CIMM#97: Government's Response to Afghanistan Final Report and Committee Business

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.

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).

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.

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.

Thank you.

I want to weigh in briefly on this as well.

This case of Zain Haq exemplifies the wacko world we live in with Justin Trudeau's Liberal politics right now.

He was a student who came to Canada, a foreign student. We know there are some issues with some students who come here to work but not necessarily to go to school. To me, it looks as though he was an example of that. In fact, he was more of an eco-terrorist, working particularly against our resource industries—things like fisheries, forestry, oil and gas and mining. Basically all the resources from which Canadians make a living were the things he was taking steps to actively disrupt and harm. This is undisputed, because he has been convicted multiple times. That's why CBSA wanted to deport him.

According to an interview he gave afterward, the deportation was stopped because of Trudeau's former fisheries minister, Joyce Murray. That's very interesting and confusing to me, because I would assume that the minister in charge of fisheries would not want somebody who's essentially an eco-terrorist to come in and disrupt fisheries and mess up our fishery industry.

That's why I think it's important that we get to the bottom of this. That's why I support calling the minister and Joyce Murray before this committee so we can ask them questions, as has been proposed here.

I think we can vote on this motion.

Thanks.