Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'd now like to move this motion.
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study into the targeted exploitation scheme faced by 700 Punjabi international students in which they were unknowingly defrauded by a “ghost” immigration consultant who used inauthentic admission letters for their student visa application; that this study be comprised of two meetings; and that the study consider:
a) how this situation was allowed to happen;
b) why fraudulent documents were not detected until years later when the students began to apply for permanent status;
c) the significant harm experienced by students including financial loss and distress;
d) measures necessary to help the students to have their deportation stayed, inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation waived, and provide a pathway to permanent status; and
e) that the committee also examine how to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future.
Madam Chair, I'll be very quick about the intention of this motion. I think it's self-explanatory. I think we need to do all of these elements.
The big difference I want to highlight, though, between this motion and the one the Conservatives moved earlier, which they say is similar, is that it's substantively different. In their motion, they only call for the deportation to be stayed until witnesses present to this committee. That is not good enough. We need the deportation stayed in a substantive way so that the inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation can be waived and a permanent pathway option is available to them.
The other piece that is also significantly different is that the Conservative motion does not talk about waiving inadmissibility. If you don't waive inadmissibility, these students have, on their records, a five-year ban, and that is very significant for their futures. They would not be able to access any immigration pathway, even if it were a study permit, a work permit or anything like that. That is an essential component, in my view, to this.
Finally, to the last point—a permanent pathway—this is what the students want, and we need to make sure we address that as well.
There's a substantive difference, and that's why I supported the adjournment of those motions. I would not support the motion in any event, and I would support this one, which is much more holistic in addressing the issues for the students.