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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
