Olivia Chow

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

Some may say that one needs to join a certain party in order to do that. I have actually heard of those kinds of allegations in fact.

Also, I know that CIC does provide training to MPs' offices from time to time so they would be able to give good, sound and wise information to our constituents. I certainly hope that the immigration department will continue to provide this kind of training to all staff of members of Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, my reading of this bill is that it is totally legal for any non-profit organization or MP's office to provide as much information or act on behalf of constituents. A lot of immigrant service organizations, non-profit ones, will continue to give that kind of advice as long as a fee is not charged. It is illegal to charge a fee if not licensed. MP's offices will not charge a fee. If no fee is charged, then it is totally legal to provide advice, and that includes relatives, MPs' offices, or any immigrant serving agency. I do not think there is any problem with that at all.

MPs' offices should not be a sub-office of the immigration department. Sometimes we feel like we are one. There is no reason why we should be one. However, until the day when we do not need to get status updates, et cetera, we will continue to provide the service to our constituents. I do not think we need to fear that we will be contravening this law because no MP's office is requesting a fee from constituents, at least I hope not because I believe it is illegal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for taking this step and introducing the bill in front of us. It has been a long time coming.

A user-friendly, seamless service would be tremendously good news for many of the applicants who are struggling with the paperwork. Members of Parliament have spent thousands of hours trying to get status updates for their constituents. Constituency offices in some urban centres would tell us that 80% of their cases are immigration-related and it really should not be that way. It is costing us time and it is costing the visa office time to dig up these cases every time an MPs office calls. This is not helping the immigrants. It is not helping the department. It is not helping the MPs office.

The Auditor General has been telling us to get this done right, to be user-friendly. It would be really good news if we could get out of the paper-driven process. I cannot wait to see that day arrive.

In the meantime, at committee let us look for the most constructive ways to get this bill through and see if there are ways we can even improve it. Let us work together to provide the best services for potential immigrants.

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

Mr. Speaker, crimes against immigrants cannot and should not be tolerated. For far too long, we have been soft on those who prey on the most vulnerable, prey on those who have dreams to make Canada their home. The media is littered with stories of potential immigrants who pay some consultants thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars, and are taught to lie and end up having their applications destroyed because they were given poor advice. The New Democratic Party of Canada has been pushing for tough and effective legislation to crack down on these unscrupulous and crooked consultants.

Many years ago, in the early eighties, I was an assistant to a former member of Parliament, at that time the NDP critic for immigration, Mr. Dan Heap. During my time with him at the constituency office, I saw a wall of potential immigrants being cheated out of thousands of dollars and having their dreams of being able to stay in Canada destroyed.

Working at that time with the Globe and Mail, I had my mother carry a concealed tape recorder to look at some of these unscrupulous consultants. This was in the early 1980s. Subsequently, there were a series of articles in the Globe and Mail that documented many cases where she was given the wrong advice or overcharged. Back then, we were hoping that something would be done.

Unfortunately, even in the 1990s, nothing much was done and matters became worse and worse until 2002, when the House of Commons immigration and citizenship committee conducted a study, and then in 2004, when the former Liberal government enacted legislation and set up an organization. Unfortunately, the advice from the immigration department and the community was ignored and the organization had no power to regulate. The agency that was charged with protecting the vulnerable newcomers did not improve the situation. In fact it got worse. The Liberal government just never got the job done.

The bill before us today, Bill C-35, is a step in the right direction. Consultants must be licensed in order to charge fees or act on a person's behalf. The Canadian Border Agency must be given resources to enforce this law. We could have the best law, but if there is no enforcement, it would not be worth the paper it is written on. Immigration officers must be trained to detect fraud. They must be trained so that sufficient information is given to applicants and there is no need to hire an expensive consultant or a lawyer for straightforward immigration applications.

At the immigration committee, we have studied this issue for many months and we have issued two reports. During our travels, we have heard that the existing organization, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, has a lot of shortcomings. The membership fees are too high and membership examinations are prepared and marked in a questionable way. We also heard that CSIC has failed to develop an industry plan. We heard that their decision-making lacks transparency and is not conducted democratically. We heard that the CSIC board of directors is not accountable to anyone. This is the board body that was established in 2004. There is no possibility for CSIC members to call a special meeting of the society. Compensation for CSIC board members, like their spending, is extravagant, ill-advised, and unaccounted for. CSIC board members are in a conflict of interest, because they created and currently serve on the board of the Canadian Migration Institute, a related for-profit corporation.

We heard that many members had little choice but to pay $800 to buy an outdated educational video in order to obtain sufficient continuing professional development points to maintain a CSIC membership; that the ability of members to voice concerns about CSIC has been limited since the CSIC rules of professional conduct were amended, making it a professional offence to “undermine” CSIC and compelling members to treat CSIC with "dignity and respect”; and finally, that the CSIC website is set up so that members cannot communicate with one another by sending bulk email messages.

These are allegations, complaints that we have heard. The committee, after this long study, decided to take action. We issued a report recommending that we find some ways to protect the most vulnerable; that we establish a new corporation with the power to license its members, examine their conduct, and resolve complaints; and that the Government of Canada remain involved in its affairs until it is fully functioning.

We also recommended that a regulator establish no-cost complaint procedures to support immigrants with precarious Canadian status in lodging complaints. That is important, because some of those who are the most vulnerable feel that if they complain, they will get deported, which means that their case would not be examined by the immigration department. We have to establish complaints procedures for these immigrants. Part of the recommendation said that we have to inform immigrants that their complaints to the regulator will have no negative impact upon their immigration applications.

Moreover, we recommended coordinated investigations and enforcement of the law. We wanted a lead agency to be named to coordinate investigation, communication, and enforcement efforts within four months after the 2008 report. It is unfortunate that this never quite happened, but I sure hope that if this bill passes a lead agency will be named as quickly as possible to make sure that the law approved in Parliament is enforced properly. If not, it would be a real mistake.

We also recommended that the CSIC website should contain a list of authorized representatives practising in this country .

In November of last year, I moved a concurrence motion on these recommendations. The House of Commons supported these recommendations and supported the concurrence motion, so the intention of this House is clear. We want new regulations, new legislation to protect the most vulnerable. We want clear enforcement guidelines. We also want to make sure that education will continue so that potential immigrants, even if they are overseas, will understand their rights and know how to go about filing a complaint.

The new regulations would provide the minister with the power to designate a new body to govern immigration consultants, and we need to make sure that this body is picked in a way that is transparent, and that this body is legitimate, democratically run, and willing to go after those who are violating the law.

We note that under their rules of conduct, a consultant must never “knowingly assist in or encourage any dishonesty, provision of misleading information, fraud, crime or illegal conduct”. Yet through the Toronto Star series, we have noticed that a number of CSIC members allegedly gave wrong information and told people how make up a story to get into the refugee claimant process, even though they had no such refugee experience. They end up giving the entire immigration system and refugee claimants a bad name.

It is important for the minister to continue monitoring a new body to ensure it behaves in a way that will protect the most vulnerable because if not, lives could be ruined.

One day I hope immigration regulations can be clarified and simplified in a way so potential immigrants do not feel they need to hire someone to submit applications for them. I also hope the laws will be applied in a way that immigrants do not feel is arbitrary. They should be transparent so immigrants know where their applications are. Also the whole process should be on the Internet so applicants can tell how far along their applications are, how much longer they have to wait, what their application numbers are and whether they have submitted all the right documents.

I note the minister has just returned from Australia, which has that kind of processing. Because it is e-filed, immigrants can tell whether all the documents are done in a way that is appropriate. This kind of processing would be transparent and immigrants would not need to hire a consultant, a lawyer, or even come to a member of Parliament to get a status update of their applications.

Also one day I hope visitor visas or refugee claims are done in a way that is clear. Then migrants or potential visitors who want to come to Canada will not feel they need to hire consultants. After all, we are supposed to serve those who want to come to Canada.

Why is this important? It is critically important because we know some of these immigrants have a choice to go to other countries and we want the brightest and the best to come to Canada. If they keep hearing all these horror stories of relatives, neighbours or friends who have been ripped off by the most unscrupulous consultants, they will not have confidence in Canada's immigration system.

I also note that Australia's website shows almost every month which immigration consultants have been de-listed, for what reason and which new consultants have been listed. Those kinds of lists on the Internet are kept up-to-date so any time people want to hire a consultant, they will know clearly who is qualified and who is not. I certainly hope this would be the kind of system we would go toward.

Last, it is critically important that through the Canada Border Services Agency there would be some kind of investigation of the type of fraud now being committed by some of these consultants. Those who are victimized will then feel they have a chance to speak out. If the investigation of their claims proves their case was completely messed up because of bad advice by unscrupulous consultants, their claims should be re-evaluated.

In the meantime, on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada I will continue to carefully monitor the progress of the crackdown on crooked consultants and scrupulous consultants so that all crimes directed against immigrants will be severely punished.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2004 the former Liberal government established a self-regulating body. The body unfortunately did not have the power to regulate any of those consultants. Subsequently we have noticed that little has changed and in fact, some things might have gotten worse and there are more consultants who are unscrupulous and are preying on the most vulnerable.

It led to a series of articles in the Toronto Star called “Newcomers bitten by toothless law”. Because this body had no power, it really did not get the job done.

My question for the hon. member of the Liberal Party is, what was the rationale in 2004 in creating such a body that had no teeth whatsoever to ensure that the most vulnerable immigrants would be protected?

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

Do you want to see the clock at 2 o'clock?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to welcome the minister back to Canada from his foreign travels. As he knows, the New Democratic Party of Canada has been pushing to crack down on unscrupulous consultants. I have two questions for the minister.

It has taken quite a few years to come up with this bill. The immigration committee recommended legislative changes that would establish a body similar to the Canadian Bar Association or any professional body that would have the power to regulate itself and also to enforce the laws. The bill in front of us did not go that route. It went toward having a body that would be appointed by the minister and ultimately the minister would be in charge. CSIS or the RCMP would be in charge of going after the crooked consultants if it was proven they had done something wrong. That is a slightly different approach. Perhaps the minister could explain why he took that approach instead of the approach recommended by the immigration committee.

Also, what kind of resources are being put in place to ensure that the enforcement would be done properly? Even if the bill is worthy of support, if there is no enforcement mechanism, that really would not work. Perhaps the minister could give us some assurance that the buck stops there. How do we know that the law will be enforced?

[Petitions, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition to the House asking the government to act now for equal access to CCSVI treatment for Canadians living with multiple sclerosis. We know that close to 75,000 Canadians live with MS. It is characterized by severe pain, fatigue, memory loss and long-term depression. It is a disease of the central nervous system likely caused by a variety of environmental and genetic factors.

We know that through several controlled clinical trials, testing and treatment of CCVI has been shown to reduce MS disease activity and symptoms in many MS sufferers.

Therefore, the petitioners from St. John's and other parts of the country are asking the Government of Canada to pilot test, treat and provide fast-track funding for surveillance, research and dissemination of findings, including urgent pre-screening imaging services for MS sufferers, and work immediately with the provinces and territories through the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health to obtain advice and evidence-based information about the effectiveness of this treatment without delay.

Lastly, the petitioners call upon the government to take a leading role on the basis of this evidence and encourage the swift adoption of the procedure in territories and provinces.

[MAIN ESTIMATES, 2010-11, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there are members of Parliament who are quite out of touch with the daily lives of Canadians, whether they are seniors who need more pension funds, or they are unemployed, or they are working parents who need affordable child care.

That is why we are not supporting this budget bill.

[MAIN ESTIMATES, 2010-11, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the debate on Bill C-44, which would approve $260 billion of public spending.

The G20 summit has yet to begin and already downtown Torontonians are suffering. People are writing to me about how outraged they are that the government has the gall to waste $1 billion of their hard-earned tax dollars that could have been much better spent. One person wrote, “It makes me feel absolutely nauseous and furious that my tax dollars are being so callously wasted. I am a senior, on a fixed pension, who lives on a budget, and when my bank account is in deficit I would not dream of throwing huge lavish events to impress foreign friends, acquaintances, and their entourages”.

Another person wrote to me about the unfairness of the employment insurance system. I note that employment insurance is in this bill. This person used to work for CTV. After being employed full time for 20 years, he was laid off. Although he diligently paid his employment insurance premiums, his benefits are being cut off because there is a limit on the amount of time that a person can be on EI, regardless of how much the person has paid into the system. He would have been better off stashing his EI premiums under his mattress than counting on the government to be fair. In essence, although he paid into EI for 20 years, he cannot access his own money because the government needs a fake lake, multiple gazebos and toilets.

Then there is the issue of compensation. Thus far the government is refusing outright to reimburse home and business owners for property damage. It is refusing to reimburse them even though in the $260 billion budget we are debating, there is $1 billion for the G8 and G20 summits. They were told that payment would not be provided for losses and damages that are insurable under normal insurance coverage.

The government is so out of touch with the lives of ordinary Canadians. It does not understand that once a claim is submitted, the premiums skyrocket. What the government does not seem to get is that ordinary Canadians are still climbing out of the recession and cannot afford any increase in monthly expenses.

I asked the minister in question period today why the government refused to commit to providing compensation for damages suffered because of the G20. His response was that the government was not “legally bound to pay compensation”.

The government may not be legally bound to pay compensation, but how can it not believe it is morally bound to provide compensation to small business owners and condo owners, whose livelihood and homes are at stake, and for what? For little more than a glorified photo op. There is little action to tackle climate change and little action to make poverty history.

Right at the peak of Toronto's tourist season, the United States has issued a travel alert warning its citizens not to visit Toronto during the G20 summit.

Small businesses in the city depend on tourist dollars every year, but because of the summit, Toronto's major tourist attractions are being shut down. Gone are the 100,000 baseball fans expected to be downtown that weekend to see Doc Halladay's return to Toronto. Gone are the cultural tourists who wanted to visit the Art Gallery of Ontario that weekend. Gone are the visitors who would like to see a musical in Toronto's great entertainment district. Because of the summit, the show will not go on. Mamma Mia!, what is wrong with the government?

While we have been told that loss of business will be covered, people are being asked to fill out a six-page application and to submit it into a black hole. Their application will not be acknowledged for months. Then they will be forced to wait for up to seven years to find out if their application has been approved. Seven long years. Imagine that.

Business owners are also expected to provide three years' proof of revenue. What about new businesses? There are a lot of new businesses in downtown Toronto in the entertainment district.

The government should apologize to working Canadians for running off on a shopping spree with our money. It should apologize to small business owners for sinking $1 million into a fake lake but not committing a penny to compensate for property damages caused by the G20.

More important than an apology, we need a commitment from the government to take a tiny portion of the $260 billion in this bill that is about to be approved to help compensate Torontonians in a fair and timely manner.

The minister also talked about our ranking in the OECD. I want to leave a figure with the House as we adjourn for the summer. We are ranked dead last of all the OECD countries on government investment in children and in building affordable child care. That is a true fact. We are ranked last.

Not only are we ranked last according to the OECD, we are ranked last in the UNICEF report. UNICEF said that we are doing poorly in how we work with our kids, how we invest in our children, and in trying to make poverty history for children. More and more working families are waiting fruitlessly for affordable child care.

I would say to those out of touch members of Parliament who have been heckling me for the last 10 minutes that child care in downtown Toronto that is high quality costs a total of at least $13,000 to $14,000 a year. Is there one single penny in this bill that will actually go to extra dollars for affordable child care? There is none whatsoever. There is no extra money to create what is desperately needed for working families today.

That is why of the OECD countries, we are dead last. Yes, it is easy for male members of Parliament to continue to heckle. They do not understand that 70% of females in this country, working mothers, need affordable child care.

Can—