Submission ON BILL 14
Access to Justice Act, 2006
TO THE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE POLICY
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Presented by: Nancy Salloum — Chairwoman of the Board of Directors
September 29 2006
3
Director Briefs
The Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners ("CSIP") made all its efforts in
the past 10 months of existence to support Federal government to institute
another regulatory regime for Immigration Practitioners and other profession
providing non legal services in Canada.
CSIP is a Provincial non-profit corporation acting as Non Government organization
and Federally pending in the past ten months whose large members of the
immigration industry are recognized as "authorized representatives under all
section and exempted from being member of " who may, for a fee, also permitted
to represent, advise, or consult persons subject to an immigration proceeding.
Since April 2004, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
("IRPA") only "authorized representatives who are included in IP9 " – i.e.,
lawyers, Quebec notaries, members of CSIC, Students-at-law, International
organizations, Pro bono work, Stakeholders – Other , Educational stakeholders
in Canada – Educational agents abroad and Employees of lawyers and
consultants have been able to represent, for a fee or non fee under Pro Bono,
immigration applicants applying to Citizenship and Immigration Canada ("CIC"),
or subject to the Immigration and Refugee Board ("IRB"), or the Canadian
Boarder Services Agency ("CBSA")
Despite the fact that The federal government's jurisdiction determined who
representatives before immigration boards, tribunals or officers in Canada was
4
affirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Law
Society of British Columbia v.. Mangat, [2001] 3 S C R. 113. The Supreme
Court of Canada held that while the provinces do have the power to regulate
professions, including the legal profession, it is Parliament that has jurisdiction in
the areas of immigration and naturalization and that in the event that there was a
conflict between federal and provincial legislation in this area, the federal
legislation would be paramount For less than year from CSIC The Canadian
Society of Immigration Consultants existence, CSIP large number of members (
Immigration Practitioners) have been recognized by the federal government as
persons who are, for a fee and Pro Bono , authorized to act in immigration
matters, CSIP has established a system of self-regulation for qualified
immigration Practitioners to meet the minimum standard requirements for
membership similar to the contribution agreement which put in place between
CSIC and CIC, a complaints and discipline process was initiated one month from
starting operation, mandatory errors and omissions insurance was provided at
300.00 dollars per members recognized insurance company, CSIP merged with
the existence CIPC the College of Immigration Practitioners of Canada which was
created initially by Nancy Salloum in 1988 and was rubbed by AICC and OPIC in
2000 without permission and chaired by Charles Pley and ceased when AIC and
OPIC merged to create CAPIC. As of today, we have 810 students globally and
from Canada enrolled on line for September 2007 and we continuing our
professional development for our members, and code of conduct for the society
members as needed and required by the industry.
Given the fact that immigration regulation is a federal undertaking and CSIP
members are recognized by the federal government as authorized
5
representatives, CSIP proposed to the Ontario legislation that its 6010 members
should not be exempted from being regulated by any law society in Canada.
In fact, CSIP supports of this existing system by each province will enhance
creating an highly promoted and necessary and less confusing level of consumer
protection and emphasize more on the type of regulations in terms of non legal
profession since more than 123 profession in Canada considered non legal
profession, Having said this, and in order to provide for the most effective
consumer protection for those availing themselves of the services of non-lawyer
immigration representatives, and avoid any potential conflict with any other self
elected regulators,
As you are aware than Quebec rejected the idea of regulating Immigration
Consultants and Other provincial governments do not see the need in
regulating immigration consultants for one reason only, Unfortunately and
with all due respect to other regulators out there who are not operating
ethically and Morally has shown the rest of Canadians, the consultants can
not be regulated, not because consultants do not want to, but because the
regulators malicious act to gain person power in the industry led to the failure
of the regulation. We CSIP refused to be part of CSIC due to Benjamin
Trister few statements and other resigned directors within two months apart.
Although the provincial government have recognized CSIC and CSIP members
and other stakeholders and non government and religious organization in regards
to their own respective provincial immigration programs, Yet CSIP are
communicating on the provincial level with attorney generals of each province to
have the immigration practitioners licensed provincial and regulated by each law
6
society.
Therefore, CSIP respectfully proposed for immediate consideration that this
Committee must pursue and without delay one of the following three options with
respect to the legislation being considered in Ontario which will affect all the
province in future to come:
1) Not to amend Bill 14 and not to exempt the Full Members of CSIC and
other groups from the proposed legislation ;
2) Allow the law society of each province to carry on a new policy and
mandate to welcome non legal practitioners under pilot programs for two
years.
In the alternative:
3) Not to amend Bill 14 and must not exempt "on a class wide basis of all
non legal profession" members of the Canadian Society of Immigration
Consultants and other groups and any other practitioners in Canada who
wants to practice part of the immigration law.
4) Amend Bill 14 to allow non legal practitioners to register with each law society
across Canada as an option and be recognized as member of each law society
according to the province and location of the practice including the limitation to
the practice to certain field of the immigration law in Canada only.
1.CSIP Introduction
CSIP is a Provincial non-profit corporation and operating as Non Government
organization whose members are recognized as "authorized representatives" who
practice, for a fee or Pro Bono , represent, advise, or consult persons subject to
an immigration proceeding. Prior to April 13, 2004 and post this date, the
Regulations to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) have made
the defined an "authorized representative" as "a member in good standing of
a bar of a province, Quebec notaries or the Canadian Society of Immigration
Consultants incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act on October
8, 2003,"
It is clear to all immigration practitioners in this industry that Pursuant to subsection
13 1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), only
"authorized representatives" as defined above "may, for a fee, represent, advise
or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application
before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, an officer or the Immigration
and Refugee Board," (See Appendix I for the Regulatory Impact Statement and
Appendix 11 for a complete text of the relevant sections of the Act), However, CSIC
has made a submission and in this regards and omitted the facts,
It is a vital for each one of the committee to understand that CSIC directors
including the CSIC CEO Mr. Eastley wants you not to have any clarification as to
what (Registrar/CEO) wrote in his submission in which we believe that the
committee has been misled on this issues, It is well known facts that anything any
of us do with our five senses we interpret it. Unfortunately CSIC directors
curry goat but we don't. That does not make curry goat a bad or a good dish.
Just because CSIC directors and CEO Mr. Eastley quotes a particular regulation
the manuals tell the officers dealing with representatives how to interpret
regulation 13.1 (1) properly! Mr. Eastley interpretation of Regulation 13.1 (1) and
his comments are not how CBSA, IRB or CIC view the facts. All he is doing is
copying and pasting the regulation. It is our interpretation that anyone can advise
or consult as long as they are paid prior to the file being submitted before the CIC ,
IRB, CBSA, see OP9 section 2 but he is correct that to represent the client at a
hearing you must be authorized to do so especially if the hearing at the federal
court level.
We should look at the fact and analyze how many appeal cases do most
Consultants or practitioners have per year?
To those that have noticed that Mr. Eastley made a mistake in his submission and
his interpretation of IP9 where he wrote "that only authorized representatives can
handle files that were started after April 13th 2004" it is his interpretation. Everyone
has there own interpretation of regulation 13.1 (1) but CSIP prefers to accept IRB,
CBSA, & CIC interpretation as written in the IP9 manual section 2. What does Mr.
Eastley mean by "HANDLE FILES" We don't know for sure so please I urge the
committee to ask him to clarify on this issue?
The fact that the CEO claims CSIC will inform CIC that certain individuals are no
longer members of CSIC sure hope he gets a quicker response time than the
consultants get to their file inquiries!!!!
We also have high concern about the other regulator submission in terms of
CSIC which we quotes that CSIC believes that the current penalty provisions
contained under Section 124 (1) (a) and 125 in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
(IRPA) provide the necessary tools to allow government agencies at both the Federal and
Provincial level to control the activities of those individuals who seek to act outside the
ambit of the definition of Authorized Representative contained in the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
(IRPR). Furthermore, CSIC
believes that Bill 14 will enhance the enforcement provisions already provided for under the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations (IRPR) This approach would also fill the current void for non CSIC
practitioners and would make those practitioners accountable CSIC is a self-regulatory
body whose mandate is to regulate, in the public interest, eligible persons who are
members of CSIC, and advice or represent individuals or entities in the immigration
process” Unquote CSIC must be very diligent in delivering such threat to non CSIC
members. It is dangerous of the Directors of CSIC to bring false
misrepresentations contains threats of others that can lead to breach of the human
rights Act, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom Acts, the Constitution Act
and the freedom of choice with free mobility per individual Canadian.
In addition we are very concern for the misleading and incorrect information CSIC
currently have provided in their submission to the committee, we would like to
clarify that CSIC made this submission prior to October 31 2006 so to avoid to
present the actual number of members who stayed with the society .CSIC does
not have over 1354 immigration consultant members. CSIC has only 410 full
members from the original transitional members who registered out of 1600 prior
to Feb 2006. 306 new members who enrolled and has no experience in the
industry, which total 706 full members, and they have only 200 extra transitional
members which their status is unknown whether they continue registered with the
CSIC and passed CSIC requirement for the full membership exam or not.
CSIC has discredited all the efforts of the Ontario government and the Law
Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) and other regulators and other profession to
bring regulation to non-lawyers providing legal services to the residents of Ontario.
However, we believe that CSIC weakness in the past two years for not providing
discipline mechanism, they have avoid to process more than 645 complaints were
submitted and received but not processed and this caused the consultants industry to
be defamed and led to consumer protection mandate failure in many ways. Mirrors
these failures including the failure of operating the society in an ethical and moral
manner caused the society CSIC not to be contemplated for non-lawyer
immigration practitioners.
Therefore, for reasons that will be proposed below, CSIP of the view that
duplicating the efforts of CSIC through the regulation of immigration consultants
by the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) would not conflict with CSIC, or any
other regulators, in fact these efforts can be counter productive to enhance the
public interest and the protection consumer mandate.
2. CSIP Background
As CSIC mentioned in their submission which we quote, ” When the Supreme
Court of Canada's decision of Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, [2001] 3
S C R 113 The Law Society of British Columbia in that case, sought to prevent a
B.0 immigration consultant, Jaswant Singh Mangat, from practicing and
representing immigration applicants. The Supreme Court of Canada considered
the provincial legislation, the B.C. Legal Profession Act, the federal
legislation, the Immigration Act, and the respective constitutional jurisdictions of
the provincial and federal government
The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the federal government's jurisdiction in
the area of immigration and naturalization. The Supreme Court of Canada,
pursuant to the doctrine of paramountcy, declared the relevant sections of the
B.C. Legal Profession Act that prevented non-lawyer immigration representatives
from providing representation for a fee, ultra vires..
The Supreme Court of Canada, although acknowledging the provincial
jurisdiction to establish systems of regulation for professions, held that, in the
area of immigration, where there is a conflict between federal and provincial
legislation in this area, the federal legislation would be paramount and in
accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada's confirmation of federal jurisdiction
over immigration, the federal government took steps to establish a scheme for the
regulation of immigration consultants. Unquote, then a group of former CIC
officers find a way to bring their future shelter in the immigration industry after they
are deported from their government employment, which It has been said in may
journals, published newsletters, and newspapers since 1993 that AICC and OPIC
directors who were former government employees were practicing immigration in a
discriminated manner against immigrants who practice immigrations and were not
allowed to enroll or register as members with those two association, despite their
personal urgings contained in various hidden reports to the federal Parliament's
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and their efforts of immigrant
advocacy groups to play the monopoly game and many immigration consultants
within those two groups did not consult the public but few selected within the
associations, non-lawyer immigration representatives were unregulated and still
unregulated because of their personal hidden agenda to date did not bring them
any positive result but damage the integrity of the immigration program.
Unfortunately, many took the easy way out and decided to take advantage of the
Mangate case. It did so after the former Immigration Minister Codere selected
private few friends within the department and the industry and then established an
Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants (the "Advisory
Committee") comprised of friends and friends and friends, but in order to
avoid any conflict, he made another decision to include some of the academics,
lawyers, including the former Treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada
(LSUC), members of the Immigration Refugee Board, advocate and public interest
groups part of OPIC and AICC!, and members of various immigration
consultant associations only part of OPIC and AICC and ethnic organizations
which also part of OPIC and AICC . The Advisory Committee held extensive
private hidden closed doors meetings and may be one or two public meetings and
made a recommendation in advance without reviewing the fact on hands. The
reviewed that they made on various immigration regulatory schemes
operating in other commonwealth countries sent the former CIVE chair and
current chair John Ryan to Australia on freelance paid travel expense by the tax
payers funds for all the luxury and first class flights and five stars, but at the end
they deiced that it does not meet their personal agenda.
The selected few Advisory Committee who have conflict of interest one way or
other submitted a non verified consensus report outlining thirty-seven
recommendations for the former Minister Coder (the "Report") Its
most important recommendation was providing a great favor to former CIC
officers how to make a quick buck of tax payers funds in the name of the
creation and utilization of a non-profit, non-share capital corporation for selfregulation
of immigration consultants.
The Report also recommended that the federal government define who may
represent a person who is the subject of an immigration proceeding or application.
(See Appendix III for the Executive Summary of the Report of the Advisory
Committee) Without 9200 immigration practitioners who were practicing
immigration nation wide.
In October 2003, following the Minister's acceptance of the Advisory Committee's
recommendations, CSIC was incorporated as a non-profit, non-share capital
corporation without the approval of the Letters Patent since it is under dispute
by us for the past ten months, under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act.
However CSIC’s mandate, as they would like to describe in their proposal, in its
Letters Patent which is not yet approved and dispute pending is to regulate, in the
public interest, As the former minister of immigration Mr. Volpe declared that CSIC
members only eligible persons who are members of CSIC and advise or represent
individuals, groups and entities in the Canadian immigration process
With out any such endorsement by the Canada immigration nor any of its department,
However, the succeeding federal legislation governing matters related to immigration,
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2002, was amended in April 2004 to
define "authorized representatives" as members but not restricted only to
members of a bar of a province, Quebec notaries and members of CSIC as CSIC
would like you to believe.
3. The Regulatory Measures
Even though we operate quietly and efficiently according to the standard requirement
as non profit society and non government organization for the past ten months, yet we
see CSIC has not yet developed or established a number of measures to regulate its
710 fill members. They have not implemented membership requirements
according the CIC contribution agreement;, they set levels of competency for its
members to high and expected of immigrants to speak as they are born Canadian
with fluent English, that include unexpected and surprised imposed exam after the
initial registration which members were not told prior to registration and that 54 of
their good friends and previous directors of AICC and OPIC and current directors
of CSIC and CAPIC were exempted from this exam in providing cutting, pasting
questions and answers from the CIC website information and received more than
700 thousands dollars for preparing such exam that many has failed it, language
testing and a comprehensive Professional Standards Exam lead to 1000
members to resign or leave the society;
Rules of Professional Conduct was not met by the directors them
selves and viciously attacked many members of the industry to
eliminate them form practice.
They committed to their monopoly game with CAPIC directors to
provide professional development and education program which no
one use it or bother with it, but CSIC pays them for providing it;
In fact CAPIC deny access to members to use these educational program
due to Unethical and Unmoral issues with their members who undermined
the directors credibility and exposes their corruptions.
CSIC took them two full year and still to date the society does not
have complaints process that work for the consumers and
stakeholders can not have any recourse when dissatisfied with a
Society service since the complaint is shredded and ignored;
CSIC chose few selected friends who have self interest and receive
gain in the disciplinary hearings process, their members panels
consisted of CAPIC directors which they are in default of CSIC
regulations in particulars in advertising under pretence of practicing as
lawyers and charging legal fees, including the current chair John Ryan
who is under Mr. David Emerson investigation which is still pending.
CSIP is high concerns of John Ryan used the abbreviation of OSJ as
influence with the government officials to protect his position. This
mischief has been brought to the attention of the prime minister for
using religion into granting power.
CSIC Mandatory errors and omissions insurance does not work for
the benefit of the members or the clients, members of the industry
have already experienced and used the coverage; we believe it is
not sufficient enough to protect the consumer in legal procedures.
CSIC call their members being experienced, which this is very
alarming fact, 1000 of CSIC members did not present more than 10
case in the past four tot five years, however large portion of CSIC
members indeed received letters of references to assist them in
qualifying for the initial registration, this bring the whole society
credibly into questioning whether the members of CSIC are
experienced or not.
CSIC regulatory measures has not been adopt to its concepts or schemes and that
have not been implemented in other self-regulating professions in this manner, . it
is a great shame for CIC directors compare themselves to the Law Society of
Upper Canada (LSUC) scheme and concepts.
In conclusion that CSIC does not have 1354 members as they claimed. Their
300 new students enrolled in the past year in immigration practitioner programs
in colleges and universities across Canada has no experienced and yet will carry
on immigration business without any proper training and hold the title
experienced members on the CIC website ,
We have been informed that CSIC directors receives hidden kick backs of 780
dollars per student form the Seneca College, Humber College, York College,
O'Sullivan College in Montreal, Bow Valley College in Calgary, Ashton College
in British Columbia and the University of British Columbia for imposing on
practitioners to study and enroll for 5000 dollars program, unfortunately
there is no other education alternative to student who can not afforded these
programs.
It is projected that CSIC will be receiving a kick backs of $312000 dollars
from 400 new students who pushed and imposed upon them to take the
program for the sake to meet the initial enroll requirements. CSIC's regulatory
activities are not public and done in hidden and closed private doors which some
of CAPIC directors are invited secretly. In addition, the reports of CSIC annual
independent audit of business activities were not available for more than one year
until the public demanded to have it available on its website. In short, CSIC false
claim to be accountable in not registered in their book or in the industry. SIC
received more than 12 million dollars for the past 28 months and large portions
not accounted for and not claimed on the finance statement.
CSIC treasurer MS, Holly Gracey was at one point delivered fraudulent court
document to assist her sister Ms. White to collect Employment insurance in
fraudulent manner; they appealed the case and lost. Now she is handling CIC
12 million dollars. Ms. Gracey does not carry CGA< CPA< CA credential
accounting certificate and she is not member of the any recognize accounting
firm or bar association. She was elected by John Ryan and given second term.
CSIC vice chair Mr. Imran Qayyum a close friend to the current chair John
Ryan has been shifted from one position to another and permitted lavish
unaccounted expenses to be spent by the directors and not claimed on the
financial statement.
To date, CSIC has approximately 710 members In addition, there were over
300 students enrolled in the past year in immigration practitioner programs in
colleges and universities across Canada but these educational institutions do not
provide experienced immigration lawyers, or immigration consultants to instruct,
the majorities has only friends of John Ryan who never practiced immigration,
but teach it. To those new 300 students that CSIC is referring to.
, The parliament therefore must question the quality, and the instructors
qualification in the following institutional, including Seneca College, Humber
College, York College, O'Sullivan College in Montreal, Bow Valley College in
Calgary, Ashton College in British Columbia and the University of British
Columbia It is projected that over 400 students will be enrolled for the up
coming academic year
CSIC's regulatory activities are not public, more into private club. In addition, the
reports of an annual independent audit of CSIC's business activities are available
on its website and CSIC is not accountable for anything,
In Conclusion, The Canada immigration has created CSIC but did not create
Consumer protection as the CIC appeared to portray the trust of its clients with
false advertisement on its Website. The CIC is imposing on international
prospective immigration (CIC clients) to hire only what CIC chose for them,
therefore, CIC stepped out of jurisdiction and this may affect the immigration to
Canada at large in the near future. And in default of the Canadian Constitution
Act and the Human right Act, including the Charter of Rights and Freedom,
The Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners is ready for class action
against Canada immigration and the Canadian Society of Immigration
Consultants for causing damage to thousands of Canadian Businesses.
20
21
22
23
24
10
Friday, September 29, 2006
Submission on Bill 14 Draft
Submission ON BILL 14
Access to Justice Act, 2006
TO THE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE POLICY
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Presented by: Nancy Salloum — Chairwoman of the Board of Directors
September 29 2006
3
Director Briefs
The Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners ("CSIP") made all its efforts in
the past 10 months of existence to support Federal government to institute
another regulatory regime for Immigration Practitioners and other profession
providing non legal services in Canada.
CSIP is a Provincial non-profit corporation acting as Non Government organization
and Federally pending in the past ten months whose large members of the
immigration industry are recognized as "authorized representatives under all
section and exempted from being member of " who may, for a fee, also permitted
to represent, advise, or consult persons subject to an immigration proceeding.
Since April 2004, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
("IRPA") only "authorized representatives who are included in IP9 " – i.e.,
lawyers, Quebec notaries, members of CSIC, Students-at-law, International
organizations, Pro bono work, Stakeholders – Other , Educational stakeholders
in Canada – Educational agents abroad and Employees of lawyers and
consultants have been able to represent, for a fee or non fee under Pro Bono,
immigration applicants applying to Citizenship and Immigration Canada ("CIC"),
or subject to the Immigration and Refugee Board ("IRB"), or the Canadian
Boarder Services Agency ("CBSA")
Despite the fact that The federal government's jurisdiction determined who
representatives before immigration boards, tribunals or officers in Canada was
4
affirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Law
Society of British Columbia v.. Mangat, [2001] 3 S C R. 113. The Supreme
Court of Canada held that while the provinces do have the power to regulate
professions, including the legal profession, it is Parliament that has jurisdiction in
the areas of immigration and naturalization and that in the event that there was a
conflict between federal and provincial legislation in this area, the federal
legislation would be paramount For less than year from CSIC The Canadian
Society of Immigration Consultants existence, CSIP large number of members (
Immigration Practitioners) have been recognized by the federal government as
persons who are, for a fee and Pro Bono , authorized to act in immigration
matters, CSIP has established a system of self-regulation for qualified
immigration Practitioners to meet the minimum standard requirements for
membership similar to the contribution agreement which put in place between
CSIC and CIC, a complaints and discipline process was initiated one month from
starting operation, mandatory errors and omissions insurance was provided at
300.00 dollars per members recognized insurance company, CSIP merged with
the existence CIPC the College of Immigration Practitioners of Canada which was
created initially by Nancy Salloum in 1988 and was rubbed by AICC and OPIC in
2000 without permission and chaired by Charles Pley and ceased when AIC and
OPIC merged to create CAPIC. As of today, we have 810 students globally and
from Canada enrolled on line for September 2007 and we continuing our
professional development for our members, and code of conduct for the society
members as needed and required by the industry.
Given the fact that immigration regulation is a federal undertaking and CSIP
members are recognized by the federal government as authorized
5
representatives, CSIP proposed to the Ontario legislation that its 6010 members
should not be exempted from being regulated by any law society in Canada.
In fact, CSIP supports of this existing system by each province will enhance
creating an highly promoted and necessary and less confusing level of consumer
protection and emphasize more on the type of regulations in terms of non legal
profession since more than 123 profession in Canada considered non legal
profession, Having said this, and in order to provide for the most effective
consumer protection for those availing themselves of the services of non-lawyer
immigration representatives, and avoid any potential conflict with any other self
elected regulators,
As you are aware than Quebec rejected the idea of regulating Immigration
Consultants and Other provincial governments do not see the need in
regulating immigration consultants for one reason only, Unfortunately and
with all due respect to other regulators out there who are not operating
ethically and Morally has shown the rest of Canadians, the consultants can
not be regulated, not because consultants do not want to, but because the
regulators malicious act to gain person power in the industry led to the failure
of the regulation. We CSIP refused to be part of CSIC due to Benjamin
Trister few statements and other resigned directors within two months apart.
Although the provincial government have recognized CSIC and CSIP members
and other stakeholders and non government and religious organization in regards
to their own respective provincial immigration programs, Yet CSIP are
communicating on the provincial level with attorney generals of each province to
have the immigration practitioners licensed provincial and regulated by each law
6
society.
Therefore, CSIP respectfully proposed for immediate consideration that this
Committee must pursue and without delay one of the following three options with
respect to the legislation being considered in Ontario which will affect all the
province in future to come:
1) Not to amend Bill 14 and not to exempt the Full Members of CSIC and
other groups from the proposed legislation ;
2) Allow the law society of each province to carry on a new policy and
mandate to welcome non legal practitioners under pilot programs for two
years.
In the alternative:
3) Not to amend Bill 14 and must not exempt "on a class wide basis of all
non legal profession" members of the Canadian Society of Immigration
Consultants and other groups and any other practitioners in Canada who
wants to practice part of the immigration law.
4) Amend Bill 14 to allow non legal practitioners to register with each law society
across Canada as an option and be recognized as member of each law society
according to the province and location of the practice including the limitation to
the practice to certain field of the immigration law in Canada only.
1.CSIP Introduction
CSIP is a Provincial non-profit corporation and operating as Non Government
organization whose members are recognized as "authorized representatives" who
practice, for a fee or Pro Bono , represent, advise, or consult persons subject to
an immigration proceeding. Prior to April 13, 2004 and post this date, the
Regulations to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) have made
the defined an "authorized representative" as "a member in good standing of
a bar of a province, Quebec notaries or the Canadian Society of Immigration
Consultants incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act on October
8, 2003,"
It is clear to all immigration practitioners in this industry that Pursuant to subsection
13 1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), only
"authorized representatives" as defined above "may, for a fee, represent, advise
or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application
before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, an officer or the Immigration
and Refugee Board," (See Appendix I for the Regulatory Impact Statement and
Appendix 11 for a complete text of the relevant sections of the Act), However, CSIC
has made a submission and in this regards and omitted the facts,
It is a vital for each one of the committee to understand that CSIC directors
including the CSIC CEO Mr. Eastley wants you not to have any clarification as to
what (Registrar/CEO) wrote in his submission in which we believe that the
committee has been misled on this issues, It is well known facts that anything any
of us do with our five senses we interpret it. Unfortunately CSIC directors
curry goat but we don't. That does not make curry goat a bad or a good dish.
Just because CSIC directors and CEO Mr. Eastley quotes a particular regulation
the manuals tell the officers dealing with representatives how to interpret
regulation 13.1 (1) properly! Mr. Eastley interpretation of Regulation 13.1 (1) and
his comments are not how CBSA, IRB or CIC view the facts. All he is doing is
copying and pasting the regulation. It is our interpretation that anyone can advise
or consult as long as they are paid prior to the file being submitted before the CIC ,
IRB, CBSA, see OP9 section 2 but he is correct that to represent the client at a
hearing you must be authorized to do so especially if the hearing at the federal
court level.
We should look at the fact and analyze how many appeal cases do most
Consultants or practitioners have per year?
To those that have noticed that Mr. Eastley made a mistake in his submission and
his interpretation of IP9 where he wrote "that only authorized representatives can
handle files that were started after April 13th 2004" it is his interpretation. Everyone
has there own interpretation of regulation 13.1 (1) but CSIP prefers to accept IRB,
CBSA, & CIC interpretation as written in the IP9 manual section 2. What does Mr.
Eastley mean by "HANDLE FILES" We don't know for sure so please I urge the
committee to ask him to clarify on this issue?
The fact that the CEO claims CSIC will inform CIC that certain individuals are no
longer members of CSIC sure hope he gets a quicker response time than the
consultants get to their file inquiries!!!!
We also have high concern about the other regulator submission in terms of
CSIC which we quotes that CSIC believes that the current penalty provisions
contained under Section 124 (1) (a) and 125 in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
(IRPA) provide the necessary tools to allow government agencies at both the Federal and
Provincial level to control the activities of those individuals who seek to act outside the
ambit of the definition of Authorized Representative contained in the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
(IRPR). Furthermore, CSIC
believes that Bill 14 will enhance the enforcement provisions already provided for under the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations (IRPR) This approach would also fill the current void for non CSIC
practitioners and would make those practitioners accountable CSIC is a self-regulatory
body whose mandate is to regulate, in the public interest, eligible persons who are
members of CSIC, and advice or represent individuals or entities in the immigration
process” Unquote CSIC must be very diligent in delivering such threat to non CSIC
members. It is dangerous of the Directors of CSIC to bring false
misrepresentations contains threats of others that can lead to breach of the human
rights Act, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom Acts, the Constitution Act
and the freedom of choice with free mobility per individual Canadian.
In addition we are very concern for the misleading and incorrect information CSIC
currently have provided in their submission to the committee, we would like to
clarify that CSIC made this submission prior to October 31 2006 so to avoid to
present the actual number of members who stayed with the society .CSIC does
not have over 1354 immigration consultant members. CSIC has only 410 full
members from the original transitional members who registered out of 1600 prior
to Feb 2006. 306 new members who enrolled and has no experience in the
industry, which total 706 full members, and they have only 200 extra transitional
members which their status is unknown whether they continue registered with the
CSIC and passed CSIC requirement for the full membership exam or not.
CSIC has discredited all the efforts of the Ontario government and the Law
Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) and other regulators and other profession to
bring regulation to non-lawyers providing legal services to the residents of Ontario.
However, we believe that CSIC weakness in the past two years for not providing
discipline mechanism, they have avoid to process more than 645 complaints were
submitted and received but not processed and this caused the consultants industry to
be defamed and led to consumer protection mandate failure in many ways. Mirrors
these failures including the failure of operating the society in an ethical and moral
manner caused the society CSIC not to be contemplated for non-lawyer
immigration practitioners.
Therefore, for reasons that will be proposed below, CSIP of the view that
duplicating the efforts of CSIC through the regulation of immigration consultants
by the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) would not conflict with CSIC, or any
other regulators, in fact these efforts can be counter productive to enhance the
public interest and the protection consumer mandate.
2. CSIP Background
As CSIC mentioned in their submission which we quote, ” When the Supreme
Court of Canada's decision of Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, [2001] 3
S C R 113 The Law Society of British Columbia in that case, sought to prevent a
B.0 immigration consultant, Jaswant Singh Mangat, from practicing and
representing immigration applicants. The Supreme Court of Canada considered
the provincial legislation, the B.C. Legal Profession Act, the federal
legislation, the Immigration Act, and the respective constitutional jurisdictions of
the provincial and federal government
The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the federal government's jurisdiction in
the area of immigration and naturalization. The Supreme Court of Canada,
pursuant to the doctrine of paramountcy, declared the relevant sections of the
B.C. Legal Profession Act that prevented non-lawyer immigration representatives
from providing representation for a fee, ultra vires..
The Supreme Court of Canada, although acknowledging the provincial
jurisdiction to establish systems of regulation for professions, held that, in the
area of immigration, where there is a conflict between federal and provincial
legislation in this area, the federal legislation would be paramount and in
accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada's confirmation of federal jurisdiction
over immigration, the federal government took steps to establish a scheme for the
regulation of immigration consultants. Unquote, then a group of former CIC
officers find a way to bring their future shelter in the immigration industry after they
are deported from their government employment, which It has been said in may
journals, published newsletters, and newspapers since 1993 that AICC and OPIC
directors who were former government employees were practicing immigration in a
discriminated manner against immigrants who practice immigrations and were not
allowed to enroll or register as members with those two association, despite their
personal urgings contained in various hidden reports to the federal Parliament's
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and their efforts of immigrant
advocacy groups to play the monopoly game and many immigration consultants
within those two groups did not consult the public but few selected within the
associations, non-lawyer immigration representatives were unregulated and still
unregulated because of their personal hidden agenda to date did not bring them
any positive result but damage the integrity of the immigration program.
Unfortunately, many took the easy way out and decided to take advantage of the
Mangate case. It did so after the former Immigration Minister Codere selected
private few friends within the department and the industry and then established an
Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants (the "Advisory
Committee") comprised of friends and friends and friends, but in order to
avoid any conflict, he made another decision to include some of the academics,
lawyers, including the former Treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada
(LSUC), members of the Immigration Refugee Board, advocate and public interest
groups part of OPIC and AICC!, and members of various immigration
consultant associations only part of OPIC and AICC and ethnic organizations
which also part of OPIC and AICC . The Advisory Committee held extensive
private hidden closed doors meetings and may be one or two public meetings and
made a recommendation in advance without reviewing the fact on hands. The
reviewed that they made on various immigration regulatory schemes
operating in other commonwealth countries sent the former CIVE chair and
current chair John Ryan to Australia on freelance paid travel expense by the tax
payers funds for all the luxury and first class flights and five stars, but at the end
they deiced that it does not meet their personal agenda.
The selected few Advisory Committee who have conflict of interest one way or
other submitted a non verified consensus report outlining thirty-seven
recommendations for the former Minister Coder (the "Report") Its
most important recommendation was providing a great favor to former CIC
officers how to make a quick buck of tax payers funds in the name of the
creation and utilization of a non-profit, non-share capital corporation for selfregulation
of immigration consultants.
The Report also recommended that the federal government define who may
represent a person who is the subject of an immigration proceeding or application.
(See Appendix III for the Executive Summary of the Report of the Advisory
Committee) Without 9200 immigration practitioners who were practicing
immigration nation wide.
In October 2003, following the Minister's acceptance of the Advisory Committee's
recommendations, CSIC was incorporated as a non-profit, non-share capital
corporation without the approval of the Letters Patent since it is under dispute
by us for the past ten months, under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act.
However CSIC’s mandate, as they would like to describe in their proposal, in its
Letters Patent which is not yet approved and dispute pending is to regulate, in the
public interest, As the former minister of immigration Mr. Volpe declared that CSIC
members only eligible persons who are members of CSIC and advise or represent
individuals, groups and entities in the Canadian immigration process
With out any such endorsement by the Canada immigration nor any of its department,
However, the succeeding federal legislation governing matters related to immigration,
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2002, was amended in April 2004 to
define "authorized representatives" as members but not restricted only to
members of a bar of a province, Quebec notaries and members of CSIC as CSIC
would like you to believe.
3. The Regulatory Measures
Even though we operate quietly and efficiently according to the standard requirement
as non profit society and non government organization for the past ten months, yet we
see CSIC has not yet developed or established a number of measures to regulate its
710 fill members. They have not implemented membership requirements
according the CIC contribution agreement;, they set levels of competency for its
members to high and expected of immigrants to speak as they are born Canadian
with fluent English, that include unexpected and surprised imposed exam after the
initial registration which members were not told prior to registration and that 54 of
their good friends and previous directors of AICC and OPIC and current directors
of CSIC and CAPIC were exempted from this exam in providing cutting, pasting
questions and answers from the CIC website information and received more than
700 thousands dollars for preparing such exam that many has failed it, language
testing and a comprehensive Professional Standards Exam lead to 1000
members to resign or leave the society;
Rules of Professional Conduct was not met by the directors them
selves and viciously attacked many members of the industry to
eliminate them form practice.
They committed to their monopoly game with CAPIC directors to
provide professional development and education program which no
one use it or bother with it, but CSIC pays them for providing it;
In fact CAPIC deny access to members to use these educational program
due to Unethical and Unmoral issues with their members who undermined
the directors credibility and exposes their corruptions.
CSIC took them two full year and still to date the society does not
have complaints process that work for the consumers and
stakeholders can not have any recourse when dissatisfied with a
Society service since the complaint is shredded and ignored;
CSIC chose few selected friends who have self interest and receive
gain in the disciplinary hearings process, their members panels
consisted of CAPIC directors which they are in default of CSIC
regulations in particulars in advertising under pretence of practicing as
lawyers and charging legal fees, including the current chair John Ryan
who is under Mr. David Emerson investigation which is still pending.
CSIP is high concerns of John Ryan used the abbreviation of OSJ as
influence with the government officials to protect his position. This
mischief has been brought to the attention of the prime minister for
using religion into granting power.
CSIC Mandatory errors and omissions insurance does not work for
the benefit of the members or the clients, members of the industry
have already experienced and used the coverage; we believe it is
not sufficient enough to protect the consumer in legal procedures.
CSIC call their members being experienced, which this is very
alarming fact, 1000 of CSIC members did not present more than 10
case in the past four tot five years, however large portion of CSIC
members indeed received letters of references to assist them in
qualifying for the initial registration, this bring the whole society
credibly into questioning whether the members of CSIC are
experienced or not.
CSIC regulatory measures has not been adopt to its concepts or schemes and that
have not been implemented in other self-regulating professions in this manner, . it
is a great shame for CIC directors compare themselves to the Law Society of
Upper Canada (LSUC) scheme and concepts.
In conclusion that CSIC does not have 1354 members as they claimed. Their
300 new students enrolled in the past year in immigration practitioner programs
in colleges and universities across Canada has no experienced and yet will carry
on immigration business without any proper training and hold the title
experienced members on the CIC website ,
We have been informed that CSIC directors receives hidden kick backs of 780
dollars per student form the Seneca College, Humber College, York College,
O'Sullivan College in Montreal, Bow Valley College in Calgary, Ashton College
in British Columbia and the University of British Columbia for imposing on
practitioners to study and enroll for 5000 dollars program, unfortunately
there is no other education alternative to student who can not afforded these
programs.
It is projected that CSIC will be receiving a kick backs of $312000 dollars
from 400 new students who pushed and imposed upon them to take the
program for the sake to meet the initial enroll requirements. CSIC's regulatory
activities are not public and done in hidden and closed private doors which some
of CAPIC directors are invited secretly. In addition, the reports of CSIC annual
independent audit of business activities were not available for more than one year
until the public demanded to have it available on its website. In short, CSIC false
claim to be accountable in not registered in their book or in the industry. SIC
received more than 12 million dollars for the past 28 months and large portions
not accounted for and not claimed on the finance statement.
CSIC treasurer MS, Holly Gracey was at one point delivered fraudulent court
document to assist her sister Ms. White to collect Employment insurance in
fraudulent manner; they appealed the case and lost. Now she is handling CIC
12 million dollars. Ms. Gracey does not carry CGA< CPA< CA credential
accounting certificate and she is not member of the any recognize accounting
firm or bar association. She was elected by John Ryan and given second term.
CSIC vice chair Mr. Imran Qayyum a close friend to the current chair John
Ryan has been shifted from one position to another and permitted lavish
unaccounted expenses to be spent by the directors and not claimed on the
financial statement.
To date, CSIC has approximately 710 members In addition, there were over
300 students enrolled in the past year in immigration practitioner programs in
colleges and universities across Canada but these educational institutions do not
provide experienced immigration lawyers, or immigration consultants to instruct,
the majorities has only friends of John Ryan who never practiced immigration,
but teach it. To those new 300 students that CSIC is referring to.
, The parliament therefore must question the quality, and the instructors
qualification in the following institutional, including Seneca College, Humber
College, York College, O'Sullivan College in Montreal, Bow Valley College in
Calgary, Ashton College in British Columbia and the University of British
Columbia It is projected that over 400 students will be enrolled for the up
coming academic year
CSIC's regulatory activities are not public, more into private club. In addition, the
reports of an annual independent audit of CSIC's business activities are available
on its website and CSIC is not accountable for anything,
In Conclusion, The Canada immigration has created CSIC but did not create
Consumer protection as the CIC appeared to portray the trust of its clients with
false advertisement on its Website. The CIC is imposing on international
prospective immigration (CIC clients) to hire only what CIC chose for them,
therefore, CIC stepped out of jurisdiction and this may affect the immigration to
Canada at large in the near future. And in default of the Canadian Constitution
Act and the Human right Act, including the Charter of Rights and Freedom,
The Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners is ready for class action
against Canada immigration and the Canadian Society of Immigration
Consultants for causing damage to thousands of Canadian Businesses.
20
21
22
23
24
10
Access to Justice Act, 2006
TO THE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE POLICY
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Presented by: Nancy Salloum — Chairwoman of the Board of Directors
September 29 2006
3
Director Briefs
The Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners ("CSIP") made all its efforts in
the past 10 months of existence to support Federal government to institute
another regulatory regime for Immigration Practitioners and other profession
providing non legal services in Canada.
CSIP is a Provincial non-profit corporation acting as Non Government organization
and Federally pending in the past ten months whose large members of the
immigration industry are recognized as "authorized representatives under all
section and exempted from being member of " who may, for a fee, also permitted
to represent, advise, or consult persons subject to an immigration proceeding.
Since April 2004, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
("IRPA") only "authorized representatives who are included in IP9 " – i.e.,
lawyers, Quebec notaries, members of CSIC, Students-at-law, International
organizations, Pro bono work, Stakeholders – Other , Educational stakeholders
in Canada – Educational agents abroad and Employees of lawyers and
consultants have been able to represent, for a fee or non fee under Pro Bono,
immigration applicants applying to Citizenship and Immigration Canada ("CIC"),
or subject to the Immigration and Refugee Board ("IRB"), or the Canadian
Boarder Services Agency ("CBSA")
Despite the fact that The federal government's jurisdiction determined who
representatives before immigration boards, tribunals or officers in Canada was
4
affirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Law
Society of British Columbia v.. Mangat, [2001] 3 S C R. 113. The Supreme
Court of Canada held that while the provinces do have the power to regulate
professions, including the legal profession, it is Parliament that has jurisdiction in
the areas of immigration and naturalization and that in the event that there was a
conflict between federal and provincial legislation in this area, the federal
legislation would be paramount For less than year from CSIC The Canadian
Society of Immigration Consultants existence, CSIP large number of members (
Immigration Practitioners) have been recognized by the federal government as
persons who are, for a fee and Pro Bono , authorized to act in immigration
matters, CSIP has established a system of self-regulation for qualified
immigration Practitioners to meet the minimum standard requirements for
membership similar to the contribution agreement which put in place between
CSIC and CIC, a complaints and discipline process was initiated one month from
starting operation, mandatory errors and omissions insurance was provided at
300.00 dollars per members recognized insurance company, CSIP merged with
the existence CIPC the College of Immigration Practitioners of Canada which was
created initially by Nancy Salloum in 1988 and was rubbed by AICC and OPIC in
2000 without permission and chaired by Charles Pley and ceased when AIC and
OPIC merged to create CAPIC. As of today, we have 810 students globally and
from Canada enrolled on line for September 2007 and we continuing our
professional development for our members, and code of conduct for the society
members as needed and required by the industry.
Given the fact that immigration regulation is a federal undertaking and CSIP
members are recognized by the federal government as authorized
5
representatives, CSIP proposed to the Ontario legislation that its 6010 members
should not be exempted from being regulated by any law society in Canada.
In fact, CSIP supports of this existing system by each province will enhance
creating an highly promoted and necessary and less confusing level of consumer
protection and emphasize more on the type of regulations in terms of non legal
profession since more than 123 profession in Canada considered non legal
profession, Having said this, and in order to provide for the most effective
consumer protection for those availing themselves of the services of non-lawyer
immigration representatives, and avoid any potential conflict with any other self
elected regulators,
As you are aware than Quebec rejected the idea of regulating Immigration
Consultants and Other provincial governments do not see the need in
regulating immigration consultants for one reason only, Unfortunately and
with all due respect to other regulators out there who are not operating
ethically and Morally has shown the rest of Canadians, the consultants can
not be regulated, not because consultants do not want to, but because the
regulators malicious act to gain person power in the industry led to the failure
of the regulation. We CSIP refused to be part of CSIC due to Benjamin
Trister few statements and other resigned directors within two months apart.
Although the provincial government have recognized CSIC and CSIP members
and other stakeholders and non government and religious organization in regards
to their own respective provincial immigration programs, Yet CSIP are
communicating on the provincial level with attorney generals of each province to
have the immigration practitioners licensed provincial and regulated by each law
6
society.
Therefore, CSIP respectfully proposed for immediate consideration that this
Committee must pursue and without delay one of the following three options with
respect to the legislation being considered in Ontario which will affect all the
province in future to come:
1) Not to amend Bill 14 and not to exempt the Full Members of CSIC and
other groups from the proposed legislation ;
2) Allow the law society of each province to carry on a new policy and
mandate to welcome non legal practitioners under pilot programs for two
years.
In the alternative:
3) Not to amend Bill 14 and must not exempt "on a class wide basis of all
non legal profession" members of the Canadian Society of Immigration
Consultants and other groups and any other practitioners in Canada who
wants to practice part of the immigration law.
4) Amend Bill 14 to allow non legal practitioners to register with each law society
across Canada as an option and be recognized as member of each law society
according to the province and location of the practice including the limitation to
the practice to certain field of the immigration law in Canada only.
1.CSIP Introduction
CSIP is a Provincial non-profit corporation and operating as Non Government
organization whose members are recognized as "authorized representatives" who
practice, for a fee or Pro Bono , represent, advise, or consult persons subject to
an immigration proceeding. Prior to April 13, 2004 and post this date, the
Regulations to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) have made
the defined an "authorized representative" as "a member in good standing of
a bar of a province, Quebec notaries or the Canadian Society of Immigration
Consultants incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act on October
8, 2003,"
It is clear to all immigration practitioners in this industry that Pursuant to subsection
13 1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), only
"authorized representatives" as defined above "may, for a fee, represent, advise
or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application
before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, an officer or the Immigration
and Refugee Board," (See Appendix I for the Regulatory Impact Statement and
Appendix 11 for a complete text of the relevant sections of the Act), However, CSIC
has made a submission and in this regards and omitted the facts,
It is a vital for each one of the committee to understand that CSIC directors
including the CSIC CEO Mr. Eastley wants you not to have any clarification as to
what (Registrar/CEO) wrote in his submission in which we believe that the
committee has been misled on this issues, It is well known facts that anything any
of us do with our five senses we interpret it. Unfortunately CSIC directors
curry goat but we don't. That does not make curry goat a bad or a good dish.
Just because CSIC directors and CEO Mr. Eastley quotes a particular regulation
the manuals tell the officers dealing with representatives how to interpret
regulation 13.1 (1) properly! Mr. Eastley interpretation of Regulation 13.1 (1) and
his comments are not how CBSA, IRB or CIC view the facts. All he is doing is
copying and pasting the regulation. It is our interpretation that anyone can advise
or consult as long as they are paid prior to the file being submitted before the CIC ,
IRB, CBSA, see OP9 section 2 but he is correct that to represent the client at a
hearing you must be authorized to do so especially if the hearing at the federal
court level.
We should look at the fact and analyze how many appeal cases do most
Consultants or practitioners have per year?
To those that have noticed that Mr. Eastley made a mistake in his submission and
his interpretation of IP9 where he wrote "that only authorized representatives can
handle files that were started after April 13th 2004" it is his interpretation. Everyone
has there own interpretation of regulation 13.1 (1) but CSIP prefers to accept IRB,
CBSA, & CIC interpretation as written in the IP9 manual section 2. What does Mr.
Eastley mean by "HANDLE FILES" We don't know for sure so please I urge the
committee to ask him to clarify on this issue?
The fact that the CEO claims CSIC will inform CIC that certain individuals are no
longer members of CSIC sure hope he gets a quicker response time than the
consultants get to their file inquiries!!!!
We also have high concern about the other regulator submission in terms of
CSIC which we quotes that CSIC believes that the current penalty provisions
contained under Section 124 (1) (a) and 125 in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
(IRPA) provide the necessary tools to allow government agencies at both the Federal and
Provincial level to control the activities of those individuals who seek to act outside the
ambit of the definition of Authorized Representative contained in the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
(IRPR). Furthermore, CSIC
believes that Bill 14 will enhance the enforcement provisions already provided for under the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations (IRPR) This approach would also fill the current void for non CSIC
practitioners and would make those practitioners accountable CSIC is a self-regulatory
body whose mandate is to regulate, in the public interest, eligible persons who are
members of CSIC, and advice or represent individuals or entities in the immigration
process” Unquote CSIC must be very diligent in delivering such threat to non CSIC
members. It is dangerous of the Directors of CSIC to bring false
misrepresentations contains threats of others that can lead to breach of the human
rights Act, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom Acts, the Constitution Act
and the freedom of choice with free mobility per individual Canadian.
In addition we are very concern for the misleading and incorrect information CSIC
currently have provided in their submission to the committee, we would like to
clarify that CSIC made this submission prior to October 31 2006 so to avoid to
present the actual number of members who stayed with the society .CSIC does
not have over 1354 immigration consultant members. CSIC has only 410 full
members from the original transitional members who registered out of 1600 prior
to Feb 2006. 306 new members who enrolled and has no experience in the
industry, which total 706 full members, and they have only 200 extra transitional
members which their status is unknown whether they continue registered with the
CSIC and passed CSIC requirement for the full membership exam or not.
CSIC has discredited all the efforts of the Ontario government and the Law
Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) and other regulators and other profession to
bring regulation to non-lawyers providing legal services to the residents of Ontario.
However, we believe that CSIC weakness in the past two years for not providing
discipline mechanism, they have avoid to process more than 645 complaints were
submitted and received but not processed and this caused the consultants industry to
be defamed and led to consumer protection mandate failure in many ways. Mirrors
these failures including the failure of operating the society in an ethical and moral
manner caused the society CSIC not to be contemplated for non-lawyer
immigration practitioners.
Therefore, for reasons that will be proposed below, CSIP of the view that
duplicating the efforts of CSIC through the regulation of immigration consultants
by the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) would not conflict with CSIC, or any
other regulators, in fact these efforts can be counter productive to enhance the
public interest and the protection consumer mandate.
2. CSIP Background
As CSIC mentioned in their submission which we quote, ” When the Supreme
Court of Canada's decision of Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, [2001] 3
S C R 113 The Law Society of British Columbia in that case, sought to prevent a
B.0 immigration consultant, Jaswant Singh Mangat, from practicing and
representing immigration applicants. The Supreme Court of Canada considered
the provincial legislation, the B.C. Legal Profession Act, the federal
legislation, the Immigration Act, and the respective constitutional jurisdictions of
the provincial and federal government
The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the federal government's jurisdiction in
the area of immigration and naturalization. The Supreme Court of Canada,
pursuant to the doctrine of paramountcy, declared the relevant sections of the
B.C. Legal Profession Act that prevented non-lawyer immigration representatives
from providing representation for a fee, ultra vires..
The Supreme Court of Canada, although acknowledging the provincial
jurisdiction to establish systems of regulation for professions, held that, in the
area of immigration, where there is a conflict between federal and provincial
legislation in this area, the federal legislation would be paramount and in
accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada's confirmation of federal jurisdiction
over immigration, the federal government took steps to establish a scheme for the
regulation of immigration consultants. Unquote, then a group of former CIC
officers find a way to bring their future shelter in the immigration industry after they
are deported from their government employment, which It has been said in may
journals, published newsletters, and newspapers since 1993 that AICC and OPIC
directors who were former government employees were practicing immigration in a
discriminated manner against immigrants who practice immigrations and were not
allowed to enroll or register as members with those two association, despite their
personal urgings contained in various hidden reports to the federal Parliament's
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and their efforts of immigrant
advocacy groups to play the monopoly game and many immigration consultants
within those two groups did not consult the public but few selected within the
associations, non-lawyer immigration representatives were unregulated and still
unregulated because of their personal hidden agenda to date did not bring them
any positive result but damage the integrity of the immigration program.
Unfortunately, many took the easy way out and decided to take advantage of the
Mangate case. It did so after the former Immigration Minister Codere selected
private few friends within the department and the industry and then established an
Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants (the "Advisory
Committee") comprised of friends and friends and friends, but in order to
avoid any conflict, he made another decision to include some of the academics,
lawyers, including the former Treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada
(LSUC), members of the Immigration Refugee Board, advocate and public interest
groups part of OPIC and AICC!, and members of various immigration
consultant associations only part of OPIC and AICC and ethnic organizations
which also part of OPIC and AICC . The Advisory Committee held extensive
private hidden closed doors meetings and may be one or two public meetings and
made a recommendation in advance without reviewing the fact on hands. The
reviewed that they made on various immigration regulatory schemes
operating in other commonwealth countries sent the former CIVE chair and
current chair John Ryan to Australia on freelance paid travel expense by the tax
payers funds for all the luxury and first class flights and five stars, but at the end
they deiced that it does not meet their personal agenda.
The selected few Advisory Committee who have conflict of interest one way or
other submitted a non verified consensus report outlining thirty-seven
recommendations for the former Minister Coder (the "Report") Its
most important recommendation was providing a great favor to former CIC
officers how to make a quick buck of tax payers funds in the name of the
creation and utilization of a non-profit, non-share capital corporation for selfregulation
of immigration consultants.
The Report also recommended that the federal government define who may
represent a person who is the subject of an immigration proceeding or application.
(See Appendix III for the Executive Summary of the Report of the Advisory
Committee) Without 9200 immigration practitioners who were practicing
immigration nation wide.
In October 2003, following the Minister's acceptance of the Advisory Committee's
recommendations, CSIC was incorporated as a non-profit, non-share capital
corporation without the approval of the Letters Patent since it is under dispute
by us for the past ten months, under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act.
However CSIC’s mandate, as they would like to describe in their proposal, in its
Letters Patent which is not yet approved and dispute pending is to regulate, in the
public interest, As the former minister of immigration Mr. Volpe declared that CSIC
members only eligible persons who are members of CSIC and advise or represent
individuals, groups and entities in the Canadian immigration process
With out any such endorsement by the Canada immigration nor any of its department,
However, the succeeding federal legislation governing matters related to immigration,
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2002, was amended in April 2004 to
define "authorized representatives" as members but not restricted only to
members of a bar of a province, Quebec notaries and members of CSIC as CSIC
would like you to believe.
3. The Regulatory Measures
Even though we operate quietly and efficiently according to the standard requirement
as non profit society and non government organization for the past ten months, yet we
see CSIC has not yet developed or established a number of measures to regulate its
710 fill members. They have not implemented membership requirements
according the CIC contribution agreement;, they set levels of competency for its
members to high and expected of immigrants to speak as they are born Canadian
with fluent English, that include unexpected and surprised imposed exam after the
initial registration which members were not told prior to registration and that 54 of
their good friends and previous directors of AICC and OPIC and current directors
of CSIC and CAPIC were exempted from this exam in providing cutting, pasting
questions and answers from the CIC website information and received more than
700 thousands dollars for preparing such exam that many has failed it, language
testing and a comprehensive Professional Standards Exam lead to 1000
members to resign or leave the society;
Rules of Professional Conduct was not met by the directors them
selves and viciously attacked many members of the industry to
eliminate them form practice.
They committed to their monopoly game with CAPIC directors to
provide professional development and education program which no
one use it or bother with it, but CSIC pays them for providing it;
In fact CAPIC deny access to members to use these educational program
due to Unethical and Unmoral issues with their members who undermined
the directors credibility and exposes their corruptions.
CSIC took them two full year and still to date the society does not
have complaints process that work for the consumers and
stakeholders can not have any recourse when dissatisfied with a
Society service since the complaint is shredded and ignored;
CSIC chose few selected friends who have self interest and receive
gain in the disciplinary hearings process, their members panels
consisted of CAPIC directors which they are in default of CSIC
regulations in particulars in advertising under pretence of practicing as
lawyers and charging legal fees, including the current chair John Ryan
who is under Mr. David Emerson investigation which is still pending.
CSIP is high concerns of John Ryan used the abbreviation of OSJ as
influence with the government officials to protect his position. This
mischief has been brought to the attention of the prime minister for
using religion into granting power.
CSIC Mandatory errors and omissions insurance does not work for
the benefit of the members or the clients, members of the industry
have already experienced and used the coverage; we believe it is
not sufficient enough to protect the consumer in legal procedures.
CSIC call their members being experienced, which this is very
alarming fact, 1000 of CSIC members did not present more than 10
case in the past four tot five years, however large portion of CSIC
members indeed received letters of references to assist them in
qualifying for the initial registration, this bring the whole society
credibly into questioning whether the members of CSIC are
experienced or not.
CSIC regulatory measures has not been adopt to its concepts or schemes and that
have not been implemented in other self-regulating professions in this manner, . it
is a great shame for CIC directors compare themselves to the Law Society of
Upper Canada (LSUC) scheme and concepts.
In conclusion that CSIC does not have 1354 members as they claimed. Their
300 new students enrolled in the past year in immigration practitioner programs
in colleges and universities across Canada has no experienced and yet will carry
on immigration business without any proper training and hold the title
experienced members on the CIC website ,
We have been informed that CSIC directors receives hidden kick backs of 780
dollars per student form the Seneca College, Humber College, York College,
O'Sullivan College in Montreal, Bow Valley College in Calgary, Ashton College
in British Columbia and the University of British Columbia for imposing on
practitioners to study and enroll for 5000 dollars program, unfortunately
there is no other education alternative to student who can not afforded these
programs.
It is projected that CSIC will be receiving a kick backs of $312000 dollars
from 400 new students who pushed and imposed upon them to take the
program for the sake to meet the initial enroll requirements. CSIC's regulatory
activities are not public and done in hidden and closed private doors which some
of CAPIC directors are invited secretly. In addition, the reports of CSIC annual
independent audit of business activities were not available for more than one year
until the public demanded to have it available on its website. In short, CSIC false
claim to be accountable in not registered in their book or in the industry. SIC
received more than 12 million dollars for the past 28 months and large portions
not accounted for and not claimed on the finance statement.
CSIC treasurer MS, Holly Gracey was at one point delivered fraudulent court
document to assist her sister Ms. White to collect Employment insurance in
fraudulent manner; they appealed the case and lost. Now she is handling CIC
12 million dollars. Ms. Gracey does not carry CGA< CPA< CA credential
accounting certificate and she is not member of the any recognize accounting
firm or bar association. She was elected by John Ryan and given second term.
CSIC vice chair Mr. Imran Qayyum a close friend to the current chair John
Ryan has been shifted from one position to another and permitted lavish
unaccounted expenses to be spent by the directors and not claimed on the
financial statement.
To date, CSIC has approximately 710 members In addition, there were over
300 students enrolled in the past year in immigration practitioner programs in
colleges and universities across Canada but these educational institutions do not
provide experienced immigration lawyers, or immigration consultants to instruct,
the majorities has only friends of John Ryan who never practiced immigration,
but teach it. To those new 300 students that CSIC is referring to.
, The parliament therefore must question the quality, and the instructors
qualification in the following institutional, including Seneca College, Humber
College, York College, O'Sullivan College in Montreal, Bow Valley College in
Calgary, Ashton College in British Columbia and the University of British
Columbia It is projected that over 400 students will be enrolled for the up
coming academic year
CSIC's regulatory activities are not public, more into private club. In addition, the
reports of an annual independent audit of CSIC's business activities are available
on its website and CSIC is not accountable for anything,
In Conclusion, The Canada immigration has created CSIC but did not create
Consumer protection as the CIC appeared to portray the trust of its clients with
false advertisement on its Website. The CIC is imposing on international
prospective immigration (CIC clients) to hire only what CIC chose for them,
therefore, CIC stepped out of jurisdiction and this may affect the immigration to
Canada at large in the near future. And in default of the Canadian Constitution
Act and the Human right Act, including the Charter of Rights and Freedom,
The Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners is ready for class action
against Canada immigration and the Canadian Society of Immigration
Consultants for causing damage to thousands of Canadian Businesses.
20
21
22
23
24
10
Friday, September 15, 2006
Interparliamentary and Public relation Romm 191
Interparliamentary and Public RelationsRoom 191, Legislative BuildingQueen's ParkToronto, OntarioM7A 1A2
September 15 2006
Dear Honorable, madams and Gentlemen
Re: The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultant CSIC and the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
We have no other choice at this stage but to forward some of the information for your attention, we have no other way to bring it to you since we all reached a stage to face the unfortunate corruption situation with the immigration industry at CSIC the Canadian Society of immigration Consultants sin Ontario, unless we had to go out of the scope of our professionalism so yourself can take us more seriously and have your ethical and moral input in this matter.
We have made many communications for the past 8 months with the right places without any success to bring the accountability act to those who brought the immigration industry integrity to the ground. This is due to the internal bureaucracies that lead to too many barriers for the right person to act honorably.
We demands for your immediate input and we remain
Sincerely yours
Nancy Salloum
CSIP chair and lobbyist
2000-1066 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC
Tel: 604-601-8264
Fax: 604-582-4898
Website: www.csip.ca
Email: info@csip.ca
From: Roy Kellogg [mailto:canvisa@cvimmigration.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 4:04 PMTo: 'executive@capic.ca'Subject: CAPIC POLICY PAPER
To All
So it appears that CAPIC lobbyist made fools of Immigration Consultants when they appeared in front of the Ontario Provincial Legislators because they could not answer the committee’s questions. This could not be correct, could it?
Upon submission and attendance before the committee on 06 SEPT 2006 we realize that our submission requires more background information and pursuant to the request of Mr. Kormos and questions raised by Mr. Zimmer, we present the following for your review and consideration.
Again I feel obliged to respond to yet another CAPIC Policy paper. Some of the titles are hilarious.
How was CSIC started?
I just can’t stop laughing! CSIC was started by an end run around the members of AICC and OPIC by the respective presidents John Ryan and Jill Sparling. They got together with a former Minister of Immigration and got a cash handout. They created a non-profit corporation that must always spend every penny they bring in to maintain their non-profit status.
Then my friend Mr. Mooney and Mr. Volpentesta puts their own spin on Mr. Zimmer’s understanding but if you read his response to Ben Trister Quote “Mr. Zimmer: I'm pleased to see that your principal concern -- you see the benefit in this legislation -- is the protection of the consumer. While we want to be respectful of lawyers and paralegals and people working in the immigration field, the trump card is protection of the consumer.
I do share your concerns, and I understand your submission. I was the assistant deputy chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada when they were going through the process of setting this up. I like to remind myself from time to time that I flagged all the concerns you just expressed now. I think you and I had a number of conversations at the time this was working its way through. So I'll just leave it at that. I understand your submission.” Unquote
Mr. Zimmer is clearly stating to Mr. Trister that he (flagged all the concerns (Mr. Trister) you just expressed) so he is not a fan of CSIC either. Or is he?
What gets me is that CAPIC policy paper goes on to talk how (established criteria for membership, standards, ethics, discipline and continuing professional development among other functions of a regulator.) Membership standards that CAPIC wanted did not happen like changes in Language testing, grandfathering but some CAPIC members got to bypass the knowledge test. That I think is a good thing because if not there would be far fewer full members.
Get your facts right gentlemen!!
Today, members who have successfully completed all the requirements can call themselves Certified Canadian Immigration Consultants. These are the only consultants who will be able to act as authorized representatives post October 31, 2006.
Anyone can represent anyone as long as they get paid upfront and no legislation could be written any different. If someone pays for advice on which car is the best car they should purchase it then becomes their decision to act on that advice or not. It’s like going on a blind date you have to decide to go and to go on another one with the same person again.
What gets me is that CAPIC blames CIC for not creating legislation with teeth. CAPIC takes no blame for the model of consultant regulation even though they claim they were the driving force behind same.
CAPIC feels that Citizenship and Immigration Canada has too loosely interpreted their own regulations and by defining when the representation starts as being sometime far too late in the process, has left consumers vulnerable to those who practice on the fringe of the law.
What the CAPIC policy paper writers do not seem to understand is that anyone can create a Law but enforcement is a whole other matter. A Law that can not be enforced by the courts is a failed Law. Those who think they will make more money by eliminating competition are sadly mistaken
Government has to find the will to enforce their regulations.
Get over it government only cares about those who have a vote! The CAPIC authors are masters at copy and paste because they have so little to say. Do Mr. Mooney and Mr. Volpentesta really think that the Standing Committee on Justice Policy who have been studying regulation of paralegals for well over a year do not know the relevant sections of IRPA when it comes to Immigration Consultant Regulation? Why would they copy and paste like CSIP does in their lengthy e-mails?
CAPIC authors of this policy paper did include IP9 but failed to address why the CIC, IRB, IAD and CBSA are interpreting the Regulations to mean that R13.1(1) does not apply to any representations that are made to a client before an application is submitted to CIC. In other words, an applicant is obliged to disclose the name of their representative (authorized or unpaid) on the Use of a Representative (IMM 5476) form only if the individual will represent them once the application is submitted to CIC (i.e., either at the time of submission or post submission).
You can not stop anyone from giving advice before any person applies. Anyone can say hire this company or that company and get paid for same. There will always be case law for the buyer beware!
The only option when sailing is to mutiny before any Captain sails the ship onto the rocks and drowns the crew.
Just some thoughts!
Roy Kellogg
CANVISA Immigration
CSIC# M041632
Tel: 1-888-292-7295
Tel: 416-292-7295
Fax: 416-292-5528
Roy Kellogg
Canvisa@Cvimmigration.com
55 Town Centre Court
Suite 502
Scarborough, ON
M1P 4X4
www.cvimmigration.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Society of Immigration practitioners (CSIP) took the courtesy and corrects the false report that was sent by CAPIC executives to your reviews.
Our red highlighted remarks must be brought to your attention to understand the reality of the issues of this report.
BILL 14
An Act to promote access to justice by amending or repealing various Acts and by enacting the Legislation Act, 2005
Submission to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy
By: Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
(CAPIC) and the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants CSIC since I am a member of the Professional Representatives Appointed to CSIC’s Hearings Panel
Which I believe I should speak on CSIC behalf at the same time since they allow me this favor to be as part of CSIC somehow due to continue supporting their hidden corruptions!!!
Original Presentation date: September 6, 2006 at 10:30am
Supplemental Submission: September 7, 2006
Upon submission and attendance before the committee on 06 SEPT 2006 we realize that our submission requires more background information and pursuant to the request of Mr. Kormos and questions raised by Mr. Zimmer, we present the following for your review and consideration.
Executive Summary
What is CAPIC?
CAPIC is the largest professional association (752 members only) for Canadian immigration consultants, and associate Lawyers and affiliated paralegals and notaries at 200.00 dollars membership fees and we are founded on the pillars of Education, Information, Lobbying and self acclaimed Recognition. We are a volunteer non-profit organization who received $150000.00 dollars per year from a membership fees this is run by selected few non ethnic directors and not members for members. We are not the regulator of consultants but we are the one who impose the regulation through CSIC and we were the initial bodies ( AICC and OPIC) who did recommend discrimination against non CSIC members since April 13 2006, but we are the voice of (CSIC) directors and consultants only despite the fact there are 6007 consultants in membership with CSIP The new regulator based in Vancouver, The Canadian society of immigration practitioners chaired by Nancy Salloum and operated as NGO and NON profit organization with not government funding since its creation. We are essentially the “Bar!!!!!!Association” for our members just as the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) our regulator is our “Law Society?????????????????”
Are Immigration Consultants regulated?
Immigration Consultants have been regulated under the auspices of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations since April 2004 after decision made between selected few bureaucrats behind closed doors to eliminate the ethnic consultants from practicing immigration and the support of former immigration minister Denise Codere and Joe Volpe.
The federal government through IRPA and IRPR has defined who may represent a person for a fee by creating a definition of “PAID authorized representative”. Please see the attached list of references for further information which I missed to tell you about the whole recognition of other consultants under different category.
See IP9 http://www.cic.gc.ca/manuals-guides/english/ip/ip09e.pdf
5.2. Paid representatives
Representatives who wish to conduct business with CIC, the IRB and the CBSA must be authorized
members of one of the following designated bodies in order to charge a fee for immigration and refugee services.
IP 9 Use of Representatives Paid or Unpaid
2005-08-17 5
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
An independent, not-for-profit organization and self-regulating body, CSIC operates at arm’s length
from the Government of Canada. CSIC is responsible for regulating the activities of immigration
consultants who are members and who provide immigration services for a fee.
Membership is granted only to those individuals who have demonstrated their knowledge and ability to
advise, consult and represent people who seek Canadian immigration. Members must demonstrate
their good character and have met the Society's membership standards (knowledge, ethics and
language requirements).
To ensure the competent and professional conduct of its members, the Society has also developed
stringent Rules of Professional Conduct by which all its members must abide.
Lawyers and Quebec notaries
Lawyers and Quebec notaries are not required to become members of CSIC, as they are regulated by
their own law societies.
A law society’s mandate is to govern the legal profession and safeguard the public interest. It aims to
ensure that clients are served by lawyers who meet high standards of learning, competence and
professional conduct, and to uphold the independence, integrity and honour of the legal profession for
the purpose of advancing the cause of justice and the rule of law.
A lawyer can be a member of any Canadian law society, and does not necessarily have to be
registered in the province where their client is located in order to provide immigration services. In
order to confirm if a lawyer is in good standing, it may be necessary to ask the lawyer which province
they are registered with.
For more information on sub-agents and employees of lawyers and consultants, refer to section 5.4
below.
Students-at-law
Students-at-law, as stated in R13.1(3), are deemed not to be representing, advising and consulting for
a fee, as long as the student-at-law is acting under the supervision of a member in good standing with
a provincial/territorial law society or the Chambre des notaires du Québec who is authorized to
represent the applicant. In other words, students-at-law may represent, advise or consult with a
person who is the subject of an immigration or refugee application provided that they are under the
supervision of a Canadian provincial/territorial law society or the Chambre des notaires du Québec.
Students-at-law are authorized to complete and sign the IMM 5476. Officers should verify students-atlaw
on the Web sites of the Canadian provincial/territorial law societies and Quebec notaries’
association. The Regulations apply to students-at-law in the same manner as they would a lawyer.
5.3. Unpaid representatives
The primary objective of the Regulations concerning the use of representatives is to protect applicants
from exploitation and to safeguard program integrity. They are not intended to eliminate all traditional
partners from playing a legitimate role. Some of these partners are listed below.
Family, friends, and religious and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who do not charge a fee
for their services do not need to be members of a regulatory body in order to act as a representative.
Family, friends, non-governmental and religious organizations
Family, friends, international agencies (e.g., United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), and
religious and non-governmental organizations play an important role for applicants with limited
resources who feel the need for support and advice. Family, friends, and international, religious and
non-governmental organizations who do not charge fees for providing immigration advice or services
can continue to represent applicants before CIC or the CBSA without being members of CSIC or a
Canadian provincial/territorial law society, at pre-submission of the application and during processing.
IP 9 Use of Representatives Paid or Unpaid
2005-08-17 6
International organizations
Certain international organizations, such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM), have
agents who provide a variety of services to clients. When the services are provided prior to the
submission of an application, it is not necessary for clients to identify IOM agents on the IMM 5476,
even if they have been paid for those services. However, this is operating on the assumption that IOM
agents do not represent the client and have no intention of representing them in the future after the
application has been submitted.
Pro bono work
CIC and the CBSA should not be discouraging pro bono work by authorized representatives (and
students-at-law under a lawyer’s supervision). Pro bono activity by lawyers, notaries and CSIC
members is encouraged by their regulatory bodies. If the representatives are members of a law
society or the CSIC, it is irrelevant whether they are paid or unpaid, as they are in good standing and
regulated.
However, local offices should be mindful of unauthorized representatives who identify themselves as
unpaid on the Use of a Representative (IMM 5476) form and who submit a significant number of
applications as pro bono. If local offices have concerns about how many submissions from
unauthorized representatives are truly pro bono submissions, they should continue their current
practice of investigating in order to preserve program integrity.
5.4. Stakeholders – Other
There are specialized areas in the immigration and refugee program where individuals may be
providing advice to clients but not representing them in dealings with CIC, the CBSA or the IRB. The
Regulations do not preclude this.
As the regulatory amendments do not apply to citizenship applications, educational agents or Human
Resources and Skills Development applications for labour market options, certain functions are
permissible by individuals who are not authorized. These individuals include educational agents,
translators, shipping agents, facilitators for the Immigrant Investor Program, recruiters for provincial
nominees and live-in caregivers, tour organizers and adoption agents. This list is not complete as
there are many individuals who receive payment for filling out forms and applications, translating
documents, and dropping off and picking up documents. However, as these individuals do not meet
the definition of an authorized representative, there are functions that they cannot perform. These
functions include making interventions on behalf of the applicant during processing, and requesting
information about the progress of the application. In order to make interventions and request
information on behalf of the applicant during application processing, these individuals must be
members of one of the regulatory bodies.
Educational stakeholders in Canada
Educational stakeholders in Canada include international student advisors, school administrators,
churches and cultural organizations. Since these educational stakeholders are not paid a fee by the
student for providing immigration services, they fall under the category of “unpaid representative –
other” in section 6 of the IMM 5476.
Educational stakeholders can continue to provide students with information, assist in completing
work/study permit applications and/or extensions at local CIC offices, and advocate and intervene on
behalf of international students if they are unpaid and designated as representatives. They can also
provide their mailing address as the point of contact for the student’s study permit application.
In the case of unaccompanied minors, the relationship between the student and the institution is
particularly strong. The school administrator functions as a custodian in many instances, albeit not in
the legal sense. It is crucial that this relationship continue. The same principle would apply for those
educational stakeholders facilitating off-campus employment pilot projects.
The rules are distinctly different for overseas educational agents (see below).
IP 9 Use of Representatives Paid or Unpaid
2005-08-17 7
Educational agents abroad
Educational agents, who are often engaged by Canadian educational institutions to assist their foreign
students, charge a fee for all their services up to and including sending a signed study permit
application to the Canadian embassy. Under the Regulations, agents do not need to meet the
definition of an authorized representative to provide services prior to the submission of the application.
However, agents who wish to represent students after their student applications have been submitted
will need to be members of a Canadian provincial/territorial law society, the Canadian Society of
Immigration Consultants or the Chambre des notaires du Québec in order to conduct business with
CIC and the CBSA.
Employees of lawyers and consultants
Employees of law firms or consulting companies are not authorized representatives; therefore, they
cannot represent clients at CIC, IRB and CBSA hearings or proceedings, including interviews.
However, following the submission of a Use of a Representative (IMM 5476) form it is acceptable for
directly supervised and co-located employees to prepare documentation and correspondence on
behalf of the authorized representative and to send this documentation to the CIC processing office.
Under the provisions of their relevant professional codes of conduct the lawyer or the CSIC member is
accountable and responsible for their employee’s actions and conduct. Written correspondence from
employees of authorized representatives must:
• be prepared on the authorized representative’s company letterhead;
• clearly indicate in the signature block that an employee is “acting on behalf of“ the authorized
representative;
• clearly indicate the name of the authorized representative and the membership number of the
regulatory body to which they belong.
Offices that allow for the pick-up of documents may continue to do so, provided the applicant has
notified the office in writing that they have given this individual their permission to collect the
document. Suitable identification is required at the time of pick-up in order for officers to adequately
identify the designated individual. Section 7.4 identifies written and oral office procedures for
communicating with representatives.
Adoption agencies
Adoption agencies are still in a position to provide advice and service prior to the submission of the
immigration application, such as filling out forms and liaising with overseas agents to identify a child
for adoption; however, those agents who want to act as a representative following submission of the
application for permanent residence will need to be members of a Canadian provincial/territorial law
society, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants or the Chambre des notaires du Québec.
Live-in caregivers’ agents
Agencies are still in a position to provide advice and service prior to the submission of the temporary
foreign worker application, such as filling out forms and liaising with overseas agents to help recruit
live-in caregivers to come to Canada. However, those agents who want to act as representatives
following submission of the application for permanent residence will need to be members of a
Canadian provincial/territorial law society, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants or the
Chambre des notaires du Québec.
6. Definitions
Paid
Representatives
An individual who charges a fee to represent, advise or consult with a
person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before CIC,
the CBSA or the IRB on behalf of a client on immigration and refugee
matters. The amended Regulations state that fee-charging individuals
IP 9 Use of Representatives Paid or Unpaid
2005-08-17 8
must be authorized representatives.
Authorized
Representatives
Individuals who are members in good standing with a Canadian
provincial/territorial law society, the Canadian Society of Immigration
Consultants or the Chambre des notaires du Québec.
Unpaid
Representatives
A family member, friend, member of an international, religious or nongovernmental
organization, or any other person who does not charge
a fee for services.
Unauthorized
Representatives
Individuals who charge a fee for services and who are not members of
a Canadian provincial/territorial law society, CSIC or the Chambre des
notaires du Québec.
Concealed
Representatives
Individuals who continue to intercede between the client and CIC
and/or the CBSA once the application is submitted, and do not submit
an IMM 5476 declaring their professional relationship with the client.
Pro bono Representing someone without charging a fee.
Designated Individual An individual who is not acting as a representative, but with whom the
client permits CIC and the CBSA to share their personal information.
This individual has the capacity to change the client's address and
enquire about the status of the client's application (see section 3.1).
However, this individual cannot conduct business with CIC or the
CBSA on the client’s behalf.
Fee Includes all types of fee arrangements, direct or indirect.
Please note that disbursements such as travelling expenses to
represent a client free of charge may, but do not necessarily constitute
a fee per se.
How did regulation of immigration consultants come about?
The regulation of immigration consultants came about after more than two decades of persistent lobbying behind closed doors with members of AICC and OPIC who do not see that immigrants or ethnics should represent CIC clients as paid representatives, a Royal Commission, two Standing Committee reports and a Supreme Court decision (Mangat) where the court decided that the Immigration Act was paramount to the BC Solicitors Act in the area of non-lawyer practitioners in immigration matters.
Subsequent to the decision the Minister of the day, Denis Coders ( who chose four of his friends without public consultants or federal check out their criminal backgrounds which one of them John Ryan was under federal investigations), struck a Minister’s Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants which reported in May of 2003. The committee was made up of various (selected) people including former treasure of the Law Society of Upper Canada, Frank Morocco. More than 180 groups appeared to testify before the committee which ultimately resulted in 36 (unarguable) recommendations by the public since the public did not have clue about this report on how to regulate immigration consultants.
The federal government then proceeded to amend regulations without the members of the industry approval; to define what an “PAID and UNPAID authorized representative” was and included immigration consultants and all immigration practitioners who were members of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants and other regulators and society like the Canadian society of Immigration Practitioners CSIP who regulates that highest number of consultants in Canada and Abroad..
Of course our two founding organizations AICC and OPIC who well known in discrimination and throwing racial remarks against immigrants who believe they should restrict themselves to menial jobs or be discipline by the Hong Kong carrot and stick had always envisioned and imposed that they would become the self-Acclaimed regulatory body, but the minister of the day in the interest of the consumer interest!!!!! And the current CSIC and CAPIC directors hidden agenda chose another route with the establishment of CSIC to have a good control of the income of 12 million dollars in the past two years as not accountable for. In the end, CSIC is a self-Acclaimed regulatory body by few shareholders and operated as profitable corporation under presuming a non profit corporations which initially consisted of only 1/3 industry representation and 1/3 lawyers and 1/3 public interest representation.
In April 2006, with the first election of directors to CSIC, 2/3 of the directors being consultants drawn from CSIC 750 and CAPIC 750 industry only and a significant portion 6007 members remain public interest at 1/3.
How was CSIC started?
CAPIC is not the best respondent to this question but we have all the answers and you are best advised to direct the question to the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants and to the Canadian society of Immigration practitioners and to the minister Denise Coders when they appear before your committee. However, as the issue was touched upon the issue we feel we should respond as well after we speak to all the members of the industry which we have not done so to date.
Our understanding of Mr. Zimmer’s description of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants is that membership is through a simple review of resumes!!!!!!!!!!. While the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants can answer your questions more thoroughly IN ORDER TO HIDE THE REALA DESCRIPTION , CAPIC understands that the original four members were all members of the Advisory Committee THAT WERE SELECTED PRIVATELY BY Denise Codere and quite knowledgeable how to impose discrimination in consultant regulation as well as not all the representative of the various groups interested specifically two lawyers (from Quebec and Ontario), one consultant and one public interest. What a bunch, hey !
This group of four was the genesis of the idea to put into motion the recommendation of the Advisory Committee to eliminate the ethnic consultant from the industry.
Subsequently, initial members who were directors of the Society established their own self personal criteria for membership without the consultation of 8900 consultants, without any proper or legitimate standards, no ethics, no discipline according to Benjamin Trister statement of April 2005 to your committee and discontinuing professional development among other functions of a regulator.
As part of this process, immigration consultants were required to first become transitional members not according to the government requirements and to meet a list of criteria set by John Ryan and his friends to create difficulty to eliminate the grandfather clause to be permitted which included a number of years in practice with great exemption for large number of friends and colleagues at CAPIC . AICC and OPIC , significant work in the field, formal education imposed only on ethnics , successful completion of a proficiency test and other requirements if they managed to see the real marks and the test . Transitional members then had to become full members after John Ryan approval to keep the membership funds rolling by demonstrating language proficiency in English or French if you can manage to past the high standard as well as extensive demonstration of competency through a full membership exam which was made from cut and past questions from the CIC website by exempted few selected members / friends who got paid over $760000 dollars.
Today, members who have successfully completed all the requirements which we can not say if they really passed or not, since no one has really have seen the marks of the test but received a congratulations email that they passed and many ethnics received the regrettable info that they did not pass can call themselves Certified Canadian Immigration Consultants without any real experience and waived any complaints against them. These are the only consultants who will be able to act as PAID authorized representative’s post October 31, 2006.
Who is the appropriate regulator for immigration consultants?
CAPIC feels that the CSIC our friends and keep feeding us funds under the table through private contracts and appoint us as directors under hefty freelance free expenses using the CSIC credit card is the proper authority for the regulation of immigration consultants despite the fact they lost from 1600 members to 710 members which only 410 original members and new 310 new student were certified by educational institution without any experience. CAPIC feels that since immigration consultants do work across provincial boundaries, indeed outside national boundaries, the federal government aught to define regulations for PAID and UNPAID representatives. The federal government aught further to more strictly interpret their regulations and vigorously enforce their regulation which this is not true but we would like to add some spices to make it so incredible.
CAPIC feels that Citizenship and Immigration Canada has too loosely interpreted their own regulations and by defining when the representation starts as being sometime far too late in the process!!!!!!!!!!!, has left consumers vulnerable without CSIC discipline mechanism put in place in the past two years and to those who practice on the fringe of the law as unpaid representative still defined and recognized by the Canada immigration. CAPIC feels these people and organizations must also subject themselves to regulation of CSIC but Canada immigration will not set over the Canadian charter of rights and Freedom to avoid many lawsuits in the future.
It is worth noting that the enforcement of the regulations must be a cooperative effort on the part of Canada Border Service Agency (CBSA), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) as well as provincial and local policy authorities to catch those CSIC full members who are looting the clients under the Umbrella of Corruptions and without proper discipline.
What is the relevant authority for the regulation of consultants?
For your review and consideration here are some relevant materials you may wish to refer to in your deliberations:
Urgent Announcement
NEW
1. CSIP chair Nancy Salloum will demand to cross-examine Benjamin Trister in the defamation lawsuit against CSIC for his affidavit that was submitted in the federal court between LSUC /agaisnt CIC and CSIC
2. Complaint from an applicant from Georgia against CSIC member and the Canadian embassy .
3. Concern of the CIC website posting about paid representative from Abu Dhabi , United Arab emirates
4. ED PATEL report about CAPIC and CSIC membership for the 2006.
5. CSIP is seeking to increase the amount of compensation for damages to 10 million dollars for libel from “CSIC”and its directors
6. Until we get back to basics and start requiring excellence over adequacy CSIC and CIC 'll continue to go downhill.
7. CSIP Complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission against CSIC and CIC
8. Will Canada's Immigration Minister Monte Solberg Resigns
9. The Immigration Minister should resign for flawed support to CSIC.
10. Roy Kellogg CSIC full member concerns about CSIC request for FREE consultants to look after the discipline section
11. CSIC threat its own members with Toronto police over bogus complaint using criminal threats
12. CSIP requested of Prime Minister to remove immigration minister Solberg due to discrimination
13. Roy Kellogg questioned Joel Sandaluk of Mamann and Associates regarding CSIC code of conduct
14. Flawed system needs repairs
15. Urgent request under the Accountability Act
16. I completely agree to the dissolution of CSIC. These people are frying us with our own oil.
17. EMBASSIES IMMEDIATE ALERT
18. Joint Statement by CSIP chairperson of Canada and President / CEO of the VFS Visa Facilitations Services on CSIP and VFS mutual cooperation with ISS chairperson
19. WARNING TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE IMMIGRATION INDUSTRY Prior to use unproved of CSIC trade marks
20. CSIP expert report about corruption within Society CSIC “the Canadian Society of Immigration consultants,How does the Conservative Bringing Accountability Back to Government?
21. What is wrong with this statements? CSIC Corruptions by Benjamin Trsiter / Rico Martinez /
22. CSIP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – For immigration practitioners.
23. CSIC FAILED OR STILL NOT WILLING OR ABLE TO POLICE ITS OWN MEMBERS EFFECTIVELY.
24. The irregularities at CSIC could be termed as a smaller version of the “Sponsorship program” scandal. One member has even suggested a name - “CSIC-Gate”.
25. Current members of CSIC and CAPIC are concerned about the Complaints and Discipline Mechanism. CSIP would like to share it with you on how it works at both organizations CSIC and CAPIC, This is the result of the discipline hearing. Internal emails between Executives of CSIC and CAPIC.
26. Immigration advisers' board shaken again
27. We oppose to all various Governments, Societies ,and associations where false advocacy on international and Canada immigration and its regulations have been embedded for century
28. Policing CSIC immigration consultant sis failing by the day
29. Immigration Practitioners Fought Alumni, Corporation CIC / CSIC / CAPIC for Right to Stay in industry and practice without discriminations
30. CSIP associates in Portugal lunching Campagin against CIC
31. CSIP New Membership Criteria for Membership with the Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners based in Vancouver, BC.Canada
O&E omission applications 1 2 3 4 5 6
32. CSIP chair, Nancy Salloum finally got her wish and got out of CAPIC membership after two years request of resignation.
33. Citizenship and Immigration Canada — The Economic Component of the Canadian Immigration Program http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/0003ce.html
34. NEW & ALERT VFS scandal “Is it a final nail in CSIC coffin?”
35. CSIP demands that Kansas Judicial Branch Rules Adopted by the Supreme Court Discipline of Attorneys to apply to CISC full members immediately
36. CSIC is smoothing the way to ask its members for an increase in membership to compensate the loss of many members
37. CSIC has failed by introduced the profession's first ever Rules of Professional Conduct to ensure immigration consultants can be held accountable to a meaningful standard of ethics and professional practice
Today's news
1. NEW Roy Kellogg and Parashant Ajmera analysis on VFS offices in India
2. NEW CIC is supporting NON -CSIC members in India and even advertising for them as paid representatives
3. New GST reduction, do not charge your foreign clients if you provide the service outside Canada.
4. NEW
o Representative's grave concern about visa officers not following the regulation of IP9 sections 5.3, 5.4, and 7.1
o Representative's concern about the new administrative process which begin of September 01,2006
5. NEW CIC alert administrative changes to application process as of Sep 01 2006
6. NEW Nova Scotia Nominee Program
7. NEW AGAIN and AGAIN, the Canadian Liberal Candidate JOe Volpe Strong-arms the Internet and make unlawful attack against a Canadian citizen's right. Does he fit to be the leader of the liberal party?.
8. NEW Is CSIC the place for racial attacks against members / Candidates and is it allowed during elections or in Canada!
9. Roy Kellogg teaching a H&C seminar on Sunday July 16th 2006, book an appointment
10. NEW Camilla Jones and other CSIC full members questioning Roy Kellogg re: CSIC directors compensation
11. NEW Roy Kellogg and Syed Hashmi views on CSIC directors new compensation
12. This is the director who deceived Trister with $600.000.00 dollars deficit is running the vice chair, what a joke?and provide illegal financial advices! Now is in control of our money?
13. NEW CSIP expert report about corruption within Society CSIC “the Canadian Society of Immigration consultants.
14. The three directors who resigned from the Society are still and remain directors of the Society to date and they are fully responsible to the every day operation until the office receives the directors resolution application
15. CSIC Transitional Members should be aware that recent unsolicited e-mail messages circulated to many members regarding the use of CIC form IMM5475 are incorrect and may put your ability to represent your clients at risk.
Last Week news
1. NEW CSIP Canada is Focus on CSIC new Directors compensation of today announcemet
2. CONGRATULATIONS CSIP FOR YOUR FIRST YEAR ANNIVERSARY
3. Canadian tax payer's money wasted in the millions of dollars by CICcontributions to unnecessary services or unrecognized services.
4. Membership NEW criteria and E&O insurance coverage for the year 2006/07.
5. CSIC Candidates looking for Ghost Consultants, CSIP is helping to find them
6. CSIP note about Error and Omission coverage write to CSIP for more details
7. Urgent ALERT and RAISED an inquiry to the CSIC 2006 election results
8. Monte Solberg speech has mentioned about Immigration Practitioners not Immigration consultants,
9. Immigration Lawyers madness and blaming CSIC internal corruption for Monte Solberg statement to CSIP to support IP s.9 5.4
10. CSIP SEEKS GARTH TURNER AND BILL SIKSAY IMMIGRATION CRITICS AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TO CALL \
11. almost two years, John Ryan’s message has motivated his CSIC members to give $$$$$$$$$$$ millions to his family private society.
Last Months news
1. Urgent ALERT and RAISED an inquiry to the CSIC 2006 election results
2. This is final reminder for all CSIC members , we need 194 more members to pass the petition
3. CSIP presents CIPN advocacy to the immigration industry
4. The Candidate Olukayode (Kay) Adebogun - Western Canada has requested from CSIP to publish it for your reading. CSIP provides FREE advertising assistance to all members of the industry
5. Preventing and Responding to CSIC Bullying, Harassment, And Hate Crimes through Effective Collaboration between CSIP members Civil Rights and CSIC hate directors and Staff
6. CSIP chairperson Nancy Salloum is warning the law society of Upper Canada "LSUC" Complaint manager Mr. Gross and CSIC Chairperson Mr. Ryan to act within the law.
7. May 20, 2006 CSIP Proposal to the Immigration Minister
8. May 23, 2006 CAPIC members demands resignation of CSIC chairman John Ryan immediately!
9. CSIP applied to oppose CSIC trade Marks
10. WARNING TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE IMMIGRATION INDUSTRY "Prior to use unproved of CSIC trade marks"
11. CSIP chairperson Nancy Salloum reporting on CSIC 2006 elections at CAPIC meeting June 6, 2006
12. ON PUBLIC INQUIRY AGAINST TWO FORMER IMMIGRATION MINISTERS CODERRE AND VOLPE!!;
13. Monte Solberg provides solution to CSIP about IP9 section 5.4 .html.
14. Online Complaint Form Successfully Sent Thursday, December 15, 2005 09:30:23 AM -0800
15. Alert to members of the Immigration industry
16. CSIP ANALYZING THE GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT CREATION OF A SELF-REGULATING BODY FOR IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS on October 31, 2003 AS A FLAWED, CONSPIRACY, AND SCANDALS.
17. CSIP thanks CIC for informing us with this Alert update Immigration information. I was wondering why CSIC & CAPIC did not post it to its members?
18. Our application for opposing is submitted prior to the registered applicant trademarks been approved or being advertised in the Journal in the normal wa
19. CSIP Canada is Focus on CSIC new Directors compensation of today announcement
20. AGAIN and AGAIN, the Canadian Liberal Candidate Volpe Strong-arms the Internet and make unlawful attack against a Canadian citizen right.
21. CSIP congratulates Canada and send special warm wishes to the Prime Minister and all Canadians a prosperity, Health and justice for all on this special Canada Day
22. John Ryan, Fidelity Capital International Inc.; Case #20089
23. Discrimination of immigration consultants by its licensing body called the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
24. honourable assurances to the members of the industry that you are the only honourable minister who can oversee that justice is supported by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom to anyone who seeks your Ministry assistance.
25. The Mandate for CSIP is to protect the Immigration consultants and enhance the immigration industry.
26. CSIC full exam was unfair. 200 questions in 180 minutes did not allow enough time.
Reminder from this year
1. CSIP petition to dissolve CSIC. In the Alternative , Remove the requirements of English and final exam and add the grandfather clause to the by-law and policies.
2. CSIC 2006 Candidates higher priorities are after the Ghost Consultants lets help to find them
3. CSIP will keep you update on the daily legal status and preparing you for the future outcome shortly.
4. Roy Kellogg to Sean Shannon and Camila Jones concerning the CSIC by-law flaws
5. CSIP complaints against John Ryan and Qamar Sadiq CSIP filed formal complaint against John Ryan and Qamar Sadiq for misleading the public. The complaints filed with Ontario Provincial Police, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (British Columbia), LSUC, The law society of Upper Canada.Minister of Immigration, RCMP Law enforcement group ( RCMP, Ontario Provincial Police Anti-Rackets branch OPP, Internet crime Complaint Centre ( United State) ,Better Business Bureau,Ontario Chamber of Commerce, Ontario Deputy Minister of Immigration
6. CSIP WORK SHOP ( CAPIC CORRUPTIONS)
7. Open Letter addressing the Issues of Full-Knowledge Examination Fee, CSIC Annual Membership Fee for 2005-2006, and Full Membership Time Deadlines
8. Open Letter: Common Shared Concerns with the International Association of Immigration Practitioners regarding the Settlement Agreement with the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants
9. Nancy Salloum and Roy Kellogg have spoken to Mr. Volpe office to confirm such meeting to Whether Ron McKay of Capic is meeting with minister as he claimed in his letter to Roy Kellogg.
10. The CSIC strategy of defending the recent situation in the form of frequently asked questions appears to be a cosmeticm exercise in dealing with serous issues which are inherent and remain within the organisation by CAPIC member Belvinder
11. I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY CAPIC MEMBERS THINK THE WAY THEY DO.
12. CAPIC continue to slander CSIP chair person Nancy Salloum despite the law suit against them for defamation of her character ,. CAPIC members are against their own Executive members for mischief and misbehaviour.
13. CAPIC members sinking in their own denials to the facts and support corruptions
14. THE GENUINELY OF TRISTERS EMAILS TO CBA , CSIP , CIPN AND CSIC MEMBERS
15. AS with this approval rating we also believe that all your decisions you made after April 13/2006 have no legal force or justified by Syed Hashmi
16. Where CSIC stands on this shocking news? Are they disappearing slowly or the members decided to leave due to CIC discrimination ?
17. tax payer money wasted in the millions of dollars by CIC contributions to unnecessary services or unrecognized services
18. Welcome to Citizenship and Immigration Canada
19. Members of the industry response to CSIC 2006 Election at CAPIC meeting in Vancouver.
20. CSIP honours those immigration practitioners who put their practice on line to stop the internal bias, fraud , financial embezzlement and corruptions within their society CSIC and therefore they left the Canadian society of immigration consultant known as CSIC and many registered with the new society known today as CSIP click
21. CSIP warns LSUC and demand full recognition as immigration counsel with compensation
22. serious deficiencies in the management and delivery of the economic component of the Canadian Immigration Program, whose purpose is to recruit highly qualified individuals who can readily contribute to our economy and adapt to our society
23. June 02 2006 LSUC letter to CSIP and CSIC and reply from CSIP to LSUC with warning
24. Information Required to obtain CAIPS Report
25. COMMENTS ON THE ADVISORY REPORT OF MAY 2003 by Farideh Ghofarian
26. Lawyers group asks Ottawa to probe immigration consultants society
27. June 02 2006 Canadian tax payer money wasted in the millions of dollars by CIC contributions to unnecessary services or unrecognized services
28. June 01 2006 Roy Kellogg letter to Syed Hashmi about CSIC
29. June 01 2006 Roy Kellogg letter to CSIP
30. May 31, 2006 CSIC is smoothing the way to ask its members for an increase in membership to compensate the loss of many members. However, CSIP membership is FREE and provides the same certificate, , Governs and regulations according to IP9 section 5.4. Why do you pay membership if you are recognized member with CSIP and you can present clients?
31. May 30 2006 CAPIC member, CSIC full member Kathryn McDonald is under fire by her colleagues.
32. May 30 2006 The law society of Upper Canada warned CSIC chair John Ryan for default of the law society Act section 50 as he portrayed himself as immigration counsel, Salloum warned the law society of BC to reopen the investigation to avoid further bias.
33. May 28 2006 CSIC former members comments about the advisory report of May 2003
34. May 28 2006 CAPIC members finally support CSIP chairperson Nancy Salloum against CSIC mandates
35. May 26 2006 CIC is shrinking its advertisement on the CIC home webpage about Paid Representatives
36. May 24, 2006 Roy Kellogg and Syed Hashmi about IP9 section 5.4 of IRPA
37. Letter of apology dated December 10th 2005
38.
Reminder from the year 2005
1. CSIP is advising you as of today, the result of the meeting with Mr. Dan Burnett of law firm Owen Bird, A litigator whose specialty is in defamation and other areas of the law in BC. Has agreed to be appointed to initiate to study and prepare for a law suit against both society ( CSIC ) and organization CAPIC.
2. The Consultants and lawyers do not conspire but work together in immigration industry, finally CBA recognized CISP as The immigration industry for consultants under it's main umbrella.
3. Why the majorities of the transitional members have not yet taken the language test and exam at this late stage of the game?
4. CSIC full member Mr. Qamar Sadiq is in default of section 50 of the law society Act.
5. CAPIC cannot clean up their message board since CSIP copied every post since October 18 2005 to bring as evidence in the supreme court that CAPIC was the major cause for CSIC destructions.
6. CSIP INFO POLL FOR SURVEYS & POLL
7. That hyperactive chain reaction did expose the embedded imbroglio and chaos in the management hierarchy of the embryonic CSIC by Mohammed Haque to Mr. Sadiq
8. I would move the office out of downtown Toronto. Make it a democracy and get rid of John Ryan by Camilla Jones
9. Phil Mooney and Ron McKay communication with CIPN and CSIC
10. Phil Mooney and Ron McKay communication with CIPN and CSIC
11. Ron McKay evidence of destruction against CSIC.
12. Nuha Salloum complaints to Holly Gracey about CAPIC discriminations
13. High Issues and SCANDALS Possibilities on the merge to rise
14. CSIP presents CIPN advocacy to the immigration industry.
15. Reminder CSIP announcement and opinions,CSIP chairperson Nancy Salloum speech on Dec 23, 2005 at the RIC Forum in Toronto,Former CSIC director resignation letter of Mr. Martinez,Former Director resignation letter of Ms. Jill Sparling.
16. Reminder Robin Seligman Chair, National Immigration & Citizenship Law Section
17. Reminder of Parashant Ajmera letter to CSIC unelected chair of November 14 2005.
18. Reminder of Benjamin Trister letter to CBA on November 27 2005.
19. RIC meeting in Toronto
20. The Canadian Society of Immigration practitioners (CSIP) are the regulatory body for Canadian Immigration consultants in Canada and
1. What Citizenship and Immigration Canada say about consultants.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/consultants/regulations.html
2. Mangat decision (2001), 3 S.C.R. 113 http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2001/2001scc67/2001scc67.html
3. CIC policy manual with respect to representatives.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/manuals-guides/english/ip/ip09e.pdf
4. Relevant Act and Regulations
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/index.html
Specifically: A91, A124 and A125
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/SOR-2002-227/index.html
Specifically: R2, R10 (2) and R13
Here are some of the specific related sections of the Act and Regulations:
Section 91 of the Act says: “The regulations may govern who may or may not represent, advise or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the Board"
Section 13.1 of the Regulations - Representation for a fee
13.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person who is not an authorized representative may, for a fee, represent, advice or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the Board.
Exception
(2) A person who is not an authorized representative may, for a period of four years after the coming into force of this section, continue for a fee to represent, advise or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the Board, if
(a) The person was providing any of those services to the person who is the subject of the proceeding or application on the coming into force of this section; and
(b) The proceeding or application is the same proceeding or application that was before the Minister, an officer or the Board on the coming into force of this section.
Students-at-law
(3) A student-at-law shall not be deemed under subsection (1) to be representing, advising or consulting for a fee if the student-at-law is acting under the supervision of a member in good standing of a bar of a province or the Chambre des notaires du Québec who represents, advises or consults with the person who is the subject of the proceeding or application. SOR/2004-59, s. 3.
Section 124. (1) Of the Act says:
Every person commits an offence who
(A) contravenes a provision of this Act for which a penalty is not specifically provided or fails to comply with a condition or obligation imposed under this Act;
(b) Escapes or attempts to escape from lawful custody or detention under this Act; or
(c) Employs a foreign national in a capacity in which the foreign national is not authorized under this Act to be employed.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a person who fails to exercise due diligence to determine whether employment is authorized under this Act is deemed to know that it is not authorized.
(3) A person referred to in subsection 148(1) shall not be found guilty of an offence under paragraph (1) (a) if it is established that they exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.
Further, section 125 of the Regulations,
A person who commits an offence under subsection 124(1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.
“Authorized Representative" is defined in the Regulations as a member in good standing of a bar of a province, the Chambre des notaires du Québec or the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act on October 8, 2003. (représentant autorisé see above note that I missed all IP9 section 5.3 5.4 and stakeholders and NGO organizations)))))))000000000000000ps sorry but I had to because it is not in our interest to mention it to you)
One could argue that holding oneself out as an Authorized Representative under CSIC full members and capable to loot the clients with meeting the definition of the Regulations contravenes Section 91 and is an offence covered under S124 is Awesome .
What role can provincial legislation play in the regulation of immigration consultants?
A co-operative effort needs to be applied to ensure that existing legislation is applied to all regulators not just CSIC. The rules protecting consumers against rogue consultants who have their complaints been dismissed by John Ryan already exist and can be applied. The policing agencies including CBSA, RCMP, and provincial and local police authorities are tasked with enforcing the provisions under IRPA and IRPR and should be encouraged to do so more vigorously against CSIC full members who already under federal investigations, or who uses CIC influence or who pretends to be a lawyers and charge legal fees!!!!! Especially now the minister David Emerson is investigating our Chairperson John Ryan for miscue of the government website and charge his clients for legal fees personating a lawyer profession.
Complementary legislation should be developed that would reinforce what already exists as in terms of immigration consultants rather than creating duplication and potential conflicts between CSIC and CSIP.
Government has to find the will to enforce their regulations and remove the corrupted members from the immigration industry and apply the accountability act against all CSIC directors.
What advice can CAPIC offer on the road to regulating paralegals?
CAPIC has learned several important lessons having gone through the process of being regulated and those were outlined in our initial submission. For the sake of clarification we repeat:
1. Recommendation number one: Ensure that a professional administration team is put in place first, to properly manage the initial business of the regulator or to screw the paralegal as we screwed the consultants.
2. Recommendation number two: Set high standards but with extensive input from those who will be regulated to eliminate all ethnics paralegal
3. Recommendation number three: Be sure to communicate the whole vision for the future with CSIP chair Nancy Salloum, giving practical deadlines so as not to raise false expectations and end up suing you for 10 million dollars.
4. Recommendation number four: Be sure that responsibility and accountability for consumer protection cannot be delegated by other professions who recommend or use paralegal services. I believe I was greedy in saying this, CSIP and other regulators must be recognized as the 10 law society of the industry is recognized, this is where the consumer indeed benefits.
5. Recommendation number five: Be sure that the regulator’s desire to regulate does not cause harm to the consumer through being too zealous like CSIC in the past two years, as we have seen in recent months, thank god for Benjamin Trister who exposed it right and left to bring the internal corruption to the public at last .
6. Recommendation number six: Make the solution fit the need of the CSIP which is the largest society so far but other regulators wants to feel better so that is okay for CAPIC calling themselves the largest association,
Once again thank you for the opportunity to provide input to your committee and to the process of regulating paralegals in the province of Ontario and recognize other regulations like new regulators CSIP has more than 1200 paralegals under their wings.
Phil Mooney, National Director of Policy and Lobbying
Berto Volpentesta, Executive Director
For further questions or comments contact:
Berto Volpentesta
Executive Director
602-245 Fairview Mall Dr.
Toronto, ON M2J 4T1
Telephone: 416 483 7044
Fax: 416-483-0884
E-mail: executive@capic.ca
Website: www.capic.ca
Education, Information, Lobbying, Recognition
Corrected by CSIP media and lobbying section
September 15 2006
Dear Honorable, madams and Gentlemen
Re: The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultant CSIC and the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
We have no other choice at this stage but to forward some of the information for your attention, we have no other way to bring it to you since we all reached a stage to face the unfortunate corruption situation with the immigration industry at CSIC the Canadian Society of immigration Consultants sin Ontario, unless we had to go out of the scope of our professionalism so yourself can take us more seriously and have your ethical and moral input in this matter.
We have made many communications for the past 8 months with the right places without any success to bring the accountability act to those who brought the immigration industry integrity to the ground. This is due to the internal bureaucracies that lead to too many barriers for the right person to act honorably.
We demands for your immediate input and we remain
Sincerely yours
Nancy Salloum
CSIP chair and lobbyist
2000-1066 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC
Tel: 604-601-8264
Fax: 604-582-4898
Website: www.csip.ca
Email: info@csip.ca
From: Roy Kellogg [mailto:canvisa@cvimmigration.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 4:04 PMTo: 'executive@capic.ca'Subject: CAPIC POLICY PAPER
To All
So it appears that CAPIC lobbyist made fools of Immigration Consultants when they appeared in front of the Ontario Provincial Legislators because they could not answer the committee’s questions. This could not be correct, could it?
Upon submission and attendance before the committee on 06 SEPT 2006 we realize that our submission requires more background information and pursuant to the request of Mr. Kormos and questions raised by Mr. Zimmer, we present the following for your review and consideration.
Again I feel obliged to respond to yet another CAPIC Policy paper. Some of the titles are hilarious.
How was CSIC started?
I just can’t stop laughing! CSIC was started by an end run around the members of AICC and OPIC by the respective presidents John Ryan and Jill Sparling. They got together with a former Minister of Immigration and got a cash handout. They created a non-profit corporation that must always spend every penny they bring in to maintain their non-profit status.
Then my friend Mr. Mooney and Mr. Volpentesta puts their own spin on Mr. Zimmer’s understanding but if you read his response to Ben Trister Quote “Mr. Zimmer: I'm pleased to see that your principal concern -- you see the benefit in this legislation -- is the protection of the consumer. While we want to be respectful of lawyers and paralegals and people working in the immigration field, the trump card is protection of the consumer.
I do share your concerns, and I understand your submission. I was the assistant deputy chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada when they were going through the process of setting this up. I like to remind myself from time to time that I flagged all the concerns you just expressed now. I think you and I had a number of conversations at the time this was working its way through. So I'll just leave it at that. I understand your submission.” Unquote
Mr. Zimmer is clearly stating to Mr. Trister that he (flagged all the concerns (Mr. Trister) you just expressed) so he is not a fan of CSIC either. Or is he?
What gets me is that CAPIC policy paper goes on to talk how (established criteria for membership, standards, ethics, discipline and continuing professional development among other functions of a regulator.) Membership standards that CAPIC wanted did not happen like changes in Language testing, grandfathering but some CAPIC members got to bypass the knowledge test. That I think is a good thing because if not there would be far fewer full members.
Get your facts right gentlemen!!
Today, members who have successfully completed all the requirements can call themselves Certified Canadian Immigration Consultants. These are the only consultants who will be able to act as authorized representatives post October 31, 2006.
Anyone can represent anyone as long as they get paid upfront and no legislation could be written any different. If someone pays for advice on which car is the best car they should purchase it then becomes their decision to act on that advice or not. It’s like going on a blind date you have to decide to go and to go on another one with the same person again.
What gets me is that CAPIC blames CIC for not creating legislation with teeth. CAPIC takes no blame for the model of consultant regulation even though they claim they were the driving force behind same.
CAPIC feels that Citizenship and Immigration Canada has too loosely interpreted their own regulations and by defining when the representation starts as being sometime far too late in the process, has left consumers vulnerable to those who practice on the fringe of the law.
What the CAPIC policy paper writers do not seem to understand is that anyone can create a Law but enforcement is a whole other matter. A Law that can not be enforced by the courts is a failed Law. Those who think they will make more money by eliminating competition are sadly mistaken
Government has to find the will to enforce their regulations.
Get over it government only cares about those who have a vote! The CAPIC authors are masters at copy and paste because they have so little to say. Do Mr. Mooney and Mr. Volpentesta really think that the Standing Committee on Justice Policy who have been studying regulation of paralegals for well over a year do not know the relevant sections of IRPA when it comes to Immigration Consultant Regulation? Why would they copy and paste like CSIP does in their lengthy e-mails?
CAPIC authors of this policy paper did include IP9 but failed to address why the CIC, IRB, IAD and CBSA are interpreting the Regulations to mean that R13.1(1) does not apply to any representations that are made to a client before an application is submitted to CIC. In other words, an applicant is obliged to disclose the name of their representative (authorized or unpaid) on the Use of a Representative (IMM 5476) form only if the individual will represent them once the application is submitted to CIC (i.e., either at the time of submission or post submission).
You can not stop anyone from giving advice before any person applies. Anyone can say hire this company or that company and get paid for same. There will always be case law for the buyer beware!
The only option when sailing is to mutiny before any Captain sails the ship onto the rocks and drowns the crew.
Just some thoughts!
Roy Kellogg
CANVISA Immigration
CSIC# M041632
Tel: 1-888-292-7295
Tel: 416-292-7295
Fax: 416-292-5528
Roy Kellogg
Canvisa@Cvimmigration.com
55 Town Centre Court
Suite 502
Scarborough, ON
M1P 4X4
www.cvimmigration.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Society of Immigration practitioners (CSIP) took the courtesy and corrects the false report that was sent by CAPIC executives to your reviews.
Our red highlighted remarks must be brought to your attention to understand the reality of the issues of this report.
BILL 14
An Act to promote access to justice by amending or repealing various Acts and by enacting the Legislation Act, 2005
Submission to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy
By: Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
(CAPIC) and the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants CSIC since I am a member of the Professional Representatives Appointed to CSIC’s Hearings Panel
Which I believe I should speak on CSIC behalf at the same time since they allow me this favor to be as part of CSIC somehow due to continue supporting their hidden corruptions!!!
Original Presentation date: September 6, 2006 at 10:30am
Supplemental Submission: September 7, 2006
Upon submission and attendance before the committee on 06 SEPT 2006 we realize that our submission requires more background information and pursuant to the request of Mr. Kormos and questions raised by Mr. Zimmer, we present the following for your review and consideration.
Executive Summary
What is CAPIC?
CAPIC is the largest professional association (752 members only) for Canadian immigration consultants, and associate Lawyers and affiliated paralegals and notaries at 200.00 dollars membership fees and we are founded on the pillars of Education, Information, Lobbying and self acclaimed Recognition. We are a volunteer non-profit organization who received $150000.00 dollars per year from a membership fees this is run by selected few non ethnic directors and not members for members. We are not the regulator of consultants but we are the one who impose the regulation through CSIC and we were the initial bodies ( AICC and OPIC) who did recommend discrimination against non CSIC members since April 13 2006, but we are the voice of (CSIC) directors and consultants only despite the fact there are 6007 consultants in membership with CSIP The new regulator based in Vancouver, The Canadian society of immigration practitioners chaired by Nancy Salloum and operated as NGO and NON profit organization with not government funding since its creation. We are essentially the “Bar!!!!!!Association” for our members just as the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) our regulator is our “Law Society?????????????????”
Are Immigration Consultants regulated?
Immigration Consultants have been regulated under the auspices of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations since April 2004 after decision made between selected few bureaucrats behind closed doors to eliminate the ethnic consultants from practicing immigration and the support of former immigration minister Denise Codere and Joe Volpe.
The federal government through IRPA and IRPR has defined who may represent a person for a fee by creating a definition of “PAID authorized representative”. Please see the attached list of references for further information which I missed to tell you about the whole recognition of other consultants under different category.
See IP9 http://www.cic.gc.ca/manuals-guides/english/ip/ip09e.pdf
5.2. Paid representatives
Representatives who wish to conduct business with CIC, the IRB and the CBSA must be authorized
members of one of the following designated bodies in order to charge a fee for immigration and refugee services.
IP 9 Use of Representatives Paid or Unpaid
2005-08-17 5
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
An independent, not-for-profit organization and self-regulating body, CSIC operates at arm’s length
from the Government of Canada. CSIC is responsible for regulating the activities of immigration
consultants who are members and who provide immigration services for a fee.
Membership is granted only to those individuals who have demonstrated their knowledge and ability to
advise, consult and represent people who seek Canadian immigration. Members must demonstrate
their good character and have met the Society's membership standards (knowledge, ethics and
language requirements).
To ensure the competent and professional conduct of its members, the Society has also developed
stringent Rules of Professional Conduct by which all its members must abide.
Lawyers and Quebec notaries
Lawyers and Quebec notaries are not required to become members of CSIC, as they are regulated by
their own law societies.
A law society’s mandate is to govern the legal profession and safeguard the public interest. It aims to
ensure that clients are served by lawyers who meet high standards of learning, competence and
professional conduct, and to uphold the independence, integrity and honour of the legal profession for
the purpose of advancing the cause of justice and the rule of law.
A lawyer can be a member of any Canadian law society, and does not necessarily have to be
registered in the province where their client is located in order to provide immigration services. In
order to confirm if a lawyer is in good standing, it may be necessary to ask the lawyer which province
they are registered with.
For more information on sub-agents and employees of lawyers and consultants, refer to section 5.4
below.
Students-at-law
Students-at-law, as stated in R13.1(3), are deemed not to be representing, advising and consulting for
a fee, as long as the student-at-law is acting under the supervision of a member in good standing with
a provincial/territorial law society or the Chambre des notaires du Québec who is authorized to
represent the applicant. In other words, students-at-law may represent, advise or consult with a
person who is the subject of an immigration or refugee application provided that they are under the
supervision of a Canadian provincial/territorial law society or the Chambre des notaires du Québec.
Students-at-law are authorized to complete and sign the IMM 5476. Officers should verify students-atlaw
on the Web sites of the Canadian provincial/territorial law societies and Quebec notaries’
association. The Regulations apply to students-at-law in the same manner as they would a lawyer.
5.3. Unpaid representatives
The primary objective of the Regulations concerning the use of representatives is to protect applicants
from exploitation and to safeguard program integrity. They are not intended to eliminate all traditional
partners from playing a legitimate role. Some of these partners are listed below.
Family, friends, and religious and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who do not charge a fee
for their services do not need to be members of a regulatory body in order to act as a representative.
Family, friends, non-governmental and religious organizations
Family, friends, international agencies (e.g., United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), and
religious and non-governmental organizations play an important role for applicants with limited
resources who feel the need for support and advice. Family, friends, and international, religious and
non-governmental organizations who do not charge fees for providing immigration advice or services
can continue to represent applicants before CIC or the CBSA without being members of CSIC or a
Canadian provincial/territorial law society, at pre-submission of the application and during processing.
IP 9 Use of Representatives Paid or Unpaid
2005-08-17 6
International organizations
Certain international organizations, such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM), have
agents who provide a variety of services to clients. When the services are provided prior to the
submission of an application, it is not necessary for clients to identify IOM agents on the IMM 5476,
even if they have been paid for those services. However, this is operating on the assumption that IOM
agents do not represent the client and have no intention of representing them in the future after the
application has been submitted.
Pro bono work
CIC and the CBSA should not be discouraging pro bono work by authorized representatives (and
students-at-law under a lawyer’s supervision). Pro bono activity by lawyers, notaries and CSIC
members is encouraged by their regulatory bodies. If the representatives are members of a law
society or the CSIC, it is irrelevant whether they are paid or unpaid, as they are in good standing and
regulated.
However, local offices should be mindful of unauthorized representatives who identify themselves as
unpaid on the Use of a Representative (IMM 5476) form and who submit a significant number of
applications as pro bono. If local offices have concerns about how many submissions from
unauthorized representatives are truly pro bono submissions, they should continue their current
practice of investigating in order to preserve program integrity.
5.4. Stakeholders – Other
There are specialized areas in the immigration and refugee program where individuals may be
providing advice to clients but not representing them in dealings with CIC, the CBSA or the IRB. The
Regulations do not preclude this.
As the regulatory amendments do not apply to citizenship applications, educational agents or Human
Resources and Skills Development applications for labour market options, certain functions are
permissible by individuals who are not authorized. These individuals include educational agents,
translators, shipping agents, facilitators for the Immigrant Investor Program, recruiters for provincial
nominees and live-in caregivers, tour organizers and adoption agents. This list is not complete as
there are many individuals who receive payment for filling out forms and applications, translating
documents, and dropping off and picking up documents. However, as these individuals do not meet
the definition of an authorized representative, there are functions that they cannot perform. These
functions include making interventions on behalf of the applicant during processing, and requesting
information about the progress of the application. In order to make interventions and request
information on behalf of the applicant during application processing, these individuals must be
members of one of the regulatory bodies.
Educational stakeholders in Canada
Educational stakeholders in Canada include international student advisors, school administrators,
churches and cultural organizations. Since these educational stakeholders are not paid a fee by the
student for providing immigration services, they fall under the category of “unpaid representative –
other” in section 6 of the IMM 5476.
Educational stakeholders can continue to provide students with information, assist in completing
work/study permit applications and/or extensions at local CIC offices, and advocate and intervene on
behalf of international students if they are unpaid and designated as representatives. They can also
provide their mailing address as the point of contact for the student’s study permit application.
In the case of unaccompanied minors, the relationship between the student and the institution is
particularly strong. The school administrator functions as a custodian in many instances, albeit not in
the legal sense. It is crucial that this relationship continue. The same principle would apply for those
educational stakeholders facilitating off-campus employment pilot projects.
The rules are distinctly different for overseas educational agents (see below).
IP 9 Use of Representatives Paid or Unpaid
2005-08-17 7
Educational agents abroad
Educational agents, who are often engaged by Canadian educational institutions to assist their foreign
students, charge a fee for all their services up to and including sending a signed study permit
application to the Canadian embassy. Under the Regulations, agents do not need to meet the
definition of an authorized representative to provide services prior to the submission of the application.
However, agents who wish to represent students after their student applications have been submitted
will need to be members of a Canadian provincial/territorial law society, the Canadian Society of
Immigration Consultants or the Chambre des notaires du Québec in order to conduct business with
CIC and the CBSA.
Employees of lawyers and consultants
Employees of law firms or consulting companies are not authorized representatives; therefore, they
cannot represent clients at CIC, IRB and CBSA hearings or proceedings, including interviews.
However, following the submission of a Use of a Representative (IMM 5476) form it is acceptable for
directly supervised and co-located employees to prepare documentation and correspondence on
behalf of the authorized representative and to send this documentation to the CIC processing office.
Under the provisions of their relevant professional codes of conduct the lawyer or the CSIC member is
accountable and responsible for their employee’s actions and conduct. Written correspondence from
employees of authorized representatives must:
• be prepared on the authorized representative’s company letterhead;
• clearly indicate in the signature block that an employee is “acting on behalf of“ the authorized
representative;
• clearly indicate the name of the authorized representative and the membership number of the
regulatory body to which they belong.
Offices that allow for the pick-up of documents may continue to do so, provided the applicant has
notified the office in writing that they have given this individual their permission to collect the
document. Suitable identification is required at the time of pick-up in order for officers to adequately
identify the designated individual. Section 7.4 identifies written and oral office procedures for
communicating with representatives.
Adoption agencies
Adoption agencies are still in a position to provide advice and service prior to the submission of the
immigration application, such as filling out forms and liaising with overseas agents to identify a child
for adoption; however, those agents who want to act as a representative following submission of the
application for permanent residence will need to be members of a Canadian provincial/territorial law
society, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants or the Chambre des notaires du Québec.
Live-in caregivers’ agents
Agencies are still in a position to provide advice and service prior to the submission of the temporary
foreign worker application, such as filling out forms and liaising with overseas agents to help recruit
live-in caregivers to come to Canada. However, those agents who want to act as representatives
following submission of the application for permanent residence will need to be members of a
Canadian provincial/territorial law society, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants or the
Chambre des notaires du Québec.
6. Definitions
Paid
Representatives
An individual who charges a fee to represent, advise or consult with a
person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before CIC,
the CBSA or the IRB on behalf of a client on immigration and refugee
matters. The amended Regulations state that fee-charging individuals
IP 9 Use of Representatives Paid or Unpaid
2005-08-17 8
must be authorized representatives.
Authorized
Representatives
Individuals who are members in good standing with a Canadian
provincial/territorial law society, the Canadian Society of Immigration
Consultants or the Chambre des notaires du Québec.
Unpaid
Representatives
A family member, friend, member of an international, religious or nongovernmental
organization, or any other person who does not charge
a fee for services.
Unauthorized
Representatives
Individuals who charge a fee for services and who are not members of
a Canadian provincial/territorial law society, CSIC or the Chambre des
notaires du Québec.
Concealed
Representatives
Individuals who continue to intercede between the client and CIC
and/or the CBSA once the application is submitted, and do not submit
an IMM 5476 declaring their professional relationship with the client.
Pro bono Representing someone without charging a fee.
Designated Individual An individual who is not acting as a representative, but with whom the
client permits CIC and the CBSA to share their personal information.
This individual has the capacity to change the client's address and
enquire about the status of the client's application (see section 3.1).
However, this individual cannot conduct business with CIC or the
CBSA on the client’s behalf.
Fee Includes all types of fee arrangements, direct or indirect.
Please note that disbursements such as travelling expenses to
represent a client free of charge may, but do not necessarily constitute
a fee per se.
How did regulation of immigration consultants come about?
The regulation of immigration consultants came about after more than two decades of persistent lobbying behind closed doors with members of AICC and OPIC who do not see that immigrants or ethnics should represent CIC clients as paid representatives, a Royal Commission, two Standing Committee reports and a Supreme Court decision (Mangat) where the court decided that the Immigration Act was paramount to the BC Solicitors Act in the area of non-lawyer practitioners in immigration matters.
Subsequent to the decision the Minister of the day, Denis Coders ( who chose four of his friends without public consultants or federal check out their criminal backgrounds which one of them John Ryan was under federal investigations), struck a Minister’s Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants which reported in May of 2003. The committee was made up of various (selected) people including former treasure of the Law Society of Upper Canada, Frank Morocco. More than 180 groups appeared to testify before the committee which ultimately resulted in 36 (unarguable) recommendations by the public since the public did not have clue about this report on how to regulate immigration consultants.
The federal government then proceeded to amend regulations without the members of the industry approval; to define what an “PAID and UNPAID authorized representative” was and included immigration consultants and all immigration practitioners who were members of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants and other regulators and society like the Canadian society of Immigration Practitioners CSIP who regulates that highest number of consultants in Canada and Abroad..
Of course our two founding organizations AICC and OPIC who well known in discrimination and throwing racial remarks against immigrants who believe they should restrict themselves to menial jobs or be discipline by the Hong Kong carrot and stick had always envisioned and imposed that they would become the self-Acclaimed regulatory body, but the minister of the day in the interest of the consumer interest!!!!! And the current CSIC and CAPIC directors hidden agenda chose another route with the establishment of CSIC to have a good control of the income of 12 million dollars in the past two years as not accountable for. In the end, CSIC is a self-Acclaimed regulatory body by few shareholders and operated as profitable corporation under presuming a non profit corporations which initially consisted of only 1/3 industry representation and 1/3 lawyers and 1/3 public interest representation.
In April 2006, with the first election of directors to CSIC, 2/3 of the directors being consultants drawn from CSIC 750 and CAPIC 750 industry only and a significant portion 6007 members remain public interest at 1/3.
How was CSIC started?
CAPIC is not the best respondent to this question but we have all the answers and you are best advised to direct the question to the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants and to the Canadian society of Immigration practitioners and to the minister Denise Coders when they appear before your committee. However, as the issue was touched upon the issue we feel we should respond as well after we speak to all the members of the industry which we have not done so to date.
Our understanding of Mr. Zimmer’s description of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants is that membership is through a simple review of resumes!!!!!!!!!!. While the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants can answer your questions more thoroughly IN ORDER TO HIDE THE REALA DESCRIPTION , CAPIC understands that the original four members were all members of the Advisory Committee THAT WERE SELECTED PRIVATELY BY Denise Codere and quite knowledgeable how to impose discrimination in consultant regulation as well as not all the representative of the various groups interested specifically two lawyers (from Quebec and Ontario), one consultant and one public interest. What a bunch, hey !
This group of four was the genesis of the idea to put into motion the recommendation of the Advisory Committee to eliminate the ethnic consultant from the industry.
Subsequently, initial members who were directors of the Society established their own self personal criteria for membership without the consultation of 8900 consultants, without any proper or legitimate standards, no ethics, no discipline according to Benjamin Trister statement of April 2005 to your committee and discontinuing professional development among other functions of a regulator.
As part of this process, immigration consultants were required to first become transitional members not according to the government requirements and to meet a list of criteria set by John Ryan and his friends to create difficulty to eliminate the grandfather clause to be permitted which included a number of years in practice with great exemption for large number of friends and colleagues at CAPIC . AICC and OPIC , significant work in the field, formal education imposed only on ethnics , successful completion of a proficiency test and other requirements if they managed to see the real marks and the test . Transitional members then had to become full members after John Ryan approval to keep the membership funds rolling by demonstrating language proficiency in English or French if you can manage to past the high standard as well as extensive demonstration of competency through a full membership exam which was made from cut and past questions from the CIC website by exempted few selected members / friends who got paid over $760000 dollars.
Today, members who have successfully completed all the requirements which we can not say if they really passed or not, since no one has really have seen the marks of the test but received a congratulations email that they passed and many ethnics received the regrettable info that they did not pass can call themselves Certified Canadian Immigration Consultants without any real experience and waived any complaints against them. These are the only consultants who will be able to act as PAID authorized representative’s post October 31, 2006.
Who is the appropriate regulator for immigration consultants?
CAPIC feels that the CSIC our friends and keep feeding us funds under the table through private contracts and appoint us as directors under hefty freelance free expenses using the CSIC credit card is the proper authority for the regulation of immigration consultants despite the fact they lost from 1600 members to 710 members which only 410 original members and new 310 new student were certified by educational institution without any experience. CAPIC feels that since immigration consultants do work across provincial boundaries, indeed outside national boundaries, the federal government aught to define regulations for PAID and UNPAID representatives. The federal government aught further to more strictly interpret their regulations and vigorously enforce their regulation which this is not true but we would like to add some spices to make it so incredible.
CAPIC feels that Citizenship and Immigration Canada has too loosely interpreted their own regulations and by defining when the representation starts as being sometime far too late in the process!!!!!!!!!!!, has left consumers vulnerable without CSIC discipline mechanism put in place in the past two years and to those who practice on the fringe of the law as unpaid representative still defined and recognized by the Canada immigration. CAPIC feels these people and organizations must also subject themselves to regulation of CSIC but Canada immigration will not set over the Canadian charter of rights and Freedom to avoid many lawsuits in the future.
It is worth noting that the enforcement of the regulations must be a cooperative effort on the part of Canada Border Service Agency (CBSA), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) as well as provincial and local policy authorities to catch those CSIC full members who are looting the clients under the Umbrella of Corruptions and without proper discipline.
What is the relevant authority for the regulation of consultants?
For your review and consideration here are some relevant materials you may wish to refer to in your deliberations:
Urgent Announcement
NEW
1. CSIP chair Nancy Salloum will demand to cross-examine Benjamin Trister in the defamation lawsuit against CSIC for his affidavit that was submitted in the federal court between LSUC /agaisnt CIC and CSIC
2. Complaint from an applicant from Georgia against CSIC member and the Canadian embassy .
3. Concern of the CIC website posting about paid representative from Abu Dhabi , United Arab emirates
4. ED PATEL report about CAPIC and CSIC membership for the 2006.
5. CSIP is seeking to increase the amount of compensation for damages to 10 million dollars for libel from “CSIC”and its directors
6. Until we get back to basics and start requiring excellence over adequacy CSIC and CIC 'll continue to go downhill.
7. CSIP Complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission against CSIC and CIC
8. Will Canada's Immigration Minister Monte Solberg Resigns
9. The Immigration Minister should resign for flawed support to CSIC.
10. Roy Kellogg CSIC full member concerns about CSIC request for FREE consultants to look after the discipline section
11. CSIC threat its own members with Toronto police over bogus complaint using criminal threats
12. CSIP requested of Prime Minister to remove immigration minister Solberg due to discrimination
13. Roy Kellogg questioned Joel Sandaluk of Mamann and Associates regarding CSIC code of conduct
14. Flawed system needs repairs
15. Urgent request under the Accountability Act
16. I completely agree to the dissolution of CSIC. These people are frying us with our own oil.
17. EMBASSIES IMMEDIATE ALERT
18. Joint Statement by CSIP chairperson of Canada and President / CEO of the VFS Visa Facilitations Services on CSIP and VFS mutual cooperation with ISS chairperson
19. WARNING TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE IMMIGRATION INDUSTRY Prior to use unproved of CSIC trade marks
20. CSIP expert report about corruption within Society CSIC “the Canadian Society of Immigration consultants,How does the Conservative Bringing Accountability Back to Government?
21. What is wrong with this statements? CSIC Corruptions by Benjamin Trsiter / Rico Martinez /
22. CSIP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – For immigration practitioners.
23. CSIC FAILED OR STILL NOT WILLING OR ABLE TO POLICE ITS OWN MEMBERS EFFECTIVELY.
24. The irregularities at CSIC could be termed as a smaller version of the “Sponsorship program” scandal. One member has even suggested a name - “CSIC-Gate”.
25. Current members of CSIC and CAPIC are concerned about the Complaints and Discipline Mechanism. CSIP would like to share it with you on how it works at both organizations CSIC and CAPIC, This is the result of the discipline hearing. Internal emails between Executives of CSIC and CAPIC.
26. Immigration advisers' board shaken again
27. We oppose to all various Governments, Societies ,and associations where false advocacy on international and Canada immigration and its regulations have been embedded for century
28. Policing CSIC immigration consultant sis failing by the day
29. Immigration Practitioners Fought Alumni, Corporation CIC / CSIC / CAPIC for Right to Stay in industry and practice without discriminations
30. CSIP associates in Portugal lunching Campagin against CIC
31. CSIP New Membership Criteria for Membership with the Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners based in Vancouver, BC.Canada
O&E omission applications 1 2 3 4 5 6
32. CSIP chair, Nancy Salloum finally got her wish and got out of CAPIC membership after two years request of resignation.
33. Citizenship and Immigration Canada — The Economic Component of the Canadian Immigration Program http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/0003ce.html
34. NEW & ALERT VFS scandal “Is it a final nail in CSIC coffin?”
35. CSIP demands that Kansas Judicial Branch Rules Adopted by the Supreme Court Discipline of Attorneys to apply to CISC full members immediately
36. CSIC is smoothing the way to ask its members for an increase in membership to compensate the loss of many members
37. CSIC has failed by introduced the profession's first ever Rules of Professional Conduct to ensure immigration consultants can be held accountable to a meaningful standard of ethics and professional practice
Today's news
1. NEW Roy Kellogg and Parashant Ajmera analysis on VFS offices in India
2. NEW CIC is supporting NON -CSIC members in India and even advertising for them as paid representatives
3. New GST reduction, do not charge your foreign clients if you provide the service outside Canada.
4. NEW
o Representative's grave concern about visa officers not following the regulation of IP9 sections 5.3, 5.4, and 7.1
o Representative's concern about the new administrative process which begin of September 01,2006
5. NEW CIC alert administrative changes to application process as of Sep 01 2006
6. NEW Nova Scotia Nominee Program
7. NEW AGAIN and AGAIN, the Canadian Liberal Candidate JOe Volpe Strong-arms the Internet and make unlawful attack against a Canadian citizen's right. Does he fit to be the leader of the liberal party?.
8. NEW Is CSIC the place for racial attacks against members / Candidates and is it allowed during elections or in Canada!
9. Roy Kellogg teaching a H&C seminar on Sunday July 16th 2006, book an appointment
10. NEW Camilla Jones and other CSIC full members questioning Roy Kellogg re: CSIC directors compensation
11. NEW Roy Kellogg and Syed Hashmi views on CSIC directors new compensation
12. This is the director who deceived Trister with $600.000.00 dollars deficit is running the vice chair, what a joke?and provide illegal financial advices! Now is in control of our money?
13. NEW CSIP expert report about corruption within Society CSIC “the Canadian Society of Immigration consultants.
14. The three directors who resigned from the Society are still and remain directors of the Society to date and they are fully responsible to the every day operation until the office receives the directors resolution application
15. CSIC Transitional Members should be aware that recent unsolicited e-mail messages circulated to many members regarding the use of CIC form IMM5475 are incorrect and may put your ability to represent your clients at risk.
Last Week news
1. NEW CSIP Canada is Focus on CSIC new Directors compensation of today announcemet
2. CONGRATULATIONS CSIP FOR YOUR FIRST YEAR ANNIVERSARY
3. Canadian tax payer's money wasted in the millions of dollars by CICcontributions to unnecessary services or unrecognized services.
4. Membership NEW criteria and E&O insurance coverage for the year 2006/07.
5. CSIC Candidates looking for Ghost Consultants, CSIP is helping to find them
6. CSIP note about Error and Omission coverage write to CSIP for more details
7. Urgent ALERT and RAISED an inquiry to the CSIC 2006 election results
8. Monte Solberg speech has mentioned about Immigration Practitioners not Immigration consultants,
9. Immigration Lawyers madness and blaming CSIC internal corruption for Monte Solberg statement to CSIP to support IP s.9 5.4
10. CSIP SEEKS GARTH TURNER AND BILL SIKSAY IMMIGRATION CRITICS AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TO CALL \
11. almost two years, John Ryan’s message has motivated his CSIC members to give $$$$$$$$$$$ millions to his family private society.
Last Months news
1. Urgent ALERT and RAISED an inquiry to the CSIC 2006 election results
2. This is final reminder for all CSIC members , we need 194 more members to pass the petition
3. CSIP presents CIPN advocacy to the immigration industry
4. The Candidate Olukayode (Kay) Adebogun - Western Canada has requested from CSIP to publish it for your reading. CSIP provides FREE advertising assistance to all members of the industry
5. Preventing and Responding to CSIC Bullying, Harassment, And Hate Crimes through Effective Collaboration between CSIP members Civil Rights and CSIC hate directors and Staff
6. CSIP chairperson Nancy Salloum is warning the law society of Upper Canada "LSUC" Complaint manager Mr. Gross and CSIC Chairperson Mr. Ryan to act within the law.
7. May 20, 2006 CSIP Proposal to the Immigration Minister
8. May 23, 2006 CAPIC members demands resignation of CSIC chairman John Ryan immediately!
9. CSIP applied to oppose CSIC trade Marks
10. WARNING TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE IMMIGRATION INDUSTRY "Prior to use unproved of CSIC trade marks"
11. CSIP chairperson Nancy Salloum reporting on CSIC 2006 elections at CAPIC meeting June 6, 2006
12. ON PUBLIC INQUIRY AGAINST TWO FORMER IMMIGRATION MINISTERS CODERRE AND VOLPE!!;
13. Monte Solberg provides solution to CSIP about IP9 section 5.4 .html.
14. Online Complaint Form Successfully Sent Thursday, December 15, 2005 09:30:23 AM -0800
15. Alert to members of the Immigration industry
16. CSIP ANALYZING THE GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT CREATION OF A SELF-REGULATING BODY FOR IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS on October 31, 2003 AS A FLAWED, CONSPIRACY, AND SCANDALS.
17. CSIP thanks CIC for informing us with this Alert update Immigration information. I was wondering why CSIC & CAPIC did not post it to its members?
18. Our application for opposing is submitted prior to the registered applicant trademarks been approved or being advertised in the Journal in the normal wa
19. CSIP Canada is Focus on CSIC new Directors compensation of today announcement
20. AGAIN and AGAIN, the Canadian Liberal Candidate Volpe Strong-arms the Internet and make unlawful attack against a Canadian citizen right.
21. CSIP congratulates Canada and send special warm wishes to the Prime Minister and all Canadians a prosperity, Health and justice for all on this special Canada Day
22. John Ryan, Fidelity Capital International Inc.; Case #20089
23. Discrimination of immigration consultants by its licensing body called the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)
24. honourable assurances to the members of the industry that you are the only honourable minister who can oversee that justice is supported by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom to anyone who seeks your Ministry assistance.
25. The Mandate for CSIP is to protect the Immigration consultants and enhance the immigration industry.
26. CSIC full exam was unfair. 200 questions in 180 minutes did not allow enough time.
Reminder from this year
1. CSIP petition to dissolve CSIC. In the Alternative , Remove the requirements of English and final exam and add the grandfather clause to the by-law and policies.
2. CSIC 2006 Candidates higher priorities are after the Ghost Consultants lets help to find them
3. CSIP will keep you update on the daily legal status and preparing you for the future outcome shortly.
4. Roy Kellogg to Sean Shannon and Camila Jones concerning the CSIC by-law flaws
5. CSIP complaints against John Ryan and Qamar Sadiq CSIP filed formal complaint against John Ryan and Qamar Sadiq for misleading the public. The complaints filed with Ontario Provincial Police, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (British Columbia), LSUC, The law society of Upper Canada.Minister of Immigration, RCMP Law enforcement group ( RCMP, Ontario Provincial Police Anti-Rackets branch OPP, Internet crime Complaint Centre ( United State) ,Better Business Bureau,Ontario Chamber of Commerce, Ontario Deputy Minister of Immigration
6. CSIP WORK SHOP ( CAPIC CORRUPTIONS)
7. Open Letter addressing the Issues of Full-Knowledge Examination Fee, CSIC Annual Membership Fee for 2005-2006, and Full Membership Time Deadlines
8. Open Letter: Common Shared Concerns with the International Association of Immigration Practitioners regarding the Settlement Agreement with the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants
9. Nancy Salloum and Roy Kellogg have spoken to Mr. Volpe office to confirm such meeting to Whether Ron McKay of Capic is meeting with minister as he claimed in his letter to Roy Kellogg.
10. The CSIC strategy of defending the recent situation in the form of frequently asked questions appears to be a cosmeticm exercise in dealing with serous issues which are inherent and remain within the organisation by CAPIC member Belvinder
11. I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY CAPIC MEMBERS THINK THE WAY THEY DO.
12. CAPIC continue to slander CSIP chair person Nancy Salloum despite the law suit against them for defamation of her character ,. CAPIC members are against their own Executive members for mischief and misbehaviour.
13. CAPIC members sinking in their own denials to the facts and support corruptions
14. THE GENUINELY OF TRISTERS EMAILS TO CBA , CSIP , CIPN AND CSIC MEMBERS
15. AS with this approval rating we also believe that all your decisions you made after April 13/2006 have no legal force or justified by Syed Hashmi
16. Where CSIC stands on this shocking news? Are they disappearing slowly or the members decided to leave due to CIC discrimination ?
17. tax payer money wasted in the millions of dollars by CIC contributions to unnecessary services or unrecognized services
18. Welcome to Citizenship and Immigration Canada
19. Members of the industry response to CSIC 2006 Election at CAPIC meeting in Vancouver.
20. CSIP honours those immigration practitioners who put their practice on line to stop the internal bias, fraud , financial embezzlement and corruptions within their society CSIC and therefore they left the Canadian society of immigration consultant known as CSIC and many registered with the new society known today as CSIP click
21. CSIP warns LSUC and demand full recognition as immigration counsel with compensation
22. serious deficiencies in the management and delivery of the economic component of the Canadian Immigration Program, whose purpose is to recruit highly qualified individuals who can readily contribute to our economy and adapt to our society
23. June 02 2006 LSUC letter to CSIP and CSIC and reply from CSIP to LSUC with warning
24. Information Required to obtain CAIPS Report
25. COMMENTS ON THE ADVISORY REPORT OF MAY 2003 by Farideh Ghofarian
26. Lawyers group asks Ottawa to probe immigration consultants society
27. June 02 2006 Canadian tax payer money wasted in the millions of dollars by CIC contributions to unnecessary services or unrecognized services
28. June 01 2006 Roy Kellogg letter to Syed Hashmi about CSIC
29. June 01 2006 Roy Kellogg letter to CSIP
30. May 31, 2006 CSIC is smoothing the way to ask its members for an increase in membership to compensate the loss of many members. However, CSIP membership is FREE and provides the same certificate, , Governs and regulations according to IP9 section 5.4. Why do you pay membership if you are recognized member with CSIP and you can present clients?
31. May 30 2006 CAPIC member, CSIC full member Kathryn McDonald is under fire by her colleagues.
32. May 30 2006 The law society of Upper Canada warned CSIC chair John Ryan for default of the law society Act section 50 as he portrayed himself as immigration counsel, Salloum warned the law society of BC to reopen the investigation to avoid further bias.
33. May 28 2006 CSIC former members comments about the advisory report of May 2003
34. May 28 2006 CAPIC members finally support CSIP chairperson Nancy Salloum against CSIC mandates
35. May 26 2006 CIC is shrinking its advertisement on the CIC home webpage about Paid Representatives
36. May 24, 2006 Roy Kellogg and Syed Hashmi about IP9 section 5.4 of IRPA
37. Letter of apology dated December 10th 2005
38.
Reminder from the year 2005
1. CSIP is advising you as of today, the result of the meeting with Mr. Dan Burnett of law firm Owen Bird, A litigator whose specialty is in defamation and other areas of the law in BC. Has agreed to be appointed to initiate to study and prepare for a law suit against both society ( CSIC ) and organization CAPIC.
2. The Consultants and lawyers do not conspire but work together in immigration industry, finally CBA recognized CISP as The immigration industry for consultants under it's main umbrella.
3. Why the majorities of the transitional members have not yet taken the language test and exam at this late stage of the game?
4. CSIC full member Mr. Qamar Sadiq is in default of section 50 of the law society Act.
5. CAPIC cannot clean up their message board since CSIP copied every post since October 18 2005 to bring as evidence in the supreme court that CAPIC was the major cause for CSIC destructions.
6. CSIP INFO POLL FOR SURVEYS & POLL
7. That hyperactive chain reaction did expose the embedded imbroglio and chaos in the management hierarchy of the embryonic CSIC by Mohammed Haque to Mr. Sadiq
8. I would move the office out of downtown Toronto. Make it a democracy and get rid of John Ryan by Camilla Jones
9. Phil Mooney and Ron McKay communication with CIPN and CSIC
10. Phil Mooney and Ron McKay communication with CIPN and CSIC
11. Ron McKay evidence of destruction against CSIC.
12. Nuha Salloum complaints to Holly Gracey about CAPIC discriminations
13. High Issues and SCANDALS Possibilities on the merge to rise
14. CSIP presents CIPN advocacy to the immigration industry.
15. Reminder CSIP announcement and opinions,CSIP chairperson Nancy Salloum speech on Dec 23, 2005 at the RIC Forum in Toronto,Former CSIC director resignation letter of Mr. Martinez,Former Director resignation letter of Ms. Jill Sparling.
16. Reminder Robin Seligman Chair, National Immigration & Citizenship Law Section
17. Reminder of Parashant Ajmera letter to CSIC unelected chair of November 14 2005.
18. Reminder of Benjamin Trister letter to CBA on November 27 2005.
19. RIC meeting in Toronto
20. The Canadian Society of Immigration practitioners (CSIP) are the regulatory body for Canadian Immigration consultants in Canada and
1. What Citizenship and Immigration Canada say about consultants.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/consultants/regulations.html
2. Mangat decision (2001), 3 S.C.R. 113 http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2001/2001scc67/2001scc67.html
3. CIC policy manual with respect to representatives.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/manuals-guides/english/ip/ip09e.pdf
4. Relevant Act and Regulations
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/index.html
Specifically: A91, A124 and A125
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/SOR-2002-227/index.html
Specifically: R2, R10 (2) and R13
Here are some of the specific related sections of the Act and Regulations:
Section 91 of the Act says: “The regulations may govern who may or may not represent, advise or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the Board"
Section 13.1 of the Regulations - Representation for a fee
13.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person who is not an authorized representative may, for a fee, represent, advice or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the Board.
Exception
(2) A person who is not an authorized representative may, for a period of four years after the coming into force of this section, continue for a fee to represent, advise or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the Board, if
(a) The person was providing any of those services to the person who is the subject of the proceeding or application on the coming into force of this section; and
(b) The proceeding or application is the same proceeding or application that was before the Minister, an officer or the Board on the coming into force of this section.
Students-at-law
(3) A student-at-law shall not be deemed under subsection (1) to be representing, advising or consulting for a fee if the student-at-law is acting under the supervision of a member in good standing of a bar of a province or the Chambre des notaires du Québec who represents, advises or consults with the person who is the subject of the proceeding or application. SOR/2004-59, s. 3.
Section 124. (1) Of the Act says:
Every person commits an offence who
(A) contravenes a provision of this Act for which a penalty is not specifically provided or fails to comply with a condition or obligation imposed under this Act;
(b) Escapes or attempts to escape from lawful custody or detention under this Act; or
(c) Employs a foreign national in a capacity in which the foreign national is not authorized under this Act to be employed.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a person who fails to exercise due diligence to determine whether employment is authorized under this Act is deemed to know that it is not authorized.
(3) A person referred to in subsection 148(1) shall not be found guilty of an offence under paragraph (1) (a) if it is established that they exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.
Further, section 125 of the Regulations,
A person who commits an offence under subsection 124(1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.
“Authorized Representative" is defined in the Regulations as a member in good standing of a bar of a province, the Chambre des notaires du Québec or the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act on October 8, 2003. (représentant autorisé see above note that I missed all IP9 section 5.3 5.4 and stakeholders and NGO organizations)))))))000000000000000ps sorry but I had to because it is not in our interest to mention it to you)
One could argue that holding oneself out as an Authorized Representative under CSIC full members and capable to loot the clients with meeting the definition of the Regulations contravenes Section 91 and is an offence covered under S124 is Awesome .
What role can provincial legislation play in the regulation of immigration consultants?
A co-operative effort needs to be applied to ensure that existing legislation is applied to all regulators not just CSIC. The rules protecting consumers against rogue consultants who have their complaints been dismissed by John Ryan already exist and can be applied. The policing agencies including CBSA, RCMP, and provincial and local police authorities are tasked with enforcing the provisions under IRPA and IRPR and should be encouraged to do so more vigorously against CSIC full members who already under federal investigations, or who uses CIC influence or who pretends to be a lawyers and charge legal fees!!!!! Especially now the minister David Emerson is investigating our Chairperson John Ryan for miscue of the government website and charge his clients for legal fees personating a lawyer profession.
Complementary legislation should be developed that would reinforce what already exists as in terms of immigration consultants rather than creating duplication and potential conflicts between CSIC and CSIP.
Government has to find the will to enforce their regulations and remove the corrupted members from the immigration industry and apply the accountability act against all CSIC directors.
What advice can CAPIC offer on the road to regulating paralegals?
CAPIC has learned several important lessons having gone through the process of being regulated and those were outlined in our initial submission. For the sake of clarification we repeat:
1. Recommendation number one: Ensure that a professional administration team is put in place first, to properly manage the initial business of the regulator or to screw the paralegal as we screwed the consultants.
2. Recommendation number two: Set high standards but with extensive input from those who will be regulated to eliminate all ethnics paralegal
3. Recommendation number three: Be sure to communicate the whole vision for the future with CSIP chair Nancy Salloum, giving practical deadlines so as not to raise false expectations and end up suing you for 10 million dollars.
4. Recommendation number four: Be sure that responsibility and accountability for consumer protection cannot be delegated by other professions who recommend or use paralegal services. I believe I was greedy in saying this, CSIP and other regulators must be recognized as the 10 law society of the industry is recognized, this is where the consumer indeed benefits.
5. Recommendation number five: Be sure that the regulator’s desire to regulate does not cause harm to the consumer through being too zealous like CSIC in the past two years, as we have seen in recent months, thank god for Benjamin Trister who exposed it right and left to bring the internal corruption to the public at last .
6. Recommendation number six: Make the solution fit the need of the CSIP which is the largest society so far but other regulators wants to feel better so that is okay for CAPIC calling themselves the largest association,
Once again thank you for the opportunity to provide input to your committee and to the process of regulating paralegals in the province of Ontario and recognize other regulations like new regulators CSIP has more than 1200 paralegals under their wings.
Phil Mooney, National Director of Policy and Lobbying
Berto Volpentesta, Executive Director
For further questions or comments contact:
Berto Volpentesta
Executive Director
602-245 Fairview Mall Dr.
Toronto, ON M2J 4T1
Telephone: 416 483 7044
Fax: 416-483-0884
E-mail: executive@capic.ca
Website: www.capic.ca
Education, Information, Lobbying, Recognition
Corrected by CSIP media and lobbying section
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
