Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me back to be a witness at CIMM.
As you know, I'd like to focus my discussion on division 15, the application for continuance in proposed subsection 84(1) and proposed paragraph 85(7)(g), with respect to ICCRC.
ICCRC has been run since its inception by a group of insiders drawn from the CAPIC lobbying group. They previously ran CSIC and are positioning themselves to attempt to run the new college via the application in continuance.
At the last CIMM meeting, in 2017, we heard that immigration consultants were afraid to report anything to ICCRC for fear of putting their Canadian status in jeopardy. I submit that the majority of immigration consultants, immigrants themselves, feel the same way about standing up to this regulator, putting their licences in jeopardy. There is fear in the membership. Voting rates corroborate this and have plummeted more than 50% in the last three years as members take cover.
Members have watched ICCRC insiders and the CAPIC lobbying group work together as one, with systematic undemocratic actions, abuse of powers and fundamental violations of the act.
For instance, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, in its subsection 128(8), and ICCRC's own articles of continuance state in part that “the total number of directors so appointed may not exceed one third of the number of directors elected at the previous annual meeting of members.” The membership votes on six directors each year. At most, two may be appointed without violating the act.
So how did ICCRC do? In 2016-17, ICCRC appointed nine. With those unlawful appointments, there was still no quorum for the entire year. In 2017-18, they appointed six directors, largely a double violation. In 2018-19, ICCRC has appointed three directors so far and incredibly held this out to the membership as one of them “winning” his election, despite the fact that he was not even on the ballot.
The underlying notion of these directors' appointments originally took root when the idea that the second-place finisher in an election should win was eagerly adopted by the board of directors. Of course, since all of their incumbent friends lost in the 2016 election and were in second place, it was obvious self-dealing.
There are laws that apply to Canadians but apparently not to the privileged ICCRC-CAPIC insiders. They arrogantly and unilaterally stripped the membership of their rights, violated the act at least 86 times and calculated that nobody adversely affected would take time to read the act.
ICCRC was asked numerous times by me and others but failed to call mandated special general meetings of members under the act pursuant to subsection 132(2). Instead, ICCRC culled its bylaws, and they were not even voted on at the board levels, so they continued to fill vacancies with their CAPIC friends, deliberately attempting to sidestep the act and remain in power.
Now ICCRC and the CAPIC insiders want the minister to approve its continuance while they're in default of the act and their own articles of continuance transitioning to the college. ICCRC and CAPIC will try to blame me for many of the shortcomings, but I was not a director for most of these appointments, as I was unlawfully removed by board trial in a breach of parliamentary privilege and against the act, sections 131 and 132, whereby only members who elected me can remove me. Nor was I there for the current quid pro quo hiring of the current ICCRC CEO, after he apparently helped quash formal CPA Ontario complaints, where he was then the registrar.
I believe the ICCRC financial statements fail to follow accounting standards at multiple places. The audited financial statements did not include members of the public on the audit committee, as required by the act in subsection 194(1).
Merv Hillier, CPA and former ICCRC director and the subject of my CPA Ontario complaint, signed and dated in writing a statement in which he said he was going to use all of his power and influence to sway the outcome of the CPA Ontario investigation, being past president of that organization.
The core competency of the ICCRC investigation team was already given to a small, third party, private corporation run out of a residence and not provided for in the ICCRC bylaws—it was indeed explicitly denied by Mr. Hillier at the 2016 AGM that it even existed—while the entire board and officers looked on in approving silence. This is essentially the same management that will be running the college.
ICCRC's registrar, Mr. Barker, was running interference by answering questions for two other ICCRC officers in a discipline complaint investigation, and he provided evidence to an investigator, Mr. Atkins, that was taken without question. Yet when the owner of the third party investigation firm, Ms. Kewley, was asked about one of the four investigators working out of her home for years, she stated that she did know who Mr. Atkins was. Are investigators who may not exist a problem?
Every discipline or appeals decision made at ICCRC is invalid under section 158 of the act, because the committee making the decisions did include a member of the public, and asking to adjudicate it in Federal Court.
The last time we were at CIMM, we were here trying to figure out why immigration consultants who acted badly were not being disciplined. ICCRC blamed those consultants as the real problem and pointed at the statute as the solution, and yet certain board members were helping to train as many ghost consultants as they could for a fee. To keep their discussions out of the public view and plot these things, ICCRC insiders make extensive use of the CAPIC chat room.
Shortly before the media announced the call, I had just filed an application with the court to dissolve ICCRC and CAPIC for their abuse of powers and for activities that fundamentally changed the members' rights. Ironically, all of these unlawful appointments, this forgoing of proper notice and this skipping of special general meetings are grounds under the act to have ICCRC and CAPIC dissolved.
It is a big deal. If I'm successful in my application, it may mean that the college will get shut down, and ICCRC will be allowed to transition to it under paragraph 85(7)(g). That's not my intention at all. To be clear, the college is a terrific idea, but having any ICCRC or CAPIC director and/or officer running the college would create corruption, deceit and abuse of powers. There's no upside to transitioning the council.
Why risk the college at all? We should make a clean break now. Besides, ICCRC already skipped 19 special general meetings with members. With all of these unlawful appointments and my removal, why do they deserve one now? I believe that they will surely try to manipulate the process. Moreover, I sent a letter to the ICCRC board officers about a month ago about all of this, and not one of them was moved.
Being a self-regulating organization is nearly the same as being a monopoly, except for the fact that self-regulation includes the power of law. Awarding ICCRC and CAPIC with further powers is downright dangerous to Canadians and Canada, in my opinion. Those who abuse a little will abuse much. How much would it embolden ICCRC and CAPIC to do even more unlawful things if they are rewarded after these revelations?
If a new broom sweeps clean, this same group of individuals and their friends will finally be able to tap into the unlimited resources—
