them.
Do we know who may provide general information, who can recommend an immigration route and who must sign off a legal conclusion? Are escalation lines clear? Are those boundaries built into our technology, or buried in a policy nobody reads? Who reviews the reviewers?
Canada’s new penalties target defined misconduct, not strategic ambition. But the fact reputable commentators are recommending pause to review is telling, exposing a contradiction worth confronting. We keep expanding what mobility should know, decide, and deliver, without always confirming the governance behind the expectation.
Professionalisation isn’t simply a bigger seat at the table. It’s knowing when to speak, when to refer, and who is accountable for the answer.
That’s #MakingMobilityMatter
