Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Is there any more discussion on this?

All in favour? Is anyone opposed?

(Motion agreed to)

The next speaker on the list is Mr. Chiang.

Mr. Chiang, do you want to say anything?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I'm okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Mr. McLean, you are the next one on the list.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to defer my time to Mr. Kmiec. We can do a switch here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Kmiec is on the motion. Basically, you can take raise your hand and I will bring you back.

It's Mr. Kmiec and then Mr. McLean.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I move the following motion that's been put on notice:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee conduct a study into the widespread Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) fraud committed under the Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) program as reported by the Globe and Mail starting on September 29, 2023 specifically referencing immigration consultants and lawyers whom allegedly fraudulently marketed LMIAs to migrants in values as high as $80,000 in violation of the established regulations; that this study consist of at least two meetings; that for one meeting the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and his department officials to testify for one hour each; that for one meeting the committee invite the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development, and Official Languages and his department officials to testify for one hour each; that the committee report its findings to the House; and that the committee request a comprehensive response from the Government.

I want to briefly refer to the article Marie Woolf wrote on the subject, “Ottawa urged to clamp down further on immigration employment scam”. The article refers to the following, “The federal government told The Globe and Mail it was aware of scams involving LMIA fraud, but had taken steps last year to guard against them with changes to regulations.”

I believe the minister should come to explain why LMIAs are being sold for up to $80,000.

I now have an example of where an LMIA was procured for $1.5 million to a national from the PRC, as far as I know. There's a reference here to a registered immigration consultant from London, Ontario, who says the demand for payment from migrants to get jobs in Canada was still pervasive. It was also being used as a route for settling in Canada.

Here, I have a quote from a +1News article from February 2, 2023. The article is by Yogesh Tulani, and is titled, “'They capitalize on fear'—LMIA Job fraud on the rise as uncertainty with the Immigration system increases”. In it he references another consultant, saying, “I am seeing LMIAs being sold in the markets for anywhere between $20,000 -$30,000 and sometimes even above $50,000 to $100,000.”

I want to refer to another one here, because these numbers are just mind-blowing. I've been tracking this for a little while now. This is from Surjit Singh Flora from Asia Metro, in February 28, 2020. This is now four years ago. There's a reference in it to an LMIA that was sold in Canada's Chinese community for a staggering $1.5 million.

I don't believe there has been much effectiveness by any of the anti-fraud measures that have been introduced. In fact, I have a recent example from a Facebook page that I found. It was referred to me by immigration consultants. On one of them here it says, with exclamation marks, “FOOD COUNTER ATTENDANT pre approved Manitoba, Food service supervisor pre approved Manitoba, Cook pre approved Saskatoon For Visitor Visa only.” It says later on, “market price”. The only thing this could refer to are the words, “please DM.” There are 171 comments. It goes on and on like this. There are countless comments being made.

There's a serious amount of LMIA fraud. I would like the ministers to come in to explain themselves. The media is reporting on it. I have consultant after consultant sending examples of this type of fraud being committed against people from other countries coming to Canada. They're the ones being defrauded. They're the ones being targeted by these fraudulent employers. In some places it's a legal employer, but they're using fraudulent means and then billing back $50 to $100, and it's $1.5 million in one case. They're billing that back to the immigrants who are coming to the country to, in many cases, typically work here under the table.

I would like the ministers to come in with officials to explain themselves.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Kmiec.

Mr. Kmiec, when you say, “minister”, you meant the minister responsible for the LMIA section, Mr. Randy Boissonnault?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Both of them should come in to explain themselves, because both are involved in the process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Mr. Chiang, do you want to speak on the motion brought forward by Mr. Kmiec?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make an amendment to this motion. Can we add “that the ministers have the option to appear together for one hour followed by officials of IRCC and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) for one hour"?

This could be added following the words, “his department officials to testify for one hour each”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Kmiec, are you okay with that? Okay.

The motion presented by Mr. Kmiec is amended by Mr. Chiang. Is there any discussion on that?

(Amendment agreed to)

Go ahead, Madam Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to further supplement the motion by adding after the word "regulations" the following:

the alleged blacklisting by employers of temporary foreign workers who have obtained open work permits on account of being abused or at risk of abuse in relation to their job.

One of the issues we're also hearing, aside from the abusive situation they are faced with from employers potentially selling LMIAs, is that people are being blacklisted when they speak up about their abuse, so you can imagine the consequence for people who are caught up in this really bad situation.

I would like to add that to the motion in the place where it says “as high as $80,000 in violation of the established regulations” and then put an “and”, and then a (2) so that there are then two segments to the motion.

It would also mean, for the first segment in the beginning where it says, “the committee conduct a study into”, you need to put a (1) so that there would be a (1) and (2).

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Mr. Kmiec and Mr. Chiang, are you okay with that?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Is there any discussion on Madam Kwan's amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

Is there any discussion on the motion as amended

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Go ahead, Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yesterday in the House of Commons one of our parliamentary colleagues called on the Minister of Immigration to answer a question about an intervention he made on behalf of a person who was supposed to be deported by the Canada Border Services Agency, and he refused to answer in the House of Commons.

This intervention the minister made is an intervention on behalf of Parliament. His responsibilities are answerable to Parliament, and he would not answer in the House of Commons yesterday. It's a great affront to his role that he has to fulfill for Parliament. Therefore, I'm making a motion today:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee demand the appearance of the Minister of Immigration and the Member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra, to explain their roles and the rational[e] of the Minister's intervention in the stay of deportation of Zain Haq. Media reports that this foreign activist, who has admitted to receiving $170,000 from a foreign entity for his illegal activities, had faced deportation due to violations of his study permit; has been arrested at least 10 times; and has been previously convicted of mischief charges. The 2023 court decision indicate[s] that Mr. Haq has “shown disdain for the rule of law and he has publicly encouraged others to break the law.” Court documents indicate that Mr. Haq helped organize a road closure that “interfered with emergency vehicles trying to access St. Paul's Hospital.”

There's further on this, Mr. Chair, that I want to go into as far as the severity of how Mr. Haq has breached the law goes. He knowingly and deliberately broke the law, and he did so fully aware of the consequences and the impact that his actions have on innocent parties.

This is the judgment against him by a court of law in Canada and subsequently upheld by a Court of Appeal:

...the rule of law must be obeyed unless legal jurisdiction permits otherwise.

Mr. Haq's conduct in knowingly blocking traffic, annoying the public and interfering with their lawful use and enjoyment of public roadways is aggravating. The significant number of police resources consumed by Mr. Haq's behaviour is aggravating. The fact that he persisted in his behaviour while knowing the consequences is aggravating as is his willingness to involve and encourage others...Mr. Haq's breach of his release order was a flagrant disregard of terms designed to prevent further offences and that he did so in the face of the authorities.

...Mr. Haq has shown disdain for the rule of law and he has publicly encouraged others to break the law while publicly celebrating his own arrest. His conduct speaks to an arrogance of ideals at the expense of the democratic process and pro-social dialogue.

...I have considered potential immigration consequences and in my view, to reduce the sentence would result in a sentence that would be disproportionate...Mr. Haq failed to disclose that he was denied a US visa, the sentence imposed may be of no moment to his immigration situation.

It goes on, but it is damning of Mr. Haq.

For some reason, at the last moment, the Minister of Immigration, along with the member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra, intervened in CBSA's deportation of Mr. Haq. We need to know why. Parliament needs to know why. There is a process here that has to be followed, and there needs to be some rationale for intervening in a deportation order such as this.

That is the motion, Mr. Chair, and I put it on the floor for my colleagues to consider.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you. The motion is in order.

I have a speaking list.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe—

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, if I may, I think I already know which way members are going to vote on the motion. I had my hand up for the next discussion, after the vote on the motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Without belabouring the points made by my colleague, I will say that the minister, when he rose to answer the question from the member for Spadina—Fort York on Monday, said the following:

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, these are not matters that we talk about publicly, much less on the floor of the House of Commons.

Unfortunately, the power that the Minister of Immigration has to stay deportation is given to him by Parliament, so we parliamentarians give him the power. It's in the IRPA. I did read the court decisions, and I think we should be mindful of the following things that were said by two different justices. This went to a court of appeal as well. There was a pre-removal risk assessment done on Mr. Haq's conduct and the potential that he could be harmed if he were to be deported. He failed each of those measures.

Paragraph 56 of the decision of the Provincial Court of British Columbia said the following:

Mr. Haq’s breach of his release order was a flagrant disregard of terms designed to prevent further offences and...he did so in the face of the authorities.

It went on to say, in paragraph 62, the following.

Mr. Haq has shown disdain for the rule of law and he has publicly encouraged others to break the law while publicly celebrating his arrest. His conduct speaks to an arrogance of ideals at the expense of the democratic process and pro-social dialogue.

The B.C. appeal court decision said he had failed to comply with the conditions of his study permit and that there were reasons of criminal inadmissibility.

Finally, the pre-removal risk assessment said that the court had determined that the likelihood of irreparable harm was not distinctly different from that in the PRRA—which was the pre-removal risk assessment from September 2022—and that there was no specific or meaningful objective evidence of risk. It went on to reference his spouse's medical condition, which I understand was perhaps a consideration.

The justice said there was insufficient evidence on the likelihood of harm to the spouse, though there would be negative health effects, while noting that the spouse still had full access to British Columbia health care.

The deportation was for April 22. It was stayed on April 19.

I believe this committee needs to get answers regarding why Mr. Haq received a stay of deportation whereas other candidates all across the country have not.

I have constituents asking me about the circumstances of this case, and I would like to have the minister here so he could answer those questions for my constituents.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Kmiec.

I have Mr. Maguire and then Mr. Redekopp.

Mr. Maguire, go ahead.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to follow up on what my colleague has put forward in his motion. The Liberal government has intervened to stay the deportation order for a foreign activist who has been arrested at least 10 times. He has pleaded guilty to five counts of mischief and has admitted to receiving $170,000 from a foreign entity for his illegal activities.

In Canada on a study permit, Zain Haq was found by the Canada Border Services Agency to be in violation of his study permit by failing to make sufficient progress in his studies.

Why did the Liberal member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra, likely with support from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship work to prevent his deportation?

These are the questions that weren't answered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Are you bringing an amendment to the motion or are you asking why?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I'm just speaking to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.