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•Many members had little choice but to pay $800 each to buy an outdated educational video in order to obtain sufficient continuing professional development points to maintain their CSIC membership;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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)