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.