csicdiscussion.com
I personally believe that the main problem lies in the general perception of what consumer protection means. In my opinion, it means protecting the consumer from the unregulated consultants. If a CSIC members makes a mistake, he/she can be disciplined, the Error and Omission insurance kicks in - everybody is protected. If an unregulated consultant makes a mistake, the consumer has no recourse and the consultant will not face any consequences. Unless the Parliament makes it a criminal offence to provide immigration advice and services by unregulated consultants, nothing will change.
This could be achieved by making the membership in CSIC mandatory for all industry shareholders, including the NGO - perhaps they could become members with a lower or no membership fee but they certainly should comply with the basic qualification requirements, to ensure that whoever sits there and helps the immigrants, refugees, etc. has the basic knowledge and has to take into consideration consequences of a wrong advice.
CIC would have to change its own interpretation of the regulation and provide clear indication that ANY person that provides immigration services at any point (before or after submission of the application), whether for a fee or not, MUST be a member of CSIC, a Law Society or be a Quebec notary.
CSIC should promote its own existence and benefits of the regulation to all stakeholders, in Canada and abroad and this campaign should be an ongoing project.
CSIC should lobby Citizenship and Immigration Canada to treat CSIC members with respect that they deserve. Every consultant has to realize that without CSIC, they cannot practice and that the CIC fully supports the regulation.
CSIC should treat its members with respect and fairness so that it would be an honour to be certified immigration consultant and not a burden that we have to live with because we chose to submit ourselves to the regulation.
Membership in CSIC should mean recognition, respect and fair treatment from all industry stakeholders.
I cannot promise you that I will achieve this - it is certainly not something that an individual can achieve. But I will try my best to get my point across and convince the Board that it should lobby the CIC for changes.
We don’t know what the Board is spending the money on and how it uses the resources it has. There are many areas where savings could be realized, whether it’s the rent, the expenses for individual projects, the staff or Directors’ compensation. I believe in efficiency and good management. By eliminating wasted resources, we should be able to make the operation more efficient and leaner.
I cannot promise that I would lower the membership fees (notwithstanding the fact that I alone could not do anything!). Even with the realized savings, there is a lot to do. But I am sure that every one of my colleagues would agree that if the membership in CSIC would mean that we do not have unfair competition from unregulated consultants, we would gladly pay whatever it takes to have a fair playing field.
It is the lack of information, lack of transparency and accountability that makes the members doubt the competency of the Board and its good intentions. Knowledge is power. The tendency to keep everything hidden behind a cover of confidentiality is not healthy and it has negative effect on the relationship between the Board and the members.
The primary role of CSIC is to regulate immigration consultants in order to protect the consumer of immigration services. At this moment, CSIC does not have sufficient authority to meet the challenges. There are too many factors that limit CSIC’s power to protect consumers, some of which are out of CSIC influence. There are some areas where CSIC could and should improve:
The primary role of CAPIC is to educate and lobby on behalf of the consultants AND the consumers. CAPIC and CSIC have one common objective: to eliminate ghost consultants and protect the consumers.
CAPIC should establish a standing committee on CSIC issues, monitor and analyze development and provide sufficient information to its members so that they can assume informed opinion and act responsibly based on reliable and exhaustive information. CAPIC should empower its members through education and information dissemination. CAPIC should remain CPD provider, together with established educational institutions and become a strong advocate on all issues of immigration regulations and immigration consultants. The major area of cooperation between CAPIC and CSIC I see to be education and CPD program. CAPIC should lobby Citizenship and Immigration Canada, not CSIC.
Absolutely. This is our first AGM since we became full members. This is the first time when we can assert our rights as members. This is the time when we can come together as a united front of consultants who are mature, responsible and fully aware of our duties and rights. Online only AGM raises too many questions and doubts:
Insufficient, misleading, void of goodwill.
This is an area where I have no right to voice an opinion – I don’t know what the communication is, firsthand. I know how CSIC communicates with members because I am a member.
Transparency, fiscal responsibility and accountability. I would want to learn first – to obtain enough information about the inner working of the Board, to understand the principles behind its decisions. I would observe and talk to the fellow Directors and the staff.
My first objective is to find out why everything that the Board does is confidential. I want to identify areas that are genuinely confidential and work on opening the books on the remaining issues.
I want to look into the issues surrounding the lease contract and report to the Board AND the members what the options are if CSIC decides to move its offices. We have heard from one of the Directors that he had to move this issue lower on his list of priorities because there are other, more pressing issues. I would work on this issue in addition to my work on regular Board matters and I would not ask for compensation for this work.
I want to look at the efficiency of the staff, observe management style and management decisions and how they affect the functionality of the Society.
I want to identify those problems that affect the communication and information dissemination to the members, whether it’s lack of proper management or unwillingness to provide the information in a timely fashion.
I would suggest that one Director be responsible for all matters of communication from the members. This Director would identify the issues arising from the communication and convey them to the rest of the Board. I would suggest that at every Board meeting the Directors spend time on analyzing the issues and make one Director responsible for addressing them. This Director would have to respond to the members in a timely fashion, either through a bulletin or by posting the response on the FAQ website. The Board should have a policy on how soon an email from member must be answered. I would suggest that every Director be responsible for a certain area of CSIC and this Director would communicate the Board’s position to the member. I would suggest that the CEO handle issues related to the staff and operation of the offices, not issues that are clear responsibility of the Board of Directors (An example – the latest development on the motions submitted to the Board. The Board Secretary should have been responsible for timely dissemination of vital information about submission and delivery of the motions. As it happened, it was the CEO who ended up doing this, in rather unorganized fashion that proved to be detrimental to the motions and the entire membership).
The first thing that needs to improve is the attitude of the Board towards the members. Members are entitled to the information and they are entitled to learn what the Directors are doing. In the end, the Directors are paid from the members’ fees. We like to say that our government officials are our employees because they are paid from our taxes. The same applies to CSIC. I fully respect that in certain areas, the Directors are bound by confidentiality issues. Everything else should be subject to a full disclosure. If we achieve the change in attitude, the communication improves automatically.
I would support an initiative that would ensure that the new members are not only knowledgeable but also had the opportunity to practice under supervision of more experienced members or lawyers. This could be achieved by establishing mentoring program, co-counselling, workshops, etc. The logistics of implementation is way above the scope of this forum.
We can and we should express our opinions, as long as they are in professional and respectful manner. This is a free country where democracy is cherished and where there is an official opposition party! Opposition and dissent is a matter of civil courage – every step towards a better society started with someone who disagreed with the status quo.
I would hope so – only with a full disclosure can CSIC expect that the members would trust its decision in the future.
I wish I knew. Even though I don’t have this problem personally, I respect that many colleagues simply do not use the technology the way I do and the way the Board believes they should. At this point I am stumped by the idea of an AGM online only and I hope that I will be proved wrong.
Today, the By-laws do not say explicitly whether the AGM should be held in person or online. By implication, one would interpret the By-laws so that the AGM should be held in person with a provision for those members who cannot participate in person to be able to connect by phone or electronically. The Board chose its own interpretation.
However, the proposed changes to the By-laws will remove any option of having in-person meeting in the future. That’s why it is so important that members exercise their right to vote at the AGM and that they make the effort to educate themselves on all the issues surrounding the proposed changes to the By-laws.
In the By-laws from March 2004 and May 2005, By-law 11.3 allowed the members to call for a special meeting of members if at least 5% of the members support such a call. In the last By-laws, this provision was removed – just before we became full members and thus could use this provision. Until this AGM, only the Directors had the right to change, amend or remove any provisions of the By-laws. Today, the full members have the right to reject any proposed change or submit any motion to change the By-laws.
I would be only one of 9 Directors. I cannot promise that I will change anything – often, I will have to yield to the opinion of majority of my fellow Directors. I can only hope that I will be able to convince the rest of the Directors on issues that I feel are important to the entire industry – the consumers and the consultants. Transparency is about honesty. I believe that by allowing for transparency of Board’s actions, the members will understand better the principles that govern the decisions and a more open dialogue can be initiated between the Board and the members.
Many proposals have been made, some very attractive and promising. I would like to point out some problematic issues that have to be considered when a strategy to eliminate ghost consultants is considered:
IP 9, under section 2. Program objectives states:
It is important to understand that CIC, the IRB and the CBSA are interpreting the Regulations to mean that R13.1(1) does not apply to any representations that are made to a client before an application is submitted to CIC. In other words, an applicant is obliged to disclose the name of their representative (authorized or unpaid) on the Use of a Representative (IMM 5476) form only if the individual will represent them once the application is submitted to CIC (i.e., either at the time of submission or postsubmission).
Section 5.1 What the Regulations accomplish:
They specify that a fee-charging person who is not an authorized representative may not provide immigration advice, represent or consult once an application is submitted.
I have maintained all along that ghost consultants are not illegal consultants. They have the blessing from the CIC to practice without any consequences simply because CIC allows it.
My position has been and is that only CIC can change the current situation with ghost consultants and that CSIC has to play a major role in lobbying CIC to change its position and interpretation of the Regulations. As long as CIC limits the regulation to post-submission representation, ghost consultants will flourish and have unfair advantage over CSIC members.
CSIC also can achieve substantial change in the perception of public and raise awareness of the regulated profession of immigration consultants by funding public relation campaign and publicize the advantages and benefits of retaining licensed immigration consultant over unlicensed. It is CSIC's duty to empower the general public if it is to meet its mandate of consumer protection.
Last but not least - if CSIC became a more transparent, accountable and more communicative organization, more of the current ghost consultants would consider becoming members. I ask myself a question: why would anyone want to be a CSIC member under the current regime? The fact that we have over 1000 members shows that those consultants want to protect their image and protect the consumers despite the current prohibitive and hostile environment created by the existing Board of Directors.
Protecting consumers is not the prerogative of the Board of Directors. It is our mutual goal and we should be able to work together in achieving it.
By-law 11.11 (11.12 under the proposed changes) states that auditor cannot be appointed by electronic vote. Despite this, this item has been placed on the agenda. I have asked the Board to explain the procedure but did not receive a response.
The current by-law reads:
Full members shall be entitled to vote at meetings of Members by electronic ballot if the Society is properly equipped to allow Members to do so except for the appointment of the auditor in accordance with By-law 2.6 and except for any other matters required by CCA to be dealt with at a meeting of Members.
The proposed change to this by-law reads:
Full Members may, at the sole discretion of the Directors, be entitled to vote on matters requiring the approval of the Members by electronic, mail or e-mail ballot except for the appointment of the auditor in accordance with By-law 2.6 and except for any other matters requried by the CCA to be dealt with at a meeting of Members. Quorum for such type of balloting shall be set out in By-law 11.7 (a) and By-law 11.11, respectively.
By-law 11.7 says that
(a) A quorum at any meeting of the Members (unless a greater number of Members is required to be present by the CCA or by the Letters Patent or any other By-law) shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the Members entiteld to vote at such meeting who are present in person or through electronic communication.
These words have been omitted: provided that at least two (2) voting Members are present in person.
By-law 11.11 (new proposed by-laws) specify how the votes are determined and all reference to a "show of hands and at a poll" have been removed.
So much for a future AGM in person.
Profile
T&CS Canada
Opinion poll