Benson, Blog #4, IMCD-5
August 21, 2012
“Cronyism rather than Regulation is the future of immigration
consulting under ICCRC? What do you
think? Which side of the balance scale
does your opinion weigh in on???”
Is the Public really protected??? Unscrupulous
representatives, consultants and lawyers exist??? $$$$ are their driving force. Now they can
become regulated and find ways to roll in the cash and still look good on paper?
Does ICCRC need to improve? Are they
content with their lot? I have read it’s been said that they “ICCRC” are an
established monopoly overt the business and ghosts will simply work as agents
of immigration lawyers and immigration consulting under ICCRC. How could this possibly be? How could they get away with such a set
up?? I wonder if some of the critics
have validation to prove such a statement. What do you think? Do they?
Hmmmm, more research is do and ongoing monitoring of activities.
ICCRC our new regulatory board for Canadian immigration
consultants is apparently the answer to weed out such crooks.
According to http://crookedconsultants.blogspot.com/2011/06/cic-endorsed-crooked-consultants-blames.html it is recorded that Minister Jason Kenney and
Citizenship & Immigration Canada blame the crooked consultants for the
broken immigration system, due to Ghost Consulting. Back in 2003 there were request by the
advisory committee that sanctions on ghost consultants should occur. From then
until the birth of ICCRC here wasn’t anything done to address the ghost
consultants and there wasn’t any concern shown by government officials. Again in 2008 and ’09 the Standing Committee advised
CIC to amend IP 9 and start to penalize ghost consultants. Previous report from 2008 revealed that CSIC
was never given the tools to address the need. Hands were tied. Therefore the ghost consultants were rampant
seeking out whom they may devour! Meanwhile the good name of “Immigration
Consultant” got dragged into the mud!
Out of control?
Maybe, the almighty dollar feeds the corrupted soul to perform all kinds
of hurtful deeds. Thinking about fraudulent job offers, before the ghost
consultants could apply for an LMO or AEO through IP9 and once the application
was submitted to CIC and the money purse was filled again and the consultant disappeared
never to be heard of again. It’s been said by others that Minister Kenney’s and
CIC have mislead Canadians to believe that changing the regulator will fix the
problem. When actually according to the above blog; Cronyism rather than
regulation is the future of immigration consulting under ICCRC. Wow that is a powerful statement, does it have
a legit platform to stand on, validated and proven to be true?? Has ICCRC even
been in practice long enough to make such a statement??? What does the Minister
think of such comments? I’m a bit
confused, the cloud of doubt is thickening on both sides, hmmm, time will tell?
It’s also been said via blog address above that the Minister
and CIC will have you believe that it is authorized CSIC Members getting these
fraudulent job offers, but why would anyone hire a CSIC Member to get a
fraudulent job offer, when there are 1000s of ghost consultants operation
within the law as interpreted by CIC and as we know ghosts are unaccountable
for committing immigration fraud. Wow
this is something to chew the fat on!!! My goal is to one day become a member
in good standing with ICCRC, huh, well I wanted to feel good about being a
member; how should it improve?? Let me think about that for a moment and please
provide some feedback to this dilemma.
The Plot thickens; again I read: Quote by writer/blogger
from above “Finally, what about immigrants who are victimized by crooked
consultants? Let me shed a light on the true positions of Key Players, who cannot
reveal their true response to the subject:
Minister Kenney’s honest answer; they are not my problem because
immigrants are not voters. Immigrations
and their Permanent Resident relatives are not voters, so I just need to
pretend to care for the sake of Canadian citizens who do vote.” ME: Is this really true? Wow what a statement if
so! Now the above writer moves on to say
more; quote: “CIC’s honest answer, after we get their processing fee, we will
find a way to refuse their application.
If someone is ripped off prior to submission, that is not our problem. ME: I
find this difficult to swallow, come on why would CIC say this and why would
they openly say this anyway? I am
doubtful at this moment. Maybe this is
slander? What do you think? Do you have
any validation to support such a statement?
FIX the problems…hmmm, maybe, but first more validation is
required proving that improvement is required, maybe we need to observe cases
for a time and document the outcome, I believe the ICCRC is doing this with
their code of professional ethics – bylaws and auditing of consultants. I’ve heard from some consultants that each
case they do does get audited, hmm such a business to be in. But the admirable immigration consultant must
focus on the purpose of their service, which is to pour out energy and time to
ensure that they serve to the best of their abilities, under the umbrella of
honesty and compassion towards their clients, treat them as they would want to
be treated and this good work will surely overcome the bad reputation due to
the ghosts. In the event one knows of a
ghost; who you gonna call? Ghost busters, ICCRC and hopefully the right action will
be taken!
Meanwhile let’s revisit the ICCRC critic’s list: from the Canada Gazette and the judge has
heard CSIC’s case too. Statements of incompetence are well known to those of us
who are paying attention; hmm I wonder
who the “us” are? Anyhow moving on to
the list. A couple of examples to
ponder;
·
Jeffrey Hemlin, who was recently ordered,
revoked and to pay costs of $50,000 by CSIC’s independent discipline council,
yet he continues to be President of CAPIC, the trade association that has
transformed into the ICCRC. Hemlin has published statements defending his
actions and ICCRC has appeared to endorse Hemlin by failing to distance
themselves from Hemlin. Clearly, ICCRC’s concern is to protect the interests of
Hemlin, a crooked consultant, rather than the public interest
My Comment:
In order to improve ICCRC they must insure that only
upstanding characters ones with a clean record should only be granted such privileges
as Jeffrey Hemlin. Suggestion is the
Board should be reviewed by the members and then the board should be reviewing
who has the character of good standing to actually operate under the name
ICCRC.
·
Once again agreeing to accept a revoked CSIC member into ICCRC is unthinkable, but what I
am reading states that such an unaccepted action has taken place. Revoked member despite her revocation and
works as a ghost consultant, she an individual who could not meet CSIC
standards, and has been acting as a ghost consultant is now likely to be
allowed to join ICCRC.
My Comment: Hmmm this doesn’t sound right and doesn’t fit
with the professional code of ethics.
On another note: Lawyers have a more robust regulatory body, ICCRC is
being compared to high standards which are validated by the higher membership
fees. It’s been said lower fee, less
staff, less quality. Hmm what do you
think? Would hiring the membership fee
actually improve the ICCRC. I don’t think so the rich would just keep
getting richer.
Wow another blow as I continue to read through the above mentioned
online link: Phil Mooney attained his
position as President/CEO of the proposed new regulator ICCRC by undermining
the regulator…read on…what do you think?
I’m amazed at how this all got set up.
Improvements to ICCRC is to investigate everyone involved in the
regulatory board on an ongoing basis, just as the consultants are being
monitored and just as the ghost consultants should be getting weeded out so
should the ghost ICCRC representatives.
This is improvement, which will take time. Who is everyone really accountable to? Please let me know your thoughts.
