Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2010

Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate today on Bill C-35.

We spend a lot of time talking about the importance of immigration to Canada, and rightly so. The difficulty, however, is that people almost have to be Philadelphia lawyers to figure out what the rules and procedures are in order to immigrate to Canada. There is no real consistency in terms of what we tell people at our embassies and high commissions, about what the job market is like in a particular field, how long it will take in terms of the process in general to come to Canada, or under what basis people can come to Canada. For many people here who want to sponsor relatives, it turns out that they think it is a right rather than a privilege.

Not understanding the process has led to people looking for consultants. In some cases a consultant is really not the appropriate term given the fact that many of these people have limited if any understanding. There are some very good consultants out there and there are obviously some bad apples.

The difficulty is that as members of Parliament we are charged with the responsibility of dealing with legislation. In 2008 the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration produced nine recommendations. Now the question I have for the government is, why were they not implemented?

One of the difficulties around this place is that when a standing committee deals with a particular issue, it deals with a stream of witnesses, debate, amendments and comes up with very concrete recommendations that are sent to the government, sometimes it is as if we have basically wasted our time.

Now I realize that in 2008 there was a federal election, but since then these recommendations have not been implemented. I think that is absolutely unacceptable when we look at the nature of the recommendations to fix part of the problem. This legislation before the House is not a panacea. It is not going to solve all of the problems. It is not going to solve all the backlogs. It is not going to deal with the financial issues in order to implement the kind of process that we need in place.

In my office alone, one person is dedicated solely to deal with immigration. Now I am not an immigration office. In theory I seem to be part of an extension of the department. In many cases the department is dealing with the applications that need to be dealt with. We have too many people applying and not enough resources to deal with those applicants. Fortunately, I am very blessed with a very committed, dedicated individual who really understands the process, after the last five years.

The difficulty is that people's expectations and understanding of what is involved is like night and day. Many of these people are victims of consultants and it all starts where they are applying. Do our embassies and high commissions have the kind of information readily available?

One of the recommendations in this report was recommendation no. 8. It clearly indicated in 2008 that we needed to have the most up-to-date information, that people really had to understand what was going to be awaiting them if in fact they came to Canada, in terms of language skill requirements, job opportunities, housing, et cetera.

The difficulty is that most people enter this process rather blindly. Because they think that there is sometimes a quick fix, they deal with consultants. Some of these consultants turn out to be more of a problem than a cure.

In 2008 the standing committee made nine recommendations. One of them which I think was extremely important was this whole issue of a stand-alone agency that would deal with this issue in terms of having the summary powers needed to do the job properly.

Rather than amend the Citizenship and Immigration Act, we need to have a body that has the power to deal with consultants both from a regulatory standpoint, and some colleagues have talked about the provincial process of many regulatory bodies, but also the power to investigate and the power to really come down on people who mislead, who in fact basically take money when no service is really rendered.

Immigration is supposed to be important to this country and yet we have a system that is broken, and I would defy anyone who would suggest otherwise. People just need to go to any constituency office of a member of Parliament in the greater Toronto area or the greater Vancouver area and they will certainly see the difficulties that members of Parliament deal with. That is because we do not have the necessary tools. We do not have a legion of staff that can deal with this. There often is a lot of burn-out because one person dealing with this in particular is very difficult. We hear the most tragic stories of people who want to come to this country for a new opportunity but, again, it is the issue of dealing with this.

The last Liberal government, our government in 2005, put $900 million toward trying to deal with the backlog, which really was not enough, as with the present government which was not enough.

I am sure many members of Parliament have been asked by people how to speed up the process or how they can be fast-tracked. Obviously we can fast-track when we can fast-track them all and we cannot fast-track anyone.

Will this legislation deal with the problem? It will only deal partly with the problem. We support it going to committee. A 2008 standing committee report has nine recommendations in it, part of which deal with the issue of consultants. If the government had implemented those recommendations, we would perhaps be onto something else today. The fact is that we continue to try to reinvent the wheel instead of asking what the major problem is here.

If in fact we had no immigration policy, how would we create one that would address the economic needs of this country and the kinds of issues that we as Canadians believe are important and be able to attract people to this country? Instead, we always deal around the edges. We do not deal with the problems per se.

A stand alone regulatory body, as recommended by the standing committee in 2008, is what is needed. It really needs those powers, as we have said. However, this proposed legislation only deals with part of that issue. It does not really deal with the significant governance issues that the standing committee looked at when it listened to the many witnesses who came forward. We need to deal with that.

We also need to be working with our international partners. We need to get better coordination in terms of everything from people smuggling to the fact that people set up shot overseas and say that they are a consultant. When they are asked what kind of regulations there are, they say that one can come to Canada and do this and that.

Many of the people who come to my office have been drained financially paying money to certain individuals who in the end tell them to go see their MP. In other words, let the MP now try to deal with the problem that they in many cases have created or clearly have not been able to deal with. We need to look at that. It is obviously part of the solution.

As we know, consultants are often not lawyers. They provide advice and the difficulty is that sometimes they are not up to speed on this.

I have held information sessions in my riding dealing with the process. One is absolutely dizzy by the time one listens to how this process works: how does one do this, can one appeal this and then there is another appeal, what happens if one comes under certain classifications. One has to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure that out.

We have these ghost consultants. We have these people who say that they can solve one's problem. It goes back to the fact that people accept money to give advice which often turns out not to be very helpful.

When we have standing committee recommendations, the best thing the government can do today would be to embrace those nine recommendations and move forward so we can deal with other aspects of immigration. Again, within those nine recommendations we also deal with a stand alone body that would deal with this. I think that is part of the solution but it is not the total solution.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, colleagues around the House have touched on almost all of the important aspects of this legislation by now but I want to highlight two or three areas that are of significance to me in my capacity as the member representing Scarborough—Rouge River.

Canada's immigration program has actually been a very successful public policy tool and it has served Canada extremely well over the decades. With all due respect extended to our first nations, we are a country of immigrants and this has always been the case. We have learned how to do it well but our immigration act and procedures have provided the infrastructure under which people have come to Canada from all around the world. It is a controlling mechanism for people movements from outside Canada to Canada and we are absolutely, without any reservation, a receiving country of many wonderful people throughout our history.

My particular constituency happens to be about 75% immigrant, which is a relatively high percentage. Three-quarters or more of the people in Scarborough—Rouge River are, or were, immigrants. That means that in my work as a member of Parliament, and this includes my staff in the riding and in Ottawa, we see a lot of immigration issues on behalf of constituents. Those constituents are connected to other places around the world. We see immigration issues from all around the world of every type and description.

I know there are many millions of happy customers of immigration consultants as well as immigration lawyers. Many immigrants, depending on what type of immigration they follow, which procedural line they follow when they come to Canada, rely on professional advice, and that serves them and it serves Canada. They pay for it. It is quite a well working and positive system. However, that is not to say that it is perfect. What we are dealing with here today is a component of the immigration infrastructure that is not working well.

I want to recognize here on the floor, because I am not so sure we have done it, all of the good work of all of the immigration lawyers and consultants who are out there. There are thousands of them out there all doing good, professional work and we should recognize that. I say that because that comment lies in stark contrast to the name that the government has given to the bill. The short title is “Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act”.

This is somewhat Orwellian. The government has decided to put colourful, descriptive advertising into the title of its bill. The government has not quite gone so far as to put neon signs up on the Peace Tower yet, but contorting the title of a bill in this way is inappropriate. However, it has chosen to do it. I have been here for over 20 years and it is the first time I have seen this kind of Orwellian manipulation of the short title of a bill to broadcast something. If the name of the bill were totally descriptive, I would not object, but in this case the bill describes itself as a bill to crack down on crooked immigration consultants.

The bill is much more than that. It purports to regulate the whole class of immigration consultants, most of whom are good guys. The name of the bill stigmatizes a whole class of people. Would the government do the same thing if it were further regulating architects? Would it write a bill that cracked down on stupid architects or write a bill to crack down on stupid, incompetent ships' captains? I do not think that is the right way to do things. It stigmatizes a whole class of people.

What we are doing here with this bill is facilitating the further regulation of immigration consultants, which is a good profession, whether they are professional consultants or whether they are lawyers.

I wanted to get that straight. I say shame on the government for manipulating the short titles of bills in this way.

We want to try to fix or allow consultants themselves, by self-regulation, to fix some of the problems we have seen, and they have been described here today. One of the areas that I do not think we will be able to fix is the problem of a consultant in another country. We can deal with consultants here but we have never successfully found a way to deal with the enforcement of someone who acts as a consultant in Damascus, Shanghai, Colombo or New York City, someone who just says, “I'm an immigration consultant. If you pay me 10,000 bucks, I will deliver your documents and get you into Canada. All you have to do is pay me the 10,000 or 20,000 bucks and I guarantee a great result”.

That consultant is out there in another country and our laws cannot apply extraterritorially into another country. So it is tough for us to regulate this in a way that would regulate that person in that other country, which we all regret. Sometimes we call them ghost consultants. Immigration officials, as I understand it, will refuse to accept an immigration application of some sort if it appears there is an immigration consultant behind it and the immigration consultant is not properly registered or not in good standing. That is a partial address to the problem but I hope the committee will look at this and look at ways to isolate and identify consultants who are not properly registered and not properly trained in the foreign country.

Most of us as MPs have people come to us only when the file is broken. If the file is going all right through the immigration department, they do not need the MP. It is really quite shocking when a member of Parliament or a staffer of a member of Parliament has people coming in saying that they have a problem with immigration after paying a guy $15,000 and that the file is all messed up. My staff are saying, “My goodness, $15,000 and we have to fix it. If you had come to us in the first place, it wouldn't have cost you anything and we would have done it correctly for you”. It is not that we do immigration work directly out of the office but we certainly do advise our constituents and we try to fix situations that have gone sideways.

I know my party will be supporting the bill at second reading, in principle, for the purposes of getting it to committee where I hope the committee will redouble its efforts. I know the committee has looked at this stuff before. Half measures will not work. If there was ever an area subject to loopholes, this is one of them. I encourage the committee to consult with the industry, with the professionals, to look for a consensus and to be bold, to hammer down and make any amendments to this bill that will make it effective. Do not be shy. Let us do it and do it right.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have taken the opportunity to look at the bill, and I note that it is entitled An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. As the member pointed out, clause 1 of the bill proposes a short title that would be cited as the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act. With all due respect, to tar all those who are involved in the process of immigration and citizenship matters with this label is unfortunate.

The real issue here is whether the report of the citizenship and immigration committee from 2008 has been seriously considered, particularly with respect to establishing an independent regulatory body for immigration consultants that has the statutory powers to make it work.

The response of the government to that report and the response of this bill seems to indicate that we are going to do this by regulation. There is certainly no information to members of Parliament that the regulations enabled by this amendment would address the serious issues.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on the approach the government has used, and to the extent that he has time, on the role members of Parliament and their offices play, considering that MPs and their office staff get no training, no orientation, and no additional resources to discharge that work.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me start out by paying tribute to every assistant in every constituency office across the whole country. Some are new and some are a little bit more experienced, but inevitably, most constituency staff have to learn some immigration law and procedure in order to succeed. For members of all parties, that is a fact of life, and the member properly brings attention to that.

In terms of the people working in the field of consultants, most of us from the big cities know immigration lawyers, because their files have been referred to the constituency on some basis, or they know immigration consultants. Every once in a while, a mistake is made and it has to be fixed. Every once in a while, an inquiry has to be made about the progress of a file.

It is unfair for this bill to stigmatize consultants. These professionals will come as witnesses to the committee hearings on this bill, and when they walk into the room, they will hear that the name of the bill is an act to crack down on crooked immigration consultants. These people are not crooked immigration consultants. They are upstanding professionals. They are qualified professionals. I hope that one of them objects. I hope that some member of the committee will offer to propose to change the short title of the bill to get it back on track.

The committee, because of the attitude of the House, in which there appears to be general support, has an important job to do in going through this bill. I am confident that the committee will do it with a good attitude. I hope that there will be some leeway offered on both sides of the House to allow the committee to do a good and effective job consistent with what I hope will be rigorous consultation with the professionals in the field and with government officials, as well. We want to get the best possible set of regulations that will really bite down on the abuses and provide mechanisms for enforcement and firm regulation of this field. The professionals want that. They would prefer to have a set of good working regulations rather than to have the wild west, where future immigrants are prejudiced and victimized.

The committee has an important job to do, and I am confident that it will embark on it with good intentions.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Every member of Parliament is probably in a position to bring to this place his or her experience with some of the difficulties people have had with regard to these matters, whether it be sponsoring immigration, visas, or in fact, refugee files. Canadians probably are not aware that members of Parliament's offices probably do more work on immigration than they do on any other aspect of being a member of Parliament. There is a tremendous volume of activity. Some offices, in fact, have several staff members who are permanently dedicated to citizenship and immigration matters.

It is also probably pretty evident that Canadians at large often do not understand the difference between immigrants and refugees. We saw that with regard to the latest situation with the ship that arrived carrying Tamil refugee claimants.

The point I would like to make, first of all, is that we need to educate everyone who has a responsibility, interest, or stake in our system of immigration.

As I mentioned in the question to the previous speaker, the issue of providing resources from the department is critical. This bill does not propose additional resources for addressing the issues that have been raised.

I share the concern of other members about the title. If it is a bill to make improvements in terms of the regulations guiding those who provide consulting information and assistance, that is fine, but I note that in the speech of the minister himself, when he moved the bill, he made the broad statement that people do not have to go to consultants. I do not know where exactly they would go, other than maybe to an MP's office, but I do know that there is not a spot they can go to in the department to have their questions answered in a way that is helpful to them.

I note that in the report from the committee in 2008, three of the recommendations popped out. One of them is recommendation number eight. Keep in mind that this is a standing committee of members of Parliament. It recommends that the government revise all of its websites at Canadian embassies and missions abroad so that they include consistent, clear, and prominent information about immigration consultants.

One would think that our missions abroad would have all the boilerplate information necessary to guide people. One would think that the departmental website would have all the information to guide people through the processes, whether it be for immigration, sponsorship, applying for permanent residency, or visas. Also, from our experience, some files are very quick and could take maybe a couple of years, but most of them take three or four years. I have files that are seven years old. I do not think Canadians understand that the system is such that there are people in the hopper who have waited for a determination, waited for answers, for several years. It is tough to get into this country, but it does not have to be.

I also note that in the minister's speech, he spent a lot of time talking about these terrible consultants and the forged documents, forged marriage certificates, and forged bank statements and all of these things. He never once mentioned the applicants themselves and the role they play in terms of making application with documents that they know, or ought to know, are not proper.

It is a tough country to get into, very tough. A lot of people have talked about the dream of getting into this country. The dream of getting into this country is self-evident. There is an understanding that one has to be true, full, and plain in terms of the representations made. Members will assure those who come to their offices after they have problems that if they have filed documents that are inaccurate, contradictory, or forged or that contain untruths or omissions, it is very likely that they are going to fail in their efforts to get into Canada.

In our offices abroad and in our embassies, those providing information could tell people, “Here is our experience. These are the characteristics of applications that are in good shape, are accepted, and are handled within a reasonable period of time. The ones that are not accepted, the ones that have the problems, have these typical problems. Here are the reasons you will not get in”.

Then what happens? Most members will tell you that people who run afoul of the process all of a sudden start going to members of Parliament thinking that for some odd reason, the member of Parliament will have some pull and will be able to fix a problem that has to do with providing incorrect, inaccurate, and fraudulent information. It is not just the consultants. The applicants have to take some responsibility for that as well.

One has to understand that people wanting the opportunity to come to Canada will probably take whatever advice they can get from whomever, especially if somebody is charging an exorbitant fee. That is why I agree with the second recommendation in the committee's report from 2008, which is that there be an independent body established, arm's length from the department, to regulate immigration consultants. Give it the tools, the authorization, and the statutory power to control a very important resource and address the problem of people getting bad, wrong, or illegal advice. The government did not take heed of that recommendation.

When our committees make these kinds of recommendations, one would expect that the government's response, whether it be a written response to a committee report or legislation brought forward, would respond to the situation it is trying to address and would provide the best possible solution that makes sense, given all the facts.

What we have in Bill C-35 is an effort to provide penalties for people who are found to have caused problems and who have acted unethically as immigration consultants. However, the tool that is being established is going to be established by regulation. Basically, the government is going to provide the mechanism to police immigration consultants, and it will be regulation.

The problem is that we are debating a bill and will vote at second reading on whether we want it to go to committee. It will go to committee, where there will be witnesses. They will discuss all the possibilities. They will make some recommendations and possibly propose some amendments to the bill. It will then come back to the chamber at report stage. Possibly there may be further amendments by members who were not involved at committee, and then it will go to third reading.

We have this process, but what the process does not have, in terms of House activities, are the regulations. If we do not know the regulations specifically proposed, how can we trust or have confidence that the establishment of some regulatory regime is going to, in fact, do the job? That is the problem.

One recommendation I would have for the committee would be that it ask the government to table and file with the committee the proposed regulations prior to their being gazetted and promulgated.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for raising some very good issues. Also, I know the minister has come back from a number of meetings he has had in other countries hat are faced by unscrupulous immigration consultants. In particular, I believe he was in Australia and India.

I had a chance to meet with the prime minister of India during his visit to Canada. I also had a chance to raise the issue of fraudulent immigration consultants who take advantage of very vulnerable people. In my riding, which is one of the largest multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious ridings in the country, a number of very vulnerable individuals have been impacted and affected by these fraudulent immigration consultants.

I also wrote to the prime minister of India, hence the basis for my question. When I wrote to him, I also asked him to work with foreign governments such as Canada to ensure that they had legislation in place so these unscrupulous immigration consultants would not take advantage of vulnerable people and provide individuals with a false sense of hope for them to come to countries like Canada.

In regard to this legislation, we have spoken about having statutory powers for a regulatory body. What other initiatives does my colleague think Canada needs to put in place to also ensure we work with foreign governments, with countries like India, to ensure they can also put forward legislation to prevent immigration consultants who act unscrupulously from taking advantage of individuals?

Many of these people actually sell their homes, or mortgage their houses or sell off any assets they have because of a false hope they have been given by immigration consultants. What legislation does he think the government needs to put in place to build upon this to ensure there is also the help and collaboration of foreign governments?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to hearken back to the minister's statement. He said that our system was not complex and that we did not need immigration consultants because our process was straightforward. That is not true. It is a complex process. There are circumstances where people do in fact get drawn in.

If the minister is correct, why do our embassies and offices abroad do not tell people, when they want to make inquiries about becoming potential immigrants to Canada, that they do not need to get an immigration consultant, that they have no powers to influence the success of an application, that all they have to do is tell the truth, submit the requested documents as laid out in the process? Is that out there? This is a communications exercise.

This has been going on for years. Do people not realize there are failed applications constantly? Have governments abroad not told people who apply for immigration that they have to provide documents and that anything submitted better not be fraudulent documents, misinformation, incorrect or contradictory information because it would not take very much for the application to be quashed?

I do not think we have to legislate being truthful. All we have to do is tell people that it is tough to get into Canada. The recommendations of the committee relate to a body to regulate those who will convince them that they need to spend money to have the assistance for their applications. This has nothing to do with sponsors, but those who sponsor those who want to immigrate to Canada also have a responsibility, and they are not mentioned in this process.

The offices of members of Parliament are involved in this process as well. Yet new members of Parliament and their staff, which turns over from time to time, receive absolutely no training, no orientation and no resources to provide the services. I believe the ministry should take on the responsibility to establish that body which will give the guidance to those who want to be sponsors or whatever and take it away from the offices of members of Parliament so there can be consistent service to those—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Brampton—Springdale.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and honour to speak to a very important issue and to follow up some of the points that my colleague has raised.

The issue of fraudulent consultants is a very important issue that impacts constituencies like mine, not only in the area of Brampton—Springdale but in many constituencies. It impacts many new Canadians and many individuals who have a desire to come to Canada.

We have all heard and read about the many horror stories where vulnerable people have been taken advantage of. I know there have been reports of a Mexican family that has been taken advantage of by a fraudulent immigration consultant who created a fake refugee claim only for the family to arrive in Toronto and be given the name and number of a stranger and instructions to a hotel. This phony immigration consultant had apparently collected thousands of dollars. The family had sold off all of their assets, such as their home and their cars.

There was another report of a Korean truck driver who was told, again by a crooked immigration consultant, to use his life savings to help him come to Canada in the hope of getting a guaranteed job. Once again, he emptied his pockets. He was given all of these false promises and upon arrival here in Canada, he was left in limbo.

The stories are many, and we have all heard them. That is why I want to take the opportunity to commend the minister. It is very encouraging to see the government take action to ensure that we can provide a sense of hope to these vulnerable people, that they can go through the protocols we have established within the Canadian government and have those procedures followed to ensure crooked immigration consultants are pushed to the wayside and their businesses stopped.

It is encouraging to see the government is taking action. I know there has been urging from all parties. The start of a new fall session is a great opportunity for all parties in the House to co-operate and collaborate to send the bill to committee so it can hear, first-hand, witnesses and stakeholders.

We have all agreed that the report on regulating immigration consultants in June 2008 made some great recommendations. One of the major recommendations was that there needed to be the establishment of a regulatory body and that it be given statutory powers. In talking to individuals and stakeholders about the legislation the minister and the government has brought forward this continues to remain a major concern.

We must ensure that the regulatory body has the power to investigate any of these types of crooked immigration consultants and that the watchdog has the statutory powers to do its job to enable it to persecute any individuals who operate underhandedly.

The bill is a step in that direction. However, we must ensure that we do more. As I said previously, during the G20 a number of prime ministers and leaders throughout the world were present. Upon their arrival, I had the fortunate opportunity to meet with the prime minister from India and discuss some of the concerns of the Indo-Canadian community. One of the issues I raised was the issue of fraudulent immigration consultants.

The minister must have seen this in his travels as well. I believe he has just come back from both New Delhi and Chandigarh. Countries like India have a great source of these unscrupulous immigration consultants who provide false hope to vulnerable people.

In my meeting, and also in a subsequent letter to him, I asked the prime minister to encourage foreign governments, like the government of India, to put in place legislation which would provide the creation of licensing bodies, or regulatory bodies, regulations and statutory powers for these immigration consultants.

It is a great opportunity for countries like Canada to co-operate and collaborate with some of these foreign governments to ensure that not only in Canada but in countries in other parts of the world also put in place mechanisms which will put a stop to these unscrupulous immigration consultants.

Many individuals operate as ghost consultants. They promise people high-paying jobs and fast-tracked visas. It is often too late when these unfortunate individuals find out they have been scammed.

If passed, the bill will be an opportunity to make it a crime for a person who is not a lawyer, a notary, or a member of a recognized association of immigration consultants to accept any sort of fee.

Recently an individual was charged by the RCMP in Montreal for providing unscrupulous services and making false promises. The individual had issued fraudulent IDs. With the hope of coming to Canada, a number of individuals provide fraudulent documentation and false information on their applications. I agree with my colleague who spoke earlier that we must ensure that Canada puts in place a zero tolerance policy for people who provide falsifies documents, whether it be false birth certificates or false school records, and that they not be allowed to re-apply to the Canadian system.

Another issue I hear about, not only as a female parliamentarian, but from the many events that I attend in my constituency is the issue of fraud marriages. Many individuals marry Canadians simply for the hope of coming to Canada. This exists in many countries in the world. I believe the minister held a forum in my adjacent riding a few weeks back on this issue. He mentioned that Hong Kong had one of the highest rates right now of individuals wanting to come to Canada on the basis of fraud marriages. He mentioned the statistic which was approximately 60% of the applications in Hong Kong right now were being denied for spousal applications because they were based on these networks and rings. Some of the information, even for fraud marriages, is coming from immigration consultants who are providing false advice in the hopes of taking money and trying to get people into Canada as soon as possible without following appropriate timelines, procedures and protocols.

This legislation will be a step in the right direction. I hope when it goes to committee, it will be a great opportunity to hear from stakeholders, witnesses and individuals who have been impacted.

I have a story that happened last month in my riding. A young who was born and raised in Canada entered into a marriage. She is a polio victim in a wheelchair. The person she married in India was fully aware of this. The case, upon going into the embassy, was denied. The woman spent all of her and her family's savings to bring her spouse to Canada. When he received the visa to come to Canada, he did not even bother to call her. There are many of those type of stories when individuals get their visas and do not even call upon arrival at the airport. If they do come, I have seen many instances of the spouses being abused. These stories are heart-rending. There are no words to really describe the pain that these families and individuals go through.

Whether it is on the issue of fraud marriages or whether it is on the issue of unscrupulous immigration consultants, the bill is a step in the right direction. It is a great opportunity for all parties to work together in collaboration and co-operation to come up with solutions that will help put a stop to these crooked consultants and to the issue of fraud marriages.

I look forward to working with the stakeholders involved to develop solutions that will work, so, once and for all, we can ensure that these unscrupulous and crooked immigration consultants are put out of work and that all people operate above board, following the proper policies and procedures for people to come to Canada in hope for a better future and a better life.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Brampton—Springdale has a lot of issues in that area. I have listened to all the presentations that have taken place today and the debate really focuses around the broken immigration system.

I am sure the member will agree that the waiting line is too long for spousal immigration, economic immigration, family reunification. The crackdown on the consultants really is a microcosm of the major problem, which is the breakdown of the system.

Could she give her thoughts on that?

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has done a great job and I want to congratulate her on her new position as deputy whip for our party and also bringing to light the fact that the system is broken in many ways and does need to be fixed.

I am sure many of my colleagues can attest to the fact of the high volume of constituents coming into our offices with frustration and sometimes even the anger they have at the cases, whether it is trying to bring in family reunification, of being reunited with parents or brothers or sisters, or whether trying to bring in a spouse, and also for people wanting to come here for economic reasons and also other individuals from all parts of the world just wanting to come here simply to experience Canada.

The refusal rates are extremely high. We must work toward a system which is going to facilitate the people who want to come in, the people who are going to return, upon the expiration of their visas, back home to their particular countries, that they will be afforded that opportunity, but the system definitely needs to be fixed.

The bill is a step in that direction, but I hope that we can all work together in collaboration and cooperation among all political parties as we did for the refugee reform that the minister brought through to really get concrete solutions that will work for the people to fix this system and reduce the refusal rates that are going on in embassies throughout the world.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from April 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

International Transfer of Offenders Act

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today in support of Bill C-5 which, as its short title suggests, will do a lot to keep Canadians safe and ensure that our streets and communities are better and safer places for everyone.

This, of course, has been one of our government's top priorities since first elected in 2006 and remains so today.

Our 2010 Speech from the Throne commits our government, among other things, to ensuring that Canada remains the best place in the world to raise a family and to stand up for those who are building our great country. It commits us to ensuring that the law protects everyone and to ensure that those who commit crimes are held to account.

Canadians want a justice system that delivers justice and we know that we can protect ourselves without compromising the values that define our country. Specifically, it notes that for many Canadians there can be no greater accomplishment than to provide for their children, to contribute to the local community, and to live in a safe and secure country.

Our government shares and supports these aspirations which is why we have taken action on the economy and on many other fronts including cracking down on crime. In particular, we have introduced several measures to crack down on violent gun crimes.

Thanks to our government, a killing linked to organized crime for example will now mean an automatic charge of first degree murder.

We have also passed legislation that addresses drive-by shootings and other intentional shootings while offering more protection to police and peace officers.

This government has also passed laws that limit the amount of credit given for time spent in pre-sentence custody ensuring that offenders serve sentences that truly reflect the severity of their crimes.

Most recently, our government introduced legislation to strengthen the national sex offender registry and the national DNA data bank. These measures will provide additional protection for our children from abuse and exploitation.

We have done a lot already to deliver on our commitment to Canadians and to make our streets and communities safer.

The legislation before us today builds on this impressive track record by, among other things, recognizing that one of the key purposes of the International Transfer of Offenders Act is to protect the safety and security of Canadians. The bottom line, as I mentioned, is that Canadians want a justice system that works. They want a corrections system that treats offenders fairly but they also want a corrections system that considers the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians.

That is what the proposed amendments our government has introduced will do. The legislation which our government has introduced recognizes that public safety considerations are at the centre of all offender transfer requests. It will help to protect victims by stipulating in legislation that the minister may also consider whether the transfer of an offender will endanger the safety of a victim. It will help to protect the safety and security of family members and children by again stipulating in legislation that the minister may consider whether a transfer will endanger the safety of a family member or a child.

As well, the legislation which our government has introduced will stipulate that other considerations such as whether an offender has participated in a rehabilitation program may be considered in assessing offender requests for a transfer to Canada. This is not specifically stipulated in the legislation today.

Today the minister is required to consider a number of factors when assessing requests for a transfers but nowhere is there any mention of public safety, nor is there any mention of victims or families or of keeping children safe. These are serious omissions. That is why Bill C-5 is so important.

The legislation which our government has introduced would make it clear that the minister can take into account whether the transfer of an offender might endanger the safety of a victim, such as a child in those cases where the offender has been convicted of sexual abuse involving a child.

Our legislation also makes it clear that the minister would also be able to take into account whether a transfer might endanger the safety of a family member.

It also stipulates that the minister would be able to consider whether the offender has accepted responsibility for the offence or whether he or she will engage in subsequent criminal activity upon re-entry into Canada.

As we have heard, these considerations should surely help to guide decisions about whether to grant requests for a transfer from offenders serving a sentence overseas. But at the moment there is no clear legislative authority for the minister to take them into account. That is what Bill C-5 would change while also giving the minister more flexibility in the decision-making process itself.

Bill C-5 would perhaps, most importantly, ensure that the purpose of the act includes considering public safety as part of the decision-making process in the transfer of offenders.

It, therefore, reflects this government's commitment we have made to Canadians to stand up for victims and to ensure our streets, our homes, and our playgrounds are safer places.

That is what the legislation before us today is all about and it is why I am confident that Bill C-5 has the support of all hon. members.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments by the hon. member in regard to this very controversial piece of legislation.

I wonder if the hon. member had the opportunity this morning to pick up the Ottawa Citizen. On the front page he would have seen an article referring to a federal court decision yesterday in which the Minister of Public Safety and this bill have been put to serious question.

It would appear that the minister of public safety in 2008 decided to ignore the advice on the transfer of a particular offender coming from the United States. Brent James Curtis did not represent a threat to Canadians, was not a terrorist, was not involved with organized crime. He was a minor player. The minister used discretion which a judge in this country has determined to be the wrong discretion and now the member is advocating for that same discretion to be used holus-bolus.

I wonder if the member could reconcile the absolute embarrassment that the government has had to endure as a result of this case and why he believes that this legislation should pass when giving the minister those kind of arbitrary powers leads to the wrong consequences, even when he knows, as the minister knew, the decision was wrong and that he ignored his own staff on this particular subject.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did see the newspaper article. As I understand it, a review of the decision of the Federal Court is currently underway, and as such, it is inappropriate that any comments be made on this particular case.

Last spring the Minister of Public Safety tabled in this House legislative amendments to the International Transfer of Offenders Act. Our Conservative government brought this legislation forward because we know that Canadians want a corrections system that protects the safety of victims and law-abiding Canadians. This act would ensure the protection of our society is given paramount consideration when assessing requests for the transfer of international offenders. I call on the opposition to support this worthwhile public safety amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brant and I sit on the public safety committee to make Canadian streets safer. I wonder if he might like to expand or comment on how the amendments in this piece of legislation fit in with the government's overall strategy to promote safe streets and safe communities.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague mentioned, he and I serve on the public safety committee.

As he and everyone in the House knows, our government's agenda has been about protecting victims. For far too long, Liberals have put criminals first. Our Conservative government will put the rights of victims first. We will continue to do that. We will ensure that Canadians, their families and children, are safe and secure in their communities. And at the same time, that offenders are held accountable for their actions, not only in Canada but abroad.

Criminals serving time in other countries may apply for a transfer to Canada, as many do, to serve out the remainder of their sentences, but there are unique factors often involving the sexual exploitation of children. These are various. We heard examples of stories at committee and the tracking of individuals.

It is a system that is not perfect and often these individuals do make it back into our society when they should not be allowed back. There are special extenuating circumstances. I thank the member for his involvement in making sure we bring in legislation that addresses these.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of rhetoric from the member and his party, but I want him to understand. When we do not bring Canadians back at the end of their sentence and the country which has incarcerated them has said to please take them back, how are we going to correct the behaviour of those individuals if they do not get a chance to re-adapt to society?

What the hon. member is doing is ignoring the case before him this morning, which is no longer before the courts, as a Federal Court decision has been made and the legislation as being proposed is dangerous and gives irresponsible powers to a minister to make a decision based on whim, without any due regard for the facts.

We hear the rhetoric and the nonsense coming from that party and the Conservative members over there who think that everything can be turned into a law and order issue. If the hon. member believes so much in law and order, why was he not standing four-square with the police in this country on the legislation proposed by his colleague?

It is important for Canadians to understand that when an individual is incarcerated and has the right to return as a result of being a Canadian citizen, false arguments cannot be used, as the hon. member has just done, in defence of a piece of legislation that is not worth the paper it is written on.

No one in this House, no minister, should have those kinds of arbitrary powers, especially when it comes to undermining the citizenship of any Canadian in this country or those who happen to live abroad.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do thank the hon. member for his comments; however, I must take issue with him on a couple of them.

Number one is with regard to his comments about government members voting as we did last night to abolish the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. Members on the public safety committee heard testimony after testimony, not only from victims, but also police officers. When the member makes a carte blanche statement that police officers in this country think that we should continue with the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, he is absolutely, categorically wrong.

We heard from many front-line police officers that it is not a useful tool for them, that in their training, they walk up to any circumstance thinking that the person behind the door may have a gun, and if they do not, their lives are not secure. The information provided is partial. It is often not accurate and it does not serve a useful purpose to them as front-line police officers. To link our desire for better legislation to deal with gun control vis-à-vis proper licensing is absolutely false.

If he has the time, I would invite him to come to the public safety committee and listen to some of the testimony of victims, people who have children who have been abused sexually by people who are back on the streets because there was no discretion to keep them off the streets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about the need for this bill. I question whether this is another situation where the Conservative government is inventing a problem where one does not currently exist.

I understand that 620 Canadians were transferred back to Canada between 1993 and 2007 under this program. Of those people, only four were readmitted to prison in the two-year period after their sentences expired. That is a recidivism rate of .6%, which is dramatically below the regular recidivism rate for people convicted of criminal activity in Canada. That one is up around 20% or 25%.

I am wondering why there is the need for this legislation, given that we have a program that works so dramatically well, by I would hope anyone's assessment, at the current time.