Backgrounder
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration: Addressing Concerns Regarding the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants
Despite the establishment in 2004 of the Canadian Society for Immigration Consultants (CSIC), complaints about the regulation of immigration consultants have continued. In April 2008, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration began a study on the issue of immigration consultants. The Committee travelled across Canada over a three-week period for a series of public hearings. During its travels, it heard from a number of witnesses, many of whom expressed great dissatisfaction with the way CSIC is governed. The Committee heard the following complaints.
•CSIC membership fees are too high;
•The CSIC membership examination was prepared and marked in a questionable way;
•CSIC failed to develop an industry plan;
•CSIC decision making lacks transparency and is not conducted democratically;
•The CSIC Board of Directors is not accountable to anyone;
•There is no possibility for CSIC members to call a special meeting of the Society;
•Compensation for, and the spending of, CSIC board members is extravagant, ill-advised and unaccounted for;
•CSIC board members are in a conflict of interest because they created, and currently serve on the board of, the Canadian Migration Institute, a related for-profit corporation;
•Many members had little choice but to pay $800 each to buy an outdated educational video in order to obtain sufficient continuing professional development points to maintain their CSIC membership;
•CSIC does not communicate with members, or provide services to members, equally in French and English;
•The ability of members to voice concerns about CSIC has been limited since the CSIC Rules of Professional Conduct were amended making it a professional offence to “undermine” CSIC and compelling members to treat CSIC with “dignity and respect”; and
•The CSIC website is set up in such a way that members cannot send bulk e-mail messages to all other members.*
Based on testimonies heard from witnesses during these hearings, the Committee adopted a report in June 2008 entitled Regulating Immigration Consultants that made a series of recommendations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*A copy of the complete 2008 Standing Committee Report, entitled Regulating Immigration Consultants, can be found on the Web at: www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?
DocId=3560686&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2
Transcripts of witness testimonies can be found on the Web at: www2.parl.gc.ca/CommitteeBusiness/CommitteeMeetings.aspx?
Cmte=CIMM&Stac=2290170&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Notice requesting comments on a proposal to establish a public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants
GOVERNMENT NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
Notice requesting comments on a proposal to establish a public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants
Notice is hereby given that Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) intends to establish a public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. CIC is soliciting written comments from all interested parties on this proposed approach.
Summary
In general terms, this Notice of Intent announces CIC’s intention to establish a public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. The body identified for recognition would be required to demonstrate that it has the capacity to effectively regulate immigration consulting activities in the public interest. The Notice also signals the possibility of a future proposal to realign the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the Regulations) based of the results of the public selection process.
Background
Regulation of immigration consultants was first introduced in 2004. In April of that year, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) was amended to ensure that no person who was not an authorized representative could, for a fee, represent, advise or consult with a person who was the subject of a proceeding or application under the IRPA (see section 13.1 of the Regulations). The term “authorized representative” was defined in the amendments (see section 2 of the Regulations) as a member in good standing of a bar of a province, the Chambre des notaires du Québec or the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC).
These Regulations were introduced both in response to unacceptable practices in the immigration consulting industry which left applicants vulnerable to bad advice, excessive fees and exploitation, as well as the threat these practices posed to Canada’s long-term immigration objectives.
The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, the current governing body, was established in 2003 as an independent, federally incorporated not-for-profit body operating at arm’s-length from the federal government and responsible for regulating paid immigration consultants (other than lawyers and members of the Chambres des notaires du Québec). CSIC currently has a membership of over 1 600 consultants and continues to act as the sole governing body of immigration consultants. CSIC’s mandate is to protect the consumers of immigration consulting services while ensuring the education, competency testing and discipline of its members.
The provision of professional and ethical services by immigration consultants reduces fraud and other unacceptable behaviours, and is essential in protecting the consumers of immigration services and in ensuring the public’s confidence in Canada’s immigration programs.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration undertook a study of the immigration consulting industry and summarized its findings in a report titled Regulating Immigration Consultants. This Report, supported by a 2009 Report titled Migrant Workers and Ghost Consultants, points to a lack of public confidence in the body currently governing immigration consultants. A lack of public confidence poses a significant threat to the immigration system, given the regulator’s role with respect to the integrity of the system as a whole. The establishment of a public selection process contemplates these concerns — with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. It is intended that the body identified would have the capacity to effectively regulate immigration consultants so as to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the immigration program through the regulation of the provision of professional and ethical services by its membership.
Proposal
A competitive public selection process will be pursued in order to identify the entity best able to demonstrate capacity to effectively regulate immigration consultants. Selection factors will be established to ensure that the entity identified for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants has the capacity to effectively regulate. CIC intends to engage external expertise in its establishment of factors in identifying a body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. These specific selection factors will ensure that the entity identified in the selection process will be able to efficiently and effectively manage its membership in support of Canada’s immediate and long-term immigration objectives as well as in support of the Canadian public’s confidence in the immigration system.
Subsequent to the identification of the governing body, the following regulatory alignment may be proposed and would be pre-published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, at a later date:
•Naming of a governing body for immigration consultants, and, if necessary, removal of the reference to the current governing body of immigration consultants; and
•Inclusion of transitional measures, if required, for members in good standing of the current governing body of immigration consultants — both to ensure continuity of service provision to persons associated with a proceeding or application under IRPA and to protect the membership of the current governing body in order to ensure of smooth transition.
Comments
Immigration consultants and other interested parties are requested to provide their comments on this Notice of Intent in writing, to the person named below at the address provided, before July 2, 2010.
Comments would be appreciated on
•the proposed public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants to ensure integrity in the immigration program through the provision of ethical and professional services by its membership.
Questions and requests for additional information, as well as comments regarding this Notice of Intent, may be directed to Catherine Marx, Senior Policy Analyst, Social Policy and Programs, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 365 Laurier Avenue W, 8th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1L1, 613-957-3577 (telephone), 613-941-9014 (fax), catherine.marx@cic.gc.ca (email).
SANDRA HARDER
Acting Director General
Immigration Branch
[24-1-o]
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
Notice requesting comments on a proposal to establish a public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants
Notice is hereby given that Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) intends to establish a public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. CIC is soliciting written comments from all interested parties on this proposed approach.
Summary
In general terms, this Notice of Intent announces CIC’s intention to establish a public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. The body identified for recognition would be required to demonstrate that it has the capacity to effectively regulate immigration consulting activities in the public interest. The Notice also signals the possibility of a future proposal to realign the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the Regulations) based of the results of the public selection process.
Background
Regulation of immigration consultants was first introduced in 2004. In April of that year, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) was amended to ensure that no person who was not an authorized representative could, for a fee, represent, advise or consult with a person who was the subject of a proceeding or application under the IRPA (see section 13.1 of the Regulations). The term “authorized representative” was defined in the amendments (see section 2 of the Regulations) as a member in good standing of a bar of a province, the Chambre des notaires du Québec or the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC).
These Regulations were introduced both in response to unacceptable practices in the immigration consulting industry which left applicants vulnerable to bad advice, excessive fees and exploitation, as well as the threat these practices posed to Canada’s long-term immigration objectives.
The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, the current governing body, was established in 2003 as an independent, federally incorporated not-for-profit body operating at arm’s-length from the federal government and responsible for regulating paid immigration consultants (other than lawyers and members of the Chambres des notaires du Québec). CSIC currently has a membership of over 1 600 consultants and continues to act as the sole governing body of immigration consultants. CSIC’s mandate is to protect the consumers of immigration consulting services while ensuring the education, competency testing and discipline of its members.
The provision of professional and ethical services by immigration consultants reduces fraud and other unacceptable behaviours, and is essential in protecting the consumers of immigration services and in ensuring the public’s confidence in Canada’s immigration programs.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration undertook a study of the immigration consulting industry and summarized its findings in a report titled Regulating Immigration Consultants. This Report, supported by a 2009 Report titled Migrant Workers and Ghost Consultants, points to a lack of public confidence in the body currently governing immigration consultants. A lack of public confidence poses a significant threat to the immigration system, given the regulator’s role with respect to the integrity of the system as a whole. The establishment of a public selection process contemplates these concerns — with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. It is intended that the body identified would have the capacity to effectively regulate immigration consultants so as to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the immigration program through the regulation of the provision of professional and ethical services by its membership.
Proposal
A competitive public selection process will be pursued in order to identify the entity best able to demonstrate capacity to effectively regulate immigration consultants. Selection factors will be established to ensure that the entity identified for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants has the capacity to effectively regulate. CIC intends to engage external expertise in its establishment of factors in identifying a body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. These specific selection factors will ensure that the entity identified in the selection process will be able to efficiently and effectively manage its membership in support of Canada’s immediate and long-term immigration objectives as well as in support of the Canadian public’s confidence in the immigration system.
Subsequent to the identification of the governing body, the following regulatory alignment may be proposed and would be pre-published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, at a later date:
•Naming of a governing body for immigration consultants, and, if necessary, removal of the reference to the current governing body of immigration consultants; and
•Inclusion of transitional measures, if required, for members in good standing of the current governing body of immigration consultants — both to ensure continuity of service provision to persons associated with a proceeding or application under IRPA and to protect the membership of the current governing body in order to ensure of smooth transition.
Comments
Immigration consultants and other interested parties are requested to provide their comments on this Notice of Intent in writing, to the person named below at the address provided, before July 2, 2010.
Comments would be appreciated on
•the proposed public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants to ensure integrity in the immigration program through the provision of ethical and professional services by its membership.
Questions and requests for additional information, as well as comments regarding this Notice of Intent, may be directed to Catherine Marx, Senior Policy Analyst, Social Policy and Programs, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 365 Laurier Avenue W, 8th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1L1, 613-957-3577 (telephone), 613-941-9014 (fax), catherine.marx@cic.gc.ca (email).
SANDRA HARDER
Acting Director General
Immigration Branch
[24-1-o]
Public Selection Process to Identify a Governing Body for Immigration Consultants
Backgrounder
Public Selection Process to Identify a Governing Body for Immigration Consultants
A Notice of Intent (NOI) will be published in the Canada Gazette announcing Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s (CIC) intention to launch a competitive public selection process to identify a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants.
The NOI will invite the public to provide their comments in writing. It will be published in the Canada Gazette on June 12, 2010, and posted on the website at www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/index-eng.html.
After assessing the feedback received, a transparent public selection process will then identify the body best able to effectively regulate immigration consultants, ensuring both public confidence in the integrity of Canada’s immigration program and the provision of professional and ethical services by immigration consultants.
Once the governing body is indentified, if required, measures would be implemented to ensure continuity of service for both consultants and their clients during the transition to a new governing body.
Public Selection Process to Identify a Governing Body for Immigration Consultants
A Notice of Intent (NOI) will be published in the Canada Gazette announcing Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s (CIC) intention to launch a competitive public selection process to identify a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants.
The NOI will invite the public to provide their comments in writing. It will be published in the Canada Gazette on June 12, 2010, and posted on the website at www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/index-eng.html.
After assessing the feedback received, a transparent public selection process will then identify the body best able to effectively regulate immigration consultants, ensuring both public confidence in the integrity of Canada’s immigration program and the provision of professional and ethical services by immigration consultants.
Once the governing body is indentified, if required, measures would be implemented to ensure continuity of service for both consultants and their clients during the transition to a new governing body.
Cracking Down on Crooked Immigration Consultants
Backgrounder
Cracking Down on Crooked Immigration Consultants
Addressing the problem
People anxious to immigrate to Canada can fall victim to advisers, known as “ghost” consultants, who frequently charge significant fees and may promise would-be immigrants high-paying jobs or fast-tracked visas. These prospective immigrants often find out too late that they have been deceived.
Currently, some immigration consultants are beyond the reach of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Act regulates the activities of immigration representatives from the point of submission of an application or beginning of a proceeding, but does not regulate their activities in the pre-application or proceedings stage of the immigration process.
The proposed legislative amendments would require that all advice supplied for a fee be provided by an authorized immigration representative. This individual would have to be either a member in good standing of a provincial or territorial law society or the Chambre des notaires du Québec, or the body governing immigration consultants.
Unpaid third parties, such as family members and friends, would still be allowed to act on behalf of an applicant. Furthermore, under the new rules, there would be exceptions for certain groups (for example, visa application centres and other service providers) when acting in accordance with an agreement or arrangement with the Government of Canada.
Ensuring that the governing body regulates its members
The current Act does not provide the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism with adequate oversight of the body governing immigration consultants in order to ensure the integrity of the process.
The legislation would provide the Minister with the power, by regulation, to designate a body to govern immigration consultants.
Also, under the proposed legislative amendments, the onus would be on the current body governing immigration consultants to provide key information to assist the Minister’s evaluation of whether the body is governing its members in the public interest and whether consultants are providing representation and advice in a professional and ethical manner.
Currently, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is limited in its ability to disclose information on individuals who provide unethical or unprofessional representation or advice. The bill would allow CIC to disclose such information to those responsible for governing or investigating that conduct. An investigation could be undertaken more readily and, where appropriate, disciplinary action pursued.
While much of the problem lies overseas and beyond our reach, it is anticipated that enforcement in Canada could disrupt overseas networks by removing their Canada-based links.
Strengthening public awareness
Among other non-legislative enhancements tied to this announcement, efforts to raise awareness of the risks of engaging crooked consultants will continue, including updating of websites in Canada and abroad, to carry warning messages for potential immigrants. Service improvements, including Web-based tools and videos, are also being developed by CIC and will make it easier for applicants to independently apply to immigrate to Canada.
Cooperating with foreign governments
The Canadian government will continue to make use of bilateral and multilateral opportunities to address the fraudulent activities of immigration consultants abroad, including encouraging foreign governments to crack down on crooked consultants who are exploiting people trying to immigrate to Canada. This international component was initiated during the Minister’s trip to India in January 2009.
Cracking Down on Crooked Immigration Consultants
Addressing the problem
People anxious to immigrate to Canada can fall victim to advisers, known as “ghost” consultants, who frequently charge significant fees and may promise would-be immigrants high-paying jobs or fast-tracked visas. These prospective immigrants often find out too late that they have been deceived.
Currently, some immigration consultants are beyond the reach of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Act regulates the activities of immigration representatives from the point of submission of an application or beginning of a proceeding, but does not regulate their activities in the pre-application or proceedings stage of the immigration process.
The proposed legislative amendments would require that all advice supplied for a fee be provided by an authorized immigration representative. This individual would have to be either a member in good standing of a provincial or territorial law society or the Chambre des notaires du Québec, or the body governing immigration consultants.
Unpaid third parties, such as family members and friends, would still be allowed to act on behalf of an applicant. Furthermore, under the new rules, there would be exceptions for certain groups (for example, visa application centres and other service providers) when acting in accordance with an agreement or arrangement with the Government of Canada.
Ensuring that the governing body regulates its members
The current Act does not provide the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism with adequate oversight of the body governing immigration consultants in order to ensure the integrity of the process.
The legislation would provide the Minister with the power, by regulation, to designate a body to govern immigration consultants.
Also, under the proposed legislative amendments, the onus would be on the current body governing immigration consultants to provide key information to assist the Minister’s evaluation of whether the body is governing its members in the public interest and whether consultants are providing representation and advice in a professional and ethical manner.
Currently, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is limited in its ability to disclose information on individuals who provide unethical or unprofessional representation or advice. The bill would allow CIC to disclose such information to those responsible for governing or investigating that conduct. An investigation could be undertaken more readily and, where appropriate, disciplinary action pursued.
While much of the problem lies overseas and beyond our reach, it is anticipated that enforcement in Canada could disrupt overseas networks by removing their Canada-based links.
Strengthening public awareness
Among other non-legislative enhancements tied to this announcement, efforts to raise awareness of the risks of engaging crooked consultants will continue, including updating of websites in Canada and abroad, to carry warning messages for potential immigrants. Service improvements, including Web-based tools and videos, are also being developed by CIC and will make it easier for applicants to independently apply to immigrate to Canada.
Cooperating with foreign governments
The Canadian government will continue to make use of bilateral and multilateral opportunities to address the fraudulent activities of immigration consultants abroad, including encouraging foreign governments to crack down on crooked consultants who are exploiting people trying to immigrate to Canada. This international component was initiated during the Minister’s trip to India in January 2009.
Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants
Speaking notes
Speaking notes for The Honourable Jason Kenney, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism
Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants
Ottawa, Ontario, June 8, 2010
As Delivered
Good morning. I’m pleased to be here joined this morning by the Miranda family, Ricardo, Irma and Christian, who immigrated to Canada some 14 years ago from Chile and who paid an immigration consultant $5,000 U.S., someone who pretended to be a registered member of the Law Society but who in fact was a crooked consultant who took their money, provided nothing in return, told them they needed his advice in order to immigrate to Canada and get status here.
They, like thousands of other honest hardworking Canadian families were exploited by crooked consultants. And today through the introduction of Bill C-35, An Act to Crack Down on Crooked Consultants, we will provide protection to do everything we can within the law to prevent the crooked consultants from exploiting would-be immigrants in the future.
Canada has relied on immigration for over two-thirds of our population growth over the past five years. Last year, Canada brought in over half a million newcomers, including permanent residents, students and temporary foreign workers. And they’ve chosen to come to Canada because they are attracted by our prosperity and our freedom. But because so many people want to come to Canada – and, in fact, Gallup Poll International estimates some 40 million people hope to immigrate to this country – because they hope to come to Canada, we develop long lineups, and the immigration procedures can seem complex, so many prospective immigrants seek the services of a consultant for help in navigating the process.
While most immigration consultants working in Canada are acting professionally and ethically, the unfortunate reality is that many consultants are acting dishonestly or even illegally to profit from people’s dream of coming here. We call these profiteers crooked consultants. We all know that people anxious to immigrate to Canada can fall victim to concealed advisors who frequently charge significant fees, promise would-be immigrants high-paying jobs or fast-tracked visas, and often sell them counterfeit travel documents which are used to deceive Canadian immigration officials. These prospective immigrants often find out too late that they’ve been deceived.
The media has done an excellent job shining light on many of these injustices. Just the other day I heard a story about a case involving a crooked consultant whose license had been revoked but who had continued to practise, promising an applicant help with the Immigrant Investor Program. This consultant evidently provided no service and filed no paperwork and refused to refund the $70,000 fee they had taken.
In another case recently reported on in the media, some $90,000 was paid to a consultant for assistance in bringing family members to Canada to work as labourers. As is so often the case, the applicant lost his money.
And, of course, there were the investigations on crooked immigration and citizenship consultants conducted by Radio‑Canada’s Enquête.
And there have been many reports of crooked immigration consultants coaching people to make bogus refugee claims, one of the reasons for our broken asylum system to which the government is responding through our Balanced Refugee Reform Act.
Investigations are going on throughout Canada. Thousands of people are suspected of having defrauded the government – over 1,800 in Montreal alone – with the help of crooked consultants. Cases like this are common, they are unfortunate, but they should never be considered inevitable.
And this is just a compilation of some media reports and transcripts in the past couple of years detailing specific acts of fraud and exploitation by immigration consultants. This represents probably a small portion of those Canadians who have been hurt by these bottom feeders in the immigration industry.
That’s why I’m here to announce that I have introduced Bill C-35, the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, which would protect newcomers by addressing those who provide false advice as unregistered immigration consultants. The Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act would strengthen the rules governing those who charge a fee for immigration advice. It would close loopholes currently exploited by crooked consultants, and it would improve the way in which immigration consultants are regulated.
The bill would make it a crime for unauthorized individuals to provide immigration advice for a fee, and this criminal offence has teeth. It will impose serious penalties: up to two years in jail or a $50,000 fine, or both. It would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so that only lawyers, notaries, and authorized consultants who are members in good standing of a governing body authorized by the Minister may provide advice or representation – or offer to do so – at any stage of a proceeding or application. This closes a major loophole that was being exploited by crooked consultants.
Under current legislation, some immigration consultants are beyond the reach of the Immigration Act. The Act regulates the activities of consultants from the time an application is submitted but not prior to proceedings. The proposed legislative changes would ensure that all advice supplied for a fee would have to be provided by an authorized immigration consultant. After all, anyone who provides immigration advice for a fee is acting as a professional and so they should be members in good standing of an authorized regulatory body.
The bill allows Citizenship and Immigration Canada to disclose information relating to the ethical or professional conduct of an immigration representative to those responsible for governing or investigating that conduct. The proposed legislation is in line with the recommendations of a parliamentary committee report that was based on consultations with stakeholders and other members of the public. This report reflected the numerous and detailed concerns regarding the regulation of immigration consultants.
I have personally had similar concerns expressed to me on this specific issue and it is apparent that a new approach to the regulation of immigration consultants is needed.
The proposed legislation implements unanimous recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Immigration which were arrived at following extensive consultations. And I’d like to acknowledge the good work of all of those on the committee, particularly Olivia Chow, who has been a tireless champion of victims of ghost immigration consultants.
The proposed legislation implements those recommendations. According to the committee, complaints were heard from a number of consultants across the country, many of whom have expressed great dissatisfaction with the way that the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, or CSIC, is currently governed. That’s why I’m taking immediate steps to address this problem, a problem that poses a significant threat to the immigration system and has created a lack of public confidence in the regulation of consultants.
A Notice of Intent will be published shortly in the Canada Gazette announcing CIC’s intention to launch a competitive public selection process to identify a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants under the existing Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
The Notice of Intent will request comments from the public on the proposed selection process. A transparent selection process will then identify the body best able to effectively regulate consultants in support of Canada’s public confidence in the immigration system.
That’s why the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act would also give the Minister the authority to designate a body to govern immigration consultants and establish measures that would enhance the government’s oversight of the designated regulator. The bill will also make the regulator more accountable, forcing it to share information with the government, which will ensure that it is accountable to its members and acting in the public interest.
The regulatory body must regulate effectively and must be held accountable for ensuring their membership provides services in a professional and ethical manner and that real sanctions are taken if their members do otherwise.
Many people who dream of immigrating to Canada are victimized by crooked consultants like the Miranda family. Of course, Canadian law cannot be enforced in foreign countries, although we do insist that anyone representing an applicant to one of our offices abroad be a licensed member of the regulatory agency. But more must be done with the problem of exploitation overseas.
That is why as part of the crackdown we are announcing today, Canada will implement a strategy to strongly encourage the governments of foreign countries that are the major source of immigration to Canada to follow our lead and to implement and enforce meaningful regulation of immigration consultants.
We started this process last year in my visit to India. I’m please to see an increase in the number of charges laid and convictions secured against fraudsters in the immigration field, but much more can be done there and in other countries and we will be pursuing that in a determined fashion.
Additionally, there are non-legislative improvements tied to this announcement. Efforts to raise awareness of the risks of engaging crooked consultants will continue. We have put warnings and public awareness notices in 17 languages on our websites in all of our offices and missions abroad. We’ve issued public awareness advertisements and we continue to try to make people aware they don’t need to use a consultant. If they do, it should be someone who is licensed and practising in good standing.
We are also looking at continued improvements to service, including web-based tools and videos that help to simplify the immigration process for people, and we are making more and more of our processes for application available online, again making it possible for people to cut out the middle man if they want to.
There are also improvements such as increasing efforts to inform the public of the risks associated with fraudulent consultants and to simplify the immigration process.
But the problem of fraud is much larger and also encompasses consultants who help people gain Canadian citizenship fraudulently. The problem is not only in immigration; it is in citizenship as well.
That’s why this Government also intends to take action on citizenship consultants, to improve measures to address fraud and protect the value of Canadian citizenship. It is quite clear that fraud remains a widespread threat to the integrity of our citizenship and immigration programs and costs us all.
So the government is committed to tackling immigration fraud, cracking down on crooked consultants. That was a commitment reiterated in the Speech from the Throne. And it’s been by listening to victims through our consultations that we’ve learned to take these measures. I’d like to thank all members of the public, all victims of crooked consultants who have come forward and told their stories. I’d like to thank all parties involved in the Standing Committee for their thoughtful work on this issue.
I am convinced that these efforts will protect families in the future – like the Mirandas, as I said before – who were exploited.
Speaking notes for The Honourable Jason Kenney, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism
Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants
Ottawa, Ontario, June 8, 2010
As Delivered
Good morning. I’m pleased to be here joined this morning by the Miranda family, Ricardo, Irma and Christian, who immigrated to Canada some 14 years ago from Chile and who paid an immigration consultant $5,000 U.S., someone who pretended to be a registered member of the Law Society but who in fact was a crooked consultant who took their money, provided nothing in return, told them they needed his advice in order to immigrate to Canada and get status here.
They, like thousands of other honest hardworking Canadian families were exploited by crooked consultants. And today through the introduction of Bill C-35, An Act to Crack Down on Crooked Consultants, we will provide protection to do everything we can within the law to prevent the crooked consultants from exploiting would-be immigrants in the future.
Canada has relied on immigration for over two-thirds of our population growth over the past five years. Last year, Canada brought in over half a million newcomers, including permanent residents, students and temporary foreign workers. And they’ve chosen to come to Canada because they are attracted by our prosperity and our freedom. But because so many people want to come to Canada – and, in fact, Gallup Poll International estimates some 40 million people hope to immigrate to this country – because they hope to come to Canada, we develop long lineups, and the immigration procedures can seem complex, so many prospective immigrants seek the services of a consultant for help in navigating the process.
While most immigration consultants working in Canada are acting professionally and ethically, the unfortunate reality is that many consultants are acting dishonestly or even illegally to profit from people’s dream of coming here. We call these profiteers crooked consultants. We all know that people anxious to immigrate to Canada can fall victim to concealed advisors who frequently charge significant fees, promise would-be immigrants high-paying jobs or fast-tracked visas, and often sell them counterfeit travel documents which are used to deceive Canadian immigration officials. These prospective immigrants often find out too late that they’ve been deceived.
The media has done an excellent job shining light on many of these injustices. Just the other day I heard a story about a case involving a crooked consultant whose license had been revoked but who had continued to practise, promising an applicant help with the Immigrant Investor Program. This consultant evidently provided no service and filed no paperwork and refused to refund the $70,000 fee they had taken.
In another case recently reported on in the media, some $90,000 was paid to a consultant for assistance in bringing family members to Canada to work as labourers. As is so often the case, the applicant lost his money.
And, of course, there were the investigations on crooked immigration and citizenship consultants conducted by Radio‑Canada’s Enquête.
And there have been many reports of crooked immigration consultants coaching people to make bogus refugee claims, one of the reasons for our broken asylum system to which the government is responding through our Balanced Refugee Reform Act.
Investigations are going on throughout Canada. Thousands of people are suspected of having defrauded the government – over 1,800 in Montreal alone – with the help of crooked consultants. Cases like this are common, they are unfortunate, but they should never be considered inevitable.
And this is just a compilation of some media reports and transcripts in the past couple of years detailing specific acts of fraud and exploitation by immigration consultants. This represents probably a small portion of those Canadians who have been hurt by these bottom feeders in the immigration industry.
That’s why I’m here to announce that I have introduced Bill C-35, the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, which would protect newcomers by addressing those who provide false advice as unregistered immigration consultants. The Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act would strengthen the rules governing those who charge a fee for immigration advice. It would close loopholes currently exploited by crooked consultants, and it would improve the way in which immigration consultants are regulated.
The bill would make it a crime for unauthorized individuals to provide immigration advice for a fee, and this criminal offence has teeth. It will impose serious penalties: up to two years in jail or a $50,000 fine, or both. It would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so that only lawyers, notaries, and authorized consultants who are members in good standing of a governing body authorized by the Minister may provide advice or representation – or offer to do so – at any stage of a proceeding or application. This closes a major loophole that was being exploited by crooked consultants.
Under current legislation, some immigration consultants are beyond the reach of the Immigration Act. The Act regulates the activities of consultants from the time an application is submitted but not prior to proceedings. The proposed legislative changes would ensure that all advice supplied for a fee would have to be provided by an authorized immigration consultant. After all, anyone who provides immigration advice for a fee is acting as a professional and so they should be members in good standing of an authorized regulatory body.
The bill allows Citizenship and Immigration Canada to disclose information relating to the ethical or professional conduct of an immigration representative to those responsible for governing or investigating that conduct. The proposed legislation is in line with the recommendations of a parliamentary committee report that was based on consultations with stakeholders and other members of the public. This report reflected the numerous and detailed concerns regarding the regulation of immigration consultants.
I have personally had similar concerns expressed to me on this specific issue and it is apparent that a new approach to the regulation of immigration consultants is needed.
The proposed legislation implements unanimous recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Immigration which were arrived at following extensive consultations. And I’d like to acknowledge the good work of all of those on the committee, particularly Olivia Chow, who has been a tireless champion of victims of ghost immigration consultants.
The proposed legislation implements those recommendations. According to the committee, complaints were heard from a number of consultants across the country, many of whom have expressed great dissatisfaction with the way that the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, or CSIC, is currently governed. That’s why I’m taking immediate steps to address this problem, a problem that poses a significant threat to the immigration system and has created a lack of public confidence in the regulation of consultants.
A Notice of Intent will be published shortly in the Canada Gazette announcing CIC’s intention to launch a competitive public selection process to identify a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants under the existing Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
The Notice of Intent will request comments from the public on the proposed selection process. A transparent selection process will then identify the body best able to effectively regulate consultants in support of Canada’s public confidence in the immigration system.
That’s why the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act would also give the Minister the authority to designate a body to govern immigration consultants and establish measures that would enhance the government’s oversight of the designated regulator. The bill will also make the regulator more accountable, forcing it to share information with the government, which will ensure that it is accountable to its members and acting in the public interest.
The regulatory body must regulate effectively and must be held accountable for ensuring their membership provides services in a professional and ethical manner and that real sanctions are taken if their members do otherwise.
Many people who dream of immigrating to Canada are victimized by crooked consultants like the Miranda family. Of course, Canadian law cannot be enforced in foreign countries, although we do insist that anyone representing an applicant to one of our offices abroad be a licensed member of the regulatory agency. But more must be done with the problem of exploitation overseas.
That is why as part of the crackdown we are announcing today, Canada will implement a strategy to strongly encourage the governments of foreign countries that are the major source of immigration to Canada to follow our lead and to implement and enforce meaningful regulation of immigration consultants.
We started this process last year in my visit to India. I’m please to see an increase in the number of charges laid and convictions secured against fraudsters in the immigration field, but much more can be done there and in other countries and we will be pursuing that in a determined fashion.
Additionally, there are non-legislative improvements tied to this announcement. Efforts to raise awareness of the risks of engaging crooked consultants will continue. We have put warnings and public awareness notices in 17 languages on our websites in all of our offices and missions abroad. We’ve issued public awareness advertisements and we continue to try to make people aware they don’t need to use a consultant. If they do, it should be someone who is licensed and practising in good standing.
We are also looking at continued improvements to service, including web-based tools and videos that help to simplify the immigration process for people, and we are making more and more of our processes for application available online, again making it possible for people to cut out the middle man if they want to.
There are also improvements such as increasing efforts to inform the public of the risks associated with fraudulent consultants and to simplify the immigration process.
But the problem of fraud is much larger and also encompasses consultants who help people gain Canadian citizenship fraudulently. The problem is not only in immigration; it is in citizenship as well.
That’s why this Government also intends to take action on citizenship consultants, to improve measures to address fraud and protect the value of Canadian citizenship. It is quite clear that fraud remains a widespread threat to the integrity of our citizenship and immigration programs and costs us all.
So the government is committed to tackling immigration fraud, cracking down on crooked consultants. That was a commitment reiterated in the Speech from the Throne. And it’s been by listening to victims through our consultations that we’ve learned to take these measures. I’d like to thank all members of the public, all victims of crooked consultants who have come forward and told their stories. I’d like to thank all parties involved in the Standing Committee for their thoughtful work on this issue.
I am convinced that these efforts will protect families in the future – like the Mirandas, as I said before – who were exploited.
A massive class-action lawsuit against CSIC and CAPIC.
LEGAL SECTION
Without Prejudice
Vancouver, BC, Canada -- A massive class-action lawsuit against CSIC and CAPIC.
Discrimination case -in class action lawsuits and in that capacity has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of members or employees.
If you purchased CSIC and CAPIC membership between April 13 , 2004 and April 13
2006, you may move the Court no later than 2007, to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class.
In order to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing
the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, CSIP is asking the Court to
determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class members will adequately represent the class. Under certain
circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." CSIP
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a
lead plaintiff. You may retain Weiss & Lurie or other counsel of your choice to serve as
your counsel in this action.
If you wish to receive an former CISC members package or if you wish to discuss this
action with CSIP, have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests
with respect to this matter, or if you have any information you wish to provide to us,
please contact:
CSIP the Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners legal section, (604) 601-8264 or
fax (604) 582-4898, via Internet electronic mail at info@csip.com
COPYRIGHT 2007 CSIP legal section
CSIP to Announce National Class Action against The Canadian Society of Immigration
Consultants CSIC and The Canadian Association of Professional Immigration
Consultants CAPIC for 1 billion dollars lawsuit -
1000 of former CSIC and CAPIC members agreed to launch a Class action against CSIC
and CAPIC former and current executives for discrimination against ethnic practitioners
for causing massive loss to their immigration practice- Writ of Summon and statement of
claim will be served upon the defendants in due course - Details are coming shortly
CSIC and CAPIC, ("CSIC and CAPIC" or the "Society - Association or Companies")
and certain of its officers and directors will be commenced in BC Supreme Court, on
behalf of former members of CSIC and CAPIC. If you were member of these two
organization between the period of April 13, 2004 and April 13, 2006, please read this
notice.
Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a federal parliamentary form of government. Canadian
Citizens periodically choose their representatives in free and fair multiparty elections whether in
Government- or private,
Federal, provincial, and municipal police forces have responsibility for law enforcement and
maintenance of order. Elected civilian officials in a federal regulatory body must maintain an
effective control and communicate with these forces based on legitimate claims. There are
massive reporting that security forces at the Federal level committed human rights abuses to
thousands of Immigration Practitioners across Canada upon false complaints by the Regulator
CSIC and its association CAPIC which is supported by Canada Immigration office.
The country has a highly developed, market-based economy and a population of approximately
31.6 million. Canadian Laws extensively do protect also the well-being of former CSIC
practitioners- who are recognized professionals under the provincial laws and provide for'
freedom of association.
The Federal Government is required generally to respect the human rights of its Canadian
citizens, and the law and judiciary across this nation needs to provide effective means for dealing
with individual instances of abuse; however, We are challenging now large problems in the
Immigration areas. Problems included discrimination against ethnic women, men (persons) with
English as second Language - . There have been a large increase in the number of reportedincidents of anti-Semitic and anti-Immigration representative harassment made by Executives of
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants CSIC and The Canadian Association of
Professional Immigration Consultants CAPIC. The Federal Government and in particular Canada
Immigration has not taken this serious steps to address private acts of violence against
thousands of Immigration Practitioners across Canada and Abroad. Creating unconstitutional
amendments to IRPA, has caused a major problem to thousands of practitioners.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Respect for the Integrity of the Immigration Practitioners, Including Freedom From:
a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
There are many reports of political killings to the immigration practice and abuse to Canadians
Representatives.
Since October of 2005, Many Movement Action Justice, a discrimination watchdog groups, called
for a public inquiry into the CSIC corruption and discrimination against its members, no action
was taken by former four Immigration Ministers including the current one Diane Finley.
In early 2007, One former CSIC member found not guilty of misrepresentation whom CSIC
executives allegedly and defamed his profession for more than two years in publishing his name
under suspended status.
In late 2005, One former CSIC member and CAPIC member attacked viciously world wide and
sued for expressing her thoughts and opinions after CSIC former chair announced his resignation
due to Internal mismanagement and Financial fraud.
In June of 2006, CSIC published more than 962 members names under revoked or suspended
membership and were portrayed for not meeting the membership criteria- Although these
members did not write the exams. So the knowledge of skills and qualification were not being
examined by the regulator but caused a massive defamation of the professional characters as are
not in good standing practitioners.
b. Disappearance
There are hundreds of complaints were reported by the Current CSIC CEO and Chairperson of
politically motivated disappearances of the consumer complaints due to the non existence of
mechanism disciplinary for two years. It was reported to the Standing Committee of Policy and
Justice in Toronto early this year.
c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The Canadian law prohibits such practices, and the Federal Government did not observed these
prohibitions in practice by CSIC and CAPIC executives to its members; however, there were
more than 900 isolated incidents of CSIC and CAPIC mistreating Practitioners and calling them
names with constant global attacks to their welfare- well being, and their lives including their
profession and practice.
The CSIC and CAPIC continued to receive complaints from consumers against their own
members and were all ignored, but other practitioners whom are CSIC and CAPIC members
serving in the CSIC and CAPIC membership who charged with misrepresentation or defamed thesociety that they were subject to discrimination and attacks with public abuse, harassment, and
discrimination to their characters.
CSIP Human Rights Watch report alleged that, in an anti-narcotics operation in CSIC and CAPIC,
Executive officers violated the due process rights of suspending members through excessive use
of force throughout the CIC inland offices and Overseas visa offices, illegal suspensionsrevocations,
and harassment to members is still taken place to date.
The CSIC -CAPIC and CIC Federal Government have failed to response to CSIP as the human
rights observers who is acting according to the United Nation provision to look into the matter but
cause further abuses.
d. Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile
The law prohibits arbitrary revocations, suspension, or defamation of any Canadian citizen, and
the Federal Government did not observed CSIC and CAPIC prohibitions in this type of practice.
The CSIC, at arm and length body from the Federal Immigration Ministry of the Federal
Government, is a national, federal, provincial, and municipal body. It provides complete
Immigration federal regulatory service throughout the country and also provides membership
services under Contribution Agreement with Canada Immigration to contract practitioners from
the 3 territories, 9 provinces excluding (Quebec), and approximately 198 municipalities across
Canada to have their members filed for Immigration Business licenses.
CSIP law suit is announced as believed to be that a criminal offence may have been committed
by the Federal Regulator (CSIC) and its Associate (CAPIC) against minorities in Canada.
The law prohibits forced discrimination against Canadian Citizens.
f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy of Immigration Practitioners in Canada
The Canadian aw prohibits such practices by any federal or Provincial body, and the CSIC
-CAPIC and CIC Government failed to respect these prohibitions in the Immigration
practice.
A 2004-2006 CSIC anti- discrimination that expanded against the regulatory CSIC and several
court challenges were faced with from the LSUC- Chinese Community, including a case before
the Supreme Court of Ontario that involved another challenge from CSIP in Counter Claim in
defamation case of 1, 250, 000.00.
Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom of Speech and Press
The Canadian law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the Government needs
to respect these rights in immigration practice too; however, the Supreme Court has ruled in the
past that the Government may limit free speech in the name of goals such as ending
discrimination, ensuring social harmony, or promoting gender equality. The Court also ruled in the
past that the benefits of limiting hate speech and promoting equality are sufficient to outweigh the
freedom of speech clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Some restrictions on the media - Lobbying - Advocacy are imposed by provincial-level filmcensorship, broadcasters' voluntary codes curbing graphic violence, and laws against hate
literature and pornography. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for free speech and
free press, but both the Criminal Code and human rights legislation have established limits.
Inciting hatred (in certain cases) or genocide is a criminal offence. The Supreme Court has set a
high threshold for such cases by specifying that these acts must be proven to be wilful and public.
The Broadcasting Act, which prohibits programming containing any abusive comment that would
expose individuals or groups to hatred or contempt, will be challenged in the courts soon by this
class action.
CSIP Is seeking and will challenge the issues of concerns in using the Human Rights Act as it
prohibits repeated telephone communications between CAPIC and CSIC executives using any
electronic devices between two organizations that expose a former practitioners or former
members or groups or another organizations to hatred or contempt by current CSIC and CAPIC
members.
CSIP will also challenge and seek to show that under the Canadian Human Right provision that
CSIC and CAPIC used the Internet through their own members emails and and CSIC and CAPIC
its own websites, started as of in June 2005 to date to target former members and attack them in
discriminatory and racially manner,
CSIP will seek from the court to challenge the CSIC and CAPIC executives false complaints sent
to Shaw cable to shutdown of an anti-Semitic website or email addresses or internet lines of
former members as part of the discriminatory attack against its former members who were the
target of the CSIC and CAPIC website.
CSIP will be challenging in this class action against CSIC and CAPIC executives to have Shaw
Cable head office responded to several false complaints and have The Federal Government
intervention to restrict former members access to their personal Internet that caused the Federal
regulatory body and its associate to have the Federal Government indeed restrict academic
freedom of Former Members of CSIC and CAPIC.
b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
CSIP believes that The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been abused and is no longer
provides for these rights to Canadian Immigration Practitioners, and the CSIC -CAPIC and CIC
Government supported such abuse and did not respect them in practice.
CSIP believes that the number of reported incidents of harassment of Immigration Practitioners in
Canada has increased and is supported by Canada Immigration. The Federal Government failed
to refrain from prejudice against Immigration Practitioners who are no longer CSIC members or
other persons on the basis of their Minorities, Languages beliefs, ethnic heritage, or cultural
differences. Canada Immigration and its secretariat director on regulating Immigration
Consultants Mark Davidson did not investigate any complaint he received since November 2005
by any former CSIC members and encouraged anti-non CSIC members actions by CSIC and
CAPIC executives.
d. Freedom of Movement within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration Practice, and
Repatriation
The Canadian law provides for these rights for all Canadians, and CAPIC And CSIC and CIChave failed to respect them in practice.
The Right of Canadian Citizens to Change their Regulatory body as they have the right to
change their Government
The Constitution provides citizens with the right to change their government or their regulator
body peacefully, and Canadian citizens exercised this right in practice through periodic, free, and
fair elections held on the basis of universal suffrage.
Between the period of April 2004 and April 2006, CSIC had self - elected - election in 2004 and
partially general election in June 2006 , the former Executives of AICC and OPIC (CAPIC) won a
majority under self election with full access to the password of the election procedure which the
election can be manipulated by the CSIC Executives. Thereby earning status and rights as the
members Opposition in CSIC was not permitted by CSIC current Executives. In April 2006, the
victory of self elected election ended with new three directors of rule by the CSIC by-laws which
advocated to keep AICC former Executives in Power. There were by- laws in CSIC limiting the
participation of minorities or Members with English second language speaking or transitional
members in CSIC membership. The directors of CSIC were and still formers of AICC executives.
CSIP Alleged Violations of Human Rights that CAPIC -CSIC and CIC Attitude Regarding
International and Non governmental Practitioners or Non CSIC or Non CAPIC members. A wide
variety of human rights groups communicated with CSIC -CAPIC and CIC and operated without
government restriction, investigating and publishing their findings on human rights against CSIC
mandate and By -laws was ignored by the executives and the Immigration federal and Provincial
Ministry of the Federal Government officials were not cooperative or responsive to CSIP views.
Discrimination Based on Race, Language, or Social Status
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for equal benefits and protection of the law
regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, color, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. These
rights generally were respected in practice.
Practitioners who fall within the Minorities groups with English second Language
The Canadian law prohibits violence against Minorities groups with English second Language;
however, it remained a problem with CAPIC and CSIC mandate. The economic costs of
discrimination against Minorities groups with English second Language were estimated at (Cdn
$1.2 billion loss for the Immigration industry for one year in loss of their practice). Canada
Immigration Services were not available to abused Minorities groups of Immigration Practitioners
with English second Language which have increased significantly over the past 2 years since
CSIC and CAPIC creations, and there are more than 1000 practitioners are out of practice since
November 2005 andleft CSIC membership.
The Criminal Code prohibits criminal harassment (stalking) and makes it punishable by
imprisonment for up to 5 years. The Canadian law prohibits harassment, and the regulatory body
CSIC and CAPIC and the Federal Immigration Government failed to enforce this provision
against CSIC and CAPIC executives and CSIC and CAPIC members who continued attacking
non CSIC and non CAPIC members by all means of communications with authorities and
submission false reporting's against the former members.Former CSIC and Capic member's
continued to complain of harassment, and CAPIC and CSIC and the CIC Government failed to
establish mechanisms to resolve such complaints but in fact aggravated the false complaints.Immigration Practitioners were not represented well in the Immigration labour force, including
Canadian- Immigration or foreign immigration business who represent clients before the
Canadian Immigration Minister and the professions.
Immigration Practitioners
The Federal Government - CSIC and CAPIC Executives did not demonstrate any commitment to
Immigration Practitioners 's rights and welfare through its tax payer well-funded systems by the
initial capital granted to CSIC. Immigration Education program became too expensive and
mandatory to all immigration practitioners and not an optional but to attend restricted chosen
institution that were selected by the body in order to receive commission from each practitioner
enrolment. The Federal and provincial regulations did not protect the Immigration Practitioners
from CAPIC or CSIC abuse to their members, overworked with needless study, and increase in
discrimination and penalize perpetrators of such offences for Practitioners who refused to enrol in
the selected Immigration Programs.
National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities
The 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the linguistic and cultural rights of minorities
and established English and French as the country's two official languages. Despite the federal
policy of bilingualism, English and French speakers in Canada and in other parts of the country
generally lived and worked in the language of the majority. The provinces may grant French or
English the status of an official language. Only New Brunswick has granted the two languages
equal status. The Charter of the French Language in Quebec makes French the official language
of the province and requires the use of French in commerce, the workplace, education, and
government. Minority language rights are secured by law in Quebec's Charter of the French
Language.
The English-speaking minority in Canada, representing 81 percent of the population of Canada
and continued to protest restrictions placed on English-language use within the ethnicity
communities.. CSIC with CAPIC support have imposed the high standard requirement to meet
certain level of language as part of the membership requirement to eliminate the practice of
ethnic Practitioners.
Worker ( Immigration Practitioners ) Rights
a. The Right of Association
Except for members of the armed forces and some police, Non CSIC practitioners in both the
public and private sectors have the right to associate freely, and they exercised this right. The
Labour Code protects these rights for all employees under federal jurisdiction, while provincial
legislation protects all other organized Former CSIC practitioners.
Former CSIC practitioners in both the public (except for some police) and the private sectors
have the right to organize and bargain collectively. While the law protects collective bargaining,
there are limitations, which vary from province to province, for some public sector and former
CSIC practitioners.
The law prohibits anti- discrimination and requires Regulator and Government office to reinstate
Former CSIC practitioners revocation for protesting against CSIC corruptions. Canada
Immigration - CSIC and CAPIC have not shown any effective mechanisms for resolvingcomplaints and obtaining redress to this issue.
CSIP will be seeking to have CSIC current members be represented by the labour unions and
have full access to mediation, arbitration, and the judicial system and to be free to affiliate with
local - national and international organizations ( other Regulators) .
b.The Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively
All former CSIC practitioners have the right to strike against CSIC and CAPIC by-laws. The law
prohibits employer - association with membership or Regulators retribution against protest or
members, CAPI, CSIC and CIC Government failed to enforce this provision in immigration
practitioners practice.
Practitioners actions against Regulator internal mismanagement, including protesting, occurred
throughout the country during the year 2005-2006-2007. The CAPIC- CSIC and CIC Government
came to a resolution to ignore the concerns of 1000 former CSIC practitioners and attack them
with more discriminatory attitude in May 11, 2007 during CSIC national conference after an
almost year-long protest, and 1000 former CSIC member continued to be revoked- suspended
and defamed in the international arena.
The CSIP lawsuit will include the complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Act of 1934 by the making of materially false and misleading statements
concerning CSIC and CAPIC's operations and financial condition which caused CSIC
and CAPIC's membership to trade at artificially inflated membership Fees during the
period of April 13, 2004 - April 13, 2006.
The Complaint also alleges that throughout the protesting period against the CSIC
mandate and frequent change of By-law in CSIC, CSIC with CAPIC support and CIC
International endorsement deceived clients and members and falsified CSIC policies
and By-laws in Elections and Positions and financial statements. More specifically, CSIP
will be alleging that the defendants
(a) coerced CSIC and CAPIC members to fraudulently inflate membership charges to
members to cover the cost of defective and mismanagement society ; and
(b) pressured members who complained about excessive charges by threatening to revoke
their membership if they voice out or make a complaint against CSIC executives.
This action seeks to recover damages on behalf of defrauded former CSIC members who
purchased CSIC and CAPIC membership during the period of 2004-2007.
Plaintiff ( 1000 members) is represented by xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a law firm possessing
significant experience and expertise in prosecuting class actions on behalf of defrauded
shareholders or members of any organization in federal and provincial courts throughout
Canada. Weiss & Lurie has been appointed by numerous courts to serve as lead counselin class action lawsuits and in that capacity has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars
on behalf of members or employees.
If you purchased CSIC and CAPIC membership between April 13 , 2004 and April 13
2006, you may move the Court no later than 2007, to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class.
In order to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing
the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, CSIP is asking the Court to
determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class members will adequately represent the class. Under certain
circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." CSIP
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a
lead plaintiff. You may retain Weiss & Lurie or other counsel of your choice to serve as
your counsel in this action.
If you wish to receive an former CISC members package or if you wish to discuss this
action with CSIP, have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests
with respect to this matter, or if you have any information you wish to provide to us,contact information@csip.ca
Without Prejudice
Vancouver, BC, Canada -- A massive class-action lawsuit against CSIC and CAPIC.
Discrimination case -in class action lawsuits and in that capacity has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of members or employees.
If you purchased CSIC and CAPIC membership between April 13 , 2004 and April 13
2006, you may move the Court no later than 2007, to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class.
In order to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing
the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, CSIP is asking the Court to
determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class members will adequately represent the class. Under certain
circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." CSIP
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a
lead plaintiff. You may retain Weiss & Lurie or other counsel of your choice to serve as
your counsel in this action.
If you wish to receive an former CISC members package or if you wish to discuss this
action with CSIP, have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests
with respect to this matter, or if you have any information you wish to provide to us,
please contact:
CSIP the Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners legal section, (604) 601-8264 or
fax (604) 582-4898, via Internet electronic mail at info@csip.com
COPYRIGHT 2007 CSIP legal section
CSIP to Announce National Class Action against The Canadian Society of Immigration
Consultants CSIC and The Canadian Association of Professional Immigration
Consultants CAPIC for 1 billion dollars lawsuit -
1000 of former CSIC and CAPIC members agreed to launch a Class action against CSIC
and CAPIC former and current executives for discrimination against ethnic practitioners
for causing massive loss to their immigration practice- Writ of Summon and statement of
claim will be served upon the defendants in due course - Details are coming shortly
CSIC and CAPIC, ("CSIC and CAPIC" or the "Society - Association or Companies")
and certain of its officers and directors will be commenced in BC Supreme Court, on
behalf of former members of CSIC and CAPIC. If you were member of these two
organization between the period of April 13, 2004 and April 13, 2006, please read this
notice.
Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a federal parliamentary form of government. Canadian
Citizens periodically choose their representatives in free and fair multiparty elections whether in
Government- or private,
Federal, provincial, and municipal police forces have responsibility for law enforcement and
maintenance of order. Elected civilian officials in a federal regulatory body must maintain an
effective control and communicate with these forces based on legitimate claims. There are
massive reporting that security forces at the Federal level committed human rights abuses to
thousands of Immigration Practitioners across Canada upon false complaints by the Regulator
CSIC and its association CAPIC which is supported by Canada Immigration office.
The country has a highly developed, market-based economy and a population of approximately
31.6 million. Canadian Laws extensively do protect also the well-being of former CSIC
practitioners- who are recognized professionals under the provincial laws and provide for'
freedom of association.
The Federal Government is required generally to respect the human rights of its Canadian
citizens, and the law and judiciary across this nation needs to provide effective means for dealing
with individual instances of abuse; however, We are challenging now large problems in the
Immigration areas. Problems included discrimination against ethnic women, men (persons) with
English as second Language - . There have been a large increase in the number of reportedincidents of anti-Semitic and anti-Immigration representative harassment made by Executives of
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants CSIC and The Canadian Association of
Professional Immigration Consultants CAPIC. The Federal Government and in particular Canada
Immigration has not taken this serious steps to address private acts of violence against
thousands of Immigration Practitioners across Canada and Abroad. Creating unconstitutional
amendments to IRPA, has caused a major problem to thousands of practitioners.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Respect for the Integrity of the Immigration Practitioners, Including Freedom From:
a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
There are many reports of political killings to the immigration practice and abuse to Canadians
Representatives.
Since October of 2005, Many Movement Action Justice, a discrimination watchdog groups, called
for a public inquiry into the CSIC corruption and discrimination against its members, no action
was taken by former four Immigration Ministers including the current one Diane Finley.
In early 2007, One former CSIC member found not guilty of misrepresentation whom CSIC
executives allegedly and defamed his profession for more than two years in publishing his name
under suspended status.
In late 2005, One former CSIC member and CAPIC member attacked viciously world wide and
sued for expressing her thoughts and opinions after CSIC former chair announced his resignation
due to Internal mismanagement and Financial fraud.
In June of 2006, CSIC published more than 962 members names under revoked or suspended
membership and were portrayed for not meeting the membership criteria- Although these
members did not write the exams. So the knowledge of skills and qualification were not being
examined by the regulator but caused a massive defamation of the professional characters as are
not in good standing practitioners.
b. Disappearance
There are hundreds of complaints were reported by the Current CSIC CEO and Chairperson of
politically motivated disappearances of the consumer complaints due to the non existence of
mechanism disciplinary for two years. It was reported to the Standing Committee of Policy and
Justice in Toronto early this year.
c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The Canadian law prohibits such practices, and the Federal Government did not observed these
prohibitions in practice by CSIC and CAPIC executives to its members; however, there were
more than 900 isolated incidents of CSIC and CAPIC mistreating Practitioners and calling them
names with constant global attacks to their welfare- well being, and their lives including their
profession and practice.
The CSIC and CAPIC continued to receive complaints from consumers against their own
members and were all ignored, but other practitioners whom are CSIC and CAPIC members
serving in the CSIC and CAPIC membership who charged with misrepresentation or defamed thesociety that they were subject to discrimination and attacks with public abuse, harassment, and
discrimination to their characters.
CSIP Human Rights Watch report alleged that, in an anti-narcotics operation in CSIC and CAPIC,
Executive officers violated the due process rights of suspending members through excessive use
of force throughout the CIC inland offices and Overseas visa offices, illegal suspensionsrevocations,
and harassment to members is still taken place to date.
The CSIC -CAPIC and CIC Federal Government have failed to response to CSIP as the human
rights observers who is acting according to the United Nation provision to look into the matter but
cause further abuses.
d. Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile
The law prohibits arbitrary revocations, suspension, or defamation of any Canadian citizen, and
the Federal Government did not observed CSIC and CAPIC prohibitions in this type of practice.
The CSIC, at arm and length body from the Federal Immigration Ministry of the Federal
Government, is a national, federal, provincial, and municipal body. It provides complete
Immigration federal regulatory service throughout the country and also provides membership
services under Contribution Agreement with Canada Immigration to contract practitioners from
the 3 territories, 9 provinces excluding (Quebec), and approximately 198 municipalities across
Canada to have their members filed for Immigration Business licenses.
CSIP law suit is announced as believed to be that a criminal offence may have been committed
by the Federal Regulator (CSIC) and its Associate (CAPIC) against minorities in Canada.
The law prohibits forced discrimination against Canadian Citizens.
f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy of Immigration Practitioners in Canada
The Canadian aw prohibits such practices by any federal or Provincial body, and the CSIC
-CAPIC and CIC Government failed to respect these prohibitions in the Immigration
practice.
A 2004-2006 CSIC anti- discrimination that expanded against the regulatory CSIC and several
court challenges were faced with from the LSUC- Chinese Community, including a case before
the Supreme Court of Ontario that involved another challenge from CSIP in Counter Claim in
defamation case of 1, 250, 000.00.
Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom of Speech and Press
The Canadian law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the Government needs
to respect these rights in immigration practice too; however, the Supreme Court has ruled in the
past that the Government may limit free speech in the name of goals such as ending
discrimination, ensuring social harmony, or promoting gender equality. The Court also ruled in the
past that the benefits of limiting hate speech and promoting equality are sufficient to outweigh the
freedom of speech clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Some restrictions on the media - Lobbying - Advocacy are imposed by provincial-level filmcensorship, broadcasters' voluntary codes curbing graphic violence, and laws against hate
literature and pornography. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for free speech and
free press, but both the Criminal Code and human rights legislation have established limits.
Inciting hatred (in certain cases) or genocide is a criminal offence. The Supreme Court has set a
high threshold for such cases by specifying that these acts must be proven to be wilful and public.
The Broadcasting Act, which prohibits programming containing any abusive comment that would
expose individuals or groups to hatred or contempt, will be challenged in the courts soon by this
class action.
CSIP Is seeking and will challenge the issues of concerns in using the Human Rights Act as it
prohibits repeated telephone communications between CAPIC and CSIC executives using any
electronic devices between two organizations that expose a former practitioners or former
members or groups or another organizations to hatred or contempt by current CSIC and CAPIC
members.
CSIP will also challenge and seek to show that under the Canadian Human Right provision that
CSIC and CAPIC used the Internet through their own members emails and and CSIC and CAPIC
its own websites, started as of in June 2005 to date to target former members and attack them in
discriminatory and racially manner,
CSIP will seek from the court to challenge the CSIC and CAPIC executives false complaints sent
to Shaw cable to shutdown of an anti-Semitic website or email addresses or internet lines of
former members as part of the discriminatory attack against its former members who were the
target of the CSIC and CAPIC website.
CSIP will be challenging in this class action against CSIC and CAPIC executives to have Shaw
Cable head office responded to several false complaints and have The Federal Government
intervention to restrict former members access to their personal Internet that caused the Federal
regulatory body and its associate to have the Federal Government indeed restrict academic
freedom of Former Members of CSIC and CAPIC.
b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
CSIP believes that The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been abused and is no longer
provides for these rights to Canadian Immigration Practitioners, and the CSIC -CAPIC and CIC
Government supported such abuse and did not respect them in practice.
CSIP believes that the number of reported incidents of harassment of Immigration Practitioners in
Canada has increased and is supported by Canada Immigration. The Federal Government failed
to refrain from prejudice against Immigration Practitioners who are no longer CSIC members or
other persons on the basis of their Minorities, Languages beliefs, ethnic heritage, or cultural
differences. Canada Immigration and its secretariat director on regulating Immigration
Consultants Mark Davidson did not investigate any complaint he received since November 2005
by any former CSIC members and encouraged anti-non CSIC members actions by CSIC and
CAPIC executives.
d. Freedom of Movement within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration Practice, and
Repatriation
The Canadian law provides for these rights for all Canadians, and CAPIC And CSIC and CIChave failed to respect them in practice.
The Right of Canadian Citizens to Change their Regulatory body as they have the right to
change their Government
The Constitution provides citizens with the right to change their government or their regulator
body peacefully, and Canadian citizens exercised this right in practice through periodic, free, and
fair elections held on the basis of universal suffrage.
Between the period of April 2004 and April 2006, CSIC had self - elected - election in 2004 and
partially general election in June 2006 , the former Executives of AICC and OPIC (CAPIC) won a
majority under self election with full access to the password of the election procedure which the
election can be manipulated by the CSIC Executives. Thereby earning status and rights as the
members Opposition in CSIC was not permitted by CSIC current Executives. In April 2006, the
victory of self elected election ended with new three directors of rule by the CSIC by-laws which
advocated to keep AICC former Executives in Power. There were by- laws in CSIC limiting the
participation of minorities or Members with English second language speaking or transitional
members in CSIC membership. The directors of CSIC were and still formers of AICC executives.
CSIP Alleged Violations of Human Rights that CAPIC -CSIC and CIC Attitude Regarding
International and Non governmental Practitioners or Non CSIC or Non CAPIC members. A wide
variety of human rights groups communicated with CSIC -CAPIC and CIC and operated without
government restriction, investigating and publishing their findings on human rights against CSIC
mandate and By -laws was ignored by the executives and the Immigration federal and Provincial
Ministry of the Federal Government officials were not cooperative or responsive to CSIP views.
Discrimination Based on Race, Language, or Social Status
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for equal benefits and protection of the law
regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, color, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. These
rights generally were respected in practice.
Practitioners who fall within the Minorities groups with English second Language
The Canadian law prohibits violence against Minorities groups with English second Language;
however, it remained a problem with CAPIC and CSIC mandate. The economic costs of
discrimination against Minorities groups with English second Language were estimated at (Cdn
$1.2 billion loss for the Immigration industry for one year in loss of their practice). Canada
Immigration Services were not available to abused Minorities groups of Immigration Practitioners
with English second Language which have increased significantly over the past 2 years since
CSIC and CAPIC creations, and there are more than 1000 practitioners are out of practice since
November 2005 andleft CSIC membership.
The Criminal Code prohibits criminal harassment (stalking) and makes it punishable by
imprisonment for up to 5 years. The Canadian law prohibits harassment, and the regulatory body
CSIC and CAPIC and the Federal Immigration Government failed to enforce this provision
against CSIC and CAPIC executives and CSIC and CAPIC members who continued attacking
non CSIC and non CAPIC members by all means of communications with authorities and
submission false reporting's against the former members.Former CSIC and Capic member's
continued to complain of harassment, and CAPIC and CSIC and the CIC Government failed to
establish mechanisms to resolve such complaints but in fact aggravated the false complaints.Immigration Practitioners were not represented well in the Immigration labour force, including
Canadian- Immigration or foreign immigration business who represent clients before the
Canadian Immigration Minister and the professions.
Immigration Practitioners
The Federal Government - CSIC and CAPIC Executives did not demonstrate any commitment to
Immigration Practitioners 's rights and welfare through its tax payer well-funded systems by the
initial capital granted to CSIC. Immigration Education program became too expensive and
mandatory to all immigration practitioners and not an optional but to attend restricted chosen
institution that were selected by the body in order to receive commission from each practitioner
enrolment. The Federal and provincial regulations did not protect the Immigration Practitioners
from CAPIC or CSIC abuse to their members, overworked with needless study, and increase in
discrimination and penalize perpetrators of such offences for Practitioners who refused to enrol in
the selected Immigration Programs.
National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities
The 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the linguistic and cultural rights of minorities
and established English and French as the country's two official languages. Despite the federal
policy of bilingualism, English and French speakers in Canada and in other parts of the country
generally lived and worked in the language of the majority. The provinces may grant French or
English the status of an official language. Only New Brunswick has granted the two languages
equal status. The Charter of the French Language in Quebec makes French the official language
of the province and requires the use of French in commerce, the workplace, education, and
government. Minority language rights are secured by law in Quebec's Charter of the French
Language.
The English-speaking minority in Canada, representing 81 percent of the population of Canada
and continued to protest restrictions placed on English-language use within the ethnicity
communities.. CSIC with CAPIC support have imposed the high standard requirement to meet
certain level of language as part of the membership requirement to eliminate the practice of
ethnic Practitioners.
Worker ( Immigration Practitioners ) Rights
a. The Right of Association
Except for members of the armed forces and some police, Non CSIC practitioners in both the
public and private sectors have the right to associate freely, and they exercised this right. The
Labour Code protects these rights for all employees under federal jurisdiction, while provincial
legislation protects all other organized Former CSIC practitioners.
Former CSIC practitioners in both the public (except for some police) and the private sectors
have the right to organize and bargain collectively. While the law protects collective bargaining,
there are limitations, which vary from province to province, for some public sector and former
CSIC practitioners.
The law prohibits anti- discrimination and requires Regulator and Government office to reinstate
Former CSIC practitioners revocation for protesting against CSIC corruptions. Canada
Immigration - CSIC and CAPIC have not shown any effective mechanisms for resolvingcomplaints and obtaining redress to this issue.
CSIP will be seeking to have CSIC current members be represented by the labour unions and
have full access to mediation, arbitration, and the judicial system and to be free to affiliate with
local - national and international organizations ( other Regulators) .
b.The Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively
All former CSIC practitioners have the right to strike against CSIC and CAPIC by-laws. The law
prohibits employer - association with membership or Regulators retribution against protest or
members, CAPI, CSIC and CIC Government failed to enforce this provision in immigration
practitioners practice.
Practitioners actions against Regulator internal mismanagement, including protesting, occurred
throughout the country during the year 2005-2006-2007. The CAPIC- CSIC and CIC Government
came to a resolution to ignore the concerns of 1000 former CSIC practitioners and attack them
with more discriminatory attitude in May 11, 2007 during CSIC national conference after an
almost year-long protest, and 1000 former CSIC member continued to be revoked- suspended
and defamed in the international arena.
The CSIP lawsuit will include the complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Act of 1934 by the making of materially false and misleading statements
concerning CSIC and CAPIC's operations and financial condition which caused CSIC
and CAPIC's membership to trade at artificially inflated membership Fees during the
period of April 13, 2004 - April 13, 2006.
The Complaint also alleges that throughout the protesting period against the CSIC
mandate and frequent change of By-law in CSIC, CSIC with CAPIC support and CIC
International endorsement deceived clients and members and falsified CSIC policies
and By-laws in Elections and Positions and financial statements. More specifically, CSIP
will be alleging that the defendants
(a) coerced CSIC and CAPIC members to fraudulently inflate membership charges to
members to cover the cost of defective and mismanagement society ; and
(b) pressured members who complained about excessive charges by threatening to revoke
their membership if they voice out or make a complaint against CSIC executives.
This action seeks to recover damages on behalf of defrauded former CSIC members who
purchased CSIC and CAPIC membership during the period of 2004-2007.
Plaintiff ( 1000 members) is represented by xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a law firm possessing
significant experience and expertise in prosecuting class actions on behalf of defrauded
shareholders or members of any organization in federal and provincial courts throughout
Canada. Weiss & Lurie has been appointed by numerous courts to serve as lead counselin class action lawsuits and in that capacity has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars
on behalf of members or employees.
If you purchased CSIC and CAPIC membership between April 13 , 2004 and April 13
2006, you may move the Court no later than 2007, to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class.
In order to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing
the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, CSIP is asking the Court to
determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class members will adequately represent the class. Under certain
circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." CSIP
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a
lead plaintiff. You may retain Weiss & Lurie or other counsel of your choice to serve as
your counsel in this action.
If you wish to receive an former CISC members package or if you wish to discuss this
action with CSIP, have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests
with respect to this matter, or if you have any information you wish to provide to us,contact information@csip.ca
Reminder from Sep 2004 Immigration consultants' group sparks anger
Immigration consultants' group sparks anger
Nico
Full Version: Immigration
Consultants
SACanada Forums > Immigration > General
Sep 30 2004, 07:53 AM
Immigration consultants' group sparks anger
Law societies argue that CSIC fails to fully protect would-be Canadians from sometimes
negligent advice, BEPPI CROSARIOL writes
When the Law Society of Upper Canada issued a plan last week for regulating paralegals in
Ontario, it was a major milestone in a 20-year campaign to bring non-lawyers into the
sphere of public accountability.
But in the eyes of many lawyers, the plan (which still needs government approval) was
only a partial victory.
Conspicuously absent from the guidelines was any mention of one of the largest and most
established groups of paralegals -- immigration consultants.
That's because, as of last April, the policing of such individuals was pre-emptively usurped
by the federal government through a new and controversial body, the Canadian Society of
Immigration Consultants.
Created at the behest of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, CSIC sets out
national rules of conduct for 1,200-plus immigration consultants who have so far signed up
as members, as well as prerequisites such as malpractice insurance and contributions to a
victim compensation fund.
Although the federal government says the system is working splendidly, the country's
provincial and territorial law societies -- which have the statutory right to regulate legal
services in Canada -- consider that body an affront to their jurisdiction.
"I call it sea sick, as in a bad boat ride," says Wendy Danson, chairwoman of the national
citizenship and immigration law section of the Canadian Bar Association, referring to the
CSIC acronym's pronunciation.
Lawyers argue that the new body fails to fully protect consumers from the sometimes
shady or incompetent practices of non-lawyers who provide negligent advice to would-be
Canadians. Some lawyers, in fact, resent the mere existence of immigration consultants
who compete with them and charge comparable fees but lack their legal training.
The main issue now is the fact the federal government is not permitted by law to punish or
curtail the practices of incompetent consultants who refuse to join CSIC -- there are
hundreds more who haven't become members -- and who, nonetheless, set up shop and
charge money for, say, counselling and preparing immigration documents.
All the government can do is require consultants to be members of CSIC if they want to
make representations directly to the federal Citizenship and Immigration Department.
"It's fairly new and . . . fairly toothless. It just doesn't have much going for it right now,"
Ms. Danson says.Legal associations say the model is fundamentally flawed because it lacks the punch to
discipline shady operators who may purport to be qualified consultants. Law societies, by
contrast, have the legal mandate to punish impostors who try to do the work of lawyers.
"I'm not questioning the motives of CSIC, I'm expressing a concern as to the legality of the
arrangement that has been struck between the department and CSIC," says Malcolm Heins,
chief executive officer of the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Ms. Danson, who also is an immigration lawyer with McCuaig Desrochers LLP in Edmonton,
says that by providing a link to CSIC on the Citizenship and Immigration website, and by
conferring official status to immigration consultants, the government is in effect endorsing
their services at the expense of highly trained lawyers.
"I think immigration law is second only to tax law in terms of its complexity," she says.
"It's clear that consultants can't go into court but they can certainly do a lot of damage
before [a case] gets there. And it's unsupervised, that's the problem. There's nobody
looking over their shoulder."
That complaint is shared by Diane Bourque, executive director of the Federation of Law
Societies of Canada in Montreal. "The Canadian government has basically rubber-stamped
the qualifications of immigration consultants but lawyers do not receive the same kind of
treatment by the government."
Benjamin Trister, CSIC's chairman and a partner at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP in Toronto,
says the protest is off-base and irrational. He counters that membership requirements in
CSIC are no less stringent than those being proposed for paralegals in Ontario, which
largely mirror the rules that govern lawyers. "Our code of conduct is so similar to the law
society's code of conduct that we had to get their permission to use a lot of their text."
In addition, CSIC members must also be Canadian citizens or permanent residents, pass
entrance exams, be covered by errors and omissions insurance and be competent in
English or French.
Mr. Trister adds that federal regulation also makes enormous practical sense, particularly
given that no province has yet to regulate immigration consultants.
If regulation is left to the provinces, he says, "there's no guarantee that all the provinces
will regulate all the paralegals there, whereas federal regulation in the immigration area
ensures that everyone is covered."
It would also be economically foolish for each province and territory to set up a separate
regulatory authority and investigative capacity for what may amount to a few hundred
consultants, at most, in each jurisdiction, he says. "The economies of scale would be shot
to hell if a province sticks its foot in this door."
Besides, without a single, federal website listing all the certified consultants, would-be
immigrants would face the confusing task of going province by province to verify whether
someone they want to hire is certified in Canada. "Our response is that provincial
regulation of paralegals in a federal area runs counter to consumer protection. It's bad for
consumers," Mr. Trister says.
The other problem with provincial regulation, Mr. Trister says, is that law societies have no
jurisdiction over consultants working overseas. By making CSIC membership a prerequisite
for dealing with the government, those foreigners will effectively be shut out of the system.
For its part, the government says it's pleased with CSIC's first six months. "It was created
to solve a lot of problems, and it's made great progress in terms of improving consumer
protection in the immigration consultancy business," says Mark Davidson, executive
director of the secretariat on regulating immigration consultants, which is part of thenational headquarters of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
But law associations say they will continue to fight the CSIC model and look for ways to
bring rogue immigration consultants to accountability. "Our lobbying efforts with the
government will continue on strongly," Ms. Danson says.
Nico
Full Version: Immigration
Consultants
SACanada Forums > Immigration > General
Sep 30 2004, 07:53 AM
Immigration consultants' group sparks anger
Law societies argue that CSIC fails to fully protect would-be Canadians from sometimes
negligent advice, BEPPI CROSARIOL writes
When the Law Society of Upper Canada issued a plan last week for regulating paralegals in
Ontario, it was a major milestone in a 20-year campaign to bring non-lawyers into the
sphere of public accountability.
But in the eyes of many lawyers, the plan (which still needs government approval) was
only a partial victory.
Conspicuously absent from the guidelines was any mention of one of the largest and most
established groups of paralegals -- immigration consultants.
That's because, as of last April, the policing of such individuals was pre-emptively usurped
by the federal government through a new and controversial body, the Canadian Society of
Immigration Consultants.
Created at the behest of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, CSIC sets out
national rules of conduct for 1,200-plus immigration consultants who have so far signed up
as members, as well as prerequisites such as malpractice insurance and contributions to a
victim compensation fund.
Although the federal government says the system is working splendidly, the country's
provincial and territorial law societies -- which have the statutory right to regulate legal
services in Canada -- consider that body an affront to their jurisdiction.
"I call it sea sick, as in a bad boat ride," says Wendy Danson, chairwoman of the national
citizenship and immigration law section of the Canadian Bar Association, referring to the
CSIC acronym's pronunciation.
Lawyers argue that the new body fails to fully protect consumers from the sometimes
shady or incompetent practices of non-lawyers who provide negligent advice to would-be
Canadians. Some lawyers, in fact, resent the mere existence of immigration consultants
who compete with them and charge comparable fees but lack their legal training.
The main issue now is the fact the federal government is not permitted by law to punish or
curtail the practices of incompetent consultants who refuse to join CSIC -- there are
hundreds more who haven't become members -- and who, nonetheless, set up shop and
charge money for, say, counselling and preparing immigration documents.
All the government can do is require consultants to be members of CSIC if they want to
make representations directly to the federal Citizenship and Immigration Department.
"It's fairly new and . . . fairly toothless. It just doesn't have much going for it right now,"
Ms. Danson says.Legal associations say the model is fundamentally flawed because it lacks the punch to
discipline shady operators who may purport to be qualified consultants. Law societies, by
contrast, have the legal mandate to punish impostors who try to do the work of lawyers.
"I'm not questioning the motives of CSIC, I'm expressing a concern as to the legality of the
arrangement that has been struck between the department and CSIC," says Malcolm Heins,
chief executive officer of the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Ms. Danson, who also is an immigration lawyer with McCuaig Desrochers LLP in Edmonton,
says that by providing a link to CSIC on the Citizenship and Immigration website, and by
conferring official status to immigration consultants, the government is in effect endorsing
their services at the expense of highly trained lawyers.
"I think immigration law is second only to tax law in terms of its complexity," she says.
"It's clear that consultants can't go into court but they can certainly do a lot of damage
before [a case] gets there. And it's unsupervised, that's the problem. There's nobody
looking over their shoulder."
That complaint is shared by Diane Bourque, executive director of the Federation of Law
Societies of Canada in Montreal. "The Canadian government has basically rubber-stamped
the qualifications of immigration consultants but lawyers do not receive the same kind of
treatment by the government."
Benjamin Trister, CSIC's chairman and a partner at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP in Toronto,
says the protest is off-base and irrational. He counters that membership requirements in
CSIC are no less stringent than those being proposed for paralegals in Ontario, which
largely mirror the rules that govern lawyers. "Our code of conduct is so similar to the law
society's code of conduct that we had to get their permission to use a lot of their text."
In addition, CSIC members must also be Canadian citizens or permanent residents, pass
entrance exams, be covered by errors and omissions insurance and be competent in
English or French.
Mr. Trister adds that federal regulation also makes enormous practical sense, particularly
given that no province has yet to regulate immigration consultants.
If regulation is left to the provinces, he says, "there's no guarantee that all the provinces
will regulate all the paralegals there, whereas federal regulation in the immigration area
ensures that everyone is covered."
It would also be economically foolish for each province and territory to set up a separate
regulatory authority and investigative capacity for what may amount to a few hundred
consultants, at most, in each jurisdiction, he says. "The economies of scale would be shot
to hell if a province sticks its foot in this door."
Besides, without a single, federal website listing all the certified consultants, would-be
immigrants would face the confusing task of going province by province to verify whether
someone they want to hire is certified in Canada. "Our response is that provincial
regulation of paralegals in a federal area runs counter to consumer protection. It's bad for
consumers," Mr. Trister says.
The other problem with provincial regulation, Mr. Trister says, is that law societies have no
jurisdiction over consultants working overseas. By making CSIC membership a prerequisite
for dealing with the government, those foreigners will effectively be shut out of the system.
For its part, the government says it's pleased with CSIC's first six months. "It was created
to solve a lot of problems, and it's made great progress in terms of improving consumer
protection in the immigration consultancy business," says Mark Davidson, executive
director of the secretariat on regulating immigration consultants, which is part of thenational headquarters of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
But law associations say they will continue to fight the CSIC model and look for ways to
bring rogue immigration consultants to accountability. "Our lobbying efforts with the
government will continue on strongly," Ms. Danson says.
2 JULY 2010
CATHERINE MARX
Senior Policy Analyst
Social Policy and Programs – Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
CANADA GAZETTE
Vol. 144, No. 24 — 12 June 2010
GOVERNMENT NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
Dear Ms Marx:
Thank you for your clarification which I received by email.
Instead of presenting you with a policy white paper or full submission brief, I feel it is best not to duplicate the comments presented to your office by fellow stakeholders. In short, I will simply comment on under-discussed aspects of immigration consultancy regulation.
Even though I studied law in the UK and the US, I chose to qualify as an immigration consultant because I wanted to work immediately in the field without the delay caused by articling in a law firm. I have also worked as an immigration practitioner in both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, I bring both a legal and global perspective that is unique amongst my immigration consultant colleagues.
One of the congenital flaws of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) is the governance structure that the previous Government designed:
not only do the Bylaws give an unwise amount of discretion for the Board of Directors to disqualify member-proposed motions and member candidates, the very heart of CSIC’s constitutional crisis is its lack of accountability.(1). One of the selection criterion for a self-regulatory body should be the candidate organization’s proposed Accountability Structure.
The current regulatory organization has a shocking lack of accountability in which excessive penalties can be imposed by the registration staff with no appeal beyond the Registrar.
I would suggest that we adopt the Accountability model from the UK regulator, namely the Immigration Services Tribunal, which is an arms-length body that reports to the Ministry of Justice, is headed by a retired judge, is comprised of immigration consultants and stakeholders, and is tasked with the power to set aside or vary decisions of the Registrar of Immigration Consultants.
In short, the enumerated selection criteria for the self-regulatory agency should include a requirement to design an arms-length ombuds tribunal to whom consultants can appeal the decisions of the Registrar.
(2). An important selection criterion for the self-regulatory body should be the candidate organization’s proposal for Ministerial Oversight therefore bringing the self-regulation of immigration consultants under the scrutiny of Parliament.
During the debacle of CSIC’s replacement of self-regulation with self-aggrandizement, one of the most serious failures of Canadian civil society was the official indifference by both Ministerial staff and Members of Parliament. Complaints about both the principles and practices of CSIC were met with disclaimers that as a private corporation operating at arm’s length to the federal government, nothing could be done and therefore consultants should use “internal measures” to seek redress. The tragedy is that there were and are no internal measures; the previous Government had set up the Bylaws of CSIC in such a way that a self-seeking managerial group could dismiss any complaint, any member-proposed bylaw, and any appeal without formal review.
Moreover, if the Parliament of Canada mandates membership of CSIC as a condition for consultants to practice then there is the constitutional issue of giving a federal regulatory role to a private organization without providing federal oversight. This reaches to the level of legal unconscionability.Therefore, the enumerated selection criteria should require candidate bodies to design a governance structure that includes Ministerial Oversight so that the self-regulatory agency is answerable to Parliament and parliamentarians.
(3). A vital selection criterion for the self-regulatory body would be the aspirant organization’s demonstration that its candidacy commands the support of a majority of immigration consultants and therefore is truly self-regulatory.
Under the current regulatory regime, there is no self-regulation of and by immigration consultants. Canadian immigration consultants are regulated by former consultants that were appointed to the Board of Directors of CSIC by the previous Government who have used the Bylaws to cling to their authority. While CSIC’s governance principles are flawed, its governors are oppressive. The current managerial group compounds their personal thirst for positions of authority with a particularly short-sighted understanding of the regulatory mandate:
The “regulator” of a Self-regulating profession is not the same as the regulator of an industry such as public utilities or telecommunications companies. In those industries, the regulator is a government watchdog which exercises oversight in the public interest with legal authority as a counter-balance to the market power of the industry.
This watchdog/policeman model has been misapplied to immigration consultants and has created a situation in which the offices of CSIC have adopted a siege mentality in a war against the membership.
A self-regulatory agency is not a “regulator” from above—it is the practice of consultants regulating fellow-consultants.
In order to correct this misunderstanding of self-regulation by both the management and the membership of CSIC, it may be necessary for the new self-regulatory body to have a dual mandate of protection of the public interest (consumer protection) with supporting the development of the profession (consultant advocacy). There are precedents for this in other professions in Canada and more recently the Law Society of Scotland overwhelmingly voted to retain their “dual mandate” in Referendum 2:Should the Law Society of Scotland as statutory regulator continue to be responsible for promotion of the interests of, and the representation of, solicitors in Scotland?
Seventy-three percent of Scottish solicitors said yes.
Another aspect to consider is the electoral system for the new self-regulatory body and consultants would be wise to adopt the Law Society “bencher” model so that Directors are elected by their nominating regions and bring the concerns of their regions to the Board’s attention. The current CSIC arrangement is profoundly flawed.
Finally, any shortlisted candidate organization’s proposal for the self-regulatory role should be approved formally by the current membership of CSIC before being implemented by the Minister.
The enumerated selection criteria should require candidate bodies to prove that they understand self-regulation, require them to design a functional democracy, and insist that they seek a mandate from authorized consultants before the Minister will assign the self-regulatory role. In other words, the selection process must include a professional referendum.
In summary, I submit that the following areas of self-regulatory practice are under-discussed by my colleagues and immigration stakeholders:
An Ombudsperson Tribunal for immigration consultant appeals of Registrar decisions;
Ministerial Oversight so that Parliament and parliamentarians can communicate with the self-regulatory body; and
Balancing the public interest with professional advocacy in the Self-regulatory Mandate .
Finally, the Selection Criteria must include a requirement for any successful bid for the self-regulatory role to be approved by a majority of consultants in a professional referendum.
I thank you for the opportunity to register my comments on the profession of immigration consultancy.
I remain, yours sincerely,
Garreth Westwood, MA(Econ) CFP JD(Cand)
Accredited Immigration & Citizenship Law Practitioner
CATHERINE MARX
Senior Policy Analyst
Social Policy and Programs – Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
CANADA GAZETTE
Vol. 144, No. 24 — 12 June 2010
GOVERNMENT NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
Dear Ms Marx:
Thank you for your clarification which I received by email.
Instead of presenting you with a policy white paper or full submission brief, I feel it is best not to duplicate the comments presented to your office by fellow stakeholders. In short, I will simply comment on under-discussed aspects of immigration consultancy regulation.
Even though I studied law in the UK and the US, I chose to qualify as an immigration consultant because I wanted to work immediately in the field without the delay caused by articling in a law firm. I have also worked as an immigration practitioner in both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, I bring both a legal and global perspective that is unique amongst my immigration consultant colleagues.
One of the congenital flaws of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) is the governance structure that the previous Government designed:
not only do the Bylaws give an unwise amount of discretion for the Board of Directors to disqualify member-proposed motions and member candidates, the very heart of CSIC’s constitutional crisis is its lack of accountability.(1). One of the selection criterion for a self-regulatory body should be the candidate organization’s proposed Accountability Structure.
The current regulatory organization has a shocking lack of accountability in which excessive penalties can be imposed by the registration staff with no appeal beyond the Registrar.
I would suggest that we adopt the Accountability model from the UK regulator, namely the Immigration Services Tribunal, which is an arms-length body that reports to the Ministry of Justice, is headed by a retired judge, is comprised of immigration consultants and stakeholders, and is tasked with the power to set aside or vary decisions of the Registrar of Immigration Consultants.
In short, the enumerated selection criteria for the self-regulatory agency should include a requirement to design an arms-length ombuds tribunal to whom consultants can appeal the decisions of the Registrar.
(2). An important selection criterion for the self-regulatory body should be the candidate organization’s proposal for Ministerial Oversight therefore bringing the self-regulation of immigration consultants under the scrutiny of Parliament.
During the debacle of CSIC’s replacement of self-regulation with self-aggrandizement, one of the most serious failures of Canadian civil society was the official indifference by both Ministerial staff and Members of Parliament. Complaints about both the principles and practices of CSIC were met with disclaimers that as a private corporation operating at arm’s length to the federal government, nothing could be done and therefore consultants should use “internal measures” to seek redress. The tragedy is that there were and are no internal measures; the previous Government had set up the Bylaws of CSIC in such a way that a self-seeking managerial group could dismiss any complaint, any member-proposed bylaw, and any appeal without formal review.
Moreover, if the Parliament of Canada mandates membership of CSIC as a condition for consultants to practice then there is the constitutional issue of giving a federal regulatory role to a private organization without providing federal oversight. This reaches to the level of legal unconscionability.Therefore, the enumerated selection criteria should require candidate bodies to design a governance structure that includes Ministerial Oversight so that the self-regulatory agency is answerable to Parliament and parliamentarians.
(3). A vital selection criterion for the self-regulatory body would be the aspirant organization’s demonstration that its candidacy commands the support of a majority of immigration consultants and therefore is truly self-regulatory.
Under the current regulatory regime, there is no self-regulation of and by immigration consultants. Canadian immigration consultants are regulated by former consultants that were appointed to the Board of Directors of CSIC by the previous Government who have used the Bylaws to cling to their authority. While CSIC’s governance principles are flawed, its governors are oppressive. The current managerial group compounds their personal thirst for positions of authority with a particularly short-sighted understanding of the regulatory mandate:
The “regulator” of a Self-regulating profession is not the same as the regulator of an industry such as public utilities or telecommunications companies. In those industries, the regulator is a government watchdog which exercises oversight in the public interest with legal authority as a counter-balance to the market power of the industry.
This watchdog/policeman model has been misapplied to immigration consultants and has created a situation in which the offices of CSIC have adopted a siege mentality in a war against the membership.
A self-regulatory agency is not a “regulator” from above—it is the practice of consultants regulating fellow-consultants.
In order to correct this misunderstanding of self-regulation by both the management and the membership of CSIC, it may be necessary for the new self-regulatory body to have a dual mandate of protection of the public interest (consumer protection) with supporting the development of the profession (consultant advocacy). There are precedents for this in other professions in Canada and more recently the Law Society of Scotland overwhelmingly voted to retain their “dual mandate” in Referendum 2:Should the Law Society of Scotland as statutory regulator continue to be responsible for promotion of the interests of, and the representation of, solicitors in Scotland?
Seventy-three percent of Scottish solicitors said yes.
Another aspect to consider is the electoral system for the new self-regulatory body and consultants would be wise to adopt the Law Society “bencher” model so that Directors are elected by their nominating regions and bring the concerns of their regions to the Board’s attention. The current CSIC arrangement is profoundly flawed.
Finally, any shortlisted candidate organization’s proposal for the self-regulatory role should be approved formally by the current membership of CSIC before being implemented by the Minister.
The enumerated selection criteria should require candidate bodies to prove that they understand self-regulation, require them to design a functional democracy, and insist that they seek a mandate from authorized consultants before the Minister will assign the self-regulatory role. In other words, the selection process must include a professional referendum.
In summary, I submit that the following areas of self-regulatory practice are under-discussed by my colleagues and immigration stakeholders:
An Ombudsperson Tribunal for immigration consultant appeals of Registrar decisions;
Ministerial Oversight so that Parliament and parliamentarians can communicate with the self-regulatory body; and
Balancing the public interest with professional advocacy in the Self-regulatory Mandate .
Finally, the Selection Criteria must include a requirement for any successful bid for the self-regulatory role to be approved by a majority of consultants in a professional referendum.
I thank you for the opportunity to register my comments on the profession of immigration consultancy.
I remain, yours sincerely,
Garreth Westwood, MA(Econ) CFP JD(Cand)
Accredited Immigration & Citizenship Law Practitioner
Mr.Nigel Thomson CSIC Directior- Allegations aginst you
From: syed hashmi [mailto:imranhash@hotmail.com]
Sent: August-27-10 9:33 AM
To: board@csic-scci.ca
Subject: Mr.Nigel Thomson CSIC Directior- Allegations aginst you
Dear Mr.Nigel Thomson,
Chair CSIC ,
There is an allegation against you that some foreign nationals paid you $15000.00 for AEO and during interview visa officer bared them from entering into Canada for two years for applying, due to fraudulent (AEO) Arranged Employment opinion and CIC is investigating your conduct. Before making any decision we will give you an opportunity to clarify your position with in 48 hours ,otherwise we will refer this matter to our investigation branch for further proceedings.
We are Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you.
International Immigration Industry
Sent: August-27-10 9:33 AM
To: board@csic-scci.ca
Subject: Mr.Nigel Thomson CSIC Directior- Allegations aginst you
Dear Mr.Nigel Thomson,
Chair CSIC ,
There is an allegation against you that some foreign nationals paid you $15000.00 for AEO and during interview visa officer bared them from entering into Canada for two years for applying, due to fraudulent (AEO) Arranged Employment opinion and CIC is investigating your conduct. Before making any decision we will give you an opportunity to clarify your position with in 48 hours ,otherwise we will refer this matter to our investigation branch for further proceedings.
We are Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you.
International Immigration Industry
Today Csic Election is a biggest fraud in a fair election history
From: syed hashmi [mailto:imranhash@hotmail.com]
Sent: June-28-10 10:36 PM
Cc: minister@cic.gc.ca; kennedy.g@parl.gc.ca
Subject: CSIC Election-Biggest Fraud in election History
Dear Consultants,
Today Csic Election is a biggest fraud in a fair election history. It is time to requst to United Nation Organization to supervise CSIC election unless we have fair election rules.
Our ethical board declared these elction Void, as whole elction procedure was a fraud and a game of power hungry people.
We strongly request to Honorable Minister of Immigration to dissolve the CSIC after having power under Bill C35 and form a New Society based on more fair rules to Consultants and Consumer. Thank you Mr. Honorable Minister.
International Immigration Industry
Sent: June-28-10 10:36 PM
Cc: minister@cic.gc.ca; kennedy.g@parl.gc.ca
Subject: CSIC Election-Biggest Fraud in election History
Dear Consultants,
Today Csic Election is a biggest fraud in a fair election history. It is time to requst to United Nation Organization to supervise CSIC election unless we have fair election rules.
Our ethical board declared these elction Void, as whole elction procedure was a fraud and a game of power hungry people.
We strongly request to Honorable Minister of Immigration to dissolve the CSIC after having power under Bill C35 and form a New Society based on more fair rules to Consultants and Consumer. Thank you Mr. Honorable Minister.
International Immigration Industry
CSIC chair John Ryan you should resign immediately.
Dear Mr.John Ryan,
On June 11,2010 in Toronto Town Hall meeting on Bill C-35, you said that "if there is an election call any time between now & 2011. Every thing (Bill C-35) that introduced this week will die". We consider it very outrageous remarks and it shows your real intention and feeling towards this bill.
*Please remember that on June 9th 2010, at a Public event in Toronto, Honorable Minister Mr, Kenney replies to Mr.Phil Mooney’s and Mr.Nigel Thomson about their particular concern, His reply was ‘’even if there is change hand of government, Bill C35 is unstoppable’’.
*We have noticed that recent Directors Elections is nothing but a fraud. Mr. Imran Qayyum is running this orchestra as an Election officer, who sold out dated material in $800 to Consultants, and both of you put a huge profit into your pockets. How consultants can trust both of you?
John Ryan you should resign immediately.
International Immigration Industry
On June 11,2010 in Toronto Town Hall meeting on Bill C-35, you said that "if there is an election call any time between now & 2011. Every thing (Bill C-35) that introduced this week will die". We consider it very outrageous remarks and it shows your real intention and feeling towards this bill.
*Please remember that on June 9th 2010, at a Public event in Toronto, Honorable Minister Mr, Kenney replies to Mr.Phil Mooney’s and Mr.Nigel Thomson about their particular concern, His reply was ‘’even if there is change hand of government, Bill C35 is unstoppable’’.
*We have noticed that recent Directors Elections is nothing but a fraud. Mr. Imran Qayyum is running this orchestra as an Election officer, who sold out dated material in $800 to Consultants, and both of you put a huge profit into your pockets. How consultants can trust both of you?
John Ryan you should resign immediately.
International Immigration Industry
unathorized Representative as well so they can JOIN NEW SOCIETY
To:
1-Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship & Immigration Canada
2-Catherine Marx,
Senior Policy Analyst, Social Policy and Programs,
Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 365 Laurier Avenue
W, 8th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1L1
Re: Bill C-35 & IP 9(5.4) and Mr. John Ryan Outrageous comments on Bill C-35
We are glad that Government introduced Bill C-35. Now government will be more hands-on in overseeing the new regulator.
Present rules are permitted those unauthorized representative to work under IP9(5.4) read with Section 6 of the Immigration Manual, if they are providing/offering these services to their clients. This information is present until today (June 23/2010) on www.cic.gc.ca website under Immigration representatives: Who can represent you.
We will request you to establish a mechanism for those unathorized Representative as well so they can JOIN NEW SOCIETY in a smooth way. Please establish a fair transition period & rules for them as well. Their are over hundred of practitioners who are working in this industry in Canada alone, but could not become a Member of CSIC Society, because of their HIGHER FEES & unethical behaviour.
On June 11,2010 in Toronto Town Hall meeting on Bill C-35, Mr.John Ryan CSIC CEO said that "if there is an election call any time between now & 2011. Every thing (Bill C-35) that introduced this week will die". We consider it very outrageous remarks and it shows the real intention and feeling of Mr.John Ryans towards this bill. Therefore, we will request you to complete the whole process as soon as possible. Thank you.
Members of Immigration Industry
1-Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship & Immigration Canada
2-Catherine Marx,
Senior Policy Analyst, Social Policy and Programs,
Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 365 Laurier Avenue
W, 8th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1L1
Re: Bill C-35 & IP 9(5.4) and Mr. John Ryan Outrageous comments on Bill C-35
We are glad that Government introduced Bill C-35. Now government will be more hands-on in overseeing the new regulator.
Present rules are permitted those unauthorized representative to work under IP9(5.4) read with Section 6 of the Immigration Manual, if they are providing/offering these services to their clients. This information is present until today (June 23/2010) on www.cic.gc.ca website under Immigration representatives: Who can represent you.
We will request you to establish a mechanism for those unathorized Representative as well so they can JOIN NEW SOCIETY in a smooth way. Please establish a fair transition period & rules for them as well. Their are over hundred of practitioners who are working in this industry in Canada alone, but could not become a Member of CSIC Society, because of their HIGHER FEES & unethical behaviour.
On June 11,2010 in Toronto Town Hall meeting on Bill C-35, Mr.John Ryan CSIC CEO said that "if there is an election call any time between now & 2011. Every thing (Bill C-35) that introduced this week will die". We consider it very outrageous remarks and it shows the real intention and feeling of Mr.John Ryans towards this bill. Therefore, we will request you to complete the whole process as soon as possible. Thank you.
Members of Immigration Industry
Conservative government is taking greater control of the immigration business
The Conservative government is taking greater control of the immigration business, announcing plans to choose a new regulator for immigration consultants.
We heard that five to Six groups are applying for the NEW REGULATOR. It includes,
1-CSIC (Lead by John Ryan +Nigel Thomson)
2-CMI (Lead by Imran Q)
3-CAPIC (Lead by Bruce Perreault +Phill Money+ Ron McKay) BC consultants want their share too. Having support of Katarina Onuska also
4- CSIP (Lead by Nancy Salloum)
5- I.I. Industry (Lead by Members)
6- Chinese Community Group (Lead by Toronto based Immigration Consultants)
Analysis
CSIC: In the presence of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney= Forget about this option, because Minister is aware what has happened under this regime.
CMI: Another culprit: A company who sold out dated material in $800. No chance of success.
CAPIC: Still has a clean record+ Offered Good and inexpensive Services to members
CSIP: Still has good record. Presented Good case against CSIC during Committee hearings in Montreal & Toronto
International Immigration Industry: Fighting for good cause, Still believing in IP9(5.4), that it is a good mechanism.
Chinese Community Group: Limited membership. It seems that they are only working in a small ethnic group. However, has reasonable roots.
New Bill approval in the Parliament:
We hope that new Bill will be approve soon, as Immigration Minister striked a deal with Liberal immigration critic Maurizio Bevilacqua to ensure quick passage of the bill before Parliament's summer recess --
New Democrat MP Olivia Chow called the legislation a step in the right direction. Therefore, NDP will also support this Bill.
Under present situation this BILL will become an ACT this summer.
Application for NEW REGULATOR:
After approval of the Bill Ministry will ask for NEW Applications for a New Regulator. Meetings behind the close doors are going on. New Groups are forming. Let's wait & see.
Hope for the best as Immigration Minister will watch this NEW SOCIETY.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/08/immigration-kenney-crooked-consultants.html#ixzz0qTGmounK
________________________________________
We heard that five to Six groups are applying for the NEW REGULATOR. It includes,
1-CSIC (Lead by John Ryan +Nigel Thomson)
2-CMI (Lead by Imran Q)
3-CAPIC (Lead by Bruce Perreault +Phill Money+ Ron McKay) BC consultants want their share too. Having support of Katarina Onuska also
4- CSIP (Lead by Nancy Salloum)
5- I.I. Industry (Lead by Members)
6- Chinese Community Group (Lead by Toronto based Immigration Consultants)
Analysis
CSIC: In the presence of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney= Forget about this option, because Minister is aware what has happened under this regime.
CMI: Another culprit: A company who sold out dated material in $800. No chance of success.
CAPIC: Still has a clean record+ Offered Good and inexpensive Services to members
CSIP: Still has good record. Presented Good case against CSIC during Committee hearings in Montreal & Toronto
International Immigration Industry: Fighting for good cause, Still believing in IP9(5.4), that it is a good mechanism.
Chinese Community Group: Limited membership. It seems that they are only working in a small ethnic group. However, has reasonable roots.
New Bill approval in the Parliament:
We hope that new Bill will be approve soon, as Immigration Minister striked a deal with Liberal immigration critic Maurizio Bevilacqua to ensure quick passage of the bill before Parliament's summer recess --
New Democrat MP Olivia Chow called the legislation a step in the right direction. Therefore, NDP will also support this Bill.
Under present situation this BILL will become an ACT this summer.
Application for NEW REGULATOR:
After approval of the Bill Ministry will ask for NEW Applications for a New Regulator. Meetings behind the close doors are going on. New Groups are forming. Let's wait & see.
Hope for the best as Immigration Minister will watch this NEW SOCIETY.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/08/immigration-kenney-crooked-consultants.html#ixzz0qTGmounK
________________________________________
new regulatory body for Immigration Consultant is shaping up in the near future
Dear Immigration Consultants;
It seems clear that a new regulatory body for Immigration Consultant is shaping up in the near future. Minister initiative in replacing the existing regulator is imminent. CMI is out of Business therefore,
* We will strongly recommend to Members not to give any amount to this (CMI) defunct institute because you will not get back any amount.
* We also warn the old (CSIC) Society Directors not to remove any files from the Society Head office during MID NIGHT operation.
* We demand to Immigration Minister to Immidiately cease the Defunt CMI & CSIC record.
International Immigration Industry
Bcc to all Members
It seems clear that a new regulatory body for Immigration Consultant is shaping up in the near future. Minister initiative in replacing the existing regulator is imminent. CMI is out of Business therefore,
* We will strongly recommend to Members not to give any amount to this (CMI) defunct institute because you will not get back any amount.
* We also warn the old (CSIC) Society Directors not to remove any files from the Society Head office during MID NIGHT operation.
* We demand to Immigration Minister to Immidiately cease the Defunt CMI & CSIC record.
International Immigration Industry
Bcc to all Members
It is clear that CSIC is a Dead Horse, who is taking his last breath
From: syed hashmi [mailto:imranhash@hotmail.com]
Sent: June-08-10 12:41 PM
To: jryan@csic-scci.ca; jryan@visapost.com
Subject: New Legislation- Crack down on Crooked Immigration Consultants- Bill C 35
Today Minister announced New legislation for Crooked Consultants
It is clear that CSIC is a Dead Horse, who is taking his last breath. We will see in near future that all CSIC Directors including John Ryan will be prosecuted for their Fraud to CSIC funds. We encourge all the members to stand up for the just cause.
CSIC misrepresented again today, that these laws are only for the unaccredited immigration ghost consultants. This is totally wrong, infact this bill is for the
"CROOKED IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS" that includes CSIC Directors & other Certified consultants too.
All Crooked Immigration Consultant will be prosecuted soon under "Immigration & Refugee Proctection Act".
Members of International Immigration Industry:
________________________________________
Sent: June-08-10 12:41 PM
To: jryan@csic-scci.ca; jryan@visapost.com
Subject: New Legislation- Crack down on Crooked Immigration Consultants- Bill C 35
Today Minister announced New legislation for Crooked Consultants
It is clear that CSIC is a Dead Horse, who is taking his last breath. We will see in near future that all CSIC Directors including John Ryan will be prosecuted for their Fraud to CSIC funds. We encourge all the members to stand up for the just cause.
CSIC misrepresented again today, that these laws are only for the unaccredited immigration ghost consultants. This is totally wrong, infact this bill is for the
"CROOKED IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS" that includes CSIC Directors & other Certified consultants too.
All Crooked Immigration Consultant will be prosecuted soon under "Immigration & Refugee Proctection Act".
Members of International Immigration Industry:
________________________________________
Nigel Thomson and Alfred Wong are touring accross Canada at Members expense
Dear Mr.John Ryan
On May 12th you resigned from CSIC Chair, but still working as an acting CEO. We believe that it is a big consipracy and you and other Directors are involved in this heinous act. We therefore demand that all culprits must resign immidiately from their posts and depute an Independent election commission.
As you have said that "The regulation of immigration consultants has been a labour of love for me since 1994,” . We know that with this LOVE how much money did you make since 2004.
We know why you have resigned a few weeks early, Just to achieved your required results.
*Tell us why Nigel Thomson and Alfred Wong are touring accross Canada at Members expense, just before an election. This behaviour shows how much you respect members money.
*We want to know where the $1.0 million in CMI losses went? Why you received $500,000 in Directors fees Whereas you deserved only $14000/20000 annually?
We strongly condemn these unethical behaviours & demand to stop this era of corruption.
International Immigration Industry
________________________________________
On May 12th you resigned from CSIC Chair, but still working as an acting CEO. We believe that it is a big consipracy and you and other Directors are involved in this heinous act. We therefore demand that all culprits must resign immidiately from their posts and depute an Independent election commission.
As you have said that "The regulation of immigration consultants has been a labour of love for me since 1994,” . We know that with this LOVE how much money did you make since 2004.
We know why you have resigned a few weeks early, Just to achieved your required results.
*Tell us why Nigel Thomson and Alfred Wong are touring accross Canada at Members expense, just before an election. This behaviour shows how much you respect members money.
*We want to know where the $1.0 million in CMI losses went? Why you received $500,000 in Directors fees Whereas you deserved only $14000/20000 annually?
We strongly condemn these unethical behaviours & demand to stop this era of corruption.
International Immigration Industry
________________________________________
Mr.John Ryan you are misrepesenting the statement of Governor General of Canada
The Speech from the Throne said,
"To better protect would-be immigrants, our Government will take steps to shut down unscrupulous immigration consultants. Our Government will also introduce legislation to speed up the revocation of citizenship of those who have concealed their war crimes".
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, Never used the word "Unscrupulous ghost agents" in her speech.
Mr.Ryan who Knows that Her Excellency is talking about a consultant like you? At least 3 CSIC Directors in the past resigned, because of your corrupt behaviour.
Mr.John Ryan you are misrepesenting the statement of Governor General of Canada. This is an offence. Please correct CSIC website statement as soon as possible, otherwise we will ask Governor General office to take steps against you. Thank you.
International Immigration Industry
"To better protect would-be immigrants, our Government will take steps to shut down unscrupulous immigration consultants. Our Government will also introduce legislation to speed up the revocation of citizenship of those who have concealed their war crimes".
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, Never used the word "Unscrupulous ghost agents" in her speech.
Mr.Ryan who Knows that Her Excellency is talking about a consultant like you? At least 3 CSIC Directors in the past resigned, because of your corrupt behaviour.
Mr.John Ryan you are misrepesenting the statement of Governor General of Canada. This is an offence. Please correct CSIC website statement as soon as possible, otherwise we will ask Governor General office to take steps against you. Thank you.
International Immigration Industry
CSIC member Bruce Perrault proposal to Minister kenney
Proposed Public Selection Process:
The Dangers and the Dilemma
resented to the Honourable Jason Kenny
Minister of Immigration
June 30th, 2010
By
Bruce Perreault, B.A., LL.B, K.H.S.*
*Member of the Canadian Bar Association and Member of both CSIC and CAPIC
Discussion Paper on a Selection Process for a Regulator of Immigration Consultants
The Dangers and the Dilemma
Executive Summary
My submissions to the Minister may sound hard and cold may end the dreams of many in the Profession. If those dreams are ended, it will be the result of The Honourable Minister Jason Kenny, P.C., and he alone, reaching a conclusion that will not be similar to mine.
I outline the important factors that must be considered and, to me, the Minister has rightfully concluded that the end result of this process must insure the integrity of the immigration program. It must benefit the Canadian Public and especially those who require Immigration services not to have the problems inherent in CSIC become new problems in the future, both for the Canadian Public and the Consultants.
It is my hope that I have given The Minister enough background so that he and CIC are in a better position to Judge how the Minister can finally put an end to a matter that his eluded his predecessors. I have faith that this most active Minister of Immigration is intent on achieving the goals he has set out and any and all input can only be helpful.
The SUMMARY of my submissions can best be described as:
1. The Minister wishes to preserve self-regulation. There is only one way in which this can be accomplished. The Minister himself, or through a delegate, must intervene with the Boards of CSIC and CAPIC to achieve consensus on the way forward. This is entitled Option 1.
2. The Minister, if he cannot obtain a consensus that Immigration Consultants are NOT ready for self-regulation then he must turn to an outside, arms length entity to regulate Consultants.
3. This will leave the Minister with the following choices:
a) The Appointment of a Superintendent, independent from the government and financed solely by Consultants Fees.
b) The ultimate decision, which I have referred to as “the hammer decision “is to forbid anyone who is not a Member of a Provincial Bar or authorized to practice Law in their Jurisdiction of Province or Territory to practice under IRPA as “an authorized representative”. This “hammer concept” is a very powerful tool that the Minister can use to achieve true, transparent and a democratic regulator that maintains Canada’s Immigration integrity and program and, at the same time, provides self-regulation to the Profession of Consultants.
Publication of the Notice on June 12, 2010 in the Gazette
In general terms, this Notice of Intent announces CIC’s intention to establish a public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. The body identified for recognition would be required to demonstrate that it has the capacity to effectively regulate immigration consulting activities in the public interest. The Notice also signals the possibility of a future proposal to realign the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the Regulations) based on the results of the public selection process.
• The Issue or Challenge
To develop recommendations for the public selection process which will meet the issues outlined in the Gazette publication of June 12, 2010.
Some of the issues referred to in the publication are the recommendations from the Standing Committees on Citizenship and Immigration (Report # 7 June 2008 & Report # 8 June 2009) and consideration been given to the current operating situation at CSIC.
In summary the reports indicate a lack of public confidence in the current organization (CSIC) regulating immigration consultants.
• Parameters
o Publication notice of June 12, 2010 in the Gazette
o Report # 8 from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration – June 2009
o Report # 7 from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration – June 2008 – applicable recommendations
o Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants – presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – May 2003
This report provides some historical information on the rationale for the development of the Regulatory Authority for Immigration Consultants, which is currently the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC). Additional information is provided about the regulation models utilized in the UK, Australia and China. The UK and Australian models are the most relevant to the Canadian situation. There have been new developments in the Australian situation since the report was prepared as the Australian Regulatory Authority known as the Migration Agents Regulatory Authority (MARA) is now operated by the Australian Government and not the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA), this transition took place in 2009. MIA is the professional association for immigration consultants similar to CAPIC in the Canadian context. The background for the change which took place in Australia is provided in a companion document called “2007-08 Review of Statutory Self Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession – Final Report May 2008”. MARA as of July 2009 is currently operated as a discrete office attached to the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship as described in Appendix III.
o Other relevant factors:
i.) Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC), the CSI 2009 Annual report and the CSIC By-Laws are enclosed as technical information about CSIC,
ii.) Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC),
iii.) Canadian Migration Institute (CMI),
iv.) Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners (CSIP),
v.) Registered Immigration Consultants (RIC),
vi.) International Association of Immigration Practitioners (IAIP).
vii.) Self-regulation. Modified self-Regulation and Regulation
• Commentary
The positive regarding CSIC is that if both the 2009 Annual report and the 2003 Minister’s Advisory Committee report are considered then I believe a reasonable conclusion could be reached that the basic structure for a regulatory organization has been put in place.
The negative in my view is that the recommendations of the Minister’s Advisory report did not include strong recommendations on accountability and the accountability recommendations that were contained therein were not properly implemented. The fact that CSIC was created and has been able to operate with very little accountability has created the problems that currently exist.
One of the major conclusions from the Standing Committee reports was that the current approach is not working as there is a lack of accountability, plus a considerable amount of discontent within the profession. The discontent has created competing groups with different views on how the regulator should be operated. If one of the competing professional associations assumes the operation of the regulator it will be perceived as a “coup d ètat” and the same discontent will reappear within the profession. It will be interpreted by the membership as choosing one side of the leadership group over the other side and there will be an ongoing struggle to reverse that decision.
I do not think that self-regulation will work as I think the current operation of CSIC demonstrates that the profession is not ready for self-regulation. I do think that a form of modified self regulation has the potential to work providing the modifications include a number of checks and balances.
If a proposal, which originates from within the profession, is submitted and accepted to operate the regulator it will need to be a joint proposal. I believe such a joint proposal (which I am referring to as Option I modified self regulation) would need to be endorsed by the major participants within the profession and those major participants in my opinion are CSIC and CAPIC. For such a proposal to be acceptable either the accountability conditions as outlined in Appendix I would need to be part of the proposal or acceptable additions to the proposal. The impetus for such a proposal would need to be originated by the Minister as a last attempt to preserve a form of self regulation.
A second alternative (which I am referring to as Option II modified self regulation) is to retain self regulation but with a number of controls which I have outlined in Appendix I. Option I and Option II are basically the same the only difference is that Option I originates with the membership. My observation of the current situation within the leadership of the CSIC membership is that there is very little possibility that CSIC and CAPIC can work together in order to develop a joint response unless that direction is provided. As a consequence Option II is outlined as a mechanism to retain a form of self regulation with a number of accountability factors built into the implementation process. I am suggesting this as I believe the current CSIC structure or framework can be made to work if the proper changes, primarily in the governance area, are implemented. In addition, the membership has invested very heavily in the present structure which would be lost if CSIC is completely abandoned due to the egos of the present leadership group.
A modification of Option II could potentially be pursued in order to effect immediate action. The modification I am suggesting is to immediately appoint an interim Board with two clear purposes:
o to take over the current operation of CSIC and return some stability and,
o Develop a report for the Minister on the potential of moving forward with the basic concept of Option II or alternatively to go directly to Option IV.
Pursuing the modified Option II would require that the Board of CSIC agree to the immediate appointment of an interim Board by the Minster.
A third alternative (which I am referring to as Option III “Regulation” as opposed to self regulation) is to have the authorized immigration consultants regulated by an organization operated by government or an externally appointed Board. This would be somewhat similar to the UK and the Australian models with a Canadian twist. This approach could also be modified to adopt the American style such that only lawyers are authorized to act.
A fourth option is to immediately go to government regulation in light of the recent turmoil at CSIC. A modification of this is to adopt the American style.
• Recommendations
o Option I (modified self regulation) – contact both CSIC and CAPIC indicating that a form of self regulation will be entertained but it needs to be a joint agreement submitted from CAPIC and CSIC.
Additionally, for this approach to be accepted the Minister will appoint a CEO who will operate CSIC and be responsible to the Minister’s Office until an acceptable submission has been developed by CAPIC and CSIC.
o Option II (modified self-regulation) – CSIC is run by an interim Board until the controls have been implemented. This approach is taken when all the tender proposals are rejected. The modified approach under this option occurs if immediate action is desired.
This would require agreement by CSIC that an interim Board could be appointed.
A modification of Option II could potentially be pursued in order to effect immediate action. The modification I am suggesting is to immediately appoint an interim Board with two clear purposes:
i.) to take over the current operation of CSIC and return stability and,
ii.) Develop a report for the Minister on the potential of moving forward with the basic concept of Option II or alternatively to go directly to Option IV.
o Option III (regulation) would be a regulatory organization for immigration consultants with the total Board appointed by the Minister, This will result when all the tender proposals are rejected and modified self regulation is abandoned. This would be pursued after Options I & II have been exhausted. The Minister would then appoint the Board Members.
o Option IV is to accept immediately that immigration consultants are not ready for self regulation and that CSIC be adapted to the Australian model with a Superintendent in charge of the regulation of immigration consultants. An alternative which could be exercised under this option is simply to follow the American style which would only allow immigration consulting to be done by Lawyers.
• Risks
o That the CSIC will not agree to a joint proposal submitted by CAPIC and CSIC. This is where the “hammer theory” may have to be exercised.
o If the Minister moves immediately to go to Option IV or the modified Option II that the CSIC Board will resist the turn over of the present CSIC operation to an interim Board.
o That the senior management or the Board of CSIC will enter into untenable agreements to prevent the success of the interim Board or transition process.
o The presentation of a joint proposal will not be achieved.
o The adoption of option III, the appointment of the total Board by the Minister will be the only viable option.
This discussion paper does provide within the text of this document a process on how these risk factors can be mitigated.
• Conclusions
The basic structure for the regulator known as CSIC has been implemented in accordance with the May 2003 report for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Executive Summary attached as Appendix II), with the major omissions being the lack of checks and balances. Without this accountability the general conclusion is that CSIC is not functioning properly, hence the conclusion that the present system is a failure. I believe that if steps are taken to build on this structure with the implementation of the proper accountability, which I am suggesting in the form of checks and balances (listed in Appendix I), then CSIC can become an effective regulator for immigration consultants.
In my opinion, the preferred option for regulating immigration consultants is the successful implementation of a joint proposal involving the significant players in the profession (preferably CSIC & CAPIC) and that the criteria for accepting this Option I would be the successful implementation of the checks and balances (controls) which are outlined in Appendix I. The benefit is that the members would have “bought into” the concept of a modified self regulation with controls or defined accountability as required by the Minister. In addition of course the government would not have the burden of operating a regulator.
If this option is not feasible then under Option II CSIC would be operated by an interim Board with the installation of the checks and balances as outlined in Appendix I. When the interim Board has implemented the proper changes a new election would be held to elect consultant directors to the Board in order to “reintroduce” self regulation with much more accountability and a very controlled approach to self regulation. Again under this option the members have a stake in insuring the process is successful. A modified Option II would simply involve the Minister taking immediate action by appointing an interim Board to operate CSIC with a mandate to stabilize and restore confidence in CSIC as well as to prepare a report for the Minister with a recommendation on the implementation of either the balance of Option II or Option IV. This option would require agreement from CSIC that an interim Board could be appointed.
If either option I or option II are not viable then under Option III (regulation) the government would take over the operation of CSIC and keep it as a separate entity in order to comply with the issues outlined in the May 2003 Minister’s Advisory Committee report.
Option IV would be a slight modification of this as it would be simply accepting immediately that self regulation is not possible and the regulation would be done completely under the jurisdiction of the government.
I am recommending more stringent controls because of the recent experience with the operation of CSIC where the majority of the members have very limited experience operating in a regulated environment. In addition to the implementation of a number of regular accountability measures, I am recommending some exceptional accountability measures. These exceptional measures involve the process for the Board elections, the Public interest appointments to the Board of the regulator and the insulation of the complaints and discipline department from the Board. Implementation of all of these measures I believe will restore public confidence in the integrity of the regulation system for immigration consultants.
Based on my evaluation of the Options available my conclusion is:
o Provide an opportunity for one last attempt for a joint undertaking by CSIC and CAPIC to develop a modified form of self regulation with a number of checks and balances as suggested within this paper (please see Option I for details). I believe for this to happen it will require the intervention of the Minister to contact both CSIC and CAPIC to indicate one last opportunity is being provided to retained a form of self regulation. If the self regulation can not be salvaged then a choice will be made on either adopting an American style regulation approach or a government controlled regulation regime. Additionally for this approach to work the current CSIC CEO will need to be replaced by a CEO appointed by the Minister. The appointed CEO would report to the Minister’s Office until an acceptable alternative is developed by CSIC and CAPIC.
o If CAPIC and CSIC are unable to agree upon an acceptable structure for a modified form of self regulation then I would suggest Option IV with the choice being a government regulation approach or an American style approach which would only be allowing the participation of the legal profession.
In order to make the preferred option (joint participation by CAPIC and CSIC) viable it will be necessary to have in place a CEO who has had successful experience working with the CSIC membership and who has the credibility to bring about the necessary changes. This would require an individual who is diplomatic, is decision oriented and would have a very short learning curve in order to initiate the process with the CSIC membership.
• APPENDIX I
Minimum changes required for the existing CSIC structure to make it into an effective regulator for immigration consultants. The items are in effect checks and balances which I believe should be added to the present CSIC structure to make it effective.
• APPENDIX II
Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants – presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – May 2003 – Executive Summary
• APPENDIX III
Current information on the operation of the Regulatory Authority for Immigration Consultants in Australia, this is known as Migration Agents Regulatory Authority (MARA).
Contents
Executive Summary 2
o Option II (modified self-regulation) – CSIC is run by an interim Board until the controls have been implemented. This approach is taken when all the tender proposals are rejected. The modified approach under this option occurs if immediate action is desired. 6
o Option III (regulation) would be a regulatory organization for immigration consultants with the total Board appointed by the Minister, this results when all the tender proposals are rejected and modified self regulation is abandoned. This would be pursued after Options I & II have been exhausted. The Minister would then appoint the Board totally. An alternative which could be exercised under this option is simply to follow the American style which would only allow immigration consulting to be done by Lawyers. 6
o Option IV is to accept immediately that immigration consultants are not ready for self regulation and that CSIC be adapted to the Australian model with a Superintendent in charge of the regulation of immigration consultants. An alternative which could be exercised under this option is simply to follow the American style which would only allow immigration consulting to be done by Lawyers. 6
o That the CSIC will not agree to a joint proposal submitted by CAPIC and CSIC. 6
o If the Minister moves immediately to go to Option IV or the modified Option II that the CSIC Board will resist the turn over of the present CSIC operation to an interim Board. 7
o That the senior management or the Board of CSIC will enter into untenable agreements to prevent the success of the interim Board or transition process. 7
Publication of the Notice (as per below) on June 12, 2010 in the Gazette 13
The Issue or Challenge 15
Parameters 16
• Publication notice of June 12, 2010 in the Gazette 16
• Report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration - Report # 8 – June 2009 16
• Report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration - Report # 7 – June 2008 – applicable recommendations are highlighted. 16
• Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants – presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – May 2003 19
• Other relevant factors regarding the current operation of CSIC and professional associations 20
Commentary 22
Recommendations 33
o Option I (modified self regulation) – contact both CSIC and CAPIC indicating that a form of self regulation will be entertained but it needs to be a joint agreed upon submission from CAPIC and CSIC 34
o Option II (modified self-regulation) – CSIC is run by an interim Board (appointed by the Minister) until the controls have been implemented. This approach is taken when the CAPIC/CSIC joint proposal is rejected. The modified approach under this option occurs if immediate action is desired. 35
A modification of Option II could potentially be pursued in order to effect immediate action. 40
i.) to take over the current operation of CSIC and return stability and, 40
ii.) to develop a report for the Minister on the potential of moving forward with the basic concept of Option II or alternatively to go directly to Option IV. 40
o Option III (regulation) would be a regulatory organization for immigration consultants with the total Board appointed by the Minister, this results when Options I and II are rejected and modified self regulation is abandoned. 40
o Option IV is to accept immediately that immigration consultants are not ready for self regulation and that CSIC be adapted to the Australian model with a Superintendent in charge of the regulation of immigration consultants. An alternative which could be exercised under this option is simply to follow the American style which would only allow immigration consulting to be done by Lawyers. 40
Risks 41
o That the CSIC will not agree to a joint proposal submitted by CAPIC and CSIC. 41
o If the Minister moves immediately to go to Option IV or the modified Option II that the CSIC Board will resist the turn over of the present CSIC operation to an interim Board. 41
o That the senior management or the Board of CSIC will enter into untenable agreements to prevent the success of the interim Board or transition process. 42
o The presentation of a joint proposal will not be achieved. 42
o The adoption of option IV, the appointment of the total Board of the modified CSIC by the Minister will be the only viable option. 42
Conclusions 43
Appendix I - Recommended changes to the CSIC structure and operations - Checks and balances or accountability requirements. 45
Appendix II - Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants – presented to the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - May 2003 54
Appendix III - Current information on the operation of the Regulatory Authority (MARA) in Australia 59
• Companion Documents referred to in this discussion paper 61
o 2007-08 Review of Statutory Self Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession – Final Report May 2008 (Australian Document) 61
o CSIC By-Laws 61
o Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – May 2003 (Canadian Document) 62
o CSIC Annual Report 2008-2009 62
o Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration report June 2008 62
o Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration report June 2009 62
Publication of the Notice (as per below) on June 12, 2010 in the Gazette
Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Notice requesting comments on a proposal to establish a public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator on immigration consultants
Summary
In general terms, this Notice of Intent announces CIC’s intention to establish a public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. The body identified for recognition would be required to demonstrate that it has the capacity to effectively regulate immigration consulting activities in the public interest. The Notice also signals the possibility of a future proposal to realign the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the Regulations) based on the results of the public selection process.
Background
Regulation of immigration consultants was first introduced in 2004. In April of that year, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) was amended to ensure that no person who was not an authorized representative could, for a fee, represent, advise or consult with a person who was the subject of a proceeding or application under the IRPA (see section 13.1 of the Regulations). The term “authorized representative” was defined in the amendments (see section 2 of the Regulations) as a member in good standing of a bar of a province, the Chambre des notaires du Québec or the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC).
These Regulations were introduced both in response to unacceptable practices in the immigration consulting industry which left applicants vulnerable to erroneous advice, excessive fees and exploitation, as well as the threat these practices posed to Canada’s long-term immigration objectives.
The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, the current governing body, was established in 2003 as an independent, federally incorporated not-for-profit body operating at arm’s-length from the federal government and responsible for regulating paid immigration consultants (other than lawyers and members of the Chambres des Notaires du Québec). CSIC currently has a membership of over 1 700 consultants and continues to act as the sole governing body of immigration consultants. CSIC’s mandate is to protect the consumers of immigration consulting services while ensuring the education, competency testing and discipline of its members.
The provision of professional and ethical services by immigration consultants reduces fraud and other unacceptable behaviour, and is essential in protecting the consumers of immigration services and in ensuring the public’s confidence in Canada’s immigration programs.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration undertook a study of the immigration consulting industry and summarized its findings in a report titled Regulating Immigration Consultants. This Report, supported by a 2009 Report titled Migrant Workers and Ghost Consultants, points to a lack of public confidence in the body currently governing immigration consultants. A lack of public confidence poses a significant threat to the immigration system, given the regulator’s role with respect to the integrity of the system as a whole. The establishment of a public selection process contemplates these concerns — with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. It is intended that the body identified would have the capacity to effectively regulate immigration consultants so as to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the immigration program through the regulation of the provision of professional and ethical services by its membership.
Proposal
A competitive public selection process will be pursued in order to identify the entity best able to demonstrate the capacity to effectively regulate immigration consultants. Selection factors will be established to ensure that the entity identified for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants has the capacity to effectively regulate. CIC intends to engage external expertise in its establishment of factors in identifying a body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. These specific selection factors will ensure that the entity identified in the selection process will be able to efficiently and effectively manage its membership in support of Canada’s immediate and long-term immigration objectives as well as in support of the Canadian public’s confidence in the immigration system.
Subsequent to the identification of the governing body, the following regulatory alignment may be proposed and would be pre-published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, at a later date:
• Naming of a governing body for immigration consultants, and, if necessary, removal of the reference to the current governing body of immigration consultants; and
• Inclusion of transitional measures, if required, for members in good standing of the current governing body of immigration consultants — both to ensure continuity of service provision to persons associated with a proceeding or application under IRPA and to protect the membership of the current governing body in order to ensure a smooth transition.
Comments
Immigration consultants and other interested parties are requested to provide their comments on this Notice of Intent in writing, to the person named below at the address provided, before July 2, 2010.
Comments would be appreciated on:
• The proposed public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants to ensure integrity in the immigration program through the provision of ethical and professional services by its membership.
Questions and requests for additional information, as well as comments regarding this Notice of Intent, may be directed to Catherine Marx, Senior Policy Analyst, Social Policy and Programs, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 365 Laurier Avenue W, 8th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1L1, 613-957-3577 (telephone), 613-941-9014 (fax), catherine.marx@cic.gc.ca (email).
The Issue or Challenge
To develop recommendations for the public selection process which will meet the issues outlined in the Gazette publication of June 12, 2010.
Some of the issues referred to in the publication are the recommendations from the Standing Committees on Citizenship and Immigration (Report # 7 June 2008 & Report # 8 June 2009). In addition due consideration needs to be given to the current operating situation at CSIC.
In summary the reports indicate a lack of public confidence in the current organization (CSIC) regulating immigration consultants.
Parameters
• Publication notice of June 12, 2010 in the Gazette
A competitive public selection process will be pursued in order to identify the entity best able to demonstrate capacity to effectively regulate immigration consultants.
Selection factors will be established to ensure that the entity identified for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants has the capacity to effectively regulate.
Please see the recommendations at the end of this report
• Report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration - Report # 8 – June 2009
This report simply made a recommendation that the recommendation of the previous report (Report # 7) be implemented
• Report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration - Report # 7 – June 2008 – applicable recommendations are highlighted.
o Recommendation # 1 - The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada stipulate in its laws and regulations that, in order to represent or advise a person on any matter before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, an immigration officer or the Immigration and Refugee Board, an immigration consultant from Quebec shall be officially recognized under Quebec laws rather than being required to be a member of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. This recommendation does not in any way affect members of the Barreau du Québec or members of the Chambre des notaires du Québec, who may continue to represent their clients as they have done thus far.
Not applicable to the issue or challenge
o Recommendation # 2 - The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada introduce stand-alone legislation to re-establish the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants as a non-share capital corporation. Such an “Immigration Consultants Society Act” should provide for the same types of matters covered by founding statutes of provincial law societies, including, but not limited to: functions of the corporation, member licensing and conduct, professional competence, prohibitions and offences, complaints resolution, compensation fund and by-laws. Once the regulator is re-established as a corporation under a federal statute, the existing body that was incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act may be wound up.
Please see the recommendations at the end of this report.
o Recommendation # 3 - The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada assist in re-establishing the new regulator and remain involved in its affairs until it is fully functioning.
Please see the recommendations at the end of this report.
o Recommendation # 4 - The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada ensure that;
i.) the new immigration consultants’ regulator institutes a third party, no-cost complaints procedure in respect of unauthorized or improper representation to support immigrants with precarious status in Canada in lodging complaints;
ii.) immigrants be informed that their complaints to the regulator will have no negative impact on their immigration applications; and
iii.) the regulator has a prosecutor/investigator that will represent the public interest in prosecuting misconduct
To be addressed in the Bill before Parliament.
o Recommendation # 5 - The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada amend section 13.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, as well as the relevant Citizenship and Immigration Canada inland processing manual (IP 9), and any other relevant documentation, so as to:
i.) require everyone to be an authorized representative if, whether for a fee or unpaid, they advise or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, an immigration officer or the Immigration and Refugee Board;
ii.) provide that only authorized representatives may perform pre-submission work in respect of a person who is subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, an immigration officer or the Immigration and Refugee Board,
iii.) require everyone to disclose the use of any representative, whether performing pre-submission work or not, in relation to a proceeding or application before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, an immigration officer or the Immigration and Refugee Board; and
iv.) Bolster its procedures for determining whether an immigration client is using a concealed representative to greatly increase the likelihood that the involvement of a concealed representative is discovered.
Not applicable to the issue or challenge
o Recommendation # 6 - The Committee recommends that the relevant federal regulatory and enforcement authorities (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada Border Services Agency, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, Canada Revenue Agency) work with provincial partners (provincial governments, law societies) to coordinate investigation, communication and enforcement efforts so as to ensure that unregistered immigration consultants are either referred to provincial law societies for sanction, or are prosecuted under existing federal provisions, depending on the nature of the person’s practice. Such federal provisions include, but are not limited to, the general contravention provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, provisions under the Criminal Code, and federal tax law. No later than four months after this report is presented in the House of Commons, a lead agency should be named to coordinate investigation, communication and enforcement efforts.
Please see the recommendations at the end of the report.
o Recommendation # 7 - The Committee recommends that Citizenship and Immigration Canada review existing processes related to the most common types of immigration applications with a view to simplifying them whenever possible.
Not applicable to the issue or challenge
o Recommendation # 8 - The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada revise all websites of Canadian embassies and missions abroad so as to ensure that they include consistent, clear and prominent information about immigration consultants. These messages should:
i.) be available in the local language(s);
ii.) inform prospective immigrants that they are not required to use an immigration consultant to help them in their immigration matter, and provide them with phone numbers that function from within the country, as well as other contact information enabling prospective immigrants to direct questions to appropriate government authorities;
iii.) state that if a person chooses to use an immigration consultant, only an “authorized representative” may be used;
iv.) provide a list of authorized representatives practising in the country; and
v.) State that no representative can guarantee their client success in an immigration matter.
Not applicable to the issue or challenge
o Recommendation # 9 - The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada make the “Use of a Representative” disclosure form (IMM 5476) available in the local language at embassies and missions abroad. Depending on current demand, the Committee recommends that the Government of Canada make other types of immigration forms and instructions, such as those related to sponsoring a family member, accessible in languages other than French and English.
Not applicable to the issue or challenge
• Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants – presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – May 2003
This document provides some historical information particularly about the rationale for the development of a Regulatory organization like CSIC, the situation in the UK, the situation in Australia (this is now out dated) and to a lesser extent the situation in China although this is probably not relevant to the Canadian situation. In looking at the rationale for the development of a separate organization it is important to be aware of the need to keep the operation of the Regulatory Authority separate from government Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). Some developments in Australia which I believe provide some context for the current Canadian situation has been the fact that the Australian regulator the Migration Agents Regulatory Authority (MARA) was operated by the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) the professional association within the Australian immigration consulting community, the equivalent organization in Canada would be CAPIC. Since the May 2003 report was prepared the operation of MARA has been transitioned from MIA to be under the jurisdiction the Australian Government with an advisory Board (please see Appendix III which is current information from the MARA website) the reasons for this change is outlined in the attached evaluation report which was done on the operation of MARA. A number of issues were identified and are being dealt with currently by CSIC while other problems are still being incurred some of which are being addressed by the current operation of CSIC such as the Discipline Committee. The head of Discipline at CSIC is a well trained and competent Lawyer but many believe she is unable to Act in accordance with her Professional duties because of interference by the governing body. The problem here is that the one very important factor to note is that the transition of the operation of MARA from MIA to the Government took place in an orderly fashion which potentially provides a precedent for the current Canadian situation.
• Other relevant factors regarding the current operation of CSIC and professional associations:
o The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) is currently operating as the regulator,
o The Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC) is currently operating as a professional association for immigration consultants. The four pillars for CAPIC are – lobbying, education, information and recognition. Membership is open to authorized immigration Consultants which includes lawyers, notaires and CSIC members. Membership is fee based, and the fee for students is $ 180 with other membership packages ranging from $ 360 to $ 560.
o The Canadian Migration Institute (CMI) – this is a private corporation which is a totally owned subsidiary of CSIC. The mission of CMI is to educate, accredit and advocate on behalf of authorized immigration consultants. Membership in CMI is free for CSIC members and there is a nominal charge for lawyers and notaires,
o Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners (CSIP) – this organization has a presence on the Internet and has been very vocal about the CSIC Board and thus has filled a necessary void when consultants were experiencing a number of grievances in dealing with CSIC. The head of this organization was originally a CSIC Transitional member and was a strong supporter of regulations but encountered problems with the CSIC language requirements. As a consequence (I am not sure whether it was a direct result of the CSIC entrance requirements or her ongoing disagreements with John Ryan) the Director of CSIP became a strong CSIC critic. The current membership fee is unknown.
o Registered Immigration Consultants Association ( RIC) - - information from the organization’s website is as follows:
“Approved as a national non-profit organization by Industry Canada in January 2005, the Registered Immigration Consultants Association of Canada (RIC) is a truly self-regulating immigration consultants association in Canada with rules of professional conduct, professional liability insurance, consumer protection mechanism, and other key elements of the regulation of a profession. Currently, we have more than 200 registered members.
Our missions are to enhance public and consumer confidence by regulating immigration consultants; to help members improve their professional performance by providing information support and continuing education, to advocate the use of our members' services; and to promote research, academic study, and information exchange in the industry.
The establishment of RIC has been well received in the Canadian immigration consultant community, and it is especially welcomed by Chinese and other ethnic consultants who make up a majority of the consultants.”
The current membership fee is stated as being $ 300.
o International Association of Immigration Practitioners (IAIP) – I believe this is a very small organization and may not even be active any more.
The membership fee is unknown.
o Self-regulation, modified Self-regulation and regulation – the objection of the immigration consulting profession has been to create a self regulating profession. The MARA in Australia when it was operated by MIA as a modified self regulated profession. The recent change in Australia has meant that the movement towards self regulation has ceased and that the regulation is done by government.
Commentary
The two reports (June 2008 & June 2009) which were issued by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration identified a number of issues which the current regulatory authority needs to address (please refer to these complete reports which are enclosed as companion reports for this discussion paper). The publication of the Notice in the Gazette on June 12th, 2010 initiates a process to address the currently identified deficiencies with the current operation of CSIC.
CSIC under the current operating environment has been plagued by a number of problems which can be summarized as follows:
• lack of transparency,
• accusations of financial mismanagement,
• excessive remuneration of the Board Members,
• concerns about fairness in the election process,
• concerns over the appointment process for public interest Board members,
• concern over the creation of a private entity called the Canadian Migration Institute with the mandate to educate, accredit and advocate,
• in fighting within the industry which has caused significant divides within the membership,
• ethical issues over a number of matters,
• non accountability to both the members and the government,
• Legitimate grievances which have been raised by the membership that have never been addressed by the Board. In addition, there was no legitimate process to have these issues addressed plus the Board constantly rejected the concept of having an in person annual general meeting,
• concern that the complaints and discipline process are not working adequately,
• Concerns were expressed about the fairness of the exam marking process. However my own person observations were that the examinations were tough and the marking process was fair. Many of the concerns came from transitional Members who failed to meet other standards, such as the language requirements.
A majority of the aforementioned issues plaguing CSIC can relate to the lack of accountability of the organization to both the Minister and the CSIC membership plus the overbearing and controlling influence of John Ryan. John Ryan was the Acting CEO and Board Chair in excess of two years, prior to that he was the Board Chairman, in excess of two years and was always a Board Member. Members felt that his “acclamation” upon seeking re-election, was the result of trickery against the sole opposition candidate, Jeff Hemlin. Mr. Hemlin was disqualified when an old “complaint” against him was suddenly resurrected. This sudden and abrupt appointment was made on the day new elections were held but before a new Director could be seated. This has brought consternation throughout the industry this has recently changed as he has recently resigned his Board position and been appointed as the CSIC CEO. This sudden and abrupt appointment was made on the day after the elections for new Directors were held but the decision was made by the outgoing board. In addition, John Ryan served on the Minister’s Advisory Committee which issued a report in May 2003 to the Minister (Hon. Denis Coderre) of Citizenship and Immigration.
The technical issues in the framework of CSIC that were identified in the list of concerns are matters which can be readily corrected if the appropriate individuals have the ability to make the changes. In particular, I am referring to the concerns about the exam marking process as I believe this can be addressed with greater transparency, the issue of the Board interference in the complaints and discipline process is addressed through a recommendation in Appendix I, plus the balance of the aforementioned issues are addressed in the recommendations contained in Appendix I. The issue of excessive influence exerted by either one individual or by a small group of individuals is a matter which needs to be addressed and I believe this type of problem would be mitigated by the measures recommended in Appendix I.
CSIC does have a staff of approximately 35 plus so if the operation ceases or is wound down there would be a severance pay requirement, valuable experience would be lost, a void would be created until a new organization became functional, new staff would be required for a new organization and there would be a training period involved. There has been a significant investment made in the infrastructure of CSIC, for example there is a large test bank of questions currently available for the entrance exam (English and French), these questions have been developed by members and have gone through several rounds of editing by legal editors to insure accuracy and clarity. A sophisticated computer system has been installed to facilitate the registration process and the maintenance of accurate up to date information on each CSIC member past or present. An extensive complaints and discipline process has been developed which includes the selection and appointment of an external panel for disciplinary hearings. Considerable expertise has been accumulated in terms of staff and hardware capabilities for the delivery of online videos, live videos and podcasts. This type of delivery system is important as the members are located throughout Canada and around the world so there needs to be an appropriate communications system for members. When this system is used properly it can be a very powerful tool for keeping the members informed and involved. These are just some of the examples of the infrastructure as there are obviously many more processes and policies which have been developed and implemented.
The 2007-2008 Review of Statutory Self Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession in Australia provides a very good blue print for CSIC to look at specific areas which need to be strengthened. This report actually provides an overview of some areas in the Australian situation which are very applicable to the Canadian context. Some of the areas that the report indicated were problems areas for the Australian profession have actually been addressed by CSIC, for example the language standards. In addition, some of the problems highlighted in the Australian profession are problems which have been incurred with the operation of CSIC, hence the checks and balances outlined in Appendix I. I would suggest reviewing this report in greater detail in order to ascertain whether additional measures can be implemented as a means of restoring confidence in the operation of CSIC. It should be noted that the Educational and Standards Committee, in the transitional years, was headed by a Lawyer from British Columbia named Elizabeth Bryson. She was former head of The Canadian Bar Association (National), Immigration Section and her contributions, together with her Committee, were probably the most organized and beneficial non-political gifts to the still evolving CSIC.
CSIC is a functional organization and should be preserved with some drastic changes. In order to provide more context for this observation I think it is important for the reader to have a more complete picture of how John Ryan operates other than the issues which are very obvious. Some of this picture involves a better understanding of the objectives and thinking of John Ryan. I certainly can’t provide a complete picture but I can fill in some of the blanks. The items that I am referring to are as follows:
• John was a member of the May 2003 Minister’s Advisory Committee and I understand (a point he was constantly making) that he was one of the authors of the report. I think it was planned that the organization created would have very little accountability. The report does not have very robust requirements for reporting to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and of course there is no accountability to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
• John has an ability to mix terms in order to cause confusion, I truly believe that John basically does not understand the difference. The term “self regulation” is used extensively so in effect the organization should be accountable to the members that in effect would be the justification for not having accountability to the Minister. The term “regulation or regulator” is used extensively when talking to the members to justify the lack of accountability to the members. Some of the CSIC member do belong to professional organizations for example Law Societies or to Professional Accounting Associations consequently they have an understanding of the concept of self regulation, John struggles in dealing with these individuals trying to confuse them with the use of the terms self regulation or regulatory organization depending on the situation. John does not belong to any other type of professional association thus he really does not have an understanding of the true concept of self regulation or exactly the meaning of collegiality. John only understands power and control without accountability achieved by whatever means.
• John does not have experience in management roles or for that matter serving on Boards for organizations of a significant size with a professional staff. The initial Board of CSIC adopted a policy to insure that the Board Executive obtained professional development in Board Governance thus some Directors pursued Directors programs offered by the Rotman School of Management and by the Directors College through McMaster University. John completed both these programs, the programs do overlap and probably the most bizarre aspect is that he took the program for the “for profit” organization rather than the programs for the “non profit” organizations. He does not apply the knowledge from these programs in the appropriate manner as he continues to mix the governance styles between a non profit setting and a for profit setting. I was never really sure whether he did not understand the difference or whether it was just a case of applying which ever governance principle could be utilized to achieve his goal at that particular moment in time. The fact that he had completed these governance programs and prominently displayed this fact meant that he was by default regarded as the expert on governance. If anyone chose to question his application of a particular governance style they would be quickly reminded that they did not have the governance training to be questioning John’s authority. A prime example of this confusion of the governance principle was the creation of CMI as a private for profit organization, when the members asked for more transparent information about CMI they were quickly told that it was a for profit corporation and releasing any information would put CMI at a competitive disadvantage even though the whole concept of self regulation is that it involves collegiality and it is structured as a non profit organization.
• The manner in which John applied these governance principles was at times rather intriguing as he filled the role of Acting CEO and Board Chair for in excess of two years. As a governance principle this should not have been done and in accordance with the CSIC by-laws this could not be done but because John was an expert on governance it did not apply to him in John’s eyes.
• Certainly there were other principles that John implemented in a rather unorthodox fashion but I think the confusion that was used with “regulation” versus “self regulation” and the application of governance models for “non profit organizations” versus “for profit organizations” gives an understanding of the approach that John employed in the operation of CSIC.
• One of the positive outcomes of having exposure to the two governance programs is that some of the organizational functions have been put in place; however, there is a certain amount of realignment required in order to make these structural elements operate properly. The By-Laws were written by some of the early Board Members and were designed to insure that they remained in power. They were severe and cruel towards the General Membership of CSIC and were the seeds from which grew anger and hostility and non compliance. The suggested By-Law changes in Appendix I relating to the governance would be a very effective step at this stage in the development of the organization.
The Canadian Migration Institute was established with a primary role, which was of course not publicly stated, of making CAPIC irrelevant. CAPIC was an organization that could be compared to the Canadian Bar Association and provided at a very low cost Educational and Upgrading seminars to CSIC Members. Additionally, the initial launching of CMI as a private organization was on the basis that it would allow CSIC to access new expertise by allowing CMI Board appointments to be made from areas of expertise such as the education field. Of course these Board appointments never happened as the CMI Board was used as a place to appoint favourite CSIC Board members and to keep those favourite CSIC Board members involved after they lost in the CSIC election process or were unable to run again for the CSIC Board. When I use the term favourite it refers to those people that either were friends of John Ryan or could be controlled by John Ryan. Once CMI was established steps were undertaken to disqualify CAPIC as a provider of continuing professional development (CPD) credits which are required by CSIC members in order to retain their CSIC membership. In addition, steps were taken to try to replace CAPIC as the Association arm or Advocacy arm of the CSIC membership. The CMI leadership group basically underestimated the tenacity of the committed members within CAPIC as CAPIC has continued and with the current problems being faced in the media by CSIC CAPIC is actually gaining strength.
There, in the context of John Ryan, must also be considered his attempt at interfering with the election process in a most deceptive and unprofessional manner. Mr. Ryan attempted to have a friend, who was Vice President of CAPIC, take over CAPIC so John Ryan could use it to his own advantage. This attempt failed and marked the first break with the author, a fervent supporter of CSIC, who felt that the abuse of a man who was head of the “Regulator” was contrary to all principals of decency. This provoked an article entitled “The Wind under my Sails” and the contents, although shocking and a condemnation of John Ryan, was never denied.
CMI fills no role in the scheme of a functional Regulator and, in fact, it is only a name and organization born out of John Ryan’s attempt to take over CAPIC and to provide a place for a defeated candidate and his friend to find a gainful income. It would not be unfair to say that all CMI Members are prisoners of this organization and, due to monetary concerns on behalf of members, are forced to belong.
The assets of CMI should be turned over to CAPIC forthwith since CMI has created tools, by using monies from CAPIC and CSIC Members in the delivery of educational seminars which could be provided at a much lower cost since CAPIC and most of their videos are out of date and serve no useful purpose except to collect money from members who must purchase these under “Mandatory CPD” imposed by CSIC”. Members of CAPIC are volunteers and there is no doubt that their educational programs superior to those offered by CMI. CMI, however, has the means and methods to deliver these programs, together with the technical expertise.
The Minister’s Advisory Committee report provides a very good framework for the rationale and operation of an authority to regulate immigration consultants. Most of the recommendations contained in this report have been implemented; however, the accountability of the operation of this regulatory authority, namely CSIC, has been identified as a major weakness. The Advisory committee report did not make strong recommendation in this area plus the recommendations which were made have not been properly implemented. In addition, since the report was issued there have been some new development within Australia which I believe provides some insight into identifying a process to move forward in the Canadian context. I am attaching as a companion document a copy of the report that was done on the Australian regulatory system when it was operated by the M IA (the Australian equivalent to CAPIC). There were a number of developments which have occurred in Australia but in particular these developments touched on two areas of particular interest to the Canadian situation.
• first the transition of the operation of the regulatory authority from one organization to another (transferred from MIA to being run by the Australian Government) and,
• secondly, the checks and balances that the Australian Government instituted to insure that the regulatory authority meets its mandate.
When reviewing the Australian evaluation of MARA I think it is interesting to note that some of the problems identified by the evaluation have been addressed by CSIC, whereas other problems identified have not been addressed properly hence the current situation. This reinforces my belief that the present structure can be made effective with the proper changes.
CAPIC is a non profit professional organization which has struggled because of the steps that CSIC took to discredit the organization. CAPIC is effective serving as an advocacy organization for the profession. They provide very credible CPD programs and with the appropriate support these programs could be strengthened. They inform their membership and they provide a social organization for the membership. The organization is volunteer based so it lacks sophistication at times and sometimes things are not completed in a timely manner but with the appropriate encouragement there is an opportunity to provide tremendous amount of energy and goodwill to the profession. CAPIC has tried to work with CSIC but because of the manner in which they have been treated by CSIC their contributions have been disregarded and at times the membership has lashed out in a very inappropriate fashion primarily as a result of frustration that has been experienced in dealing with the CSIC Board and senior management. There has been a significant amount of volunteer effort which has gone into the development of the organization and this energy could be channelled in a more positive fashion for the benefit of the profession as a whole.
It is important to read an article by Mr. Phil Mooney on why CAPIC lost CPD provider status and I am taking the liberty to submit this article since it appears on the front page of their Website and is accessible to the Public. Mr. Mooney’s constant commitment to the values and ethics of a true Profession should not go unnoticed and one is left wondering if he had been Chairman of CSIC from the beginning whether or not any of the problems that confront the Minister would exist. The position paper of CAPIC as to why they lost CPD Provider status is attached.
THE CASE FOR THE DEFENSE – HOW CAPIC LOST ITS CPD PROVIDER STATUS
The CSIC email which tried to explain why CAPIC’s CPD supplier status was revoked, was as
instructive in what it did not contain, as well as inaccurate in what it did contain.
We will go through this point-by-point. We apologize for the length of the document, but
defending oneself in the court of public opinion is often much harder than making
unsubstantiated allegations. As CSIC will not allow us access to the full membership list, we
have published the supporting documents on our website in the Members Only Section. Non-
Members can request a copy at info@capic.ca.
Point 1.
CSIC: After several unsuccessful attempts on the part of the regulator to work with CAPIC to
address key areas of concern, CSIC was left with no choice but to remove CAPIC’s CPD status.
CAPIC: The definition of “work with” usually requires an exchange of information about the
problem and the issuance of clear directives. Neither occurred in our interchange with CSIC. We
have reviewed all of our correspondence with CSIC over that time period. First, at no time
before January/February 2008 did we receive a single letter or email from CSIC complaining
about our membership categories, or any indication that they believed we were sheltering ghost
agents. In fact, a review of the correspondence for the past two years reveals the opposite.
CAPIC repeatedly pushed CSIC to do more on the issue of unregulated consultants. CAPIC
had many communications with CSIC.
The only controversial topics raised by CSIC were the possibility that CAPIC would recommend
to their members who to vote for in Director elections, and before the first failed attempts by
CSIC to hold online AGM, that we would tell people to vote against proposed by-law changes
because they were “bundled.”
Reference# 1 – Email.07-16-2007
In both cases, we did neither, but chose to offer members every opportunity to learn about the
candidates and issues. Today these issues seem rather ironic, given the recent alleged attempt
by CSIC/CMI to interfere in the CAPIC AGM
Further, the only communication with CSIC about CPD during 2007 was our frequent complaints
to CSIC about the slow processing of CPD applications.
Reference# 3 – Email.07-26-2007
Conclusion: The statement in the email of March 23, 2009 is a fabrication.
… “July to December 2007 – CSIC informs CAPIC that they have not complied with the process
posted to the CSIC website to gain CPD provider status”.
… cannot be supported by any evidence.
Point 2.
CSIC: What areas of concern did the regulator have concerning CAPIC?
In furtherance of its mandate to protect consumers, CSIC requires that any association adhere
to its guidelines. Despite numerous attempts at mediation, CAPIC refused to adhere to CSIC’s
posted guidelines on achieving accredited CPD provider status. There were several issues that
CSIC required CAPIC to address.
First, CAPIC had granted membership to several agents who were not authorized
representatives, including some who had been revoked or suspended by the regulator. In some
instances unauthorized agents were claiming that their CAPIC membership allowed them to
practice despite not being CSIC members. Naturally, this is not the case. To remedy this
situation, CSIC required CAPIC to remove the names of these unauthorized representatives
from its membership list. CAPIC did not initially comply, but eventually made the change.
Second, CAPIC policies allowed unauthorized representatives to participate in its continuing
professional development programs. CSIC required CAPIC to ensure that only authorized
representatives be permitted to take these courses. CAPIC did not initially comply, but
eventually made the change.
Third, CAPIC by-laws allowed student membership that was contrary to CSIC’s by-laws.
CAPIC’s student membership term went well beyond the period of study which left the door
open for these individuals to potentially become unauthorized representatives.
CAPIC: With regards to “numerous attempts at mediation” this is a mystery, since there were no
discussions of any kind on this issue until February 2008. Not only had CAPIC complied fully
with all of the CPD requirements (which we had helped design), our events continued to be
awarded points up to March of 2008. How could we “refuse to adhere to posted guidelines” and
still have events approved? In fact, what began to happen in February 2008 was that CSIC
started changing the rules “on the fly” and again, only for CAPIC, not for all CPD providers.
Reference# 3 – Email.02-11.2008.pdf
Reference# 4 – Email.02-14-2008-2.pdf
As far as “issues to be addressed” let us deal with them one by one.
On the issue of granting membership to revoked or suspended members, this is
completely false. CSIC pointed out that, in February of 2008, we had members on our public
membership list who were revoked or suspended CSIC members. This is the first time the issue
was raised. We explained that, as a volunteer organization, our resources are limited, so we
updated our membership lists when members paid their dues and renewed their memberships.
Reference# 5 – Email.02-21-2008.pdf
At that time, those individuals who were no longer CSIC members, in order to be able to stay in
CAPIC, had to send us affidavits as to what their role was, going forward, in the immigration
business. If they were working as agents for other CCICs (allowed by CSIC under the rules of
Professional Conduct) or Lawyers, they had to include an affidavit from the AR to that effect.
The CSIC membership list itself was extremely fluid up until the end of October 2007, as until
then the last of the Transitional Members could still join without taking a Practitioners Course. In
any case, and within days, we synched our lists with the CSIC lists to remove any revoked or
suspended members from our membership list.
Reference# 6 – Email.02-29-2008.pdf
Our speedy response was praised by CSIC, making the statement in the CSIC email of
March 23, 2009 “CAPIC does not comply” completely unsupported and disingenuous.
As far as the statement that “unauthorized agents were claiming that their CAPIC membership
allowed them to practiced despite being CSIC members” this refers to a story highlighted in a
news article by CBC TV in Winnipeg, about immigration and recruiting agents in the Philippines
charging fees to prepare applications. One such person interviewed stated that she was doing
nothing wrong as she “had paid her fees to CAPIC”. Within two days of receiving this
information from CSIC, we helped solve the puzzle. This person had been a CAPIC member
because she was still authorized by CIC to represent clients up to April of 2008, who had filed
applications before April of 2004. As this privilege was about to expire, CAPIC had requested
that she (and others in a similar situation) provide affidavits to show what her involvement was,
as required by our membership criteria. She had sent affidavits to show that she was working as
an agent on behalf of a CSIC member in Canada, and included the affidavit from the CCIC. We
immediately shared this with CSIC, and were informed that an investigation was launched. We
were subsequently told a few days later by the investigator that the affidavit signed by the CCIC
was done so fraudulently – and the CCIC was disciplined. We immediately refused the
application of the person in the Philippines. This whole story is detailed in the attachments.
Reference #7 – Email.03-12-2008.pdf
The real facts of the matter are not reflected in the CSIC email. If it were not for CAPIC’s
diligence in requiring supporting affidavits, they never would have known that a CCIC
(who was not a CAPIC member!) was ghosting applications for this person and who
knows how many others! The TV story states that the agent in the Philippines was charging
money for “preparing forms” which is allowed by CIC, but of course, something we want them to
change and have repeatedly lobbied against (IP9). CAPIC strongly supported the
recommendations of the Standing Committee last year, which said that IP9 should be changed.
CSIC opposed the report in public. This is also the case that CSIC is referring to in the letter to
our attorney regarding the issue of our CPD supplier suspension.
Reference# 8 – Email.03-19-2008.pdf
At no time did we ever receive the name of any other individual who is supposed to have
been acting as a ghost agent despite repeated requests for this type of information.
NOTE: this is the same incident that is referred to in the letter to our attorneys on October 10th
as an example of how “CAPIC was allowing ghost agents to be members.” This is a gross
misrepresentation of the facts, which were well known to CSIC in March, thanks to
CAPIC’s efforts. This should have been used as an example of malfeasance by a CSIC
member. By publishing this letter to all members CSIC has exceeded the bounds of normal
debate on an issue and may well have crossed the line into the area of Defamation. Again, we
remind the members that this is the only case cited by CSIC in the entire history of this issue,
going back two years! And it reflects badly on them for how they are misusing it.
On the issue of non-CSIC members participating in CAPIC educational events, this issue was
sprung on CAPIC without any prior notice, and is so blatantly hypocritical that it’s laughable.
CSIC awards CPD points to events held by a large number of organizations, many of which
allow anyone who pays to attend the event. For example, an event held in Toronto right around
the same time as this issue was raised had an invitee list that looked like Ghost Agents
International! Yet it was awarded 10 points! Clearly, CSIC was setting a much different standard
for CAPIC than any other organization. If they were serious, CSIC should check out the
attendees of the CMI conference held that spring to see if any non-CCICs attended.
Reference# 9 – Email.03-28-2008.pdf
CAPIC had long held the policy that staff members of CCICs and Agents of CCICs could attend
educational events, as it may help many of them learn more about how to support their CCICs
better, and ensure they know their roles. But when CSIC raised the issue, CAPIC changed its
policy immediately At the very next educational event we held we did not allow anyone who was
not a CCIC to attend, except I suppose, the camera crew, translators and waiters! Maybe they
all have to be CCICs too! Even the statement that “CAPIC did not initially comply” is
completely misleading. Ironically, we were also told that we could invite anyone we wanted to
an event as long as we didn’t apply for CPD points. So as far as CSIC was concerned, they
didn’t really care who we educated, giving lie to their expressed concern. The motivation
for this will be made clear in the next chapter of this debate.
Finally, on the issue of student members, CAPIC allowed all registered students in immigration
programs to become members, up to 2 years after graduation. This is because many new
graduates do not immediately take the CSIC exam, as they want to work for lawyers or CCICs
to be better prepared for the test and private practice. The students had to assure CAPIC that
they were not in effect practicing as ghost agents through sworn statements. Was this issue
ever raised with CAPIC by CSIC? Never. When they did announce plans for a special new
student category and asked us if we would change our criteria, we immediately agreed. We
made it abundantly clear that as soon as they defined their rules, we would mirror them.
CAPIC was faced with a constantly changing landscape without written rules or any concept of
collegiality. After all, we were in the business of upgrading the profession though the provision
of high quality educational events. To say we were confused and bewildered by what was
happening would be an understatement. As proof, I would like all members to go to the CSIC
web site and see if they can find anywhere rules for CPD events that match the rules we were
forced to agree to. If these issues were so critical that the regulator would deny hundreds
of members the points they deserve, you might think that these rules would be posted
for all CPD suppliers to see. If they are there, they must be written in invisible ink! Nowhere
does it say that only ARs can attend. Nowhere does it state what the membership criteria of an
organization should be. Nowhere does it give a definition of a student, or ghost agent or even
an AR.
CSIC’s own web site is enough to destroy any justification used to deny CAPIC CPD supplier
status.
Conclusion: CSIC’s claim that there were serious issues with CAPIC is patently untrue,
and appears to have been “manufactured” for a specific purpose. We think we know what
that purpose is.
Point 3:
In a meeting with CSIC Directors on May 15, 2008, CAPIC finally received in writing a list of four
points that we were asked to comply with to regain our CPD supplier status. These points were
contained in Motion 411, passed in April by the CSIC BOD. The four points were (in summary)
1. ensure that our membership list was synched with CSIC’s with regards to the correct spelling
of members’ names.
2. Remove “pending members list” from the public section of our web site
3. Update our membership every three months instead of every six and
4. Restrict access to materials on our web site, discussion Board and emails that assist ARs to
practice, so that only members who are ARS could access them.
We were asked to put together a plan on how we were going to accomplish these tasks. WE
COMPLIED FULLY WITH THE REQUESTS THE SAME DAY!! We even asked for a
compliance audit to be held in two weeks.
We also asked that John Ryan keep his promise to recommend re-instatement immediately if
we showed goodwill. He stated that he would be meeting with his board that weekend and
would discuss it. NOTHING HAPPENED. We waited throughout June because there was a
Directors’ election and CSIC could conduct no business until after the July orientation meeting.
Then, a few days before the Board meeting in July, our Vice President received a call from John
Ryan, stating that we had not complied because we had not agreed to change our membership
criteria. We were very surprised, because that was not one of the conditions in Motion 411. Not
only that, in order to change the membership criteria we would have to pass by-law
amendments, which could only be done at an AGM where our members could vote on it. Our
Board could not even meet to discuss the issue fully before the CSIC meeting.
Reference # 10 – Email.05-16-2008.pdf
At that meeting, John Ryan advised the Board that we had not met the conditions, so the
suspension remained. The CAPIC Board subsequently met a few weeks later and introduced a
motion to present a change in membership criteria at the next AGM.
Reference # 11 – Email.07-26-2008.pdf
Finally, at the next CSIC Board meeting in August, motion 411 was rescinded. However, we
were not advised of this fact until well into September. Nor did we get out status back. Now we
see that CSIC states they "cannot conduct business with an organization with which it is
in litigation. At the same time, they were approving CPD events held by the LSUC, with
whom they were still in court, in a years long battle. This truly takes hypocrisy to a new
level.
We fully expected to be told our CPD supplier status was restored. Instead, we received a letter
dated October 11th,where, once again, the rules changed.
Point 4:
Now we come to the saddest part of the whole sorry episode. In the letter from CSIC’s attorney
on October 11, CSIC makes several inaccurate statements and then slips into deliberate
misrepresentation of facts. The only correct part of the letter is that there is no contractual
arrangement between CSIC and CAPIC which would allow us to claim the right to supply CPD
programs. We accept that statement. We believe, however, that there is a moral and ethical
contract between the regulator and its members to act in the best interest of the
profession, especially when it does not harm consumer protection. CAPIC educating
members with high quality programs cannot, under any conceivable set of
circumstances, be considered detrimental to consumer protection. In fact, the opposite is
true.
Reference #12 – Letter from CSIC lawyer re Resolution # 411 and consequent refusal of
reinstatement of status due to CAPIC’s support of the Standing Committee report
The letter starts by saying that “CAPIC allowed ghost agents to be members”. That is a lie, as
you have seen above.
It then states that we made “erroneous statements and refused to address CSIC’s concerns”.
False statement.
It uses the story of the agent in the Philippines as an example of CAPIC allowing ghost agents
to be members. That is a gross distortion of the facts.
It talks about the membership category issue as if CAPIC was dragging its heals. That is a
further gross misrepresentation of the facts.
It then crosses the line from absurdity into deliberate malice through innuendo and fantasy.
It states that
CAPIC… challenged CSIC’s authority to regulate consultants. Never.
CAPIC… sought to have the Complaints and Discipline Policy declared unenforceable. Never.
CAPIC…attempted to join the LSUC in seeking to declare the Regulations that authorize CSIC
members as authorized representatives, ultra vires. A blatant lie.
CAPIC supports the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration to make CSIC a statutory body, so it can have the necessary authority to prosecute
ghost agents, like the Law Society prosecutes people who practice law without a license.
CAPIC never sought to join the Law Society in its case before the Supreme Court. What
CAPIC did, after the Chair of CSIC issued a very dire prediction of what would happen to our
profession If the LSUC won their case, was investigate the issues involved so we could inform
members and calm their fears, discuss the matter, and decide by a vote of 10 to 1 that it would
not join the LSUC in their case because it was not in the interests of our members. Calmly
investigating an issue, discussing it and then making a rational decision is something that CSIC
is clearly not used to doing.
Members can decide what to think, based on all the facts above.
When someone is wrong, there are usually only three explanations. The first is ignorance – they
didn’t know what to do. Second is stupidity.
Mistakes happen when people don’t think. All of us are born 100% ignorant, and die a little less
so. All of us do stupid things once in a while. But the third reason for mistakes is because of evil.
The person (or persons) deliberately set out to do wrong. They usually have an agenda. We
leave it to Members to decide what is happening in this case.
Phil Mooney
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: jryan@visapost.com [mailto:jryan@visapost.com]
Sent: July 16, 2007 4:47 PM
To: Phil Mooney; Keith Frank; Gerd Damitz; Betro Volpenpesta
Subject: Re: CSIC AGM - Wednesday, July 18th, 5:00 P.M EST.
Phil
Thank you for your message.
Your advice to your members on how to vote is very irresponsible. In the
same vein that we at CSIC would not seek to intervene or unduly influence
members of your organization when they are called on to exercise their
franchise, why would you seek to use your organizations influence to
directly interfere with our sovereign process.
Phil, our CSIC members must be free to exercise their free will without the
undue influence of an external organization such as yours.
Further your recommendation to your membership in my view constitutes an
effort to undermine the regulator in that you are effectivley tring to
organise a bloc vote that will have the result of lowering the value of the
equal franchise that all 1092 CSIC members enjoy.
This in my respectfull view could run counter to the spirt Section 16.6 of
the Societys Rules of Professional Conduct.
The current process has not only been passed through a board of Directors
that has fully four of the Six consultant directors elected by our
membership but it has also been vetted and approved by the Public interest
directors of our Board.
The process is hardly undemocratic as you allude, in fact it is fully
democratic in that it is our members who will vote and decide on matters at
our sovereign AGM.
While I appreciate your comments on the Online meeting question, your advice
on how members should vote crosses the line.
It is a line that we must protect or as your regulator we will be open to
the charge that we are not sufficiently independent of consultants to govern
their activities in the interests of the Consumer.
The very fact that your board would seek to publicly exert undue influence
by lobbying a vote outcome or inappropriately trying to interfere with the
regulator just plays in to the hand of those who would see our profession
cast asunder.
Page 1 of 4
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud9B.htm 16-05-2009
Phil, at some point your organization has to recognize that there are larger
issues at play.
The regulator must be independent and your organization should do everything
it can to avoid the appearance that consultants exert undue influence to the
detriment of the consumer interest.
Both Ralph Nader and Stephen Lewis warned of the dangers of the Industry
Lobby controlling the actions of the regulator.
Our only credibility as a profession is that we have an independent
effective regulator. This is absolutely fundamental to the survival of our
fledgling profession.
That credibility is currently under full attack....namely that CSIC does not
discipline it's own.
Don't make the mistake of providing more fodder to those who would bring us
down.
On the other matters, the CBA, OBA and parties to which you allude need to
be reminded that CSIC is not the sole actor on the regulatory stage, their
regulators have been wholly ineffective in governing their own profession ie
Angie Codina. There is also the Governments lack of action to consider as
well. I suggest that you not get sucked in by some of the actors in the
legal community, rather you concentrate on developing and setting out your
organizations position on self regulation.
Your organization needs to focus its scarce resources on educating and
defending the profession, not trying to micro-manage the regulator.
This is a tough love message Phil but you have to take a step back and look
at the message you are sending and how it will eventually be used against
all consultants.
My advice to you is don't get lost in the moment, keep your eye on the mid
to long term objectives on which we agree.
I will call you later to discuss.
Regards
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
-----Original Message-----
From: "Phil Mooney" <pm1@bellnet.ca>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:16:56
To:<jryan@visapost.com>
Subject: CSIC AGM - Wednesday, July 18th, 5:00 P.M EST.
Page 2 of 4
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud9B.htm 16-05-2009
Hi John;
I am sending you this draft announcement reflecting the position of the
CAPIC BOD on the AGM. Out of respect to you and our earlier conversations,
no one else has seen this, nor will they until you have had a chance to
comment. I am open to your suggestions, as I hope you are open to mine.
For your information, as a result of the CBA letter, I have gotten public
agreement from L’Aqaadi and the CBA Robin Seligman, no less! that CIC
should change IP9 to help get rid of ghost consultants. Robin still agrees
that all consultants should be shot, but at least she is agreeing as to who
should go to the wall first!
Please call me at any time 888-288-0801.
Phil
Fellow CAPIC members;
On behalf of the board of Directors of CAPIC, I want to encourage all
Registered Members to take part in the CSIC Annual General Meeting on
Wednesday, July 18th via web cast and conference call. This is your chance
to be involved in the affairs of the Regulator. It is vital that we get a
quorum for this meeting, so the “outside world’ can see that Consultants
care about their own profession.
There are several important issues regarding the Agenda, which we would like
you to consider. There has been some debate amongst CSIC members about the
legality of an online-only meeting, and the “bundling” of motions.
ONLINE-ONLY MEETINGS
* I would like to refer you to my previous report on the issue of Industry
Canada and the issue of Online-only meetings. It is our opinion that
Industry Canada would not disqualify a by-law which was approved by more
than 2/3rds of CSIC members, even if it was “after the fact”. This is based
on consultations with Industry Canada and an outside legal expert.
“BUNDLING OF BY-LAWS’
* The issue of “bundling” all of the bylaw changes into one vote, designed
primarily to clean up the transitional language but including other
substantive issues is more concerning. CAPIC has asked CSIC to “”un-bundle”
the bylaw changes so we could discuss them separately, including the issue
of online-only meetings, but CSIC has not agreed to do so. We feel that
this decision is not conducive to encouraging Members to participate
actively in their own Society, and sets a dangerous precedent for the
future. Therefore, as there is no other option, we are encouraging all
CAPIC members to vote “No” to accepting the bylaw changes. This will have
the consequence that CSIC will continue to operate as they are today, until
the next AGM when members will have a chance to discuss these items again.
* We are not stating that, as the Board of Directors of your Association, we
Page 3 of 4
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud9B.htm 16-05-2009
are opposed or in favour of any specific by-1aw change, only that each
change deserves to be discussed on its own merits, in the interests of
maintaining the health of the Society as a democratic institution.
So please make plans to attend online you may then get a better
perspective on whether or not to support this meeting style at the next
AGM. But to learn more and to insure that your voice is heard, you must
attend. Call in early in case there are any connection problems, and if you
have trouble, please make note of it and forward the details to the meeting
convener.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney
Page 4 of 4
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud9B.htm 16-05-2009
From: News @ CAPIC [mailto:news@capic.ca]
Sent: July 26, 2007 12:27 AM
To: News @ CAPIC
Subject: CAPIC-ACCPI pushes for CPD points for members
Importance: High
Please don’t reply to this e‐mail. If you need to contact CAPIC‐ACCPI, please send your message to info@capic.ca
July 25, 2007
CAPIC-ACCPI pushes for CPD points for members
One of the pillars of CAPIC-ACCPI is Education. We have been committed to the professional
development of our members and immigration consultants in the industry right from the
beginning and even before regulation. Professional development is a key component of
building a profession.
CAPIC-ACCPI offers a variety of opportunities for immigration consultants to build their
knowledge and skills through seminars, workshops and other sessions. Many of the sessions
have been submitted to CSIC for evaluation and the awarding of CPD points. Thus far, only a
few have been assessed and awarded as noted on the CSIC site.
Mansour Motamedi has been following up the issue with CSIC and they have replied. We
look forward to future progress on this issue and assessment of all our pending and future
sessions.
Page 1 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud9D.htm 16-05-2009
Thank you,
CAPIC-ACCPI
Received via e-mail July 24, 2007
Dear Mr. Motamedi,
Thank you for your email. Please be assured that the processing will be taking place as soon
as physically possible. As you are probably aware there have been a number of events in
recent months that have taken significant staff resources and priorities were established to
deal with the most pressing issues.
The intent is to have the assessments of the CPD events done as quickly as possible, the
initial assessments are taking longer simply because they are the first ones to be processed
and the desire is to insure that these assessments are done accurately as precedents will be
established. I have also explained to Mr. Mooney that the staff time required for some of
these extraordinary events such as the CPD conference, the AGM, the launching of the
features for the new WebSIte, the elections, the review of the academic programs, etc. has
been significant. As a consequence, the processing of the CPD credit allocations for the
various program applications has been delayed simply because there were hard deadlines
associated with all of these other events. At the current time some of the staff members
involved in the assessments are on vacation, as soon as the individuals return from vacation
the completion of the assessments will be given a top priority.
I share your frustration but I can assure you the intent is to process the applications as
quickly as possible within the staff resources available.
Thank you for your inquiry.
Yours truly,
Page 2 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud9D.htm 16-05-2009
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
Page 3 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud9D.htm 16-05-2009
From: Gerd Damitz [mailto:canimmig@idirect.com]
Sent: February 11, 2008 1:13 PM
To: 'Phil Mooney'; executive@capic.ca; 'R. Williams'; keithfrank@rogers.com
Subject: RE: Draft of Letter to CSIC
Importance: High
Just a proposal for some small changes, Phil:
1) You have told me verbally that the problem was with Stephen Lockyer and with a Desjardin
employee who gave a presentation on the Quebec investor program. Your expressed concern
with Stephen Lockyer was that he was “Banned from PNP conferences”, when in fact his
problems lie in a commercial dispute with the Nova Scotia PNP program, which is currently
before the courts. It has nothing to do with PEI, where in fact, Mr. Lockyer is allowed to
advertise himself and his Company as “Stephen Lockyer, Confederation Capital, An official
PEI Government approved Matchmaker”. Please refer to the list of approved matchmakers
published by the PEI Government at http://www.gov.pe.ca/immigration/index.php3?
number=1014606&lang=E . The presentation was on the PEI program, and was given by
Stephen and Blake Doyle, the associate in PEI, and dealt directly with program details.
2) The other speaker was, I believe, Foad Dalati who works for Desjardins. Foad is a former
Case Officer with MICC, and has lectured many times over the past few years on Quebec
Investor Programs. He is repeatedly acknowledged as an expert on this subject, has given
presentations to many groups, and is one of Desjardin’s liaisons to the Quebec Government for
updates and recent developments on the program.
Best regards,
Gerd
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:53 AM
To: 'Gerd Damitz'; executive@capic.ca; 'R. Williams'; keithfrank@rogers.com
Subject: Draft of Letter to CSIC
Please let me have your comments today.
Regards,
Phil
Dear Ross;
I am writing to ask your help in resolving the delays with two of our CPD applications. These
delays are now causing CAPIC serious problems both with membership renewals and with
Page 1 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudA2.htm 16-05-2009
planning for the seminar/AGM on October 29th.
We have been told by your staff that the CPD award for of Feb 29th seminar is awaiting the
name of the speaker on Governance. This despite verbal comments from your Chairman that we
do not have to have the speakers named, only the subject matter, in order to get points. Also,
the delay in getting the speaker’s name is as a result of CSIC not giving it to us, as we have
invited a speaker from CSIC to cover this topic. Because of this confusion, members may be
reluctant to register, and as the date is fast approaching, it becomes more difficult to plan for
any level of attendance.
We are still waiting for the award of CPD points for our National Education Seminar held in
Vancouver, November 9th and 10th. The application was submitted many, many weeks ago.
We have heard two reasons for the delay from you or your staff – one was that it was not
applied for with 60 days notice and then other was questions about two of the speakers.
The first is a non-issue since the “60 day rule” was announced less that 60 days before our
event, and we have written assurances from you that it would not apply retroactively to this
conference.
The second is only speculation based on your and your Chairman’s verbal comments to me, as
we have not received any written or verbal request for clarification or additional information
about our speakers. You have told me verbally that the problem was with Stephen Lockyer and
with a Desjardin employee who gave a presentation on the Quebec investor program. Your
expressed concern with Stephen Lockyer was that he was “Banned from PNP conferences”,
when in fact his problems lie in a commercial dispute with the Nova Scotia PNP program,
which is currently before the courts. It has nothing to do with PEI, where in fact, Mr. Lockyer is
allowed to advertise himself and his Company as “Stephen Lockyer, Confederation Capital,
An official PEI Government approved Matchmaker”. The presentation was on the PEI
program, and was given by Stephen and one of his employees, and dealt directly with
program details.
The other speaker was, I believe, Foad Dalati who works for Desjardins. Foad is a former Case
Officer with MICC, and has lectured many times over the past few years on Quebec Investor
Programs. He is repeatedly acknowledged as an expert on this subject, and has given
presentations to many groups.
Our urgent problem is that the length of time it is taking, is causing members to ask questions
about what is happening, and doubts are being expressed about our credibility as a provider of
CPD materials at this very crucial time. Some members are reluctant to renew their
memberships until they are certain that CAPIC is indeed going to be able to meet their CPD
needs in the next six months.
Therefore, CAPIC is now facing serious problems as a result of these delays. We had
complained last year of long delays in getting CPD applications processed in anything like a
timely manner. We are also concerned about different messages coming from CSIC
Management and CSIC staff.
Please let me know as soon as possible what can be done to deal with our concerns. CAPIC has
Page 2 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudA2.htm 16-05-2009
made every effort to meet the requirements for CPD points, both in holding excellent events
and in applying for points for these events, despite the changing rules and long delays.
Nevertheless, we have still delivered more CPD value than any other supplier, according to
your web site.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended
only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this email
to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for your
cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel
et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute utilisation ou divulgation
non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation.
Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
Page 3 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudA2.htm 16-05-2009
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: February 14, 2008 9:52 AM
To: Phil Mooney
Subject: CAPIC CPD applications
Dear Phil,
Thank you for your email. In response to your questions I am pleased to provide the following
information:
1.) Feb 29th Seminar - I provided the name of Michel Bento who is the SEO for the upcoming election, I
would suggest that you contact him directly.
2.) The CAPIC National Education Seminar - as I indicated previously it will be considered by the Board
when it has been processed by the appropriate Board Committee. This ties into the comments made
by staff as the issue of the seminar being considered by the Board is because of the timing of the
announcement of the 60 day rule and the scheduling of the seminar. The speakers is a matter which I
raised with you as these are issues that CAPIC needs to be aware of when planning these types of
events.
For your information and I am sure you are aware but CAPIC has events that were submitted in
accordance witht he 60 day rule that have been approved.
Thank you.
yours truly,
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by email at reastley@csic-scci.ca. Thank you.
Page 1 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudA5.htm 16-05-2009
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: February 11, 2008 5:32 PM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: John Ryan; 'John Ryan'; keithfrank@rogers.com; executive@capic.ca; 'Gerd Damitz'; 'R. Williams';
board@csic-scci.ca Collection Folder
Subject: CAPIC CPD applications
Dear Ross;
I am writing to ask your help in resolving the delays with two of our CPD applications. These
delays are now causing CAPIC serious problems both with membership renewals and with
planning for the seminar/AGM on February 29th.
We have been told by your staff that the CPD award for of Feb 29th seminar is awaiting the
name of the speaker on Governance. This despite verbal comments from your Chairman that we
do not have to have the speakers named, only the subject matter, in order to get points. Also,
the delay in getting the speaker’s name is as a result of CSIC not giving it to us, as we have
invited a speaker from CSIC to cover this topic. Because of this confusion, members may be
reluctant to register, and as the date is fast approaching, it becomes more difficult to plan for
any level of attendance.
We are still waiting for the award of CPD points for our National Education Seminar held in
Vancouver, November 9th and 10th. The application was submitted many, many weeks ago.
We have heard two reasons for the delay from you or your staff – one was that it was not
applied for with 60 days notice and then other was questions about two of the speakers.
The first is a non-issue since the “60 day rule” was announced less that 60 days before our
event, and we have written assurances from you that it would not apply retroactively to this
conference.
The second is only speculation based on your and your Chairman’s verbal comments to me, as
we have not received any written or verbal request for clarification or additional information
about our speakers. You have told me verbally that the problem was with Stephen Lockyer and
with a Desjardin employee who gave a presentation on the Quebec investor program. Your
expressed concern with Stephen Lockyer was that he was “Banned from PNP conferences”,
when in fact his problems lie in a commercial dispute with the Nova Scotia PNP program,
which is currently before the courts. It has nothing to do with PEI, where in fact, Mr. Lockyer is
allowed to advertise himself and his Company as “Stephen Lockyer, Confederation Capital,
An official PEI Government approved Matchmaker”. Please refer to the list of approved
matchmakers published by the PEI Government at
http://www.gov.pe.ca/immigration/index.php3?number=1014606&lang=E . The
presentation was on the PEI program, and was given by Stephen and Blake Doyle, the
associate in PEI, and dealt directly with program details.
The other speaker was Foad Dalati who works for Desjardins. Foad is a former Case Officer
with MICC, and has lectured many times over the past few years on Quebec Investor
Page 2 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudA5.htm 16-05-2009
Programs. He is repeatedly acknowledged as an expert on this subject, and has given
presentations to many groups, and is one of Desjardin’s liaisons to the Quebec Government for
updates and recent developments on the program.
The urgent problem is that the delays in approval are causing members to ask questions about
what is happening, and doubts are being expressed about our credibility as a provider of CPD
materials at this very crucial time. Some members are reluctant to renew their memberships
until they are certain that CAPIC is indeed going to be able to meet their CPD needs in the next
six months.
Therefore, CAPIC is now facing serious problems as a result of these delays. We had
complained last year of long delays in getting CPD applications processed in anything like a
timely manner. We are also concerned about different messages coming from CSIC
Management and CSIC staff.
Please let me know as soon as possible what can be done to deal with our concerns. CAPIC has
made every effort to meet the requirements for CPD points, both in holding excellent events
and in applying for points for these events, despite the changing rules and long delays.
Nevertheless, we have still delivered more CPD value than any other supplier, according to
your web site.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
Page 3 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudA5.htm 16-05-2009
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: February 21, 2008 10:47 AM
To: executive@capic.ca
Cc: Phil Mooney
Subject: CAPIC Membership
Hi Berto,
Thank you for providing the list of members. As some background information I have received a complaint about
CAPIC providing access for unauthorized representatives to attend recognized CPD events. I take this
seriously as the public needs to be assured that only authorized representatives are receiving the appropriate
educational support to facilitate their practice. CSIC is taking a zero tolerance towards the provision of
education to ghost consultants. Consequently, I need to have CAPIC address this issue as the continuation of
this practice may have an effect on the recognition of CAPIC as an authorized CPD provider. Can you please
provide information on how CAPIC would propose to address the issue.
As a second point I appreciate receiving the CAPIC list of members; however, it does raise the following
questions and/or concerns:
a.) there are a number individuals on the attached list who have as you indicate a revoked status with CSIC, this
is a concern as these individuals may be practicing as ghost consultants.
b.) there are some individuals listed with no affiliation to a recognized regulator and again this is a concern as
they may be ghost consultants
c.) there are individuals listed with a student status - what requirements do you have to insure they are actually
students. Allowing them to retain a student status after graduation and before they become a full CSIC member
for up to two years is again a concern as this would be a prime time in which they could be practicing as a ghost
consultant.
d.) agents and employees of CSIC members are not authorized representatives thus in the eyes of the consumer
it is very hard to justify their membership in a professional organization.
e.) the members who cease to have a recognized status after April 13th, 2008 should by now have a very
reduced practice as they are only allowed to work on files that were active before April 13th, 2004 and I
anticipate they will cease to have a status with CAPIC after April 13th, 2008. What steps is CAPIC taking to
insure these individuals are not operating a full practice and that they will be closing after April 13, 2008.
I would appreciate receiving comments from CAPIC on the above concerns.
Thank you for your assistance.
Page 1 of 6
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudBD.htm 16-05-2009
regards,
Ross
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at reastley@csicscci.
ca. Thank you.
From: Berto Volpentesta, Executive Director, CAPIC-ACCPI [mailto:executive@capic.ca]
Sent: February 20, 2008 6:56 PM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: 'Phil Mooney'
Subject: RE: CAPIC Membership
Hi Ross,
Our membership list is available on our website but I am also providing it here. This list
contains all members.
Page 2 of 6
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudBD.htm 16-05-2009
Please be advised that we are currently undergoing renewals and this list may change in the
next few weeks (slightly since most have renewed by now)
By way of explanation I am including an explanation of our membership categories which is
also available on our website.
Registered Member being those individuals who are one of the following:
1) Individuals who are Full Members in good standing of the
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC),
2) Individuals who were grand-parented into CAPIC-ACCPI by
virtue of being members in good standing of other Regulatory Bodies,
3) Individuals who were grand-parented into CAPIC-ACCPI from
OPIC and AICC and who are not authorized representatives but are
permitted to represent by virtue of R. 13.1 (2) of The Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act of Canada, S.C. 2001, shall cease on April 13th,
2008 to be Registered Members, unless on or before this date they
become full members of CSIC.
Associate Members being those individuals who are not Registered Members as defined by
1), 2), and 3) in subsection (a) are industry stakeholders, or members in good standing of a
Law Society of one of the Provinces of Canada or a Public Notary in Quebec, or agents of
Registered Members, agent being defined by the By-Laws of CSIC, or those employed as
staff of Registered Members.
Honorary Life Member being those individuals who have contributed to the foundation of
CAPIC-ACCPI, OPIC or AICC, or have contributed to CSIC or other regulatory body, or any
other contributing industry stakeholder or contributing member of CAPIC-ACCPI and who
have, at the sole discretion of the Board of Directors, as a result of their contributions to the
industry, warrant such a lifetime distinction. This category is the only category that is exempt
from the payment of fees.
Page 3 of 6
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudBD.htm 16-05-2009
Student Member being those individuals who are enrolled in an educational program seeking
a career as an immigration practitioner who are not yet members of CSIC and this designation
may continue for a period of two years subsequent to graduation, unless they qualify as either
a Registered, Associate or Honorary Life Member.
Also, it is worth noting that further to our last discussion where you expressed concern over
some of our members, I am pleased to advise that we have instituted a process whereby a
member who claims to be an Associate Member must provide evidence of how they meet that
category. Specifically we ask that they make a declaration indicating how they meet the
requirements such as: working for a CSIC member as employee or agent, working for a
lawyer as employee or agent, thus ensuring that they meet the definitions used by CSIC.
Further, if you should have information that a particular member does fall outside the
requirements or that you have other concerns about we certainly would like to know about it.
CAPIC-ACCPI is fully dedicated to the fight against ghost agents and protecting this
profession and thus the consumer.
Should you have any further question or concern, please let me know.
Regards,
Berto
Berto Volpentesta
Executive Director
CAPIC-ACCPI
245 Fairview Mall Drive
Suite 602
Toronto, ON M2J 4T1
Direct: 416 483 7044 ext. 25
Fax: 416 483 0884
Page 4 of 6
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudBD.htm 16-05-2009
E-mail: executive@capic.ca
Website: www.capic.ca
____________________________
CAPIC-ACCPI, founded on the four pillars of information, education, recognition, and lobbying, is the leading
association for immigration consultants. In being their major voice in any representation, CAPIC-ACCPI is committed to
promoting and protecting the practice of all Canadian immigration consultants.
Education, Information, Lobbying, Recognition
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for
the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this email to anyone other
than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné
uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute utilisation ou divulgation non permise est
strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le
présent courriel et ses annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de
votre coopération.
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: February 14, 2008 1:51 PM
To: executive@capic.ca
Subject: CAPIC Membership
Hi Berto,
As a follow up to my phone call of this morning I would like to request a current listing of the CAPIC
membership.
I will look forward to receiving your response.
Thank you.
regards,
Page 5 of 6
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudBD.htm 16-05-2009
Ross
Ross Eastley, CA
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at reastley@csicscci.
ca. Thank you.
Master list by category1.xls
Page 6 of 6
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudBD.htm 16-05-2009
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: February 29, 2008 11:01 AM
To: 'Ross Eastley'
Cc: 'board@csic-scci.ca'; ajf@obr-immigration.com
Subject: RE: URGENT
Ross;
Please see my responses below.
Phil
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: February 29, 2008 10:24 AM
To: Phil Mooney
Cc: board@csic-scci.ca
Subject: RE: URGENT
Hello Phil,
Thank you for your email. As a follow up I have the following points for clarification:
1.) Student members - what approach are you proposing to take on the concern raised about student membership post graduation? The
point I raised was as follows - "Allowing a student to maintain membership for up to two years after graduation is a concern as this type of
individual would be a prime candidate to become involved as a ghost agent and the industry needs to take steps to reduce the opportunities
for ghost agents."
2.) In your point number 2 below you provided the following response " We will meet on Thursday next week to
discuss the other issues, such as attendance at CPD seminars by: students who are in school or who have
recently graduated; agents of CSIC members or employees of CSIC members; other industry stakeholders.
We understand that it is CSIC’s role to set the rules for the CPD program and will, as always, comply with all
rules as long as we know what they are!" This is very positive initiative from CSIC's perspective; however, I
want to know what steps CAPIC is taking on these issues (other than discussion) and the time line for
implementation.
PHIL: The meeting on Thursday is with you. John indicated that there may be certain types of student members who could
attend seminars, etc. WE need to discuss everything so we get clear guidelines.
3.) You made the following response below:
"We have already explained that any member who claims to qualify as an Associate Member must sign a declaration to the
effect that he will not “represent” clients, and must also identify the CSIC member or lawyer that he is working for. Should we
receive a complaint about a person and find out that they have been violating the terms of their membership, they would be
removed from CAPIC as well as face the legal consequences of such an action, i.e. perjury. CSIC also has the responsibility to
discipline the CSIC member involved, for whom the Agent or student was working ."
I appreciate the fact that CAPIC has taken these steps along with the commitment to only list authorized representatives on the
WebSite, that is a very significant step. The issue which remains is that these "associate members" can still list themselves on
their letterhead, advertisements, etc as Member or Associate Member of CAPIC which has the potential of creating confusion in
the minds of the public. I am sure you will agree that a vast majority of the public do not understand the difference between
role of CAPIC and the role of CSIC and this is one of the issues we are trying to address to counter ghost agents. How do you
propose to address this problem?
We will also talk about this on Thursday. Since you are trying to make a point, I expect that you will bring along some proof
that this is actually happening.
I will point out that on the CSIC web site, members names appear as “Former”, “Suspended” and Revoked. Ghost consultants
could easily mislead persons who do not read English well to make them believe that their names on the web site are proof of
their right to practice.
4.) Clarification on this point
We know that that the large majority of Revoked members who try to continue in the business will do so under the loophole
allowed them by IP9, which we all have been working very hard to close, and will not likely risk criminal charges for perjury by
Page 1 of 7
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudCE.htm 16-05-2009
joining CAPIC! Revoked members who want to continue in business must apply to CSIC for permission to work with a CSIC
agent or lawyer. Those who are approved by CSIC could then join CAPIC if they wanted to.
You make the statement " Those who are approved by CSIC could then join CAPIC" - I am not sure what you mean by this
statement - could you please explain. Sorry, I was referring to the provision for Resigned Members sharing office space
with CSIC members, not Revoked members.
5.) Concern about announcing the CAPIC events.
John Ryan agreed that as soon as our letter was received, you would immediately send out an email announcing our preapproved
seminars for tomorrow and March 15th. I know that the fax was received in your office at around 1:00 p.m. Can you
please tell me where the email is? I received at least three emails from CSIC today, including a reminder about the CMI
seminar, but no email about the CAPIC seminar as of this writing. Please explain the delay.
On your first point the response must address the outstanding issues in a substantive and satisfactory manner. The fax was received and it
was a very constructive and positive initiative; however, as I indicated above there are still some clarifications plus action steps required with
definite time lines. As soon as these points are clarified in a satisfactory manner there will be a message sent out about the upcoming
CAPIC seminar.
By raising these issues only after we asked you to publish today’s seminar, and by continually raising the bar for what you will
accept, you have now put us at a disadvantage to CMI, whose seminar details you continue to announce. I would ask, as a sign
of good faith, that you immediately announce both events, even at this late hour. As you have said, you realize we are making
great strides. Yet there is absolutely no written guideline for CPD providers that we have not adhered to, only concerns that you
are raising “on the fly”. While we appreciate that we all might be in unchartered waters here, you cannot punish us for possibly
not adhering to rules or that we did not even know exist, and which do not appear in writing anywhere. John asked us to do
specific things yesterday, which we did, and in return assured us that our announcements would go out. Please honour his
promise.
6.) CPD points for CAPIC events
On the final point which you raised " Finally, I would also ask again that you publish the points awarded for our NEC
seminar in November. Clearly members who receive the anticipated 15 points for this event will want to plan their
attendance at additional CPD qualifying events accordingly."
I have addressed this point in previous emails, the most recent email was February 15th which had the following information " As a
point of clarification the Board makes policy and the staff implements the policy. In terms of timing the matter is on the agenda for
upcoming meetings, when the matter has been finalized CAPIC will be notified. " For your information the matter has been dealt with by the
Board and CAPIC will be notified next week.
I thank you for your response as I am very pleased with the action which has been initiated. As I indicated there are still some
outstanding items and I will look forward to receiving further information from you.
yours truly,
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at reastley@csic-scci.ca.
Thank you.
Page 2 of 7
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudCE.htm 16-05-2009
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: February 28, 2008 7:00 PM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: board@csic-scci.ca Collection Folder
Subject: RE: URGENT
Hi Ross;
Regarding the timelines and processes:
1. The discussion this morning between John Ryan and Keith Frank, our Vice President, was very clear. We will remove the
names of anyone who is not an AR from our membership list on the web site, just in case a member of the public sees a name
there and tries to contact that person. This will be done as soon as our web master can accomplish the task. He has only just
returned from Mexico after the death of his father, and is catching up on his work. I believe it is a matter of days, not months.
2. We will meet on Thursday next week to discuss the other issues, such as attendance at CPD seminars by: students who are in
school or who have recently graduated; agents of CSIC members or employees of CSIC members; other industry stakeholders.
We understand that it is CSIC’s role to set the rules for the CPD program and will, as always, comply with all rules as long as
we know what they are!
3. By Thursday we will have reviewed our entire membership list, and will tell you if we have found anyone on the list who is
not entitled to be there, and what we have done about it. This will include a description of the process for how we will deal with
members who will lose the right to represent clients on April 13th, 2008.
We have already explained that any member who claims to qualify as an Associate Member must sign a declaration to the effect
that he will not “represent” clients, and must also identify the CSIC member or lawyer that he is working for. Should we receive
a complaint about a person and find out that they have been violating the terms of their membership, they would be removed
from CAPIC as well as face the legal consequences of such an action, i.e. perjury. CSIC also has the responsibility to discipline
the CSIC member involved, for whom the Agent or student was working .
We know that that the large majority of Revoked members who try to continue in the business will do so under the loophole
allowed them by IP9, which we all have been working very hard to close, and will not likely risk criminal charges for perjury by
joining CAPIC! Revoked members who want to continue in business must apply to CSIC for permission to work with a CSIC
agent or lawyer. Those who are approved by CSIC could then join CAPIC if they wanted to.
John Ryan agreed that as soon as our letter was received, you would immediately send out an email announcing our preapproved
seminars for tomorrow and March 15th. I know that the fax was received in your office at around 1:00 p.m. Can you
please tell me where the email is? I received at least three emails from CSIC today, including a reminder about the CMI
seminar, but no email about the CAPIC seminar as of this writing. Please explain the delay.
Finally, I would also ask again that you publish the points awarded for our NEC seminar in November. Clearly members who
receive the anticipated 15 points for this event will want to plan their attendance at additional CPD qualifying events
accordingly.
I look forward to seeing you on Thursday. What time will be convenient?
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: February 28, 2008 4:12 PM
To: Phil Mooney
Cc: board@csic-scci.ca
Subject: URGENT
Page 3 of 7
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudCE.htm 16-05-2009
Hi Phil,
Thank you for your letter which was received by fax today responding to the items outlined in my email below. I appreciate very much that
you are in agreement with the approach that is being proposed which in effect is dealing with ghost agents. I do however, need to have
firm time lines on when the various items will be addressed and the processes which CAPIC will be using to address these concerns.
Thank you.
yours truly,
Ross Eastley
CSIC
Hi Phil,
Thank you for your email. In response I don't agree that the concerns raised in my previous emails have all been addressed. For
example, employees and agents are not authorized representatives and I am very sure that is very clear in the by-laws. The Rules of
Professional Conduct refer to the obligations that a members has for employees and agents which does not translate into making these
individuals authorized representatives.
I will require a detailed explanation for all of the CAPIC members on the membership listing who are not CSIC members in good standing.
A general explanation indicating why they may or may not be members of CSIC does not address the specific information contained in the
CAPIC membership list.
Allowing a student to maintain membership for up to two years after graduation is a concern as this type of individual would be a prime
candidate to become involved as a ghost agent and the industry needs to take steps to reduce the opportunities for ghost agents.
On another point raised could you please clarify what action is being taken by CAPIC to insure that those CAPIC members ( non CSIC
members) who you indicate are working on pre April 2004 files are actually only working on pre April 2004 files? In addition, what action is
being taken to insure that those specific CAPIC members are making arrangements to hand over their files either on or before April 13,
2008 to authorized representatives?
As a general comment one of the results of having the CAPIC membership listed on a public WebSIte is that it creates confusion for the
public about authorized representatives, this is especially true when some of the members are not authorized representatives. This type of
listing of the membership creates confusion and facilitates the practices for the ghost agents.
All of my requests on this issue are part of the total effort to combat ghost agents, there is not a silver bullet to correct this problem rather
there are a multitude of steps required by all participants in the industry to insure that ghost agents do not have the tools to operate. Some
of these tools which I am referring to include education, credibility of membership and reducing the ability for non authorized representatives
to advertise.
I will look forward to your reply.
Thank you.
yours truly,
Ross
Ross Eastley, CA
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at reastley@csic-scci.ca.
Page 4 of 7
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudCE.htm 16-05-2009
Thank you.
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: February 26, 2008 11:38 AM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: board@csic-scci.ca Collection Folder
Subject: FW: URGENT
Dear Ross:
Thank you for detailing your concerns. We certainly agree about zero tolerance towards ghost consultants.
CAPIC SEMINAR ATTENDANCE
With regards to your first point, we also do not want to be providing education to anyone who will be practicing as a ghost consultant. Our
seminars are usually open only to our members, non-CAPIC CSIC members, and invited guests, not the general public. Identities are
checked at the door. There are many benefits to the Immigration profession from inviting guests. We can better inform other stakeholders
in the industry such as non-profit organizations, educational recruiters, MPs’ office staff, suppliers, etc. none of whom area practicing
consultants. Also, many of our members have large staffs, and find it beneficial to have these staff members become as knowledgeable as
possible. Agents of consultants operating under the CSIC rules for Agents, need to be knowledgeable as well. We also allow retired
members to attend, and pay the CAPIC rate, because of their contributions in the past and because we feel that they are a positive
influence on others.
I should point out that CSIC Bylaws acknowledge the existence of "agents", "employees" and others who have a role to play (but may not
represent). In so far as they have a role to play (stopping short of representation), they have a real need to be educated as well.
CSIC has made clear the rules for Full Members who deal with revoked members. If you are concerned that some CSIC members are
employing revoked members not in accordance with the Society’s rules, you have every authority necessary to investigate them. As CSIC
communication with full members is privileged, CAPIC would have no way of knowing if the member has complied with the rules or not. I am
sure that you would agree that disciplining CSIC members is not CAPIC’s job. We take your word as “gospel” when it comes to members
being in good standing.
If you then discipline a member and either revoke his license or order him to remove certain Agents who are working for him, please inform
us immediately so we can revoke the membership of any of them who are CAPIC members. If these Agents are not working with a CSIC
member or lawyer, they would certainly not qualify for CAPIC membership, and would not be allowed to attend our seminars in any case.
Finally, we register every person who attends our seminars, and will not allow anyone to attend who is suspected of being a ghost
consultant.
If it is CSIC’s intention to set out new rules about who can attend CPD eligible events, (i.e. legitimate Agents, staff members, NGO
personnel, I would expect that this would be put in writing and apply to every CPD provider equally, including the OBA, CBA, CAPIC, CMI
etc.
CAPIC MEMBERSHIP LIST AND CATEGORIES
This is a timely discussion as we are just now renewing our membership, and finalizing out active members list. We expect to complete our
review by the end of this week, the deadline for renewals. A brief look at the list indicates that of the non-CSIC members on the list, once
we eliminate lawyers, members who can practice until April 13, 2008, members who are not renewing, members who work for full CSIC
members either as staff or Agents, retired members who do not practice, Honourable members (Charles Pley, Barbara Silver) there are not
many left! Nevertheless, we will forward to you a list of anyone left on the list, with an indication if they are under investigation as ghost
consultants. At the least, their membership in CAPIC will be suspended pending review. I also understand that someone looking at our
membership list without a clear understanding of the various categories might draw the wrong conclusions. Here is some further information
about our membership list.
1. When someone applies to renew his or her CAPIC membership, we do so automatically if he or she is a full CSIC member. Now that
the issues of interim or provisional members are no longer a factor, it will be easier to review your revoked membership list regularly
to insure that there are no revoked members renewing as CAPIC Registered Members. In fact, it would be very helpful if you could
automatically email us the names of newly revoked members on a routine basis so we could follow-up immediately.
2. All persons seeking to renew their CAPIC membership (except full CSIC members) must prove that they are qualified in the category
they are applying in. They must both provide a signed declaration, and submit written proof if requested.
3. As far as the definitions of our various membership categories, these are prescribed by our Bylaws, which can only be amended at
our AGM. It is too late to do so at this year’s AGM, but we will take your comments under advisement for next year. However, this
does not preclude us from removing members in any category at any time should we receive proof that they are not complying with
the rules that apply to that category. If you have any specific information about such individuals, please forward to us immediately.
We will take action.
4. Our definition of “student” is in line with CSIC guidelines for individuals who have completed an approved course of education. Many
graduating students are not ready to write the FSE, and work for CSIC members as office staff. By attending CAPIC seminars, they
gain the necessary knowledge to pass the test and become Full Members within the time limits CSIC sets for eligibility to write the
exam.
5. We will be reviewing our membership list before April 13th, to determine if there are any members whose rights expire on April 13th
and who intend to practice immigration, and take appropriate action.
Page 5 of 7
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudCE.htm 16-05-2009
In conclusion, please pass on specific facts that you may have about certain individuals who you believe are ghost consultants and CAPIC
members. Or, if you are reacting to our membership list in general, and have no specific complaints, please let us know. Anyone you report
will be investigated and action will be taken immediately if the complaints are found to be valid. If CSIC is filing the complaint, we will report
back to you directly about the outcome of our investigation.
Ross, I am concerned that at no time in the past year have we received a specific complaint in writing about one of our members, no matter
what the category, from CSIC or from any other source. And I am further concerned that you would threaten our status as a CPD provider
without detailing a single, fact based complaint. I hope that this is as a result of a lack of understanding of our membership rules, and now
that they have been explained, your concerns have been found to be unwarranted.
As you have established rigorous rules that must be followed when filing an official Complaint against a CSIC member, I am sure that you
understand that as an independent body, governed by a set of bylaws, CAPIC requires a similar standard before questioning a member’s
right to belong. I would respectfully ask that you provide specific details about anyone you suspect of being a ghost consultant, so we can
take action.
Now that I have answered your concerns, I would ask that you immediately send an email to all CSIC members announcing our February
29th seminar, and advising individuals to go to our web site for details – www.capic.ca. The meeting will take place simultaneously in
Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and be available by web cast around the world. I am sure that all CSIC members will benefit from knowing
what their full CPD options are.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney
President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants, CAPIC
FROM ROSS EASTLEY:
Thank you for providing the list of members. As some background information I have received a complaint about CAPIC providing access
for unauthorized representatives to attend recognized CPD events. I take this seriously as the public needs to be assured that only
authorized representatives are receiving the appropriate educational support to facilitate their practice. CSIC is taking a zero tolerance
towards the provision of education to ghost consultants. Consequently, I need to have CAPIC address this issue as the continuation of this
practice may have an effect on the recognition of CAPIC as an authorized CPD provider. Can you please provide information on how
CAPIC would propose to address the issue.
As a second point I appreciate receiving the CAPIC list of members; however, it does raise the following questions and/or concerns:
a.) there are a number individuals on the attached list who have as you indicate a revoked status with CSIC, this is a concern as these
individuals may be practicing as ghost consultants.
b.) there are some individuals listed with no affiliation to a recognized regulator and again this is a concern as they may be ghost
consultants
c.) there are individuals listed with a student status - what requirements do you have to insure they are actually students. Allowing them to
retain a student status after graduation and before they become a full CSIC member for up to two years is again a concern as this would be
a prime time in which they could be practicing as a ghost consultant.
d.) agents and employees of CSIC members are not authorized representatives thus in the eyes of the consumer it is very hard to justify
their membership in a professional organization.
e.) the members who cease to have a recognized status after April 13th, 2008 should by now have a very reduced practice as they are only
allowed to work on files that were active before April 13th, 2004 and I anticipate they will cease to have a status with CAPIC after April 13th,
2008. What steps is CAPIC taking to insure these individuals are not operating a full practice and that they will be closing after April 13,
2008.
Hello Phil,
Thank you for your email. In response you can't assume that all CAPIC seminars will be automatically announced by CSIC. As I
indicated in my email of February 21st (copy attached) there has been a complaint that CAPIC is providing access to CPD events
for ghost agents and that CAPIC is providing credibility for these ghost agents. As a result CSIC is not going to entertain a
discussion on this issue (announcement of CAPIC CPD events) until the matters raised in my February 21st email are dealt with by
CAPIC.
I will look forward to receiving your response.
Thank you.
Page 6 of 7
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudCE.htm 16-05-2009
Yours truly,
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by email at reastley@csic-scci.ca. Thank you.
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: February 24, 2008 4:16 PM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: John Ryan; executive@capic.ca; 'alli amlani'
Subject: Equal Treatment
Dear Ross;
I see that you have emailed all CSIC members about the CMI seminar in April. You have repeatedly stated that you will
treat CMI the same as all other CPD providers such as CAPIC. Therefore I am asking you to announce the CAPIC
Seminar on Feb. 29th, and our March 18th seminar to all CSIC members.
Thank you fro your cooperation. Can I assume that this will now be standard practice for all pre-approved CPD events?
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any
unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this email to anyone other than the intended addressee does not
constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for
your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné uniquement à la personne
ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute utilisation ou divulgation non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité
demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement
et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
Page 7 of 7
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudCE.htm 16-05-2009
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: March 12, 2008 6:58 PM
To: 'Ross Eastley'
Subject: RE: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Dear Ross;
There is no such classification any more – the name you saw was just an oversight when the web site was changed 10 days ago. It will be removed. There is one other
person listed as a “student”, whose name will also be removed by the web master.
With regards to the briefing on CMI, it led directly to the positive comments I did make to the Star, as well as to CIC and other stakeholders, keeping in mind the
restrictions of the NDA. For example, I couldn’t comment on the plans to deliver an online threshold program, until I heard it spoken of publicly by John. You will recall
we raised the issue about how it would look with the Boards being twinned. We didn’t like it then, and said so, but our opinion was dismissed out of hand by John. I
believe his comments were to the effect that you can’t satisfy everyone, no matter what you do.
So we have been consistent in our position. Let me spell it our clearly for you without the “filter” of the Toronto Star. Due to the controversy surrounding the initial
BOD of CSIC and the various charges of financial wrong doing and mismanagement, and fed by a general feeling that fees are too high and service to members weak, we
believe that CSIC must be seen to be “purer than pure” when it comes to any actions by the BOD that could be seen to be serving the interests of BOD members
personally. CSIC should have, in our opinion, appointed an interim Board for CMI with a maximum emphasis on respectability, to counter this impression. Because CSIC
did not do so, speculation, suspicion and criticism have been rampant, and all the foes of Regulation were given new ammunition to attack us. We do not believe this is
in the best interests of the profession. Regardless of auditors reports and all the other good things being done, you must manage perceptions. I guess we could compare it
with Elliot Spitzer next year giving a prostitute a ride to church in a convertible. That would just be a bad choice, regardless of what did or didn’t happen! In my opinion,
it is incumbent on the Senior Management of CSIC to be sensitive to these types of issues.
Finally, please answer the question I have posted in every email. Will you now please email all CSIC members about the March 18th seminar.
Best Regards,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited.
Disclosure of this email to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute
utilisation ou divulgation non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses annexes par
erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: March 12, 2008 1:00 PM
To: Phil Mooney
Cc: John Ryan; keithfrank@rogers.com; executive@capic.ca
Subject: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Dear Mr. Mooney,
Thank you for your response. I think we have covered most of the issues and I have an understanding of your position. For your clarification and information:
1.) I see that a number of changes have been made to the WebSite; however, I also see that you have something called an interim member on your WebSite - I am not sure what that
means - one example I saw was as follows:
Ahmad, Irshad
Interim Member,
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
Perhaps you could clarify.
2.) CSIC response to your position on media comments - Additionally, I have raised the concern about the negative comments made in the public press and you have provided a
response. Part of the whole issue is that the regulator had taken you into confidence about the whole roll out and establishment of CMI well before the Toronto Star interview took place
in order to assist you in planning an appropriate media strategy plus a communication strategy for CAPIC members. The strategy being implemented does raise a concern which I
articulated below and as I indicated - ".......an evaluation of an appropriate CSIC response will need to be undertaken." The CSIC Board will be doing such an
evaluation at the upcoming March Board meeting and you will be receiving a response after that meeting.
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 1 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
Thank you for your assistance.
yours truly,
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at reastley@csicscci.
ca. Thank you.
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: March 12, 2008 8:59 AM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: John Ryan; keithfrank@rogers.com; executive@capic.ca
Subject: RE: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Dear Ross;
Here are the answers to your questions:
1. On our web site, at this time, only Authorized Representatives are listed. It will remain this way until you clarify the rules for Student Members, to insure that there is
no possible confusion. There are no student members, no Associate members or any others. CSIC members who are seeking to join CAPIC are listed in a different
colour, until they are accepted. If you will agree to copy us on any revoked/resigned/suspended members, we will remove them from our web site the same day. Please
send such info to admin@capic.ca.
2. You have specified new rules about who can attend CPD approved events. None of these rules were discussed with us in advance, nor were they given to us all at
once, but seemed to “evolve”. This, despite no proof whatsoever to support your concerns. Without these rules in writing, we can only believe that the rules apply to us
only. You also espouse a principle, which in simple words, could be expressed as “we need to not only be tough on ghost agents, we need to proactively take steps to
insure that there is no possibility that ghost agents would benefit from CPD education”. Yet when we ask that you apply this same principle to CMI, you prevaricate.
3. You stated that only Authorized Representatives will be able to attend CMI “workshops” (does this mean the same as “event”?). Yet their Registration Form “appears”
to encourage attendance by employees of CSIC members and members of NGOs. Can NGOs attend? Can we offer NGOs CPD education in light of your plan to accredit
them?
4. With regards to “negative comments” I am sure that you do not mean to suggest you expect 100% lock-step agreement from CAPIC with all CSIC positions, when
they are not related directly to Regulations. You are spending members’ money, without any checks and balances from the members themselves, except at election time
and a duly constituted AGM. If CMI loses a lot of money for any reason whatsoever, including poor strategic choices or bad management, it is the members who will
pay. By expressing our legitimate concerns, members become involved and will be better informed and able to pass judgment when they vote at either event. Finally, the
unnecessary delays in announcing CPD awards for CAPIC events last year and again this winter, sends a very negative message to all stakeholders, without justification.
Once again, now that you have clear proof of our exceeding your requirements for CPD events, will you please publish an email to all CSIC members for our March 18th
event?
Regards,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited.
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 2 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
Disclosure of this email to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute
utilisation ou divulgation non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses annexes par
erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: March 11, 2008 7:18 PM
To: Phil Mooney
Cc: John Ryan; keithfrank@rogers.com; executive@capic.ca
Subject: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Dear Mr. Mooney,
Thank you for your email. In response I am please to provided the following ( note the response is put in red to assist in the reading):
1.) With regards to your last point, it is my clear recollection as well as that of Berto’s and Keith’s that John had asked us not to say anything until this
week. Further, he had instructed us that he was the acting Registrar/CEO of CSIC immediately, and the email was addressed to him in that capacity.
Finally, I did not say anything about your new position, only referred to your “new duties”. It is both my understanding and John's understanding that
there was not to be any release of information until a formal announcement was made by CSIC. Sharing the information with those who were not in
attendance in my opinion clearly violates that understanding and I take a very dim view of that approach.
THEN YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THIS WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION, NOT ANYTHING DELIBERATE. YOU DO NOT NEED TO TAKE A DIM VIEW OF ANYTHING. HAS ANY DAMAGE BEEN DONE? IF YES, THEN IT WAS
INADVERTENT, BUT WE APOLOGIZE IF IT CREATED ISSUES FOR YOU THAT YOU WERE NOT READY TO DEAL WITH.
The concern is not about creating an issue for me, rather the concern is about how the information is treated when it is given in confidence. That is why I take a "dim" view of the matter,
as a professional I anticipate you treat the information given to you in confidence by a client in accordance with the wishes of your client thus I would expect the same approach when
information is given to you in confidence in other circumstances. Hopefully this explanation clarifies the point that I am trying to make.
2.) (information from the fax which you sent) CAPIC-ACCPI will only make available to the public a list of our members who are authorized representatives as defined by
IRPR s13.1, students who are currently enrolled in an approved program and those stakeholders who are not involved in the provision immigration services for a fee
(i.e. sponsors, educational institutions, retired members). -
Are all of these members on the same list? If they are not do you clearly indicate who is an authorized representative and who is not as the confusion for the consumer
is the concern for the regulator.
3.) As for your explanation about the CMI registration “checks”, I am sure had CAPIC advanced the same argument you would not have accepted it. In
fact we did exactly that about non-CSIC members signing declarations to show they were not ghost agents, which is a far more positive step. Why can
you not add a similar statement to the CMI form as we have to ours, to the effect that only ARs can attend? Some of our Associate members are also
members of NGOs. I see that they are allowed to attend the CMI event. Can they also attend our sessions? - only authorized CSIC members will be
allowed to attend the upcoming CMI workshops. Every situation will be judged by the regulator according to its merits, risks, track record, etc. IT IS VERY
HARD TO HIT A MOVING TARGET. YOU DO NOT TELL MEMBERS “WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT BEHAVIOUR WE WILL REQUIRE OF YOU UNTIL AFTER SOMETHING GOES WRONG.” SURELY A REGULATOR MUST SET
WRITTEN STANDARDS AND RULES. THE WHOLE CPD APPLICATION PROCESS IS FULL OF SUCH RULES. -
For clarification the point is when a problem arises the regulator will deal with the problem and the track record of the provider will be a factor to be considered when
dealing with the problem.
4.) Finally, how does “…..the rules regarding the CPD providers are communicated directly to the CPD providers” lend itself to transparency with regards to no special
treatment of CMI? Surely you need to publish one set of rules for all, given the appearance of conflict of interest, despite your best intentions? Until then, can you assure
us, in writing as we have done for you, that you will treat us equally while you retain your duties at CSIC? This is especially important give your new position, whenever
it becomes effective. - the point has been addressed in my previous email. In terms of transparency, CSIC has taken a number of steps to be transparent
one of which was meeting with yourself and other members of CAPIC last week; however, I also note some very significant negative statements being
made in the public press immediately following that meeting. As a consequence an evaluation of an appropriate CSIC response will need to be
undertaken. THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED AT LEAST ONE WEEK EARLIER, A FEW MINUTES AFTER JOHN’S INTERVIEW. I SAID MANY POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT CMI’S OBJECTIVES IN MY INTERVIEW.
THEY JUST WEREN’T USED. NICHOLAS KAUR INCLUDED THEM IN HIS FINAL SUBMISSION, BUT THEY WERE EDITED OUT FOR BREVITY. THE ONE “NEGATIVE” COMMENT WAS SIMPLY A REPEAT OF WHAT WE
SAID TO YOU AT OUR EARLIER MEETING, ABOUT APPEARANCES, WHICH YOU DISMISSED AS IRRELEVANT. MANY OF OUR MEMBERS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED US TO EXPRESS
THEIR CONCERNS ON THIS ISSUE. IT WAS YOUR CHOICE TO HAVE THE CSIC BOD AND THE CMI BOD “TWINNED”. YOU DID IT KNOWING WHAT THE RESPONSE WOULD BE, SO WHY ARE YOU SURPRISED?
CAPIC HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND HOW IT MAKES OUR PROFESSION LOOK. WE DISAGREE WITH HOW YOU HAVE STRUCTURED CMI’S BOD BECAUSE OF HOW IT LOOKS TO
ALL OF OUR PROFESSIONS DETRACTORS, AND WE ARE WELL WITHIN OUR ROLE AS A RESPECTED LOBBY GROUP FOR THE PROFESSION TO SAY SO. IF WE SAID NOTHING, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN TO
BE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU.
THE ONE “CONCERN” WE EXPRESSED ABOUT COMPETITION IS EVEN MORE THAN UNDERSTANDABLE AFTER THE PAST FEW WEEKS – INCLUDING CERTAIN EMAILS. WE DEFINITELY DO NOT FEEL LIKE WE ARE
BEING TREATED EQUALLY WITH CMI. PLEASE REVIEW ALL OF THESE EMAILS AND ASK YOURSELF – WHAT HAVE WE ACTUALLY DONE TO ADDRESS CAPIC’S CONCERNS? THEN ASK YOURSELF, WHAT HAS CAPIC
DONE TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS? YOU HAVE TREATED US LIKE OFFENDERS, DEMANDING INSTEAD OF ASKING. YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN US THE RESPECT WE DESERVE, AS VOLUNTEERS WORKING
CONSTANTLY TO EDUCATE OUR MEMBERS, AT GREAT COST TO OUR OWN LIVELIHOOD IN MOST CASES. IT IS THE LEAST WE DESERVE. -
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 3 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
In the final analysis the negative comments is the information which is conveyed to the public. I would encourage you to review your communication strategy in terms
of how the message from CAPIC is communicated to the various stakeholders.
Thank you.
yours truly,
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at reastley@csicscci.
ca. Thank you.
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: March 11, 2008 8:03 PM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: John Ryan; keithfrank@rogers.com; executive@capic.ca
Subject: RE: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Please see my response below in CAPS.
Dear Mr. Mooney,
Thank you for your email. In response I am pleased to provide the following information:
1.) You have received written assurance about compliance with your requests, by March 7th. - I am not sure to which email or correspondence you are referring,
perhaps you could resend it to me. TEXT ATTACHED. THIS WAS FAXED LAST WEEK – IF YOU WANT ANOTHER COPY, SIGNED, I WILL FAX IT TO YOU.
2.) With regards to your last point, it is my clear recollection as well as that of Berto’s and Keith’s that John had asked us not to say anything until this
week. Further, he had instructed us that he was the acting Registrar/CEO of CSIC immediately, and the email was addressed to him in that capacity.
Finally, I did not say anything about your new position, only referred to your “new duties”. It is both my understanding and John's understanding that
there was not to be any release of information until a formal announcement was made by CSIC. Sharing the information with those who were not in
attendance in my opinion clearly violates that understanding and I take a very dim view of that approach.
THEN YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THIS WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION, NOT ANYTHING DELIBERATE. YOU DO NOT NEED TO TAKE A DIM VIEW OF ANYTHING. HAS ANY DAMAGE BEEN DONE? IF YES, THEN IT WAS
INADVERTENT, BUT WE APOLOGIZE IF IT CREATED ISSUES FOR YOU THAT YOU WERE NOT READY TO DEAL WITH.
3.) As for your explanation about the CMI registration “checks”, I am sure had CAPIC advanced the same argument you would not have accepted it. In
fact we did exactly that about non-CSIC members signing declarations to show they were not ghost agents, which is a far more positive step. Why can
you not add a similar statement to the CMI form as we have to ours, to the effect that only ARs can attend? Some of our Associate members are also
members of NGOs. I see that they are allowed to attend the CMI event. Can they also attend our sessions? - only authorized CSIC members will be
allowed to attend the upcoming CMI workshops. Every situation will be judged by the regulator according to its merits, risks, track record, etc. IT IS VERY
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 4 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
HARD TO HIT A MOVING TARGET. YOU DO NOT TELL MEMBERS “WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT BEHAVIOUR WE WILL REQUIRE OF YOU UNTIL AFTER SOMETHING GOES WRONG.” SURELY A REGULATOR MUST SET
WRITTEN STANDARDS AND RULES. THE WHOLE CPD APPLICATION PROCESS IS FULL OF SUCH RULES.
4.) Finally, how does “…..the rules regarding the CPD providers are communicated directly to the CPD providers” lend itself to transparency with regards to no special
treatment of CMI? Surely you need to publish one set of rules for all, given the appearance of conflict of interest, despite your best intentions? Until then, can you assure
us, in writing as we have done for you, that you will treat us equally while you retain your duties at CSIC? This is especially important give your new position, whenever
it becomes effective. - the point has been addressed in my previous email. In terms of transparency, CSIC has taken a number of steps to be transparent
one of which was meeting with yourself and other members of CAPIC last week; however, I also note some very significant negative statements being
made in the public press immediately following that meeting. As a consequence an evaluation of an appropriate CSIC response will need to be
undertaken. THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED AT LEAST ONE WEEK EARLIER, A FEW MINUTES AFTER JOHN’S INTERVIEW. I SAID MANY POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT CMI’S OBJECTIVES IN MY INTERVIEW.
THEY JUST WEREN’T USED. NICHOLAS KAUR INCLUDED THEM IN HIS FINAL SUBMISSION, BUT THEY WERE EDITED OUT FOR BREVITY. THE ONE “NEGATIVE” COMMENT WAS SIMPLY A REPEAT OF WHAT WE
SAID TO YOU AT OUR EARLIER MEETING, ABOUT APPEARANCES, WHICH YOU DISMISSED AS IRRELEVANT. MANY OF OUR MEMBERS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED US TO EXPRESS
THEIR CONCERNS ON THIS ISSUE. IT WAS YOUR CHOICE TO HAVE THE CSIC BOD AND THE CMI BOD “TWINNED”. YOU DID IT KNOWING WHAT THE RESPONSE WOULD BE, SO WHY ARE YOU SURPRISED?
CAPIC HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND HOW IT MAKES OUR PROFESSION LOOK. WE DISAGREE WITH HOW YOU HAVE STRUCTURED CMI’S BOD BECAUSE OF HOW IT LOOKS TO
ALL OF OUR PROFESSIONS DETRACTORS, AND WE ARE WELL WITHIN OUR ROLE AS A RESPECTED LOBBY GROUP FOR THE PROFESSION TO SAY SO. IF WE SAID NOTHING, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN TO
BE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU.
THE ONE “CONCERN” WE EXPRESSED ABOUT COMPETITION IS EVEN MORE THAN UNDERSTANDABLE AFTER THE PAST FEW WEEKS – INCLUDING CERTAIN EMAILS. WE DEFINITELY DO NOT FEEL LIKE WE ARE
BEING TREATED EQUALLY WITH CMI. PLEASE REVIEW ALL OF THESE EMAILS AND ASK YOURSELF – WHAT HAVE WE ACTUALLY DONE TO ADDRESS CAPIC’S CONCERNS? THEN ASK YOURSELF, WHAT HAS CAPIC
DONE TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS? YOU HAVE TREATED US LIKE OFFENDERS, DEMANDING INSTEAD OF ASKING. YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN US THE RESPECT WE DESERVE, AS VOLUNTEERS WORKING
CONSTANTLY TO EDUCATE OUR MEMBERS, AT GREAT COST TO OUR OWN LIVELIHOOD IN MOST CASES. IT IS THE LEAST WE DESERVE.
PHIL MOONEY
Thank you.
yours truly,
Ross Eastley
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: March 11, 2008 5:50 PM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: John Ryan; keithfrank@rogers.com; executive@capic.ca
Subject: RE: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Dear Ross;
You have received written assurance about compliance with your requests, by March 7th. Will you now please send the email?
With regards to your last point, it is my clear recollection as well as that of Berto’s and Keith’s that John had asked us not to say anything until this week. Further, he had
instructed us that he was the acting Registrar/CEO of CSIC immediately, and the email was addressed to him in that capacity. Finally, I did not say anything about your
new position, only referred to your “new duties”.
I did so deliberately, even though the audience was your BOD who I am sure are well aware of the changes, and our Board who are under our NDA.
As for your explanation about the CMI registration “checks”, I am sure had CAPIC advanced the same argument you would not have accepted it. In fact we did exactly
that about non-CSIC members signing declarations to show they were not ghost agents, which is a far more positive step. Why can you not add a similar statement to the
CMI form as we have to ours, to the effect that only ARs can attend? Some of our Associate members are also members of NGOs. I see that they are allowed to attend
the CMI event. Can they also attend our sessions?
Finally, how does “…..the rules regarding the CPD providers are communicated directly to the CPD providers” lend itself to transparency with regards to no special
treatment of CMI? Surely you need to publish one set of rules for all, given the appearance of conflict of interest, despite your best intentions? Until then, can you assure
us, in writing as we have done for you, that you will treat us equally while you retain your duties at CSIC? This is especially important give your new position, whenever
it becomes effective.
I will not refer to any changes at CSIC in future (nor will Berto or Keith) until they see a public announcement.
Regards,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 5 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited.
Disclosure of this email to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute
utilisation ou divulgation non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses annexes par
erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: March 11, 2008 12:40 PM
To: Phil Mooney
Cc: John Ryan
Subject: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Hello Mr. Mooney,
Thank you for your email. The information which is on the CMI registration form is simply one of the checks which is being used to insure that only full members are accepted. In
response to your question the rules regarding the CPD providers are communicated directly to the CPD providers. As we indicated during our meeting last week CSIC needs to have
written assurance on the points which were raised before considering the possibility of circulating information about a CAPIC event.
On a separate point we specifically provided information about changes in process at CSIC with the strict proviso that the information would not be circulated beyond the people
attending the meeting. I see from the circulation of the first email that John received that the request was not followed and this action certainly raises a concern about the ability for the
regulator to communicate in an open manner with CAPIC.
Thank you.
yours truly,
Ross Eastley
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: March 11, 2008 1:19 PM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: John Ryan
Subject: RE: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Dear Ross;
Thank you for your explanation and commitment to equal treatment. Can I ask that you request CMI to remove the part of their Registration Form that asks if applicants
are “Employees of a CSIC Members”? This is causing us problems when we deny registration to these same people. Will you post the rules on your web site? What
about the email about the March 18th seminar? It is only 7 days away.
Yes, Registered Members are CSIC members or attorneys.
Regards,
Phil
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: March 11, 2008 11:13 AM
To: Phil Mooney
Cc: John Ryan
Subject: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Hello Mr. Mooney,
Thank you for your email which was forwarded to John Ryan. I can assure you that the Regulator is adamant about the conditions which were outlined to CAPIC and are equally applicable to CMI.
<<image001.jpg>> The initial information received from CMI is that all of the people who have registered for the workshops are fully "authorized" CSIC members. This will be continually monitored
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 6 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
and when the final list is submitted it will be scrutinized to insure only "authorized" representatives are allowed to attend.
I appreciate your intention to comply with the CSIC policy; however, I note that you have used the term "Registered Members" which I hope is the same as "authorized" CSIC members.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at reastley@csicscci.
ca. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Mooney <pm1@bellnet.ca>
To: John Ryan
CC: board@csic-scci.ca Collection Folder
Sent: Tue Mar 11 12:09:28 2008
Subject: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
John Ryan;
Chairman, Acting CEO and Registrar, CSIC
CC: BODs of CAPIC and CSIC
Dear John;
Further to our communications of last week, I am writing to officially express my concern that the principle of equal treatment of CAPIC and CMI is already not being observed. Both you and Ross
Eastley made it crystal clear that you do not want employees of CSIC members to attend CAPIC CPD eligible events. Accordingly, and in good faith, we immediately placed a notice on the Agenda that
the March 18th meeting was for “Registered Members Only”, and have been receiving many complaints about the policy. Nevertheless, we have informed our members that this is now CSIC policy, and
applies uniformly to all CPD providers. We are still awaiting your approval to be able to offer the program to students who are currently enrolled in an approved program.
It is somewhat disconcerting, then, to visit the CMI web site and on the Registration form for their April seminar, to see that registrations are being accepted from “Staff of CSIC members”. We have also
received information that registrations are being accepted from students who have graduated from practitioner programs of more than one year ago, who are not yet full members.
We do not understand why we have been asked by Mr. Eastley to meet conditions which do not appear to apply to CMI and possibly not to other CPD providers. Nor do we accept that this is an oversight,
given that you have advised CAPIC of Mr. Eastley’s new duties. Acting in his position as Registrar and CEO of CSIC, Mr. Eastley was adamant about these conditions, and had to be aware of the
inconsistency. Both his and your explanations of the rationale behind your conditions, while completely new to us, certainly appeared to be principled positions on your side. We ask how you can espouse
a principle on one hand, while violating it on the other. Surely fairness should apply.
We await your reply. We are also waiting for you to send an announcement of our March 18th session to all members of CSIC, as we have met or exceeded every condition that you have placed on us. As
you know, we were very disappointed that CSIC did not notify members by email of our most recent seminar. Posting a notice in your web site for a few hours before the seminar then immediately
removing it was not equal treatment, in our opinion.
Finally, we ask that all of these recent requirements be posted immediately on your web site so all CPD providers and potential attendees know what the rules are.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney
President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
Contact Info:
Can-Am Immigration
Suite 300, 1100 Burloak Drive
Burlington, ON L7L 6B2
tel; 1-905-633-9302 or 1-888-288-0801(North America)
fax;1-905-332-7644 or 1-800-613-0452 (North America)
pm1@bellnet.ca <mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca>
www.immigrationcanam.com <http://www.immigrationcanam.com>
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 7 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca <http://www.capic.ca>
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this
email to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for
your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute utilisation ou
divulgation non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 8 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: March 19, 2008 5:19 PM
To: 'John Ryan'; executive@capic.ca; 'Wenda Woodman'
Subject: RE: CBC TV Winnipeg
Dear John;
Thank you for this information. After checking our records, Ms. Duehlas was originally a member of
OPIC or AICC, and grand-fathered into CAPIC because she was the agent of record on files submitted
before April 14th, 2004. As such, she would automatically stop being a Registered CAPIC member on
April 13th 2008 and would no longer be part of CAPIC, unless she applied to become an Associate
Member.
As we explained, we require that anyone wishing to go from Registered Member to Associate Member
to sign a Declaration as to what their continuing involvement in the immigration industry will be, to
insure that they will not operate as ghost consultants.
In this case, Ms. Duehlas has done so, and has stipulated that she is working as an Agent for a CSIC
member, and the CSIC member has also submitted a Declaration confirming this fact. The CSIC
representative is Rochelle Pelaez, #M063730, and I note that she is listed on your web site as a member
in good standing. I also note that she is not a CAPIC member. In fact, Ms. Duehlas should have stated
that she was working as an Agent for a CSIC member in good standing, which she probably tells to her
clients, as only the CSIC agent can sign the IMM5476 and deal with CIC afterwards, and that would
therefore make her activities legal, not CAPIC membership.
Therefore, it would appear that if you believe that Ms. Duehlas has been acting as a “ghost agent” you
have the power to take action against Ms. Pelaez.
Accordingly, we will suspend the application of Ms. Duehlas to join CAPIC as an Associate Member
until you confirm that you will not take action to remedy this situation, and inform her of this fact. I am
certain that since you felt it was important enough to bring it to our attention, it is important enough for
you to pursue further with the powers that you have.
It certainly appears that through cooperation, our system is working to expose possible problems.
I would like to remind you that we have suggested previously that CSIC change the rules for Revoked
members, to comply more with what we both would like IP9 to say, rather than what it says currently.
This would give us the guidance to enforce the same standard amongst our Associate members who are
involved in the business as agents of attorneys or CSIC members.
I do not see how you can say that our membership practices are allowing ghost agents a place to hide,
when it is these very practices which have helped identify the truth in this situation. If this person was
not a CAPIC member and we did not have the rigorous screening policy that we have, you may never
have known what the real situation is, nor have been able to take corrective action should you so
choose.
Nevertheless, in the real world I know you understand that despite the best intentions, members of any
organization can act improperly. The test of the quality of a system is what happens when those
Phil Mooney, 21:22 16-05-2009, FW: CBC TV Winnipeg Page 1 of 5
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
activities are exposed.
Finally, you again refer to some mysterious “complaint” that you received about CAPIC, yet you have
not shared any details about this alleged complaint so we can take action. Please do so immediately, in
writing, and we will take action.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
Contact Info:
Can-Am Immigration
Suite 300, 1100 Burloak Drive
Burlington, ON L7L 6B2
tel; 1-905-633-9302 or 1-888-288-0801(North America)
fax;1-905-332-7644 or 1-800-613-0452 (North America)
pm1@bellnet.ca
www.immigrationcanam.com
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for
the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this email to anyone other
than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné
uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute utilisation ou divulgation non permise est
strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le
présent courriel et ses annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de
votre coopération.
From: John Ryan [mailto:jryan@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: March 18, 2008 9:25 PM
To: Philip Mooney; executive@capic.ca; Wenda Woodman
Subject: CBC TV Winnipeg
Phil Mooney, 21:22 16-05-2009, FW: CBC TV Winnipeg Page 2 of 5
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
Dear Phil
I wanted to bring to your attention a recent example of the concerns that we as the National Regulator
of Certified Canadian Immigration Consultants have with your organizations membership practises.
As we have discussed, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Society of Immigration Conultants has
concluded that the membership practices of the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration
Consultants are not in the best interests of either the consumer or the profession. This conclusion
came about as a result of a complaint received by CSIC. A subsequent investigation of the complaint
revealed that your organizations membership practises have created at best a potential for confusion
in the marketplace and at worst a shelter for ghost agents to circumvent the spirit and letter of IRPR
regulations pertaining to Authorized Representatives.
While we recognise that you have taken some steps in the right direction since our concerns were
made known to you, there appears to be more work that your organization needs to do to in order to
comply with our requirements.
I have attached a story that appeared yesterday on CBC-TV in Winnipeg, wherein you will note that
the key focus of the story Ms. Erlinda Duelas-Obena identified herself as a CAPIC member and gave
the impression that her payment of membership dues to your organization made her consulting
activities legal.
I quote;
Erlinda Duelas-Obena, owner of LND Canadian Immigration Consultancy, a Manila company that gave
Tagulinao a $1,700 quote for consultancy, said she earns the money.
"I am paying my rent. I am paying my utilities. I am paying my staff. I am paying my Canadian
Association of Professional Immigration Consultants, so I don't think that this is illegal," she told CBC
News.
I note that you have a Lynda Duelas listed on your active member list as a Registered Member. A
check of our CSIC Full Member list reveals that Ms. Duelas is not a member in good standing of the
Society and therefore not an Authorized Representative.
Duelas, Lynda
Registered Member,
Muntinlupa City, Philippines
Overseas
In previous correspondence you have advised us that your membership list had been changed to only
list registered members in good standing with the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.
Given this additional issue we would like to hear your response to this recent occurrence before we
respond as the Regulator.
Yours truly,
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants
John P. Ryan OSJ, CCIC, ICD.D.
Chair/ Président
Phil Mooney, 21:22 16-05-2009, FW: CBC TV Winnipeg Page 3 of 5
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
Tel/Tél.: +1-416-945-6272
Fax/Téléc.: +1(416)572-4114
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it
is addressed, and may contain information
that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or the
employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by email at jryan@csic-scci.ca.
Thank you.
Potential immigrants to Manitoba face pitfalls
abroad
Last Updated: Monday, March 17, 2008
5:25 PM CT Comments4Recommend18
CBC News
Manitoba has the highest rate of immigration in Canada as the province attempts to fill a growing need for
skilled workers. But there's also a growing number of people, both abroad and in Manitoba, trying to take
advantage of those immigrants.
More than 10,000 immigrants came to Manitoba last year, a quarter of them from the Philippines.
Marcelo Tagulinao has spent thousands of Canadian dollars trying immigrate to Canada from the Philippines.
(CBC)
Marcelo Tagulinao, who works at a small corner store in Manila, has been trying to immigrate to Canada for
more than a decade.
He's been rejected twice, and is now turning to his last resort: one of hundreds of local immigration
consultants, who will help him fill out the required forms and send them to the right places.
Although the forms are available for free on the internet, along with instructions on filling them out and
processing them, consultants have quoted him fees ranging from $1,700 to $5,000 CDN to do the work.
For many, including Tagulinao, that works out to years of savings.
Erlinda Duelas-Obena, owner of LND Canadian Immigration Consultancy, a Manila company that gave
Tagulinao a $1,700 quote for consultancy, said she earns the money.
"I am paying my rent. I am paying my utilities. I am paying my staff. I am paying my Canadian Association
of Professional Immigration Consultants, so I don't think that this is illegal," she told CBC News.
Erlinda Duelas-Obena, owner of LND Canadian Immigration Consultancy in Manila, said she earns the fees she charges her clients.
(CBC)
In fact, it's not illegal to run this type of business in the Philippines, although some believe that they take
advantage of immigrants.
As of April 2004, paid immigration representatives must be authorized by the Canadian Society of
Immigration Consultants or law societies within Canada in order to conduct business on a person's behalf
or to advise or assist with applications.
A larger problem involves consultants who counsel people to misrepresent information on their immigration
applications.
Under Manitoba's provincial nominee program, new immigrants must have $10,000 of their own money in
the bank in order to prove that they will have enough to survive when they arrive. In the Philippines, locals
Phil Mooney, 21:22 16-05-2009, FW: CBC TV Winnipeg Page 4 of 5
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
call it "show money."
"If I don't have the show money, [consultants] will lend me the show money, and I have to pay them the
interest," Tagulinao said.
However, if immigration finds out the money isn't actually his, they'll reject his application outright.
An even more serious problem is illegal recruiters. Companies looking to hire overseas workers pay the
recruiters to find employees — but they often also charge potential immigrants, as well, which is illegal in
the Philippines.
"The workers have to sell their home and properties just to work abroad, just to earn an income, maybe for
a poor person affecting the lives of their families to support their children," said lawyer Melchor Dizon, a
director with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.
Melchor Dizon said jobs in Canada are a popular lure offered by illegal recruiters, but often there are no jobs.
(CBC)
Dizon's organization shuts down about 10 illegal recruiting operations per month.
Jobs in Canada are a popular lure offered by illegal recruiters, whether or not the jobs are actually
available, he said. Often immigrants leave home only to find out later they've been had.
"Those who were victimized by illegal recruiters were not even deployed, so they just collected the money
and the illegal recruiters absconded with the money," he said.
Officials say the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration's actions have made a significant
difference in the country — but those same problems happen regularly in Canada, as well.
Phil Mooney, 21:22 16-05-2009, FW: CBC TV Winnipeg Page 5 of 5
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: March 28, 2008 5:00 PM
To: 'John Ryan'
Cc: capicbod@sympatico.ca; board@csic-scci.ca
Subject: CAPIC Membership List
Dear John;
Recently you have been speaking with CAPIC’s Vice President about names on our
membership list as they appear on our web site. You expressed your concern that some of our
Registered Members were not CSIC members. By way of explanation, I wanted to offer the
following:
Our membership categories are explained in detail on our web site.
Our membership lists are updated every six months, coincidental with our membership renewal
period.
Our web site has been in redevelopment for the past 18 months, and our web master has had
many priorities. Because of the great variation of the CSIC membership list over that time, as
transitional members qualified or did not, we have not made the membership list a great
priority. No one can contact a member directly from the web site in any case. All inquiries go
to or HQ.
When you asked about Revoked or Suspended members of CSIC being listed on our web site,
possibly because they were now employees of CSIC members or attorneys, or Agents of either,
we immediately purged our membership list.
When you raised concerns about our Associate Members being on our web site possibly leading
to confusion in the public about their responsibilities, we immediately purged all Associate
Members from our web site.
All remaining individuals on the web site were listed as Registered Members, according to the
definition referenced above. This included attorneys, retired members and those who were
grandfathered into CAPIC, as members of AICC and OPIC, and who were allowed to represent
existing clients up until April 13th 2008. We were in the process of verifying that those
individuals’ memberships would be rescinded or categorized as Associate Members upon proof
that they were no longer practicing. As a result of your inquiry, we have asked our web master
to immediately remove those individuals from the web site, instead of waiting until April 13th.
We have also asked him to complete the update of the latest membership renewal process. We
expect this to be finished by Monday, at the latest. As of that time, the only names on the web
site will be authorized representatives.
While the above represents, in our opinion, outstanding cooperation on our side, I must again
complain that we would have done all of these things in a spirit of collegiality, working
together to demonstrate that our hands are clean when it comes to ghost agents, but instead have
been asked to make these changes in a most unprofessional and non-collegial manner. You
Page 1 of 2
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudD6.htm 16-05-2009
have consistently refused to make any requests in writing and you have impeded our
applications for CPD approvals, as well as denying us equal treatment with CMI when it comes
to announcing approved events. You have also disadvantaged CSIC members who deserve to
have available to them all CPD options, as they plan to qualify by October 31st. We do not
know why you have chosen this course. We have different roles to play, and except on
consumer protection issues, have an obligation to challenge your decisions when we believe
that they are not in the interests of the profession. This does not mean that we should be treated
with such disrespect, and ask that you and your Board agree to change the way your executive
deal with us. Should you agree, we can promise you full and complete cooperation in the future
on issues of consumer protection both in private and in public, while always retaining the
option to question you on non-consumer protection issues. Our joint history is full of
cooperative efforts that led to the establishment of CSIC and the raising of the image of the
profession. We would like to get back to that tradition.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended
only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this email
to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for your
cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel
et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute utilisation ou divulgation
non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation.
Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
Page 2 of 2
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudD6.htm 16-05-2009
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: May 16, 2008 9:00 PM
To: 'John Ryan'
Cc: 'bod'
Subject: Issues of concern
Dear John;
Thanks you for taking the time to meet with us today. In response to you issues of concern, I can affirm the following: (your concerns are pasted from your Adobe
document –I apologize for any appearance issues resulting from my technical inadequacies)
1. Member names spelling.
CAPIC will use the spelling of members names as they appear on the CSIC web site. We will so instruct staff to review the list on our web site and correct any
discrepancies as quickly as possible.
2. Pending Members
We will move this feature to the Members Only section of the web site, and investigate if having it on the public side has delivered any benefits to the profession
in the past few years. If it has, we will inform you of these benefits and let you decide if we all gain from having it so, and will act according to your
instructions.
3. Maintaining the CAPIC membership list and communications with former members.
We will make every attempt to keep our membership synchronized with the CSIC membership list, and in any case will agree to doing so at least quarterly. If you
can give us a cost estimate for programming an exception report into your system which would automate this process, we would agree to pay for this fix, subject to
the cost involved. Further, we will implement a communications protocol to instruct all of our Chapters on handling of email lists so communications go only to the
members.
4. Plan for controlling access to web based materials
Page 1 of 2
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudF1.htm 16-05-2009
We have the ability with our web site to limit access to most parts of the Members Only section to any group we can identify. Our commitment to you will
be to put in place a plan to be executed under the supervisions of our web master and our Executive Director with the following elements:
1. Identify what sections should be accessible only to Authorized Representatives – 15-30 days
2. Implementation of a restricted access plan - 30-60 days. It is possible that to accomplish this task may mean that we have to ask every
CAPIC member to re-register, so the timeline may be a challenge. However, we commit to providing CSIC with an update on our progress
as these goals are achieved, or what our progress is, every 15 days.
We would ask going forward that CSIC inform us in writing of any errors or omissions that may occur given the dynamic nature of these items, so we can address
them immediately, and assure you that any such errors or omissions are purely a function of oversight, not intent.
As a result of these commitments we ask that you do everything possible to rescind the suspension of CAPIC’s CPD provider privileges, as expeditiously as
possible, so we can continue to offer valuable programs to our members, and so inform us immediately of your action.
If you have any questions about the above, please call me directly and we will address your concerns immediately.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly
prohibited. Disclosure of this email to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute
utilisation ou divulgation non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses
annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
image008.png
image0097.jpg
Page 2 of 2
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudF1.htm 16-05-2009
From: Executive Director, CAPIC-ACCPI [mailto:executive@capic.ca]
Sent: July 16, 2008 9:50 AM
To: jryan@csic-scci.ca
Cc: information@csic-scci.ca; I.Qayyum@csic-scci.ca; h.Gracey@csic-scci.ca; r.Augenfeld@csic-scci.ca; k.Wong@csic-scci.ca; d.Moore@csic-scci.ca; m.Bento@csic-scci.ca;
j.Koury@csic-scci.ca; a.amlani@csic-scci.ca
Subject: FW: Issues of concern
John Ryan, Acting CEO, CSIC
Re: CAPIC CPD Provider status:
Dear Sir:
I am attaching to this message our correspondence of May 16th, 2008 in which I repeat your written concerns and demonstrate that CAPIC has complied with all of
the conditions that you listed. On point four, you asked specifically for a plan, and we provided one. I can add that as we were changing web masters and web
hosts, we simply denied access to all but Authorized Representatives to our Members Only section of our web site, to insure we met the intent of your request.
Further, I ask at the end of the message if you will move quickly to remove the suspension, and ask that let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Your
response was that you would present this to your Board, and would even consider a conference call board meeting to deal with the issue.
Since then (mid May) we have not received anything in writing which asks us to change or add to our plan. We have not had any response at all.
I understand that your Board met over the past weekend. I ask if you have dealt with this issue so that CAPIC can resume its role of providing high quality low cost
CPD educational events to all CSIC members.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
Contact Info:
Can-Am Immigration
Suite 300, 1100 Burloak Drive
Burlington, ON L7L 6B2
tel; 1-905-633-9302 or 1-888-288-0801(North America)
fax;1-905-332-7644 or 1-800-613-0452 (North America)
pm1@bellnet.ca
www.immigrationcanam.com
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly
prohibited. Disclosure of this email to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute
utilisation ou divulgation non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses
annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: May 16, 2008 8:00 PM
To: 'John Ryan'
Cc: 'bod'
Subject: Issues of concern
Dear John;
Thanks you for taking the time to meet with us today. In response to you issues of concern, I can affirm the following: (your concerns are pasted from your Adobe
document –I apologize for any appearance issues resulting from my technical inadequacies)
1. Member names spelling.
CAPIC will use the spelling of members names as they appear on the CSIC web site. We will so instruct staff to review the list on our web site and correct any
discrepancies as quickly as possible.
2. Pending Members
Page 1 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud103.htm 16-05-2009
We will move this feature to the Members Only section of the web site, and investigate if having it on the public side has delivered any benefits to the profession
in the past few years. If it has, we will inform you of these benefits and let you decide if we all gain from having it so, and will act according to your
instructions.
3. Maintaining the CAPIC membership list and communications with former members.
We will make every attempt to keep our membership synchronized with the CSIC membership list, and in any case will agree to doing so at least quarterly. If you
can give us a cost estimate for programming an exception report into your system which would automate this process, we would agree to pay for this fix, subject to
the cost involved. Further, we will implement a communications protocol to instruct all of our Chapters on handling of email lists so communications go only to the
members.
4. Plan for controlling access to web based materials
Page 2 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud103.htm 16-05-2009
We have the ability with our web site to limit access to most parts of the Members Only section to any group we can identify. Our commitment to you will
be to put in place a plan to be executed under the supervisions of our web master and our Executive Director with the following elements:
1. Identify what sections should be accessible only to Authorized Representatives – 15-30 days
2. Implementation of a restricted access plan - 30-60 days. It is possible that to accomplish this task may mean that we have to ask every
CAPIC member to re-register, so the timeline may be a challenge. However, we commit to providing CSIC with an update on our progress
as these goals are achieved, or what our progress is, every 15 days.
We would ask going forward that CSIC inform us in writing of any errors or omissions that may occur given the dynamic nature of these items, so we can address
them immediately, and assure you that any such errors or omissions are purely a function of oversight, not intent.
As a result of these commitments we ask that you do everything possible to rescind the suspension of CAPIC’s CPD provider privileges, as expeditiously as
possible, so we can continue to offer valuable programs to our members, and so inform us immediately of your action.
If you have any questions about the above, please call me directly and we will address your concerns immediately.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC
In defence of Mr. Ross Eastly, who was the CEO of CSIC during this relevant time, I felt it only fair to submit to him these facts posted by Mr. Mooney and he replied:
“Thanks for contacting me about the controversy over CAPIC being an authorized CPD provider for the CSIC membership. In response to your query about the background on the dispute between CSIC and CAPIC I am pleased to provide the following information:
1.) I was actually fired from CSIC as the CEO at the end of January 2008 as I was deemed to be not aggressive enough.
2.) As a result I was in the process of transferring over to CMI in the February - March 2008 time frame.
3.) the CPD issue was a complete moving target as John and the Board were continuing to move the criteria. CMI was being created and they needed to have a justification. I can give you an example, the 60 day rule was just thought up by John after a Board Meeting in October 2007 and then he announced it in a Board report as Board policy when he was doing a CSIC video. I learned about it at the time he announced it so then it becomes a question of how was it to be implemented, basically in John's mind it was to be implemented in a manner to give CAPIC the most pain. The clear objective of the CPD issue was to cut off CAPIC's revenue so if staff approved events then of course the Board would be up in arms that Board policy was being broken, so it was a rather bizarre situation.
In addition, at that particular time Nigel got on his high horse indicating that CAPIC should be punished for not abiding by the CSIC policy, when Nigel got onside then it was fairly easy for John to convince the Board that CAPIC should not be allowed to provide CPD credits. Clearly the Board was focused on CMI and there was no intention of trying to work with CAPIC to solve the problem. Events seemed to feed off each other, as John continued to change the criteria then the people within CAPIC became more unreasonable in their statements (justifiably) which John then used to convince the more moderate Board members that CAPIC should be banned from being a CPD provider.
4.) The fact of the matter is that the issue could be solved very simply by clearly putting a statement on CAPIC's website that CAPIC is not the regulator with a reference to the CSIC website. The problem was that John had no interest in solving the problem he was simply using this as measures to put CAPIC out of business.
I hope this provides some context for the events at that time..
regards,
Ross Eastley”
CSIP served a role as a voice of dissent against CSIC when some of the CSIC members or former CSIC members felt disenfranchised as the CSIP issues were being ignored by CSIC and of course individuals felt they were not being heard by CSIC. Initially because CAPIC was not making any progress in dealing with CSIC, some members (authorized immigration consultants and ghost consultants) turned to CSIP to represent their grievances. Some of the discontent came from former immigration consultants who could not meet the CSIC entrance requirements and some of this discontent came from CSIC members who felt totally disenfranchised by the manner in which they were being treated by CSIC. CSIC basically took the approach with the membership that must comply with their various demands, especially in the area of fees, or you are suspended. The CSIC membership felt totally exploited by this approach. CSIP made some extraordinary claims and statements but because there was enough of an element of truth in the statements they served a purpose. There were defamation lawsuits which went back and forth between CSIC and CSIP but these legal challenges were eventually settled out of court after a considerable expenditure was incurred by both CSIC and CSIP. However, it should be noted that as recently as this week CSIC succeeded in having CSIP remove from their website an article by the author on the grounds that it breached confidentiality when the lawsuit was settled.
CSIP was headed by Nuna Nancy Salloum and was the first organization that detected that there were many fatal flaws in CSIC but her criticism was met by legal attacks on her and tremendous legal fees that caused the Profession over a million dollars with absolutely no benefit to any CSIC Members other than to John Ryan who gained satisfaction in destroying the reputation of a very able and competent woman. It should be noted that the author is not a member of CSIP and was, himself, the subject of many attacks by this organization.
RIC is more of an ethnic industry association within the Chinese community located in Toronto. RIC did challenge CSIC in legal action over the ability of CSIC to be the only regulator and this was eventually settled by the Federal Court in CSIC’s favour. As a result of the ongoing controversy surrounding CSIC, RIC has periodically tried to initiate action to be the regulator of Immigration Consultants, they claim on their website to be “ a truly self- regulating immigration consultants association in Canada with rules of professional conduct, a professional liability insurance, consumer protection mechanism, and other key elements of the regulation of a profession” This organization claims to have a membership of 200 and I suspect some of their members are “ghost” consultants.
IAIP is a very small organization which I do not believe is very active. I would expect the membership is less than 10 if it exists. The membership did initiate legal action against CSIC in the beginning challenging CSIC’s ability to be the sole regulator, and this legal action was settled very soon after the action was started by providing membership for some of the IAIP members on some of the early CSIC committees.
Self-regulation, quasi-self-regulation and regulation – Regulatory schemes cover the spectrum from full government control to full self-regulation.
• Self-regulation is generally characterised by industry formulating rules and codes of conduct, with industry solely responsible for enforcement. Within schemes that are categorised as self-regulating a range of approaches may be in place from the existence of a simple code of ethics to codes that are drafted with legislative precision together with sophisticated customer dispute mechanisms.
• Quasi-regulation – in these schemes, the government influences business to comply, but rules, instruments, standards do not comprise explicit government regulation. Examples include government endorsed industry codes of practice or standards, government issued guidance notes, industry-government agreements and national accreditation schemes.
• Co-regulation – these schemes involve situations where industries and administer their own arrangements, but government provides legislative backing to enable the arrangement to be enforced.
• Explicit government regulation – This is the most common form of regulation and comprise primary or subordinate legislation. Advantages include certainty and effectiveness because of legal sanctions. Disadvantages may be that the arrangement may be standardised and inflexible, take significant time to make or amend legislation, not be suitable for influencing the quality of complex services, be perceived to be difficult to understand, have higher government budgetary costs and compliance costs, and provide poor access for those without the means to pursue their legal rights.
Sources: Australian - 2007-08 Review of Statutory Self-Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession – Final Report May 2008 – pages 97-99
I am using the term modified self-regulation throughout this discussion paper which has some similarity to quasi-regulation as defined in the Australian situation. My interpretation of the attitudes of the immigration consultants is that they want some input into the operation of their “regulatory” organization, while most don’t understand the total operation and responsibilities of self regulation, that there is a strong reluctance to being regulated by a competing group like the Law Society and that most would accept total government regulation over the present situation with the manner in which CSIC is being operated.
The new regulating organization or modified organization which is created must have broad support within the Immigration Consulting Profession as a consequence I do not think CSIC alone with the present leadership can accomplish that objective.
I also don’t believe that CAPIC if they had control of the CSIC organization could establish an organization or could modify the present CSIC structure such that it would function properly as a regulatory body. If this occurred it would be perceived as a “coup d’etat” within the profession and I am sure the Minister would not want to be perceived as supporting one leadership group over another leadership group within the immigration consulting profession. At the present time CAPIC enjoys an element of support within the CSIC membership but there are also members within that CAPIC leadership group who can’t wait to replace the current CSIC leaders and take retaliatory action for the wrongs which they perceive the current CSIC leadership has inflicted on the CSIC membership. In addition, CAPIC has suffered as an organization especially during the last two years because of the action which was been taken via CMI to basically replace CAPIC. As a result of this CSIC action CAPIC has really struggled to retain and grow their membership base. The active membership within CAPIC have been associated with the organization for a number of years and really have a long history with John Ryan and the CSIC Board as a consequence creating an environment for these two organizations to work together will be a major challenge.
CSIP, RIC or IAIP I do not believe any of these organizations would have the credibility or expertise to form or operate a credible regulatory organization. I have also heard rumours that individual CSIC members are planning to submit proposals as a group or individually to operate a regulatory organization basically as a business venture, this type of approach in my opinion would be totally inappropriate.
One of the major reasons this division has developed within the profession is due in part to the influence of John Ryan and due in part to the decision making of the “CSIC group primarily the CSIC Board”, which is perceived by a number of CSIC members as being in control of CSIC. As a consequence, if one of the other professional groups CAPIC for example was the successful applicant to be the regulator then there would probably be a repeat of the existing situation within a short period of time and the group which currently supports John Ryan would be attempting to get back in control of CSIC. One of the influencing factors is that within the immigration consultant community most of the immigration practices are very small. There are a number of one person operations which means a vast majority of the consultants have very limited experience operating a sizeable operation which operates in a sophisticate manner. For the clarification of the reader I am classifying the “regulator” (CSIC in this example) as being sophisticated and sizeable. This is just a relative characterization as compared to most of the immigration practices CSIC is very sophisticated and large thus within the profession there is very limited experience in understanding how such an organization should function. I realize that CSIC will be submitting that they have increased their sophistication dramatically as a result of the governance courses which some of the senior leaders have taken; however, my experience is that these leaders are not putting into practice the knowledge which has been gained from these leadership courses. There are a number of examples of inappropriate management; one of the most recent examples is the manner in which the current election has been conducted for the CSIC Board of Directors. In addition, there is a lot of distrust among the consultants simply because they have been acting in competition with other consultants their whole career. As a consequence, there is a learning curve for consultants to understand their role as a Board Member on the regulating organization. One of the factors which has become apparent is that due to vested interests of some the CSIC leadership group the compensation package for the Board members has resulted in some Directors almost looking on this as a “career” option, if you like, which is totally against the concept of encouraging input and contributions from the membership. To-date, in my estimation, because of the influence of the CSIC consultant leadership group and the lack of influence exercised by the public interest Directors currently on the Board of CSIC the result is a regulator “or CSIC” which has lost the confidence of the Minister, the Public and the CSIC membership.
I do think that if the proper changes are made, I refer to these changes as the addition of checks and balances, then the original objective of self regulation for the immigration consultants as identified in the May 2003 Advisory Committee report can be achieved. I did take into consideration the May 2003 Advisory Committee report which recommended the creation of a regulatory body to regulate immigration consultants, the Executive Summary is enclosed as Appendix II, the complete report is attached as a companion document for this submission. One of the features of a self regulating organization is that the membership has input and can contribute effectively to the development of the regulated profession. I realize the current leadership group has effectively curtailed and limited the contribution of the membership but it is important to realize that if all potential or hope of input or contribution is curtailed then there is the potential for a negative reaction. I am specifically referring to the situation if the regulation in the future is done by a government operated regulator with no input from the professional immigration consulting community.
I believe that if the profession is going to enjoy a form of self regulation then the profession as a group needs to come together to support the proposal for self regulation with the necessary modifications to the CSIC structure. The logical groups to come together in the submission of a joint proposal would be CAPIC and CSIC. For this approach to be initiated it will be necessary for the Minister to contact CAPIC and CSIC indicating one last chance is being given to retain a form of self regulation but they must agree upon a joint proposal in accordance with guidelines provided by the Minister’s Office and that the Minister will appoint a CEO. The appointed CEO will begin operating CSIC immediately and will be responsible to the Minister’s Office until a joint proposal was been submitted and is accepted. The alternative to a modified form of self regulation is an American style (representation by lawyers only) or a government regulator. If this alternative or Option was acceptable it would be essential to institute a number of checks and balances which I am suggesting below with further clarification in Appendix I, these of course would be provided to CAPIC and CSIC to develop their joint submission. If there is a joint submission then the appropriate controls (checks and balances) or supervision on the implementation would be very important as this has been a group fraught with discord for some period of time and I know the two sides are just waiting to even the score or to eliminate the influence or input from the other side. In effect I am trying to clarify that a plan for implementation is critical as well as the installation of controls or checks and balances would be essential to insure a successful regulatory regime.
A second alternative or Option II which could be instituted in order to retain the concept of self regulation would involve the transition of the present CSIC Board to an interim Board, the installation of a number of checks and balances and then finally the transition from the interim Board to a new partially elected and partially appointed Board. Option I and Option II are basically the same the only difference is that Option I originates with the membership. My observation of the current situation within the leadership of the CSIC membership is that there is very little possibility that CSIC and CAPIC can work together in order to develop a joint response. For a joint proposal to happen the Minister will need to strongly encourage both CAPIC and CSIC that such a proposal is the only choice if the membership wishes to retain any form of self regulation. As a consequence Option II is outlined as a mechanism to retain a form of modified self regulation with a number of accountability factors built into the implementation process. Possibly the mechanics or process for achieving this result would need to be modified but I do believe the current CSIC structure or framework can be made to work if the proper changes are made. In addition, the membership has invested heavily as I indicated earlier, in the creation of the present structure which would be lost if CSIC was completely abandoned. Again if there was an agreement with CSIC on the orderly transition then the process would proceed in a much smoother fashion.
A modification of Option II could potentially be pursued in order to effect immediate action. The modification I am suggesting is to immediately appoint an interim Board with two clear purposes:
• to take over the current operation of CSIC and return some stability and,
• develop a report for the Minister on the potential of moving forward with the basic concept of Option II or alternatively to go directly to Option IV.
Pursuing the modified Option II would require that the Board of CSIC agree to the immediate appointment of an interim Board by the Minster.
A third alternative or Option III is to have the authorized immigration consultants regulated by an organization run by the government similar to the UK model or the Australian model. The Australian model provides for an advisory Board while the UK model, to the best of my knowledge, does not have an advisory Board. Under this scenario I would suggest that the Minister appoint a Board that has a majority that are external to the consulting community. If this approach is selected then it is important to have a orderly transition from CSIC to the new regime thus I would suggest that as part of the process for accepting the proposal from CSIC is that CSIC be required to enter into an agreement to provide for an orderly transitional process if the CSIC proposal is not selected to regulate immigration consultants in the future.
A fourth alternative is simply to take the third alternative and have the model basically the same as the Australian model as there would be an advisory Board only and the Regulatory Organization would be established as a separate organization with a Superintendent in Charge of regulating Immigration consultants. This alternative is being crafted after the CSIC elections bearing in mind that it appears there is an element within the CSIC Board/Management which simply does not want to abide by regular rules of conduct thus the conclusion could be reached that at this stage Immigration Consultants are not ready for self regulation. Under this option significant changes to the By-Laws would be required and this paper is not exploring the extent of the changes that would be required for Option IV. A modification to this approach is simply to adopt the American style such that only lawyers will only be authorized to be immigration consultants.
Recommendations
The challenge or issue is how to make the present CSIC organization function appropriately or how to implement a new regulatory organization which will function properly.
o Option I (modified self regulation) – contact both CSIC and CAPIC indicating that a form of self regulation will be entertained but it needs to be a joint agreed upon submission from CAPIC and CSIC
This option would need to satisfactorily address the following items (note the guidelines in Appendix I will need to be provided):
i.) Proposed by-laws changes for CSIC,
ii.) Detailed process for achieving transparency and accountability for the membership, the Public and the Minister,
iii.) Details on approaches to improve the ethical conduct of CSIC members,
iv.) Detailed measures to improve the openness of the election process for the Board positions,
v.) Proposal on the compensation for the Directors of the regulatory organization,
vi.) Process for the appointment of the public interest members to the Board of the regulatory organization,
vii.) Process for handling CMI,
viii.) Process for allowing CPD credits through other professional organizations including professional consultant organizations,
ix.) Procedures to insure the complaints and discipline component of the regulatory organization remains independent of the Board of Directors for the regulatory organization,
x.) Proposed response to a future review of the Regulatory organization by CIC.
xi.) Provision for an ombudsman to handle complaints from CSIC members about the Board and/or administration.
xii.) Outline the proposed process for responding to recommendation # 6 of the report issued in June 2008 by the Standing Committee for Citizenship and Immigration as per below:
Recommendation # 6 – The Committee recommends that the relevant federal regulatory and enforcement authorities (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada Border Services Agency, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, Canada Revenue Agency) work with provincial partners (provincial governments, law societies) to coordinate investigation, communication and enforcement efforts so as to ensure that unregistered immigration consultants are either referred to provincial law societies for sanction, or are prosecuted under existing federal provisions, depending on the nature of the person’s practice. Such federal provisions include, but are not limited to, the general contravention provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, provisions under the Criminal Code, and federal tax law. No later than four months after this report is presented in the House of Commons, a lead agency should be named to coordinate investigation, communication and enforcement efforts.
xiii.) Reporting function.
Additionally, for this approach to be accepted the Minister will appoint a CEO who will operate CSIC and be responsible to the Minister’s Office until an acceptable submission has been developed by CAPIC and CSIC.
Option 1 would entail the Minister having regard to some very serious matters that found there way into articles and postings within the Industry. One of the most controversial and widely read, both by CSIC Members, CAPIC Members and Lawyers throughout the country was described as “sad” and “a condemnation” on the whole Board of CSIC. It was written by the author and the contents of this article entitled “The Journey Destroyed: The Death of CSIC” is required reading for an insight into the state of affairs and the tyranny that reigns with CSIC itself. The Minister must be aware of the contents to know the very difficult job that would lie ahead to have Option 1 work.
The Journey Destroyed: The Death of CSIC
Sometimes, when I dream, I walk in fields of buttercups and birds, of endless cloudless skies and in valleys where it never rains and only the morning dew keeps it all so fresh. I never want my dreams to end because they are a world where I am happy to be and a place I am safe.
The reader will not be inspired by words that have no more wisdom and no more hope but it is important that the conveyance of the death of CSIC and the funeral parade must be told. It cannot be told in a few words, and I have no intention of going beyond some simple facts, that lead me to conclusions few would have accepted when they first started on this Journey in Search of a Profession
This Profession had one last chance at self-regulation and it came in the form of an election in which all members would cast a vote, equally and fairly. That was not to be.
Strange things happened along the road to fairness and the exercise of democracy. We all received a telephone call which was disguised as a ‘Poll '. We were never told the reason or the legality behind this Poll. When we wanted answers, we were met with silence.
The fact was CSIC was caught conducting this Poll. This forced the SEO to issue a statement, long after the Polls had closed but the damage was done already. Some were led to believe that they had voted by answering this Poll. They were misled.
A larger issue is where Candidates such as Mr. Wong and Mr. Thomson obtained all the phone numbers of the electorate when others did not have that access.
The Founder of CSIC, John Ryan, OSJ, CCIC, FCMI, ICD.D, C.Dir., ASC, together with his sidekick, Imran Qayyum, CCIC, FCMI, ICD.D, C.Dir., ASC, planned long before the elections, how they would be able to continue with the exercise of the greed of power and the destruction of every value Canadians, real Canadians Cherish.
And so it came to be. The exercise of that endgame came by the men and women who were held high on The Lonely Pillar that they destroyed. It all came apart as though the sinking titanic was wrecking itself apart, while the Board of Directors danced on the corpses of the Members that were quickly sinking below them as they lost their Profession.
These are delusional men. They are not even real. They belong to an era when power was exercised to benefit the person who held the sword. They are fantasies that came into our hearts and homes and, like a virus that is immune to sanity, crawled upon us and devoured our dreams.
With the ship sinking and them all in a delusional state, they played their games and danced to the Music. They had the founder of CSIC resign his position so he could be appointed a full time CEO with the benefits and liabilities we all have to share. This came after more than two years of a “search” that never was.
They had that sidekick, who claimed to have moved to a Post office box in British Columbia, appointed to fill the founder’s seat on the Board. They ignored the fact that the Members had exercised their right to vote and had voted out Mr. Wong and had replaced him with Mr. Bernier. They put Mr. Wong in another safe delusional place and they danced around the Boardroom as they knew they had saved CSIC from those wicked invaders who themselves, wanted power. “Those whiners and complainers” said the new Chairman and newly elected Director, Mr. Nigel Thomson. He was referring to those men and women who must be excluded at all cost from the knowledge of what had really happened within CSIC’s walls. Their pitiful dance goes on and on while the water rises and the ship is sinking. They believe in salvation as only demented minds could believe.
I am haunted by the memory of what could have been, and my heart is weeping for all those whose pain and anguish can never be made right and whose dreams are thrown into the dustbin of history.
The Making of a Tragedy: The Final Chapter and Will Ye No Come Back Again? were written to predict the dire consequences of a failure of the Board of Directors to act as the Minister would want. The End Game is here and the dream is gone. We all have lost our Profession.
The Honourable Jason Kenny, The Minister of Immigration has very few alternatives on his plate. He is a man of wisdom and of Honour. He is a man who is not afraid to act and act he will.
Self Regulation of Immigration Consultants can now only be found in our dreams and there are tears in the valley for what we have all lost. The Minister has been left with three choices. Two we have heard about and one we have not.
We are now facing the appointment of a Superintendent, a government run Regulator. I have referred to that in great detail in The Making of a Tragedy: The Final Chapter.
Alternatively, we are facing the imposition of a body outside of this Profession that will be “bidding” on regulating us, a commercial venture where there is a lot of money to be made and one that could well be more diabolical than CSIC.
Finally, and far more damaging, but on the Minister’s Plate, is what has become known as the American System. The American system allows only Attorney’s to practice. There are no Consultants. Under this scenario, we would continue to remain “authorized representatives” under an interim Superintendent for a period defined so we could wrap up our Practice and service the clients we have already retained.
It is a tragic ending to a Noble adventure. It is an ending that we all share the blame for in that the “silent majority” felt it was easier to hide their faces than scream out at the injustice. They were cowards of the worst kind and now we all pay the price. When a “Nanny” came to revoke the license of Katarina Onuschak, we should have known that we all would have been next. That is how tyranny and dictatorship works. The silence of the many brought us the pain of the future.
My forefathers gave their lives at Normandy and some lie in Flanders’s Field where the poppies grow. I have a nephew who fights in Afghanistan on this very night I write. They did not die in vain and they do not serve today to have the rights of some destroyed. This is my country. This is your country. This is Canada in the year 2010. It is time we screamed, we paraded, we made Canadians understand that CSIC is and was the most corrupt dictatorship that ever existed or was given the name of a “tribunal”. I am defending the rights given to me by many who died so that I could have them.
Lastly, my heart is only weeping, haunted by the memory of what could have been and never was.
o Option II (modified self-regulation) – CSIC is run by an interim Board (appointed by the Minister) until the controls have been implemented. This approach is taken when the CAPIC/CSIC joint proposal is rejected. The modified approach under this option occurs if immediate action is desired.
o It must be stated that there are legal impediments to this choice in that the Minister may not have the power to intervene in CSIC as it is a Private Company and monies from the 1700 members continue to pour in which would provide CSIC with ample money to spend on Lawyers to oppose any intervention by the Minister.
Under this option CSIC would be run by the interim Board until the following changes are installed to make the organization a modified self regulatory organization with a number of checks and balances. The minimum changes I would suggest are the following:
o The By-Laws are changed or a new set of by-laws are developed which would include the following:
i.) The public interest Board members are appointed by the Minister,
ii.) The section of the by-laws which deals with the election of consultant directors should exclude the reference to the region from which the public interest members are selected, this has I believe resulted in some confusion and allows people in a particular region to be elected with a low number of votes. In addition, perhaps a set date for elections should be included and a less elaborate process could be implemented for the calling of nominations.
iii.) Eliminate the requirement that the Chair needs to be a consulting Director,
iv.) The issue of the number of members present for a quorum at the annual general meeting needs to be reviewed as the present system is rather unique, and is very un democratic.
v.) A date for the annual election needs to be established,
vi.) The ability to have an in person or combination of in person and online annual general meeting or special meeting needs to be reviewed,
vii.) Clarification needs to be added that management can not serve on the Board. In addition, management can not function as practicing immigration consultants; authorized immigration consultants who work in management of the regulating organization must take an approved leave of absence from their role as a practicing consultant.
viii.) Accountability to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration needs to be added,
o Call for new elections (after the election process has been reviewed) for the consultant directors under the jurisdiction of a completely separate individual or body. For example I would suggest that the Elections Canada Returning Officer (or designate) is named as the person to appoint a Senior Elections Officer to run the CSIC elections. In addition, I would suggest that the Elections Canada Returning Officer (or designate) be asked to review the current CSIC elections process and make a recommendation on changes which should be made to that process. Future changes to the elections process can only be made with the concurrence of the Elections Canada Returning Officer – this is one of the checks and balances that I am suggesting be incorporated into the CSIC structure.
o The compensation for the Board of Directors should be modified to be more in line with the compensation paid to Board members of self regulating professional associations, and should provide no more than a small “perk” for serving on the Board since it should only meet once a month to review the operations and directions set by the Board in compliance with the Minister’s requests.
o Procedures to insure the complaints and discipline component of the regulatory organization remains independent of the Board of Directors for the regulatory organization – I believe the process for handling the complaints and discipline is critical for establishing credibility in the eyes of the public, the government and the CSIC membership. In fact as I understand this was one of the weaknesses that needed to be addressed and resulted in the recent changes to the system for regulating immigration consultants in Australia.
At present the perception is that the CSIC complaints and discipline process is being manipulated. I think the basic technical process with some modifications is sound. In order to make it more effective and to deal with the perception that it is effective I would propose the establishment of a three person advisory Committee with the membership of this committee consisting of a Senior individual from Immigration Canada, an individual with a highly respected legal reputation from outside the immigration consulting community and someone from the CSIC Board of Directors. The mandate of this committee would be to provide advice to the CSIC Board and the complaints and discipline department on proposed policy changes and to provide advice on the effectiveness of the complaints and discipline process.
o In line with recommendation # 6 from the 2008 report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration I would suggest that the Minister request as part of the reporting requirements for CSIC that a meeting be held at least quarterly (more or less frequently may be more appropriate) under the Chairmanship of CIC. Participants should include the Directors (or designates) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Board, the RCMP, the Canadian Board Services Agency, Canada Revenue Agency, the Federation of Law Societies and the CEO of CSIC with as a minimum a mandate to coordinate investigations, communication and enforcement efforts so as to ensure that unregistered immigration consultants are either referred to provincial law societies for sanction, or are prosecuted under existing federal provisions, depending on the nature of the person’s practice. Such federal provisions include, but are not limited to, the general contravention provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, provisions under the Criminal Code, and federal tax law. Such meetings would also facilitate any concerns about the practice of authorized immigration consultants and such matters which should be drawn to the attention of the authorized immigration consultants. These meetings would also serve as a check and balance to insure that CSIC was fulfilling its role appropriately. One important criterion I believe which again is part of the checks and balances is that it is the CEO of CSIC who is appointed to this committee and not the CSIC Board Chair. The reporting (which could vary from time to time as specified by the Minister) could be as frequently as the meetings or once per year, it could be in writing or in person, I just feel it is important that the process be established.
o CMI would be abolished an unnecessary duplication of the role of CAPIC.
o Appointment of an ombudsman to review and handle complaints that members may have about their treatment by the Board or the administrative staff. This ombudsman should be an Immigration Consultant who is prepared to take on this role without financial reward and should and must be a Senior Consultant who is respected in the industry.
o The reporting function to the CSIC members and to the Minister should as a minimum include the following:
i.) Include the current reports which are provides to the members plus these report should also form part of the annual report provided to the Minister,
ii.) A complete report by individual Board member on the compensation, expense remuneration and special perks (example would be a laptop computer) provided to the individual Board members. The expense remuneration shall include items paid directly by the CSIC office on behalf of a Board member, for example such items as flight and hotel costs to attend Board meetings, membership fees, registration fees to attend conferences, etc. The report should form part of the report provided annually to the Board by the auditor and the Board shall include this information in the annual report to the CSIC members and the Minister,
iii.) The audited financial statements for CMI should be disclosed fully for examinations.
iv.) The government appointees should file a separate annual report to the Minister on their view of the operation of CSIC,
v.) At the completion of the annual election process the Senior Election Official shall file an independent report to the members, the Board and the Minister about the effectiveness and fairness of the election process,
vi.) The CSIC Complaints and Discipline Advisory Committee shall file a report annually with the Minister and the CSIC Board on the effectiveness of the complaints and discipline process. This report should as a minimum comment of the effectiveness of the complaints and discipline process and the responsiveness of the Board to making the system effective.
vii.) The CSIC Board in its annual report to the Minister shall include all the information referred to above in the reporting function plus any additional information which may be requested by the Minister from time to time.
A modification of Option II could potentially be pursued in order to effect immediate action.
The modification I am suggesting is to immediately appoint an interim Board with two clear purposes:
i.) to take over the current operation of CSIC and return stability and,
ii.) to develop a report for the Minister on the potential of moving forward with the basic concept of Option II or alternatively to go directly to Option IV.
Pursuing the modified Option II would require that the Minister immediately appoint a CEO and an interim Board.
o Option III (regulation) would be a regulatory organization for immigration consultants with the total Board appointed by the Minister. This occurs when Options I and II are rejected and modified self regulation is abandoned.
If neither option I or option II are workable then the interim Board designated by the Minister could continue with the operation of CSIC until the Minister appoints a full time Board to operate CSIC. As a result the regulation of immigration consultants would be operated in a fashion similar to either the UK or Australian models with some slight tweaks for the Canadian situation.
o Option IV is to accept immediately that immigration consultants are not ready for self regulation and that CSIC be adapted to the Australian model with a Superintendent in charge of the regulation of immigration consultants. The Superintendent would be a distinct entity free from government control and would be run in a similar manner to the Trustees in Bankruptcy which works very well in that domain. Such an option does extenquish self-regulation but has many benefits that the Public would prefer.
Basically the only difference between Option III and Option IV is that Option III would be adopted after thoroughly exploring Options I & II while in the case of accepting Option IV the decision will have been made at the onset that self regulation is not possible thus Options I & II are rejected immediately.
Risks
The following is my assessment of the risks that I can foresee:
o That CSIC will not agree to a joint proposal submitted by CAPIC and CSIC.
Mitigation of this risk
The fact that CSIC will be a required to enter into such an agreement in order to participate in the process is an important lever. The portrayal of such an agreement as the appropriate steps to protect the members’ interests and the planning for an orderly transition will be I believe received in a positive fashion by the members plus possibly as a good will gesture perhaps the $ 500,000 non interest bearing loan (please refer to Financial Statements in the 2008 - 2009 CSIC Annual report, enclosed as a companion document) which is carried on the CSIC records could be forgiven if it is transferred into the compensation fund.
In the event that CSIC is not prepared to enter into such an agreement then the Government would need to be prepared to go straight to the establishment of a Government Operated Regulatory organization. This I believe is the greatest risk as there is the potential for legal challenges, so preparation for this eventuality should be undertaken.
o If the Minister moves immediately to go to Option IV or the modified Option II that the CSIC Board will resist the turn over of the present CSIC operation to an interim Board.
Mitigation of this risk:
I believe the individual Board members would be exposing themselves to a significant amount of personal liability if they chose to resist an agreement to turn over the function of the present Board to an interim Board. The reason I make that statement is because Directors and Officers insurance covers the action of a “reasonable” person and I suggest for the Board to resist the request by the government would not be a “reasonable” decision. I would suggest obtaining the legal advice on this issue as I would suspect that insurance for Directors and Officers would not cover the individual Directors in the event of a law suit if they chose to resist. If that is the legal advice that is obtained then the information should be presented to the Board as the alternative they would face if they chose to resist.
If the legal advice does not support this approach then the government would need to be prepared to assume that they will not receive any support for CSIC and a plan should be put in place to develop an appropriate Regulatory operation for immigration consultants.
o That the senior management or the Board of CSIC will enter into untenable agreements to prevent the success of the interim Board or transition process.
It is essential to realize that you will be dealing with John Ryan in particular and he sees CSIC as being the equivalent to his own personal fiefdom (as unrealistic as that sounds in terms of power and control John Ryan does not respond in the same manner as a “reasonable person”).
Mitigation of this risk
The clauses and details of the contract which is entered into with the current CSIC Board (when the operation of the current CSIC Board is suspended to develop a joint proposal with CAPIC) will be critical in order to prevent this type of activity.
o The presentation of a joint proposal will not be achieved.
Mitigation of this risk
I think this strengthens the ability of the government to choose either option II or option III. Option II retains modified self regulation or reintroduces modified self regulation if you like while option III simply involves a regulator.
o The adoption of option IV, the appointment of the total Board of the modified CSIC by the Minister will be the only viable option.
Mitigation of the risk
As long as options, I, II & III are fully explored then the Minister can indicate this fact when option IV is selected. In addition, there is strong discontent within the membership with the manner that ”self regulation” has operated thus "regulation" by the government may very well be welcomed by the existing CSIC membership. I think this option would go a long way towards restoring public confidence and confidence by the current CSIC membership in the benefits of regulation.
Conclusions
The list of check and balances included in Appendix I actually follow from some of the recommendations contained in the “Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants – presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – May 2003 “ In particular the following recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION 6. The Chair of the Board should be elected by the board members. A mechanism should be set up to provide for ongoing communication between the Department, the Minister and the Chair to ensure that the regulatory body carries out its responsibilities in a manner that has the full support of the Department and the Minister.
A number of the checks and balances are in the form of reports to the Minister and actually Recommendation # 6 of the May 2003 report for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration specifically referred to ongoing communication between the Department, the Minister and the Chair of the Regulatory organization.
RECOMMENDATION 14. The process by which regulation takes place should be transparent. Applicants for registration should know the requirements they are expected to meet, as well as the time frame within which a decision on their application will be made. Decisions denying membership should be accompanied by reasons.
A number of the checks and balances refer to a transparent process which is also referred to in Recommendation # 14 of the May 2003 report for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The Executive summary of the May 2003 report for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is attached as Appendix II. It is worth noting that the majority of the recommendations have been implemented, especially with the new Legislation being proposed as Bill C 35. The other exception would be Recommendation # 26 which is listed as follows:
RECOMMENDATION 26. The Committee recommends that the regulatory body develop detailed levels of practice, which would permit consultants to apply for registration based on their level and area(s) of experience.
This implication of not implementing Recommendation 26 is not a significant factor in the operation of the current regulator.
The basic structure for the regulator known as CSIC has been implemented in accordance with the May 2003 report for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Executive Summary attached as Appendix II), with the major omissions being the lack of checks and balances. I believe that if steps are taken to build on this structure with the implementation of the accountability which I am suggesting in the form of checks and balances (listed in Appendix I) then CSIC can become an effective regulator for immigration consultants.
In my opinion the preferred Option I for regulating immigration consultants would be a joint proposal involving the significant players in the profession (preferably CSIC & CAPIC) and that the contract for conducting this operation would have significant checks and balances (controls if you like) which are outlined in Appendix I.
If option I is not viable then CSIC should be operated under an interim Board, the checks and balances as outlined in Appendix I should be implemented and this in effect becomes Option II. The concept of a form of self regulation is preserved with the implementation of several controls.
If either option I or option II are not viable then the government should take over the operation of CSIC which I would call option III and keep the regulator as a separate entity in order to comply with the issues outlined in the May 2003 Minister’s Advisory Committee report. I would suggest that the implementation of this model would have some similarities to the Australian model although if the Board of the entity (the new CSIC) was appointed by the Minister then it would be kept as a separate entity from government. The Australian model has the regulator operating as part of government with the Board simply being an Advisory Board.
Option IV would be a slight modification of this as it would be simply accepting immediately that self regulation is not possible and the regulation would be done completely under the jurisdiction of the government.
I would suggest that the review which was undertaken of the MARA should be studied in greater detail in order to determine if some of the recommendations which were made for the regulator in Australia could also be used as a guide for making some changes with the Canadian regulator. This report is enclosed as a companion document to this Discussion paper.
As a final point this Discussion paper has been primarily written before the conclusion of the 2010 CSIC elections and I think the actions taken by the Senior Elections Official during the course of the election further emphasized the need to have the elections run by an external appointee. The actions called into question the fairness of the election, for example such things as allowing incumbent candidates to have access to CSIC resources to campaign and to conduct their campaign against the rules given to the other candidates. Additionally, the actions taken by the Board the Day the election results were announced to make John Ryan the CEO and to appoint Imran Qayyum as the consultant Director to complete John Ryan’s Board term illustrates the Board is basically out of control and dramatic change is required. As a consequence Option IV may be the most viable Option at this stage in order to restore order to the immigration consulting group.
Based on my evaluation of the Options available my conclusion is:
o Provide an opportunity for one last attempt for a joint undertaking by CSIC and CAPIC to develop a modified form of self regulation with a number of checks and balances as suggested within this paper (please see Option I for details). I believe for this to happen it will require the intervention of the Minister to contact both CSIC and CAPIC to indicate one last opportunity is being provided to retained a form of self regulation. If the self regulation can not be salvaged then a choice will be made on either adopting an American style regulation approach or a government controlled regulation regime. Additionally for this approach to work the current CSIC CEO will need to be replaced by a CEO appointed by the Minister. The appointed CEO would report to the Minister’s Office until an acceptable alternative is developed by CSIC and CAPIC.
o If CAPIC and CSIC are unable to agree upon an acceptable structure for a modified form of self regulation then I would suggest Option IV with the choice being a government regulation approach or an American style approach which would only be allowing the participation of the legal profession.
In order to make the preferred option (joint participation by CAPIC and CSIC) viable it will be necessary to have in place a CEO who has had successful experience working with the CSIC membership and who has the credibility to bring about the necessary changes. This would require an individual who is diplomatic, is decision oriented and would have a very short learning curve in order to initiate the process with the CSIC membership.
Appendix I - Recommended changes to the CSIC structure and operations - Checks and balances or accountability requirements.
Minimum changes required for the existing CSIC structure to make it into an effective regulator for immigration consultants. The following items are in effect checks and balances which I believe should be added to the present CSIC structure to make it effective. These checks and balances are presented as “Response objectives” for the specifications outlined in the call for proposals.
Requirement
• Proposed by-laws changes.
Response objective:
• The public interest Board members are appointed by the Minister,
• The section of the by-laws which deals with the election of consultant directors should exclude the reference to the region from which the public interest members are selected, this has I believe resulted in some confusion and allows people in a particular region to be elected with a low number of votes. In addition, perhaps a set date for elections should be included and a less elaborate process could be implemented for the calling for nominations,
• By-Law 6.7 c - allows the Chair to have a second vote in the event of a tie, I personally disagree with this as the Boards that I have been associate with if there is a tie vote after the Chair has voted the motion is lost. If this clause is removed it in effect decreases the power of the chair which has been a problem,
• By-Law 8.1 a - names the standing committees, I would suggest possibly removing some of the committees on this list and leaving the balance of the committee structure to the discretion of the Board,
• I would look at obtaining advice on the necessity of having the Public Interest members on all committees. The chair is ex officio on all committees, normally this is only done as a courtesy or if there is a particular issue, in the case of John it was used as a mechanism to control the committee. It might be best to specifically indicate that the chair is not ex officio of the audit committee
• Establish an annual date for elections,
• Eliminate the requirement that the Chair be an elected consulting director,
• The ability to have an in person or combination of in person and online annual general meeting or special meeting needs to be reviewed,
• If the Minister makes all the Board appointments as specified in Option III then significant By-Law changes would be required,
• The issue of the number of members present for a quorum at the annual general meeting needs to be reviewed as the present system is rather unique,
• Clarification needs to be added that management can not serve on the Board, clause 9.1 a. In addition, management personnel can not function as practicing immigration consultants, authorized immigration consultants who work in management of the regulator must take an approved leave of absence from their role as a practicing consultant.
Clarification needs to be added that if the past chair is not a current Director then the position is vacant, this would potentially have been an issue as in John’s view he was entitled to the Director’s compensation even if he was not on the Board if he held the position of past chair, the clause is 9.7 e.
• Accountability to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration needs to be added.
Requirement
• Detailed process for achieving transparency and accountability for the membership, the Public and the Minister,
Response objective:
• Minutes and agendas for open meetings are made available to the CSIC members, the Public and the Minister in a timely manner,
• The audited statements for CSIC, CMI plus any other organization directly linked to CSIC are to be made available to the CSIC members, the Public and the Minister,
• A complete report by individual Board member on the compensation, expense remuneration and special perks (an example would be a laptop computer) provided to the individual Board members is disclosed to the CSIC members and the Minister. The expense remuneration shall include items paid directly by the CSIC office on behalf of a Board member, for example such items as flight and hotel costs to attend Board meetings, membership fees, registration fees to attend conferences, etc. The report should form part of the report provided to the Board by the auditor,
• The CSIC membership is to be provided an opportunity to make comments about new policies or revisions to policies being considered by the CSIC Board.
• CSIC needs to work with the professional associations on the development of programs for the development of the profession, this includes for example CPD credits.
Requirement
• A plan needs to be implemented to improve the ethical conduct of CSIC members and provide support to CSIC members with ethical concerns
Response objective:
• Do more courses on ethics with a requirement that must take a review course every one year (two years – basically a predetermined time frame),
• Maybe contract with an independent ethics counsellor who is accessible on a confidential basis for members to call to consult with, the information of course would not be shared with the CSIC management or Board. As a result of these calls the counsellor make some general suggestions on issues which should be addressed in training seminars,
• perhaps a Bulletin Board moderator could be contracted (maybe this can be a staff member) to review the material posted on the Bulletin Boards to comment on strictly the tone of the postings and not the content. The problem in the past was that staff were not allowed to function in this area as John wanted to control the Bulletin Board. The concept is to keep the postings civil.
Requirement
• Detailed measures to improve the openness of the election process for the Board positions, even the most recent election conducted by CSIC has some very significant flaws in terms of being fair,
Response objective:
• I would suggest that the Elections Canada Returning Officer (or designate) be asked to review the current CSIC elections process and make a recommendation on changes which should be made to that process,
• Call for new elections (when the option is implemented) for the consultant directors under the jurisdiction of a completely separate individual or body, for example I would suggest that the Elections Canada Returning Officer (or designate) is named as the person to appoint a Senior Elections Officer to run the CSIC elections,
• In the event that a Director’s position becomes vacant then the external Elections Canada person should supervise the filling of the position. The reason is that in the present circumstances there was a move by the Board to make the application criteria tailored to one specific individual.
• Future changes to the elections process can only be made with the concurrence of the Elections Canada Returning Officer (or designate),
• The Elections Canada Returning Officer (or designate) is to prepare a report after each election which shall include comments on the operation of the election and fairness of the election. This report shall be made available to the Board, the CSIC members and the public.
Requirement
• Proposal on the compensation for the Directors of the regulatory organization,
Response objective:
• An external report is to be prepared for submission to the membership for approval, the author of this report is to use other professional self regulated organizations (Doctors, Lawyers, Accountant, etc) as a reference.
Requirement
• Process for the appointment of the public interest members to the Board of the regulatory organization,
Response objective:
• This is included in the specifications if the specifications do not include a reference to the requirements for a joint response between CSIC and an association within the profession. As the changing of the by-laws to have the Minister appoint the public interest Directors would be mandatory.
Requirement
Requirement to wind up CMI would include:
• Process for allowing CPD credits through other professional organizations including professional consultant organizations,
Response objective:
• This is included in the specifications if the specifications do not include a reference to the requirements for a joint response between CSIC and an association within the profession. I basically see this as being covered by the increased transparency plus the involvement of the professional associations in the operation of CMI which could be transferred to CAPIC.
Requirement
• Procedures to insure the complaints and discipline component of the regulatory organization remains independent of the Board of Directors for the regulatory organization. This was highlighted in the evaluation that was done on MARA in Australia as the perception by all stakeholders was that they did not have confidence in the MARA complaints and discipline process. In my opinion it is absolutely essential to introduce steps to insure the Board of the self regulatory organization can not become involved in the complaints and discipline process, the Minister, the public and the members must see that the process is operating fairly as well the perception by all stakeholders must be that the process is operating fairly.
Response Objective:
• Provide for the establishment of a three person advisory Committee for the complaints and discipline department. The membership of the committee should consist of a senior individual from Immigration Canada, an individual with a highly respected legal reputation from outside the immigration consulting community and someone from the CSIC Board of Directors.
• The mandate of this committee would be to:
o provide policy advice to the CSIC Board and the complaints and discipline department,
o Provide advice on the effectiveness of the complaints and discipline process.
Potentially this policy and monitoring advice would have to be binding recommendations to the Board, this is an item which would need to be examined in greater detail.
• The committee will additionally be responsible for providing an annual report to the Board and to the Minister.
Requirement
• Proposed response to a future review of the Regulatory organization by CIC,
Response Objective:
• The Minister could build into this response or the contract for operating the regulator the review process similar to the situation which operated in Australia, if the regulator (or CSIC for that matter) did not satisfactorily meets its mandate at least the government would have a option for dealing with the matter in the future.
Requirement
• Outline the proposed process for responding to recommendation # 6 of the report issued in June 2008 by the Standing Committee for Citizenship and Immigration as per below:
Recommendation # 6 – The Committee recommends that the relevant federal regulatory and enforcement authorities (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada Border Services Agency, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, Canada Revenue Agency) work with provincial partners (provincial governments, law societies) to coordinate investigation, communication and enforcement efforts so as to ensure that unregistered immigration consultants are either referred to provincial law societies for sanction, or are prosecuted under existing federal provisions, depending on the nature of the person’s practice. Such federal provisions include, but are not limited to, the general contravention provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, provisions under the Criminal Code, and federal tax law. No later than four months after this report is presented in the House of Commons, a lead agency should be named to coordinate investigation, communication and enforcement efforts.
Response objective:
• I would suggest that the Minister request as part of the reporting requirements for CSIC that a meeting be held at least quarterly (more or less frequently may be more appropriate) under the Chairmanship of CIC. Participants should include the Directors (or designates) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Board, the RCMP, the Canadian Board Services Agency, Canada Revenue Agency, the Federation of Law Societies and the CEO of CSIC with as a minimum a mandate to coordinate investigations, communication and enforcement efforts so as to ensure that unregistered immigration consultants are either referred to provincial law societies for sanction, or are prosecuted under existing federal provisions, depending on the nature of the person’s practice. Such federal provisions include, but are not limited to, the general contravention provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, provisions under the Criminal Code, and federal tax law.
Such meetings would also facilitate any concerns about the practice of authorized immigration consultants and such matters which should be drawn to the attention of the authorized immigration consultants. These meetings would also serve as a check and balance to insure that CSIC was fulfilling its role appropriately. One important criterion I believe which again is part of the checks and balances is that it is the CEO of CSIC who is appointed to this committee and not the CSIC Board Chair. The reporting (which could vary from time to time as specified by the Minister) could be as frequently as the meetings or once per year, it could be in writing or in person, I just feel it is important that the process be established.
Requirement
• Reporting function
Response objective:
• Include the current reports which are provides to the members plus these report should also form part of the annual report provided to the Minister,
• A complete report by individual Board member on the compensation, expense remuneration and special perks (example would be a laptop computer) provided to the individual Board members. The expense remuneration shall include items paid directly by the CSIC office on behalf of a Board member, for example such items as flight and hotel costs to attend Board meetings, membership fees, registration fees to attend conferences, etc. The report should form part of the report provided annually to the Board by the auditor and the Board shall include this information in the annual report to the CSIC members and the Minister,
• The audited financial statements for CMI should be disclosed separately annually to the members and to the as part of the annual report to the Minister,
• The government appointees should file a separate annual report to the Minister on their view of the operation of CSIC,
• At the completion of the annual election process the Senior Election Official shall file an independent report to the members, the Board and the Minister about the effectiveness and fairness of the election process,
• The CSIC Complaints and Discipline Advisory Committee shall file a report annually with the Minister and the CSIC Board on the effectiveness of the complaints and discipline process, this report should as a minimum comment of the effectiveness of the complaints and discipline process and the responsiveness of the Board to making the system effective.
• The CSIC Board in its annual report to the Minister shall include all the information referred to above in the reporting function plus any additional information which may be requested by the Minister from time to time.
• Provision for an Ombudsman to deal with membership complaints about the Board and/or administration.
Appendix II - Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants – presented to the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - May 2003
Executive Summary of the Report
RECOMMENDATION 1. The Committee recommends that the Minister exercise broadly the authority conferred by Parliament under Section 91 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), recognize the right to counsel of the persons referred to in Section 91, and ensure that such counsel are regulated with respect to the widest possible range of immigration proceedings and applications.
RECOMMENDATION 2. In order to bar an individual from practising as an immigration practitioner, the regulations should clearly define who may practise and what organizations are recognized as regulators for the purpose of the IRPA.
RECOMMENDATION 3. The Committee recommends the following definitions:
Counsel refers to a barrister or solicitor, or to a licensed immigration consultant. Other Representative refers to a person who, without collecting any fee, remuneration or other benefit whatsoever, represents or advises a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).
RECOMMENDATION 4. The Committee further recommends that Canadian embassies, consulates and high commissions deal only with those individuals who fall within Recommendation 3.
RECOMMENDATION 5. The Committee recommends that membership be denied to persons who cannot demonstrate to the regulatory body’s satisfaction that their immigration consulting business is sufficiently linked to Canada to permit proper enforcement of the regulatory body’s by-laws and rules of conduct.
RECOMMENDATION 6. The Chair of the Board should be elected by the board members. A mechanism should be set up to provide for ongoing communication between the Department, the Minister and the Chair to ensure that the regulatory body carries out its responsibilities in a manner that has the full support of the Department and the Minister.
RECOMMENDATION 7. The Committee recommends the creation of a statutory, self-regulatory body for the regulation of immigration consultants. Its Board should be appointed for an initial period of two years, with one third of its members from the consulting community.
RECOMMENDATION 8. The Committee recommends that, after an initial two-year start-up period for the regulatory agency, the composition of its board be, in the majority, immigration counsel as selected by their peers.
RECOMMENDATION 9. The Committee strongly recommends that the appointed board during its two-year term complete work on the development and implementation of the following:
• a code of conduct
• a complaint and discipline mechanism
• a compensation fund
• liability insurance
• development and provision of bilingual services to the public
• proper internal and external administrative procedures
• location of office space
• a budget development process
• staffing
• a national education program for the ongoing educational process necessary to this model
RECOMMENDATION 10. The Committee recommends that Citizenship and Immigration Canada compensate the Chair and board members at a rate commensurate with that of persons sitting as directors at similar size corporations until such time as the authority can sustain itself on membership fees.
RECOMMENDATION 11. By-laws changing the remuneration of the Chair and the board should be subject to the approval of the members.
RECOMMENDATION 12. The Committee recommends that Citizenship and Immigration Canada compensate the staff of the regulatory authority until such time as the authority can sustain itself on membership fees.
RECOMMENDATION 13. The Committee recommends that the start-up costs for the regulatory body be paid for by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The costs of sustaining the regulatory body, however, should be paid for by fees charged to its members.
RECOMMENDATION 14. The process by which regulation takes place should be transparent. Applicants for registration should know the requirements they are expected to meet, as well as the time frame within which a decision on their application will be made. Decisions denying membership should be accompanied by reasons.
RECOMMENDATION 15. The complaints process should be simple and accessible to the public and available in a multilingual format.
RECOMMENDATION 16. The Committee recommends that members be required to carry a minimum of $1,000,000 in liability insurance.
RECOMMENDATION 17. The Committee recommends the establishment of a compensation fund for the victims of dishonest consultants.
RECOMMENDATION 18. Lawyers and their employees should be permitted to become members of the body regulating immigration consultants provided they comply with its conditions for membership; however, they should not be required to do so as a condition precedent to practising citizenship and immigration law.
RECOMMENDATION 19. The public should be able to determine, at no cost, whether a person is or is not a member of the regulatory body.
RECOMMENDATION 20. NGOs that offer services at no cost to immigrants and refugees should be exempt from regulation by the Regulatory Body.
RECOMMENDATION 21. NGOs providing immigration information, advice or representation should undertake appropriate steps and initiatives to examine their role, responsibilities and obligations regarding their work in this area. Part of this process could include examining all opportunities to upgrade the education and competence of their staff and/or representatives.
RECOMMENDATION 22. Intergovernmental bodies or other organizations operating overseas that charge fees to immigrants or refugees should be regarded as consultants and be subject to the authority of the Regulatory Body.
RECOMMENDATION 23. The Committee endorses the DACUM Chart, Analysis and Report appended to this report as an essential tool for determining occupational duties and professional requirements and using these as the basis to develop a curriculum.
RECOMMENDATION 24. It is recommended that all individuals applying for registration provide police certificates or similar evidence to substantiate that they do not have any bars to their eligibility.
RECOMMENDATION 25. The Committee recommends that an education program be established for those wishing to be registered, to be administered by the regulatory body through authorized education agents.
RECOMMENDATION 26. The Committee recommends that the regulatory body develop detailed levels of practice, which would permit consultants to apply for registration based on their level and area(s) of experience.
RECOMMENDATION 27. The Committee recommends the establishment of mandatory continuing professional education programs.
RECOMMENDATION 28. The Committee recommends that the regulatory body establish requirements for language proficiency in one of Canada’s official languages, and develop language assessment based on third-party language testing.
RECOMMENDATION 29. The Committee strongly recommends creation of a disciplinary body, with attention to issues of independence of the body, access, safeguards with respect to confidentiality, and cost of use, inspired by complaint mechanisms that have been developed by provincial bar associations.
RECOMMENDATION 30. The Committee recommends adoption of a Code of Conduct, to be subject to ongoing review and modification, and proposes a Draft Code of Conduct for consideration as part of this Report.
RECOMMENDATION 31. The Committee recommends that penalty provisions be included in the IRPA to address unauthorized and improper practice. Proposals for such statutory provisions are included in this Report.
RECOMMENDATION 32. Guidelines should be developed concerning disqualification of a regulated consultant from being licensed, or for revoking an existing licence. The Committee recommends that the disciplinary body be accorded the discretion to consider disqualification for such causes as criminal conviction, personal bankruptcy, sanctions from the disciplinary body, and interruptions of practice for more than five years, on a case-by-case basis.
RECOMMENDATION 33. Consistent with the Committee’s recommendation to establish an independent body under Section 91 of the IRPA, the Non-share Capital Corporation created under part II of the Canada Corporations Act would allow the regulatory body to establish the authority to censor; fine; suspend/revoke a licence; refer to law enforcement authorities; investigate; and refuse membership through the creation of corporate by-laws.
RECOMMENDATION 34. In view of requirements for resources, which include physical plant, staffing, a compensation fund and operating capital, the Committee
Recommends that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration secure funding of $1.75 million for the creation of a new body to regulate the activities of consultants. The Committee further recommends that the Minister enter into discussions with the governing council of the new body to negotiate the terms of seeding and repayment requirements, should the Minister conclude that repayment of the seed capital is appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION 35. The Regulatory Authority should develop criteria for transitional provisions to allow for the licensing/certification of professional immigration consultants who are already in practice.
RECOMMENDATION 36. The Committee recommends that Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board ensure widespread availability of accurate information about the regulation of immigration consultants by means of reviewing all information materials currently in use, developing new materials as required, and educating appropriate personnel. The Committee also recommends that accessibility be ensured by providing information through a series of meetings and the location of information/orientation officers both in Canada and overseas.
RECOMMENDATION 37. The Committee recommends that the regulatory body develop an ongoing program of outreach, information and orientation; and that it develop a mechanism for regular communication and interaction with lawyers’ associations, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Board, the RCMP and other appropriate agencies, in particular those in the education and justice sectors.
Appendix III - Current information on the operation of the Regulatory Authority (MARA) in Australia
About Us
The Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (Office of the MARA) is a discrete office attached to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. The functions of the Office of the MARA are set out in s316 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
Establishment of the Office of the MARA
The 2007-08 Review of Statutory Self-Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession (the Review) recommended significant changes to the regulation of the migration advice profession in Australia. A key recommendation was that the Government consider establishing alternative regulatory arrangements to address a number of issues and concerns raised by both consumers and members of the industry.
In that context, on 9 February 2009, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, announced new arrangements to govern migration agents. Under these new arrangements, the Office of the MARA) was established on 1 July 2009. The Office of the MARA is led by a Chief Executive Officer who reports directly to the Secretary of the Department. Key objectives are to ensure that:
• only suitable persons are registered as migration agents, and unsuitable persons are refused registration or re-registration
• registered agents maintain appropriate knowledge to enable them to provide accurate advice to consumers
• all complaints about the services of registered, or formerly registered migration agents are appropriately addressed
• the Office of the MARA works collaboratively with the department and other bodies such as prosecuting or regulatory authorities to address the activities of agents outside its mandate
• Consumers understand their rights and agents understand their obligations under the regulatory framework.
The Office of the MARA is supported by an Advisory Board which includes a diverse range of interests, including a nominee from the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA), a nominee of the Law council of Australia (LCA), a community representative and a consumer advocate. The Advisory Board was appointed on 13 August 2009 and announced in a media release by Senator Chris Evans.
Advisory board appointed to guide new migration agent regulator
The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, today announced the appointment of an advisory board to guide the newly established Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA).
The board, which comprises a representative of the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA), the Law Council of Australia, community and consumer advocates, will be chaired by former lawyer and secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department, Robert Cornall.
“I believe that Mr. Cornall’s expertise and experience in both the public and legal sectors will be fundamental to the success of the board, which in turn will play a key role in the success of the new regulatory arrangements,” Senator Evans said.
Joining Mr. Cornall on the board will be:
• Jenni Mack, Choice Australia, representing consumer groups and deputy chair of the board
• Sonia Caton, Refugee and Immigration Legal Service, representing the not-for-profit immigration assistance sector
• Glenn Ferguson, Ferguson Cannon Lawyers, representing the Law Council of Australia
• Robert Stirling Henry, formerly of Stirling Henry Migration Services, representing the Migration Institute of Australia
• Andrew Holloway, Victoria University, representing the university sector
• Jim McKiernan, former senator, representing the community sector.
The new Office of the MARA commenced operating as regulator of the migration advice profession on July 1, replacing the system established in 1998 where the profession was regulated by the MIA.
Christine Sykes, CEO of the Office of the MARA, and a representative from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship will also serve on the advisory board. Other membership may be considered by the minister from time to time.
Both the advisory board and the Office of the MARA were established after recommendations of the 2007–08 Review of Statutory Self-Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession, which found dissatisfaction amongst consumers and potential conflicts of interest in previous arrangements.
The review recommended that the government establish a regulatory body separate from the MIA to regulate the activities of the Australian migration advice profession to provide consumers with appropriate protection and assurance.
"Unprofessional or unethical behaviour by migration agents can seriously impact on the lives of people using their services and bring the profession into disrepute,” Senator Evans said.
“The new office will implement the relevant recommendations of the review, remove concerns about potential conflicts of interest and provide confidence in the regulation of the migration agent industry.”
• Companion Documents referred to in this discussion paper
o 2007-08 Review of Statutory Self Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession – Final Report May 2008 (Australian Document)
o CSIC By-Laws
o Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – May 2003 (Canadian Document)
o CSIC Annual Report 2008-2009
o Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration report June 2008
o Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration report June 2009
The Dangers and the Dilemma
resented to the Honourable Jason Kenny
Minister of Immigration
June 30th, 2010
By
Bruce Perreault, B.A., LL.B, K.H.S.*
*Member of the Canadian Bar Association and Member of both CSIC and CAPIC
Discussion Paper on a Selection Process for a Regulator of Immigration Consultants
The Dangers and the Dilemma
Executive Summary
My submissions to the Minister may sound hard and cold may end the dreams of many in the Profession. If those dreams are ended, it will be the result of The Honourable Minister Jason Kenny, P.C., and he alone, reaching a conclusion that will not be similar to mine.
I outline the important factors that must be considered and, to me, the Minister has rightfully concluded that the end result of this process must insure the integrity of the immigration program. It must benefit the Canadian Public and especially those who require Immigration services not to have the problems inherent in CSIC become new problems in the future, both for the Canadian Public and the Consultants.
It is my hope that I have given The Minister enough background so that he and CIC are in a better position to Judge how the Minister can finally put an end to a matter that his eluded his predecessors. I have faith that this most active Minister of Immigration is intent on achieving the goals he has set out and any and all input can only be helpful.
The SUMMARY of my submissions can best be described as:
1. The Minister wishes to preserve self-regulation. There is only one way in which this can be accomplished. The Minister himself, or through a delegate, must intervene with the Boards of CSIC and CAPIC to achieve consensus on the way forward. This is entitled Option 1.
2. The Minister, if he cannot obtain a consensus that Immigration Consultants are NOT ready for self-regulation then he must turn to an outside, arms length entity to regulate Consultants.
3. This will leave the Minister with the following choices:
a) The Appointment of a Superintendent, independent from the government and financed solely by Consultants Fees.
b) The ultimate decision, which I have referred to as “the hammer decision “is to forbid anyone who is not a Member of a Provincial Bar or authorized to practice Law in their Jurisdiction of Province or Territory to practice under IRPA as “an authorized representative”. This “hammer concept” is a very powerful tool that the Minister can use to achieve true, transparent and a democratic regulator that maintains Canada’s Immigration integrity and program and, at the same time, provides self-regulation to the Profession of Consultants.
Publication of the Notice on June 12, 2010 in the Gazette
In general terms, this Notice of Intent announces CIC’s intention to establish a public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. The body identified for recognition would be required to demonstrate that it has the capacity to effectively regulate immigration consulting activities in the public interest. The Notice also signals the possibility of a future proposal to realign the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the Regulations) based on the results of the public selection process.
• The Issue or Challenge
To develop recommendations for the public selection process which will meet the issues outlined in the Gazette publication of June 12, 2010.
Some of the issues referred to in the publication are the recommendations from the Standing Committees on Citizenship and Immigration (Report # 7 June 2008 & Report # 8 June 2009) and consideration been given to the current operating situation at CSIC.
In summary the reports indicate a lack of public confidence in the current organization (CSIC) regulating immigration consultants.
• Parameters
o Publication notice of June 12, 2010 in the Gazette
o Report # 8 from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration – June 2009
o Report # 7 from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration – June 2008 – applicable recommendations
o Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants – presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – May 2003
This report provides some historical information on the rationale for the development of the Regulatory Authority for Immigration Consultants, which is currently the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC). Additional information is provided about the regulation models utilized in the UK, Australia and China. The UK and Australian models are the most relevant to the Canadian situation. There have been new developments in the Australian situation since the report was prepared as the Australian Regulatory Authority known as the Migration Agents Regulatory Authority (MARA) is now operated by the Australian Government and not the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA), this transition took place in 2009. MIA is the professional association for immigration consultants similar to CAPIC in the Canadian context. The background for the change which took place in Australia is provided in a companion document called “2007-08 Review of Statutory Self Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession – Final Report May 2008”. MARA as of July 2009 is currently operated as a discrete office attached to the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship as described in Appendix III.
o Other relevant factors:
i.) Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC), the CSI 2009 Annual report and the CSIC By-Laws are enclosed as technical information about CSIC,
ii.) Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC),
iii.) Canadian Migration Institute (CMI),
iv.) Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners (CSIP),
v.) Registered Immigration Consultants (RIC),
vi.) International Association of Immigration Practitioners (IAIP).
vii.) Self-regulation. Modified self-Regulation and Regulation
• Commentary
The positive regarding CSIC is that if both the 2009 Annual report and the 2003 Minister’s Advisory Committee report are considered then I believe a reasonable conclusion could be reached that the basic structure for a regulatory organization has been put in place.
The negative in my view is that the recommendations of the Minister’s Advisory report did not include strong recommendations on accountability and the accountability recommendations that were contained therein were not properly implemented. The fact that CSIC was created and has been able to operate with very little accountability has created the problems that currently exist.
One of the major conclusions from the Standing Committee reports was that the current approach is not working as there is a lack of accountability, plus a considerable amount of discontent within the profession. The discontent has created competing groups with different views on how the regulator should be operated. If one of the competing professional associations assumes the operation of the regulator it will be perceived as a “coup d ètat” and the same discontent will reappear within the profession. It will be interpreted by the membership as choosing one side of the leadership group over the other side and there will be an ongoing struggle to reverse that decision.
I do not think that self-regulation will work as I think the current operation of CSIC demonstrates that the profession is not ready for self-regulation. I do think that a form of modified self regulation has the potential to work providing the modifications include a number of checks and balances.
If a proposal, which originates from within the profession, is submitted and accepted to operate the regulator it will need to be a joint proposal. I believe such a joint proposal (which I am referring to as Option I modified self regulation) would need to be endorsed by the major participants within the profession and those major participants in my opinion are CSIC and CAPIC. For such a proposal to be acceptable either the accountability conditions as outlined in Appendix I would need to be part of the proposal or acceptable additions to the proposal. The impetus for such a proposal would need to be originated by the Minister as a last attempt to preserve a form of self regulation.
A second alternative (which I am referring to as Option II modified self regulation) is to retain self regulation but with a number of controls which I have outlined in Appendix I. Option I and Option II are basically the same the only difference is that Option I originates with the membership. My observation of the current situation within the leadership of the CSIC membership is that there is very little possibility that CSIC and CAPIC can work together in order to develop a joint response unless that direction is provided. As a consequence Option II is outlined as a mechanism to retain a form of self regulation with a number of accountability factors built into the implementation process. I am suggesting this as I believe the current CSIC structure or framework can be made to work if the proper changes, primarily in the governance area, are implemented. In addition, the membership has invested very heavily in the present structure which would be lost if CSIC is completely abandoned due to the egos of the present leadership group.
A modification of Option II could potentially be pursued in order to effect immediate action. The modification I am suggesting is to immediately appoint an interim Board with two clear purposes:
o to take over the current operation of CSIC and return some stability and,
o Develop a report for the Minister on the potential of moving forward with the basic concept of Option II or alternatively to go directly to Option IV.
Pursuing the modified Option II would require that the Board of CSIC agree to the immediate appointment of an interim Board by the Minster.
A third alternative (which I am referring to as Option III “Regulation” as opposed to self regulation) is to have the authorized immigration consultants regulated by an organization operated by government or an externally appointed Board. This would be somewhat similar to the UK and the Australian models with a Canadian twist. This approach could also be modified to adopt the American style such that only lawyers are authorized to act.
A fourth option is to immediately go to government regulation in light of the recent turmoil at CSIC. A modification of this is to adopt the American style.
• Recommendations
o Option I (modified self regulation) – contact both CSIC and CAPIC indicating that a form of self regulation will be entertained but it needs to be a joint agreement submitted from CAPIC and CSIC.
Additionally, for this approach to be accepted the Minister will appoint a CEO who will operate CSIC and be responsible to the Minister’s Office until an acceptable submission has been developed by CAPIC and CSIC.
o Option II (modified self-regulation) – CSIC is run by an interim Board until the controls have been implemented. This approach is taken when all the tender proposals are rejected. The modified approach under this option occurs if immediate action is desired.
This would require agreement by CSIC that an interim Board could be appointed.
A modification of Option II could potentially be pursued in order to effect immediate action. The modification I am suggesting is to immediately appoint an interim Board with two clear purposes:
i.) to take over the current operation of CSIC and return stability and,
ii.) Develop a report for the Minister on the potential of moving forward with the basic concept of Option II or alternatively to go directly to Option IV.
o Option III (regulation) would be a regulatory organization for immigration consultants with the total Board appointed by the Minister, This will result when all the tender proposals are rejected and modified self regulation is abandoned. This would be pursued after Options I & II have been exhausted. The Minister would then appoint the Board Members.
o Option IV is to accept immediately that immigration consultants are not ready for self regulation and that CSIC be adapted to the Australian model with a Superintendent in charge of the regulation of immigration consultants. An alternative which could be exercised under this option is simply to follow the American style which would only allow immigration consulting to be done by Lawyers.
• Risks
o That the CSIC will not agree to a joint proposal submitted by CAPIC and CSIC. This is where the “hammer theory” may have to be exercised.
o If the Minister moves immediately to go to Option IV or the modified Option II that the CSIC Board will resist the turn over of the present CSIC operation to an interim Board.
o That the senior management or the Board of CSIC will enter into untenable agreements to prevent the success of the interim Board or transition process.
o The presentation of a joint proposal will not be achieved.
o The adoption of option III, the appointment of the total Board by the Minister will be the only viable option.
This discussion paper does provide within the text of this document a process on how these risk factors can be mitigated.
• Conclusions
The basic structure for the regulator known as CSIC has been implemented in accordance with the May 2003 report for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Executive Summary attached as Appendix II), with the major omissions being the lack of checks and balances. Without this accountability the general conclusion is that CSIC is not functioning properly, hence the conclusion that the present system is a failure. I believe that if steps are taken to build on this structure with the implementation of the proper accountability, which I am suggesting in the form of checks and balances (listed in Appendix I), then CSIC can become an effective regulator for immigration consultants.
In my opinion, the preferred option for regulating immigration consultants is the successful implementation of a joint proposal involving the significant players in the profession (preferably CSIC & CAPIC) and that the criteria for accepting this Option I would be the successful implementation of the checks and balances (controls) which are outlined in Appendix I. The benefit is that the members would have “bought into” the concept of a modified self regulation with controls or defined accountability as required by the Minister. In addition of course the government would not have the burden of operating a regulator.
If this option is not feasible then under Option II CSIC would be operated by an interim Board with the installation of the checks and balances as outlined in Appendix I. When the interim Board has implemented the proper changes a new election would be held to elect consultant directors to the Board in order to “reintroduce” self regulation with much more accountability and a very controlled approach to self regulation. Again under this option the members have a stake in insuring the process is successful. A modified Option II would simply involve the Minister taking immediate action by appointing an interim Board to operate CSIC with a mandate to stabilize and restore confidence in CSIC as well as to prepare a report for the Minister with a recommendation on the implementation of either the balance of Option II or Option IV. This option would require agreement from CSIC that an interim Board could be appointed.
If either option I or option II are not viable then under Option III (regulation) the government would take over the operation of CSIC and keep it as a separate entity in order to comply with the issues outlined in the May 2003 Minister’s Advisory Committee report.
Option IV would be a slight modification of this as it would be simply accepting immediately that self regulation is not possible and the regulation would be done completely under the jurisdiction of the government.
I am recommending more stringent controls because of the recent experience with the operation of CSIC where the majority of the members have very limited experience operating in a regulated environment. In addition to the implementation of a number of regular accountability measures, I am recommending some exceptional accountability measures. These exceptional measures involve the process for the Board elections, the Public interest appointments to the Board of the regulator and the insulation of the complaints and discipline department from the Board. Implementation of all of these measures I believe will restore public confidence in the integrity of the regulation system for immigration consultants.
Based on my evaluation of the Options available my conclusion is:
o Provide an opportunity for one last attempt for a joint undertaking by CSIC and CAPIC to develop a modified form of self regulation with a number of checks and balances as suggested within this paper (please see Option I for details). I believe for this to happen it will require the intervention of the Minister to contact both CSIC and CAPIC to indicate one last opportunity is being provided to retained a form of self regulation. If the self regulation can not be salvaged then a choice will be made on either adopting an American style regulation approach or a government controlled regulation regime. Additionally for this approach to work the current CSIC CEO will need to be replaced by a CEO appointed by the Minister. The appointed CEO would report to the Minister’s Office until an acceptable alternative is developed by CSIC and CAPIC.
o If CAPIC and CSIC are unable to agree upon an acceptable structure for a modified form of self regulation then I would suggest Option IV with the choice being a government regulation approach or an American style approach which would only be allowing the participation of the legal profession.
In order to make the preferred option (joint participation by CAPIC and CSIC) viable it will be necessary to have in place a CEO who has had successful experience working with the CSIC membership and who has the credibility to bring about the necessary changes. This would require an individual who is diplomatic, is decision oriented and would have a very short learning curve in order to initiate the process with the CSIC membership.
• APPENDIX I
Minimum changes required for the existing CSIC structure to make it into an effective regulator for immigration consultants. The items are in effect checks and balances which I believe should be added to the present CSIC structure to make it effective.
• APPENDIX II
Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants – presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – May 2003 – Executive Summary
• APPENDIX III
Current information on the operation of the Regulatory Authority for Immigration Consultants in Australia, this is known as Migration Agents Regulatory Authority (MARA).
Contents
Executive Summary 2
o Option II (modified self-regulation) – CSIC is run by an interim Board until the controls have been implemented. This approach is taken when all the tender proposals are rejected. The modified approach under this option occurs if immediate action is desired. 6
o Option III (regulation) would be a regulatory organization for immigration consultants with the total Board appointed by the Minister, this results when all the tender proposals are rejected and modified self regulation is abandoned. This would be pursued after Options I & II have been exhausted. The Minister would then appoint the Board totally. An alternative which could be exercised under this option is simply to follow the American style which would only allow immigration consulting to be done by Lawyers. 6
o Option IV is to accept immediately that immigration consultants are not ready for self regulation and that CSIC be adapted to the Australian model with a Superintendent in charge of the regulation of immigration consultants. An alternative which could be exercised under this option is simply to follow the American style which would only allow immigration consulting to be done by Lawyers. 6
o That the CSIC will not agree to a joint proposal submitted by CAPIC and CSIC. 6
o If the Minister moves immediately to go to Option IV or the modified Option II that the CSIC Board will resist the turn over of the present CSIC operation to an interim Board. 7
o That the senior management or the Board of CSIC will enter into untenable agreements to prevent the success of the interim Board or transition process. 7
Publication of the Notice (as per below) on June 12, 2010 in the Gazette 13
The Issue or Challenge 15
Parameters 16
• Publication notice of June 12, 2010 in the Gazette 16
• Report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration - Report # 8 – June 2009 16
• Report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration - Report # 7 – June 2008 – applicable recommendations are highlighted. 16
• Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants – presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – May 2003 19
• Other relevant factors regarding the current operation of CSIC and professional associations 20
Commentary 22
Recommendations 33
o Option I (modified self regulation) – contact both CSIC and CAPIC indicating that a form of self regulation will be entertained but it needs to be a joint agreed upon submission from CAPIC and CSIC 34
o Option II (modified self-regulation) – CSIC is run by an interim Board (appointed by the Minister) until the controls have been implemented. This approach is taken when the CAPIC/CSIC joint proposal is rejected. The modified approach under this option occurs if immediate action is desired. 35
A modification of Option II could potentially be pursued in order to effect immediate action. 40
i.) to take over the current operation of CSIC and return stability and, 40
ii.) to develop a report for the Minister on the potential of moving forward with the basic concept of Option II or alternatively to go directly to Option IV. 40
o Option III (regulation) would be a regulatory organization for immigration consultants with the total Board appointed by the Minister, this results when Options I and II are rejected and modified self regulation is abandoned. 40
o Option IV is to accept immediately that immigration consultants are not ready for self regulation and that CSIC be adapted to the Australian model with a Superintendent in charge of the regulation of immigration consultants. An alternative which could be exercised under this option is simply to follow the American style which would only allow immigration consulting to be done by Lawyers. 40
Risks 41
o That the CSIC will not agree to a joint proposal submitted by CAPIC and CSIC. 41
o If the Minister moves immediately to go to Option IV or the modified Option II that the CSIC Board will resist the turn over of the present CSIC operation to an interim Board. 41
o That the senior management or the Board of CSIC will enter into untenable agreements to prevent the success of the interim Board or transition process. 42
o The presentation of a joint proposal will not be achieved. 42
o The adoption of option IV, the appointment of the total Board of the modified CSIC by the Minister will be the only viable option. 42
Conclusions 43
Appendix I - Recommended changes to the CSIC structure and operations - Checks and balances or accountability requirements. 45
Appendix II - Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants – presented to the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - May 2003 54
Appendix III - Current information on the operation of the Regulatory Authority (MARA) in Australia 59
• Companion Documents referred to in this discussion paper 61
o 2007-08 Review of Statutory Self Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession – Final Report May 2008 (Australian Document) 61
o CSIC By-Laws 61
o Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – May 2003 (Canadian Document) 62
o CSIC Annual Report 2008-2009 62
o Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration report June 2008 62
o Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration report June 2009 62
Publication of the Notice (as per below) on June 12, 2010 in the Gazette
Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Notice requesting comments on a proposal to establish a public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator on immigration consultants
Summary
In general terms, this Notice of Intent announces CIC’s intention to establish a public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. The body identified for recognition would be required to demonstrate that it has the capacity to effectively regulate immigration consulting activities in the public interest. The Notice also signals the possibility of a future proposal to realign the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the Regulations) based on the results of the public selection process.
Background
Regulation of immigration consultants was first introduced in 2004. In April of that year, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) was amended to ensure that no person who was not an authorized representative could, for a fee, represent, advise or consult with a person who was the subject of a proceeding or application under the IRPA (see section 13.1 of the Regulations). The term “authorized representative” was defined in the amendments (see section 2 of the Regulations) as a member in good standing of a bar of a province, the Chambre des notaires du Québec or the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC).
These Regulations were introduced both in response to unacceptable practices in the immigration consulting industry which left applicants vulnerable to erroneous advice, excessive fees and exploitation, as well as the threat these practices posed to Canada’s long-term immigration objectives.
The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, the current governing body, was established in 2003 as an independent, federally incorporated not-for-profit body operating at arm’s-length from the federal government and responsible for regulating paid immigration consultants (other than lawyers and members of the Chambres des Notaires du Québec). CSIC currently has a membership of over 1 700 consultants and continues to act as the sole governing body of immigration consultants. CSIC’s mandate is to protect the consumers of immigration consulting services while ensuring the education, competency testing and discipline of its members.
The provision of professional and ethical services by immigration consultants reduces fraud and other unacceptable behaviour, and is essential in protecting the consumers of immigration services and in ensuring the public’s confidence in Canada’s immigration programs.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration undertook a study of the immigration consulting industry and summarized its findings in a report titled Regulating Immigration Consultants. This Report, supported by a 2009 Report titled Migrant Workers and Ghost Consultants, points to a lack of public confidence in the body currently governing immigration consultants. A lack of public confidence poses a significant threat to the immigration system, given the regulator’s role with respect to the integrity of the system as a whole. The establishment of a public selection process contemplates these concerns — with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. It is intended that the body identified would have the capacity to effectively regulate immigration consultants so as to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the immigration program through the regulation of the provision of professional and ethical services by its membership.
Proposal
A competitive public selection process will be pursued in order to identify the entity best able to demonstrate the capacity to effectively regulate immigration consultants. Selection factors will be established to ensure that the entity identified for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants has the capacity to effectively regulate. CIC intends to engage external expertise in its establishment of factors in identifying a body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants. These specific selection factors will ensure that the entity identified in the selection process will be able to efficiently and effectively manage its membership in support of Canada’s immediate and long-term immigration objectives as well as in support of the Canadian public’s confidence in the immigration system.
Subsequent to the identification of the governing body, the following regulatory alignment may be proposed and would be pre-published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, at a later date:
• Naming of a governing body for immigration consultants, and, if necessary, removal of the reference to the current governing body of immigration consultants; and
• Inclusion of transitional measures, if required, for members in good standing of the current governing body of immigration consultants — both to ensure continuity of service provision to persons associated with a proceeding or application under IRPA and to protect the membership of the current governing body in order to ensure a smooth transition.
Comments
Immigration consultants and other interested parties are requested to provide their comments on this Notice of Intent in writing, to the person named below at the address provided, before July 2, 2010.
Comments would be appreciated on:
• The proposed public selection process with the objective of identifying a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants to ensure integrity in the immigration program through the provision of ethical and professional services by its membership.
Questions and requests for additional information, as well as comments regarding this Notice of Intent, may be directed to Catherine Marx, Senior Policy Analyst, Social Policy and Programs, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 365 Laurier Avenue W, 8th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1L1, 613-957-3577 (telephone), 613-941-9014 (fax), catherine.marx@cic.gc.ca (email).
The Issue or Challenge
To develop recommendations for the public selection process which will meet the issues outlined in the Gazette publication of June 12, 2010.
Some of the issues referred to in the publication are the recommendations from the Standing Committees on Citizenship and Immigration (Report # 7 June 2008 & Report # 8 June 2009). In addition due consideration needs to be given to the current operating situation at CSIC.
In summary the reports indicate a lack of public confidence in the current organization (CSIC) regulating immigration consultants.
Parameters
• Publication notice of June 12, 2010 in the Gazette
A competitive public selection process will be pursued in order to identify the entity best able to demonstrate capacity to effectively regulate immigration consultants.
Selection factors will be established to ensure that the entity identified for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants has the capacity to effectively regulate.
Please see the recommendations at the end of this report
• Report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration - Report # 8 – June 2009
This report simply made a recommendation that the recommendation of the previous report (Report # 7) be implemented
• Report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration - Report # 7 – June 2008 – applicable recommendations are highlighted.
o Recommendation # 1 - The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada stipulate in its laws and regulations that, in order to represent or advise a person on any matter before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, an immigration officer or the Immigration and Refugee Board, an immigration consultant from Quebec shall be officially recognized under Quebec laws rather than being required to be a member of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. This recommendation does not in any way affect members of the Barreau du Québec or members of the Chambre des notaires du Québec, who may continue to represent their clients as they have done thus far.
Not applicable to the issue or challenge
o Recommendation # 2 - The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada introduce stand-alone legislation to re-establish the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants as a non-share capital corporation. Such an “Immigration Consultants Society Act” should provide for the same types of matters covered by founding statutes of provincial law societies, including, but not limited to: functions of the corporation, member licensing and conduct, professional competence, prohibitions and offences, complaints resolution, compensation fund and by-laws. Once the regulator is re-established as a corporation under a federal statute, the existing body that was incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act may be wound up.
Please see the recommendations at the end of this report.
o Recommendation # 3 - The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada assist in re-establishing the new regulator and remain involved in its affairs until it is fully functioning.
Please see the recommendations at the end of this report.
o Recommendation # 4 - The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada ensure that;
i.) the new immigration consultants’ regulator institutes a third party, no-cost complaints procedure in respect of unauthorized or improper representation to support immigrants with precarious status in Canada in lodging complaints;
ii.) immigrants be informed that their complaints to the regulator will have no negative impact on their immigration applications; and
iii.) the regulator has a prosecutor/investigator that will represent the public interest in prosecuting misconduct
To be addressed in the Bill before Parliament.
o Recommendation # 5 - The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada amend section 13.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, as well as the relevant Citizenship and Immigration Canada inland processing manual (IP 9), and any other relevant documentation, so as to:
i.) require everyone to be an authorized representative if, whether for a fee or unpaid, they advise or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, an immigration officer or the Immigration and Refugee Board;
ii.) provide that only authorized representatives may perform pre-submission work in respect of a person who is subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, an immigration officer or the Immigration and Refugee Board,
iii.) require everyone to disclose the use of any representative, whether performing pre-submission work or not, in relation to a proceeding or application before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, an immigration officer or the Immigration and Refugee Board; and
iv.) Bolster its procedures for determining whether an immigration client is using a concealed representative to greatly increase the likelihood that the involvement of a concealed representative is discovered.
Not applicable to the issue or challenge
o Recommendation # 6 - The Committee recommends that the relevant federal regulatory and enforcement authorities (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada Border Services Agency, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, Canada Revenue Agency) work with provincial partners (provincial governments, law societies) to coordinate investigation, communication and enforcement efforts so as to ensure that unregistered immigration consultants are either referred to provincial law societies for sanction, or are prosecuted under existing federal provisions, depending on the nature of the person’s practice. Such federal provisions include, but are not limited to, the general contravention provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, provisions under the Criminal Code, and federal tax law. No later than four months after this report is presented in the House of Commons, a lead agency should be named to coordinate investigation, communication and enforcement efforts.
Please see the recommendations at the end of the report.
o Recommendation # 7 - The Committee recommends that Citizenship and Immigration Canada review existing processes related to the most common types of immigration applications with a view to simplifying them whenever possible.
Not applicable to the issue or challenge
o Recommendation # 8 - The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada revise all websites of Canadian embassies and missions abroad so as to ensure that they include consistent, clear and prominent information about immigration consultants. These messages should:
i.) be available in the local language(s);
ii.) inform prospective immigrants that they are not required to use an immigration consultant to help them in their immigration matter, and provide them with phone numbers that function from within the country, as well as other contact information enabling prospective immigrants to direct questions to appropriate government authorities;
iii.) state that if a person chooses to use an immigration consultant, only an “authorized representative” may be used;
iv.) provide a list of authorized representatives practising in the country; and
v.) State that no representative can guarantee their client success in an immigration matter.
Not applicable to the issue or challenge
o Recommendation # 9 - The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada make the “Use of a Representative” disclosure form (IMM 5476) available in the local language at embassies and missions abroad. Depending on current demand, the Committee recommends that the Government of Canada make other types of immigration forms and instructions, such as those related to sponsoring a family member, accessible in languages other than French and English.
Not applicable to the issue or challenge
• Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants – presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – May 2003
This document provides some historical information particularly about the rationale for the development of a Regulatory organization like CSIC, the situation in the UK, the situation in Australia (this is now out dated) and to a lesser extent the situation in China although this is probably not relevant to the Canadian situation. In looking at the rationale for the development of a separate organization it is important to be aware of the need to keep the operation of the Regulatory Authority separate from government Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). Some developments in Australia which I believe provide some context for the current Canadian situation has been the fact that the Australian regulator the Migration Agents Regulatory Authority (MARA) was operated by the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) the professional association within the Australian immigration consulting community, the equivalent organization in Canada would be CAPIC. Since the May 2003 report was prepared the operation of MARA has been transitioned from MIA to be under the jurisdiction the Australian Government with an advisory Board (please see Appendix III which is current information from the MARA website) the reasons for this change is outlined in the attached evaluation report which was done on the operation of MARA. A number of issues were identified and are being dealt with currently by CSIC while other problems are still being incurred some of which are being addressed by the current operation of CSIC such as the Discipline Committee. The head of Discipline at CSIC is a well trained and competent Lawyer but many believe she is unable to Act in accordance with her Professional duties because of interference by the governing body. The problem here is that the one very important factor to note is that the transition of the operation of MARA from MIA to the Government took place in an orderly fashion which potentially provides a precedent for the current Canadian situation.
• Other relevant factors regarding the current operation of CSIC and professional associations:
o The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) is currently operating as the regulator,
o The Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC) is currently operating as a professional association for immigration consultants. The four pillars for CAPIC are – lobbying, education, information and recognition. Membership is open to authorized immigration Consultants which includes lawyers, notaires and CSIC members. Membership is fee based, and the fee for students is $ 180 with other membership packages ranging from $ 360 to $ 560.
o The Canadian Migration Institute (CMI) – this is a private corporation which is a totally owned subsidiary of CSIC. The mission of CMI is to educate, accredit and advocate on behalf of authorized immigration consultants. Membership in CMI is free for CSIC members and there is a nominal charge for lawyers and notaires,
o Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners (CSIP) – this organization has a presence on the Internet and has been very vocal about the CSIC Board and thus has filled a necessary void when consultants were experiencing a number of grievances in dealing with CSIC. The head of this organization was originally a CSIC Transitional member and was a strong supporter of regulations but encountered problems with the CSIC language requirements. As a consequence (I am not sure whether it was a direct result of the CSIC entrance requirements or her ongoing disagreements with John Ryan) the Director of CSIP became a strong CSIC critic. The current membership fee is unknown.
o Registered Immigration Consultants Association ( RIC) - - information from the organization’s website is as follows:
“Approved as a national non-profit organization by Industry Canada in January 2005, the Registered Immigration Consultants Association of Canada (RIC) is a truly self-regulating immigration consultants association in Canada with rules of professional conduct, professional liability insurance, consumer protection mechanism, and other key elements of the regulation of a profession. Currently, we have more than 200 registered members.
Our missions are to enhance public and consumer confidence by regulating immigration consultants; to help members improve their professional performance by providing information support and continuing education, to advocate the use of our members' services; and to promote research, academic study, and information exchange in the industry.
The establishment of RIC has been well received in the Canadian immigration consultant community, and it is especially welcomed by Chinese and other ethnic consultants who make up a majority of the consultants.”
The current membership fee is stated as being $ 300.
o International Association of Immigration Practitioners (IAIP) – I believe this is a very small organization and may not even be active any more.
The membership fee is unknown.
o Self-regulation, modified Self-regulation and regulation – the objection of the immigration consulting profession has been to create a self regulating profession. The MARA in Australia when it was operated by MIA as a modified self regulated profession. The recent change in Australia has meant that the movement towards self regulation has ceased and that the regulation is done by government.
Commentary
The two reports (June 2008 & June 2009) which were issued by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration identified a number of issues which the current regulatory authority needs to address (please refer to these complete reports which are enclosed as companion reports for this discussion paper). The publication of the Notice in the Gazette on June 12th, 2010 initiates a process to address the currently identified deficiencies with the current operation of CSIC.
CSIC under the current operating environment has been plagued by a number of problems which can be summarized as follows:
• lack of transparency,
• accusations of financial mismanagement,
• excessive remuneration of the Board Members,
• concerns about fairness in the election process,
• concerns over the appointment process for public interest Board members,
• concern over the creation of a private entity called the Canadian Migration Institute with the mandate to educate, accredit and advocate,
• in fighting within the industry which has caused significant divides within the membership,
• ethical issues over a number of matters,
• non accountability to both the members and the government,
• Legitimate grievances which have been raised by the membership that have never been addressed by the Board. In addition, there was no legitimate process to have these issues addressed plus the Board constantly rejected the concept of having an in person annual general meeting,
• concern that the complaints and discipline process are not working adequately,
• Concerns were expressed about the fairness of the exam marking process. However my own person observations were that the examinations were tough and the marking process was fair. Many of the concerns came from transitional Members who failed to meet other standards, such as the language requirements.
A majority of the aforementioned issues plaguing CSIC can relate to the lack of accountability of the organization to both the Minister and the CSIC membership plus the overbearing and controlling influence of John Ryan. John Ryan was the Acting CEO and Board Chair in excess of two years, prior to that he was the Board Chairman, in excess of two years and was always a Board Member. Members felt that his “acclamation” upon seeking re-election, was the result of trickery against the sole opposition candidate, Jeff Hemlin. Mr. Hemlin was disqualified when an old “complaint” against him was suddenly resurrected. This sudden and abrupt appointment was made on the day new elections were held but before a new Director could be seated. This has brought consternation throughout the industry this has recently changed as he has recently resigned his Board position and been appointed as the CSIC CEO. This sudden and abrupt appointment was made on the day after the elections for new Directors were held but the decision was made by the outgoing board. In addition, John Ryan served on the Minister’s Advisory Committee which issued a report in May 2003 to the Minister (Hon. Denis Coderre) of Citizenship and Immigration.
The technical issues in the framework of CSIC that were identified in the list of concerns are matters which can be readily corrected if the appropriate individuals have the ability to make the changes. In particular, I am referring to the concerns about the exam marking process as I believe this can be addressed with greater transparency, the issue of the Board interference in the complaints and discipline process is addressed through a recommendation in Appendix I, plus the balance of the aforementioned issues are addressed in the recommendations contained in Appendix I. The issue of excessive influence exerted by either one individual or by a small group of individuals is a matter which needs to be addressed and I believe this type of problem would be mitigated by the measures recommended in Appendix I.
CSIC does have a staff of approximately 35 plus so if the operation ceases or is wound down there would be a severance pay requirement, valuable experience would be lost, a void would be created until a new organization became functional, new staff would be required for a new organization and there would be a training period involved. There has been a significant investment made in the infrastructure of CSIC, for example there is a large test bank of questions currently available for the entrance exam (English and French), these questions have been developed by members and have gone through several rounds of editing by legal editors to insure accuracy and clarity. A sophisticated computer system has been installed to facilitate the registration process and the maintenance of accurate up to date information on each CSIC member past or present. An extensive complaints and discipline process has been developed which includes the selection and appointment of an external panel for disciplinary hearings. Considerable expertise has been accumulated in terms of staff and hardware capabilities for the delivery of online videos, live videos and podcasts. This type of delivery system is important as the members are located throughout Canada and around the world so there needs to be an appropriate communications system for members. When this system is used properly it can be a very powerful tool for keeping the members informed and involved. These are just some of the examples of the infrastructure as there are obviously many more processes and policies which have been developed and implemented.
The 2007-2008 Review of Statutory Self Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession in Australia provides a very good blue print for CSIC to look at specific areas which need to be strengthened. This report actually provides an overview of some areas in the Australian situation which are very applicable to the Canadian context. Some of the areas that the report indicated were problems areas for the Australian profession have actually been addressed by CSIC, for example the language standards. In addition, some of the problems highlighted in the Australian profession are problems which have been incurred with the operation of CSIC, hence the checks and balances outlined in Appendix I. I would suggest reviewing this report in greater detail in order to ascertain whether additional measures can be implemented as a means of restoring confidence in the operation of CSIC. It should be noted that the Educational and Standards Committee, in the transitional years, was headed by a Lawyer from British Columbia named Elizabeth Bryson. She was former head of The Canadian Bar Association (National), Immigration Section and her contributions, together with her Committee, were probably the most organized and beneficial non-political gifts to the still evolving CSIC.
CSIC is a functional organization and should be preserved with some drastic changes. In order to provide more context for this observation I think it is important for the reader to have a more complete picture of how John Ryan operates other than the issues which are very obvious. Some of this picture involves a better understanding of the objectives and thinking of John Ryan. I certainly can’t provide a complete picture but I can fill in some of the blanks. The items that I am referring to are as follows:
• John was a member of the May 2003 Minister’s Advisory Committee and I understand (a point he was constantly making) that he was one of the authors of the report. I think it was planned that the organization created would have very little accountability. The report does not have very robust requirements for reporting to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and of course there is no accountability to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
• John has an ability to mix terms in order to cause confusion, I truly believe that John basically does not understand the difference. The term “self regulation” is used extensively so in effect the organization should be accountable to the members that in effect would be the justification for not having accountability to the Minister. The term “regulation or regulator” is used extensively when talking to the members to justify the lack of accountability to the members. Some of the CSIC member do belong to professional organizations for example Law Societies or to Professional Accounting Associations consequently they have an understanding of the concept of self regulation, John struggles in dealing with these individuals trying to confuse them with the use of the terms self regulation or regulatory organization depending on the situation. John does not belong to any other type of professional association thus he really does not have an understanding of the true concept of self regulation or exactly the meaning of collegiality. John only understands power and control without accountability achieved by whatever means.
• John does not have experience in management roles or for that matter serving on Boards for organizations of a significant size with a professional staff. The initial Board of CSIC adopted a policy to insure that the Board Executive obtained professional development in Board Governance thus some Directors pursued Directors programs offered by the Rotman School of Management and by the Directors College through McMaster University. John completed both these programs, the programs do overlap and probably the most bizarre aspect is that he took the program for the “for profit” organization rather than the programs for the “non profit” organizations. He does not apply the knowledge from these programs in the appropriate manner as he continues to mix the governance styles between a non profit setting and a for profit setting. I was never really sure whether he did not understand the difference or whether it was just a case of applying which ever governance principle could be utilized to achieve his goal at that particular moment in time. The fact that he had completed these governance programs and prominently displayed this fact meant that he was by default regarded as the expert on governance. If anyone chose to question his application of a particular governance style they would be quickly reminded that they did not have the governance training to be questioning John’s authority. A prime example of this confusion of the governance principle was the creation of CMI as a private for profit organization, when the members asked for more transparent information about CMI they were quickly told that it was a for profit corporation and releasing any information would put CMI at a competitive disadvantage even though the whole concept of self regulation is that it involves collegiality and it is structured as a non profit organization.
• The manner in which John applied these governance principles was at times rather intriguing as he filled the role of Acting CEO and Board Chair for in excess of two years. As a governance principle this should not have been done and in accordance with the CSIC by-laws this could not be done but because John was an expert on governance it did not apply to him in John’s eyes.
• Certainly there were other principles that John implemented in a rather unorthodox fashion but I think the confusion that was used with “regulation” versus “self regulation” and the application of governance models for “non profit organizations” versus “for profit organizations” gives an understanding of the approach that John employed in the operation of CSIC.
• One of the positive outcomes of having exposure to the two governance programs is that some of the organizational functions have been put in place; however, there is a certain amount of realignment required in order to make these structural elements operate properly. The By-Laws were written by some of the early Board Members and were designed to insure that they remained in power. They were severe and cruel towards the General Membership of CSIC and were the seeds from which grew anger and hostility and non compliance. The suggested By-Law changes in Appendix I relating to the governance would be a very effective step at this stage in the development of the organization.
The Canadian Migration Institute was established with a primary role, which was of course not publicly stated, of making CAPIC irrelevant. CAPIC was an organization that could be compared to the Canadian Bar Association and provided at a very low cost Educational and Upgrading seminars to CSIC Members. Additionally, the initial launching of CMI as a private organization was on the basis that it would allow CSIC to access new expertise by allowing CMI Board appointments to be made from areas of expertise such as the education field. Of course these Board appointments never happened as the CMI Board was used as a place to appoint favourite CSIC Board members and to keep those favourite CSIC Board members involved after they lost in the CSIC election process or were unable to run again for the CSIC Board. When I use the term favourite it refers to those people that either were friends of John Ryan or could be controlled by John Ryan. Once CMI was established steps were undertaken to disqualify CAPIC as a provider of continuing professional development (CPD) credits which are required by CSIC members in order to retain their CSIC membership. In addition, steps were taken to try to replace CAPIC as the Association arm or Advocacy arm of the CSIC membership. The CMI leadership group basically underestimated the tenacity of the committed members within CAPIC as CAPIC has continued and with the current problems being faced in the media by CSIC CAPIC is actually gaining strength.
There, in the context of John Ryan, must also be considered his attempt at interfering with the election process in a most deceptive and unprofessional manner. Mr. Ryan attempted to have a friend, who was Vice President of CAPIC, take over CAPIC so John Ryan could use it to his own advantage. This attempt failed and marked the first break with the author, a fervent supporter of CSIC, who felt that the abuse of a man who was head of the “Regulator” was contrary to all principals of decency. This provoked an article entitled “The Wind under my Sails” and the contents, although shocking and a condemnation of John Ryan, was never denied.
CMI fills no role in the scheme of a functional Regulator and, in fact, it is only a name and organization born out of John Ryan’s attempt to take over CAPIC and to provide a place for a defeated candidate and his friend to find a gainful income. It would not be unfair to say that all CMI Members are prisoners of this organization and, due to monetary concerns on behalf of members, are forced to belong.
The assets of CMI should be turned over to CAPIC forthwith since CMI has created tools, by using monies from CAPIC and CSIC Members in the delivery of educational seminars which could be provided at a much lower cost since CAPIC and most of their videos are out of date and serve no useful purpose except to collect money from members who must purchase these under “Mandatory CPD” imposed by CSIC”. Members of CAPIC are volunteers and there is no doubt that their educational programs superior to those offered by CMI. CMI, however, has the means and methods to deliver these programs, together with the technical expertise.
The Minister’s Advisory Committee report provides a very good framework for the rationale and operation of an authority to regulate immigration consultants. Most of the recommendations contained in this report have been implemented; however, the accountability of the operation of this regulatory authority, namely CSIC, has been identified as a major weakness. The Advisory committee report did not make strong recommendation in this area plus the recommendations which were made have not been properly implemented. In addition, since the report was issued there have been some new development within Australia which I believe provides some insight into identifying a process to move forward in the Canadian context. I am attaching as a companion document a copy of the report that was done on the Australian regulatory system when it was operated by the M IA (the Australian equivalent to CAPIC). There were a number of developments which have occurred in Australia but in particular these developments touched on two areas of particular interest to the Canadian situation.
• first the transition of the operation of the regulatory authority from one organization to another (transferred from MIA to being run by the Australian Government) and,
• secondly, the checks and balances that the Australian Government instituted to insure that the regulatory authority meets its mandate.
When reviewing the Australian evaluation of MARA I think it is interesting to note that some of the problems identified by the evaluation have been addressed by CSIC, whereas other problems identified have not been addressed properly hence the current situation. This reinforces my belief that the present structure can be made effective with the proper changes.
CAPIC is a non profit professional organization which has struggled because of the steps that CSIC took to discredit the organization. CAPIC is effective serving as an advocacy organization for the profession. They provide very credible CPD programs and with the appropriate support these programs could be strengthened. They inform their membership and they provide a social organization for the membership. The organization is volunteer based so it lacks sophistication at times and sometimes things are not completed in a timely manner but with the appropriate encouragement there is an opportunity to provide tremendous amount of energy and goodwill to the profession. CAPIC has tried to work with CSIC but because of the manner in which they have been treated by CSIC their contributions have been disregarded and at times the membership has lashed out in a very inappropriate fashion primarily as a result of frustration that has been experienced in dealing with the CSIC Board and senior management. There has been a significant amount of volunteer effort which has gone into the development of the organization and this energy could be channelled in a more positive fashion for the benefit of the profession as a whole.
It is important to read an article by Mr. Phil Mooney on why CAPIC lost CPD provider status and I am taking the liberty to submit this article since it appears on the front page of their Website and is accessible to the Public. Mr. Mooney’s constant commitment to the values and ethics of a true Profession should not go unnoticed and one is left wondering if he had been Chairman of CSIC from the beginning whether or not any of the problems that confront the Minister would exist. The position paper of CAPIC as to why they lost CPD Provider status is attached.
THE CASE FOR THE DEFENSE – HOW CAPIC LOST ITS CPD PROVIDER STATUS
The CSIC email which tried to explain why CAPIC’s CPD supplier status was revoked, was as
instructive in what it did not contain, as well as inaccurate in what it did contain.
We will go through this point-by-point. We apologize for the length of the document, but
defending oneself in the court of public opinion is often much harder than making
unsubstantiated allegations. As CSIC will not allow us access to the full membership list, we
have published the supporting documents on our website in the Members Only Section. Non-
Members can request a copy at info@capic.ca.
Point 1.
CSIC: After several unsuccessful attempts on the part of the regulator to work with CAPIC to
address key areas of concern, CSIC was left with no choice but to remove CAPIC’s CPD status.
CAPIC: The definition of “work with” usually requires an exchange of information about the
problem and the issuance of clear directives. Neither occurred in our interchange with CSIC. We
have reviewed all of our correspondence with CSIC over that time period. First, at no time
before January/February 2008 did we receive a single letter or email from CSIC complaining
about our membership categories, or any indication that they believed we were sheltering ghost
agents. In fact, a review of the correspondence for the past two years reveals the opposite.
CAPIC repeatedly pushed CSIC to do more on the issue of unregulated consultants. CAPIC
had many communications with CSIC.
The only controversial topics raised by CSIC were the possibility that CAPIC would recommend
to their members who to vote for in Director elections, and before the first failed attempts by
CSIC to hold online AGM, that we would tell people to vote against proposed by-law changes
because they were “bundled.”
Reference# 1 – Email.07-16-2007
In both cases, we did neither, but chose to offer members every opportunity to learn about the
candidates and issues. Today these issues seem rather ironic, given the recent alleged attempt
by CSIC/CMI to interfere in the CAPIC AGM
Further, the only communication with CSIC about CPD during 2007 was our frequent complaints
to CSIC about the slow processing of CPD applications.
Reference# 3 – Email.07-26-2007
Conclusion: The statement in the email of March 23, 2009 is a fabrication.
… “July to December 2007 – CSIC informs CAPIC that they have not complied with the process
posted to the CSIC website to gain CPD provider status”.
… cannot be supported by any evidence.
Point 2.
CSIC: What areas of concern did the regulator have concerning CAPIC?
In furtherance of its mandate to protect consumers, CSIC requires that any association adhere
to its guidelines. Despite numerous attempts at mediation, CAPIC refused to adhere to CSIC’s
posted guidelines on achieving accredited CPD provider status. There were several issues that
CSIC required CAPIC to address.
First, CAPIC had granted membership to several agents who were not authorized
representatives, including some who had been revoked or suspended by the regulator. In some
instances unauthorized agents were claiming that their CAPIC membership allowed them to
practice despite not being CSIC members. Naturally, this is not the case. To remedy this
situation, CSIC required CAPIC to remove the names of these unauthorized representatives
from its membership list. CAPIC did not initially comply, but eventually made the change.
Second, CAPIC policies allowed unauthorized representatives to participate in its continuing
professional development programs. CSIC required CAPIC to ensure that only authorized
representatives be permitted to take these courses. CAPIC did not initially comply, but
eventually made the change.
Third, CAPIC by-laws allowed student membership that was contrary to CSIC’s by-laws.
CAPIC’s student membership term went well beyond the period of study which left the door
open for these individuals to potentially become unauthorized representatives.
CAPIC: With regards to “numerous attempts at mediation” this is a mystery, since there were no
discussions of any kind on this issue until February 2008. Not only had CAPIC complied fully
with all of the CPD requirements (which we had helped design), our events continued to be
awarded points up to March of 2008. How could we “refuse to adhere to posted guidelines” and
still have events approved? In fact, what began to happen in February 2008 was that CSIC
started changing the rules “on the fly” and again, only for CAPIC, not for all CPD providers.
Reference# 3 – Email.02-11.2008.pdf
Reference# 4 – Email.02-14-2008-2.pdf
As far as “issues to be addressed” let us deal with them one by one.
On the issue of granting membership to revoked or suspended members, this is
completely false. CSIC pointed out that, in February of 2008, we had members on our public
membership list who were revoked or suspended CSIC members. This is the first time the issue
was raised. We explained that, as a volunteer organization, our resources are limited, so we
updated our membership lists when members paid their dues and renewed their memberships.
Reference# 5 – Email.02-21-2008.pdf
At that time, those individuals who were no longer CSIC members, in order to be able to stay in
CAPIC, had to send us affidavits as to what their role was, going forward, in the immigration
business. If they were working as agents for other CCICs (allowed by CSIC under the rules of
Professional Conduct) or Lawyers, they had to include an affidavit from the AR to that effect.
The CSIC membership list itself was extremely fluid up until the end of October 2007, as until
then the last of the Transitional Members could still join without taking a Practitioners Course. In
any case, and within days, we synched our lists with the CSIC lists to remove any revoked or
suspended members from our membership list.
Reference# 6 – Email.02-29-2008.pdf
Our speedy response was praised by CSIC, making the statement in the CSIC email of
March 23, 2009 “CAPIC does not comply” completely unsupported and disingenuous.
As far as the statement that “unauthorized agents were claiming that their CAPIC membership
allowed them to practiced despite being CSIC members” this refers to a story highlighted in a
news article by CBC TV in Winnipeg, about immigration and recruiting agents in the Philippines
charging fees to prepare applications. One such person interviewed stated that she was doing
nothing wrong as she “had paid her fees to CAPIC”. Within two days of receiving this
information from CSIC, we helped solve the puzzle. This person had been a CAPIC member
because she was still authorized by CIC to represent clients up to April of 2008, who had filed
applications before April of 2004. As this privilege was about to expire, CAPIC had requested
that she (and others in a similar situation) provide affidavits to show what her involvement was,
as required by our membership criteria. She had sent affidavits to show that she was working as
an agent on behalf of a CSIC member in Canada, and included the affidavit from the CCIC. We
immediately shared this with CSIC, and were informed that an investigation was launched. We
were subsequently told a few days later by the investigator that the affidavit signed by the CCIC
was done so fraudulently – and the CCIC was disciplined. We immediately refused the
application of the person in the Philippines. This whole story is detailed in the attachments.
Reference #7 – Email.03-12-2008.pdf
The real facts of the matter are not reflected in the CSIC email. If it were not for CAPIC’s
diligence in requiring supporting affidavits, they never would have known that a CCIC
(who was not a CAPIC member!) was ghosting applications for this person and who
knows how many others! The TV story states that the agent in the Philippines was charging
money for “preparing forms” which is allowed by CIC, but of course, something we want them to
change and have repeatedly lobbied against (IP9). CAPIC strongly supported the
recommendations of the Standing Committee last year, which said that IP9 should be changed.
CSIC opposed the report in public. This is also the case that CSIC is referring to in the letter to
our attorney regarding the issue of our CPD supplier suspension.
Reference# 8 – Email.03-19-2008.pdf
At no time did we ever receive the name of any other individual who is supposed to have
been acting as a ghost agent despite repeated requests for this type of information.
NOTE: this is the same incident that is referred to in the letter to our attorneys on October 10th
as an example of how “CAPIC was allowing ghost agents to be members.” This is a gross
misrepresentation of the facts, which were well known to CSIC in March, thanks to
CAPIC’s efforts. This should have been used as an example of malfeasance by a CSIC
member. By publishing this letter to all members CSIC has exceeded the bounds of normal
debate on an issue and may well have crossed the line into the area of Defamation. Again, we
remind the members that this is the only case cited by CSIC in the entire history of this issue,
going back two years! And it reflects badly on them for how they are misusing it.
On the issue of non-CSIC members participating in CAPIC educational events, this issue was
sprung on CAPIC without any prior notice, and is so blatantly hypocritical that it’s laughable.
CSIC awards CPD points to events held by a large number of organizations, many of which
allow anyone who pays to attend the event. For example, an event held in Toronto right around
the same time as this issue was raised had an invitee list that looked like Ghost Agents
International! Yet it was awarded 10 points! Clearly, CSIC was setting a much different standard
for CAPIC than any other organization. If they were serious, CSIC should check out the
attendees of the CMI conference held that spring to see if any non-CCICs attended.
Reference# 9 – Email.03-28-2008.pdf
CAPIC had long held the policy that staff members of CCICs and Agents of CCICs could attend
educational events, as it may help many of them learn more about how to support their CCICs
better, and ensure they know their roles. But when CSIC raised the issue, CAPIC changed its
policy immediately At the very next educational event we held we did not allow anyone who was
not a CCIC to attend, except I suppose, the camera crew, translators and waiters! Maybe they
all have to be CCICs too! Even the statement that “CAPIC did not initially comply” is
completely misleading. Ironically, we were also told that we could invite anyone we wanted to
an event as long as we didn’t apply for CPD points. So as far as CSIC was concerned, they
didn’t really care who we educated, giving lie to their expressed concern. The motivation
for this will be made clear in the next chapter of this debate.
Finally, on the issue of student members, CAPIC allowed all registered students in immigration
programs to become members, up to 2 years after graduation. This is because many new
graduates do not immediately take the CSIC exam, as they want to work for lawyers or CCICs
to be better prepared for the test and private practice. The students had to assure CAPIC that
they were not in effect practicing as ghost agents through sworn statements. Was this issue
ever raised with CAPIC by CSIC? Never. When they did announce plans for a special new
student category and asked us if we would change our criteria, we immediately agreed. We
made it abundantly clear that as soon as they defined their rules, we would mirror them.
CAPIC was faced with a constantly changing landscape without written rules or any concept of
collegiality. After all, we were in the business of upgrading the profession though the provision
of high quality educational events. To say we were confused and bewildered by what was
happening would be an understatement. As proof, I would like all members to go to the CSIC
web site and see if they can find anywhere rules for CPD events that match the rules we were
forced to agree to. If these issues were so critical that the regulator would deny hundreds
of members the points they deserve, you might think that these rules would be posted
for all CPD suppliers to see. If they are there, they must be written in invisible ink! Nowhere
does it say that only ARs can attend. Nowhere does it state what the membership criteria of an
organization should be. Nowhere does it give a definition of a student, or ghost agent or even
an AR.
CSIC’s own web site is enough to destroy any justification used to deny CAPIC CPD supplier
status.
Conclusion: CSIC’s claim that there were serious issues with CAPIC is patently untrue,
and appears to have been “manufactured” for a specific purpose. We think we know what
that purpose is.
Point 3:
In a meeting with CSIC Directors on May 15, 2008, CAPIC finally received in writing a list of four
points that we were asked to comply with to regain our CPD supplier status. These points were
contained in Motion 411, passed in April by the CSIC BOD. The four points were (in summary)
1. ensure that our membership list was synched with CSIC’s with regards to the correct spelling
of members’ names.
2. Remove “pending members list” from the public section of our web site
3. Update our membership every three months instead of every six and
4. Restrict access to materials on our web site, discussion Board and emails that assist ARs to
practice, so that only members who are ARS could access them.
We were asked to put together a plan on how we were going to accomplish these tasks. WE
COMPLIED FULLY WITH THE REQUESTS THE SAME DAY!! We even asked for a
compliance audit to be held in two weeks.
We also asked that John Ryan keep his promise to recommend re-instatement immediately if
we showed goodwill. He stated that he would be meeting with his board that weekend and
would discuss it. NOTHING HAPPENED. We waited throughout June because there was a
Directors’ election and CSIC could conduct no business until after the July orientation meeting.
Then, a few days before the Board meeting in July, our Vice President received a call from John
Ryan, stating that we had not complied because we had not agreed to change our membership
criteria. We were very surprised, because that was not one of the conditions in Motion 411. Not
only that, in order to change the membership criteria we would have to pass by-law
amendments, which could only be done at an AGM where our members could vote on it. Our
Board could not even meet to discuss the issue fully before the CSIC meeting.
Reference # 10 – Email.05-16-2008.pdf
At that meeting, John Ryan advised the Board that we had not met the conditions, so the
suspension remained. The CAPIC Board subsequently met a few weeks later and introduced a
motion to present a change in membership criteria at the next AGM.
Reference # 11 – Email.07-26-2008.pdf
Finally, at the next CSIC Board meeting in August, motion 411 was rescinded. However, we
were not advised of this fact until well into September. Nor did we get out status back. Now we
see that CSIC states they "cannot conduct business with an organization with which it is
in litigation. At the same time, they were approving CPD events held by the LSUC, with
whom they were still in court, in a years long battle. This truly takes hypocrisy to a new
level.
We fully expected to be told our CPD supplier status was restored. Instead, we received a letter
dated October 11th,where, once again, the rules changed.
Point 4:
Now we come to the saddest part of the whole sorry episode. In the letter from CSIC’s attorney
on October 11, CSIC makes several inaccurate statements and then slips into deliberate
misrepresentation of facts. The only correct part of the letter is that there is no contractual
arrangement between CSIC and CAPIC which would allow us to claim the right to supply CPD
programs. We accept that statement. We believe, however, that there is a moral and ethical
contract between the regulator and its members to act in the best interest of the
profession, especially when it does not harm consumer protection. CAPIC educating
members with high quality programs cannot, under any conceivable set of
circumstances, be considered detrimental to consumer protection. In fact, the opposite is
true.
Reference #12 – Letter from CSIC lawyer re Resolution # 411 and consequent refusal of
reinstatement of status due to CAPIC’s support of the Standing Committee report
The letter starts by saying that “CAPIC allowed ghost agents to be members”. That is a lie, as
you have seen above.
It then states that we made “erroneous statements and refused to address CSIC’s concerns”.
False statement.
It uses the story of the agent in the Philippines as an example of CAPIC allowing ghost agents
to be members. That is a gross distortion of the facts.
It talks about the membership category issue as if CAPIC was dragging its heals. That is a
further gross misrepresentation of the facts.
It then crosses the line from absurdity into deliberate malice through innuendo and fantasy.
It states that
CAPIC… challenged CSIC’s authority to regulate consultants. Never.
CAPIC… sought to have the Complaints and Discipline Policy declared unenforceable. Never.
CAPIC…attempted to join the LSUC in seeking to declare the Regulations that authorize CSIC
members as authorized representatives, ultra vires. A blatant lie.
CAPIC supports the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration to make CSIC a statutory body, so it can have the necessary authority to prosecute
ghost agents, like the Law Society prosecutes people who practice law without a license.
CAPIC never sought to join the Law Society in its case before the Supreme Court. What
CAPIC did, after the Chair of CSIC issued a very dire prediction of what would happen to our
profession If the LSUC won their case, was investigate the issues involved so we could inform
members and calm their fears, discuss the matter, and decide by a vote of 10 to 1 that it would
not join the LSUC in their case because it was not in the interests of our members. Calmly
investigating an issue, discussing it and then making a rational decision is something that CSIC
is clearly not used to doing.
Members can decide what to think, based on all the facts above.
When someone is wrong, there are usually only three explanations. The first is ignorance – they
didn’t know what to do. Second is stupidity.
Mistakes happen when people don’t think. All of us are born 100% ignorant, and die a little less
so. All of us do stupid things once in a while. But the third reason for mistakes is because of evil.
The person (or persons) deliberately set out to do wrong. They usually have an agenda. We
leave it to Members to decide what is happening in this case.
Phil Mooney
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: jryan@visapost.com [mailto:jryan@visapost.com]
Sent: July 16, 2007 4:47 PM
To: Phil Mooney; Keith Frank; Gerd Damitz; Betro Volpenpesta
Subject: Re: CSIC AGM - Wednesday, July 18th, 5:00 P.M EST.
Phil
Thank you for your message.
Your advice to your members on how to vote is very irresponsible. In the
same vein that we at CSIC would not seek to intervene or unduly influence
members of your organization when they are called on to exercise their
franchise, why would you seek to use your organizations influence to
directly interfere with our sovereign process.
Phil, our CSIC members must be free to exercise their free will without the
undue influence of an external organization such as yours.
Further your recommendation to your membership in my view constitutes an
effort to undermine the regulator in that you are effectivley tring to
organise a bloc vote that will have the result of lowering the value of the
equal franchise that all 1092 CSIC members enjoy.
This in my respectfull view could run counter to the spirt Section 16.6 of
the Societys Rules of Professional Conduct.
The current process has not only been passed through a board of Directors
that has fully four of the Six consultant directors elected by our
membership but it has also been vetted and approved by the Public interest
directors of our Board.
The process is hardly undemocratic as you allude, in fact it is fully
democratic in that it is our members who will vote and decide on matters at
our sovereign AGM.
While I appreciate your comments on the Online meeting question, your advice
on how members should vote crosses the line.
It is a line that we must protect or as your regulator we will be open to
the charge that we are not sufficiently independent of consultants to govern
their activities in the interests of the Consumer.
The very fact that your board would seek to publicly exert undue influence
by lobbying a vote outcome or inappropriately trying to interfere with the
regulator just plays in to the hand of those who would see our profession
cast asunder.
Page 1 of 4
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud9B.htm 16-05-2009
Phil, at some point your organization has to recognize that there are larger
issues at play.
The regulator must be independent and your organization should do everything
it can to avoid the appearance that consultants exert undue influence to the
detriment of the consumer interest.
Both Ralph Nader and Stephen Lewis warned of the dangers of the Industry
Lobby controlling the actions of the regulator.
Our only credibility as a profession is that we have an independent
effective regulator. This is absolutely fundamental to the survival of our
fledgling profession.
That credibility is currently under full attack....namely that CSIC does not
discipline it's own.
Don't make the mistake of providing more fodder to those who would bring us
down.
On the other matters, the CBA, OBA and parties to which you allude need to
be reminded that CSIC is not the sole actor on the regulatory stage, their
regulators have been wholly ineffective in governing their own profession ie
Angie Codina. There is also the Governments lack of action to consider as
well. I suggest that you not get sucked in by some of the actors in the
legal community, rather you concentrate on developing and setting out your
organizations position on self regulation.
Your organization needs to focus its scarce resources on educating and
defending the profession, not trying to micro-manage the regulator.
This is a tough love message Phil but you have to take a step back and look
at the message you are sending and how it will eventually be used against
all consultants.
My advice to you is don't get lost in the moment, keep your eye on the mid
to long term objectives on which we agree.
I will call you later to discuss.
Regards
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
-----Original Message-----
From: "Phil Mooney" <pm1@bellnet.ca>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:16:56
To:<jryan@visapost.com>
Subject: CSIC AGM - Wednesday, July 18th, 5:00 P.M EST.
Page 2 of 4
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud9B.htm 16-05-2009
Hi John;
I am sending you this draft announcement reflecting the position of the
CAPIC BOD on the AGM. Out of respect to you and our earlier conversations,
no one else has seen this, nor will they until you have had a chance to
comment. I am open to your suggestions, as I hope you are open to mine.
For your information, as a result of the CBA letter, I have gotten public
agreement from L’Aqaadi and the CBA Robin Seligman, no less! that CIC
should change IP9 to help get rid of ghost consultants. Robin still agrees
that all consultants should be shot, but at least she is agreeing as to who
should go to the wall first!
Please call me at any time 888-288-0801.
Phil
Fellow CAPIC members;
On behalf of the board of Directors of CAPIC, I want to encourage all
Registered Members to take part in the CSIC Annual General Meeting on
Wednesday, July 18th via web cast and conference call. This is your chance
to be involved in the affairs of the Regulator. It is vital that we get a
quorum for this meeting, so the “outside world’ can see that Consultants
care about their own profession.
There are several important issues regarding the Agenda, which we would like
you to consider. There has been some debate amongst CSIC members about the
legality of an online-only meeting, and the “bundling” of motions.
ONLINE-ONLY MEETINGS
* I would like to refer you to my previous report on the issue of Industry
Canada and the issue of Online-only meetings. It is our opinion that
Industry Canada would not disqualify a by-law which was approved by more
than 2/3rds of CSIC members, even if it was “after the fact”. This is based
on consultations with Industry Canada and an outside legal expert.
“BUNDLING OF BY-LAWS’
* The issue of “bundling” all of the bylaw changes into one vote, designed
primarily to clean up the transitional language but including other
substantive issues is more concerning. CAPIC has asked CSIC to “”un-bundle”
the bylaw changes so we could discuss them separately, including the issue
of online-only meetings, but CSIC has not agreed to do so. We feel that
this decision is not conducive to encouraging Members to participate
actively in their own Society, and sets a dangerous precedent for the
future. Therefore, as there is no other option, we are encouraging all
CAPIC members to vote “No” to accepting the bylaw changes. This will have
the consequence that CSIC will continue to operate as they are today, until
the next AGM when members will have a chance to discuss these items again.
* We are not stating that, as the Board of Directors of your Association, we
Page 3 of 4
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud9B.htm 16-05-2009
are opposed or in favour of any specific by-1aw change, only that each
change deserves to be discussed on its own merits, in the interests of
maintaining the health of the Society as a democratic institution.
So please make plans to attend online you may then get a better
perspective on whether or not to support this meeting style at the next
AGM. But to learn more and to insure that your voice is heard, you must
attend. Call in early in case there are any connection problems, and if you
have trouble, please make note of it and forward the details to the meeting
convener.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney
Page 4 of 4
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud9B.htm 16-05-2009
From: News @ CAPIC [mailto:news@capic.ca]
Sent: July 26, 2007 12:27 AM
To: News @ CAPIC
Subject: CAPIC-ACCPI pushes for CPD points for members
Importance: High
Please don’t reply to this e‐mail. If you need to contact CAPIC‐ACCPI, please send your message to info@capic.ca
July 25, 2007
CAPIC-ACCPI pushes for CPD points for members
One of the pillars of CAPIC-ACCPI is Education. We have been committed to the professional
development of our members and immigration consultants in the industry right from the
beginning and even before regulation. Professional development is a key component of
building a profession.
CAPIC-ACCPI offers a variety of opportunities for immigration consultants to build their
knowledge and skills through seminars, workshops and other sessions. Many of the sessions
have been submitted to CSIC for evaluation and the awarding of CPD points. Thus far, only a
few have been assessed and awarded as noted on the CSIC site.
Mansour Motamedi has been following up the issue with CSIC and they have replied. We
look forward to future progress on this issue and assessment of all our pending and future
sessions.
Page 1 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud9D.htm 16-05-2009
Thank you,
CAPIC-ACCPI
Received via e-mail July 24, 2007
Dear Mr. Motamedi,
Thank you for your email. Please be assured that the processing will be taking place as soon
as physically possible. As you are probably aware there have been a number of events in
recent months that have taken significant staff resources and priorities were established to
deal with the most pressing issues.
The intent is to have the assessments of the CPD events done as quickly as possible, the
initial assessments are taking longer simply because they are the first ones to be processed
and the desire is to insure that these assessments are done accurately as precedents will be
established. I have also explained to Mr. Mooney that the staff time required for some of
these extraordinary events such as the CPD conference, the AGM, the launching of the
features for the new WebSIte, the elections, the review of the academic programs, etc. has
been significant. As a consequence, the processing of the CPD credit allocations for the
various program applications has been delayed simply because there were hard deadlines
associated with all of these other events. At the current time some of the staff members
involved in the assessments are on vacation, as soon as the individuals return from vacation
the completion of the assessments will be given a top priority.
I share your frustration but I can assure you the intent is to process the applications as
quickly as possible within the staff resources available.
Thank you for your inquiry.
Yours truly,
Page 2 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud9D.htm 16-05-2009
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
Page 3 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud9D.htm 16-05-2009
From: Gerd Damitz [mailto:canimmig@idirect.com]
Sent: February 11, 2008 1:13 PM
To: 'Phil Mooney'; executive@capic.ca; 'R. Williams'; keithfrank@rogers.com
Subject: RE: Draft of Letter to CSIC
Importance: High
Just a proposal for some small changes, Phil:
1) You have told me verbally that the problem was with Stephen Lockyer and with a Desjardin
employee who gave a presentation on the Quebec investor program. Your expressed concern
with Stephen Lockyer was that he was “Banned from PNP conferences”, when in fact his
problems lie in a commercial dispute with the Nova Scotia PNP program, which is currently
before the courts. It has nothing to do with PEI, where in fact, Mr. Lockyer is allowed to
advertise himself and his Company as “Stephen Lockyer, Confederation Capital, An official
PEI Government approved Matchmaker”. Please refer to the list of approved matchmakers
published by the PEI Government at http://www.gov.pe.ca/immigration/index.php3?
number=1014606&lang=E . The presentation was on the PEI program, and was given by
Stephen and Blake Doyle, the associate in PEI, and dealt directly with program details.
2) The other speaker was, I believe, Foad Dalati who works for Desjardins. Foad is a former
Case Officer with MICC, and has lectured many times over the past few years on Quebec
Investor Programs. He is repeatedly acknowledged as an expert on this subject, has given
presentations to many groups, and is one of Desjardin’s liaisons to the Quebec Government for
updates and recent developments on the program.
Best regards,
Gerd
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:53 AM
To: 'Gerd Damitz'; executive@capic.ca; 'R. Williams'; keithfrank@rogers.com
Subject: Draft of Letter to CSIC
Please let me have your comments today.
Regards,
Phil
Dear Ross;
I am writing to ask your help in resolving the delays with two of our CPD applications. These
delays are now causing CAPIC serious problems both with membership renewals and with
Page 1 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudA2.htm 16-05-2009
planning for the seminar/AGM on October 29th.
We have been told by your staff that the CPD award for of Feb 29th seminar is awaiting the
name of the speaker on Governance. This despite verbal comments from your Chairman that we
do not have to have the speakers named, only the subject matter, in order to get points. Also,
the delay in getting the speaker’s name is as a result of CSIC not giving it to us, as we have
invited a speaker from CSIC to cover this topic. Because of this confusion, members may be
reluctant to register, and as the date is fast approaching, it becomes more difficult to plan for
any level of attendance.
We are still waiting for the award of CPD points for our National Education Seminar held in
Vancouver, November 9th and 10th. The application was submitted many, many weeks ago.
We have heard two reasons for the delay from you or your staff – one was that it was not
applied for with 60 days notice and then other was questions about two of the speakers.
The first is a non-issue since the “60 day rule” was announced less that 60 days before our
event, and we have written assurances from you that it would not apply retroactively to this
conference.
The second is only speculation based on your and your Chairman’s verbal comments to me, as
we have not received any written or verbal request for clarification or additional information
about our speakers. You have told me verbally that the problem was with Stephen Lockyer and
with a Desjardin employee who gave a presentation on the Quebec investor program. Your
expressed concern with Stephen Lockyer was that he was “Banned from PNP conferences”,
when in fact his problems lie in a commercial dispute with the Nova Scotia PNP program,
which is currently before the courts. It has nothing to do with PEI, where in fact, Mr. Lockyer is
allowed to advertise himself and his Company as “Stephen Lockyer, Confederation Capital,
An official PEI Government approved Matchmaker”. The presentation was on the PEI
program, and was given by Stephen and one of his employees, and dealt directly with
program details.
The other speaker was, I believe, Foad Dalati who works for Desjardins. Foad is a former Case
Officer with MICC, and has lectured many times over the past few years on Quebec Investor
Programs. He is repeatedly acknowledged as an expert on this subject, and has given
presentations to many groups.
Our urgent problem is that the length of time it is taking, is causing members to ask questions
about what is happening, and doubts are being expressed about our credibility as a provider of
CPD materials at this very crucial time. Some members are reluctant to renew their
memberships until they are certain that CAPIC is indeed going to be able to meet their CPD
needs in the next six months.
Therefore, CAPIC is now facing serious problems as a result of these delays. We had
complained last year of long delays in getting CPD applications processed in anything like a
timely manner. We are also concerned about different messages coming from CSIC
Management and CSIC staff.
Please let me know as soon as possible what can be done to deal with our concerns. CAPIC has
Page 2 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudA2.htm 16-05-2009
made every effort to meet the requirements for CPD points, both in holding excellent events
and in applying for points for these events, despite the changing rules and long delays.
Nevertheless, we have still delivered more CPD value than any other supplier, according to
your web site.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended
only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this email
to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for your
cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel
et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute utilisation ou divulgation
non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation.
Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
Page 3 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudA2.htm 16-05-2009
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: February 14, 2008 9:52 AM
To: Phil Mooney
Subject: CAPIC CPD applications
Dear Phil,
Thank you for your email. In response to your questions I am pleased to provide the following
information:
1.) Feb 29th Seminar - I provided the name of Michel Bento who is the SEO for the upcoming election, I
would suggest that you contact him directly.
2.) The CAPIC National Education Seminar - as I indicated previously it will be considered by the Board
when it has been processed by the appropriate Board Committee. This ties into the comments made
by staff as the issue of the seminar being considered by the Board is because of the timing of the
announcement of the 60 day rule and the scheduling of the seminar. The speakers is a matter which I
raised with you as these are issues that CAPIC needs to be aware of when planning these types of
events.
For your information and I am sure you are aware but CAPIC has events that were submitted in
accordance witht he 60 day rule that have been approved.
Thank you.
yours truly,
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by email at reastley@csic-scci.ca. Thank you.
Page 1 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudA5.htm 16-05-2009
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: February 11, 2008 5:32 PM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: John Ryan; 'John Ryan'; keithfrank@rogers.com; executive@capic.ca; 'Gerd Damitz'; 'R. Williams';
board@csic-scci.ca Collection Folder
Subject: CAPIC CPD applications
Dear Ross;
I am writing to ask your help in resolving the delays with two of our CPD applications. These
delays are now causing CAPIC serious problems both with membership renewals and with
planning for the seminar/AGM on February 29th.
We have been told by your staff that the CPD award for of Feb 29th seminar is awaiting the
name of the speaker on Governance. This despite verbal comments from your Chairman that we
do not have to have the speakers named, only the subject matter, in order to get points. Also,
the delay in getting the speaker’s name is as a result of CSIC not giving it to us, as we have
invited a speaker from CSIC to cover this topic. Because of this confusion, members may be
reluctant to register, and as the date is fast approaching, it becomes more difficult to plan for
any level of attendance.
We are still waiting for the award of CPD points for our National Education Seminar held in
Vancouver, November 9th and 10th. The application was submitted many, many weeks ago.
We have heard two reasons for the delay from you or your staff – one was that it was not
applied for with 60 days notice and then other was questions about two of the speakers.
The first is a non-issue since the “60 day rule” was announced less that 60 days before our
event, and we have written assurances from you that it would not apply retroactively to this
conference.
The second is only speculation based on your and your Chairman’s verbal comments to me, as
we have not received any written or verbal request for clarification or additional information
about our speakers. You have told me verbally that the problem was with Stephen Lockyer and
with a Desjardin employee who gave a presentation on the Quebec investor program. Your
expressed concern with Stephen Lockyer was that he was “Banned from PNP conferences”,
when in fact his problems lie in a commercial dispute with the Nova Scotia PNP program,
which is currently before the courts. It has nothing to do with PEI, where in fact, Mr. Lockyer is
allowed to advertise himself and his Company as “Stephen Lockyer, Confederation Capital,
An official PEI Government approved Matchmaker”. Please refer to the list of approved
matchmakers published by the PEI Government at
http://www.gov.pe.ca/immigration/index.php3?number=1014606&lang=E . The
presentation was on the PEI program, and was given by Stephen and Blake Doyle, the
associate in PEI, and dealt directly with program details.
The other speaker was Foad Dalati who works for Desjardins. Foad is a former Case Officer
with MICC, and has lectured many times over the past few years on Quebec Investor
Page 2 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudA5.htm 16-05-2009
Programs. He is repeatedly acknowledged as an expert on this subject, and has given
presentations to many groups, and is one of Desjardin’s liaisons to the Quebec Government for
updates and recent developments on the program.
The urgent problem is that the delays in approval are causing members to ask questions about
what is happening, and doubts are being expressed about our credibility as a provider of CPD
materials at this very crucial time. Some members are reluctant to renew their memberships
until they are certain that CAPIC is indeed going to be able to meet their CPD needs in the next
six months.
Therefore, CAPIC is now facing serious problems as a result of these delays. We had
complained last year of long delays in getting CPD applications processed in anything like a
timely manner. We are also concerned about different messages coming from CSIC
Management and CSIC staff.
Please let me know as soon as possible what can be done to deal with our concerns. CAPIC has
made every effort to meet the requirements for CPD points, both in holding excellent events
and in applying for points for these events, despite the changing rules and long delays.
Nevertheless, we have still delivered more CPD value than any other supplier, according to
your web site.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
Page 3 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudA5.htm 16-05-2009
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: February 21, 2008 10:47 AM
To: executive@capic.ca
Cc: Phil Mooney
Subject: CAPIC Membership
Hi Berto,
Thank you for providing the list of members. As some background information I have received a complaint about
CAPIC providing access for unauthorized representatives to attend recognized CPD events. I take this
seriously as the public needs to be assured that only authorized representatives are receiving the appropriate
educational support to facilitate their practice. CSIC is taking a zero tolerance towards the provision of
education to ghost consultants. Consequently, I need to have CAPIC address this issue as the continuation of
this practice may have an effect on the recognition of CAPIC as an authorized CPD provider. Can you please
provide information on how CAPIC would propose to address the issue.
As a second point I appreciate receiving the CAPIC list of members; however, it does raise the following
questions and/or concerns:
a.) there are a number individuals on the attached list who have as you indicate a revoked status with CSIC, this
is a concern as these individuals may be practicing as ghost consultants.
b.) there are some individuals listed with no affiliation to a recognized regulator and again this is a concern as
they may be ghost consultants
c.) there are individuals listed with a student status - what requirements do you have to insure they are actually
students. Allowing them to retain a student status after graduation and before they become a full CSIC member
for up to two years is again a concern as this would be a prime time in which they could be practicing as a ghost
consultant.
d.) agents and employees of CSIC members are not authorized representatives thus in the eyes of the consumer
it is very hard to justify their membership in a professional organization.
e.) the members who cease to have a recognized status after April 13th, 2008 should by now have a very
reduced practice as they are only allowed to work on files that were active before April 13th, 2004 and I
anticipate they will cease to have a status with CAPIC after April 13th, 2008. What steps is CAPIC taking to
insure these individuals are not operating a full practice and that they will be closing after April 13, 2008.
I would appreciate receiving comments from CAPIC on the above concerns.
Thank you for your assistance.
Page 1 of 6
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudBD.htm 16-05-2009
regards,
Ross
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at reastley@csicscci.
ca. Thank you.
From: Berto Volpentesta, Executive Director, CAPIC-ACCPI [mailto:executive@capic.ca]
Sent: February 20, 2008 6:56 PM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: 'Phil Mooney'
Subject: RE: CAPIC Membership
Hi Ross,
Our membership list is available on our website but I am also providing it here. This list
contains all members.
Page 2 of 6
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudBD.htm 16-05-2009
Please be advised that we are currently undergoing renewals and this list may change in the
next few weeks (slightly since most have renewed by now)
By way of explanation I am including an explanation of our membership categories which is
also available on our website.
Registered Member being those individuals who are one of the following:
1) Individuals who are Full Members in good standing of the
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC),
2) Individuals who were grand-parented into CAPIC-ACCPI by
virtue of being members in good standing of other Regulatory Bodies,
3) Individuals who were grand-parented into CAPIC-ACCPI from
OPIC and AICC and who are not authorized representatives but are
permitted to represent by virtue of R. 13.1 (2) of The Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act of Canada, S.C. 2001, shall cease on April 13th,
2008 to be Registered Members, unless on or before this date they
become full members of CSIC.
Associate Members being those individuals who are not Registered Members as defined by
1), 2), and 3) in subsection (a) are industry stakeholders, or members in good standing of a
Law Society of one of the Provinces of Canada or a Public Notary in Quebec, or agents of
Registered Members, agent being defined by the By-Laws of CSIC, or those employed as
staff of Registered Members.
Honorary Life Member being those individuals who have contributed to the foundation of
CAPIC-ACCPI, OPIC or AICC, or have contributed to CSIC or other regulatory body, or any
other contributing industry stakeholder or contributing member of CAPIC-ACCPI and who
have, at the sole discretion of the Board of Directors, as a result of their contributions to the
industry, warrant such a lifetime distinction. This category is the only category that is exempt
from the payment of fees.
Page 3 of 6
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudBD.htm 16-05-2009
Student Member being those individuals who are enrolled in an educational program seeking
a career as an immigration practitioner who are not yet members of CSIC and this designation
may continue for a period of two years subsequent to graduation, unless they qualify as either
a Registered, Associate or Honorary Life Member.
Also, it is worth noting that further to our last discussion where you expressed concern over
some of our members, I am pleased to advise that we have instituted a process whereby a
member who claims to be an Associate Member must provide evidence of how they meet that
category. Specifically we ask that they make a declaration indicating how they meet the
requirements such as: working for a CSIC member as employee or agent, working for a
lawyer as employee or agent, thus ensuring that they meet the definitions used by CSIC.
Further, if you should have information that a particular member does fall outside the
requirements or that you have other concerns about we certainly would like to know about it.
CAPIC-ACCPI is fully dedicated to the fight against ghost agents and protecting this
profession and thus the consumer.
Should you have any further question or concern, please let me know.
Regards,
Berto
Berto Volpentesta
Executive Director
CAPIC-ACCPI
245 Fairview Mall Drive
Suite 602
Toronto, ON M2J 4T1
Direct: 416 483 7044 ext. 25
Fax: 416 483 0884
Page 4 of 6
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudBD.htm 16-05-2009
E-mail: executive@capic.ca
Website: www.capic.ca
____________________________
CAPIC-ACCPI, founded on the four pillars of information, education, recognition, and lobbying, is the leading
association for immigration consultants. In being their major voice in any representation, CAPIC-ACCPI is committed to
promoting and protecting the practice of all Canadian immigration consultants.
Education, Information, Lobbying, Recognition
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for
the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this email to anyone other
than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné
uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute utilisation ou divulgation non permise est
strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le
présent courriel et ses annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de
votre coopération.
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: February 14, 2008 1:51 PM
To: executive@capic.ca
Subject: CAPIC Membership
Hi Berto,
As a follow up to my phone call of this morning I would like to request a current listing of the CAPIC
membership.
I will look forward to receiving your response.
Thank you.
regards,
Page 5 of 6
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudBD.htm 16-05-2009
Ross
Ross Eastley, CA
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at reastley@csicscci.
ca. Thank you.
Master list by category1.xls
Page 6 of 6
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudBD.htm 16-05-2009
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: February 29, 2008 11:01 AM
To: 'Ross Eastley'
Cc: 'board@csic-scci.ca'; ajf@obr-immigration.com
Subject: RE: URGENT
Ross;
Please see my responses below.
Phil
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: February 29, 2008 10:24 AM
To: Phil Mooney
Cc: board@csic-scci.ca
Subject: RE: URGENT
Hello Phil,
Thank you for your email. As a follow up I have the following points for clarification:
1.) Student members - what approach are you proposing to take on the concern raised about student membership post graduation? The
point I raised was as follows - "Allowing a student to maintain membership for up to two years after graduation is a concern as this type of
individual would be a prime candidate to become involved as a ghost agent and the industry needs to take steps to reduce the opportunities
for ghost agents."
2.) In your point number 2 below you provided the following response " We will meet on Thursday next week to
discuss the other issues, such as attendance at CPD seminars by: students who are in school or who have
recently graduated; agents of CSIC members or employees of CSIC members; other industry stakeholders.
We understand that it is CSIC’s role to set the rules for the CPD program and will, as always, comply with all
rules as long as we know what they are!" This is very positive initiative from CSIC's perspective; however, I
want to know what steps CAPIC is taking on these issues (other than discussion) and the time line for
implementation.
PHIL: The meeting on Thursday is with you. John indicated that there may be certain types of student members who could
attend seminars, etc. WE need to discuss everything so we get clear guidelines.
3.) You made the following response below:
"We have already explained that any member who claims to qualify as an Associate Member must sign a declaration to the
effect that he will not “represent” clients, and must also identify the CSIC member or lawyer that he is working for. Should we
receive a complaint about a person and find out that they have been violating the terms of their membership, they would be
removed from CAPIC as well as face the legal consequences of such an action, i.e. perjury. CSIC also has the responsibility to
discipline the CSIC member involved, for whom the Agent or student was working ."
I appreciate the fact that CAPIC has taken these steps along with the commitment to only list authorized representatives on the
WebSite, that is a very significant step. The issue which remains is that these "associate members" can still list themselves on
their letterhead, advertisements, etc as Member or Associate Member of CAPIC which has the potential of creating confusion in
the minds of the public. I am sure you will agree that a vast majority of the public do not understand the difference between
role of CAPIC and the role of CSIC and this is one of the issues we are trying to address to counter ghost agents. How do you
propose to address this problem?
We will also talk about this on Thursday. Since you are trying to make a point, I expect that you will bring along some proof
that this is actually happening.
I will point out that on the CSIC web site, members names appear as “Former”, “Suspended” and Revoked. Ghost consultants
could easily mislead persons who do not read English well to make them believe that their names on the web site are proof of
their right to practice.
4.) Clarification on this point
We know that that the large majority of Revoked members who try to continue in the business will do so under the loophole
allowed them by IP9, which we all have been working very hard to close, and will not likely risk criminal charges for perjury by
Page 1 of 7
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudCE.htm 16-05-2009
joining CAPIC! Revoked members who want to continue in business must apply to CSIC for permission to work with a CSIC
agent or lawyer. Those who are approved by CSIC could then join CAPIC if they wanted to.
You make the statement " Those who are approved by CSIC could then join CAPIC" - I am not sure what you mean by this
statement - could you please explain. Sorry, I was referring to the provision for Resigned Members sharing office space
with CSIC members, not Revoked members.
5.) Concern about announcing the CAPIC events.
John Ryan agreed that as soon as our letter was received, you would immediately send out an email announcing our preapproved
seminars for tomorrow and March 15th. I know that the fax was received in your office at around 1:00 p.m. Can you
please tell me where the email is? I received at least three emails from CSIC today, including a reminder about the CMI
seminar, but no email about the CAPIC seminar as of this writing. Please explain the delay.
On your first point the response must address the outstanding issues in a substantive and satisfactory manner. The fax was received and it
was a very constructive and positive initiative; however, as I indicated above there are still some clarifications plus action steps required with
definite time lines. As soon as these points are clarified in a satisfactory manner there will be a message sent out about the upcoming
CAPIC seminar.
By raising these issues only after we asked you to publish today’s seminar, and by continually raising the bar for what you will
accept, you have now put us at a disadvantage to CMI, whose seminar details you continue to announce. I would ask, as a sign
of good faith, that you immediately announce both events, even at this late hour. As you have said, you realize we are making
great strides. Yet there is absolutely no written guideline for CPD providers that we have not adhered to, only concerns that you
are raising “on the fly”. While we appreciate that we all might be in unchartered waters here, you cannot punish us for possibly
not adhering to rules or that we did not even know exist, and which do not appear in writing anywhere. John asked us to do
specific things yesterday, which we did, and in return assured us that our announcements would go out. Please honour his
promise.
6.) CPD points for CAPIC events
On the final point which you raised " Finally, I would also ask again that you publish the points awarded for our NEC
seminar in November. Clearly members who receive the anticipated 15 points for this event will want to plan their
attendance at additional CPD qualifying events accordingly."
I have addressed this point in previous emails, the most recent email was February 15th which had the following information " As a
point of clarification the Board makes policy and the staff implements the policy. In terms of timing the matter is on the agenda for
upcoming meetings, when the matter has been finalized CAPIC will be notified. " For your information the matter has been dealt with by the
Board and CAPIC will be notified next week.
I thank you for your response as I am very pleased with the action which has been initiated. As I indicated there are still some
outstanding items and I will look forward to receiving further information from you.
yours truly,
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at reastley@csic-scci.ca.
Thank you.
Page 2 of 7
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudCE.htm 16-05-2009
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: February 28, 2008 7:00 PM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: board@csic-scci.ca Collection Folder
Subject: RE: URGENT
Hi Ross;
Regarding the timelines and processes:
1. The discussion this morning between John Ryan and Keith Frank, our Vice President, was very clear. We will remove the
names of anyone who is not an AR from our membership list on the web site, just in case a member of the public sees a name
there and tries to contact that person. This will be done as soon as our web master can accomplish the task. He has only just
returned from Mexico after the death of his father, and is catching up on his work. I believe it is a matter of days, not months.
2. We will meet on Thursday next week to discuss the other issues, such as attendance at CPD seminars by: students who are in
school or who have recently graduated; agents of CSIC members or employees of CSIC members; other industry stakeholders.
We understand that it is CSIC’s role to set the rules for the CPD program and will, as always, comply with all rules as long as
we know what they are!
3. By Thursday we will have reviewed our entire membership list, and will tell you if we have found anyone on the list who is
not entitled to be there, and what we have done about it. This will include a description of the process for how we will deal with
members who will lose the right to represent clients on April 13th, 2008.
We have already explained that any member who claims to qualify as an Associate Member must sign a declaration to the effect
that he will not “represent” clients, and must also identify the CSIC member or lawyer that he is working for. Should we receive
a complaint about a person and find out that they have been violating the terms of their membership, they would be removed
from CAPIC as well as face the legal consequences of such an action, i.e. perjury. CSIC also has the responsibility to discipline
the CSIC member involved, for whom the Agent or student was working .
We know that that the large majority of Revoked members who try to continue in the business will do so under the loophole
allowed them by IP9, which we all have been working very hard to close, and will not likely risk criminal charges for perjury by
joining CAPIC! Revoked members who want to continue in business must apply to CSIC for permission to work with a CSIC
agent or lawyer. Those who are approved by CSIC could then join CAPIC if they wanted to.
John Ryan agreed that as soon as our letter was received, you would immediately send out an email announcing our preapproved
seminars for tomorrow and March 15th. I know that the fax was received in your office at around 1:00 p.m. Can you
please tell me where the email is? I received at least three emails from CSIC today, including a reminder about the CMI
seminar, but no email about the CAPIC seminar as of this writing. Please explain the delay.
Finally, I would also ask again that you publish the points awarded for our NEC seminar in November. Clearly members who
receive the anticipated 15 points for this event will want to plan their attendance at additional CPD qualifying events
accordingly.
I look forward to seeing you on Thursday. What time will be convenient?
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: February 28, 2008 4:12 PM
To: Phil Mooney
Cc: board@csic-scci.ca
Subject: URGENT
Page 3 of 7
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudCE.htm 16-05-2009
Hi Phil,
Thank you for your letter which was received by fax today responding to the items outlined in my email below. I appreciate very much that
you are in agreement with the approach that is being proposed which in effect is dealing with ghost agents. I do however, need to have
firm time lines on when the various items will be addressed and the processes which CAPIC will be using to address these concerns.
Thank you.
yours truly,
Ross Eastley
CSIC
Hi Phil,
Thank you for your email. In response I don't agree that the concerns raised in my previous emails have all been addressed. For
example, employees and agents are not authorized representatives and I am very sure that is very clear in the by-laws. The Rules of
Professional Conduct refer to the obligations that a members has for employees and agents which does not translate into making these
individuals authorized representatives.
I will require a detailed explanation for all of the CAPIC members on the membership listing who are not CSIC members in good standing.
A general explanation indicating why they may or may not be members of CSIC does not address the specific information contained in the
CAPIC membership list.
Allowing a student to maintain membership for up to two years after graduation is a concern as this type of individual would be a prime
candidate to become involved as a ghost agent and the industry needs to take steps to reduce the opportunities for ghost agents.
On another point raised could you please clarify what action is being taken by CAPIC to insure that those CAPIC members ( non CSIC
members) who you indicate are working on pre April 2004 files are actually only working on pre April 2004 files? In addition, what action is
being taken to insure that those specific CAPIC members are making arrangements to hand over their files either on or before April 13,
2008 to authorized representatives?
As a general comment one of the results of having the CAPIC membership listed on a public WebSIte is that it creates confusion for the
public about authorized representatives, this is especially true when some of the members are not authorized representatives. This type of
listing of the membership creates confusion and facilitates the practices for the ghost agents.
All of my requests on this issue are part of the total effort to combat ghost agents, there is not a silver bullet to correct this problem rather
there are a multitude of steps required by all participants in the industry to insure that ghost agents do not have the tools to operate. Some
of these tools which I am referring to include education, credibility of membership and reducing the ability for non authorized representatives
to advertise.
I will look forward to your reply.
Thank you.
yours truly,
Ross
Ross Eastley, CA
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at reastley@csic-scci.ca.
Page 4 of 7
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudCE.htm 16-05-2009
Thank you.
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: February 26, 2008 11:38 AM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: board@csic-scci.ca Collection Folder
Subject: FW: URGENT
Dear Ross:
Thank you for detailing your concerns. We certainly agree about zero tolerance towards ghost consultants.
CAPIC SEMINAR ATTENDANCE
With regards to your first point, we also do not want to be providing education to anyone who will be practicing as a ghost consultant. Our
seminars are usually open only to our members, non-CAPIC CSIC members, and invited guests, not the general public. Identities are
checked at the door. There are many benefits to the Immigration profession from inviting guests. We can better inform other stakeholders
in the industry such as non-profit organizations, educational recruiters, MPs’ office staff, suppliers, etc. none of whom area practicing
consultants. Also, many of our members have large staffs, and find it beneficial to have these staff members become as knowledgeable as
possible. Agents of consultants operating under the CSIC rules for Agents, need to be knowledgeable as well. We also allow retired
members to attend, and pay the CAPIC rate, because of their contributions in the past and because we feel that they are a positive
influence on others.
I should point out that CSIC Bylaws acknowledge the existence of "agents", "employees" and others who have a role to play (but may not
represent). In so far as they have a role to play (stopping short of representation), they have a real need to be educated as well.
CSIC has made clear the rules for Full Members who deal with revoked members. If you are concerned that some CSIC members are
employing revoked members not in accordance with the Society’s rules, you have every authority necessary to investigate them. As CSIC
communication with full members is privileged, CAPIC would have no way of knowing if the member has complied with the rules or not. I am
sure that you would agree that disciplining CSIC members is not CAPIC’s job. We take your word as “gospel” when it comes to members
being in good standing.
If you then discipline a member and either revoke his license or order him to remove certain Agents who are working for him, please inform
us immediately so we can revoke the membership of any of them who are CAPIC members. If these Agents are not working with a CSIC
member or lawyer, they would certainly not qualify for CAPIC membership, and would not be allowed to attend our seminars in any case.
Finally, we register every person who attends our seminars, and will not allow anyone to attend who is suspected of being a ghost
consultant.
If it is CSIC’s intention to set out new rules about who can attend CPD eligible events, (i.e. legitimate Agents, staff members, NGO
personnel, I would expect that this would be put in writing and apply to every CPD provider equally, including the OBA, CBA, CAPIC, CMI
etc.
CAPIC MEMBERSHIP LIST AND CATEGORIES
This is a timely discussion as we are just now renewing our membership, and finalizing out active members list. We expect to complete our
review by the end of this week, the deadline for renewals. A brief look at the list indicates that of the non-CSIC members on the list, once
we eliminate lawyers, members who can practice until April 13, 2008, members who are not renewing, members who work for full CSIC
members either as staff or Agents, retired members who do not practice, Honourable members (Charles Pley, Barbara Silver) there are not
many left! Nevertheless, we will forward to you a list of anyone left on the list, with an indication if they are under investigation as ghost
consultants. At the least, their membership in CAPIC will be suspended pending review. I also understand that someone looking at our
membership list without a clear understanding of the various categories might draw the wrong conclusions. Here is some further information
about our membership list.
1. When someone applies to renew his or her CAPIC membership, we do so automatically if he or she is a full CSIC member. Now that
the issues of interim or provisional members are no longer a factor, it will be easier to review your revoked membership list regularly
to insure that there are no revoked members renewing as CAPIC Registered Members. In fact, it would be very helpful if you could
automatically email us the names of newly revoked members on a routine basis so we could follow-up immediately.
2. All persons seeking to renew their CAPIC membership (except full CSIC members) must prove that they are qualified in the category
they are applying in. They must both provide a signed declaration, and submit written proof if requested.
3. As far as the definitions of our various membership categories, these are prescribed by our Bylaws, which can only be amended at
our AGM. It is too late to do so at this year’s AGM, but we will take your comments under advisement for next year. However, this
does not preclude us from removing members in any category at any time should we receive proof that they are not complying with
the rules that apply to that category. If you have any specific information about such individuals, please forward to us immediately.
We will take action.
4. Our definition of “student” is in line with CSIC guidelines for individuals who have completed an approved course of education. Many
graduating students are not ready to write the FSE, and work for CSIC members as office staff. By attending CAPIC seminars, they
gain the necessary knowledge to pass the test and become Full Members within the time limits CSIC sets for eligibility to write the
exam.
5. We will be reviewing our membership list before April 13th, to determine if there are any members whose rights expire on April 13th
and who intend to practice immigration, and take appropriate action.
Page 5 of 7
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudCE.htm 16-05-2009
In conclusion, please pass on specific facts that you may have about certain individuals who you believe are ghost consultants and CAPIC
members. Or, if you are reacting to our membership list in general, and have no specific complaints, please let us know. Anyone you report
will be investigated and action will be taken immediately if the complaints are found to be valid. If CSIC is filing the complaint, we will report
back to you directly about the outcome of our investigation.
Ross, I am concerned that at no time in the past year have we received a specific complaint in writing about one of our members, no matter
what the category, from CSIC or from any other source. And I am further concerned that you would threaten our status as a CPD provider
without detailing a single, fact based complaint. I hope that this is as a result of a lack of understanding of our membership rules, and now
that they have been explained, your concerns have been found to be unwarranted.
As you have established rigorous rules that must be followed when filing an official Complaint against a CSIC member, I am sure that you
understand that as an independent body, governed by a set of bylaws, CAPIC requires a similar standard before questioning a member’s
right to belong. I would respectfully ask that you provide specific details about anyone you suspect of being a ghost consultant, so we can
take action.
Now that I have answered your concerns, I would ask that you immediately send an email to all CSIC members announcing our February
29th seminar, and advising individuals to go to our web site for details – www.capic.ca. The meeting will take place simultaneously in
Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and be available by web cast around the world. I am sure that all CSIC members will benefit from knowing
what their full CPD options are.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney
President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants, CAPIC
FROM ROSS EASTLEY:
Thank you for providing the list of members. As some background information I have received a complaint about CAPIC providing access
for unauthorized representatives to attend recognized CPD events. I take this seriously as the public needs to be assured that only
authorized representatives are receiving the appropriate educational support to facilitate their practice. CSIC is taking a zero tolerance
towards the provision of education to ghost consultants. Consequently, I need to have CAPIC address this issue as the continuation of this
practice may have an effect on the recognition of CAPIC as an authorized CPD provider. Can you please provide information on how
CAPIC would propose to address the issue.
As a second point I appreciate receiving the CAPIC list of members; however, it does raise the following questions and/or concerns:
a.) there are a number individuals on the attached list who have as you indicate a revoked status with CSIC, this is a concern as these
individuals may be practicing as ghost consultants.
b.) there are some individuals listed with no affiliation to a recognized regulator and again this is a concern as they may be ghost
consultants
c.) there are individuals listed with a student status - what requirements do you have to insure they are actually students. Allowing them to
retain a student status after graduation and before they become a full CSIC member for up to two years is again a concern as this would be
a prime time in which they could be practicing as a ghost consultant.
d.) agents and employees of CSIC members are not authorized representatives thus in the eyes of the consumer it is very hard to justify
their membership in a professional organization.
e.) the members who cease to have a recognized status after April 13th, 2008 should by now have a very reduced practice as they are only
allowed to work on files that were active before April 13th, 2004 and I anticipate they will cease to have a status with CAPIC after April 13th,
2008. What steps is CAPIC taking to insure these individuals are not operating a full practice and that they will be closing after April 13,
2008.
Hello Phil,
Thank you for your email. In response you can't assume that all CAPIC seminars will be automatically announced by CSIC. As I
indicated in my email of February 21st (copy attached) there has been a complaint that CAPIC is providing access to CPD events
for ghost agents and that CAPIC is providing credibility for these ghost agents. As a result CSIC is not going to entertain a
discussion on this issue (announcement of CAPIC CPD events) until the matters raised in my February 21st email are dealt with by
CAPIC.
I will look forward to receiving your response.
Thank you.
Page 6 of 7
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudCE.htm 16-05-2009
Yours truly,
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by email at reastley@csic-scci.ca. Thank you.
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: February 24, 2008 4:16 PM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: John Ryan; executive@capic.ca; 'alli amlani'
Subject: Equal Treatment
Dear Ross;
I see that you have emailed all CSIC members about the CMI seminar in April. You have repeatedly stated that you will
treat CMI the same as all other CPD providers such as CAPIC. Therefore I am asking you to announce the CAPIC
Seminar on Feb. 29th, and our March 18th seminar to all CSIC members.
Thank you fro your cooperation. Can I assume that this will now be standard practice for all pre-approved CPD events?
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any
unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this email to anyone other than the intended addressee does not
constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for
your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné uniquement à la personne
ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute utilisation ou divulgation non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité
demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement
et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
Page 7 of 7
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudCE.htm 16-05-2009
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: March 12, 2008 6:58 PM
To: 'Ross Eastley'
Subject: RE: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Dear Ross;
There is no such classification any more – the name you saw was just an oversight when the web site was changed 10 days ago. It will be removed. There is one other
person listed as a “student”, whose name will also be removed by the web master.
With regards to the briefing on CMI, it led directly to the positive comments I did make to the Star, as well as to CIC and other stakeholders, keeping in mind the
restrictions of the NDA. For example, I couldn’t comment on the plans to deliver an online threshold program, until I heard it spoken of publicly by John. You will recall
we raised the issue about how it would look with the Boards being twinned. We didn’t like it then, and said so, but our opinion was dismissed out of hand by John. I
believe his comments were to the effect that you can’t satisfy everyone, no matter what you do.
So we have been consistent in our position. Let me spell it our clearly for you without the “filter” of the Toronto Star. Due to the controversy surrounding the initial
BOD of CSIC and the various charges of financial wrong doing and mismanagement, and fed by a general feeling that fees are too high and service to members weak, we
believe that CSIC must be seen to be “purer than pure” when it comes to any actions by the BOD that could be seen to be serving the interests of BOD members
personally. CSIC should have, in our opinion, appointed an interim Board for CMI with a maximum emphasis on respectability, to counter this impression. Because CSIC
did not do so, speculation, suspicion and criticism have been rampant, and all the foes of Regulation were given new ammunition to attack us. We do not believe this is
in the best interests of the profession. Regardless of auditors reports and all the other good things being done, you must manage perceptions. I guess we could compare it
with Elliot Spitzer next year giving a prostitute a ride to church in a convertible. That would just be a bad choice, regardless of what did or didn’t happen! In my opinion,
it is incumbent on the Senior Management of CSIC to be sensitive to these types of issues.
Finally, please answer the question I have posted in every email. Will you now please email all CSIC members about the March 18th seminar.
Best Regards,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited.
Disclosure of this email to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute
utilisation ou divulgation non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses annexes par
erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: March 12, 2008 1:00 PM
To: Phil Mooney
Cc: John Ryan; keithfrank@rogers.com; executive@capic.ca
Subject: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Dear Mr. Mooney,
Thank you for your response. I think we have covered most of the issues and I have an understanding of your position. For your clarification and information:
1.) I see that a number of changes have been made to the WebSite; however, I also see that you have something called an interim member on your WebSite - I am not sure what that
means - one example I saw was as follows:
Ahmad, Irshad
Interim Member,
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
Perhaps you could clarify.
2.) CSIC response to your position on media comments - Additionally, I have raised the concern about the negative comments made in the public press and you have provided a
response. Part of the whole issue is that the regulator had taken you into confidence about the whole roll out and establishment of CMI well before the Toronto Star interview took place
in order to assist you in planning an appropriate media strategy plus a communication strategy for CAPIC members. The strategy being implemented does raise a concern which I
articulated below and as I indicated - ".......an evaluation of an appropriate CSIC response will need to be undertaken." The CSIC Board will be doing such an
evaluation at the upcoming March Board meeting and you will be receiving a response after that meeting.
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 1 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
Thank you for your assistance.
yours truly,
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at reastley@csicscci.
ca. Thank you.
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: March 12, 2008 8:59 AM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: John Ryan; keithfrank@rogers.com; executive@capic.ca
Subject: RE: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Dear Ross;
Here are the answers to your questions:
1. On our web site, at this time, only Authorized Representatives are listed. It will remain this way until you clarify the rules for Student Members, to insure that there is
no possible confusion. There are no student members, no Associate members or any others. CSIC members who are seeking to join CAPIC are listed in a different
colour, until they are accepted. If you will agree to copy us on any revoked/resigned/suspended members, we will remove them from our web site the same day. Please
send such info to admin@capic.ca.
2. You have specified new rules about who can attend CPD approved events. None of these rules were discussed with us in advance, nor were they given to us all at
once, but seemed to “evolve”. This, despite no proof whatsoever to support your concerns. Without these rules in writing, we can only believe that the rules apply to us
only. You also espouse a principle, which in simple words, could be expressed as “we need to not only be tough on ghost agents, we need to proactively take steps to
insure that there is no possibility that ghost agents would benefit from CPD education”. Yet when we ask that you apply this same principle to CMI, you prevaricate.
3. You stated that only Authorized Representatives will be able to attend CMI “workshops” (does this mean the same as “event”?). Yet their Registration Form “appears”
to encourage attendance by employees of CSIC members and members of NGOs. Can NGOs attend? Can we offer NGOs CPD education in light of your plan to accredit
them?
4. With regards to “negative comments” I am sure that you do not mean to suggest you expect 100% lock-step agreement from CAPIC with all CSIC positions, when
they are not related directly to Regulations. You are spending members’ money, without any checks and balances from the members themselves, except at election time
and a duly constituted AGM. If CMI loses a lot of money for any reason whatsoever, including poor strategic choices or bad management, it is the members who will
pay. By expressing our legitimate concerns, members become involved and will be better informed and able to pass judgment when they vote at either event. Finally, the
unnecessary delays in announcing CPD awards for CAPIC events last year and again this winter, sends a very negative message to all stakeholders, without justification.
Once again, now that you have clear proof of our exceeding your requirements for CPD events, will you please publish an email to all CSIC members for our March 18th
event?
Regards,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited.
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 2 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
Disclosure of this email to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute
utilisation ou divulgation non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses annexes par
erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: March 11, 2008 7:18 PM
To: Phil Mooney
Cc: John Ryan; keithfrank@rogers.com; executive@capic.ca
Subject: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Dear Mr. Mooney,
Thank you for your email. In response I am please to provided the following ( note the response is put in red to assist in the reading):
1.) With regards to your last point, it is my clear recollection as well as that of Berto’s and Keith’s that John had asked us not to say anything until this
week. Further, he had instructed us that he was the acting Registrar/CEO of CSIC immediately, and the email was addressed to him in that capacity.
Finally, I did not say anything about your new position, only referred to your “new duties”. It is both my understanding and John's understanding that
there was not to be any release of information until a formal announcement was made by CSIC. Sharing the information with those who were not in
attendance in my opinion clearly violates that understanding and I take a very dim view of that approach.
THEN YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THIS WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION, NOT ANYTHING DELIBERATE. YOU DO NOT NEED TO TAKE A DIM VIEW OF ANYTHING. HAS ANY DAMAGE BEEN DONE? IF YES, THEN IT WAS
INADVERTENT, BUT WE APOLOGIZE IF IT CREATED ISSUES FOR YOU THAT YOU WERE NOT READY TO DEAL WITH.
The concern is not about creating an issue for me, rather the concern is about how the information is treated when it is given in confidence. That is why I take a "dim" view of the matter,
as a professional I anticipate you treat the information given to you in confidence by a client in accordance with the wishes of your client thus I would expect the same approach when
information is given to you in confidence in other circumstances. Hopefully this explanation clarifies the point that I am trying to make.
2.) (information from the fax which you sent) CAPIC-ACCPI will only make available to the public a list of our members who are authorized representatives as defined by
IRPR s13.1, students who are currently enrolled in an approved program and those stakeholders who are not involved in the provision immigration services for a fee
(i.e. sponsors, educational institutions, retired members). -
Are all of these members on the same list? If they are not do you clearly indicate who is an authorized representative and who is not as the confusion for the consumer
is the concern for the regulator.
3.) As for your explanation about the CMI registration “checks”, I am sure had CAPIC advanced the same argument you would not have accepted it. In
fact we did exactly that about non-CSIC members signing declarations to show they were not ghost agents, which is a far more positive step. Why can
you not add a similar statement to the CMI form as we have to ours, to the effect that only ARs can attend? Some of our Associate members are also
members of NGOs. I see that they are allowed to attend the CMI event. Can they also attend our sessions? - only authorized CSIC members will be
allowed to attend the upcoming CMI workshops. Every situation will be judged by the regulator according to its merits, risks, track record, etc. IT IS VERY
HARD TO HIT A MOVING TARGET. YOU DO NOT TELL MEMBERS “WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT BEHAVIOUR WE WILL REQUIRE OF YOU UNTIL AFTER SOMETHING GOES WRONG.” SURELY A REGULATOR MUST SET
WRITTEN STANDARDS AND RULES. THE WHOLE CPD APPLICATION PROCESS IS FULL OF SUCH RULES. -
For clarification the point is when a problem arises the regulator will deal with the problem and the track record of the provider will be a factor to be considered when
dealing with the problem.
4.) Finally, how does “…..the rules regarding the CPD providers are communicated directly to the CPD providers” lend itself to transparency with regards to no special
treatment of CMI? Surely you need to publish one set of rules for all, given the appearance of conflict of interest, despite your best intentions? Until then, can you assure
us, in writing as we have done for you, that you will treat us equally while you retain your duties at CSIC? This is especially important give your new position, whenever
it becomes effective. - the point has been addressed in my previous email. In terms of transparency, CSIC has taken a number of steps to be transparent
one of which was meeting with yourself and other members of CAPIC last week; however, I also note some very significant negative statements being
made in the public press immediately following that meeting. As a consequence an evaluation of an appropriate CSIC response will need to be
undertaken. THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED AT LEAST ONE WEEK EARLIER, A FEW MINUTES AFTER JOHN’S INTERVIEW. I SAID MANY POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT CMI’S OBJECTIVES IN MY INTERVIEW.
THEY JUST WEREN’T USED. NICHOLAS KAUR INCLUDED THEM IN HIS FINAL SUBMISSION, BUT THEY WERE EDITED OUT FOR BREVITY. THE ONE “NEGATIVE” COMMENT WAS SIMPLY A REPEAT OF WHAT WE
SAID TO YOU AT OUR EARLIER MEETING, ABOUT APPEARANCES, WHICH YOU DISMISSED AS IRRELEVANT. MANY OF OUR MEMBERS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED US TO EXPRESS
THEIR CONCERNS ON THIS ISSUE. IT WAS YOUR CHOICE TO HAVE THE CSIC BOD AND THE CMI BOD “TWINNED”. YOU DID IT KNOWING WHAT THE RESPONSE WOULD BE, SO WHY ARE YOU SURPRISED?
CAPIC HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND HOW IT MAKES OUR PROFESSION LOOK. WE DISAGREE WITH HOW YOU HAVE STRUCTURED CMI’S BOD BECAUSE OF HOW IT LOOKS TO
ALL OF OUR PROFESSIONS DETRACTORS, AND WE ARE WELL WITHIN OUR ROLE AS A RESPECTED LOBBY GROUP FOR THE PROFESSION TO SAY SO. IF WE SAID NOTHING, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN TO
BE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU.
THE ONE “CONCERN” WE EXPRESSED ABOUT COMPETITION IS EVEN MORE THAN UNDERSTANDABLE AFTER THE PAST FEW WEEKS – INCLUDING CERTAIN EMAILS. WE DEFINITELY DO NOT FEEL LIKE WE ARE
BEING TREATED EQUALLY WITH CMI. PLEASE REVIEW ALL OF THESE EMAILS AND ASK YOURSELF – WHAT HAVE WE ACTUALLY DONE TO ADDRESS CAPIC’S CONCERNS? THEN ASK YOURSELF, WHAT HAS CAPIC
DONE TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS? YOU HAVE TREATED US LIKE OFFENDERS, DEMANDING INSTEAD OF ASKING. YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN US THE RESPECT WE DESERVE, AS VOLUNTEERS WORKING
CONSTANTLY TO EDUCATE OUR MEMBERS, AT GREAT COST TO OUR OWN LIVELIHOOD IN MOST CASES. IT IS THE LEAST WE DESERVE. -
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 3 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
In the final analysis the negative comments is the information which is conveyed to the public. I would encourage you to review your communication strategy in terms
of how the message from CAPIC is communicated to the various stakeholders.
Thank you.
yours truly,
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at reastley@csicscci.
ca. Thank you.
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: March 11, 2008 8:03 PM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: John Ryan; keithfrank@rogers.com; executive@capic.ca
Subject: RE: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Please see my response below in CAPS.
Dear Mr. Mooney,
Thank you for your email. In response I am pleased to provide the following information:
1.) You have received written assurance about compliance with your requests, by March 7th. - I am not sure to which email or correspondence you are referring,
perhaps you could resend it to me. TEXT ATTACHED. THIS WAS FAXED LAST WEEK – IF YOU WANT ANOTHER COPY, SIGNED, I WILL FAX IT TO YOU.
2.) With regards to your last point, it is my clear recollection as well as that of Berto’s and Keith’s that John had asked us not to say anything until this
week. Further, he had instructed us that he was the acting Registrar/CEO of CSIC immediately, and the email was addressed to him in that capacity.
Finally, I did not say anything about your new position, only referred to your “new duties”. It is both my understanding and John's understanding that
there was not to be any release of information until a formal announcement was made by CSIC. Sharing the information with those who were not in
attendance in my opinion clearly violates that understanding and I take a very dim view of that approach.
THEN YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THIS WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION, NOT ANYTHING DELIBERATE. YOU DO NOT NEED TO TAKE A DIM VIEW OF ANYTHING. HAS ANY DAMAGE BEEN DONE? IF YES, THEN IT WAS
INADVERTENT, BUT WE APOLOGIZE IF IT CREATED ISSUES FOR YOU THAT YOU WERE NOT READY TO DEAL WITH.
3.) As for your explanation about the CMI registration “checks”, I am sure had CAPIC advanced the same argument you would not have accepted it. In
fact we did exactly that about non-CSIC members signing declarations to show they were not ghost agents, which is a far more positive step. Why can
you not add a similar statement to the CMI form as we have to ours, to the effect that only ARs can attend? Some of our Associate members are also
members of NGOs. I see that they are allowed to attend the CMI event. Can they also attend our sessions? - only authorized CSIC members will be
allowed to attend the upcoming CMI workshops. Every situation will be judged by the regulator according to its merits, risks, track record, etc. IT IS VERY
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 4 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
HARD TO HIT A MOVING TARGET. YOU DO NOT TELL MEMBERS “WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT BEHAVIOUR WE WILL REQUIRE OF YOU UNTIL AFTER SOMETHING GOES WRONG.” SURELY A REGULATOR MUST SET
WRITTEN STANDARDS AND RULES. THE WHOLE CPD APPLICATION PROCESS IS FULL OF SUCH RULES.
4.) Finally, how does “…..the rules regarding the CPD providers are communicated directly to the CPD providers” lend itself to transparency with regards to no special
treatment of CMI? Surely you need to publish one set of rules for all, given the appearance of conflict of interest, despite your best intentions? Until then, can you assure
us, in writing as we have done for you, that you will treat us equally while you retain your duties at CSIC? This is especially important give your new position, whenever
it becomes effective. - the point has been addressed in my previous email. In terms of transparency, CSIC has taken a number of steps to be transparent
one of which was meeting with yourself and other members of CAPIC last week; however, I also note some very significant negative statements being
made in the public press immediately following that meeting. As a consequence an evaluation of an appropriate CSIC response will need to be
undertaken. THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED AT LEAST ONE WEEK EARLIER, A FEW MINUTES AFTER JOHN’S INTERVIEW. I SAID MANY POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT CMI’S OBJECTIVES IN MY INTERVIEW.
THEY JUST WEREN’T USED. NICHOLAS KAUR INCLUDED THEM IN HIS FINAL SUBMISSION, BUT THEY WERE EDITED OUT FOR BREVITY. THE ONE “NEGATIVE” COMMENT WAS SIMPLY A REPEAT OF WHAT WE
SAID TO YOU AT OUR EARLIER MEETING, ABOUT APPEARANCES, WHICH YOU DISMISSED AS IRRELEVANT. MANY OF OUR MEMBERS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED US TO EXPRESS
THEIR CONCERNS ON THIS ISSUE. IT WAS YOUR CHOICE TO HAVE THE CSIC BOD AND THE CMI BOD “TWINNED”. YOU DID IT KNOWING WHAT THE RESPONSE WOULD BE, SO WHY ARE YOU SURPRISED?
CAPIC HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND HOW IT MAKES OUR PROFESSION LOOK. WE DISAGREE WITH HOW YOU HAVE STRUCTURED CMI’S BOD BECAUSE OF HOW IT LOOKS TO
ALL OF OUR PROFESSIONS DETRACTORS, AND WE ARE WELL WITHIN OUR ROLE AS A RESPECTED LOBBY GROUP FOR THE PROFESSION TO SAY SO. IF WE SAID NOTHING, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN TO
BE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU.
THE ONE “CONCERN” WE EXPRESSED ABOUT COMPETITION IS EVEN MORE THAN UNDERSTANDABLE AFTER THE PAST FEW WEEKS – INCLUDING CERTAIN EMAILS. WE DEFINITELY DO NOT FEEL LIKE WE ARE
BEING TREATED EQUALLY WITH CMI. PLEASE REVIEW ALL OF THESE EMAILS AND ASK YOURSELF – WHAT HAVE WE ACTUALLY DONE TO ADDRESS CAPIC’S CONCERNS? THEN ASK YOURSELF, WHAT HAS CAPIC
DONE TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS? YOU HAVE TREATED US LIKE OFFENDERS, DEMANDING INSTEAD OF ASKING. YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN US THE RESPECT WE DESERVE, AS VOLUNTEERS WORKING
CONSTANTLY TO EDUCATE OUR MEMBERS, AT GREAT COST TO OUR OWN LIVELIHOOD IN MOST CASES. IT IS THE LEAST WE DESERVE.
PHIL MOONEY
Thank you.
yours truly,
Ross Eastley
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: March 11, 2008 5:50 PM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: John Ryan; keithfrank@rogers.com; executive@capic.ca
Subject: RE: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Dear Ross;
You have received written assurance about compliance with your requests, by March 7th. Will you now please send the email?
With regards to your last point, it is my clear recollection as well as that of Berto’s and Keith’s that John had asked us not to say anything until this week. Further, he had
instructed us that he was the acting Registrar/CEO of CSIC immediately, and the email was addressed to him in that capacity. Finally, I did not say anything about your
new position, only referred to your “new duties”.
I did so deliberately, even though the audience was your BOD who I am sure are well aware of the changes, and our Board who are under our NDA.
As for your explanation about the CMI registration “checks”, I am sure had CAPIC advanced the same argument you would not have accepted it. In fact we did exactly
that about non-CSIC members signing declarations to show they were not ghost agents, which is a far more positive step. Why can you not add a similar statement to the
CMI form as we have to ours, to the effect that only ARs can attend? Some of our Associate members are also members of NGOs. I see that they are allowed to attend
the CMI event. Can they also attend our sessions?
Finally, how does “…..the rules regarding the CPD providers are communicated directly to the CPD providers” lend itself to transparency with regards to no special
treatment of CMI? Surely you need to publish one set of rules for all, given the appearance of conflict of interest, despite your best intentions? Until then, can you assure
us, in writing as we have done for you, that you will treat us equally while you retain your duties at CSIC? This is especially important give your new position, whenever
it becomes effective.
I will not refer to any changes at CSIC in future (nor will Berto or Keith) until they see a public announcement.
Regards,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 5 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited.
Disclosure of this email to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute
utilisation ou divulgation non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses annexes par
erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: March 11, 2008 12:40 PM
To: Phil Mooney
Cc: John Ryan
Subject: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Hello Mr. Mooney,
Thank you for your email. The information which is on the CMI registration form is simply one of the checks which is being used to insure that only full members are accepted. In
response to your question the rules regarding the CPD providers are communicated directly to the CPD providers. As we indicated during our meeting last week CSIC needs to have
written assurance on the points which were raised before considering the possibility of circulating information about a CAPIC event.
On a separate point we specifically provided information about changes in process at CSIC with the strict proviso that the information would not be circulated beyond the people
attending the meeting. I see from the circulation of the first email that John received that the request was not followed and this action certainly raises a concern about the ability for the
regulator to communicate in an open manner with CAPIC.
Thank you.
yours truly,
Ross Eastley
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: March 11, 2008 1:19 PM
To: Ross Eastley
Cc: John Ryan
Subject: RE: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Dear Ross;
Thank you for your explanation and commitment to equal treatment. Can I ask that you request CMI to remove the part of their Registration Form that asks if applicants
are “Employees of a CSIC Members”? This is causing us problems when we deny registration to these same people. Will you post the rules on your web site? What
about the email about the March 18th seminar? It is only 7 days away.
Yes, Registered Members are CSIC members or attorneys.
Regards,
Phil
From: Ross Eastley [mailto:reastley@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: March 11, 2008 11:13 AM
To: Phil Mooney
Cc: John Ryan
Subject: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
Hello Mr. Mooney,
Thank you for your email which was forwarded to John Ryan. I can assure you that the Regulator is adamant about the conditions which were outlined to CAPIC and are equally applicable to CMI.
<<image001.jpg>> The initial information received from CMI is that all of the people who have registered for the workshops are fully "authorized" CSIC members. This will be continually monitored
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 6 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
and when the final list is submitted it will be scrutinized to insure only "authorized" representatives are allowed to attend.
I appreciate your intention to comply with the CSIC policy; however, I note that you have used the term "Registered Members" which I hope is the same as "authorized" CSIC members.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Ross Eastley, C.A.
Chief Executive Officer / Chef de la direction
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants/
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration
390 Bay Street, Suite 1600
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Phone: 416-572-2800 Ext: 2236
Toll Free: 1-866-308-CSIC (2742) Ext: 2236
Fax: 416-572-4114
reastley@csic-scci.ca
http://www.csic-scci.ca/
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at reastley@csicscci.
ca. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Mooney <pm1@bellnet.ca>
To: John Ryan
CC: board@csic-scci.ca Collection Folder
Sent: Tue Mar 11 12:09:28 2008
Subject: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers.
John Ryan;
Chairman, Acting CEO and Registrar, CSIC
CC: BODs of CAPIC and CSIC
Dear John;
Further to our communications of last week, I am writing to officially express my concern that the principle of equal treatment of CAPIC and CMI is already not being observed. Both you and Ross
Eastley made it crystal clear that you do not want employees of CSIC members to attend CAPIC CPD eligible events. Accordingly, and in good faith, we immediately placed a notice on the Agenda that
the March 18th meeting was for “Registered Members Only”, and have been receiving many complaints about the policy. Nevertheless, we have informed our members that this is now CSIC policy, and
applies uniformly to all CPD providers. We are still awaiting your approval to be able to offer the program to students who are currently enrolled in an approved program.
It is somewhat disconcerting, then, to visit the CMI web site and on the Registration form for their April seminar, to see that registrations are being accepted from “Staff of CSIC members”. We have also
received information that registrations are being accepted from students who have graduated from practitioner programs of more than one year ago, who are not yet full members.
We do not understand why we have been asked by Mr. Eastley to meet conditions which do not appear to apply to CMI and possibly not to other CPD providers. Nor do we accept that this is an oversight,
given that you have advised CAPIC of Mr. Eastley’s new duties. Acting in his position as Registrar and CEO of CSIC, Mr. Eastley was adamant about these conditions, and had to be aware of the
inconsistency. Both his and your explanations of the rationale behind your conditions, while completely new to us, certainly appeared to be principled positions on your side. We ask how you can espouse
a principle on one hand, while violating it on the other. Surely fairness should apply.
We await your reply. We are also waiting for you to send an announcement of our March 18th session to all members of CSIC, as we have met or exceeded every condition that you have placed on us. As
you know, we were very disappointed that CSIC did not notify members by email of our most recent seminar. Posting a notice in your web site for a few hours before the seminar then immediately
removing it was not equal treatment, in our opinion.
Finally, we ask that all of these recent requirements be posted immediately on your web site so all CPD providers and potential attendees know what the rules are.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney
President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
Contact Info:
Can-Am Immigration
Suite 300, 1100 Burloak Drive
Burlington, ON L7L 6B2
tel; 1-905-633-9302 or 1-888-288-0801(North America)
fax;1-905-332-7644 or 1-800-613-0452 (North America)
pm1@bellnet.ca <mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca>
www.immigrationcanam.com <http://www.immigrationcanam.com>
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 7 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca <http://www.capic.ca>
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this
email to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for
your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute utilisation ou
divulgation non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
Phil Mooney, 21:21 16-05-2009, FW: Equal Treatment of CPD Providers. Page 8 of 8
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: March 19, 2008 5:19 PM
To: 'John Ryan'; executive@capic.ca; 'Wenda Woodman'
Subject: RE: CBC TV Winnipeg
Dear John;
Thank you for this information. After checking our records, Ms. Duehlas was originally a member of
OPIC or AICC, and grand-fathered into CAPIC because she was the agent of record on files submitted
before April 14th, 2004. As such, she would automatically stop being a Registered CAPIC member on
April 13th 2008 and would no longer be part of CAPIC, unless she applied to become an Associate
Member.
As we explained, we require that anyone wishing to go from Registered Member to Associate Member
to sign a Declaration as to what their continuing involvement in the immigration industry will be, to
insure that they will not operate as ghost consultants.
In this case, Ms. Duehlas has done so, and has stipulated that she is working as an Agent for a CSIC
member, and the CSIC member has also submitted a Declaration confirming this fact. The CSIC
representative is Rochelle Pelaez, #M063730, and I note that she is listed on your web site as a member
in good standing. I also note that she is not a CAPIC member. In fact, Ms. Duehlas should have stated
that she was working as an Agent for a CSIC member in good standing, which she probably tells to her
clients, as only the CSIC agent can sign the IMM5476 and deal with CIC afterwards, and that would
therefore make her activities legal, not CAPIC membership.
Therefore, it would appear that if you believe that Ms. Duehlas has been acting as a “ghost agent” you
have the power to take action against Ms. Pelaez.
Accordingly, we will suspend the application of Ms. Duehlas to join CAPIC as an Associate Member
until you confirm that you will not take action to remedy this situation, and inform her of this fact. I am
certain that since you felt it was important enough to bring it to our attention, it is important enough for
you to pursue further with the powers that you have.
It certainly appears that through cooperation, our system is working to expose possible problems.
I would like to remind you that we have suggested previously that CSIC change the rules for Revoked
members, to comply more with what we both would like IP9 to say, rather than what it says currently.
This would give us the guidance to enforce the same standard amongst our Associate members who are
involved in the business as agents of attorneys or CSIC members.
I do not see how you can say that our membership practices are allowing ghost agents a place to hide,
when it is these very practices which have helped identify the truth in this situation. If this person was
not a CAPIC member and we did not have the rigorous screening policy that we have, you may never
have known what the real situation is, nor have been able to take corrective action should you so
choose.
Nevertheless, in the real world I know you understand that despite the best intentions, members of any
organization can act improperly. The test of the quality of a system is what happens when those
Phil Mooney, 21:22 16-05-2009, FW: CBC TV Winnipeg Page 1 of 5
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
activities are exposed.
Finally, you again refer to some mysterious “complaint” that you received about CAPIC, yet you have
not shared any details about this alleged complaint so we can take action. Please do so immediately, in
writing, and we will take action.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
Contact Info:
Can-Am Immigration
Suite 300, 1100 Burloak Drive
Burlington, ON L7L 6B2
tel; 1-905-633-9302 or 1-888-288-0801(North America)
fax;1-905-332-7644 or 1-800-613-0452 (North America)
pm1@bellnet.ca
www.immigrationcanam.com
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for
the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this email to anyone other
than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné
uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute utilisation ou divulgation non permise est
strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le
présent courriel et ses annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de
votre coopération.
From: John Ryan [mailto:jryan@csic-scci.ca]
Sent: March 18, 2008 9:25 PM
To: Philip Mooney; executive@capic.ca; Wenda Woodman
Subject: CBC TV Winnipeg
Phil Mooney, 21:22 16-05-2009, FW: CBC TV Winnipeg Page 2 of 5
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
Dear Phil
I wanted to bring to your attention a recent example of the concerns that we as the National Regulator
of Certified Canadian Immigration Consultants have with your organizations membership practises.
As we have discussed, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Society of Immigration Conultants has
concluded that the membership practices of the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration
Consultants are not in the best interests of either the consumer or the profession. This conclusion
came about as a result of a complaint received by CSIC. A subsequent investigation of the complaint
revealed that your organizations membership practises have created at best a potential for confusion
in the marketplace and at worst a shelter for ghost agents to circumvent the spirit and letter of IRPR
regulations pertaining to Authorized Representatives.
While we recognise that you have taken some steps in the right direction since our concerns were
made known to you, there appears to be more work that your organization needs to do to in order to
comply with our requirements.
I have attached a story that appeared yesterday on CBC-TV in Winnipeg, wherein you will note that
the key focus of the story Ms. Erlinda Duelas-Obena identified herself as a CAPIC member and gave
the impression that her payment of membership dues to your organization made her consulting
activities legal.
I quote;
Erlinda Duelas-Obena, owner of LND Canadian Immigration Consultancy, a Manila company that gave
Tagulinao a $1,700 quote for consultancy, said she earns the money.
"I am paying my rent. I am paying my utilities. I am paying my staff. I am paying my Canadian
Association of Professional Immigration Consultants, so I don't think that this is illegal," she told CBC
News.
I note that you have a Lynda Duelas listed on your active member list as a Registered Member. A
check of our CSIC Full Member list reveals that Ms. Duelas is not a member in good standing of the
Society and therefore not an Authorized Representative.
Duelas, Lynda
Registered Member,
Muntinlupa City, Philippines
Overseas
In previous correspondence you have advised us that your membership list had been changed to only
list registered members in good standing with the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.
Given this additional issue we would like to hear your response to this recent occurrence before we
respond as the Regulator.
Yours truly,
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants
John P. Ryan OSJ, CCIC, ICD.D.
Chair/ Président
Phil Mooney, 21:22 16-05-2009, FW: CBC TV Winnipeg Page 3 of 5
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
Tel/Tél.: +1-416-945-6272
Fax/Téléc.: +1(416)572-4114
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it
is addressed, and may contain information
that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or the
employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by email at jryan@csic-scci.ca.
Thank you.
Potential immigrants to Manitoba face pitfalls
abroad
Last Updated: Monday, March 17, 2008
5:25 PM CT Comments4Recommend18
CBC News
Manitoba has the highest rate of immigration in Canada as the province attempts to fill a growing need for
skilled workers. But there's also a growing number of people, both abroad and in Manitoba, trying to take
advantage of those immigrants.
More than 10,000 immigrants came to Manitoba last year, a quarter of them from the Philippines.
Marcelo Tagulinao has spent thousands of Canadian dollars trying immigrate to Canada from the Philippines.
(CBC)
Marcelo Tagulinao, who works at a small corner store in Manila, has been trying to immigrate to Canada for
more than a decade.
He's been rejected twice, and is now turning to his last resort: one of hundreds of local immigration
consultants, who will help him fill out the required forms and send them to the right places.
Although the forms are available for free on the internet, along with instructions on filling them out and
processing them, consultants have quoted him fees ranging from $1,700 to $5,000 CDN to do the work.
For many, including Tagulinao, that works out to years of savings.
Erlinda Duelas-Obena, owner of LND Canadian Immigration Consultancy, a Manila company that gave
Tagulinao a $1,700 quote for consultancy, said she earns the money.
"I am paying my rent. I am paying my utilities. I am paying my staff. I am paying my Canadian Association
of Professional Immigration Consultants, so I don't think that this is illegal," she told CBC News.
Erlinda Duelas-Obena, owner of LND Canadian Immigration Consultancy in Manila, said she earns the fees she charges her clients.
(CBC)
In fact, it's not illegal to run this type of business in the Philippines, although some believe that they take
advantage of immigrants.
As of April 2004, paid immigration representatives must be authorized by the Canadian Society of
Immigration Consultants or law societies within Canada in order to conduct business on a person's behalf
or to advise or assist with applications.
A larger problem involves consultants who counsel people to misrepresent information on their immigration
applications.
Under Manitoba's provincial nominee program, new immigrants must have $10,000 of their own money in
the bank in order to prove that they will have enough to survive when they arrive. In the Philippines, locals
Phil Mooney, 21:22 16-05-2009, FW: CBC TV Winnipeg Page 4 of 5
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
call it "show money."
"If I don't have the show money, [consultants] will lend me the show money, and I have to pay them the
interest," Tagulinao said.
However, if immigration finds out the money isn't actually his, they'll reject his application outright.
An even more serious problem is illegal recruiters. Companies looking to hire overseas workers pay the
recruiters to find employees — but they often also charge potential immigrants, as well, which is illegal in
the Philippines.
"The workers have to sell their home and properties just to work abroad, just to earn an income, maybe for
a poor person affecting the lives of their families to support their children," said lawyer Melchor Dizon, a
director with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.
Melchor Dizon said jobs in Canada are a popular lure offered by illegal recruiters, but often there are no jobs.
(CBC)
Dizon's organization shuts down about 10 illegal recruiting operations per month.
Jobs in Canada are a popular lure offered by illegal recruiters, whether or not the jobs are actually
available, he said. Often immigrants leave home only to find out later they've been had.
"Those who were victimized by illegal recruiters were not even deployed, so they just collected the money
and the illegal recruiters absconded with the money," he said.
Officials say the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration's actions have made a significant
difference in the country — but those same problems happen regularly in Canada, as well.
Phil Mooney, 21:22 16-05-2009, FW: CBC TV Winnipeg Page 5 of 5
Printed for TCS Canada <katarina@tcscanadainc.com> 16-05-2009
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: March 28, 2008 5:00 PM
To: 'John Ryan'
Cc: capicbod@sympatico.ca; board@csic-scci.ca
Subject: CAPIC Membership List
Dear John;
Recently you have been speaking with CAPIC’s Vice President about names on our
membership list as they appear on our web site. You expressed your concern that some of our
Registered Members were not CSIC members. By way of explanation, I wanted to offer the
following:
Our membership categories are explained in detail on our web site.
Our membership lists are updated every six months, coincidental with our membership renewal
period.
Our web site has been in redevelopment for the past 18 months, and our web master has had
many priorities. Because of the great variation of the CSIC membership list over that time, as
transitional members qualified or did not, we have not made the membership list a great
priority. No one can contact a member directly from the web site in any case. All inquiries go
to or HQ.
When you asked about Revoked or Suspended members of CSIC being listed on our web site,
possibly because they were now employees of CSIC members or attorneys, or Agents of either,
we immediately purged our membership list.
When you raised concerns about our Associate Members being on our web site possibly leading
to confusion in the public about their responsibilities, we immediately purged all Associate
Members from our web site.
All remaining individuals on the web site were listed as Registered Members, according to the
definition referenced above. This included attorneys, retired members and those who were
grandfathered into CAPIC, as members of AICC and OPIC, and who were allowed to represent
existing clients up until April 13th 2008. We were in the process of verifying that those
individuals’ memberships would be rescinded or categorized as Associate Members upon proof
that they were no longer practicing. As a result of your inquiry, we have asked our web master
to immediately remove those individuals from the web site, instead of waiting until April 13th.
We have also asked him to complete the update of the latest membership renewal process. We
expect this to be finished by Monday, at the latest. As of that time, the only names on the web
site will be authorized representatives.
While the above represents, in our opinion, outstanding cooperation on our side, I must again
complain that we would have done all of these things in a spirit of collegiality, working
together to demonstrate that our hands are clean when it comes to ghost agents, but instead have
been asked to make these changes in a most unprofessional and non-collegial manner. You
Page 1 of 2
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudD6.htm 16-05-2009
have consistently refused to make any requests in writing and you have impeded our
applications for CPD approvals, as well as denying us equal treatment with CMI when it comes
to announcing approved events. You have also disadvantaged CSIC members who deserve to
have available to them all CPD options, as they plan to qualify by October 31st. We do not
know why you have chosen this course. We have different roles to play, and except on
consumer protection issues, have an obligation to challenge your decisions when we believe
that they are not in the interests of the profession. This does not mean that we should be treated
with such disrespect, and ask that you and your Board agree to change the way your executive
deal with us. Should you agree, we can promise you full and complete cooperation in the future
on issues of consumer protection both in private and in public, while always retaining the
option to question you on non-consumer protection issues. Our joint history is full of
cooperative efforts that led to the establishment of CSIC and the raising of the image of the
profession. We would like to get back to that tradition.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended
only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this email
to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for your
cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel
et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute utilisation ou divulgation
non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation.
Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
Page 2 of 2
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudD6.htm 16-05-2009
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: May 16, 2008 9:00 PM
To: 'John Ryan'
Cc: 'bod'
Subject: Issues of concern
Dear John;
Thanks you for taking the time to meet with us today. In response to you issues of concern, I can affirm the following: (your concerns are pasted from your Adobe
document –I apologize for any appearance issues resulting from my technical inadequacies)
1. Member names spelling.
CAPIC will use the spelling of members names as they appear on the CSIC web site. We will so instruct staff to review the list on our web site and correct any
discrepancies as quickly as possible.
2. Pending Members
We will move this feature to the Members Only section of the web site, and investigate if having it on the public side has delivered any benefits to the profession
in the past few years. If it has, we will inform you of these benefits and let you decide if we all gain from having it so, and will act according to your
instructions.
3. Maintaining the CAPIC membership list and communications with former members.
We will make every attempt to keep our membership synchronized with the CSIC membership list, and in any case will agree to doing so at least quarterly. If you
can give us a cost estimate for programming an exception report into your system which would automate this process, we would agree to pay for this fix, subject to
the cost involved. Further, we will implement a communications protocol to instruct all of our Chapters on handling of email lists so communications go only to the
members.
4. Plan for controlling access to web based materials
Page 1 of 2
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudF1.htm 16-05-2009
We have the ability with our web site to limit access to most parts of the Members Only section to any group we can identify. Our commitment to you will
be to put in place a plan to be executed under the supervisions of our web master and our Executive Director with the following elements:
1. Identify what sections should be accessible only to Authorized Representatives – 15-30 days
2. Implementation of a restricted access plan - 30-60 days. It is possible that to accomplish this task may mean that we have to ask every
CAPIC member to re-register, so the timeline may be a challenge. However, we commit to providing CSIC with an update on our progress
as these goals are achieved, or what our progress is, every 15 days.
We would ask going forward that CSIC inform us in writing of any errors or omissions that may occur given the dynamic nature of these items, so we can address
them immediately, and assure you that any such errors or omissions are purely a function of oversight, not intent.
As a result of these commitments we ask that you do everything possible to rescind the suspension of CAPIC’s CPD provider privileges, as expeditiously as
possible, so we can continue to offer valuable programs to our members, and so inform us immediately of your action.
If you have any questions about the above, please call me directly and we will address your concerns immediately.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly
prohibited. Disclosure of this email to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute
utilisation ou divulgation non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses
annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
image008.png
image0097.jpg
Page 2 of 2
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eudF1.htm 16-05-2009
From: Executive Director, CAPIC-ACCPI [mailto:executive@capic.ca]
Sent: July 16, 2008 9:50 AM
To: jryan@csic-scci.ca
Cc: information@csic-scci.ca; I.Qayyum@csic-scci.ca; h.Gracey@csic-scci.ca; r.Augenfeld@csic-scci.ca; k.Wong@csic-scci.ca; d.Moore@csic-scci.ca; m.Bento@csic-scci.ca;
j.Koury@csic-scci.ca; a.amlani@csic-scci.ca
Subject: FW: Issues of concern
John Ryan, Acting CEO, CSIC
Re: CAPIC CPD Provider status:
Dear Sir:
I am attaching to this message our correspondence of May 16th, 2008 in which I repeat your written concerns and demonstrate that CAPIC has complied with all of
the conditions that you listed. On point four, you asked specifically for a plan, and we provided one. I can add that as we were changing web masters and web
hosts, we simply denied access to all but Authorized Representatives to our Members Only section of our web site, to insure we met the intent of your request.
Further, I ask at the end of the message if you will move quickly to remove the suspension, and ask that let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Your
response was that you would present this to your Board, and would even consider a conference call board meeting to deal with the issue.
Since then (mid May) we have not received anything in writing which asks us to change or add to our plan. We have not had any response at all.
I understand that your Board met over the past weekend. I ask if you have dealt with this issue so that CAPIC can resume its role of providing high quality low cost
CPD educational events to all CSIC members.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
Contact Info:
Can-Am Immigration
Suite 300, 1100 Burloak Drive
Burlington, ON L7L 6B2
tel; 1-905-633-9302 or 1-888-288-0801(North America)
fax;1-905-332-7644 or 1-800-613-0452 (North America)
pm1@bellnet.ca
www.immigrationcanam.com
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
www.capic.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly
prohibited. Disclosure of this email to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITÉ : Ce message courriel (y compris les pièces jointes, le cas échéant) est confidentiel et destiné uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité à qui il est adressé. Toute
utilisation ou divulgation non permise est strictement interdite. L’obligation de confidentialité demeure malgré toute divulgation. Si vous avez recu le présent courriel et ses
annexes par erreur, veuillez nous en informer immédiatement et le détruire. Merci de votre coopération.
From: Phil Mooney [mailto:pm1@bellnet.ca]
Sent: May 16, 2008 8:00 PM
To: 'John Ryan'
Cc: 'bod'
Subject: Issues of concern
Dear John;
Thanks you for taking the time to meet with us today. In response to you issues of concern, I can affirm the following: (your concerns are pasted from your Adobe
document –I apologize for any appearance issues resulting from my technical inadequacies)
1. Member names spelling.
CAPIC will use the spelling of members names as they appear on the CSIC web site. We will so instruct staff to review the list on our web site and correct any
discrepancies as quickly as possible.
2. Pending Members
Page 1 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud103.htm 16-05-2009
We will move this feature to the Members Only section of the web site, and investigate if having it on the public side has delivered any benefits to the profession
in the past few years. If it has, we will inform you of these benefits and let you decide if we all gain from having it so, and will act according to your
instructions.
3. Maintaining the CAPIC membership list and communications with former members.
We will make every attempt to keep our membership synchronized with the CSIC membership list, and in any case will agree to doing so at least quarterly. If you
can give us a cost estimate for programming an exception report into your system which would automate this process, we would agree to pay for this fix, subject to
the cost involved. Further, we will implement a communications protocol to instruct all of our Chapters on handling of email lists so communications go only to the
members.
4. Plan for controlling access to web based materials
Page 2 of 3
file://D:\DOCUME~1\T&CS\LOCALS~1\Temp\eud103.htm 16-05-2009
We have the ability with our web site to limit access to most parts of the Members Only section to any group we can identify. Our commitment to you will
be to put in place a plan to be executed under the supervisions of our web master and our Executive Director with the following elements:
1. Identify what sections should be accessible only to Authorized Representatives – 15-30 days
2. Implementation of a restricted access plan - 30-60 days. It is possible that to accomplish this task may mean that we have to ask every
CAPIC member to re-register, so the timeline may be a challenge. However, we commit to providing CSIC with an update on our progress
as these goals are achieved, or what our progress is, every 15 days.
We would ask going forward that CSIC inform us in writing of any errors or omissions that may occur given the dynamic nature of these items, so we can address
them immediately, and assure you that any such errors or omissions are purely a function of oversight, not intent.
As a result of these commitments we ask that you do everything possible to rescind the suspension of CAPIC’s CPD provider privileges, as expeditiously as
possible, so we can continue to offer valuable programs to our members, and so inform us immediately of your action.
If you have any questions about the above, please call me directly and we will address your concerns immediately.
Sincerely,
Phil Mooney, CCIC
Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
President,
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC
In defence of Mr. Ross Eastly, who was the CEO of CSIC during this relevant time, I felt it only fair to submit to him these facts posted by Mr. Mooney and he replied:
“Thanks for contacting me about the controversy over CAPIC being an authorized CPD provider for the CSIC membership. In response to your query about the background on the dispute between CSIC and CAPIC I am pleased to provide the following information:
1.) I was actually fired from CSIC as the CEO at the end of January 2008 as I was deemed to be not aggressive enough.
2.) As a result I was in the process of transferring over to CMI in the February - March 2008 time frame.
3.) the CPD issue was a complete moving target as John and the Board were continuing to move the criteria. CMI was being created and they needed to have a justification. I can give you an example, the 60 day rule was just thought up by John after a Board Meeting in October 2007 and then he announced it in a Board report as Board policy when he was doing a CSIC video. I learned about it at the time he announced it so then it becomes a question of how was it to be implemented, basically in John's mind it was to be implemented in a manner to give CAPIC the most pain. The clear objective of the CPD issue was to cut off CAPIC's revenue so if staff approved events then of course the Board would be up in arms that Board policy was being broken, so it was a rather bizarre situation.
In addition, at that particular time Nigel got on his high horse indicating that CAPIC should be punished for not abiding by the CSIC policy, when Nigel got onside then it was fairly easy for John to convince the Board that CAPIC should not be allowed to provide CPD credits. Clearly the Board was focused on CMI and there was no intention of trying to work with CAPIC to solve the problem. Events seemed to feed off each other, as John continued to change the criteria then the people within CAPIC became more unreasonable in their statements (justifiably) which John then used to convince the more moderate Board members that CAPIC should be banned from being a CPD provider.
4.) The fact of the matter is that the issue could be solved very simply by clearly putting a statement on CAPIC's website that CAPIC is not the regulator with a reference to the CSIC website. The problem was that John had no interest in solving the problem he was simply using this as measures to put CAPIC out of business.
I hope this provides some context for the events at that time..
regards,
Ross Eastley”
CSIP served a role as a voice of dissent against CSIC when some of the CSIC members or former CSIC members felt disenfranchised as the CSIP issues were being ignored by CSIC and of course individuals felt they were not being heard by CSIC. Initially because CAPIC was not making any progress in dealing with CSIC, some members (authorized immigration consultants and ghost consultants) turned to CSIP to represent their grievances. Some of the discontent came from former immigration consultants who could not meet the CSIC entrance requirements and some of this discontent came from CSIC members who felt totally disenfranchised by the manner in which they were being treated by CSIC. CSIC basically took the approach with the membership that must comply with their various demands, especially in the area of fees, or you are suspended. The CSIC membership felt totally exploited by this approach. CSIP made some extraordinary claims and statements but because there was enough of an element of truth in the statements they served a purpose. There were defamation lawsuits which went back and forth between CSIC and CSIP but these legal challenges were eventually settled out of court after a considerable expenditure was incurred by both CSIC and CSIP. However, it should be noted that as recently as this week CSIC succeeded in having CSIP remove from their website an article by the author on the grounds that it breached confidentiality when the lawsuit was settled.
CSIP was headed by Nuna Nancy Salloum and was the first organization that detected that there were many fatal flaws in CSIC but her criticism was met by legal attacks on her and tremendous legal fees that caused the Profession over a million dollars with absolutely no benefit to any CSIC Members other than to John Ryan who gained satisfaction in destroying the reputation of a very able and competent woman. It should be noted that the author is not a member of CSIP and was, himself, the subject of many attacks by this organization.
RIC is more of an ethnic industry association within the Chinese community located in Toronto. RIC did challenge CSIC in legal action over the ability of CSIC to be the only regulator and this was eventually settled by the Federal Court in CSIC’s favour. As a result of the ongoing controversy surrounding CSIC, RIC has periodically tried to initiate action to be the regulator of Immigration Consultants, they claim on their website to be “ a truly self- regulating immigration consultants association in Canada with rules of professional conduct, a professional liability insurance, consumer protection mechanism, and other key elements of the regulation of a profession” This organization claims to have a membership of 200 and I suspect some of their members are “ghost” consultants.
IAIP is a very small organization which I do not believe is very active. I would expect the membership is less than 10 if it exists. The membership did initiate legal action against CSIC in the beginning challenging CSIC’s ability to be the sole regulator, and this legal action was settled very soon after the action was started by providing membership for some of the IAIP members on some of the early CSIC committees.
Self-regulation, quasi-self-regulation and regulation – Regulatory schemes cover the spectrum from full government control to full self-regulation.
• Self-regulation is generally characterised by industry formulating rules and codes of conduct, with industry solely responsible for enforcement. Within schemes that are categorised as self-regulating a range of approaches may be in place from the existence of a simple code of ethics to codes that are drafted with legislative precision together with sophisticated customer dispute mechanisms.
• Quasi-regulation – in these schemes, the government influences business to comply, but rules, instruments, standards do not comprise explicit government regulation. Examples include government endorsed industry codes of practice or standards, government issued guidance notes, industry-government agreements and national accreditation schemes.
• Co-regulation – these schemes involve situations where industries and administer their own arrangements, but government provides legislative backing to enable the arrangement to be enforced.
• Explicit government regulation – This is the most common form of regulation and comprise primary or subordinate legislation. Advantages include certainty and effectiveness because of legal sanctions. Disadvantages may be that the arrangement may be standardised and inflexible, take significant time to make or amend legislation, not be suitable for influencing the quality of complex services, be perceived to be difficult to understand, have higher government budgetary costs and compliance costs, and provide poor access for those without the means to pursue their legal rights.
Sources: Australian - 2007-08 Review of Statutory Self-Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession – Final Report May 2008 – pages 97-99
I am using the term modified self-regulation throughout this discussion paper which has some similarity to quasi-regulation as defined in the Australian situation. My interpretation of the attitudes of the immigration consultants is that they want some input into the operation of their “regulatory” organization, while most don’t understand the total operation and responsibilities of self regulation, that there is a strong reluctance to being regulated by a competing group like the Law Society and that most would accept total government regulation over the present situation with the manner in which CSIC is being operated.
The new regulating organization or modified organization which is created must have broad support within the Immigration Consulting Profession as a consequence I do not think CSIC alone with the present leadership can accomplish that objective.
I also don’t believe that CAPIC if they had control of the CSIC organization could establish an organization or could modify the present CSIC structure such that it would function properly as a regulatory body. If this occurred it would be perceived as a “coup d’etat” within the profession and I am sure the Minister would not want to be perceived as supporting one leadership group over another leadership group within the immigration consulting profession. At the present time CAPIC enjoys an element of support within the CSIC membership but there are also members within that CAPIC leadership group who can’t wait to replace the current CSIC leaders and take retaliatory action for the wrongs which they perceive the current CSIC leadership has inflicted on the CSIC membership. In addition, CAPIC has suffered as an organization especially during the last two years because of the action which was been taken via CMI to basically replace CAPIC. As a result of this CSIC action CAPIC has really struggled to retain and grow their membership base. The active membership within CAPIC have been associated with the organization for a number of years and really have a long history with John Ryan and the CSIC Board as a consequence creating an environment for these two organizations to work together will be a major challenge.
CSIP, RIC or IAIP I do not believe any of these organizations would have the credibility or expertise to form or operate a credible regulatory organization. I have also heard rumours that individual CSIC members are planning to submit proposals as a group or individually to operate a regulatory organization basically as a business venture, this type of approach in my opinion would be totally inappropriate.
One of the major reasons this division has developed within the profession is due in part to the influence of John Ryan and due in part to the decision making of the “CSIC group primarily the CSIC Board”, which is perceived by a number of CSIC members as being in control of CSIC. As a consequence, if one of the other professional groups CAPIC for example was the successful applicant to be the regulator then there would probably be a repeat of the existing situation within a short period of time and the group which currently supports John Ryan would be attempting to get back in control of CSIC. One of the influencing factors is that within the immigration consultant community most of the immigration practices are very small. There are a number of one person operations which means a vast majority of the consultants have very limited experience operating a sizeable operation which operates in a sophisticate manner. For the clarification of the reader I am classifying the “regulator” (CSIC in this example) as being sophisticated and sizeable. This is just a relative characterization as compared to most of the immigration practices CSIC is very sophisticated and large thus within the profession there is very limited experience in understanding how such an organization should function. I realize that CSIC will be submitting that they have increased their sophistication dramatically as a result of the governance courses which some of the senior leaders have taken; however, my experience is that these leaders are not putting into practice the knowledge which has been gained from these leadership courses. There are a number of examples of inappropriate management; one of the most recent examples is the manner in which the current election has been conducted for the CSIC Board of Directors. In addition, there is a lot of distrust among the consultants simply because they have been acting in competition with other consultants their whole career. As a consequence, there is a learning curve for consultants to understand their role as a Board Member on the regulating organization. One of the factors which has become apparent is that due to vested interests of some the CSIC leadership group the compensation package for the Board members has resulted in some Directors almost looking on this as a “career” option, if you like, which is totally against the concept of encouraging input and contributions from the membership. To-date, in my estimation, because of the influence of the CSIC consultant leadership group and the lack of influence exercised by the public interest Directors currently on the Board of CSIC the result is a regulator “or CSIC” which has lost the confidence of the Minister, the Public and the CSIC membership.
I do think that if the proper changes are made, I refer to these changes as the addition of checks and balances, then the original objective of self regulation for the immigration consultants as identified in the May 2003 Advisory Committee report can be achieved. I did take into consideration the May 2003 Advisory Committee report which recommended the creation of a regulatory body to regulate immigration consultants, the Executive Summary is enclosed as Appendix II, the complete report is attached as a companion document for this submission. One of the features of a self regulating organization is that the membership has input and can contribute effectively to the development of the regulated profession. I realize the current leadership group has effectively curtailed and limited the contribution of the membership but it is important to realize that if all potential or hope of input or contribution is curtailed then there is the potential for a negative reaction. I am specifically referring to the situation if the regulation in the future is done by a government operated regulator with no input from the professional immigration consulting community.
I believe that if the profession is going to enjoy a form of self regulation then the profession as a group needs to come together to support the proposal for self regulation with the necessary modifications to the CSIC structure. The logical groups to come together in the submission of a joint proposal would be CAPIC and CSIC. For this approach to be initiated it will be necessary for the Minister to contact CAPIC and CSIC indicating one last chance is being given to retain a form of self regulation but they must agree upon a joint proposal in accordance with guidelines provided by the Minister’s Office and that the Minister will appoint a CEO. The appointed CEO will begin operating CSIC immediately and will be responsible to the Minister’s Office until a joint proposal was been submitted and is accepted. The alternative to a modified form of self regulation is an American style (representation by lawyers only) or a government regulator. If this alternative or Option was acceptable it would be essential to institute a number of checks and balances which I am suggesting below with further clarification in Appendix I, these of course would be provided to CAPIC and CSIC to develop their joint submission. If there is a joint submission then the appropriate controls (checks and balances) or supervision on the implementation would be very important as this has been a group fraught with discord for some period of time and I know the two sides are just waiting to even the score or to eliminate the influence or input from the other side. In effect I am trying to clarify that a plan for implementation is critical as well as the installation of controls or checks and balances would be essential to insure a successful regulatory regime.
A second alternative or Option II which could be instituted in order to retain the concept of self regulation would involve the transition of the present CSIC Board to an interim Board, the installation of a number of checks and balances and then finally the transition from the interim Board to a new partially elected and partially appointed Board. Option I and Option II are basically the same the only difference is that Option I originates with the membership. My observation of the current situation within the leadership of the CSIC membership is that there is very little possibility that CSIC and CAPIC can work together in order to develop a joint response. For a joint proposal to happen the Minister will need to strongly encourage both CAPIC and CSIC that such a proposal is the only choice if the membership wishes to retain any form of self regulation. As a consequence Option II is outlined as a mechanism to retain a form of modified self regulation with a number of accountability factors built into the implementation process. Possibly the mechanics or process for achieving this result would need to be modified but I do believe the current CSIC structure or framework can be made to work if the proper changes are made. In addition, the membership has invested heavily as I indicated earlier, in the creation of the present structure which would be lost if CSIC was completely abandoned. Again if there was an agreement with CSIC on the orderly transition then the process would proceed in a much smoother fashion.
A modification of Option II could potentially be pursued in order to effect immediate action. The modification I am suggesting is to immediately appoint an interim Board with two clear purposes:
• to take over the current operation of CSIC and return some stability and,
• develop a report for the Minister on the potential of moving forward with the basic concept of Option II or alternatively to go directly to Option IV.
Pursuing the modified Option II would require that the Board of CSIC agree to the immediate appointment of an interim Board by the Minster.
A third alternative or Option III is to have the authorized immigration consultants regulated by an organization run by the government similar to the UK model or the Australian model. The Australian model provides for an advisory Board while the UK model, to the best of my knowledge, does not have an advisory Board. Under this scenario I would suggest that the Minister appoint a Board that has a majority that are external to the consulting community. If this approach is selected then it is important to have a orderly transition from CSIC to the new regime thus I would suggest that as part of the process for accepting the proposal from CSIC is that CSIC be required to enter into an agreement to provide for an orderly transitional process if the CSIC proposal is not selected to regulate immigration consultants in the future.
A fourth alternative is simply to take the third alternative and have the model basically the same as the Australian model as there would be an advisory Board only and the Regulatory Organization would be established as a separate organization with a Superintendent in Charge of regulating Immigration consultants. This alternative is being crafted after the CSIC elections bearing in mind that it appears there is an element within the CSIC Board/Management which simply does not want to abide by regular rules of conduct thus the conclusion could be reached that at this stage Immigration Consultants are not ready for self regulation. Under this option significant changes to the By-Laws would be required and this paper is not exploring the extent of the changes that would be required for Option IV. A modification to this approach is simply to adopt the American style such that only lawyers will only be authorized to be immigration consultants.
Recommendations
The challenge or issue is how to make the present CSIC organization function appropriately or how to implement a new regulatory organization which will function properly.
o Option I (modified self regulation) – contact both CSIC and CAPIC indicating that a form of self regulation will be entertained but it needs to be a joint agreed upon submission from CAPIC and CSIC
This option would need to satisfactorily address the following items (note the guidelines in Appendix I will need to be provided):
i.) Proposed by-laws changes for CSIC,
ii.) Detailed process for achieving transparency and accountability for the membership, the Public and the Minister,
iii.) Details on approaches to improve the ethical conduct of CSIC members,
iv.) Detailed measures to improve the openness of the election process for the Board positions,
v.) Proposal on the compensation for the Directors of the regulatory organization,
vi.) Process for the appointment of the public interest members to the Board of the regulatory organization,
vii.) Process for handling CMI,
viii.) Process for allowing CPD credits through other professional organizations including professional consultant organizations,
ix.) Procedures to insure the complaints and discipline component of the regulatory organization remains independent of the Board of Directors for the regulatory organization,
x.) Proposed response to a future review of the Regulatory organization by CIC.
xi.) Provision for an ombudsman to handle complaints from CSIC members about the Board and/or administration.
xii.) Outline the proposed process for responding to recommendation # 6 of the report issued in June 2008 by the Standing Committee for Citizenship and Immigration as per below:
Recommendation # 6 – The Committee recommends that the relevant federal regulatory and enforcement authorities (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada Border Services Agency, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, Canada Revenue Agency) work with provincial partners (provincial governments, law societies) to coordinate investigation, communication and enforcement efforts so as to ensure that unregistered immigration consultants are either referred to provincial law societies for sanction, or are prosecuted under existing federal provisions, depending on the nature of the person’s practice. Such federal provisions include, but are not limited to, the general contravention provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, provisions under the Criminal Code, and federal tax law. No later than four months after this report is presented in the House of Commons, a lead agency should be named to coordinate investigation, communication and enforcement efforts.
xiii.) Reporting function.
Additionally, for this approach to be accepted the Minister will appoint a CEO who will operate CSIC and be responsible to the Minister’s Office until an acceptable submission has been developed by CAPIC and CSIC.
Option 1 would entail the Minister having regard to some very serious matters that found there way into articles and postings within the Industry. One of the most controversial and widely read, both by CSIC Members, CAPIC Members and Lawyers throughout the country was described as “sad” and “a condemnation” on the whole Board of CSIC. It was written by the author and the contents of this article entitled “The Journey Destroyed: The Death of CSIC” is required reading for an insight into the state of affairs and the tyranny that reigns with CSIC itself. The Minister must be aware of the contents to know the very difficult job that would lie ahead to have Option 1 work.
The Journey Destroyed: The Death of CSIC
Sometimes, when I dream, I walk in fields of buttercups and birds, of endless cloudless skies and in valleys where it never rains and only the morning dew keeps it all so fresh. I never want my dreams to end because they are a world where I am happy to be and a place I am safe.
The reader will not be inspired by words that have no more wisdom and no more hope but it is important that the conveyance of the death of CSIC and the funeral parade must be told. It cannot be told in a few words, and I have no intention of going beyond some simple facts, that lead me to conclusions few would have accepted when they first started on this Journey in Search of a Profession
This Profession had one last chance at self-regulation and it came in the form of an election in which all members would cast a vote, equally and fairly. That was not to be.
Strange things happened along the road to fairness and the exercise of democracy. We all received a telephone call which was disguised as a ‘Poll '. We were never told the reason or the legality behind this Poll. When we wanted answers, we were met with silence.
The fact was CSIC was caught conducting this Poll. This forced the SEO to issue a statement, long after the Polls had closed but the damage was done already. Some were led to believe that they had voted by answering this Poll. They were misled.
A larger issue is where Candidates such as Mr. Wong and Mr. Thomson obtained all the phone numbers of the electorate when others did not have that access.
The Founder of CSIC, John Ryan, OSJ, CCIC, FCMI, ICD.D, C.Dir., ASC, together with his sidekick, Imran Qayyum, CCIC, FCMI, ICD.D, C.Dir., ASC, planned long before the elections, how they would be able to continue with the exercise of the greed of power and the destruction of every value Canadians, real Canadians Cherish.
And so it came to be. The exercise of that endgame came by the men and women who were held high on The Lonely Pillar that they destroyed. It all came apart as though the sinking titanic was wrecking itself apart, while the Board of Directors danced on the corpses of the Members that were quickly sinking below them as they lost their Profession.
These are delusional men. They are not even real. They belong to an era when power was exercised to benefit the person who held the sword. They are fantasies that came into our hearts and homes and, like a virus that is immune to sanity, crawled upon us and devoured our dreams.
With the ship sinking and them all in a delusional state, they played their games and danced to the Music. They had the founder of CSIC resign his position so he could be appointed a full time CEO with the benefits and liabilities we all have to share. This came after more than two years of a “search” that never was.
They had that sidekick, who claimed to have moved to a Post office box in British Columbia, appointed to fill the founder’s seat on the Board. They ignored the fact that the Members had exercised their right to vote and had voted out Mr. Wong and had replaced him with Mr. Bernier. They put Mr. Wong in another safe delusional place and they danced around the Boardroom as they knew they had saved CSIC from those wicked invaders who themselves, wanted power. “Those whiners and complainers” said the new Chairman and newly elected Director, Mr. Nigel Thomson. He was referring to those men and women who must be excluded at all cost from the knowledge of what had really happened within CSIC’s walls. Their pitiful dance goes on and on while the water rises and the ship is sinking. They believe in salvation as only demented minds could believe.
I am haunted by the memory of what could have been, and my heart is weeping for all those whose pain and anguish can never be made right and whose dreams are thrown into the dustbin of history.
The Making of a Tragedy: The Final Chapter and Will Ye No Come Back Again? were written to predict the dire consequences of a failure of the Board of Directors to act as the Minister would want. The End Game is here and the dream is gone. We all have lost our Profession.
The Honourable Jason Kenny, The Minister of Immigration has very few alternatives on his plate. He is a man of wisdom and of Honour. He is a man who is not afraid to act and act he will.
Self Regulation of Immigration Consultants can now only be found in our dreams and there are tears in the valley for what we have all lost. The Minister has been left with three choices. Two we have heard about and one we have not.
We are now facing the appointment of a Superintendent, a government run Regulator. I have referred to that in great detail in The Making of a Tragedy: The Final Chapter.
Alternatively, we are facing the imposition of a body outside of this Profession that will be “bidding” on regulating us, a commercial venture where there is a lot of money to be made and one that could well be more diabolical than CSIC.
Finally, and far more damaging, but on the Minister’s Plate, is what has become known as the American System. The American system allows only Attorney’s to practice. There are no Consultants. Under this scenario, we would continue to remain “authorized representatives” under an interim Superintendent for a period defined so we could wrap up our Practice and service the clients we have already retained.
It is a tragic ending to a Noble adventure. It is an ending that we all share the blame for in that the “silent majority” felt it was easier to hide their faces than scream out at the injustice. They were cowards of the worst kind and now we all pay the price. When a “Nanny” came to revoke the license of Katarina Onuschak, we should have known that we all would have been next. That is how tyranny and dictatorship works. The silence of the many brought us the pain of the future.
My forefathers gave their lives at Normandy and some lie in Flanders’s Field where the poppies grow. I have a nephew who fights in Afghanistan on this very night I write. They did not die in vain and they do not serve today to have the rights of some destroyed. This is my country. This is your country. This is Canada in the year 2010. It is time we screamed, we paraded, we made Canadians understand that CSIC is and was the most corrupt dictatorship that ever existed or was given the name of a “tribunal”. I am defending the rights given to me by many who died so that I could have them.
Lastly, my heart is only weeping, haunted by the memory of what could have been and never was.
o Option II (modified self-regulation) – CSIC is run by an interim Board (appointed by the Minister) until the controls have been implemented. This approach is taken when the CAPIC/CSIC joint proposal is rejected. The modified approach under this option occurs if immediate action is desired.
o It must be stated that there are legal impediments to this choice in that the Minister may not have the power to intervene in CSIC as it is a Private Company and monies from the 1700 members continue to pour in which would provide CSIC with ample money to spend on Lawyers to oppose any intervention by the Minister.
Under this option CSIC would be run by the interim Board until the following changes are installed to make the organization a modified self regulatory organization with a number of checks and balances. The minimum changes I would suggest are the following:
o The By-Laws are changed or a new set of by-laws are developed which would include the following:
i.) The public interest Board members are appointed by the Minister,
ii.) The section of the by-laws which deals with the election of consultant directors should exclude the reference to the region from which the public interest members are selected, this has I believe resulted in some confusion and allows people in a particular region to be elected with a low number of votes. In addition, perhaps a set date for elections should be included and a less elaborate process could be implemented for the calling of nominations.
iii.) Eliminate the requirement that the Chair needs to be a consulting Director,
iv.) The issue of the number of members present for a quorum at the annual general meeting needs to be reviewed as the present system is rather unique, and is very un democratic.
v.) A date for the annual election needs to be established,
vi.) The ability to have an in person or combination of in person and online annual general meeting or special meeting needs to be reviewed,
vii.) Clarification needs to be added that management can not serve on the Board. In addition, management can not function as practicing immigration consultants; authorized immigration consultants who work in management of the regulating organization must take an approved leave of absence from their role as a practicing consultant.
viii.) Accountability to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration needs to be added,
o Call for new elections (after the election process has been reviewed) for the consultant directors under the jurisdiction of a completely separate individual or body. For example I would suggest that the Elections Canada Returning Officer (or designate) is named as the person to appoint a Senior Elections Officer to run the CSIC elections. In addition, I would suggest that the Elections Canada Returning Officer (or designate) be asked to review the current CSIC elections process and make a recommendation on changes which should be made to that process. Future changes to the elections process can only be made with the concurrence of the Elections Canada Returning Officer – this is one of the checks and balances that I am suggesting be incorporated into the CSIC structure.
o The compensation for the Board of Directors should be modified to be more in line with the compensation paid to Board members of self regulating professional associations, and should provide no more than a small “perk” for serving on the Board since it should only meet once a month to review the operations and directions set by the Board in compliance with the Minister’s requests.
o Procedures to insure the complaints and discipline component of the regulatory organization remains independent of the Board of Directors for the regulatory organization – I believe the process for handling the complaints and discipline is critical for establishing credibility in the eyes of the public, the government and the CSIC membership. In fact as I understand this was one of the weaknesses that needed to be addressed and resulted in the recent changes to the system for regulating immigration consultants in Australia.
At present the perception is that the CSIC complaints and discipline process is being manipulated. I think the basic technical process with some modifications is sound. In order to make it more effective and to deal with the perception that it is effective I would propose the establishment of a three person advisory Committee with the membership of this committee consisting of a Senior individual from Immigration Canada, an individual with a highly respected legal reputation from outside the immigration consulting community and someone from the CSIC Board of Directors. The mandate of this committee would be to provide advice to the CSIC Board and the complaints and discipline department on proposed policy changes and to provide advice on the effectiveness of the complaints and discipline process.
o In line with recommendation # 6 from the 2008 report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration I would suggest that the Minister request as part of the reporting requirements for CSIC that a meeting be held at least quarterly (more or less frequently may be more appropriate) under the Chairmanship of CIC. Participants should include the Directors (or designates) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Board, the RCMP, the Canadian Board Services Agency, Canada Revenue Agency, the Federation of Law Societies and the CEO of CSIC with as a minimum a mandate to coordinate investigations, communication and enforcement efforts so as to ensure that unregistered immigration consultants are either referred to provincial law societies for sanction, or are prosecuted under existing federal provisions, depending on the nature of the person’s practice. Such federal provisions include, but are not limited to, the general contravention provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, provisions under the Criminal Code, and federal tax law. Such meetings would also facilitate any concerns about the practice of authorized immigration consultants and such matters which should be drawn to the attention of the authorized immigration consultants. These meetings would also serve as a check and balance to insure that CSIC was fulfilling its role appropriately. One important criterion I believe which again is part of the checks and balances is that it is the CEO of CSIC who is appointed to this committee and not the CSIC Board Chair. The reporting (which could vary from time to time as specified by the Minister) could be as frequently as the meetings or once per year, it could be in writing or in person, I just feel it is important that the process be established.
o CMI would be abolished an unnecessary duplication of the role of CAPIC.
o Appointment of an ombudsman to review and handle complaints that members may have about their treatment by the Board or the administrative staff. This ombudsman should be an Immigration Consultant who is prepared to take on this role without financial reward and should and must be a Senior Consultant who is respected in the industry.
o The reporting function to the CSIC members and to the Minister should as a minimum include the following:
i.) Include the current reports which are provides to the members plus these report should also form part of the annual report provided to the Minister,
ii.) A complete report by individual Board member on the compensation, expense remuneration and special perks (example would be a laptop computer) provided to the individual Board members. The expense remuneration shall include items paid directly by the CSIC office on behalf of a Board member, for example such items as flight and hotel costs to attend Board meetings, membership fees, registration fees to attend conferences, etc. The report should form part of the report provided annually to the Board by the auditor and the Board shall include this information in the annual report to the CSIC members and the Minister,
iii.) The audited financial statements for CMI should be disclosed fully for examinations.
iv.) The government appointees should file a separate annual report to the Minister on their view of the operation of CSIC,
v.) At the completion of the annual election process the Senior Election Official shall file an independent report to the members, the Board and the Minister about the effectiveness and fairness of the election process,
vi.) The CSIC Complaints and Discipline Advisory Committee shall file a report annually with the Minister and the CSIC Board on the effectiveness of the complaints and discipline process. This report should as a minimum comment of the effectiveness of the complaints and discipline process and the responsiveness of the Board to making the system effective.
vii.) The CSIC Board in its annual report to the Minister shall include all the information referred to above in the reporting function plus any additional information which may be requested by the Minister from time to time.
A modification of Option II could potentially be pursued in order to effect immediate action.
The modification I am suggesting is to immediately appoint an interim Board with two clear purposes:
i.) to take over the current operation of CSIC and return stability and,
ii.) to develop a report for the Minister on the potential of moving forward with the basic concept of Option II or alternatively to go directly to Option IV.
Pursuing the modified Option II would require that the Minister immediately appoint a CEO and an interim Board.
o Option III (regulation) would be a regulatory organization for immigration consultants with the total Board appointed by the Minister. This occurs when Options I and II are rejected and modified self regulation is abandoned.
If neither option I or option II are workable then the interim Board designated by the Minister could continue with the operation of CSIC until the Minister appoints a full time Board to operate CSIC. As a result the regulation of immigration consultants would be operated in a fashion similar to either the UK or Australian models with some slight tweaks for the Canadian situation.
o Option IV is to accept immediately that immigration consultants are not ready for self regulation and that CSIC be adapted to the Australian model with a Superintendent in charge of the regulation of immigration consultants. The Superintendent would be a distinct entity free from government control and would be run in a similar manner to the Trustees in Bankruptcy which works very well in that domain. Such an option does extenquish self-regulation but has many benefits that the Public would prefer.
Basically the only difference between Option III and Option IV is that Option III would be adopted after thoroughly exploring Options I & II while in the case of accepting Option IV the decision will have been made at the onset that self regulation is not possible thus Options I & II are rejected immediately.
Risks
The following is my assessment of the risks that I can foresee:
o That CSIC will not agree to a joint proposal submitted by CAPIC and CSIC.
Mitigation of this risk
The fact that CSIC will be a required to enter into such an agreement in order to participate in the process is an important lever. The portrayal of such an agreement as the appropriate steps to protect the members’ interests and the planning for an orderly transition will be I believe received in a positive fashion by the members plus possibly as a good will gesture perhaps the $ 500,000 non interest bearing loan (please refer to Financial Statements in the 2008 - 2009 CSIC Annual report, enclosed as a companion document) which is carried on the CSIC records could be forgiven if it is transferred into the compensation fund.
In the event that CSIC is not prepared to enter into such an agreement then the Government would need to be prepared to go straight to the establishment of a Government Operated Regulatory organization. This I believe is the greatest risk as there is the potential for legal challenges, so preparation for this eventuality should be undertaken.
o If the Minister moves immediately to go to Option IV or the modified Option II that the CSIC Board will resist the turn over of the present CSIC operation to an interim Board.
Mitigation of this risk:
I believe the individual Board members would be exposing themselves to a significant amount of personal liability if they chose to resist an agreement to turn over the function of the present Board to an interim Board. The reason I make that statement is because Directors and Officers insurance covers the action of a “reasonable” person and I suggest for the Board to resist the request by the government would not be a “reasonable” decision. I would suggest obtaining the legal advice on this issue as I would suspect that insurance for Directors and Officers would not cover the individual Directors in the event of a law suit if they chose to resist. If that is the legal advice that is obtained then the information should be presented to the Board as the alternative they would face if they chose to resist.
If the legal advice does not support this approach then the government would need to be prepared to assume that they will not receive any support for CSIC and a plan should be put in place to develop an appropriate Regulatory operation for immigration consultants.
o That the senior management or the Board of CSIC will enter into untenable agreements to prevent the success of the interim Board or transition process.
It is essential to realize that you will be dealing with John Ryan in particular and he sees CSIC as being the equivalent to his own personal fiefdom (as unrealistic as that sounds in terms of power and control John Ryan does not respond in the same manner as a “reasonable person”).
Mitigation of this risk
The clauses and details of the contract which is entered into with the current CSIC Board (when the operation of the current CSIC Board is suspended to develop a joint proposal with CAPIC) will be critical in order to prevent this type of activity.
o The presentation of a joint proposal will not be achieved.
Mitigation of this risk
I think this strengthens the ability of the government to choose either option II or option III. Option II retains modified self regulation or reintroduces modified self regulation if you like while option III simply involves a regulator.
o The adoption of option IV, the appointment of the total Board of the modified CSIC by the Minister will be the only viable option.
Mitigation of the risk
As long as options, I, II & III are fully explored then the Minister can indicate this fact when option IV is selected. In addition, there is strong discontent within the membership with the manner that ”self regulation” has operated thus "regulation" by the government may very well be welcomed by the existing CSIC membership. I think this option would go a long way towards restoring public confidence and confidence by the current CSIC membership in the benefits of regulation.
Conclusions
The list of check and balances included in Appendix I actually follow from some of the recommendations contained in the “Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants – presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – May 2003 “ In particular the following recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION 6. The Chair of the Board should be elected by the board members. A mechanism should be set up to provide for ongoing communication between the Department, the Minister and the Chair to ensure that the regulatory body carries out its responsibilities in a manner that has the full support of the Department and the Minister.
A number of the checks and balances are in the form of reports to the Minister and actually Recommendation # 6 of the May 2003 report for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration specifically referred to ongoing communication between the Department, the Minister and the Chair of the Regulatory organization.
RECOMMENDATION 14. The process by which regulation takes place should be transparent. Applicants for registration should know the requirements they are expected to meet, as well as the time frame within which a decision on their application will be made. Decisions denying membership should be accompanied by reasons.
A number of the checks and balances refer to a transparent process which is also referred to in Recommendation # 14 of the May 2003 report for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The Executive summary of the May 2003 report for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is attached as Appendix II. It is worth noting that the majority of the recommendations have been implemented, especially with the new Legislation being proposed as Bill C 35. The other exception would be Recommendation # 26 which is listed as follows:
RECOMMENDATION 26. The Committee recommends that the regulatory body develop detailed levels of practice, which would permit consultants to apply for registration based on their level and area(s) of experience.
This implication of not implementing Recommendation 26 is not a significant factor in the operation of the current regulator.
The basic structure for the regulator known as CSIC has been implemented in accordance with the May 2003 report for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Executive Summary attached as Appendix II), with the major omissions being the lack of checks and balances. I believe that if steps are taken to build on this structure with the implementation of the accountability which I am suggesting in the form of checks and balances (listed in Appendix I) then CSIC can become an effective regulator for immigration consultants.
In my opinion the preferred Option I for regulating immigration consultants would be a joint proposal involving the significant players in the profession (preferably CSIC & CAPIC) and that the contract for conducting this operation would have significant checks and balances (controls if you like) which are outlined in Appendix I.
If option I is not viable then CSIC should be operated under an interim Board, the checks and balances as outlined in Appendix I should be implemented and this in effect becomes Option II. The concept of a form of self regulation is preserved with the implementation of several controls.
If either option I or option II are not viable then the government should take over the operation of CSIC which I would call option III and keep the regulator as a separate entity in order to comply with the issues outlined in the May 2003 Minister’s Advisory Committee report. I would suggest that the implementation of this model would have some similarities to the Australian model although if the Board of the entity (the new CSIC) was appointed by the Minister then it would be kept as a separate entity from government. The Australian model has the regulator operating as part of government with the Board simply being an Advisory Board.
Option IV would be a slight modification of this as it would be simply accepting immediately that self regulation is not possible and the regulation would be done completely under the jurisdiction of the government.
I would suggest that the review which was undertaken of the MARA should be studied in greater detail in order to determine if some of the recommendations which were made for the regulator in Australia could also be used as a guide for making some changes with the Canadian regulator. This report is enclosed as a companion document to this Discussion paper.
As a final point this Discussion paper has been primarily written before the conclusion of the 2010 CSIC elections and I think the actions taken by the Senior Elections Official during the course of the election further emphasized the need to have the elections run by an external appointee. The actions called into question the fairness of the election, for example such things as allowing incumbent candidates to have access to CSIC resources to campaign and to conduct their campaign against the rules given to the other candidates. Additionally, the actions taken by the Board the Day the election results were announced to make John Ryan the CEO and to appoint Imran Qayyum as the consultant Director to complete John Ryan’s Board term illustrates the Board is basically out of control and dramatic change is required. As a consequence Option IV may be the most viable Option at this stage in order to restore order to the immigration consulting group.
Based on my evaluation of the Options available my conclusion is:
o Provide an opportunity for one last attempt for a joint undertaking by CSIC and CAPIC to develop a modified form of self regulation with a number of checks and balances as suggested within this paper (please see Option I for details). I believe for this to happen it will require the intervention of the Minister to contact both CSIC and CAPIC to indicate one last opportunity is being provided to retained a form of self regulation. If the self regulation can not be salvaged then a choice will be made on either adopting an American style regulation approach or a government controlled regulation regime. Additionally for this approach to work the current CSIC CEO will need to be replaced by a CEO appointed by the Minister. The appointed CEO would report to the Minister’s Office until an acceptable alternative is developed by CSIC and CAPIC.
o If CAPIC and CSIC are unable to agree upon an acceptable structure for a modified form of self regulation then I would suggest Option IV with the choice being a government regulation approach or an American style approach which would only be allowing the participation of the legal profession.
In order to make the preferred option (joint participation by CAPIC and CSIC) viable it will be necessary to have in place a CEO who has had successful experience working with the CSIC membership and who has the credibility to bring about the necessary changes. This would require an individual who is diplomatic, is decision oriented and would have a very short learning curve in order to initiate the process with the CSIC membership.
Appendix I - Recommended changes to the CSIC structure and operations - Checks and balances or accountability requirements.
Minimum changes required for the existing CSIC structure to make it into an effective regulator for immigration consultants. The following items are in effect checks and balances which I believe should be added to the present CSIC structure to make it effective. These checks and balances are presented as “Response objectives” for the specifications outlined in the call for proposals.
Requirement
• Proposed by-laws changes.
Response objective:
• The public interest Board members are appointed by the Minister,
• The section of the by-laws which deals with the election of consultant directors should exclude the reference to the region from which the public interest members are selected, this has I believe resulted in some confusion and allows people in a particular region to be elected with a low number of votes. In addition, perhaps a set date for elections should be included and a less elaborate process could be implemented for the calling for nominations,
• By-Law 6.7 c - allows the Chair to have a second vote in the event of a tie, I personally disagree with this as the Boards that I have been associate with if there is a tie vote after the Chair has voted the motion is lost. If this clause is removed it in effect decreases the power of the chair which has been a problem,
• By-Law 8.1 a - names the standing committees, I would suggest possibly removing some of the committees on this list and leaving the balance of the committee structure to the discretion of the Board,
• I would look at obtaining advice on the necessity of having the Public Interest members on all committees. The chair is ex officio on all committees, normally this is only done as a courtesy or if there is a particular issue, in the case of John it was used as a mechanism to control the committee. It might be best to specifically indicate that the chair is not ex officio of the audit committee
• Establish an annual date for elections,
• Eliminate the requirement that the Chair be an elected consulting director,
• The ability to have an in person or combination of in person and online annual general meeting or special meeting needs to be reviewed,
• If the Minister makes all the Board appointments as specified in Option III then significant By-Law changes would be required,
• The issue of the number of members present for a quorum at the annual general meeting needs to be reviewed as the present system is rather unique,
• Clarification needs to be added that management can not serve on the Board, clause 9.1 a. In addition, management personnel can not function as practicing immigration consultants, authorized immigration consultants who work in management of the regulator must take an approved leave of absence from their role as a practicing consultant.
Clarification needs to be added that if the past chair is not a current Director then the position is vacant, this would potentially have been an issue as in John’s view he was entitled to the Director’s compensation even if he was not on the Board if he held the position of past chair, the clause is 9.7 e.
• Accountability to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration needs to be added.
Requirement
• Detailed process for achieving transparency and accountability for the membership, the Public and the Minister,
Response objective:
• Minutes and agendas for open meetings are made available to the CSIC members, the Public and the Minister in a timely manner,
• The audited statements for CSIC, CMI plus any other organization directly linked to CSIC are to be made available to the CSIC members, the Public and the Minister,
• A complete report by individual Board member on the compensation, expense remuneration and special perks (an example would be a laptop computer) provided to the individual Board members is disclosed to the CSIC members and the Minister. The expense remuneration shall include items paid directly by the CSIC office on behalf of a Board member, for example such items as flight and hotel costs to attend Board meetings, membership fees, registration fees to attend conferences, etc. The report should form part of the report provided to the Board by the auditor,
• The CSIC membership is to be provided an opportunity to make comments about new policies or revisions to policies being considered by the CSIC Board.
• CSIC needs to work with the professional associations on the development of programs for the development of the profession, this includes for example CPD credits.
Requirement
• A plan needs to be implemented to improve the ethical conduct of CSIC members and provide support to CSIC members with ethical concerns
Response objective:
• Do more courses on ethics with a requirement that must take a review course every one year (two years – basically a predetermined time frame),
• Maybe contract with an independent ethics counsellor who is accessible on a confidential basis for members to call to consult with, the information of course would not be shared with the CSIC management or Board. As a result of these calls the counsellor make some general suggestions on issues which should be addressed in training seminars,
• perhaps a Bulletin Board moderator could be contracted (maybe this can be a staff member) to review the material posted on the Bulletin Boards to comment on strictly the tone of the postings and not the content. The problem in the past was that staff were not allowed to function in this area as John wanted to control the Bulletin Board. The concept is to keep the postings civil.
Requirement
• Detailed measures to improve the openness of the election process for the Board positions, even the most recent election conducted by CSIC has some very significant flaws in terms of being fair,
Response objective:
• I would suggest that the Elections Canada Returning Officer (or designate) be asked to review the current CSIC elections process and make a recommendation on changes which should be made to that process,
• Call for new elections (when the option is implemented) for the consultant directors under the jurisdiction of a completely separate individual or body, for example I would suggest that the Elections Canada Returning Officer (or designate) is named as the person to appoint a Senior Elections Officer to run the CSIC elections,
• In the event that a Director’s position becomes vacant then the external Elections Canada person should supervise the filling of the position. The reason is that in the present circumstances there was a move by the Board to make the application criteria tailored to one specific individual.
• Future changes to the elections process can only be made with the concurrence of the Elections Canada Returning Officer (or designate),
• The Elections Canada Returning Officer (or designate) is to prepare a report after each election which shall include comments on the operation of the election and fairness of the election. This report shall be made available to the Board, the CSIC members and the public.
Requirement
• Proposal on the compensation for the Directors of the regulatory organization,
Response objective:
• An external report is to be prepared for submission to the membership for approval, the author of this report is to use other professional self regulated organizations (Doctors, Lawyers, Accountant, etc) as a reference.
Requirement
• Process for the appointment of the public interest members to the Board of the regulatory organization,
Response objective:
• This is included in the specifications if the specifications do not include a reference to the requirements for a joint response between CSIC and an association within the profession. As the changing of the by-laws to have the Minister appoint the public interest Directors would be mandatory.
Requirement
Requirement to wind up CMI would include:
• Process for allowing CPD credits through other professional organizations including professional consultant organizations,
Response objective:
• This is included in the specifications if the specifications do not include a reference to the requirements for a joint response between CSIC and an association within the profession. I basically see this as being covered by the increased transparency plus the involvement of the professional associations in the operation of CMI which could be transferred to CAPIC.
Requirement
• Procedures to insure the complaints and discipline component of the regulatory organization remains independent of the Board of Directors for the regulatory organization. This was highlighted in the evaluation that was done on MARA in Australia as the perception by all stakeholders was that they did not have confidence in the MARA complaints and discipline process. In my opinion it is absolutely essential to introduce steps to insure the Board of the self regulatory organization can not become involved in the complaints and discipline process, the Minister, the public and the members must see that the process is operating fairly as well the perception by all stakeholders must be that the process is operating fairly.
Response Objective:
• Provide for the establishment of a three person advisory Committee for the complaints and discipline department. The membership of the committee should consist of a senior individual from Immigration Canada, an individual with a highly respected legal reputation from outside the immigration consulting community and someone from the CSIC Board of Directors.
• The mandate of this committee would be to:
o provide policy advice to the CSIC Board and the complaints and discipline department,
o Provide advice on the effectiveness of the complaints and discipline process.
Potentially this policy and monitoring advice would have to be binding recommendations to the Board, this is an item which would need to be examined in greater detail.
• The committee will additionally be responsible for providing an annual report to the Board and to the Minister.
Requirement
• Proposed response to a future review of the Regulatory organization by CIC,
Response Objective:
• The Minister could build into this response or the contract for operating the regulator the review process similar to the situation which operated in Australia, if the regulator (or CSIC for that matter) did not satisfactorily meets its mandate at least the government would have a option for dealing with the matter in the future.
Requirement
• Outline the proposed process for responding to recommendation # 6 of the report issued in June 2008 by the Standing Committee for Citizenship and Immigration as per below:
Recommendation # 6 – The Committee recommends that the relevant federal regulatory and enforcement authorities (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada Border Services Agency, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, Canada Revenue Agency) work with provincial partners (provincial governments, law societies) to coordinate investigation, communication and enforcement efforts so as to ensure that unregistered immigration consultants are either referred to provincial law societies for sanction, or are prosecuted under existing federal provisions, depending on the nature of the person’s practice. Such federal provisions include, but are not limited to, the general contravention provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, provisions under the Criminal Code, and federal tax law. No later than four months after this report is presented in the House of Commons, a lead agency should be named to coordinate investigation, communication and enforcement efforts.
Response objective:
• I would suggest that the Minister request as part of the reporting requirements for CSIC that a meeting be held at least quarterly (more or less frequently may be more appropriate) under the Chairmanship of CIC. Participants should include the Directors (or designates) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Board, the RCMP, the Canadian Board Services Agency, Canada Revenue Agency, the Federation of Law Societies and the CEO of CSIC with as a minimum a mandate to coordinate investigations, communication and enforcement efforts so as to ensure that unregistered immigration consultants are either referred to provincial law societies for sanction, or are prosecuted under existing federal provisions, depending on the nature of the person’s practice. Such federal provisions include, but are not limited to, the general contravention provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, provisions under the Criminal Code, and federal tax law.
Such meetings would also facilitate any concerns about the practice of authorized immigration consultants and such matters which should be drawn to the attention of the authorized immigration consultants. These meetings would also serve as a check and balance to insure that CSIC was fulfilling its role appropriately. One important criterion I believe which again is part of the checks and balances is that it is the CEO of CSIC who is appointed to this committee and not the CSIC Board Chair. The reporting (which could vary from time to time as specified by the Minister) could be as frequently as the meetings or once per year, it could be in writing or in person, I just feel it is important that the process be established.
Requirement
• Reporting function
Response objective:
• Include the current reports which are provides to the members plus these report should also form part of the annual report provided to the Minister,
• A complete report by individual Board member on the compensation, expense remuneration and special perks (example would be a laptop computer) provided to the individual Board members. The expense remuneration shall include items paid directly by the CSIC office on behalf of a Board member, for example such items as flight and hotel costs to attend Board meetings, membership fees, registration fees to attend conferences, etc. The report should form part of the report provided annually to the Board by the auditor and the Board shall include this information in the annual report to the CSIC members and the Minister,
• The audited financial statements for CMI should be disclosed separately annually to the members and to the as part of the annual report to the Minister,
• The government appointees should file a separate annual report to the Minister on their view of the operation of CSIC,
• At the completion of the annual election process the Senior Election Official shall file an independent report to the members, the Board and the Minister about the effectiveness and fairness of the election process,
• The CSIC Complaints and Discipline Advisory Committee shall file a report annually with the Minister and the CSIC Board on the effectiveness of the complaints and discipline process, this report should as a minimum comment of the effectiveness of the complaints and discipline process and the responsiveness of the Board to making the system effective.
• The CSIC Board in its annual report to the Minister shall include all the information referred to above in the reporting function plus any additional information which may be requested by the Minister from time to time.
• Provision for an Ombudsman to deal with membership complaints about the Board and/or administration.
Appendix II - Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants – presented to the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - May 2003
Executive Summary of the Report
RECOMMENDATION 1. The Committee recommends that the Minister exercise broadly the authority conferred by Parliament under Section 91 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), recognize the right to counsel of the persons referred to in Section 91, and ensure that such counsel are regulated with respect to the widest possible range of immigration proceedings and applications.
RECOMMENDATION 2. In order to bar an individual from practising as an immigration practitioner, the regulations should clearly define who may practise and what organizations are recognized as regulators for the purpose of the IRPA.
RECOMMENDATION 3. The Committee recommends the following definitions:
Counsel refers to a barrister or solicitor, or to a licensed immigration consultant. Other Representative refers to a person who, without collecting any fee, remuneration or other benefit whatsoever, represents or advises a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).
RECOMMENDATION 4. The Committee further recommends that Canadian embassies, consulates and high commissions deal only with those individuals who fall within Recommendation 3.
RECOMMENDATION 5. The Committee recommends that membership be denied to persons who cannot demonstrate to the regulatory body’s satisfaction that their immigration consulting business is sufficiently linked to Canada to permit proper enforcement of the regulatory body’s by-laws and rules of conduct.
RECOMMENDATION 6. The Chair of the Board should be elected by the board members. A mechanism should be set up to provide for ongoing communication between the Department, the Minister and the Chair to ensure that the regulatory body carries out its responsibilities in a manner that has the full support of the Department and the Minister.
RECOMMENDATION 7. The Committee recommends the creation of a statutory, self-regulatory body for the regulation of immigration consultants. Its Board should be appointed for an initial period of two years, with one third of its members from the consulting community.
RECOMMENDATION 8. The Committee recommends that, after an initial two-year start-up period for the regulatory agency, the composition of its board be, in the majority, immigration counsel as selected by their peers.
RECOMMENDATION 9. The Committee strongly recommends that the appointed board during its two-year term complete work on the development and implementation of the following:
• a code of conduct
• a complaint and discipline mechanism
• a compensation fund
• liability insurance
• development and provision of bilingual services to the public
• proper internal and external administrative procedures
• location of office space
• a budget development process
• staffing
• a national education program for the ongoing educational process necessary to this model
RECOMMENDATION 10. The Committee recommends that Citizenship and Immigration Canada compensate the Chair and board members at a rate commensurate with that of persons sitting as directors at similar size corporations until such time as the authority can sustain itself on membership fees.
RECOMMENDATION 11. By-laws changing the remuneration of the Chair and the board should be subject to the approval of the members.
RECOMMENDATION 12. The Committee recommends that Citizenship and Immigration Canada compensate the staff of the regulatory authority until such time as the authority can sustain itself on membership fees.
RECOMMENDATION 13. The Committee recommends that the start-up costs for the regulatory body be paid for by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The costs of sustaining the regulatory body, however, should be paid for by fees charged to its members.
RECOMMENDATION 14. The process by which regulation takes place should be transparent. Applicants for registration should know the requirements they are expected to meet, as well as the time frame within which a decision on their application will be made. Decisions denying membership should be accompanied by reasons.
RECOMMENDATION 15. The complaints process should be simple and accessible to the public and available in a multilingual format.
RECOMMENDATION 16. The Committee recommends that members be required to carry a minimum of $1,000,000 in liability insurance.
RECOMMENDATION 17. The Committee recommends the establishment of a compensation fund for the victims of dishonest consultants.
RECOMMENDATION 18. Lawyers and their employees should be permitted to become members of the body regulating immigration consultants provided they comply with its conditions for membership; however, they should not be required to do so as a condition precedent to practising citizenship and immigration law.
RECOMMENDATION 19. The public should be able to determine, at no cost, whether a person is or is not a member of the regulatory body.
RECOMMENDATION 20. NGOs that offer services at no cost to immigrants and refugees should be exempt from regulation by the Regulatory Body.
RECOMMENDATION 21. NGOs providing immigration information, advice or representation should undertake appropriate steps and initiatives to examine their role, responsibilities and obligations regarding their work in this area. Part of this process could include examining all opportunities to upgrade the education and competence of their staff and/or representatives.
RECOMMENDATION 22. Intergovernmental bodies or other organizations operating overseas that charge fees to immigrants or refugees should be regarded as consultants and be subject to the authority of the Regulatory Body.
RECOMMENDATION 23. The Committee endorses the DACUM Chart, Analysis and Report appended to this report as an essential tool for determining occupational duties and professional requirements and using these as the basis to develop a curriculum.
RECOMMENDATION 24. It is recommended that all individuals applying for registration provide police certificates or similar evidence to substantiate that they do not have any bars to their eligibility.
RECOMMENDATION 25. The Committee recommends that an education program be established for those wishing to be registered, to be administered by the regulatory body through authorized education agents.
RECOMMENDATION 26. The Committee recommends that the regulatory body develop detailed levels of practice, which would permit consultants to apply for registration based on their level and area(s) of experience.
RECOMMENDATION 27. The Committee recommends the establishment of mandatory continuing professional education programs.
RECOMMENDATION 28. The Committee recommends that the regulatory body establish requirements for language proficiency in one of Canada’s official languages, and develop language assessment based on third-party language testing.
RECOMMENDATION 29. The Committee strongly recommends creation of a disciplinary body, with attention to issues of independence of the body, access, safeguards with respect to confidentiality, and cost of use, inspired by complaint mechanisms that have been developed by provincial bar associations.
RECOMMENDATION 30. The Committee recommends adoption of a Code of Conduct, to be subject to ongoing review and modification, and proposes a Draft Code of Conduct for consideration as part of this Report.
RECOMMENDATION 31. The Committee recommends that penalty provisions be included in the IRPA to address unauthorized and improper practice. Proposals for such statutory provisions are included in this Report.
RECOMMENDATION 32. Guidelines should be developed concerning disqualification of a regulated consultant from being licensed, or for revoking an existing licence. The Committee recommends that the disciplinary body be accorded the discretion to consider disqualification for such causes as criminal conviction, personal bankruptcy, sanctions from the disciplinary body, and interruptions of practice for more than five years, on a case-by-case basis.
RECOMMENDATION 33. Consistent with the Committee’s recommendation to establish an independent body under Section 91 of the IRPA, the Non-share Capital Corporation created under part II of the Canada Corporations Act would allow the regulatory body to establish the authority to censor; fine; suspend/revoke a licence; refer to law enforcement authorities; investigate; and refuse membership through the creation of corporate by-laws.
RECOMMENDATION 34. In view of requirements for resources, which include physical plant, staffing, a compensation fund and operating capital, the Committee
Recommends that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration secure funding of $1.75 million for the creation of a new body to regulate the activities of consultants. The Committee further recommends that the Minister enter into discussions with the governing council of the new body to negotiate the terms of seeding and repayment requirements, should the Minister conclude that repayment of the seed capital is appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION 35. The Regulatory Authority should develop criteria for transitional provisions to allow for the licensing/certification of professional immigration consultants who are already in practice.
RECOMMENDATION 36. The Committee recommends that Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board ensure widespread availability of accurate information about the regulation of immigration consultants by means of reviewing all information materials currently in use, developing new materials as required, and educating appropriate personnel. The Committee also recommends that accessibility be ensured by providing information through a series of meetings and the location of information/orientation officers both in Canada and overseas.
RECOMMENDATION 37. The Committee recommends that the regulatory body develop an ongoing program of outreach, information and orientation; and that it develop a mechanism for regular communication and interaction with lawyers’ associations, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Board, the RCMP and other appropriate agencies, in particular those in the education and justice sectors.
Appendix III - Current information on the operation of the Regulatory Authority (MARA) in Australia
About Us
The Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (Office of the MARA) is a discrete office attached to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. The functions of the Office of the MARA are set out in s316 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
Establishment of the Office of the MARA
The 2007-08 Review of Statutory Self-Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession (the Review) recommended significant changes to the regulation of the migration advice profession in Australia. A key recommendation was that the Government consider establishing alternative regulatory arrangements to address a number of issues and concerns raised by both consumers and members of the industry.
In that context, on 9 February 2009, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, announced new arrangements to govern migration agents. Under these new arrangements, the Office of the MARA) was established on 1 July 2009. The Office of the MARA is led by a Chief Executive Officer who reports directly to the Secretary of the Department. Key objectives are to ensure that:
• only suitable persons are registered as migration agents, and unsuitable persons are refused registration or re-registration
• registered agents maintain appropriate knowledge to enable them to provide accurate advice to consumers
• all complaints about the services of registered, or formerly registered migration agents are appropriately addressed
• the Office of the MARA works collaboratively with the department and other bodies such as prosecuting or regulatory authorities to address the activities of agents outside its mandate
• Consumers understand their rights and agents understand their obligations under the regulatory framework.
The Office of the MARA is supported by an Advisory Board which includes a diverse range of interests, including a nominee from the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA), a nominee of the Law council of Australia (LCA), a community representative and a consumer advocate. The Advisory Board was appointed on 13 August 2009 and announced in a media release by Senator Chris Evans.
Advisory board appointed to guide new migration agent regulator
The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, today announced the appointment of an advisory board to guide the newly established Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA).
The board, which comprises a representative of the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA), the Law Council of Australia, community and consumer advocates, will be chaired by former lawyer and secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department, Robert Cornall.
“I believe that Mr. Cornall’s expertise and experience in both the public and legal sectors will be fundamental to the success of the board, which in turn will play a key role in the success of the new regulatory arrangements,” Senator Evans said.
Joining Mr. Cornall on the board will be:
• Jenni Mack, Choice Australia, representing consumer groups and deputy chair of the board
• Sonia Caton, Refugee and Immigration Legal Service, representing the not-for-profit immigration assistance sector
• Glenn Ferguson, Ferguson Cannon Lawyers, representing the Law Council of Australia
• Robert Stirling Henry, formerly of Stirling Henry Migration Services, representing the Migration Institute of Australia
• Andrew Holloway, Victoria University, representing the university sector
• Jim McKiernan, former senator, representing the community sector.
The new Office of the MARA commenced operating as regulator of the migration advice profession on July 1, replacing the system established in 1998 where the profession was regulated by the MIA.
Christine Sykes, CEO of the Office of the MARA, and a representative from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship will also serve on the advisory board. Other membership may be considered by the minister from time to time.
Both the advisory board and the Office of the MARA were established after recommendations of the 2007–08 Review of Statutory Self-Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession, which found dissatisfaction amongst consumers and potential conflicts of interest in previous arrangements.
The review recommended that the government establish a regulatory body separate from the MIA to regulate the activities of the Australian migration advice profession to provide consumers with appropriate protection and assurance.
"Unprofessional or unethical behaviour by migration agents can seriously impact on the lives of people using their services and bring the profession into disrepute,” Senator Evans said.
“The new office will implement the relevant recommendations of the review, remove concerns about potential conflicts of interest and provide confidence in the regulation of the migration agent industry.”
• Companion Documents referred to in this discussion paper
o 2007-08 Review of Statutory Self Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession – Final Report May 2008 (Australian Document)
o CSIC By-Laws
o Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – May 2003 (Canadian Document)
o CSIC Annual Report 2008-2009
o Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration report June 2008
o Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration report June 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)