In the Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants, the Committee noted that: "Most importantly, the public interest and the needs of immigrants and refugees would be kept at the forefront of the Committee's deliberations.". This report forms the basis for the establishment if the Canadian Society of immigration Consultants (CSIC). One of the greatest challenges facing those involved in the self-regulation of immigration consultants is to place the public interest and the needs of immigrants and refugees at the forefront.
The proposal to replace CSIC with ICCRC has nit placed at the forefront the public interest and the needs of immigrants and refugees. Instead, the self-interest of immigration consultants, specifically those involved with CAPIC, have been at the forefront. CAPIC is the immigration consultants' trade association that is now the proposed new regulator ICCRC.
The public interest and the needs of immigrants and refugees is served by having high ethical and competency standards, and a fair and effective complaints and discipline mechanism for holding members accountable for misconduct. The ICCRC has, as of now, no publicized rules or ethical standards, no paid Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirements, and a complaints and discipline process that is under the control of ICCRC board, not independent experts knowledgeable of standards of professionalism.
The emphasis of ICCRC is on the short-sighted needs of immigration consultants to lower costs, minimize standards to avoid harm to the members' business interests, and ensure ICCRC board members can control who and in what circumstances an immigration consultant is to be disciplined. The result is in fact detrimental to the long-term interests of immigration consultants, who cannot compete on an equal footing with lawyers. The Law Societies require high standards of professionalism and competency, have an independent disciplinary decision-making process, and possess a clear public protection mandate. If you were an immigrant or refugee, would you choose to hire an immigration consultant with a regulator that protects immigration consultants, or one that protects immigrants?
Thursday 23 June 2011
Wednesday 22 June 2011
Hobbes: Life in Immigration Consulting Under ICCRC & Kenney is Nasty, Brutish & Short
The ICCRC offers deregulation of immigration consultants; chasing ghost consultants rather then effectively regulating and disciplining ICCRC members, minimal professional standards including no paid Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programs and entry of revoked CSIC Members, and ICCRC Board protection of friends who engage in misconduct, as final disciplinary decision-making lies with the ICCRC Board. No rules of ethical conduct, no consumer protection provisions, and no procedural fairness in disciplinary decision-making. Based on all publicly available information today, the rule of law is completely absent from ICCRC.
Thomas Hobbes sets out the attributes of a society without government or law, referred to as the state of nature. In such a state, people do not work hard, because they are unsure if their hard work will bear any positive results; people do not seek higher knowledge, because their future is uncertain; people live in continual fear in a state of "war of all against all". "The life of man (is) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." According to Hobbes, we as people must give up some of our rights in exchange for the protection of a sovereign authority. We are informed by Hobbes that we must accept abuse of power by those in a position of authority as the price to pay for living in a society without war.
All of us involved on a day to day basis with immigration consulting are living in a metaphorical Hobbesian world. Minister Kenney is the sovereign authority engaging in abuse of his power to the benefit of ICCRC/CAPIC for unknown reasons. We are told by ICCRC/CAPIC that we must accept the Minister's authority, and his decision despite clear unequivocal evidence that the Minister abused his power to support friends of senior Citizenship & Immigration Canada (CIC) officials such as Les Linklater.
Those of us who have worked hard to improve the immigration consulting profession have had our hard work destroyed. Seeking higher knowledge is not viable since the future of immigration consulting is uncertain. As a result of the power vested in the Minister of Immigration, especially through Bill C35, he may at any time get rid of the regulator without any need to justify his actions. We live in fear as the war amongst immigration consultants is turned by the support of a Minister who seeks to exercise power arbitrarily without any need to answer to the allegations of acting against the public interest. The life of an immigration consultant regulator, and of those involved in immigration consulting, is nasty, brutish, and short.
We know where ICCRC supporters stand. They want their noses at the trough; to indulge in the power, riches and self-interest at the expense of protecting vulnerable immigrants and the Canadian public interest. Those of us who outspokenly do not support ICCRC's self-interested power grab appear to be the lone voices in a world that does not care about the public interest or protecting immigrants. Is there anyone else out there?
Thomas Hobbes sets out the attributes of a society without government or law, referred to as the state of nature. In such a state, people do not work hard, because they are unsure if their hard work will bear any positive results; people do not seek higher knowledge, because their future is uncertain; people live in continual fear in a state of "war of all against all". "The life of man (is) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." According to Hobbes, we as people must give up some of our rights in exchange for the protection of a sovereign authority. We are informed by Hobbes that we must accept abuse of power by those in a position of authority as the price to pay for living in a society without war.
All of us involved on a day to day basis with immigration consulting are living in a metaphorical Hobbesian world. Minister Kenney is the sovereign authority engaging in abuse of his power to the benefit of ICCRC/CAPIC for unknown reasons. We are told by ICCRC/CAPIC that we must accept the Minister's authority, and his decision despite clear unequivocal evidence that the Minister abused his power to support friends of senior Citizenship & Immigration Canada (CIC) officials such as Les Linklater.
Those of us who have worked hard to improve the immigration consulting profession have had our hard work destroyed. Seeking higher knowledge is not viable since the future of immigration consulting is uncertain. As a result of the power vested in the Minister of Immigration, especially through Bill C35, he may at any time get rid of the regulator without any need to justify his actions. We live in fear as the war amongst immigration consultants is turned by the support of a Minister who seeks to exercise power arbitrarily without any need to answer to the allegations of acting against the public interest. The life of an immigration consultant regulator, and of those involved in immigration consulting, is nasty, brutish, and short.
We know where ICCRC supporters stand. They want their noses at the trough; to indulge in the power, riches and self-interest at the expense of protecting vulnerable immigrants and the Canadian public interest. Those of us who outspokenly do not support ICCRC's self-interested power grab appear to be the lone voices in a world that does not care about the public interest or protecting immigrants. Is there anyone else out there?
Tuesday 21 June 2011
LeBlanc's Dumpster Diving at CIC
According to David LeBlanc, on ICCRC's Facebook page, the Gazette was supposed to publish the change in regulator from CSIC to ICCRC on June 22, that is tomorrow. Apparently, he has inside knowledge that there is a delay at CIC, and so instead the change will be published on July 6. How does he have insight into what is going on behind the scenes at Citizenship & Immigration Canada (CIC)? He appears to be dumpster diving at CIC, seeking morsels of hope that the deregulation of immigration consultants through ICCRC will proceed promptly.
Is David LeBlanc a reliable source for information on what is happening inside CIC? If the change is published on July 6 as LeBlanc claims, there can be no stronger proof that the process for choosing ICCRC was biased, and predetermined to favour the friends of Assistant Deputy Minister Les Linklater, particularly Phil Mooney. LeBlanc's dumpster diving is an example that is reflective of the entire selection process that resulted in the Minister and CIC supporting the professional standards reflected in David LeBlanc's unprofessional comments on ICCRC's Facebook page, Phil Mooney's influence peddling, and Jeffrey Hemlin's serious professional misconduct leading to his revocation from CSIC. How many competent, ethical, and highly professional immigration consultants will want to have their reputation associated with the standards set by ICCRC/CAPIC?
Is David LeBlanc a reliable source for information on what is happening inside CIC? If the change is published on July 6 as LeBlanc claims, there can be no stronger proof that the process for choosing ICCRC was biased, and predetermined to favour the friends of Assistant Deputy Minister Les Linklater, particularly Phil Mooney. LeBlanc's dumpster diving is an example that is reflective of the entire selection process that resulted in the Minister and CIC supporting the professional standards reflected in David LeBlanc's unprofessional comments on ICCRC's Facebook page, Phil Mooney's influence peddling, and Jeffrey Hemlin's serious professional misconduct leading to his revocation from CSIC. How many competent, ethical, and highly professional immigration consultants will want to have their reputation associated with the standards set by ICCRC/CAPIC?
Monday 20 June 2011
Machiavellianism: Deceit in the Regulation of Immigration Consultants
Machiavellian is defined as "cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous especially in politics or in advancing one's career." Machiavelli justifies the manipulation and deceit of people for the purposes of exercising and consolidating political power.
How does Minister Kenney exercise power over immigration consultants? By labeling them all "Crooked consultants", indicating immigrants should distrust immigration consultants regardless of whether they are a ghost consultant, or a regulated professional immigration consultant. Minister Kenney essentially leads immigrants to believe they should not trust an immigration consultants, and if something goes wrong in the immigration process the immigrant should blame the "crooked consultant", not his department, Citizenship & Immigration Canada (CIC) or the immigrant themselves for the problems that arise. The Minister thus appears, in his own narrative, to be free from blameworthiness for any problemd encountered in the immigration system.
Turning to another example of Machiavellianism in regulating immigration consultants, Phil Mooney is President/CEO of the proposed new regulator of immigration consultants. He has exercised his machiavellian power by blaming CSIC and John Ryan for every problem associated with regulating immigration consultants, to divert attention from the role CAPIC, the immigration consultant advocacy group that has consistently hindered any attempts to regulate their conduct in the public interest.
For example, as CAPIC President he continuously attacked CSIC rather than promoting the improvement of the immigration consulting profession. He questioned high membership fees, using misrepresented numbers that failed to distinguish between fees, insurance, and payment for continuing professional development (CPD) programs. The "high" fees of $5,000+ thus were in fact the combination of fees, insurance and CPD programs. The ICCRC's proposed "lower fees" exclude insurance or costs for CPD, thus the lower fees of $1500 are a misrepresentation; the illusion will be further challenged when ICCRC realizes the fees are not sufficient to fund a fully functioning regulatory body. ICCRC is not a functioning regulatory body, and hence can offer lower costs to those of a robust, fully-operational regulatory body.
Both Minister Kenney and Phil Mooney suggest that CSIC has failed to effectively regulate it's members. Yet there are 21 ongoing disciplinary hearings, publicized on CSIC's website, all of which will be shut down as a result of the proposal to replace CSIC with ICCRC. Hence, who can be properly identified as failing to effectively regulate immigration consultants? Under the circumstances, we can conclude that Kenney and Mooney are failing to effectively regulate immigration consultants. Interestingly, Mooney's ICCRC has publicly advised that they intend to go after ghost consultants rather than their members. Since ghost consultants are outside of the jurisdiction of the regulator, there will be no disciplinary hearings by ICCRC whose resources will be used to chase ghosts rather than their own members.
Deceit and duplicity for the purpose of consolidating power; Machiavelli's Prince lives on in the regulation of immigration consultants through Minister Jason Kenney and Phil Mooney.
How does Minister Kenney exercise power over immigration consultants? By labeling them all "Crooked consultants", indicating immigrants should distrust immigration consultants regardless of whether they are a ghost consultant, or a regulated professional immigration consultant. Minister Kenney essentially leads immigrants to believe they should not trust an immigration consultants, and if something goes wrong in the immigration process the immigrant should blame the "crooked consultant", not his department, Citizenship & Immigration Canada (CIC) or the immigrant themselves for the problems that arise. The Minister thus appears, in his own narrative, to be free from blameworthiness for any problemd encountered in the immigration system.
Turning to another example of Machiavellianism in regulating immigration consultants, Phil Mooney is President/CEO of the proposed new regulator of immigration consultants. He has exercised his machiavellian power by blaming CSIC and John Ryan for every problem associated with regulating immigration consultants, to divert attention from the role CAPIC, the immigration consultant advocacy group that has consistently hindered any attempts to regulate their conduct in the public interest.
For example, as CAPIC President he continuously attacked CSIC rather than promoting the improvement of the immigration consulting profession. He questioned high membership fees, using misrepresented numbers that failed to distinguish between fees, insurance, and payment for continuing professional development (CPD) programs. The "high" fees of $5,000+ thus were in fact the combination of fees, insurance and CPD programs. The ICCRC's proposed "lower fees" exclude insurance or costs for CPD, thus the lower fees of $1500 are a misrepresentation; the illusion will be further challenged when ICCRC realizes the fees are not sufficient to fund a fully functioning regulatory body. ICCRC is not a functioning regulatory body, and hence can offer lower costs to those of a robust, fully-operational regulatory body.
Both Minister Kenney and Phil Mooney suggest that CSIC has failed to effectively regulate it's members. Yet there are 21 ongoing disciplinary hearings, publicized on CSIC's website, all of which will be shut down as a result of the proposal to replace CSIC with ICCRC. Hence, who can be properly identified as failing to effectively regulate immigration consultants? Under the circumstances, we can conclude that Kenney and Mooney are failing to effectively regulate immigration consultants. Interestingly, Mooney's ICCRC has publicly advised that they intend to go after ghost consultants rather than their members. Since ghost consultants are outside of the jurisdiction of the regulator, there will be no disciplinary hearings by ICCRC whose resources will be used to chase ghosts rather than their own members.
Deceit and duplicity for the purpose of consolidating power; Machiavelli's Prince lives on in the regulation of immigration consultants through Minister Jason Kenney and Phil Mooney.
Friday 17 June 2011
The Empty Suit: ICCRC & Harper's Pretending to Protect Immigrants and Refugee Act
The ICCRC was sold to the public as the proposed new regulator of immigration consultants who Minister Kenney claimed "...will provide better transparency, openness and accountability to protect the Canadian public - especially those using the services of an immigration consultant." Interestingly, the ICCRC's website provides no information on what rules, policies, or by-laws will be put in place to ensure the competency and ethics of it's members: "Upon the coming into force of the Regulations, measures will be put in place to protect all individuals who may use the services of immigration consultants." What measures will be put into place? No one knows. ICCRC, Citizenship & Immigration Canada (CIC) and the Minister may not even know! Despite claims of transparency, openness and accountability to the Canadian public, the ICCRC is an unknown entity, whose standards are not publicized or accessible to any member of the public.
Some lofty claims have been made to suggest the ICCRC will go after ghost consultants (despite lacking jurisdiction or power over non-members); will ensure ethics and competency of it's members (with unknown rules, and no requirements to complete specific paid education programs to maintain standards); and will promote program integrity (not consumer protection in the public interest, but program integrity in CIC's interests). The ICCRC is thus an immigration body, part of CIC, and not a regulatory body, independent from the government; and thus it is favorable to the interests of the government over vulnerable immigrants and refugees.
The ICCRC is, based on all publicly available information, an Empty Suit. The proposed new regulator offers only the most rudimentary appearance of being a regulator. The body exists only to promote the appearance that the government of Canada and Minister Kenney care about protecting immigrants. Truthfully, the government of Canada, Minister Kenney, and CIC, care only about keeping out the queue jumpers. The Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act should more appropriately be named the Pretending to Protect Immigrants and Refugee Act under the Harper Government.
The Harper government, Minister Kenney, and CIC, care only about the appearance of protecting the public interest; there is no protection for immigrants or refugees under the CPC. The ICCRC has no more interest in protecting immigrants or refugees, except to the extent that they can become rich off their vulnerability. The country club of immigration consultants under ICCRC will ensure their own financial interests are protected, while immigrants continue to get ripped off by the crooked consultants.
Some lofty claims have been made to suggest the ICCRC will go after ghost consultants (despite lacking jurisdiction or power over non-members); will ensure ethics and competency of it's members (with unknown rules, and no requirements to complete specific paid education programs to maintain standards); and will promote program integrity (not consumer protection in the public interest, but program integrity in CIC's interests). The ICCRC is thus an immigration body, part of CIC, and not a regulatory body, independent from the government; and thus it is favorable to the interests of the government over vulnerable immigrants and refugees.
The ICCRC is, based on all publicly available information, an Empty Suit. The proposed new regulator offers only the most rudimentary appearance of being a regulator. The body exists only to promote the appearance that the government of Canada and Minister Kenney care about protecting immigrants. Truthfully, the government of Canada, Minister Kenney, and CIC, care only about keeping out the queue jumpers. The Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act should more appropriately be named the Pretending to Protect Immigrants and Refugee Act under the Harper Government.
The Harper government, Minister Kenney, and CIC, care only about the appearance of protecting the public interest; there is no protection for immigrants or refugees under the CPC. The ICCRC has no more interest in protecting immigrants or refugees, except to the extent that they can become rich off their vulnerability. The country club of immigration consultants under ICCRC will ensure their own financial interests are protected, while immigrants continue to get ripped off by the crooked consultants.
Thursday 16 June 2011
CPC's GTA Empire Set to Crumble As Jason Kenney Gives Crooked Consultants Get Out of Jail Free Card
Minister Kenney claims credit for the CPC majority win by gaining the support of immigrant voters in the GTA. What Jason Kenney doesn't want immigrants to know is that he sold them out to crooked consultants by proposing ICCRC, an inexperienced regulator that protects the interests of immigration consultants, to replace CSIC, an experienced regulator that protects immigrants from crooked consultants.
According to the ICCRC website: "Individuals who are members of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) as of March 19, 2011 will be grandfathered into the Council." The CSIC Members whose names are listed on CSIC's website as facing a disciplinary hearing are members in good-standing with CSIC as of March 19, 2011. The South Asian and Chinese communities in the GTA will be very familiar with the names on CSIC's website of immigration consultants facing disciplinary hearings. Imagine the outrage when residents of Toronto, Mississauga and Brampton come to learn that Jason Kenney and the ICCRC granted WWICS (Parvinder and Devinder Sandhu) of Mississauga, CWC (Gurpreet and Kamalpreet Khaira) of Brampton, Anoo Lal and Sukjinder Sandhu, also of Mississauga-Brampton free passes to continue ripping off immigrants. A Get Out if Jail Free Card has been issued to crooked consultants, especially operating in the GTA.
ICCRC's website also notes that "The qualification of past members of CSIC will be reviewed based upon the reasons for the revocation of their membership and their conduct while they were non-members." Sukjinder Sandhu was revoked by CSIC's discipline council. He was found to have lied to his clients, lied to the investigator and lied to the discipline council. ICCRC allows Sukjinder Sandhu and other revoked CSIC Members to join ICCRC. CAPIC President Jeffrey Hemlin is currently arguing, before Federal Court, that CSIC's discipline council has no jurisdiction to discipline CSIC Members. By Jeffrey Hemlin's own argument, CSIC's discipline council had no jurisdiction to revoke Sukjinder Sandhu's membership! ICCRC cannot refuse entry to Sukjinder Sandhu without calling into question Jeffrey Hemlin's own argument at Federal Court!
Revoked CSIC Members, those who could not meet CSIC standards of competency and ethics, often operate as ghost consultants after revocation and hence have been unaccountable for ripping off immigrants. These individuals will be able to join ICCRC. On canadavisa.com's immigration forum, someone who appears to be Sukjinder Sandhu noted that ICCRC would be replacing CSIC, and promoted his company Arrival Canada which "....would be back in business shortly too." If CSIC continued as regulator Arrival Canada and Sukjinder Sandhu could not legally operate in Canada. ICCRC will allow him to continue to operate. There are 1000 revoked CSIC members, so consider Sukjinder Sandhu to be just a drop in the bucket of crooked consultants that will be able to operate legally through ICCRC.
Please take note of the following, to all CPC MPs in the GTA: Jason Kenney is from Calgary and he does not have to deal with the heart-breaking stories of his own constituents who were ripped off by one of the immigration consultants listed on CSIC's website. CPC MPs in the GTA, your necks are on the line. How will your constituents respond, knowing that your government gave CSIC members operating in your community a free pass to continue ripping off your constiuents.
CSIC may be replaced. However, voicecanada.ca will continue to expose the truth until Jason Kenney's Protecting Crooked Consultants Act is known by the Canadian public for the fact that it gives crooked consultants a get out of jail free card to continue ripping off immigrants.
According to the ICCRC website: "Individuals who are members of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) as of March 19, 2011 will be grandfathered into the Council." The CSIC Members whose names are listed on CSIC's website as facing a disciplinary hearing are members in good-standing with CSIC as of March 19, 2011. The South Asian and Chinese communities in the GTA will be very familiar with the names on CSIC's website of immigration consultants facing disciplinary hearings. Imagine the outrage when residents of Toronto, Mississauga and Brampton come to learn that Jason Kenney and the ICCRC granted WWICS (Parvinder and Devinder Sandhu) of Mississauga, CWC (Gurpreet and Kamalpreet Khaira) of Brampton, Anoo Lal and Sukjinder Sandhu, also of Mississauga-Brampton free passes to continue ripping off immigrants. A Get Out if Jail Free Card has been issued to crooked consultants, especially operating in the GTA.
ICCRC's website also notes that "The qualification of past members of CSIC will be reviewed based upon the reasons for the revocation of their membership and their conduct while they were non-members." Sukjinder Sandhu was revoked by CSIC's discipline council. He was found to have lied to his clients, lied to the investigator and lied to the discipline council. ICCRC allows Sukjinder Sandhu and other revoked CSIC Members to join ICCRC. CAPIC President Jeffrey Hemlin is currently arguing, before Federal Court, that CSIC's discipline council has no jurisdiction to discipline CSIC Members. By Jeffrey Hemlin's own argument, CSIC's discipline council had no jurisdiction to revoke Sukjinder Sandhu's membership! ICCRC cannot refuse entry to Sukjinder Sandhu without calling into question Jeffrey Hemlin's own argument at Federal Court!
Revoked CSIC Members, those who could not meet CSIC standards of competency and ethics, often operate as ghost consultants after revocation and hence have been unaccountable for ripping off immigrants. These individuals will be able to join ICCRC. On canadavisa.com's immigration forum, someone who appears to be Sukjinder Sandhu noted that ICCRC would be replacing CSIC, and promoted his company Arrival Canada which "....would be back in business shortly too." If CSIC continued as regulator Arrival Canada and Sukjinder Sandhu could not legally operate in Canada. ICCRC will allow him to continue to operate. There are 1000 revoked CSIC members, so consider Sukjinder Sandhu to be just a drop in the bucket of crooked consultants that will be able to operate legally through ICCRC.
Please take note of the following, to all CPC MPs in the GTA: Jason Kenney is from Calgary and he does not have to deal with the heart-breaking stories of his own constituents who were ripped off by one of the immigration consultants listed on CSIC's website. CPC MPs in the GTA, your necks are on the line. How will your constituents respond, knowing that your government gave CSIC members operating in your community a free pass to continue ripping off your constiuents.
CSIC may be replaced. However, voicecanada.ca will continue to expose the truth until Jason Kenney's Protecting Crooked Consultants Act is known by the Canadian public for the fact that it gives crooked consultants a get out of jail free card to continue ripping off immigrants.
Wednesday 15 June 2011
ICCRC: Waiting for Godot (Are we the Regulator Yet Phil Mooney?)
In Waiting for Godot, two men wait endlessly for Godot, who never arrives. Will Godot arrive and save Phil Mooney and Jeffrey Hemlin's anticipated power and control over the regulator in their own financial interests?
Does Minister Kenney care about ICCRC now that he is part of a majority government and can do whatever he wants; even re-establishing CSIC as a federal statutory body as recommended by the Standing Committee in 2008? Will Kenney put his future goal of becoming Prime Minister in jeopardy by endorsing crooked consultants, and the incompetent ICCRC who harbors them?
Will Citizenship & Immigration Canada (CIC) senior officials put their own professional reputation at risk by supporting Jeffrey Hemlin's misconduct towards a Provincial Nominee Program (PNP), CIC (selling signed blank Use of Representative forms to a ghost consultant) and the regulator, CSIC (submitting a false declaration). Will CIC senior officials such as Les Linklater, Mark Davidson and Sandra Harder also risk the airing of public accusations that they have been involved in influence peddling by Phil Mooney to get himself appointed the head of the proposed new regulator?
What will be CSIC's legal response now that their application for a stay has been dismissed? Will CSIC file another stay application if the publication in the Canada Gazette proceeds? What will happen with CSIC's leave and judicial review application? What will be the response when people realize that all the disciplinary hearings on CSIC's website, and all the investigations are halted by the change in regulator? What if the media comes to know that every CSIC Member under investigation or at a hearing is given a clean slate by joining ICCRC?
What will happen when members of ICCRC realize not only are they competing with lawyers and each other for business, they are also competing with revoked CSIC members who have been let into ICCRC? What will be the response if ICCRC becomes regulator, and the members' fees are jacked up once the ICCRC realizes it is impossible to regulate 1900 transitioned CSIC members + 1000 revoked CSIC members + chase ghost consultants on a shoestring budget and only 18 staff? What will occur if the ICCRC then tries to revoke the incompetent and unethical members, who on judicial review will have the decision quashed due to a lack of procedural fairness in ICCRC disciplinary decision-making?
ICCRC, Mooney and Hemlin in particular are waiting for Godot. Godot may come; but the "paradise" of having control of the regulator will quickly come to be known as the hell found in Sartre's play No Exit. CSIC and CAPIC/ICCRC are locked in a room for eternity, declaring "Hell is other Regulators!". CSIC constantly lists CAPIC's evil attributes (Hemlin for example), while CAPIC deems CSIC evil ("high" membership fees being attributed to greed of course, not need of money to regulate, for example). The Minister has entered the room as they torture each other in a never ending stream of litigation, media campaigns, and disciplinary decisions. The Minister, if he was smart, would walk away and close the door rather than taking sides in the never-ending civil war between deregulation through ICCRC, and regulation through CSIC.
Jason Kenney...walk away while you still can, if you want to avoid a public inquiry. By proposing ICCRC, you have deregulated immigration consultants; you support crooked consultants who have ripped off immigrants and now can escape accountability and discipline by joining ICCRC; and you have endorsed the incompetent ICCRC! Whose downfall will be provoked once people become aware that the selection of ICCRC is support for crooked consultants and not the public interest; Phil Mooney, Jeffrey Hemlin, Les Linklater, Mark Davidson, or Jason Kenney?
Does Minister Kenney care about ICCRC now that he is part of a majority government and can do whatever he wants; even re-establishing CSIC as a federal statutory body as recommended by the Standing Committee in 2008? Will Kenney put his future goal of becoming Prime Minister in jeopardy by endorsing crooked consultants, and the incompetent ICCRC who harbors them?
Will Citizenship & Immigration Canada (CIC) senior officials put their own professional reputation at risk by supporting Jeffrey Hemlin's misconduct towards a Provincial Nominee Program (PNP), CIC (selling signed blank Use of Representative forms to a ghost consultant) and the regulator, CSIC (submitting a false declaration). Will CIC senior officials such as Les Linklater, Mark Davidson and Sandra Harder also risk the airing of public accusations that they have been involved in influence peddling by Phil Mooney to get himself appointed the head of the proposed new regulator?
What will be CSIC's legal response now that their application for a stay has been dismissed? Will CSIC file another stay application if the publication in the Canada Gazette proceeds? What will happen with CSIC's leave and judicial review application? What will be the response when people realize that all the disciplinary hearings on CSIC's website, and all the investigations are halted by the change in regulator? What if the media comes to know that every CSIC Member under investigation or at a hearing is given a clean slate by joining ICCRC?
What will happen when members of ICCRC realize not only are they competing with lawyers and each other for business, they are also competing with revoked CSIC members who have been let into ICCRC? What will be the response if ICCRC becomes regulator, and the members' fees are jacked up once the ICCRC realizes it is impossible to regulate 1900 transitioned CSIC members + 1000 revoked CSIC members + chase ghost consultants on a shoestring budget and only 18 staff? What will occur if the ICCRC then tries to revoke the incompetent and unethical members, who on judicial review will have the decision quashed due to a lack of procedural fairness in ICCRC disciplinary decision-making?
ICCRC, Mooney and Hemlin in particular are waiting for Godot. Godot may come; but the "paradise" of having control of the regulator will quickly come to be known as the hell found in Sartre's play No Exit. CSIC and CAPIC/ICCRC are locked in a room for eternity, declaring "Hell is other Regulators!". CSIC constantly lists CAPIC's evil attributes (Hemlin for example), while CAPIC deems CSIC evil ("high" membership fees being attributed to greed of course, not need of money to regulate, for example). The Minister has entered the room as they torture each other in a never ending stream of litigation, media campaigns, and disciplinary decisions. The Minister, if he was smart, would walk away and close the door rather than taking sides in the never-ending civil war between deregulation through ICCRC, and regulation through CSIC.
Jason Kenney...walk away while you still can, if you want to avoid a public inquiry. By proposing ICCRC, you have deregulated immigration consultants; you support crooked consultants who have ripped off immigrants and now can escape accountability and discipline by joining ICCRC; and you have endorsed the incompetent ICCRC! Whose downfall will be provoked once people become aware that the selection of ICCRC is support for crooked consultants and not the public interest; Phil Mooney, Jeffrey Hemlin, Les Linklater, Mark Davidson, or Jason Kenney?
Tuesday 14 June 2011
CAPIC/ Phil Mooney are the Source of Criticisms of CSIC
Minister Kenney, as we know, has proposed that The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) be replaced with ICCRC/CAPIC, a body whose only qualification for the job is that they are the source of criticisms of CSIC. The Minister justifies the change by referring to allegations that were made by CAPIC at the Standing Committee in 2008; newspaper articles that publicized CAPIC accusations against CSIC; and articles published in the Toronto Star in 2007. Have you noticed a common theme in the source of these allegations? CAPIC and the media, all referring to matters that took place in 2008 or earlier. Can you believe that such a massive change, destroying all the work of one regulator, CSIC, and setting up a trade association, CAPIC, a body with no regulatory experience, no infrastructure and no staff is the result of CAPIC's self-interested criticisms of CSIC??
First the Toronto Star articles in 2007. The CSIC Members involved were disciplined: Simao went to a discipline hearing and Gurpreet and Kamalpreet Khaira almost went to a discipline hearing but ended up cooperating according to CSIC's website. Considering it is now 2011 it is fair to say the information is stale and no longer relevant.
In July 2008, the federal court reviewed CSIC's structure and deemed CSIC to be the proper regulator of immigration consultants. Just prior to that decision, in June 2008 the Standing Committee heard complaints from CAPIC members, claiming that CSIC membership fees were too high, and, essentially,they were dissatisfied with CSIC board's reported lack of accountability and transparency. Apparently, having CSIC's board being elected by CSIC members was not sufficient to address this complaint ( interestingly, quite similar accusations about a lack of transparency and accountability have been made against the federal Tories). CAPIC accusations have been transformed into a claimed lack of public confidence in CSIC. In fact, Phil Mooney, President and CEO of ICCRC and his supporters have a lack of confidence in CSIC, because they were not able to control the regulator. Most members of the Canadian public don't even know that CSIC exists!
The newspaper articles in which CAPIC criticizes CSIC are no more than Phil Mooney and his supporters airing their complaints about CSIC in the newspapers. Many of us watching CAPIC's conduct for years have known that their only goal has been to destroy CSIC and set themselves up as the new regulator. So now Phil Mooney and his supporters can control how membership fees are spent, and can set up a regulator where the interests of immigration consultants are promoted at the expense of the public interest.
You can thank Minister Kenney for the Protecting Crooked Consultants Act, promoting the ICCRC cartel over the public interest.
First the Toronto Star articles in 2007. The CSIC Members involved were disciplined: Simao went to a discipline hearing and Gurpreet and Kamalpreet Khaira almost went to a discipline hearing but ended up cooperating according to CSIC's website. Considering it is now 2011 it is fair to say the information is stale and no longer relevant.
In July 2008, the federal court reviewed CSIC's structure and deemed CSIC to be the proper regulator of immigration consultants. Just prior to that decision, in June 2008 the Standing Committee heard complaints from CAPIC members, claiming that CSIC membership fees were too high, and, essentially,they were dissatisfied with CSIC board's reported lack of accountability and transparency. Apparently, having CSIC's board being elected by CSIC members was not sufficient to address this complaint ( interestingly, quite similar accusations about a lack of transparency and accountability have been made against the federal Tories). CAPIC accusations have been transformed into a claimed lack of public confidence in CSIC. In fact, Phil Mooney, President and CEO of ICCRC and his supporters have a lack of confidence in CSIC, because they were not able to control the regulator. Most members of the Canadian public don't even know that CSIC exists!
The newspaper articles in which CAPIC criticizes CSIC are no more than Phil Mooney and his supporters airing their complaints about CSIC in the newspapers. Many of us watching CAPIC's conduct for years have known that their only goal has been to destroy CSIC and set themselves up as the new regulator. So now Phil Mooney and his supporters can control how membership fees are spent, and can set up a regulator where the interests of immigration consultants are promoted at the expense of the public interest.
You can thank Minister Kenney for the Protecting Crooked Consultants Act, promoting the ICCRC cartel over the public interest.
Monday 13 June 2011
What Happens if the Proposed Change in Regulator Proceeds?
CSIC filed a motion, asking the Federal Court for a stay to prevent the Minister from proceeding with the regulatory changes until CSIC's judicial review application was heard and decided on. That motion was dismissed. So now, what will happen if the Minister proceeds to replace CSIC with ICCRC?
ICCRC has no staff, other than Phil Mooney's friends who have been given plum positions on ICCRC's interim board. There currently is no one to whom files could be transferred. Eventually ICCRC may hire staff, however none of the staff will have any experience or knowledge on the process of registering immigration consultants. The chances of any CSIC staff working at ICCRC are remote; ICCRC will have to figure it out for themselves, with a transitional period involving 1900 CSIC members and only 120 days in which to complete the transition. Good luck! I am sure Phil Mooney will make sure his friends are transitioned first...the infamous Jeffrey Hemlin will be top priority despite his revocation!
CSIC Members would probably quickly stop paying fees to CSIC. CSIC staff will likely find other employment too. Who will pay for the transition of files from CSIC, and if CSIC staff leaves during the transition period, how will files get transferred to ICCRC before the end of that 120 day period? Good luck! Again, Phil Mooney's friends will get top priority leaving it to everyone else to pray that whoever remains at CSIC during the transition period will get to your file within that 120 day transition period.
The first CSIC Members to register at ICCRC, after CAPIC and Phil Mooney's friends, will be the ones at disciplinary hearings with CSIC right now. Anoo Lal, Parvinder and Devinder Sandhu, Gurpreet and Kamalpreet Khaira, Ding Yan, Joan Raymond, Jun Cheng, and Jeffrey Hemlin. As CSIC Members in good standing, they can register with ICCRC without any difficulty, expecting that CSIC's jurisdiction will end once they join ICCRC. These Members, I suspect, can hire very expensive lawyers to make sure they have no problems becoming ICCRC members very quickly. These lawyers will be very quick to file for judicial review if ICCRC makes any mistakes. Good luck to those of you who can't afford an expensive lawyer, you will have to fight for yourself!
ICCRC has no infrastructure whatsoever. ICCRC operates out of Phil Mooney's office in Burlington, and has no capacity for handling the registration of 1900 CSIC Members within 120 days. They have been busy spending money from CIC on town hall meetings, paying Phil Mooney's office rent, and making ridiculous public announcements about chasing ghost consultants; and advising everyone who is listening that the ICCRC is 100% guaranteed to be the new regulator of immigration consultants. That doesn't leave much money to pay for the infrastructure required to properly register members, and commence effectively regulating these members. Good luck to everyone out there whose livelihoods depend on ICCRC competence and capacity to register every CSIC Member before the end of the transitional period!
CSIC's leave and judicial review application will not go away, although ICCRC will like to starve CSIC from funding for the legal action. Stay tuned to see what will happen there!
ICCRC has no staff, other than Phil Mooney's friends who have been given plum positions on ICCRC's interim board. There currently is no one to whom files could be transferred. Eventually ICCRC may hire staff, however none of the staff will have any experience or knowledge on the process of registering immigration consultants. The chances of any CSIC staff working at ICCRC are remote; ICCRC will have to figure it out for themselves, with a transitional period involving 1900 CSIC members and only 120 days in which to complete the transition. Good luck! I am sure Phil Mooney will make sure his friends are transitioned first...the infamous Jeffrey Hemlin will be top priority despite his revocation!
CSIC Members would probably quickly stop paying fees to CSIC. CSIC staff will likely find other employment too. Who will pay for the transition of files from CSIC, and if CSIC staff leaves during the transition period, how will files get transferred to ICCRC before the end of that 120 day period? Good luck! Again, Phil Mooney's friends will get top priority leaving it to everyone else to pray that whoever remains at CSIC during the transition period will get to your file within that 120 day transition period.
The first CSIC Members to register at ICCRC, after CAPIC and Phil Mooney's friends, will be the ones at disciplinary hearings with CSIC right now. Anoo Lal, Parvinder and Devinder Sandhu, Gurpreet and Kamalpreet Khaira, Ding Yan, Joan Raymond, Jun Cheng, and Jeffrey Hemlin. As CSIC Members in good standing, they can register with ICCRC without any difficulty, expecting that CSIC's jurisdiction will end once they join ICCRC. These Members, I suspect, can hire very expensive lawyers to make sure they have no problems becoming ICCRC members very quickly. These lawyers will be very quick to file for judicial review if ICCRC makes any mistakes. Good luck to those of you who can't afford an expensive lawyer, you will have to fight for yourself!
ICCRC has no infrastructure whatsoever. ICCRC operates out of Phil Mooney's office in Burlington, and has no capacity for handling the registration of 1900 CSIC Members within 120 days. They have been busy spending money from CIC on town hall meetings, paying Phil Mooney's office rent, and making ridiculous public announcements about chasing ghost consultants; and advising everyone who is listening that the ICCRC is 100% guaranteed to be the new regulator of immigration consultants. That doesn't leave much money to pay for the infrastructure required to properly register members, and commence effectively regulating these members. Good luck to everyone out there whose livelihoods depend on ICCRC competence and capacity to register every CSIC Member before the end of the transitional period!
CSIC's leave and judicial review application will not go away, although ICCRC will like to starve CSIC from funding for the legal action. Stay tuned to see what will happen there!
Friday 10 June 2011
The Dismissal of CSIC's Stay Application: What Now?
The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)'s motion for a stay, asking the judge to stop the Minister from publishing in Part II of the Canada Gazette the change in regulator, was dismissed. The judge ruled that because the final decision has not yet been made by the Minister as to whether or not the change in regulator will be made, CSIC had not met the test to be granted a stay.
No doubt, the ICCRC and their supporters will have you believe that the decision means that soon they will become the regulator. Of course, legal and political processes are not so simple and straightforward, even if, like Phil Mooney, you appear to have influence peddled your way into a position of power. The Federal Court will now have to consider CSIC's application for leave and judicial review. The Minister may decide to proceed with the regulatory changes, but then presumably CSIC would have grounds to apply again for a stay. The judge's decision in this case was based on the fact that no final decision had yet been made; thus CSIC would have had a much stronger case if a final decision was made. What will be the final outcome of this decision? No one knows, not even Phil Mooney or the Minister!
Why is ICCRC busy spending the money from CIC (taxpayers money) on town hall meetings with members and Phil Mooney's office space, rather than waiting to spend the money on actually regulating their members? Why does no one actually look at ICCRC, their leaders, their structure and call out "The Emperor Has No Clothes"... ICCRC is promoting their personal self-interest in power, protecting their friends from regulatory accountability, and ensuring their friends get the large paychecks through Directors' positions. Phil Mooney cronyism appears to be the future of immigration consultants. That is, until a new Minister looks at their conduct and ends self-regulation of immigration consultants.
The future of immigration consultants is to become like the Paralegals, controlled by the lawyers through the Law Society of Upper Canada. Or government regulation....probably as enjoyable as a Canada Revenue Agency audit!
No doubt, the ICCRC and their supporters will have you believe that the decision means that soon they will become the regulator. Of course, legal and political processes are not so simple and straightforward, even if, like Phil Mooney, you appear to have influence peddled your way into a position of power. The Federal Court will now have to consider CSIC's application for leave and judicial review. The Minister may decide to proceed with the regulatory changes, but then presumably CSIC would have grounds to apply again for a stay. The judge's decision in this case was based on the fact that no final decision had yet been made; thus CSIC would have had a much stronger case if a final decision was made. What will be the final outcome of this decision? No one knows, not even Phil Mooney or the Minister!
Why is ICCRC busy spending the money from CIC (taxpayers money) on town hall meetings with members and Phil Mooney's office space, rather than waiting to spend the money on actually regulating their members? Why does no one actually look at ICCRC, their leaders, their structure and call out "The Emperor Has No Clothes"... ICCRC is promoting their personal self-interest in power, protecting their friends from regulatory accountability, and ensuring their friends get the large paychecks through Directors' positions. Phil Mooney cronyism appears to be the future of immigration consultants. That is, until a new Minister looks at their conduct and ends self-regulation of immigration consultants.
The future of immigration consultants is to become like the Paralegals, controlled by the lawyers through the Law Society of Upper Canada. Or government regulation....probably as enjoyable as a Canada Revenue Agency audit!
Thursday 9 June 2011
Phil Mooney Using $1 million CIC Funding for his Own Office Rent!
At the ICCRC town hall meeting, Phil Mooney, the self-appointed President/CEO of the proposed immigration regulator ICCRC, advised where ICCRC funding was from. He said that $1 million was provided by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). ICCRC was incorporated on February 18, 2011 at 1100 Burloak Drive, Suite 300, Burlington, Ontario. Interestingly, Phil Mooney's business address is 1100 Burloak Drive, Suite 300, Burlington! ICCRC has no authority, it is not the regulator, and yet from February 18, 2011 until now and continuing indefinitely until the legal and political processes are completed, CIC is paying Phil Mooney's office rent!! Imagine what Phil Mooney will do with Members' money if he is spending CIC's money for ICCRC on his own office space!
Despite lacking any authority, and ignoring the fact that legal (CSIC's judicial review) and political (publication in Part II of the Canada Gazette) processes are ongoing, the ICCRC are also spending CIC (taxpayers) money on self-promotion at Town Hall meetings. CIC has in fact put out a bulletin advising that immigration consultants must remain members in good standing of CSIC until, when and if, the regulations come into effect. Yet CIC's message is undercut by ICCRC, who continue to mislead the public and CSIC Members to believe the regulatory changes will take place any day, and the outcome is pre-determined. ICCRC states that members in good standing as of March 19, 2011 can join ICCRC...yet ICCRC was not, and still is not the regulator as of today, June 9.
ICCRC have put out extremely vague job postings; it would appear that almost anyone is qualified to be Registrar/Education Manager/Director of Complaints and Discipline! Also, good luck Mr. Mooney getting any highly-qualified person to work in Burlington! Clearly Burlington was chosen for the convenience of Phil Mooney, not accessibility to the public, members, or staff! Maybe that's the point, Phil Mooney will hire his friends for the jobs, continuing the pattern of cronyism, because he won't get any remotely skilled person to apply. Now we know where the rest of the $1 million will be spent...paying staff until whenever, and if ever, the political and legal processes finish and if Minister Kenney &CIC have still not woken up to the incompetence of ICCRC!
Despite lacking any authority, and ignoring the fact that legal (CSIC's judicial review) and political (publication in Part II of the Canada Gazette) processes are ongoing, the ICCRC are also spending CIC (taxpayers) money on self-promotion at Town Hall meetings. CIC has in fact put out a bulletin advising that immigration consultants must remain members in good standing of CSIC until, when and if, the regulations come into effect. Yet CIC's message is undercut by ICCRC, who continue to mislead the public and CSIC Members to believe the regulatory changes will take place any day, and the outcome is pre-determined. ICCRC states that members in good standing as of March 19, 2011 can join ICCRC...yet ICCRC was not, and still is not the regulator as of today, June 9.
ICCRC have put out extremely vague job postings; it would appear that almost anyone is qualified to be Registrar/Education Manager/Director of Complaints and Discipline! Also, good luck Mr. Mooney getting any highly-qualified person to work in Burlington! Clearly Burlington was chosen for the convenience of Phil Mooney, not accessibility to the public, members, or staff! Maybe that's the point, Phil Mooney will hire his friends for the jobs, continuing the pattern of cronyism, because he won't get any remotely skilled person to apply. Now we know where the rest of the $1 million will be spent...paying staff until whenever, and if ever, the political and legal processes finish and if Minister Kenney &CIC have still not woken up to the incompetence of ICCRC!
Wednesday 8 June 2011
Kenney's Public Statements Contradict Choice of ICCRC
Minister Kenney stated on September 21, 2010 that his Act, formerly known as the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, had the support of legitimate consultants, such as the President of the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC). The Acting President of CAPIC at that time was Jeffrey Hemlin, who was well-known to be the subject of a disciplinary hearing. After this statement was made, Hemlin was revoked by CSIC's independent discipline council and ordered to pay costs of $50,000 for signing a false declaration, engaging in a conflict of interest by exercising control over his investor clients' assets, and signing and selling blank Use of Representative forms to his ghost agent. Despite the disciplinary decision against Hemlin, Kenney selected CAPIC's bid, through the ICCRC, to be regulator of immigration consultants. Is the conduct of Hemlin that of an immigration consultant that the Minister considers a legitimate consultant?
Minister Kenney also said, on the same date that: "What we are looking for is a regulator who can support Canada's immediate and long-term immigration objectives while working at building confidence in our immigration system." ICCRC has publicized their intent to promote program integrity and go after ghost consultants despite lacking jurisdiction or power over non-Members. The ICCRC is thus an immigration agency protecting CIC's interests, and going after their competitors, the ghost consultants. Of course, one wonders that if the CBSA doesn't have the resources to go after ghosts, how does ICCRC? ICCRC has no consumer protection provisions, and thus cannot be deemed a professional regulator. They are a cartel supporting the interests of CIC and immigration consultants and not the public interest.
Minister Kenney also indicated in September 21, 2010 that: "The successful candidate must show that it can effectively investigate the conduct of it's members and sanction those who do not play by the rules." There is no publicly available information to show how ICCRC will effectively investigate and sanction Members; in fact thus far they have advised they will go after ghost constants not their own Members. Considering there are no provisions in place to ensure the continuation of CSIC's disciplinary hearings, ICCRC has demonstrated the opposite of the intent of Minister Kenney as described in this quote. Further, ICCRC competency to investigate and sanction members is questionable since their disciplinary process lacks procedural fairness; it is also a highly convoluted unworkable strategy designed to ensure ICCRC Board Members will control disciplinary decision making. Since Hemlin continues as President of CAPIC, we can be sure that ICCRC will protect their friends, such as Hemlin, from discipline.
Again on the same date, Minister Kenney spoke of transitional provisions for the registration of CSIC Members with ICCRC. What has never been addressed is what will happen to the investigation files and disciplinary hearings? What about the disciplinary records of CSIC Members? How about revoked CSIC Members, who are also able to join ICCRC? EVERYONE can join ICCRC, without any consideration of their conduct while they were a CSIC Member, or after their membership with CSIC was revoked. By considering the transition to be one of registration with the new body, rather than an assessment of their competency and disciplinary history, the interests of immigrants and the Canadian public are unprotected.
Minister Kenney also said, on the same date that: "What we are looking for is a regulator who can support Canada's immediate and long-term immigration objectives while working at building confidence in our immigration system." ICCRC has publicized their intent to promote program integrity and go after ghost consultants despite lacking jurisdiction or power over non-Members. The ICCRC is thus an immigration agency protecting CIC's interests, and going after their competitors, the ghost consultants. Of course, one wonders that if the CBSA doesn't have the resources to go after ghosts, how does ICCRC? ICCRC has no consumer protection provisions, and thus cannot be deemed a professional regulator. They are a cartel supporting the interests of CIC and immigration consultants and not the public interest.
Minister Kenney also indicated in September 21, 2010 that: "The successful candidate must show that it can effectively investigate the conduct of it's members and sanction those who do not play by the rules." There is no publicly available information to show how ICCRC will effectively investigate and sanction Members; in fact thus far they have advised they will go after ghost constants not their own Members. Considering there are no provisions in place to ensure the continuation of CSIC's disciplinary hearings, ICCRC has demonstrated the opposite of the intent of Minister Kenney as described in this quote. Further, ICCRC competency to investigate and sanction members is questionable since their disciplinary process lacks procedural fairness; it is also a highly convoluted unworkable strategy designed to ensure ICCRC Board Members will control disciplinary decision making. Since Hemlin continues as President of CAPIC, we can be sure that ICCRC will protect their friends, such as Hemlin, from discipline.
Again on the same date, Minister Kenney spoke of transitional provisions for the registration of CSIC Members with ICCRC. What has never been addressed is what will happen to the investigation files and disciplinary hearings? What about the disciplinary records of CSIC Members? How about revoked CSIC Members, who are also able to join ICCRC? EVERYONE can join ICCRC, without any consideration of their conduct while they were a CSIC Member, or after their membership with CSIC was revoked. By considering the transition to be one of registration with the new body, rather than an assessment of their competency and disciplinary history, the interests of immigrants and the Canadian public are unprotected.
Tuesday 7 June 2011
Dirty Politics in the Regulation of Immigration Consultants
Mark Davidson from Citizenship & Immigration Canada (CIC) sat on CSIC's board in the beginning. He left the board, and CSIC no longer had any government officials on their board. Yet when the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) went after CSIC, CIC was on the same side as CSIC at Federal Court. Ultimately, CSIC and CIC won the case in a decision that was issued in July 2008; the LSUC's application to the Supreme Court for Leave to Appeal was dismissed in December 2008. The Federal Court of Appeal decision confirmed that CSIC was sufficiently independent from the government so that the sub-delegation of authority to CSIC was not a threat to solicitor-client privilege. Thus, CSIC was deemed to be the proper body to regulate immigration consultants, and one wonders if Mark Davidson had still been on CSIC's board if the court would still perceive CSIC as independent from the government.
IP9, CIC's operational manual gets introduced in the meantime, authorizing anyone to complete immigration work prior to the submission of the application. So, CIC is supporting CSIC's authority to regulate authorized immigration consultants; yet at the same time, they are stating explicitly that it is ok for anyone to charge a fee for work that is completed prior to the submission of an application. CIC is undercutting CSIC's authority, and openly supporting ghost consultants allowing them to operate outside of CSIC's jurisdiction! At the same time, the Standing Committee in June 2008 is telling the government they need to impose sanctions against ghost consultants to protect the public.
CIC's support for ghost consultants in IP9 is thus completely contradictory to their standing with CSIC before the Federal Court, and the recommendations of the Standing Committee! Now, after endorsing ghost consultants through IP9, and supporting CSIC right up to at least July 2008 when the Federal Court decision was issued, CIC now turns against those who do pre-submission work as per IP9, and CSIC, whose real problem according to the Standing Committee report, was the fact that CSIC was never given the tools needed to succeed.
ICCRC's only proposals thus far are to get rid of CSIC, transparency to Members (nothing about regulating their Members) and going after the ghost consultants rather than regulating their own Members. Has ICCRC made some secret deal with CIC to clean up and hide the mess that was created by CIC policies up to June 2010? Is CIC's support for ICCRC self-interested, hoping to scapegoat CSIC to divert everyone's attention from the mess they have created; an immigration system plagued by fraudulent job offers and marriages of convenience facilitated by IP9s endorsement of ghost consultants?
IP9, CIC's operational manual gets introduced in the meantime, authorizing anyone to complete immigration work prior to the submission of the application. So, CIC is supporting CSIC's authority to regulate authorized immigration consultants; yet at the same time, they are stating explicitly that it is ok for anyone to charge a fee for work that is completed prior to the submission of an application. CIC is undercutting CSIC's authority, and openly supporting ghost consultants allowing them to operate outside of CSIC's jurisdiction! At the same time, the Standing Committee in June 2008 is telling the government they need to impose sanctions against ghost consultants to protect the public.
CIC's support for ghost consultants in IP9 is thus completely contradictory to their standing with CSIC before the Federal Court, and the recommendations of the Standing Committee! Now, after endorsing ghost consultants through IP9, and supporting CSIC right up to at least July 2008 when the Federal Court decision was issued, CIC now turns against those who do pre-submission work as per IP9, and CSIC, whose real problem according to the Standing Committee report, was the fact that CSIC was never given the tools needed to succeed.
ICCRC's only proposals thus far are to get rid of CSIC, transparency to Members (nothing about regulating their Members) and going after the ghost consultants rather than regulating their own Members. Has ICCRC made some secret deal with CIC to clean up and hide the mess that was created by CIC policies up to June 2010? Is CIC's support for ICCRC self-interested, hoping to scapegoat CSIC to divert everyone's attention from the mess they have created; an immigration system plagued by fraudulent job offers and marriages of convenience facilitated by IP9s endorsement of ghost consultants?
Monday 6 June 2011
CIC Endorsed Crooked Consultants - Blames CSIC for the Problems
Minister Jason Kenney and Citizenship & Immigration Canada (CIC) blame the crooked consultants for the broken immigration system. Ghosts were unregulated, and in fact have been endorsed by CIC for seven years through IP9, CIC's operational manual that legitimizes ghost consulting prior to the submission of the application.
In 2003, the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants recommended that CIC impose sanctions on ghost consultants, and in 2008 and 2009 the Standing Committee again advised CIC to amend IP 9 and penalize ghost consultants. The Standing Committee Report in 2008 in fact said that CSIC had never been given the tools to succeed, and a key tool was penalizing ghost consultants. CIC and the Minister took no action, and now rather than admitting their role in the flourishing practice of legitimized ghost consultants through IP9, they blame CSIC as the scapegoat. The Minister and CIC have misled Canadians to believe that changing the regulator will fix the problem. Actually, ICCRC instead has established a monopoly over the business, and ghosts will simply work as agents of immigration lawyers and ICCRC members to gain legitimacy. Cronyism rather than regulation is the future of immigration consulting under ICCRC.
Another example is in the rise in fraudulent job offers which was the result of Minister Kenney's de-emphasis on skills as qualification for Permanent Residence, and greater emphasis on job offers. To apply for immigration with a job offer, you must first apply to HRSDC, or Service Canada, for a Labour Market Opinion (LMO) or an Arranged Employment Opinion (AEO). You do not need to be an authorized representative to apply for an LMO or AEO. Ghost consultants, through IP9, were legitimately able to get an LMO or an AEO based on a fraudulent job offer, then disappear once the application was submitted to CIC. The Minister and CIC will have you believe that it is authorized CSIC Members getting these fraudulent job offers, but why would anyone hire a CSIC Member to get a fraudulent job offer, when there are 1000s of ghost consultants operating within the law as interpreted by CIC; and as we know ghosts are unaccountable for committing immigration fraud.
Marriages of convenience are another area where ghost consultants have been able to operate, again with the acceptance of CIC, because all of the fraud is created prior to the submission of the application. Why would you hire an authorized CSIC Member to commit marriage fraud when there are 1000s of ghost consultants operating within the law as interpreted by CIC; and as we know ghosts are unaccountable for committing immigration fraud.
Finally, what about immigrants who are victimized by crooked consultants? Let me shed a light on the true positions of key players, who cannot reveal their true response to the subject:
Minister Kenney's honest answer: they are not my problem because immigrants are not voters. Immigrants and their Permanent Resident relatives are not voters, so I just need to pretend to care for the sake of Canadian citizens who do vote.
CIC's honest answer: After we get their processing fee, we will find a way to refuse their application. If someone is ripped off prior to submission, that is not our problem.
ICCRC/CAPIC's honest answer: We just want to get rich off these immigrants. CSIC stops people like Hemlin from getting rich, so we launched a campaign to get rid of CSIC by spreading false information about CSIC at the Standing Committee and amongst CSIC Members. Mooney/CAPIC used their connection with Les Linklater of CIC to influence peddle us into the position of being the proposed new regulator. Now we can continue to get rich without having to answer to a regulator that is not in favour of our financial interests.
Who will speak up for the interests of immigrants? Not Minister Kenney, CIC or ICCRC/CAPIC.
In 2003, the Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants recommended that CIC impose sanctions on ghost consultants, and in 2008 and 2009 the Standing Committee again advised CIC to amend IP 9 and penalize ghost consultants. The Standing Committee Report in 2008 in fact said that CSIC had never been given the tools to succeed, and a key tool was penalizing ghost consultants. CIC and the Minister took no action, and now rather than admitting their role in the flourishing practice of legitimized ghost consultants through IP9, they blame CSIC as the scapegoat. The Minister and CIC have misled Canadians to believe that changing the regulator will fix the problem. Actually, ICCRC instead has established a monopoly over the business, and ghosts will simply work as agents of immigration lawyers and ICCRC members to gain legitimacy. Cronyism rather than regulation is the future of immigration consulting under ICCRC.
Another example is in the rise in fraudulent job offers which was the result of Minister Kenney's de-emphasis on skills as qualification for Permanent Residence, and greater emphasis on job offers. To apply for immigration with a job offer, you must first apply to HRSDC, or Service Canada, for a Labour Market Opinion (LMO) or an Arranged Employment Opinion (AEO). You do not need to be an authorized representative to apply for an LMO or AEO. Ghost consultants, through IP9, were legitimately able to get an LMO or an AEO based on a fraudulent job offer, then disappear once the application was submitted to CIC. The Minister and CIC will have you believe that it is authorized CSIC Members getting these fraudulent job offers, but why would anyone hire a CSIC Member to get a fraudulent job offer, when there are 1000s of ghost consultants operating within the law as interpreted by CIC; and as we know ghosts are unaccountable for committing immigration fraud.
Marriages of convenience are another area where ghost consultants have been able to operate, again with the acceptance of CIC, because all of the fraud is created prior to the submission of the application. Why would you hire an authorized CSIC Member to commit marriage fraud when there are 1000s of ghost consultants operating within the law as interpreted by CIC; and as we know ghosts are unaccountable for committing immigration fraud.
Finally, what about immigrants who are victimized by crooked consultants? Let me shed a light on the true positions of key players, who cannot reveal their true response to the subject:
Minister Kenney's honest answer: they are not my problem because immigrants are not voters. Immigrants and their Permanent Resident relatives are not voters, so I just need to pretend to care for the sake of Canadian citizens who do vote.
CIC's honest answer: After we get their processing fee, we will find a way to refuse their application. If someone is ripped off prior to submission, that is not our problem.
ICCRC/CAPIC's honest answer: We just want to get rich off these immigrants. CSIC stops people like Hemlin from getting rich, so we launched a campaign to get rid of CSIC by spreading false information about CSIC at the Standing Committee and amongst CSIC Members. Mooney/CAPIC used their connection with Les Linklater of CIC to influence peddle us into the position of being the proposed new regulator. Now we can continue to get rich without having to answer to a regulator that is not in favour of our financial interests.
Who will speak up for the interests of immigrants? Not Minister Kenney, CIC or ICCRC/CAPIC.
Friday 3 June 2011
ICCRC Incompetence & Lack of Consumer Protection Exposed!
ICCRC is the proposed body that, according to its self-appointed President/CEO Phil Mooney, will inevitably become the new regulator of immigration consultants. Apparently he has insight into a political and legal process that, by law, he should not have any prior knowledge of the outcome. Nor, by law, should the outcome be known to anyone, including Jason Kenney, before the final decision has been published in Part II of the Canada Gazette and the judge has heard CSIC's case.
The examples of ICCRC incompetence are well-known to those of us paying attention. Here is a list:
- ICCRC registered as a corporation one month before the announcement that they would be the proposed new regulator. Who tipped them off, Jason Kenney, or senior CIC officials such as Les Linklater?
- ICCRC has been having town hall meetings, paid for with a loan from CIC of, according to Phil Mooney, $1 million. Why has CIC given ICCRC money if they are only the proposed new regulator? Why is a proposed regulator having town hall meetings before a final decision has been made, unless they are confident that the outcome is fixed?
- ICCRC copied their rules (what minimal ones that are publically available at least) from the Certified Management Accounts of Ontario. CMAs are accountants for companies, without any need for consumer protection. Further, the website suggests the CMA of Ontario is a certification body more than a regulatory body. ICCRC Rules in fact bear no resemblance to any of the basic legal elements of a regulatory body. There is no procedural fairness, and there are no consumer protection provisions or public interest mandate.
- ICCRC are going after ghost consultants, people whom the ICCRC has no jurisdiction over; nor does ICCRC have any powers that would be required to go after the ghosts. ICCRC, like CSIC, has no investigative powers. ICCRC, like CSIC, can compel the cooperation only of Members, not non-Members such as ghost consultants. ICCRC is trying to remove, or to co-opt their competitors by forcing them to become agents, and not to regulate their own Members. The ICCRC has no jurisdiction or authority over non- members.
- Jeffrey Hemlin, who was recently ordered revoked and to pay costs of $50,000 by CSIC's indepdent discipline council, yet he continues to be President of CAPIC, the trade association that has transformed into the ICCRC. Hemlin has published statements defending his actions, and ICCRC has appeared to endorse Hemlin by failing to distance themselves from Hemlin. Clearly, ICCRC's concern is to protect the interests of Hemlin, a crooked consultant, rather than the public interest.
- Agreeing to take in revoked CSIC Members, likely to allow Katarina Onuschuk to join ICCRC despite her revocation and work as a ghost consultant since being revoked from CSIC. Individuals who could not meet CSIC standards, or who have been acting as ghost consultants since their revocation, are hardly people that should be allowed to be legitimized by ICCRC. Clearly, ICCRC has no clue how expensive and difficult it is to get rid of a member due to procedural fairness requirements; of course then again there is no procedural fairness in ICCRC disciplinary processes perhaps explaining why ICCRC can accept, and revoke anybody they choose!
- Focusing on seizing CSIC assets, even though CSIC is still the regulator, rather than ensuring the protection of the disciplinary hearings and investigations. Look at the list of names on CSIC's website of immigration consultants who are at disciplinary hearings right now. It appears that ICCRC is focused on monetary interests, not on ensuring justice and consumer protection.
The big question now is to what extent are Jason Kenney and seniour CIC officials being willfully blind to ICCRC incompetence; or are they supporters of ICCRC priorities as listed here? So much for consumer protection in the public interest, thanks to Jason Kenney, Mark Davidson and Les Linklater at CIC, and Phil Mooney, whose big idea for regulating the profession is "Hey, I'm not CSIC.". Nothing more.
The examples of ICCRC incompetence are well-known to those of us paying attention. Here is a list:
- ICCRC registered as a corporation one month before the announcement that they would be the proposed new regulator. Who tipped them off, Jason Kenney, or senior CIC officials such as Les Linklater?
- ICCRC has been having town hall meetings, paid for with a loan from CIC of, according to Phil Mooney, $1 million. Why has CIC given ICCRC money if they are only the proposed new regulator? Why is a proposed regulator having town hall meetings before a final decision has been made, unless they are confident that the outcome is fixed?
- ICCRC copied their rules (what minimal ones that are publically available at least) from the Certified Management Accounts of Ontario. CMAs are accountants for companies, without any need for consumer protection. Further, the website suggests the CMA of Ontario is a certification body more than a regulatory body. ICCRC Rules in fact bear no resemblance to any of the basic legal elements of a regulatory body. There is no procedural fairness, and there are no consumer protection provisions or public interest mandate.
- ICCRC are going after ghost consultants, people whom the ICCRC has no jurisdiction over; nor does ICCRC have any powers that would be required to go after the ghosts. ICCRC, like CSIC, has no investigative powers. ICCRC, like CSIC, can compel the cooperation only of Members, not non-Members such as ghost consultants. ICCRC is trying to remove, or to co-opt their competitors by forcing them to become agents, and not to regulate their own Members. The ICCRC has no jurisdiction or authority over non- members.
- Jeffrey Hemlin, who was recently ordered revoked and to pay costs of $50,000 by CSIC's indepdent discipline council, yet he continues to be President of CAPIC, the trade association that has transformed into the ICCRC. Hemlin has published statements defending his actions, and ICCRC has appeared to endorse Hemlin by failing to distance themselves from Hemlin. Clearly, ICCRC's concern is to protect the interests of Hemlin, a crooked consultant, rather than the public interest.
- Agreeing to take in revoked CSIC Members, likely to allow Katarina Onuschuk to join ICCRC despite her revocation and work as a ghost consultant since being revoked from CSIC. Individuals who could not meet CSIC standards, or who have been acting as ghost consultants since their revocation, are hardly people that should be allowed to be legitimized by ICCRC. Clearly, ICCRC has no clue how expensive and difficult it is to get rid of a member due to procedural fairness requirements; of course then again there is no procedural fairness in ICCRC disciplinary processes perhaps explaining why ICCRC can accept, and revoke anybody they choose!
- Focusing on seizing CSIC assets, even though CSIC is still the regulator, rather than ensuring the protection of the disciplinary hearings and investigations. Look at the list of names on CSIC's website of immigration consultants who are at disciplinary hearings right now. It appears that ICCRC is focused on monetary interests, not on ensuring justice and consumer protection.
The big question now is to what extent are Jason Kenney and seniour CIC officials being willfully blind to ICCRC incompetence; or are they supporters of ICCRC priorities as listed here? So much for consumer protection in the public interest, thanks to Jason Kenney, Mark Davidson and Les Linklater at CIC, and Phil Mooney, whose big idea for regulating the profession is "Hey, I'm not CSIC.". Nothing more.
Thursday 2 June 2011
Kenney, ICCRC & CIC Shut Down Hearings, Endorse Misconduct
CAPIC President Hemlin was revoked and ordered to pay costs of $50,000 for serious misconduct. By shutting down the disciplinary decision, Jason Kenney, Citizenship & Immigration Canada's (CIC) Les Linklater & Mark Davidson, and proposed new regulator ICCRC led by Phil Mooney endorse the conduct of Hemlin, and protect crooked consultants.
Kenney, Linklater, Davidson, and Mooney also endorse Jun Cheng from Winner's immigration. CSIC's website notes a disciplinary hearing into alleged misconduct by Jun Cheng. By shutting down the disciplinary hearing, the Minister, CIC, and ICCRC indicate support for Cheng. He will join ICCRC without consideration of the disciplinary hearing because he is a member in good standing of CSIC. Cheng was featured in the Star articles on cooking up a bogus refugee claim.
Kenney, Linklater, Davidson and Mooney also endorse Parvinder and Devinder Sandhu of WWICS. CSIC's website has 5 disciplinary hearings involving these consultants. By shutting down the disciplinary hearings, the Minister, CIC, and ICCRC indicate support for the Sandhus. They will join ICCRC without consideration of the disciplinary hearings because they are members in good standing of CSIC.
Kenney, Linklater, Davidson, and Mooney also endorse Gurpreet and Kamalpreet Khaira of CWC. CSIC's website has 3 disciplinary hearings involving these consultants. By shutting down the disciplinary hearings, the Minister, CIC, and ICCRC indicate support for the Khairas. They will join ICCRC without consideration of the disciplinary hearings because they are members in good standing of CSIC. The Khairas were also featured in the Star articles on cooking up a bogus refugee claim.
Kenney, Linklater, Davidson, and Mooney also endorse Anoo Lal. Three disciplinary hearings are noted on CSIC's website. By shutting down the disciplinary hearings, the Minister, CIC, and ICCRC indicate support for Anoo Lal. He will join ICCRC without consideration of the disciplinary decision.
Anyone who does not endorse the consultants noted above should not support the crooked proposal to shut down CSIC's disciplinary hearings, and to replace CSIC with ICCRC in order to save Mooney's friend Hemlin from revocation for serious misconduct.
Kenney, Linklater, Davidson, and Mooney also endorse Jun Cheng from Winner's immigration. CSIC's website notes a disciplinary hearing into alleged misconduct by Jun Cheng. By shutting down the disciplinary hearing, the Minister, CIC, and ICCRC indicate support for Cheng. He will join ICCRC without consideration of the disciplinary hearing because he is a member in good standing of CSIC. Cheng was featured in the Star articles on cooking up a bogus refugee claim.
Kenney, Linklater, Davidson and Mooney also endorse Parvinder and Devinder Sandhu of WWICS. CSIC's website has 5 disciplinary hearings involving these consultants. By shutting down the disciplinary hearings, the Minister, CIC, and ICCRC indicate support for the Sandhus. They will join ICCRC without consideration of the disciplinary hearings because they are members in good standing of CSIC.
Kenney, Linklater, Davidson, and Mooney also endorse Gurpreet and Kamalpreet Khaira of CWC. CSIC's website has 3 disciplinary hearings involving these consultants. By shutting down the disciplinary hearings, the Minister, CIC, and ICCRC indicate support for the Khairas. They will join ICCRC without consideration of the disciplinary hearings because they are members in good standing of CSIC. The Khairas were also featured in the Star articles on cooking up a bogus refugee claim.
Kenney, Linklater, Davidson, and Mooney also endorse Anoo Lal. Three disciplinary hearings are noted on CSIC's website. By shutting down the disciplinary hearings, the Minister, CIC, and ICCRC indicate support for Anoo Lal. He will join ICCRC without consideration of the disciplinary decision.
Anyone who does not endorse the consultants noted above should not support the crooked proposal to shut down CSIC's disciplinary hearings, and to replace CSIC with ICCRC in order to save Mooney's friend Hemlin from revocation for serious misconduct.
Wednesday 1 June 2011
Mooney Undermined Regulator & Influence Peddled into Power
Phil Mooney attained his position as President/CEO of the proposed new regulator ICCRC by undermining the regulator. Here is how he did it. According to Nigel Thomson's affidavit, 4 CSIC Board members, Ali Amlani, Dory Jade, Eugenia Wang, and Peter Bernier were act on the directions of Phil Mooney. These 4 board members were assigned the task of removing John Ryan from CSIC's Board. Phil Mooney's own statements to Nigel Thomson would support this assessment (See Thomson affidavit on CSIC's website under Legal Action)
It was likely expected that Phil Mooney could then be chosen to replace John Ryan. The problem is that 5 CSIC Board members are needed to make decisions, and the election of Nigel Thomson instead of a Phil Mooney/CAPIC supporter meant that they could not fulfill this task without the support of the Chair. Thomson refused despite a warning from Phil Mooney that removing John Ryan was necessary to save CSIC from being replaced by the Minister. Ali Amlani, Dory Jade, Eugenia Wang and Peter Bernier resigned from CSIC board after CSIC voted to file for judicial review. These CSIC Board Members were in fact CAPIC/Phil Mooney's spies, who contrary to their mandate to act in the best interests of the organization, CSIC, instead chose to act in the best interests of CAPIC/Phil Mooney against CSIC's public interest mandate.
Mooney also is alleged to have influence peddled his way into becoming the President/CEO of the proposed new regulator, ICCRC. He was prevented from taking any control over CSIC, since his attempts to plant his supporters on CSIC's Board failed to produce power to him. So Plan B took place; through direct and personal influence with a government official, Deputy Minister Les Linklater, he had himself and his body selected to replace CSIC. Defying all logic and common sense, CIC and the Minister decided that rather than correct identified problems at CSIC, thus maintaining the infrastructure and institutional knowledge of CSIC, they decided to replace CSIC. What possible reason could the Minister and CIC have for destroying CSIC in it's entirety, and starting over again with the inexperienced and questionable integrity of CAPIC, a trade association?
Answers may not be forthcoming right now. However, CSIC's judicial review application is bound to uncover some very embarrassing truths about Minister Kenney and CIC's replacement of a public interest regulator with an immigration consultants' trade association.
In time, the truth will be exposed regardless of the outcome of CSIC's judicial review application. Conspirators in a coup are always eventually overthrown by their peers, who learn from the experience how to effectively launch a coup. These peers can then use that knowledge against the coup leader. A future, non Conservative Minister of Immigration will look at this travesty and may launch a public inquiry. Phil Mooney may be referred to the RCMP to face the accusations of influence peddling.
It was likely expected that Phil Mooney could then be chosen to replace John Ryan. The problem is that 5 CSIC Board members are needed to make decisions, and the election of Nigel Thomson instead of a Phil Mooney/CAPIC supporter meant that they could not fulfill this task without the support of the Chair. Thomson refused despite a warning from Phil Mooney that removing John Ryan was necessary to save CSIC from being replaced by the Minister. Ali Amlani, Dory Jade, Eugenia Wang and Peter Bernier resigned from CSIC board after CSIC voted to file for judicial review. These CSIC Board Members were in fact CAPIC/Phil Mooney's spies, who contrary to their mandate to act in the best interests of the organization, CSIC, instead chose to act in the best interests of CAPIC/Phil Mooney against CSIC's public interest mandate.
Mooney also is alleged to have influence peddled his way into becoming the President/CEO of the proposed new regulator, ICCRC. He was prevented from taking any control over CSIC, since his attempts to plant his supporters on CSIC's Board failed to produce power to him. So Plan B took place; through direct and personal influence with a government official, Deputy Minister Les Linklater, he had himself and his body selected to replace CSIC. Defying all logic and common sense, CIC and the Minister decided that rather than correct identified problems at CSIC, thus maintaining the infrastructure and institutional knowledge of CSIC, they decided to replace CSIC. What possible reason could the Minister and CIC have for destroying CSIC in it's entirety, and starting over again with the inexperienced and questionable integrity of CAPIC, a trade association?
Answers may not be forthcoming right now. However, CSIC's judicial review application is bound to uncover some very embarrassing truths about Minister Kenney and CIC's replacement of a public interest regulator with an immigration consultants' trade association.
In time, the truth will be exposed regardless of the outcome of CSIC's judicial review application. Conspirators in a coup are always eventually overthrown by their peers, who learn from the experience how to effectively launch a coup. These peers can then use that knowledge against the coup leader. A future, non Conservative Minister of Immigration will look at this travesty and may launch a public inquiry. Phil Mooney may be referred to the RCMP to face the accusations of influence peddling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)