Paul Szabo

[Open Government, September 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the culture of secrecy of the current government, Canada's federal, provincial and territorial access to information and privacy commissioners recently reached a unanimous resolution on the need for open government.

Calls for greater openness and transparency are exerting increasing pressure on the government to transform its traditional reactive information dissemination methods into a mode that facilitates proactive disclosure.

Enriching information resources provides communication channels, promotes citizen engagement, instills trust in government, fosters economic opportunities, and ultimately results in more open, responsive and democratic government.

Technological advances create risk as well as opportunities which require a comprehensive strategy to better protect our privacy and access rights.

Accordingly, it is time for the Government of Canada to commit to work with Canada's access to information and privacy commissioners and experts across the country to better protect our rights and achieve a more open, responsive and democratic government.

[Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act, September 23rd, 2010]

I will try once again, Mr. Speaker. I understand that if one person does not get OAS and another one who is in the same position does and it is taken away, then they would both get nothing. The issue is that someone had a financial entitlement and there is real value being taken away. Therefore, this is the term of sentence prescribed by the judge for both persons, but the law would also say that, “And should you be entitled to anything else, we will take that away too and it is only applicable to you”. Therefore, there is that differential in terms of the two cases.

I raise simply about whether there could be a problem that the punishment, whether it be in time or in other consequences, is different for two persons who commit exactly the same crime.

[Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act, September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech has been very helpful. I have not had an opportunity to read the bill, but I did listen to the prior speech and I heard most of the minister's speech.

There is one question of which the member, who is a lawyer by profession, may be aware. If we have a circumstance where we have two identical persons, one of who, for lack of years of residency, does not qualify, for instance, for old age security and the other one does, and they both commit the same crime and are both sentenced to the same term in prison of something over two years, one would get the additional penalty of not getting the old age security. I am putting it into the context of this and I am asking it for information purposes. Is this not a situation where the penalties prescribed under the law would be different for two persons who committed exactly the same crime and all the same details? I ask this for information purposes.

[Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act, September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to ask a question of the previous speaker, who is unavailable, but he gave an excellent speech in which he had particularly targeted an amendment in the bill, subclause 3(1), which replaces existing subsection 10(1), all the way down to paragraph 10(1)(l). This has to do with the circumstances that a minister can take into account.

Paragraph 10(1)(l) would say,

any other factor that the Minister considers relevant.

When one makes a list of factors that may be taken into account, something must be left off. Otherwise it would say, “any factor that the Minister believes is relevant”. The fact that there is a list, which was added, seems to suggest that this list is not comprehensive, and I am not sure why. What it does, and the member mentioned it in his speech, is raise the question of arbitrariness in the law.

I understand that it is in fact part of our Constitution that laws cannot have elements of arbitrariness. It therefore raises the question about whether the Attorney General of Canada has properly opined on the constitutionality of the bill. I do not know, but it is probably worth asking because this is a very serious bill. It is an important bill. It is a bill that addresses the transfer of prisoners from one jurisdiction back to Canada. The whole premise underlying the bill is for the purposes and enhancement of rehabilitation of citizens of Canada who may have run afoul of the laws in another jurisdiction.

The other thing that came to my mind when the member was speaking is the fact that today Bill C-5 was called for the first time for debate at second reading. Also today there is an article in a number of newspapers. The one I picked up is in the Ottawa Citizen and it is titled, “Canadian jailed in U.S. can return, court rules”. This is in fact precisely the type of case that is impacted by Bill C-5.

This relates to a person named Brent James Curtis. He was involved in a routine transfer from a U.S. prison to a Canadian jail, and the Federal Court of Appeal said that the minister erred and that the Conservative administration was to reconsider the decision within 45 days. This was a decision made by the court yesterday on this matter, yet the government proceeded with this bill today. The timing is very unusual and it would suggest that, since the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the government erred on that case, for this bill to come forward is quite astounding.

The question of whether there is a problem on the constitutional side is also important. As well, there is a question about whether there is continued support for the long-standing tradition that countries have had of being able to transfer prisoners. In this particular case, Mr. Curtis wanted to serve out the balance of his sentence in Canada to be close to his family. This is part and parcel of the whole regime of transfer and rehabilitation.

There was another thing that I saw in the article in the Ottawa Citizen today. According to the article, the officials of the then Minister of Public Safety told the minister that the facts were clear. The assumption had been initially made that this person was somehow implicated in other ways. They advised the minister directly that his facts were wrong. The minister ignored his own officials, made his own decision, and quashed the transfer of this person.

It raises again the question of what is the agenda of the Minister of Public Safety. Why is it that officials of his department are ignored? With the decision of a court, the Federal Court of Appeal, that the minister has 45 days to reconsider the position, why is it that there is now a bill before us that will say that, notwithstanding anything else, other things that will be taken into consideration now will be anything the minister thinks is appropriate? Talk about a one-man show.

I am very sure that there are going to be others who want to pursue what happened in this particular case. This decision was actually highlighted in the media a year ago. The Canadian public safety minister at the time wrongly considered this Canadian citizen, who is now 29 years old, a major money man in a drug conspiracy. That was simply not the fact. That was found by the Federal Court of Appeal ruling. When the minister refused the prison transfer for this person, the minister contradicted his own staff findings in terms of whether Mr. Curtis was linked somehow to organized crime. But still the minister denied the prison transfer on the basis that he might commit future offences in organized crime or terrorism, when it was already made clear by his own staff and officials that there was no connection to organized crime or terrorism.

It was denied even though the U.S. government approved the transfer. The U.S. government approved the transfer, but the Canadian minister did not approve it. So one has to wonder what is going on here. There are so many questions that should be asked of the minister and I am sure it will come out when this goes to committee, but I suspect that with regard to the bill and with regard to the arbitrariness, this particular provision is not going to get very much support at committee.

The officials concluded that Mr. Brent Curtis would not commit a crime if he were transferred back to Canada, nor did Curtis have any links to terrorism or organized crime and was only a minor participant in the matter that was before the court. He was found guilty and sentenced to jail. The government position left Mr. Curtis in U.S. custody where he could not even understand the hourly instructions over the prison public announcement system, which was in Spanish for most of its Mexican inmates. When I saw this case and was referred to the story, it certainly did raise the spectre of some problems.

So we are at second reading. Should this matter be passed at second reading and go forward to the committee, I want to flag for the committee that this particular case of Mr. Brent Curtis should be looked at and that this bill should be considered in the context of what happened with regard to that case, because I think it has a direct bearing and a direct consideration with regard to paragraph 10(1)(l) that says what is relevant is any other factor that the minister considers relevant. It is very unusual. The arbitrariness of that on its face, on a prima facie basis, would raise the question of whether the Attorney General in fact had opined correctly on whether this bill itself with that proviso in there, with that amendment in there, is constitutional. So there are constitutional questions here as well that would have to be looked at.

This is not my area of expertise, but I hope that other hon. members will take an opportunity to look at the records, to look at the court decision, to look at the actions or inactions of the minister, to consider the actions or inactions of the Attorney General vis-à-vis constitutionality and try to understand and try to determine from the minister and officials why his officials were overridden, not listened to, and why the minister proceeded with the bill only one day after the Federal Court of Appeal told them that the minister was wrong.

This just raises more questions than answers, and at this point, I hope that hon. members will take into consideration some of the disturbing facts surrounding Bill C-5.

[Points of Order, September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the minister did apologize for her statement and the matter was closed.

The member raises an interesting question of whether or not a member has a duty to make a point of order on all other members. I only suggest that the hon. member rising today also had the opportunity to rise. It is not a matter of a double standard; it is a matter of whether or not there is an aggrieved member of Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to hearken back to the minister's statement. He said that our system was not complex and that we did not need immigration consultants because our process was straightforward. That is not true. It is a complex process. There are circumstances where people do in fact get drawn in.

If the minister is correct, why do our embassies and offices abroad do not tell people, when they want to make inquiries about becoming potential immigrants to Canada, that they do not need to get an immigration consultant, that they have no powers to influence the success of an application, that all they have to do is tell the truth, submit the requested documents as laid out in the process? Is that out there? This is a communications exercise.

This has been going on for years. Do people not realize there are failed applications constantly? Have governments abroad not told people who apply for immigration that they have to provide documents and that anything submitted better not be fraudulent documents, misinformation, incorrect or contradictory information because it would not take very much for the application to be quashed?

I do not think we have to legislate being truthful. All we have to do is tell people that it is tough to get into Canada. The recommendations of the committee relate to a body to regulate those who will convince them that they need to spend money to have the assistance for their applications. This has nothing to do with sponsors, but those who sponsor those who want to immigrate to Canada also have a responsibility, and they are not mentioned in this process.

The offices of members of Parliament are involved in this process as well. Yet new members of Parliament and their staff, which turns over from time to time, receive absolutely no training, no orientation and no resources to provide the services. I believe the ministry should take on the responsibility to establish that body which will give the guidance to those who want to be sponsors or whatever and take it away from the offices of members of Parliament so there can be consistent service to those—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Every member of Parliament is probably in a position to bring to this place his or her experience with some of the difficulties people have had with regard to these matters, whether it be sponsoring immigration, visas, or in fact, refugee files. Canadians probably are not aware that members of Parliament's offices probably do more work on immigration than they do on any other aspect of being a member of Parliament. There is a tremendous volume of activity. Some offices, in fact, have several staff members who are permanently dedicated to citizenship and immigration matters.

It is also probably pretty evident that Canadians at large often do not understand the difference between immigrants and refugees. We saw that with regard to the latest situation with the ship that arrived carrying Tamil refugee claimants.

The point I would like to make, first of all, is that we need to educate everyone who has a responsibility, interest, or stake in our system of immigration.

As I mentioned in the question to the previous speaker, the issue of providing resources from the department is critical. This bill does not propose additional resources for addressing the issues that have been raised.

I share the concern of other members about the title. If it is a bill to make improvements in terms of the regulations guiding those who provide consulting information and assistance, that is fine, but I note that in the speech of the minister himself, when he moved the bill, he made the broad statement that people do not have to go to consultants. I do not know where exactly they would go, other than maybe to an MP's office, but I do know that there is not a spot they can go to in the department to have their questions answered in a way that is helpful to them.

I note that in the report from the committee in 2008, three of the recommendations popped out. One of them is recommendation number eight. Keep in mind that this is a standing committee of members of Parliament. It recommends that the government revise all of its websites at Canadian embassies and missions abroad so that they include consistent, clear, and prominent information about immigration consultants.

One would think that our missions abroad would have all the boilerplate information necessary to guide people. One would think that the departmental website would have all the information to guide people through the processes, whether it be for immigration, sponsorship, applying for permanent residency, or visas. Also, from our experience, some files are very quick and could take maybe a couple of years, but most of them take three or four years. I have files that are seven years old. I do not think Canadians understand that the system is such that there are people in the hopper who have waited for a determination, waited for answers, for several years. It is tough to get into this country, but it does not have to be.

I also note that in the minister's speech, he spent a lot of time talking about these terrible consultants and the forged documents, forged marriage certificates, and forged bank statements and all of these things. He never once mentioned the applicants themselves and the role they play in terms of making application with documents that they know, or ought to know, are not proper.

It is a tough country to get into, very tough. A lot of people have talked about the dream of getting into this country. The dream of getting into this country is self-evident. There is an understanding that one has to be true, full, and plain in terms of the representations made. Members will assure those who come to their offices after they have problems that if they have filed documents that are inaccurate, contradictory, or forged or that contain untruths or omissions, it is very likely that they are going to fail in their efforts to get into Canada.

In our offices abroad and in our embassies, those providing information could tell people, “Here is our experience. These are the characteristics of applications that are in good shape, are accepted, and are handled within a reasonable period of time. The ones that are not accepted, the ones that have the problems, have these typical problems. Here are the reasons you will not get in”.

Then what happens? Most members will tell you that people who run afoul of the process all of a sudden start going to members of Parliament thinking that for some odd reason, the member of Parliament will have some pull and will be able to fix a problem that has to do with providing incorrect, inaccurate, and fraudulent information. It is not just the consultants. The applicants have to take some responsibility for that as well.

One has to understand that people wanting the opportunity to come to Canada will probably take whatever advice they can get from whomever, especially if somebody is charging an exorbitant fee. That is why I agree with the second recommendation in the committee's report from 2008, which is that there be an independent body established, arm's length from the department, to regulate immigration consultants. Give it the tools, the authorization, and the statutory power to control a very important resource and address the problem of people getting bad, wrong, or illegal advice. The government did not take heed of that recommendation.

When our committees make these kinds of recommendations, one would expect that the government's response, whether it be a written response to a committee report or legislation brought forward, would respond to the situation it is trying to address and would provide the best possible solution that makes sense, given all the facts.

What we have in Bill C-35 is an effort to provide penalties for people who are found to have caused problems and who have acted unethically as immigration consultants. However, the tool that is being established is going to be established by regulation. Basically, the government is going to provide the mechanism to police immigration consultants, and it will be regulation.

The problem is that we are debating a bill and will vote at second reading on whether we want it to go to committee. It will go to committee, where there will be witnesses. They will discuss all the possibilities. They will make some recommendations and possibly propose some amendments to the bill. It will then come back to the chamber at report stage. Possibly there may be further amendments by members who were not involved at committee, and then it will go to third reading.

We have this process, but what the process does not have, in terms of House activities, are the regulations. If we do not know the regulations specifically proposed, how can we trust or have confidence that the establishment of some regulatory regime is going to, in fact, do the job? That is the problem.

One recommendation I would have for the committee would be that it ask the government to table and file with the committee the proposed regulations prior to their being gazetted and promulgated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have taken the opportunity to look at the bill, and I note that it is entitled An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. As the member pointed out, clause 1 of the bill proposes a short title that would be cited as the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act. With all due respect, to tar all those who are involved in the process of immigration and citizenship matters with this label is unfortunate.

The real issue here is whether the report of the citizenship and immigration committee from 2008 has been seriously considered, particularly with respect to establishing an independent regulatory body for immigration consultants that has the statutory powers to make it work.

The response of the government to that report and the response of this bill seems to indicate that we are going to do this by regulation. There is certainly no information to members of Parliament that the regulations enabled by this amendment would address the serious issues.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on the approach the government has used, and to the extent that he has time, on the role members of Parliament and their offices play, considering that MPs and their office staff get no training, no orientation, and no additional resources to discharge that work.

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

Madam Speaker, there are still concerns that the changes regarding this new regulatory body will be made through regulation. This is somewhat of a concern because it will not have the power to sanction immigration consultants who are not members, nor have appropriate enforcement powers regarding membership or the dedicated resources to enable it to do the job properly.

Also, the bill and the dialogue at this point still has not incorporated any mention of the role that members of Parliament and their constituency staff play in terms of immigration and citizenship matters without any orientation, training or resources for that purpose.

The member may want to comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, the member gave an impassioned speech about the importance of immigration to our country and the importance of this bill which, I am sure, will pass.

I had an opportunity this morning to read the minister's speech. Interestingly enough, one of the earliest statements that he made was that people do not have to go to consultants. I know that one of the reasons he was thinking of but did not mention was the fact that members of Parliament become one of the most significant players in applications, whether it be for sponsor information or for visas, et cetera.

What the minister did not address was the resources that are made available to make the system work well and to incorporate the responsibilities of members of Parliament in this process. The irony here is that new members of Parliament do not even get any orientation on how to advise people with regard to immigration. This is an oversight. We do not have the resources and we do not have the training when staff turns over. This is a real travesty. I think the government has let it go.

Maybe the member will want to comment on this.