Debates of Nov. 19th, 2009

Committees of the House

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we danced around is waiting times.

We are talking about live-in caregivers. It is important to note that although the government wants to zero in on one particular aspect, it wants to do that in order to cover up what really is the underlying factor. The underlying factor is that a lot of our caregivers come from Manila. Under its jurisdiction and under its watch, the rate of refusal from Manila rose from 33% to 66%. It doubled. Many of the individuals who apply to come to Canada have to go to other posts in order to apply.

That being said, I have also noticed my NDP colleague's questioning about the Liberal support or non-support of consultants. It was the Liberal party that brought in the statute in order for us to have CSIC. It was the Liberal Party that moved a motion in order for us to discuss CSIC in committee and make recommendations.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just reinforced the message I was trying to convey earlier, namely, that it was a Liberal government that introduced the process involving immigration consultants. We created that professional corporation, if you will, which established guidelines, a code of ethics and code of conduct. Some improvements are needed, we agree, but it was under a Liberal government that this measure was brought in.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on this report about migrant workers and ghost consultants.

I would like to provide some background because the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has been talking about this issue for a long time. We started talking about it during the last Parliament. We submitted several reports. We held consultations across Canada on a number of issues, including ghost consultants, migrant workers and temporary foreign workers. We submitted some of our recommendations during the last Parliament. At the beginning of this Parliament, we resumed the study we had begun earlier and we completed it so that our efforts would not be wasted. We kept working and produced this report. To put this report in context, it follows up on allegations involving the member for Brampton—Springdale and her family with respect to employing live-in caregivers.

That may not have been the committee's greatest moment. There was a bit of a media circus about the story, and even though the committee did not have the necessary means, nor was it our mandate, we tried to shed some light on what happened with the Dhalla family. However that case is not what we should be focusing on if we want to help workers in general. I think that we need to move away from this case, which was really sensationalized in the media. We have to take a more thorough look at the issue in general and figure out how to go about getting better public policies.

In the report, we referred to the fact that recommendations had been made in a previous report, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, recommendations that the government has not yet acted on.

If I may, I would like to go back and review those recommendations so that we can see how they might help people who come to work here temporarily and end up in difficult situations.

I would like to begin by explaining the famous live-in caregiver program, for those who do not know what it involves. This program enables a foreign worker—and often, we are talking about a female foreign worker—to come here and work for an employer for a certain length of time. If memory serves, an individual can work as a live-in caregiver for two years. A caregiver used to be called a maid. That is probably no longer the appropriate term, but we are talking about someone who comes to live with an employer who is wealthy enough to pay someone to do housework, look after the children, prepare meals and do any other sort of domestic work.

Under the program, if someone does this sort of work in Canada for two years, she will automatically be granted permanent resident status. That is what attracts these people to come and do domestic work here. In our consultations in Canada, we found that there were two main problems with this program and that one of them applied as a general rule to all temporary foreign workers.

The first problem is that the law requires that the caregiver live with the employer. Imagine someone from abroad who comes to a country she does not know and where she had no family or contacts. She is required to live with and work for her employer for two years. Because this person has little contact with the outside world, there is a very significant risk of abuse. I want to make it clear that not all employers are abusive, but it is very easy for an employer to take advantage of an employee. The employee has no way out and no opportunity to meet with immigrant worker support groups, develop a social network or get to know people outside the employer's home. Her life is limited to the employer's home.

These people are in an extremely vulnerable situation that can lead to abuse. Sometimes, people are forced to work from morning to night without a break and to put in an incredible number of hours every week. The committee heard testimony about sexual abuse. Once again, the person had no way of getting out of this difficult situation or had a very hard time doing so. In this sort of situation, there is a huge imbalance between the employer's authority and the employee's ability to assert her rights and defend herself.

For that reason, recommendation 34 of the previous report, to which the report we are examining refers, stated:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada remove the requirement that individuals with certain work permits [including live-in caregivers] live with or on the premises of their employer.

This was dealt with in more depth in the report before us. I cannot find the reference, but you can trust me, it was studied very carefully.

The second important recommendation was more general. It concerned temporary workers in general, including domestic workers, but also those who work on farms in the summer and in factories during peak periods in certain regions that have a labour shortage. In these regions, foreign workers make up for such shortages. This was a common concern we encountered when we travelled to various regions throughout Canada.

Once again, there seemed to be an imbalance, with the power disproportionately held by the employer. I will explain. Any person who comes to work here must first obtain a formal offer of employment. Then they are given a visa, which indicates that this person is authorized to work for a certain company and that is why they are entitled to be here. The problem is that there really is no possibility of negotiating with the employer if the worker is dissatisfied with the relationship or the working conditions.

Imagine ourselves working very long hours in a farmer's field in very difficult conditions. At some point, we realize that this is not right and that we are working ourselves to death. So we go to see our employer and ask for changes, because it just does not make sense and we cannot go on like that. In many cases, with a good employer, we will be able to make changes. However, an less scrupulous employer will simply say that if we are not happy we can go back to our home country. It is far from straightforward.

In nearly all the cities and towns we visited, and in nearly every group of witnesses that appeared before us, I asked if we should lift the obligation to specify a single employer on a visa application, so that if employees are dissatisfied, they can look for another employer that offers better conditions in Canada and not be left at the mercy of unscrupulous employers.

I must say, this idea gathered a great deal of support, even from many employers. However, people felt it would be appropriate to impose a few restrictions. On the one hand, people said that work permits should still specify one type of employment, one economic sector and one province, instead of specifying just one employer. Why? Because these visas are granted based on the state of the labour market in that province and in the employment sector in question. As part of the process, if an employer asks to hire temporary foreign workers for their business, we must ensure that there really is a shortage and that the employer is unable to hire Canadian or Quebec workers. We definitely do not want to create a “cheap labour” program. The program is meant to fill real needs for labour.

We have a process in place. Clearly, if open permits were granted that allowed people to move from one employment sector to another or from one province to another—because the reality can vary from one province to the next—this whole labour market opinion process would become pointless. Indeed, we would have no control over whether people work in sectors that have a labour shortage in Canada or in which there are already more than enough local workers to do the work.

On the other hand, it must be understood that in the context of this program, when employers decide to hire a foreign temporary worker, they become responsible for certain fees, including for instance, the cost of recruiting. Employers usually deal with foreign recruiting agencies, even though some abuses occur. This could be the subject of an entire debate. As part of the process, employers are obliged to pay the recruitment costs, and not the employee. Another example is the cost of airline tickets. When an employee applies for a visa, the employer must agree to pay for that individual's return airfare.

An employer considering making that investment will want some guarantee of a return on it, a guarantee that once the employee gets here, he or she will not go work for someone else who has not gone through this process, who has not spent the money, but ends up benefiting from having the employee.

In its report, the committee recommended implementing a mechanism under which, if an open permit is issued to allow workers to move from one employer to another, the subsequent employer has to pay the original costs paid by the first employer on a pro-rated basis.

There are a number of other recommendations too, but I will not get into the details. I think that these two recommendations represent the most important steps we can take to restore the balance of power between employers and temporary foreign workers, particularly when it comes to live-in caregivers.

Secondly, the committee addressed the issue of consultants taking advantage of temporary foreign workers, which happens a lot.

For example, we are seeing a lot of cases involving phoney job ads. People come here, and once they arrive, they find out that there is not actually an employer ready to hire them. We have seen cases where consultants strongly recommend that new arrivals stay in their apartments and pay them rent. Sometimes they even force people to do this. We have seen plenty of cases of exploitation. A lot of temporary foreign workers and other classes of immigrants have problems because of immigration consultants.

The whole situation is chaotic. The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, the so-called regulatory body that was recently created, is not doing its job. To be honest, in committee and during various meetings that I personally participated in, it became clear that this organization has some serious governance problems.

When I was younger—some people might not believe me if I say “when I was young”—I was very involved in student associations, most of which were run more democratically than the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants seems to be. This is a serious problem. There have been obvious cases of bad governance, favouritism and nepotism. So there are problems. There is no enforcement when it comes to who can call themselves an immigration consultant and no way to find out whether people really are members or not.

An article in yesterday's Globe and Mail talks about a consultant with offices in Toronto, Mr. Rana, who calls himself one of the most famous consultants in the world and who has been accused of terrorism. I will not go into detail, but he is an major immigration consultant, and yet he is not on the list of consultants of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. I have just checked on the Internet.

The society itself is negligent because it is poorly governed. The members care more about themselves than the profession, and the lack of regulation is a problem. The federal government should not be responsible for regulating this field. The committee recognized this, because there is a recommendation that states specifically that immigration consultants in Quebec should be regulated by the Government of Quebec. This profession should therefore be regulated as a Quebec profession. The professional code is very sophisticated and extremely complex. The Office des professions can monitor, regulate and even go so far as to take over a professional body in the case of negligence. A sort of trusteeship is possible. In addition, there is a regulatory framework that is several hundred pages in length.

When we look at what the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants has come up with, it is a few sections that take up two pages of the act. This is extremely minimalist, and even if the society were to sort out its governance problems, it would not have enough of a legal framework to do its job.

This issue needs to be addressed and transferred to the provinces, which already have all the authority they need to regulate the professions. Moreover, the provinces will be able to decide whether they feel there should be immigration consultants. This is the only area of law where non-lawyers and people who are not members of the bar can provide legal advice. Why is this allowed in immigration, when it is not allowed in family law, civil law, criminal law or any other area of law?

There is obviously a gap here. I will not go any further, because it is up to the governments of Quebec and the provinces to pass legislation in this area. We feel strongly that the existing structure is flawed and that the provinces must be asked to take charge of regulating this profession.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great consideration to my colleague from the Bloc. I thank him for shedding some light and providing his version of where he wants to see the matter of temporary workers and ghost consultants go.

We have a regulatory body of consultants, which is CSIC, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. There were studies conducted across the country on this issue in the past Parliaments, and they indicated that more teeth have to be given to a new administration for consultants. There was a report done which concluded that consultants should fall under a federal statute as do lawyers, and this government has not looked at that report.

I want to ask my colleague if he would stand and give us the Bloc's position as to where it sees CSIC going. There are no teeth to take ghost consultants to task. Would he also support the notion of a statute, something like the one for lawyers, that would give teeth to regulations? Also, would he support the recommendations in the report to go after ghost consultants, something which the government has not undertaken as it does not care and does not want to implement it?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, essentially, my point is that we must give more teeth to regulations governing the profession of immigration consultant. That will not happen at the federal level for two reasons. First, from a constitutional standpoint, the provinces are responsible for governing professions, and second, it is difficult to govern professions.

The bar has existed for hundreds of years. Such professional associations have existed for a long time and have spent a lot of time establishing themselves. The Barreau du Québec, the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec and the Ordre des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec have some autonomy, but they are ultimately governed by the Office des professions du Québec. This organization can monitor the work of each of these professional organizations, and can crack down and take over if they are not doing their jobs.

It is clear that the most effective way of doing things is to govern this profession within the structure that already exists and is equipped to do the work. That seems like the path to take if we want to avoid serious governance problems, like the ones that exist with the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

There have been cases where elections have been extremely heated and highly questionable, I must say. Some candidates are unable to run because disciplinary complaints have been made against them. Anyone can make a complaint, and there is no guarantee how quickly it will be handled. When someone complains too much, disciplinary action is taken against them for disrespecting the association. They cannot run in an election to change things. There are serious problems, and something serious needs to be done to fix them.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the member is interested in provincial rights, and I wonder if he is aware that in Manitoba this spring a series of rules were enacted, which evidently have been working out quite well, to register and restrict the activities of immigration consultants. That certainly has been a long-time problem in Manitoba, as it has been right across the country. Manitoba had to do something, and that approach seems to be working quite well.

I am not certain just what kinds of rules the Quebec government has in place now or may be planning to put in place, but I wonder whether he would like to look at the Manitoba rules to see what they are, whether he likes them and whether they are working the way he would want them to.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity to see what Manitoba is doing about this when we were there. If memory serves me correctly, that province has much tighter rules on the fees that can be set or, in most cases, that cannot be set for recruiting someone from abroad. It is a very good system.

My colleague said that I am very interested in the rights of Quebec and the provinces. I do indeed believe that provincial jurisdictions need to be respected. Quebec already has very little constitutional power to control its future as a nation. However, my speech went further. In this case, it is not simply a matter of defending Quebec's jurisdictions. It is more than that. It is simply a matter of efficiency. Every province already has a structure that works well. We should use this structure to regulate the profession instead of creating something that does not work well.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the member could describe some of the stories we heard during the committee discussions on this report.

There were some live-in caregivers who came in and talked about their experiences, and some of them were in tears. During our travels a year and a half ago, we heard descriptions of situations and of how some consultants thought they were not being regulated properly or were being discriminated against. There were stories of unfair practices.

Perhaps the member could enlighten us on some of the things the committee heard, especially to do with live-in caregivers.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, we heard some very informative and often moving testimony about what, unfortunately, could happen when people are practically prisoners of not very nice employers. In some cases, employers were breaking the law, committing crimes, including sexual assault against completely dependent people who are unaware of their rights or how to defend them.

The Bloc Québécois has often suggested that information sessions be held before the start of employment and that they be expanded, in certain cases, to explain to male workers, and especially to female workers, their rights. I was very proud when the committee accepted our recommendation.

We made another recommendation but I do not have the time to find it and quote it exactly. It basically says that, in the three months after the arrival in Canada and the start of employment, it would be mandatory, and not just at the worker's request, for representatives of an NGO or organization recognized by the government to visit the worker on site. The person in question, who might have been there for three months, would be asked if there were any problems and if they knew their rights.

It can happen that someone in a difficult situation may be a complete prisoner and unable to leave the workplace. At some point, in these first three months, someone would contact them. They would at least have the opportunity to indicate that they were in a very difficult situation.

We were very pleased that the committee included our recommendation and I hope that the government will implement it. We already have NGOs and organizations that defend workers and that are definitely prepared to do so. We need to look at how this can be implemented and the rules that are needed. It does create a bit more work but it is a question of respect for other human beings.

I do not believe it is going overboard for a country such as ours to make a minimum of effort to visit workers once to verify whether or not they are being exploited or abused.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this report. It is the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and it regards migrant workers and ghost consultants.

I want to speak to some of the recommendations in the report, recommendations in which the government played a significant role in ensuring that at committee it would be there for the minister and ministry to have the opportunity to review and consider. I will go into some detail of a couple of those recommendations.

With regard to the member for Brampton—Springdale, the citizenship and immigration committee recommended a federal and provincial investigation into the allegations of abuse. Recommendation 7 states:

The Committee recommends that the authorized bodies in the provincial and federal governments investigate the allegations of the former live-in caregivers in the Dhalla residence and take measures as appropriate. Further, the Committee requests that these government bodies, upon completion of their investigations, send the result to the Committee.

We took this report, the issues that we face and every recommendation in the report very seriously. It is with that I would like to continue in outline some of the important factors that led to the report and led to some of the details in the recommendations that are very specific to the assistance it would provide both from a federal perspective and from a provincial perspective.

Our country has relied on immigration for more than two-thirds of its population growth in the last five years. We have one of the highest per capita levels of immigration among western nations. Our values, democracy, freedom and the rule of law make Canada a top destination choice for newcomers.

Our government is working to protect our immigration system and those who wish to come to Canada from immigration fraud. We are committed to cracking down on immigration scams and dishonesty, false promises and unethical, incompetent practices.

It is important to recognize that thousands of new Canadians and prospective immigrants to Canada have been defrauded by the so-called ghost consultants, third party intermediaries, including non-authorized representatives, recruiters and student agents who refuse to reveal themselves and their role in advising applicants. This fraud is deliberate and it is taking shameful advantage of the dreams and the aspirations of prospective newcomers to Canada.

The Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has already begun by raising this important issue with the Punjabi government during the minister's visit to India in January. We are taking other vigorous measures to prevent and warn against the risks of this kind of immigration-related fraud. We have warnings in 17 languages on our website and in all relative local languages at our missions and visa application centres abroad. Information pamphlets about the rights of workers, provincial labour laws and advocacy groups in Canada are also available to vulnerable individuals, who find themselves in an abusive situation. In addition, the anti-fraud warning video is now available in English, French and eight other languages.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada is distributing the video to various ethnic media in Canada and in missions abroad. It is also available on a departmental website and on YouTube.

The government has indicated on many occasions that the health, safety and well-being of all temporary foreign workers in Canada is of primary importance. As my colleagues well know, immigration is a shared responsibility between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. They also know that provincial and territorial labour laws establish employment standards such as minimum wage, overtime payments and vacation pay. I can assure them that our government is working with all the provinces and territories to ensure that all workers receive the full protection to which they are entitled under applicable laws. Employers and recruiters acting on the employer's behalf would have to prove that they have complied in the past with federal and provincial laws that regulate employment or the recruitment of employees.

British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan already have legislation that prohibits employment agencies from charging a fee for recruitment from the person seeking employment. Ontario, while not at that point yet, has announced that it will table similar legislation by the end of 2009. Alberta has announced that its legislation will be amended to include live-in caregivers.

As I said, our government supports this report in principle. We have certain reservations about some aspects of the report, such as the proposal to grant automatic permanent residency to live-in caregivers upon their arrival to our country, which could lead to very few caregivers actually working as caregivers. We would also disagree with the requirement that anyone who gives advice, be it a friend, family member or church group, be considered an authorized representative under the law.

As the member for Vaughan pointed out, there are a number of recommendations in this report. Maybe it was because of time or maybe it was because of design that he did not list out all of the recommendations that are in the report. I want to pay specific attention to recommendations 4 and 5.

The Liberal members of the committee and the Liberal Party did submit a minority report and said that, while they supported the report in its entirety, they did not support recommendation 7. I am not sure how one can do both at the same time, but that is what two of the members have stated this morning in the House.

Having said that, I read recommendation 7 with respect to the investigation in Brampton—Springdale. However, it is important to read recommendations 4 and 5. Those two recommendations stem from what we heard at committee and what the witnesses presented in terms of what they had gone through. Furthermore, those were backed up by additional witnesses. Professionals who have worked in this industry for years indicated in a very specific manner some of the things we should do to improve.

Recommendation 4 states:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada ensure that orientation sessions for caregivers address the following subjects:

The requirement that the employer provide a statement of earnings with each pay cheque;

The need for the caregiver to have access to complete statements of earnings and deductions in order to meet the conditions for becoming a permanent resident; and

The procedure for opening a bank account.

Furthermore, in these orientation sessions, it should be made clear that the following behaviors are unacceptable, and in many cases subject to sanction. It should also be explained to which bodies each of these inappropriate behaviours should be reported:

Confiscating passports;

Failing to comply with the Canada Revenue Agency rules regarding pay and record of employment;

Failing to make required deductions;

Employing a caregiver without a work permit to work in their homes;

Paying less than the minimum required by provincial legislation;

Requiring caregivers to work longer than reasonable work hours; and

Assigning caregivers tasks entirely unrelated to their prescribed role.

One Liberal member of the committee indicated that specifics were not important when dealing with these issues. They are indeed important when it comes to trying to deal with this issue.

Recommendation 5 states:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada require employers to attend a briefing on the live-in caregiver program and the rights and responsibilities of all concerned, before a caregiver can start work.

Furthermore, in this briefing, it should be made clear that the following behaviors are unacceptable and in many cases subject to sanction:

Confiscating passports;

Failing to comply with the Canada Revenue Agency rules regarding pay and record of employment;

Failing to make required deductions;

Employing a caregiver without a work permit to work in their homes;

Paying less than the minimum required by provincial legislation;

Requiring caregivers to work longer than reasonable work hours; and

Assigning caregivers tasks entirely unrelated to their prescribed role.

The opposition party often stands and says that there is not enough attention paid to detail. In this report the only party that submitted a contrary or minority report to this study was the Liberal Party of Canada, a party that had 13 years to work, to address, to improve, to change and to co-operate with provinces and territories on the direction that this program should take. When the Liberals had the opportunity to stand up and be counted at committee, they determined that this was not the report they wanted to support. That says something very drastic about the comments we heard from the party opposite this morning and also the position it took with respect to this report.

Upon receiving the report, the ministry and the minister did in fact take significant action to strengthen the protection of temporary workers. As the minister said:

Temporary foreign workers play an important role in the Canadian economy. We have a duty to them, employers and all Canadians, to ensure that the program is fair and equitable.

On October 9, the minister announced three very specific action items: first, that a more rigorous assessment of genuineness of the job offer would take place; second, limits to the length of a worker's stay in Canada before returning home; and third, a two-year prohibition from hiring a temporary foreign worker for employers found to have provided significantly different wages, working conditions or occupations than they were promised.

The opposition is quick to criticize the government when it comes to putting pen to paper and action to reports. I read out very specific recommendations that the committee submitted to the minister and the ministry. In response, the minister took action. I will not say immediately because one wanted to have a chance to read the report, but within weeks the minister stood and announced three very specific requirements that would be changed and penalties that would be applied. Based on the hard work of this committee, those were actually put forward.

I repeat, that did not come with unanimity from the four parties on the committee. It missed one party, and that was the Liberal Party of Canada.

The minister has indicated on many occasions that the health, safety and well-being of all temporary foreign workers in Canada is of primary importance. In particular, the live-in caregiver program fulfills an important function by helping Canadians meet their caregiving needs while, at the same time, allowing foreign caregivers access to an avenue for permanent residency, the opportunity to stay here and become a Canadian.

Our government is committed to ensuring that this program remains fair and equitable to both workers and employers. As immigration is a shared responsibility between the federal and the provincial and territorial governments, our government is working with the provinces and territories to ensure that all workers receive the full protection to which they are entitled under applicable laws.

When the committee did its study and heard its witnesses, we heard from workers. We did not ignore them. We did not just bring in consultants or people who had views on this issues, some who were experts and some who gave some compelling testimony. We actually brought in caregivers to ensure we heard from them on the changes and improvements we should make. In fact, if we look at the action the minister and ministry took, this is in fact the case.

We are working to protect our immigration system and those who wish to come to Canada from immigration fraud. We are committed to cracking down on immigration scams, dishonesty, false promises and unethical and incompetent practices. The trouble is most of this questionable activity is taking place outside of our country, which is an interesting thing to learn. While our consulates, our visa officers, our credential offices work as hard as they possibly can to ensure correctness and to ensure we do the proper due diligence, we are limited in our ability to enforce Canadian law.

However, we can make proper regulating and policing of immigration consultants in other countries a priority in our relationships with those countries. The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has already made a significant beginning. He raised this important issue when he met with the Punjab government during his visit to India at the beginning of this year.

Although our government, and I did state this, supports the report in principle, we do have a couple of reservations. One is that we are concerned about the proposal to grant automatic residency to live-in caregivers upon their arrival to our country. It could lead to very few caregivers actually working as caregivers. The concern is if we granted permanent residency, if we did it that way, it would be the quickest of anywhere in the world.

It would allow the individuals not to live up to their commitments and take on the responsibilities of being temporary caregivers and assisting their employers in any way the individuals had contracted to do. That is something we have to work on, because it will not work. It would leave those who have taken the time and energy to go through the temporary caregiver process, as families or as seniors, and who receive in their homes the individuals who come here to do the work they have agreed to do, without recourse, as the caregivers could in fact just walk away from that responsibility. That is unfair. We have to make sure that the implementation does not allow that to happen.

We also disagree with the requirement that anyone, be it a friend, family member or church group, who gives advice be considered an authorized representative under the law. This point with respect to the consultants was a source of consternation that the previous government did not address.

We are moving forward. As members heard from the October 9 announcement by the minister, we are moving in the direction of ensuring that penalties will be applied, including a two year prohibition from hiring a temporary foreign worker for employers found to have provided significantly different wages, working conditions or occupations than promised.

We are taking action. We are moving this forward. It is a program that is important to this country and to those who wish to come to this country in a manner in which they can earn their living and the opportunity to become, at some point in time, permanent residents of our country, eventually leading to Canadian citizenship.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the government supports in principle the report we are debating.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary about one of the problems the government has identified with the report, and that is with regard to the granting of immediate permanent residence status to people who come here to work as live-in caregivers.

It strikes me that in every other category of immigrant who comes to Canada and goes through the points system, the person does not have to work in his or her field. For example, a medical doctor who applies to come to Canada gets all of the points for being a medical doctor. That doctor arrives in Canada, but there is no requirement for him or her to actually work as a medical doctor. Moreover, a physicist who applies to come to Canada gets scads of points for being a physicist, but when that person gets to Canada, there is no requirement that he or she work as a physicist. In fact, we know that a lot of these people do not end up working in their fields because of other problems with the system.

Why then is there a problem in the case of live-in caregivers when we know that caregivers are needed in Canada? We know that child care workers are needed. We know that home care workers are needed. Why is this extra requirement made of them that they have to work in their field, and that their status in Canada is dependent upon that?

It seems patently unfair. It seems like discrimination against a group of women workers primarily, a group of workers that we know is needed in Canada, but that does not have the high academic achievement of other groups of people that come here. This group of women workers, nonetheless, is needed here in Canada. So why do we have this extra requirement?

Why does the member believe that this group of potential immigrants is any more likely not to work in its field than any other immigrants who come to Canada?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would implore the member to do two things. First, he should understand that there are different ways and means for an individual who is not a Canadian citizen, but who wants to come to this country, to have the opportunity to do so. Second, he should follow up and read both of those programs, because it sounds as if these are unclear to him and that he has mixed two programs together.

First and foremost, if an individual wants to come to this country and applies for permanent residency, the individual does so through a program that currently exists. In fact, it is a program that was changed in the 2008 budget, part 6 of Bill C-50 at that time, which this government implemented.

We have actually shown improvement in this. We are moving forward in a much quicker way so that those individuals who apply through the points system the member spoke about do not have to wait five, six, or seven years to become permanent residents in the country.

However, we have a separate program for temporary caregivers, which I think is what the member is alluding to. This is not the same system he alluded to for an application for permanent residency. This is an opportunity for those who wish to come to this country as temporary caregivers, who would then have the opportunity to earn a living here and become accustomed or acclimatized to this country. Once they have fulfilled their obligations, they will certainly have the opportunity to become permanent residents of this country.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, how has the government dealt with the issue of ghost consultants? There are still hundreds and hundreds of consultants who have not necessarily gone through any regulations, any testing, or any registration of any kind. They are practising. Yesterday the newspaper reported on “A 'world-famous' immigration consultant with suspicious footprints”. I do not know whether this consultant, who has now been arrested on serious allegations of some criminal activities overseas or here, is registered or regulated in any way.

How has the government dealt with the ghost consultants issue? I ask because the report before us has a series of recommendations, including setting up an enforcement unit that would investigate and deal with those ghost consultants. It talks about setting up an agency that the consultants would have to belong to in order to practise. It talks about serious criminal offences and about the need to take immediate action.

Where is that action now?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Trinity—Spadina does a tremendous job at committee on behalf of her party. It is not too often that she and I see eye to eye on specific issues and recommendations, but through this report we on the government side and, certainly, her party, feel and realize that changes are needed on issues related to this matter. I have mentioned a couple of times that the minister made an announcement on October 9 to begin to get at those issues. I think she understands and knows the minister's feelings on this matter and his government's feelings on this matter. We are continuing, as we did on October 9 when we announced these three measures, to work toward ensuring that fairness and appropriate action are part of this process.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would certainly like to congratulate the parliamentary secretary for his eloquent and well researched speech. As you know, I have an interest in this topic from my former days as a labour lawyer and, certainly, in Alberta there has been a great need for temporary foreign workers in the construction, the restaurant and retail sectors.

As he alluded to in the concluding comments of his speech, the government was quick to react with respect to some perceived deficiencies in the program. I listened to the member for Trinity—Spadina go on about all of the unscrupulous labour brokers, but I understand that the government has acted with respect to prohibiting individuals who perhaps act less than genuinely with their clients.

I wonder if he could comment with respect to that ban, how long it is going to take effect, who is going to qualify for the ban and whether he agrees with me that the unscrupulous labour brokers are in a very small minority.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the assistance he has provided me on occasion, with his background and understanding of some of the work that is being accomplished in the department. I certainly appreciate his efforts to assist me in that work.

I think the member makes an excellent point that everything needs to be done to deal with those ghost consultants and unscrupulous individuals who act in a manner that is unbecoming to the individuals who believe they are being assisted, which can carry forward and hurt individuals and their families' opportunity both for temporary residency and finding employment in our country.

It is in fact a very small minority of individuals who fall in that category. While any number above zero is not acceptable, and we need to work toward that figure, the fact is the department is doing an outstanding job.

Our folks who work across the world, whether they be in our visa offices, foreign credential offices, or embassies, take a very specific and hard look at the work that is necessary to ensure that treatment is fair and just, and that individuals who come here do so with fair expectations, rather than hearing from a consultant who makes all kinds of promises, charges all kinds of fees and puts individuals and, in some cases, families in a position of being distraught and sometimes having to go back to the country from which they came because of the treatment by those consultants.

It is a minority, but I want to tell the House that the minister is focused and dedicated on ensuring that we lower those levels regardless of how small they may be at this point.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

Today a motion was moved to concur in the report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration entitled, “Migrant Workers and Ghost Consultants”. I wanted to take the opportunity to at least briefly participate in this debate from the standpoint that, having read the report and considering the seventh report, as well as the recommendations in this report, there are some very substantive issues that have been raised by a standing committee of this place whose mandate is laid out in the Standing Orders quite precisely.

Our experience with regard to committee work has been that it often falls on deaf ears.

The members of the committee work very hard. We rely upon expert witnesses. We rely upon the experience and expertise of all hon. members from all parties. We try to understand what the issues are, what the problems are, what the opportunities are and what the threats are.

When we do that work at committee, we come to a certain consensus on key issues that we believe would make eminent sense in terms of regulatory reform or legislative reform. These are reported in the report. This is an excellent report. It is very reflective of the quality of work that committees can do. It does not always represent a unanimity, but it represents a reference document with recommendations and reasons therefore, and, in some cases, sometimes often, even minority reports from one or more parties who feel that there are certain aspects of the report with which they have a divergent view.

Those reports come to this place, are tabled in the House by the chair of the committee and hon. members have an opportunity, should they wish, to move what is called a concurrence motion on a particular report so we can have a debate in the House, broaden that input and that reflection on the work that has been done, and maybe to actually enhance the debate based on the reaction of stakeholders, whether they be parliamentarians or, even beyond this place, in the public at large. This report is one that has received a lot of public attention.

With that input, it calls for and almost demands that there be a comprehensive departmental response, not only to Parliament but to the committee with regard to the work and the recommendations that it made. When committees have reports produced and tabled in the House, we can specifically ask for a formal response from the government within 120 days.

In the committee, which I chair, which is the Standing Committee for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we recently did a report on what we believed would be commentary on 12 particular recommendations, 5 or 6 of which the committee was very supportive and which recommended amendments to the Access to Information Act. The other recommendations we felt would require further consideration but were worthy of being brought to the attention of the minister. We heard a great number of witnesses. We also had a comprehensive consideration of the recommendations and there was a unanimous report on behalf of all parties.

After producing this report, very similar in size and certainly with substantive recommendations, the response from the government at the end of 120 days, after we eliminate the non-specific commentary in it, represented some 300 words, according to the information commissioner of the day, Robert Marleau, who came before us and expressed his concern and his regret.

The committee passed a motion that was presented to us by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. The motion, which was reported to this place, was first, to express the sincere and profound disappointment of the committee in the dismissive response of the minister; second, to report that the committee recommends strongly that a completely new access to information act be presented to Parliament by March 31, 2010; and finally, that the minister responsible, who had only appeared before us for one hour throughout this entire process, be required to again appear before committee by November 30, 2009. We are waiting for that response.

I raise that because my fear is that we are facing the same kind of a dismissive attitude by the government to many committee reports to Parliament. I think that represents another reflection of the dysfunction in the operations of Parliament. Parliament must be responsive to the work of parliamentarians. The government must be respectful of the work done by committees. It must be seriously considered and, when it disagrees, it must give informative, constructive responses to the recommendations and the work that has been done by the committee members based on expert testimony and consultations, as broadly as is necessary. Those are the kinds of things that matter.

There is a minority report in this and it comes from the Liberal Party. That minority report was spawned by the view that the government of the day does not have immigration priorities that reflect the priorities and the needs of Canadians. We believe the government has not only embraced and enhanced its attitude and its legislation on immigration, but it has contracted its view toward immigration to Canada.

I recall that the phrase most often heard from the government back at the beginning of my tenure was, “Why are you letting all those criminals in?” The starting point of its attitude toward immigration was that people who were coming here were substantively criminals. The Conservatives had to justify themselves for coming into this place rather than to understand that with a declining birthrate and with the demand for skilled labour and for the compassion of family reunification, a vibrant immigration policy was vital to Canada in terms of the health and well-being of its people.

The minority report expresses that the government does not share those values. If it does not share those values, then it certainly does not share the enthusiasm of the committee with regard to these important recommendations that have been made in this report.

I am sure all hon. members know that some of the most difficult, challenging and demanding but rewarding work that we do as parliamentarians in our constituency offices is to deal with immigration and citizenship matters, whether it be visas and the like, or family reunification and sponsorship.

Canadians are very reliant on members of Parliament but too often it is the case that we have people coming to us who have a problem with officials at Citizenship and Immigration. The reason they have the problem is because somebody told them that there was a consultant they could talk to who would give them all the nice ways to fast-track their situation. Every member in this chamber has had the experience of where someone has run afoul of the officials at Citizenship and Immigration because they followed the advice of so-called immigration consultants who told them not to bother giving that information.

My contribution is simply to ask all hon. members to look very carefully at getting a response from the government.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe the member for Mississauga South is an accountant and he certainly is a quick study. My question, however, was really for the parliamentary secretary but I am hoping he will be able to fill in on his behalf.

In recommendation 4 of the report, I am concerned with the reference to the requirements for information regarding the payroll deductions and procedures for opening a bank account. Perhaps the committee should be asked to take a look at this whole area of payroll deductions and make a further recommendation to Revenue Canada to make it easier for people to deal with Revenue Canada in terms of payroll deductions.

It is very easy for a small business with five, ten or one hundred employees to run its payroll efficiently but when it needs to hire one person to fill out the deductions, it becomes quite an onerous task and a lot of people are actually discouraged from hiring because of that. During the election campaign we had to hire one employee for about two weeks work. We were being chased for months afterward with regard to employee deduction issues. It is a huge amount of paperwork for one person.

Perhaps the committee should look at making a further recommendation to Revenue Canada to somehow make it easier to deal with the payroll deduction issue. I wonder whether the member would address that. In addition, the whole issue of setting up bank accounts is also a very onerous task today, especially post 9/11.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member raises an interesting point and this is where due care and diligence needs to be taken.

There are requirements for payroll deductions and the set up of bank accounts to ensure the integrity of the system. I understand that in our banking system, identification, residential addresses, social insurance numbers and all kinds of things are required, but these are absolutely vital to have in place to protect the integrity of the system because abuse is possible.

With regard to payroll deductions, more often than not the rates of withholding, whether it be for EI, CPP or income tax, do not change frequently during the year. In fact, usually they are scheduled to change at the end of either a calendar year or possibly March 31. That means that all one needs to do is know what the deductions are once and they are repeated pay period after pay period.

It is a small inconvenience to have that done in the first instance but those who are in the accounting profession would be most happy to do it. It takes about 10 minutes to work it out for a specific case. I do not believe the safeguards should be tampered with simply for administrative convenience, which is a modest inconvenience in the first instance.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, does the member support the recommendations that only people who are authorized immigration consultants, the ones who are registered, can represent people at the immigration department to put in an application on a person's behalf and that the applicants must disclose whether they are using consultants or not?

Would the member support such recommendations, which would get to the heart of whether the consultants being used are legitimate?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the issue of immigration consultants was something that came up very early in my career over these last 16 years. The problem at the time was that there were such unscrupulous people involved that we needed to have a system of regulation of so-called immigration consultants. It was essential. Without registration and without proper knowledge and training, it is asking for difficulties.

In the absence of sound argument about why we should allow people who are not properly registered and trained and who could in fact disrupt or destroy a person's opportunity to come to this country, I would certainly support the continued requirement to have registered consultants.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I typically would have tried to avoid this particular type of debate except for two things.

First, on the weekend, I spent some time with a group of live-in caregivers who wanted to recount all of the experiences that they have been having in the country and experiences with which I have been professionally associated, in part, as a former minister of immigration. There have been two others between me and the current minister.

Second, I was a little dismayed by the presentation offered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, which I can only identify as an excuse. Instead of addressing an issue prompted by this report, the issue was really that a former government, two Parliaments ago, after having been in government for x number of years, still had some difficulties associated with the program.

No House, people or group should accept those kinds of excuses for inaction. After four years, the government had an opportunity to address an issue that it had identified as a priority issue, both in terms of procedures on how to get people into this country and the circumstances in which they entered, and the substance of whether a demographic policy would fit in the long-term interests of a Canadian economic policy.

The Conservative government has done neither. Worse, as can be pointed out through this report, it has left temporary workers, especially live-in caregivers, in a position of fragile uncertainty: first, because it has not made a sincere effort to come to grips with the conditions into which the Minister of Immigration allows people to come and serve the larger interests of Canadian society; and second, because it prevents such individuals from enhancing their own condition in Canada and thereby making a greater contribution to the collective good of the country.

One might ask, how? There is no reason why live-in caregivers cannot pursue academic betterment. There is no reason why they cannot pursue, like all other Canadians, an opportunity to enhance their own qualifications for entry into a different category once their, if I can use this word improperly, trial period in Canada is satisfied. Finally, there is no reason why a live-in caregiver must be subjected to conditions of labour and conditions of social improvement that we would not accept as Canadians.

There is no reason, then, for the government to think in terms of unscrupulous consultants, et cetera. It is just another red herring because the consultants and lawyers who represent immigrants, potential immigrants, and those who are here on a temporary basis, whether it be in the live-in caregiver program or as migrant workers, temporary workers of any variety—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I will have to interrupt the hon. member in less than a minute.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thought that we had 10 minutes.

As I was saying, under these circumstances, the only thing that the government is focused on is what kind of people will actually make representations before its officials. The officials want to be sure that they are talking to someone who understands the rules and regulations that pertain to immigration, whatever its variety.

However, the government has not put one penny toward the enforcement of any rule that says that those who abuse the people that they pretend to serve must face serious consequences. We cannot go after them because the government has not put any money toward an enforcement process of unscrupulous consultants and representatives, and it does not have a mechanism for consequences once they are caught.

Madam Speaker, I know you want to make an intervention. I will stop here for a moment while you make your intervention.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?