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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)