Agent role to be reviewed in Canada’s new international education strategy

Your concerns about the Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD) are definitely valid, and I believe it's essential to address and discuss these issues to maintain Canada's reputation as a provider of high-quality education.

The issue of rubber stamping or awarding high school certificates to unprepared students is a matter of grave concern. It undermines the value of education, worsens the status of our educational institutions, and, most importantly, fails to equip students with the skills and knowledge they need for their future careers or higher education.

Risks and concerns regarding the quality of education awarded by schools in other countries, like China and Vietnam, doing little to no work, further highlight the need for scrutiny and control at the international level. It's vital to ensure that education quality isn't compromised for the sake of expanding the intake of international students.

Your point about the online teaching mechanism and its genuineness is equally significant. The shift to online education has raised many issues, from academic honesty to the real value of web-based learning. If students use Google to answer test questions and assessments instead of building a genuine understanding of the material, it's a formidable challenge educators need to address.

Also, the policy of not allowing students to fail is misleading and harmful. It's necessary to set standards and maintain them to ensure only deserving students could earn a degree.

It's disheartening to see a recent instance where Australia banned some schools applying to their universities because they did OSSD. Certainly, Canadian authorities need to pay serious attention to this and reassess the existing education policies, including OSSD.

Maintaining high educational standards is essential and it's time for authorities to take control of the situation and implement changes ensuring a bright and successful future for students.

Canadian educational institutions AND immigration policy makers + the ministry is responsible for this and they need to be held accountable first. They are the ones benefiting the most. I am not saying that the agents are not profiting in a major way with sketchy tactics and opportunistic rule-pushing practices, but to portray these institutions as naive by-standards is to me very much shortsighted. The money comes from non-canadian families, many times from the global south and goes partially to the agent but mostly to Canada: in infinite ways. They might or might not end up migrating here, and that might give them access to certain job security (because they won’t yet be able to obtain the same job position as their canadian counter parts with the same degree), but they are definitely getting the short straw. They are the victims, not Canada. Let’s be less narcissistic please.

ApplyBoard (Super agent) their sub-agent business model is really messing up the Canadian international education industry.

Many colleges located in the remote areas or public private partnership(PPP) colleges are desperately looking for students, thus they have no choose to work with super agents like Apply Board.

One feasible solution for this is to penalize DLIs if their agents found wrong-doings, ultimately be accountable for their agents actions and regulatory will suspend DLI so schools will take this seriously.

The thought behind the thought is really strong to keep the industry contamination free. The industry stockholders should meet certain criteria to make the industry different. If institution work with vision on different market quality students will not be problem but need to set the perspective and avoid sort time gain strategy.

I have been very vocal about the urgent need to regulate international student recruitment. Unfortunately, Pseudo-Tech aggregators and their 20,000+ multilevel subagent network changed international student recruitment to "Student Trafficking". Punjab state in India is the best example. Every international Education professional knows that Pseudo-Tech aggregator's claim of using AI is a black lie and that the majority of international students are recruited through unregulated subagents in India.

Sad to see the industry, top consulting companies, and news media applauding these Pseudo-Tech aggregators applauding. Why? Big sponsorship budgets.

Unless the government, Universities, and colleges do not stop Pseudo-Tech aggregators and subagent international student recruitment, there will be no change in the industry.

Well said Earl Blaney. While Global Affairs Canada ‘ponders’ whether known unscrupulous actors posing as education recruitment agents can self-regulate, Canada’s inaction on this front is an embarrassment both internationally and domestically in the post-secondary education sector.

I am ashamed of the fallout in academia from the relentless pursuit many Canadian post-secondary institutions – both private and public – have put on international student recruitment at the sacrifice of both ethics and civility. For many institutions, this focus is the key to their continued viability.

Give credit where credit is due. CBC’s The Fifth Estate’s episode “Sold a lie” shone a bright light on the dark underbelly of our post-secondary private college industry and the “cutthroat industry in India.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/international-students-canada-immigration-ontario-1.6614238

But it is not just private colleges. Only last month, CTV’s W5 exposé on Cape Breton University’s greed in bringing in more international students than the region could possibly house left President David Dingwall trying to justify an indefendable position. https://www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/news/unfair-and-inaccurate-cape-breton-university-upset-with-w5-over-segment-on-international-student-recruitment-100840582/

And the list goes on.

My message to the GAC: There is only one thing to ponder, are you going to create a separate body or give responsibility to the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants of Canada or to Colleges and Institutes Canada or any other vetted and worthy organization capable of truly managing oversight of education agents?
Self-regulation and the status quo are not options if we want Canada to be and to be seen as a country that upholds ethical practices, cares about providing quality education experiences and pathways to employment and permanent residence for international students. We need to regulate this ‘runaway train’ of a sector to regain credibility on the international stage.

The fact that one of the “Questions for Consultation” listed “Should education agent aggregators also be held accountable for the conduct of their sub contracted agents?” is even a question at this point is DEEPLY concerning, however not surprising.

TCS has been working hand in hand with aggregator entities, inviting them to embassy Edu-Canada events (despite clear policy guidelines that would prevent this). While other entities of the federal government have been dumping millions in grant money in aggregator bank accounts, not to mention sharing government data with these entities on an exclusive basis. Noteworthy also is the flow of former Federal government (and high level management employees of DLI’s) to said entities over time.

I was also surprised to see the province of Manitoba held out as an example of progress, as that province has refused to investigate complaints that the aggregator model operates in direct conflict with the essence of the Manitoba International Education Act and its regulations (which REQUIRE Designated Education Providers (DEPs) to supervise agents and ensure consumer standards NOT aggregators to do so. Although I concur (generally, in a highly technical sense) that the Act does not explicitly forbid any of the above, allowing blanket exemptions for sub agents (to the point of immunity) from the legislative compliance aimed at protecting international students during recruitment phase, has a catastrophic impact - to the point of rendering large parts of the Act and its regulations moot. So while Manitoba remains the only province to have legislation on record to protect students during the international recruitment phase, in reality, it has no impact on the majority of students being recruited.

In terms of CBIE’s code condition that members pledge to be committed to “transparency and due diligence”, would love to see any kind of audit ever done, to ensure even remote compliance, with the same.

ICEF’s role in training agents through a course funded by Canadian taxpayers, is noted. Previously I had conducted an audit and noted significant non-compliance with the Federal law requirement to abide by S 91 of IRPA (fees for immigration services) by the agents featured on the company’s. Upon receiving the complaint ICEF simply removed these agents from their website, with no record of punitive action. The concern with ICEF registration remains that it is soften used as a badge of credibility to illicit agent contracts with DLIs, and in no way guarantees a representation of ethical behavior. To be effective, ICEF should be auditing its agents for compliance, does it?

In my five + years trying to illicit the ICCRC (now the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants) involvement in this issue, I am unable to report much success. The College (formerly ICCRC) did hold the initial position was that this was not a matter related to consumer protection. No kidding.

The other (most) concerning “Consultation Question” is “Should the issue be self-regulated by the sector?”. We are talking about the same sector that has been bending over backwards to ignore these issues for the last five years, correct?

While self- regulation DOES occur in various sectors… doctors, lawyers, immigration consultants, all of those entities are also subject to Federal law and enforcement when things go wrong. The same would not be true for overseas education agents, so unless the Canadian bound entities - DLI’s themselves and/or in Canada aggregator platforms are willing to produce an open set of books (ie full transparency) and be subject penalty for gross misdoings (of the types that are happening now, on the regular) this would be much like allowing a skulk of foxes to guard the hen house.