CSIC Chair Nigel Thomson Fraudulent LMO application

11ARRlSfER& SOLlcrroR


Certified by the Law Society or Upper Canada as a ·Speciallst" in Immigration Law

E-MAIL ctrqC@yahoocom

245 Fairview Mall Drive, Suite 308

Toronto, Oolano. Canada M2J 411

Tel: 416·907·8245 Fax: 416-498·8395

August 24, 20 I 0

Honourable Jason Kenny

Min ister of Citi zenship and Immigration

lean-Edmonds iluilding South Tower

365 Laurier Avenue West 21

s,

Floor

Ottawa, Ontario

KIA III

Dear Minister Kenny,

SENT VIA EMAIL : mi nister@cic.gc.ca

I am \vriting to you in the capacity of co-editor of the monthly magazine ImmQuest while

at the same time, as a senior counsel with status as a specialist in immigration. desiring

both your attention and direction to what is being put forward as an ambigui ty. This

alleged ambiguity exists in a system which purports to recognize a job olTer in writing

entitled an Arranged Employment Opinion (A EO). This AEO, if bona fide. and

recognized by Service Canada, provides an advantage to a skilled worker applicant in his

assessment and makes a difference between passing and fail ing. My take. by way of

general interpretation of the regulations is that the promotion of this system was designed

to bring the skilled worker more quickly 10 Canada 10 fuifillihe employer 's demands. It

has always been a problem, that the fluctuation in the demand for skilled workers,

suffered from the inabi lity of processi ng limes to meet those needs. ,

I was thus s urprised 10 fi nd o ut from lhe senior ethical leader of the Canadian Society of

Immigration Consultants (CSIC) one Mr. Nigel TIlOmson, suppo rted by o ne solicitor of

long tenure from Vancouver, Mr. Richard McPhee. that they had ascertained an

ambiguity in the system. They were able to put forward a very convincing argument to

your visa office in Berlin that the bona fides of an AEO was of no concern to the visa

officer and that it was not hi s j urisdiction to question the matter once Service Canada

provided its certifi cate. Imyselr cannot credit this argument for I do nOI see where this

argument can be made under the circumstances. a fort io ri. if there appear to the visa

officer to be abnormalities. what is he to do? Is he to lie sti ll? Some visa officers have

phoned the employers themselves with mixed results as to the employer's knowledge of

the employee or the reason for the continued demand. There is one federal coun case in

which sllch a deci s ion was criticized saying that the visa officer should have been

sufficiently satisfied where Ihe communicat ion for the need for the job was sati sfied in

Canada. This ease is being tOll ted by McPhee et al for ambiguity_It does not do the reputation of either CSIC or \vlr. McPhee to put forward this argument


hecause it wi thheld from the purvuc of both the visa officer and Service Canada a

"disclaimer" in which the employer was exculpated from any demands by the employee

if as and when he managed 10 get 10 Canada and a written acknowledgement that in

effect, this was not a cont ract! The disclaimer states that the applicant is fuJly aware that

the Arranged Employment ofleL in fact. docs not mean there is really a job waiting in

Canada.

[t is hard to bel ieve that a process which is said to be one in which the obligation exists to

produce exact material fact to both Serv ice Canada and to the visa offiee is beyond me.

This practice cannot be j ustified. The job offer is very specific about the fact it is a

written con ~rac t of an indeterminate nature. The disclaimer and the AEO co ntradict

themselves. The obl igation of solicitors toward the production of all material facts is

outstanding alllhe time.

My repor1ing nature prods me into wri ting this 1elter by reason of the two enclosed pieces

of co rrespondence in which the disclaimer is open ly displayed in paragraph 3 of this

communi cat ion. It has been sent to all consultants who, charmed by the extraordinary

opportunity to make money, do not realize that bOlh Thomson and McPhee can avoid the

obligation of candOllr by saying that they were not the ones who submitted the

application to Immigration, therefore the Illlmigration Act section on Criminality and

Inadmissibil ity do not bind them. Therefore they can carryon their paper writing

machine in the way that doesn't bother the ir ethics or the Immigration Department.

I note that you have pre-published rcgulations which will mcan a lot more if you take an

open and publ ic stand against this practice. [ bel ieve it should be the Minister of

Immigrat ion that should do this bec<luse this si lly sitlmtion hHS gotll:n quite out of hand. [

have several of my CSIC clien ts who arc invol ved in this fashioll with Thomson and

McPhee. There <lrc outstanding matters of professional concern between my cl ient and

CSIC but how can he possibly get a fa ir deal oul of an organization in which the head of

that organiLa tion is the person that got him involved in the problem in the first place?

I understilild from other sources Ih<lt there arc many other people trapped in this kind of

eonni ct.

I really would like you to speak directl y on this. I have enclosed herewith a wri ti ng

which was printed by Mr. Thomson on the need to be ethical and parading CS IC as an

example of the need for their professional community to be taught ethics and to follow

the leader.

I intend to publish an article about this matter and [ do need the Minister's input on my

comments Hnd on the problems I have described above. In so doing I think it is the

starting point for a remedy that doe~ not (hrow the baby oul with the bath water. A

simple maller would requi re a better disclosure as tu why (he employer needs the

employee and why he is willing to wait for him or her for a stipulated period, say 12months and_ lastly. indicating to the employer that the visa officer may want to interview


them so Ihat he should provide a phone number and a time and place fo r a convenient

interview. On the other hand a process could be established such as to make permane nt

resident visas and work visas condi tional upon the demonstration that they arc in Canada

and working at the specific place of cmployment for 6 months after landing and if not,

they arc suhject to 11 report under section 44. So the lack of bona fides would be the

reason for inadm issibili ty to be pursued. Misrepresentation by agents can be covered by

report ing the matter to the local police authority as to whether lhe offence has been

committed. This may be one such way of dealing with the matter.

Thank you vcry kindl y. I remain.

Cecil Rotenberg. QC

Co-Editor lmmquest magazine

Clr~; gc

ce. I leidi Smith, Cit

Sand ra I-larder: CIC

Les Linklater: CIC

Cam Carruthers. IIRSDC Di rector 01' Integri ty

Enc losures