Deepak Obhrai

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2018]

With regard to materials prepared for Associate Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers from September 19, 2016 to present: for every briefing document prepared, what is the (i) date on the document, (ii) title or subject matter of the document, (iii) department’s internal tracking number, (iv) title of individual for whom the material was prepared, (v) sender?

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I concur with the member. Also, I thank him for the nice words he said about me. He has been a member there as well, so I have a high level of respect for his views as well.

Yes, there is no question the delays and everything in the immigration offices are fuelling desperation among people. When we tell someone it is going to take two or three years to get someone over here, or if someone wants to come for a marriage or something, the whole process and delays cause people to seek shortcuts. This is where the unscrupulous consultants use them.

I absolutely agree with my colleague that we should have a strong regime to ensure there is compliance.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to tell my hon. friend on the other side, Jason Kenney was not wrong. We did nothing wrong. As a matter of fact, we started the process, and once we started the process it started evolving, and now it has evolved to the level where we are talking about recommendation 18, after the experience. However, it was not wrong. Jason Kenney did the right thing.

Coming back to his question about how stiff the penalty should be, we should start by revoking their licence. This regime should have a licence. We should give them a very clear warning that if they are going to abuse the system, they will lose their licence. If they become, as my colleague from Winnipeg said, a ghost consultant, as others have been charging, then we should bring them very quickly and effectively to court for working unlicensed. Whatever the penalties are for the other ones, that should be applied as well. However, of critical importance is the regime of enforcement, as he pointed out.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, being a consultant in this country is indeed a lucrative business. Do members know why? It is because there is a very weak regime for policing the consultants.

I want to thank the committee for bringing forward a very important issue and its recommendations to the House. I also want to thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, and the government.

I agree with the previous speaker that because this is a unanimous report, it should be brought to the attention of the government. I do not agree with what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said, that there is so much work to be done that some of these reports will not be seen. I have been in government as well. It was unanimous, including members of his own party, that this issue needs to be corrected. It is a very small recommendation.

There is a full department of immigration. There is a Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship who can devote his time to dealing with it as quickly as possible. Why? It is because Canadians are demanding it.

I have been in Parliament for 20 years. For 20 years my office has been inundated with requests from newcomers. When someone comes to our office, and we cannot provide the services they need, we tell them to go to a consultant. That is what the consultant regime was set up for. When we advise them to go to a consultant, of course we do not recommend which consultant, because the consultants ask for money. However, more and more, newcomers are coming back to our office and telling us that their applications have failed, yet they paid the consultant so much money. If they paid so much money, why did the consultant not do his job properly? I have then delved more into the details, and I have found, shockingly, that the recommendations given by these consultants do not match what our immigration rules require.

Our immigration rules are very clear and are on the website. Nevertheless, many people will go to a consultant, because there is a sense of comfort that if they go to a consultant, they will get the right advice and may not miss something that will cause their file to be rejected. Unfortunately, the regime is so weak that anyone can become a consultant. We have ghost consultants. Anyone can say, “I am a consultant, and I will charge you this much money.” That is why this matter was brought to the committee.

As my colleagues here, including the ones from the other side, have articulated so clearly, there is a need for quicker action on this. Just because these people are newcomers does not mean we should not have a sound regime in this country. This country is a rules-based country. Our laws are rules-based, and we believe in the law. When we have a regime that is not regulating these unscrupulous consultants who are doing these things, we must come to the conclusion that there is a serious gap in our system that needs urgent attention. Therefore, I will tell the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that it is important that he tell his government that it needs to look at this report more carefully, and urgently, because it is a unanimous report.

Based on my experience, this is what I like about the report. I love the specific recommendation for an independent body to regulate consultants that would have the power to deal with consultants who are cheating their clients or who are ghost consultants. This is one of the best recommendations, but it should have some teeth. The current regulatory board does not have teeth. That is why we see violations by more and more consultants.

My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill was right that the Conservatives, under our former colleague Jason Kenney, brought this issue forward. We have to admit that the problem with that was that while it was voluntary, it did not achieve the result, and it was misused.

This recommendation, after listening to all the stakeholders and everyone else, clearly states that there is a need for an independent body with teeth. If there are no teeth, this will become another bureaucratic institution, probably filled with patronage appointees.

Let us go back to the whole situation and say that we have experience. Someone asked how we do that. The law societies in Canada have regulations. Every professional body has means and ways by which to regulate itself and has the teeth to bring to account people who abuse their positions. I do not see why those same simple rules cannot be applied to this regulatory body. All it requires is for the current government to act on it very quickly.

I join with my colleagues in the House to ask if we could please have the minister look at it and address the issue, because while it may not be an issue for Canadians or new Canadians, we cannot have a gaping issue in our system that is being abused because people are not following the law. Numerous examples have been articulated by MPs of how their own offices are inundated with immigration issues.

The government just announced the next batch of over 300,000 people coming to Canada. While we cannot do much about the consultants overseas, who are also abusing huge numbers of people coming in, we can indeed use the website to advise them of the issues. However, those who are here in this country should have the ability to address those issues.

Once and for all, if this is done right, this issue will go away. A lot of the workload in our offices will decrease. As well, there will be a level of comfort that we can then say that the rules are being followed in our country.

It is very important in immigration that the rules are followed. Every Canadian becomes upset when rules are not followed, as we can see with the people trying to come into our country and bypassing the rules. We have to have rules. A system without rules would not have the confidence of Canadians. That would be a matter of serious concern.

I am very happy to say that the committee came up with recommendations. If these were done, I would be one of the happiest men. This has come after a very long time. I congratulate everyone in the House. I congratulate the committee and all the members from all sides on the committee. We heard speeches in the House. It is unanimous that we want the government to take strong action in meeting the recommendations of the committee.

I will conclude by asking my friend, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, to please look at this. Let us get it done. Let us get this under way so that the regime of immigration in this country will get back on track and Canadians can have confidence in the system.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. I do not know what he is talking about. He is talking from his talking points without telling us all he is reading.

Let me say very clearly that the member's government is putting a huge burden on Canadians with this deficit. The Liberals said during the election campaign there would only be a $10 billion deficit. At this time, we have no idea where the deficit is going.

The legacy of the former government is not as the member is saying, but the legacy that Canadians will carry for years and years is the high debt load that the Liberals are putting on young Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we are Conservative and they are NDP. We definitely have differences on the economy. There is no question about that. However, let me say that I agree with him one-hundred per cent that it is an arrogant government, a government that feels it is entitled to all these things. We see time after time the Liberals not listening to anyone. I one-hundred per cent agree with my colleague that in 2019, Canadians will speak.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for bringing up our record. The Liberals always take credit for everything we did. We laid the foundation for a good economic base in this country, as my colleague said, and the Liberals want to say they did everything. They have only been in power for two years. All they have done is create uncertainty in the minds of Canadians.

We were going to balance the budget. Jim Flaherty was one of the best finance ministers Canada ever had, bringing us into account. I want to tell the other side clearly and simply that it was because of the base built by the Conservatives that we are enjoying economic growth today, yet the Liberals are putting us in jeopardy.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, talking about NAFTA and the policy of capitulation is the Liberals' talking point. The fact of the matter is that we were negotiating the TPP, which is larger than anything else, and they walked away from it. When they want to look for new markets, they will take the opportunity to look for new markets, yet we are turning a blind eye to the fact that the Chinese have different rules. Their labour rules are different, their environmental rules are different, and the way they operate is different. They are not compatible with a free market. Why does the government want to open up Canada's markets to a country whose environmental and labour regulations do not match ours, giving it the advantage and us the disadvantage. That is not the right policy for trade.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I have been in this Parliament for 20 years. During that period of time, members of Parliament were elected on this side of the House, on that side of the House, on every side of the House, and it keeps changing. I can assure the member that everybody represents their constituency very well, including that member. That is why he was elected. This is not about of the issue of representation. We are all representing our ridings, and we are all doing a great job for our constituents.

As my colleague said quite clearly, I have been in the government. I do know from experience, having been in the government, that policies and issues are made by the government, by the PMO, by those things, and they direct that.

During the summer, the Liberal government came out and tried to raise taxes on all these things, and it was spending money. There was a big push-back from Canadians. We could see them changing. There was a push-back because Canadians are worried. They are worried about their jobs, number one. They are worried about where the government is going with its economic agenda and with the TPP.

The government did not attend a meeting with our allies, and what a shame when the government is saying we are back on the world stage. Talking about NAFTA and where it is going, talking about pipelines not being built, not pushing to have pipelines built, this creates uncertainty across the country. Even the NDP leader in Alberta is talking about jobs and jobs.

The question that arises out of this is where the Liberals are taking us. We are concerned. Everybody out there is talking about the wasteful spending on the ice rink, the $5 million. Things like that really bother Canadians all across this country, and they are asking if the government is really in charge.

Canadians saw the Panama papers come out, and the Liberals' rich friends put money away so they do not have to pay taxes, while the government wants ordinary Canadians to pay taxes, while taking away the disability credit for diabetics and others. There is a big concern out there.

Today, while I am talking on that subject, Canadians want the government to address the issues in Canada. That is what they want. There are a lot of jobs being lost. The economy is not doing well—actually, it is doing well, but the Liberals are spending all the money.

The question that arises for Canadians is what is there for the future. In this bill—which really concerns us, aside from the fact of all the other money that the Liberal government is spending—is the $500 million going to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

In 1966, we joined the Asian Development Bank. The Asian Development Bank is another bank that is supposed to do infrastructure spending. Canada has contributed $7.5 billion during that period of time, up until today, not to say that in return Canadian companies have been awarded close to $715 million. However, there is a bank there that we have been associated with for such a long time, which has been doing the development assistance program in Asia.

Here come the Chinese—and I say to the Chinese, they are absolutely right, they are welcome to set up their infrastructure bank, but they should do it with their own money. They should not ask Canadians to pay for their foreign policy issues.

This infrastructure bank is designed to promote the foreign policy issues of China. Look at where the infrastructure bank has given its money. It has given its money to Bangladesh, it has given its money to Indonesia, it has given its money to Tajikistan, and it has given its money to Uzbekistan, countries surrounding China. That is because this fits into China's foreign policy.

I am not putting down what the Chinese want to do; they can go ahead and do it, but do it with their own money. Why would we, here, have our money go to promote the foreign policy of another country, when we could use that money here in this country to address the issues that Canadians want addressed? This is the big question that is being raised out there.

Let me say this again. There is a concern here. This policy of giving money to the infrastructure bank in China is something that is not well thought out, because we have a problem here with the Liberals, who are being over-friendly with China.

There is the concern about the free trade agreement with China. The previous government talked about a free trade agreement with India for years, a country that has similar values and is a democracy like Canada, but now the Liberals are going to sign a free trade agreement with China that is causing concern, because there is no level playing field between the Chinese and Canadians. The Chinese can invest here and we can go there, but there is no level playing field. Ask any Canadian business in China or Chinese businesses here. It is a common question.

The Prime Minister is going to China. The one big concern I have is that the Chinese government is saying that the Liberal government is biased toward China as opposed to other countries. When Conservatives were in government, we had a strategic dialogue with India, which has a democracy similar to Canada, to find common ground. The Liberal government has not done anything about it. It has had a strategic dialogue with China. A second dialogue was held with China. Our system of democracy is different. The Chinese have their own system, which is for the Chinese people to decide, and we have our own system. There is no compatibility. What is the point of having a strategic dialogue with a country that is pursuing its own foreign policy? Are we just riding its coattails? Do we not have our own policy? Can we not stand on our own feet and make our own decisions in this country? Why do we have to follow, just because the Prime Minister's father was a very big fan of China? That does not allow us to just close our books and look other ways.

There are big issues being raised in this country on the direction the Liberal government is going. The Prime Minister said we are on the world stage. For example, this afternoon, the Minister of International Trade talked about a historic visit to India. Imagine that, a historic visit to India. Before the Liberals came to this House, the prime minister of Canada visited India twice, the governor general visited India, and there were countless visits by other foreign ministers, yet for the Liberals, it is a historic visit. Come on, we need to get some sense of where the government is going and pay attention to what has been done, because thousands of bureaucrats and public servants have worked very hard over the years to ensure that we have very good standing around the world.

Of course, the biggest blowback was from the Prime Minister not showing up at the TPP negotiations. Imagine that. Other heads of government were there. Who are we? Think about that. Who are we to brush them aside? Let me get straight what the Prime Minister said. He said we are not ready. There is a department sitting there. The government has had negotiations on the TPP, so how can the Prime Minister suddenly say that we are not prepared? Liberals are not prepared, because they are looking for a free trade agreement with China. Is that why they are doing this? It is about time someone pointed out to the Liberal government that whatever direction it is heading, it is not the direction Canadians want it to go.

[Zimbabwe, November 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, for Zimbabwe and Africa, the resignation of Robert Mugabe is excellent news.

Having been born in Africa, I witnessed the winds of change blowing. At independence for the people of Zimbabwe, a new era of hope and prosperity was in the offing, but Mugabe's subsequent abuses of human rights and crimes turned those hopes around quickly into an dictatorial regime, drowning in poverty.

I met with the official opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, when he visited Canada and discussed extensively our shared hopes for a democratic future for Zimbabwe. It has been a long journey but today that hope has returned.

We will support the people of Zimbabwe in the bright future ahead of them. Good luck to Zimbabweans.