The federal government has come under fire for failing to bring in measures it promised five years ago to crack down on unethical and fraudulent immigration consultants, with the Conservatives demanding to know why a compliance regime is not yet in force.
Last year, a group of international students applying for permanent residence faced deportation after it emerged that an unlicensed “ghost” immigration consultant operating out of India had submitted fake acceptance letters to colleges with their applications for study permits.
Other licensed and unlicensed immigration consultants have been implicated in a jobs-for-sale scam, in which people hoping to work in Canada have been illegally charged thousands of dollars to obtain a job reserved for an immigrant because no Canadian could be found for the position.
The Canada Border Services Agency said that between May 1, 2019, and April 9, 2024, 153 individuals were charged with fraudulent immigration consultant-related offences. The vast majority of them were Canadian citizens or permanent residents, and 17 were foreign nationals – one a refugee.
In a statement, CBSA spokeswoman Jacqueline Roby said people who violate Canada’s immigration laws face criminal charges, court fines, probation or imprisonment. She said investigations largely target the organizers of fraud schemes.
They include scams such as asking for unreasonable fees with the promise of a job offer in Canada, only to see the victim arrive and find no job waiting for them. Some illicit consultants work in collaboration with people trying to come to Canada and knowingly submit fraudulent or misleading applications, Ms. Roby said.
Licensed immigration consultants operating in Canada have expressed concerns about unauthorized practitioners providing unreliable advice. Some have also raised questions about consultants operating outside Canada who are not Canadian.
Earl Blaney, a licensed immigration consultant from London, Ont., said “mass volumes of immigration applications are submitted overseas by unauthorized immigration representatives,” adding that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is well aware of the situation.
In 2019, through an omnibus budget bill, the government gave itself the authority to create a regime of penalties, including fines, to deal with violations by anyone providing advice to people making immigration and citizenship applications.
IRCC, in a parliamentary reply three weeks ago to Senator Don Plett, the Conservative leader in the Senate, said the department had not yet imposed any fines on consultants because “the compliance regime for immigration and citizenship consultants is not yet in force” and “the regulatory authorities to do so do not yet exist.”
Paul Chiang, the parliamentary secretary to Immigration Minister Marc Miller, said in the reply that there had been delays in implementing the regime, partly owing to the pandemic.
Immigration Minister announces measures to combat fraud against international students
The department is currently working with the Department of Justice to draft the regulations, and the regime is expected to be in place between this fall and the winter of 2025, he said.
Mr. Plett accused the government of “incompetence” and said he plans to raise the delay in the Senate next week.
“As part of its omnibus budget bill in 2019, the Trudeau government included a new authority for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to impose monetary penalties against fraudulent immigration consultants. And here we are five years later, and the program is still not yet in force, and as a matter of fact the regulatory authorities do not yet exist,” he told The Globe and Mail. “Five years ago, the Trudeau government claimed this was important, that it was a priority, and then nothing happened.”
Bahoz Dara Aziz, a spokeswoman for Mr. Miller, said the integrity of Canada’s immigration system has been a top priority for the minister since his appointment to the role last year.
“We are taking steps to address immigration fraud and cracking down on dishonest consultants who seek to abuse our system and take advantage of those seeking to come to Canada,” she said. “We opened the College of Immigration Consultants as the official regulator of consultants with a mandate to protect the public from those who seek to take advantage of newcomers. The college has the power and tools to investigate professional misconduct and to discipline its licensees, and its code of conduct holds consultants to high ethical and professional standards.”
Ottawa plans to create Canadian citizenship path for undocumented immigrants
The college oversees the 11,749 licensed immigration consultants in Canada, as well as 231 working outside the country.
Between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023, it dealt with 755 complaints about consultants, 22 of whom faced disciplinary action. Twenty faced suspension, interim suspension or revocation of their licences.
Earlier this year the college revoked the licence of Manitoba immigration consultant Harar Singh Sohi for job selling and other misconduct. Under provincial law, it is illegal to collect a fee for finding a job for a foreign worker.
Stef Lach, spokesperson for the college, said it has been raising public awareness about unlicensed consultants who provide immigration advice for a fee. Its social media campaign has run in Canada and in India, China and Nigeria in local languages.
“Regulating licensees through compliance with standards of practice and meeting competency requirements is critical to the protection of the public. This is accomplished through the code of professional conduct and the college’s complaint investigation process,” he said.
He added that licensed immigration consultants do not have to be resident in Canada or Canadian citizens; court decisions involving professional regulators have consistently struck down citizenship requirements imposed on licensees.
But Conservative immigration critic Tom Kmiec said consultants “practising outside the country cannot be reasonably monitored by their college,” which is a problem.
Consulting firm McKinsey & Co. is paying its underperforming staffers to embark on the job hunt.
Instead of taking on new projects, managers at the consultancy’s U.K. offices will receive nine months of pay and continue to have access to its career-coaching services while looking for a new position, London-based newspaper The Times reported over the weekend. There are some strings attached, however: If managers don’t find another job at the end of the nine months, they have to leave the firm.
The opportunity is also on offer at its U.S. offices, sources told the publication, but it’s not known if there are any pay or duration differences between the two programs.
A McKinsey spokesperson told The Times that the program will allow employees to “grow into leaders, whether they stay at McKinsey or continue their careers elsewhere” and that the actions are part of an “ongoing effort to ensure our performance management and development approach is as effective as possible, and to do so in a caring and supportive way.”
McKinsey did not immediately respond to Quartz’s request for comment.
This is an apparent expansion of the firm’s “counseled to leave” approach, a practice reserved for underperforming employees wherein the company keeps the staffer off of client projects and recommends they look for a new employer.
In the last several months, the firm gave 3,000 of its consultants a “concerns” rating over unsatisfactory performance, Bloomberg News reported last month. The rating gives staffers roughly three months to improve the performance, placing them on the “counseled to leave” program. If they’re not able to turn their performance around in that time, they are at risk of being put on the chopping block.
McKinsey has grown its staff size to about 45,000 employees — an increase of 60% from 28,000 employees in 2018.
Layoffs at major consulting firms have become almost run-of-the-mill as they try to pare back their bloated headcounts following a pandemic-era hiring craze. In March 2023, McKinsey culled 1,400 jobs in a rare — but sweeping — headcount reduction, Bloomberg reported at the time.
Of all the professions in the world of business, consultants get a bad rap. They go in, survey the scene and make their recommendations. Whether or not their advice turns into growth, the consultant still gets paid. Some charge thousands a day, others take equity for good measure. Some are great and some need work.
The rise of artificial intelligence tools in business throughout 2023 and beyond has started a debate as to which roles will remain and which will be replaced. Coaches might be safe but lawyers might not. Admin assistants, call center workers, each job function requires a rethink. In this series of assessments by entrepreneurs, AI experts and consultants, consultants themselves are under scrutiny. Here’s what other professionals think will happen to these day rate strategists.
Can artificial intelligence replace consultants? The debate.
Yes, AI will replace consultants
“Most consultants aren’t actually that smart,” said Michael Greenberg of Modern Industrialists. “They’re just smarter than the average person.” But he reckons the average machine is much smarter. “Consultants generally do non-creative tasks based around systematic analysis, which is yet another thing machines are normally better at than humans.” Greenberg believes some consultants, “doing design or user experience, will survive,” but “the run of the mill accounting degree turned business advisor will not.”
Someone who has “replaced all of [her] consultants with ChatGPT already, and experienced faster growth,” is Isabella Bedoya, founder of MarketingPros.ai. However, she thinks because “most people don’t know how to use AI, savvy consultants need to leverage it to become even more powerful, effective and efficient for their clients” and stay ahead of their game. Heather Murray, director at Beesting Digital, thinks the inevitable replacement of consultants is down to quality. “There are so many poor quality consultants that rely rigidly on working their clients through set frameworks, regardless of the individual’s needs. AI could do that easily.” She agrees “the high quality consultants will prevail, but they’ll only stay competitive by arming themselves with AI.”
AI business consultant Damien Sebastian thinks it’s a matter of timing. “In the short to medium term, a lot of consultants will be put out of a job,” and he has a theory on why. “The demand for consultancy work is growing, but this growth is matched by how AI technology is speeding up common tasks such as writing reports and analysis,” an imbalance he thinks “will result in job losses, because fewer consultants are needed to do the same amount of work.” Similar to Murray, Sebastian believes, “high performing consultants will use AI tools as co-pilots, increasing their outputs exponentially, while big consulting companies will become infinitely more lean and profitable.”
Rob Da Costa, who helps agency owners make their agency less dependent on them, with 1-to-1 coaching and AskRobAnythingAI, believes, “AI-powered virtual assistants could handle many routine consulting tasks like gathering basic client information, explaining processes and options, providing recommendations based on parameters, and answering common questions,” a process he believes would replace many consultants while also being positive for their human counterpart. “This would allow human consultants to focus on higher-level strategic work and develop personal relationships,” along with their “depth of understanding, empathy, and the ability to read between the lines, understand the nuances of human emotion and behaviour, and offer tailored advice based on years of experience and intuition.”
Tim Glowa has worked in HR consulting, including partner level, at global HR, tax and accounting firms. Leading a human capital analytics solution, involving employee surveys, he believes, “the generation of questions, programming a survey, sending out email invitations, analyzing data, writing a report, can easily be replaced with AI,” as well as communication and some tax functions. Other areas, including strategy, pricing and auditing, he thinks will follow suit, but not yet, because they “still require thought and experience and AI isn’t at that level.” Glowa thinks AI can level the playing field between large and small consultancy firms. “We were worried about boutique specialized consultancies that can do something of equal quality faster and cheaper,” by leveraging AI. “At least I hope they can!” he added.
No, AI will not replace consultants
“Good consultants bring the human experience and context-driven guidance that AIs aren’t able to do,” said Heather Flanagan of Spherical Cow Consulting. She believes, “AI is a fantastic value-add, as it can help a consultant scale engagements and lead generation.” As a consultant herself, she thinks “it’s a value add more to us than to what we offer to our clients.” Joffrey Berti, rapid transformational coach and strategy consultant, also believes human experience matters too much to be replaced by robots. “AI lacks the human consultant’s ability to understand nuanced business contexts and the complex dynamics of organizational culture. Human consultants bring a level of creativity and strategic insight informed by years of experience and personal judgment that AI cannot replicate yet especially on complex multidimensional projects.”
For Chantal Swainston, founder of The Heard, situational experience is just too important. “The best consultants rely on their experiences to give the best advice,” she said. “Having access to someone who has been in your very specific situation before, managed the process and the results, and can spot the less obvious pitfalls is invaluable.” She said she can see AI “providing a significant amount of assistance, and accelerating people the first few steps before speaking to a consultant, but replacing them completely feels unlikely to me.”
Founder of Mashman Venture Isaac Mashman also believes the demand won’t be there. “Sure, AI can give general answers and be trained on a case-by-case basis, but to imagine people will adopt at scale is unlikely. Humans present a degree of connection AI does not have,” he added.
Senior strategist Jim Perry thinks predictability and emotional intelligence play a part, saying AI is “less effective in factoring the unpredictable emotional and cultural factors that often shape successful strategy development and implementation.” Chief financial officer Fotis Chrysochos believes clients will continue to request consultants until AI reaches human levels of “compassion, empathy and behavioral understanding.”
Amy Lester, VA and VA mentor said that “even though AI can take some of the menial, repetitive work away, there will always be a requirement for human involvement to add humanity or personality.” David Rich, CEO, R Squared Group is questioning the ability of AI all together, saying that “half of what good consultants do is diagnose the problem by asking the right questions in the right order to the right audience,” a task that he said “would require very strong prompt engineering from the user of AI to determine all the factors.”
HYPPA Coach founder and ADHD consultant Mark Cann, who has built an AI focus coach, believes “a human consultant is more likely than an AI (which may lack previous context) to call you out on your BS to help you make progress.” He can, however, see the benefit of combining AI with consultants, in that “the client gets more attention on their high priority problems, and wastes less money on collection and analysis of data, which a consultant can use AI to do.”
“AI isn’t here to replace us, but to work alongside us. It can’t think on its own, it requires the human!” said coach and consultant Cadi Jordan, “shouting from the rooftops!” AI creator Anna Poplevina concurs, believing “consultants will adapt by incorporating AI into their work to quickly analyze data for better, personalized advice,” meaning “this change won’t replace them but will make their expertise more valuable as they navigate and apply AI insights to meet clients’ needs.”
Cofounder and CEO of Lately AI, Kate Bradley Chernis is adamant that AI will not replace consultants and has a strong case for why. “Sentient machine learning does not exist,” she said. “Robots cannot think for themselves. The symbiosis of AI needing humans and humans needing AI is a movie we’ve all seen before.”
AI creator Lucas Pimentel added a new dimension to the debate, explaining that “the expectations from clients will be higher,” which he said will mean “consultants who don’t perform well will be replaced by AI, and those who can use AI to enhance their impact will be in more demand than they can even fathom.” Finally, Chernis’ closing words of wisdom ring true for all knowledge workers. “When we fight it, we stall. When we embrace it, we soar.”
What’s the midground? AI-powered consultants.
While it’s romantic to think that empathy, human connection and genuine interest are required for a consulting relationship to work, the only thing that matters is the results. Your dog can give you empathy and your friends can give you human connection. Your consultant needs to grow your business.
Even if AI won’t replace consultants in their entirety, it will eliminate the need for them to do admin and data processing. They can move their effort to the work only they can do, benefitting their clients in the process, who can now access high level human insights without superfluous entries on the bill.
If entrepreneurs can train an AI model to gather information, dig deep, push back, spot patterns, give advice and hold them accountable, would they prefer to engage with a human or a robot at a fraction of the cost? Great consultants versus great AI tools is a debate to be had when they reach a level of proficiency that is unequivocally better. Until then, consultants race their clients to make the best use of AI, each proving that their side of the argument will ultimately be correct.
HAGÅTÑA (The Guam Daily Post) — The Office of Public Accountability has found several issues with a performance revenue cycle management (RCM) services contract for the Guam Memorial Hospital Authority.
These include deficiencies in GMHA’s procurement process regarding compliance with procurement law, factors indicative of preferential treatment towards hiring the contractor for RCM services, unreasonable bases included in the contractor’s 12% compensation, and ineffectiveness of the RCM consultancy due to continuing cash flow and patient receivable issues.
GMHA hired MedHealth Solutions in 2021 to serve as the RCM consultant. The agreement was signed and approved by the Office of the Attorney General and the governor.
The hospital authority agreed to pay MedHealth 12% of any dollar collected above a monthly collection baseline of $7.2 million. In addition, the consultant would be compensated 30% of any unbilled, uncollected or denied claims referred to MedHealth and for which payment is obtained on behalf of GMHA, according to Post files.
However, by November 2022, the hospital authority had terminated the contract. A termination notice stated that GMHA’s ability to manage its revenue cycle had matured enough to justify termination, and that the anticipated costs versus the value of services provide by MedHealth did not justify continuation.
The OPA did not name MedHealth in its audit, but the company is known through media reports and was identified by GMHA’s response to the OPA.
According to the audit, prior to coming on as the RCM consultant, MedHealth, through the extension of an unsolicited offer, performed a no-cost assessment of the hospital authority’s RCM in 2019, and provided recommendations to address its findings.
“GMHA subsequently made three attempts – one sole source procurement and two (requests for proposals) – to formally procure a contractor for RCM services. We noted several compliance deficiencies in GMHA’s processing of the contractor’s unsolicited offer and the three subsequent procurement attempts for RCM services,” the OPA audit stated.
According to the audit, GMHA procurement regulations allow for sole source procurements to arise from unsolicited offers, but Guam law states otherwise. The hospital authority attempted to use a sole source procurement to hire MedHealth in late 2019 and had signed a version of a contract by January 2020, but the Office of the Attorney General did not approve the procurement and instructed GMHA to go through the RFP process, the audit stated.
For the subsequent RFP attempts, the OPA found that MedHealth should have been disqualified as a nonresponsive bidder because it submitted cost or pricing data in violation of the general terms and conditions of the solicitation.
As for factors indicating preferential treatment, the OPA found that GMHA allowed submissions of percentage-based model proposals following a request from an affiliate of MedHealth, issued another RFP after discussions with the contractor, and drafted a contract that included compensation terms included in MedHealth’s proposal.
From June 2021 to Nov. 3, 2022, MedHealth had billed GMHA $5 million for services.
“We observed that the contract’s scope of services included the collection from self-pay patients and third-party insurers and involvement in the Medicare cost reporting, which GMHA stated was not performed by the contractor and instead fulfilled through guidance in claim process improvements (to include coding) and GMHA seeking a secondary contractor for Medicare cost reporting,” the OPA audit stated.
“Furthermore, the billable A/R collection sources (3Ms (Medicare, Medicaid, and the Medically Indigent Program); insurance providers; and self-pay, which includes tax refund garnishments from the Department of Revenue and Taxation) comprise of payors whose payments are guided by local and/or federal regulations,” the audit added.
Because of this, the OPA questioned $4.9 million paid and/or recognized as payable by GMHA for MedHealth invoices issued for July 2021 to October 2022.
Lastly, the OPA audit stated that the RCM consultancy did not appear to provide immediate relief for GMHA’s financial condition, based on the hospital authority’s fiscal year 2022 financial audit.
GMHA response
GMHA CEO/Administrator Lillian Perez-Posadas stated that the authority took issue with a number of the audit’s determinations, but their primary objection laid with the conclusion that the RCM contract was ineffective, or that there as an unreasonable basis for contractor compensation.
“GMHA notes that the draft report acknowledges the OPA’s inability to conclude with certainty the long-term value of the consultancy provided by MedHealth to GMHA,” Perez-Posadas stated.
The hospital authority also took issue wit the allegation that GMHA granted preferential treatment.
“GMHA maintains that the final contract terms were a result of negotiations with MedHealth, as required by procurement code. GMHA conducted the procurement in a transparent manner, including discussions at public meetings with the board of trustees and circulation to nine prospective vendors, indicating that the contract was not a product of deference or special treatment,” Perez-Posadas stated.
Regardless, GMHA agrees that the public auditor’s recommendations, which include revising the authority’s procurement planning and pre-evaluation process and to use a fixed payment amount for consultancy contracts, should be implemented.