Olivia Chow

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, September 30th, 2010]

Japan.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, September 30th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-566, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sponsorship of relative).

Mr. Speaker, generations of immigrants who settled in Canada shared a common dream that one day their loved ones would join them in their new homeland. However, the immigration laws of today are harsh and tear families apart.

Why can ordinary Canadians not sponsor their brother or sister? A 20-year old daughter left alone cannot join her parents in Canada. Keeping families separate is un-Canadian. Before the nineties, half of landed immigrants who came to Canada were sponsored by family members. Now it is less than one-quarter.

My bill would allow Canadians, once in their lifetime, to fulfill their dreams to sponsor a loved one to join them in Canada. Let us go back to the core Canadian family values and support this once in a lifetime chance for family reunification.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, September 29th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-565, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest without warrant by owner).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present this bill to amend the Criminal Code so small business owners can protect themselves.

David Chen, the owner of Lucky Moose grocery store who caught the thief who had repeatedly stolen from his store, was charged with forcible confinement, assault and kidnapping because he caught the criminal an hour later outside the store and held him until the police arrived.

Many store owners experience the same frustration as the Lucky Moose owner, Mr. Chen. Just in my riding I have nine concrete examples.

My amendment to the Criminal Code would allow owners to arrest criminals without warrant so they can be turned over to the police.

In support of David Chen, I am calling this bill, the Lucky Moose bill. I also want to thank Chi Kun Shi who is here today, and the 10,000 good citizens who signed the petition in support of this change.

My mother shops at Lucky Moose every day and said that it was about time Parliament protected these small business owners. I call on all parties to support this bill so it can become law.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Petitions, September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies, but I rise on a point of order to ask for consent to revert back to private members' bills? I was absent for about 30 seconds when you called that item.

[Citizenship and Immigration, September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, friends of the Conservative government have created a new divisive group on immigration and it is sowing fear about visible minorities and immigrants.

One member of this group claimed “the need for police patrols in school hallways is a clear indication of failed immigration policies”. Another said that immigration is ”making Canada a kind of Islamic extremist aircraft carrier for the launching of major assaults against the U.S. mainland”.

Instead of handing out moon cakes in Chinatown, will the minister distance himself from this blame the immigrant group?

[Government Priorities, September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, during a recent Kensington Market pedestrian Sunday, hundreds of Toronto residents signed two giant posters, which I took to Parliament Hill today. The good people of Trinity—Spadina are calling on the government to reconsider its plan to spend $16 billion on fighter jets. Instead of jets, they want new electric trains, street cars, and buses. Parents want to see their tax dollars invested in high-quality, affordable child care. Students want and need lower tuition fees so that they will not graduate with a debt bigger than their annual salaries. Seniors are tired of worrying about finding enough money to pay hydro and water bills and are calling for an increase to their old age security. We would all benefit from more nurses and doctors and affordable prescription drugs.

Instead of squandering billions of dollars on fighter jets, let us work together and tackle issues that will benefit all Canadians and ensure that no one is left behind.

[Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, September 23rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the bill seeks to ensure that all consultants are covered and licensed before they can practice. It also looks at a continuation of education and enforcement.

While the bill in front of the House is important, our concern ultimately is to make sure that all consultants are scrupulous, that they give proper advice and do not charge potential immigrants an enormous amount of money. It is important that there be enough enforcement measures, enough training, for immigration officials so that if we come across unscrupulous consultants there will be ways to ensure that potential immigrants are protected.

Aside from dealing with the bill in front of us, what other measures does the member think are important to ensure proper enforcement and implementation of the bill so that ultimately at the end of the day no potential immigrants will be exploited or open to some kind of crooked consultants who would take their money and destroy their immigration cases?

[Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, September 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the immigration committee studied this issue at length, travelled across the country and discovered that the existing group that the hon. member was talking about had lots of difficulties. I spoke about those problems yesterday, and I can highlight a few more, but it is certainly in the immigration committee's report that was before the House and which Parliament adopted in November last year.

One of the issues we have is that the legislation that was created by a former Liberal government is deeply flawed. It actually allows people with no licence to practise. Why would people belong to an organization if they can practise anyway? As a result, half of the people are licensed and the other half are not. There must be legislative change because this is a huge loophole, which means that we have a body that has absolutely no power.

The member talked about the provincial government, and there are lots of provincial nominee programs. How does the member see that this new body would end up working with the provincial governments so that we can ensure that any applications, whether they are through the provincial nominee program or the federal program, are only done through regulated immigration consultants?

[Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, for 13 years the Liberals have promised to crack down on unscrupulous consultants.

During that time in 2004, the former minister of immigration had a unique opportunity to really set the legislation right, to make sure that there was a legislative body to regulate consultants. They chose not to do so.

Instead, the Liberals set up a body that was bound to fail because CSIC never had the power to sanction immigration consultants who were not members of the society. It cannot seek judicial enforcement of disciplinary consequences it imposes on those who are members. Further, because CSIC's jurisdiction is not governed by statute, there is no possibility for dissatisfied members and others to influence the society's internal functioning through a judicial review.

This is what the immigration committee's report said, that it was not done properly in 2004 and as a result matters got worse. More immigrants got ripped off because they thought there was an organization that could protect them, that if they registered there was some kind of legislation that would govern the consultants. Little did they know that there is really nothing because half of the people do not register and the other half register with a body that has no power.

How can we say that this is not a crisis? It is a crisis. How could the former immigration minister justify that this is not a problem and not a serious situation that we must deal with in the House of Commons?

[Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, at the committee we said that the problem with the CSIC was not just a growing pain. Under the former Liberal government, the legislation was set in a way that CSIC has no power to sanction immigration consultants who are not members of the society and it cannot seek judicial enforcement of the disciplinary consequences imposed on those who are members.

Further, because the CSIC's jurisdiction is not governed by statute, there is no possibility for dissatisfied members and others to influence the society's internal functioning through judicial review.

In the view of the committee, these shortcomings should be addressed by new legislation.

Would the member now be satisfied, given our findings at the immigration committee, that because of these shortcomings we need new legislation and that just patching up the old one will not work? That was in the recommendation from the committee which was endorsed by the House of Commons.