Evidence of meeting #26 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was worker.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Stan Raper  National Coordinator, Agricultural Workers Program, United Food and Commercial Workers Union
Philip Mooney  National President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
Alli Amlani  President, Ontario Chapter, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
Victor Wong  Executive Director, Chinese Canadian National Council
Mario Bellissimo  Certified Specialist, Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Carol Phillips  Assistant to the President, Canadian Auto Workers Union
Geraldine Sadoway  Parkdale Community Legal Services
Abigail Martinez  Osgoode Hall Law School, Parkdale Community Legal Services
Raj Dhaliwal  Director, Human Rights Department, Canadian Auto Workers Union
Sonia Singh  Parkdale Community Legal Services
Chris Ramsaroop  National Organizer, Justicia for Migrant Workers
André Lyn  Researcher, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto
Zenia Castanos  Intern, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto
Alberto Lalli  Community Legal Worker, Industrial Accident Victims Group of Ontario
Consuela Rubio  Community Legal Worker, Centre for Spanish Speaking People, Industrial Accident Victims Group of Ontario

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

The committee will now come to order. We will start our meeting.

I want to welcome here today Stan Raper, who is national coordinator of the agricultural workers program in the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

We want to welcome as well the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants. It's good to have you here. We have Philip Mooney, national president, and Alli Amlani, president of the Ontario chapter.

From the Chinese Canadian National Council, we have Victor Wong, executive director.

Welcome to all of you. We have an hour, from one o'clock until two o'clock. I believe you are familiar with how the committee operates. You are given about a seven-minute opening statement, and then we'll go to questions and comments.

Mr. Raper is first.

1:05 p.m.

Stan Raper National Coordinator, Agricultural Workers Program, United Food and Commercial Workers Union

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today. We have been before this committee in the past, and we appreciate the opportunity for you to hear our concerns again.

For the last roughly 10 years, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union has been in the forefront of advocating on behalf of temporary foreign workers, primarily in the agricultural sector. We currently have eight centres across the country, from B.C. to Quebec. The services we provide are free to seasonal agricultural workers and temporary foreign workers.

We do a number of different services on their behalf, which include English as a second language, French as a second language, health and safety training, and know your rights advocacy and training. For example, last year our eight centres received more than 30,000 phone calls from individual seasonal agricultural workers and temporary foreign workers.

We are primarily a trade union; therefore, one of our main initiatives is to unionize, organize, agricultural workers, foreign or domestic. We have currently a number of legal challenges before different provincial governments, in Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario regarding the right to be able to unionize agricultural workers from Canada or foreign countries. In most cases, primarily in Quebec and Ontario, those rights have been denied both to Canadian workers and to foreign workers.

We are challenging, using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in Quebec and Ontario. Our legal appeal in Ontario will begin on May 20 before the Ontario Superior Court, which follows on behalf of the Dunsmore decision that came out of the Supreme Court of Canada.

We will be using the B.C. health care Supreme Court decision as part of our argument, which clearly states that the freedom to associate under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms not only is a right, but also, attached to that, the right to bargain collectively needs to be applied to that right in the provinces.

The case we bring before Ontario will be the first following the B.C. health care workers decision. So we're expecting a positive result from that, which will force the provincial government to change the law in Ontario.

We were successful in another legal challenge in Ontario around the occupational health and safety rights of agricultural workers. For the last 27 years, every other worker in the province of Ontario was covered by the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but not agricultural workers. We prepared a Charter of Rights and Freedoms argument before the Ontario courts. The Liberal government declared it was going to move in support of agricultural workers to be covered under the act.

Currently, as of June 2006, that law is in effect. For the first time ever, agricultural workers—Canadian and foreign agricultural workers in Ontario—are covered under that act.

There's still a lot of work to do in that area, but we feel confident that the steps taken to date will continue to move in a positive direction.

Another statistic in our legal challenges is with regard to the Employment Insurance Act. Seasonal agricultural workers under the temporary foreign worker program are denied the premier benefit of the employment insurance program. Because they are non-residents, when they are laid off they are not entitled to collect the premier benefit.

However, we did start a legal challenge in that direction. The federal government fought us for three years on standing, saying we didn't formally represent seasonal agricultural workers. We argued that it was illegal to represent them; therefore, the best representation we could present was through our centres and the advocacy we did.

The Ontario court did recognize that and provided us standing. We withdrew, due to costs and other considerations, after the standing agreement was won.

At our centres in support of seasonal agricultural workers we have been able to secure parental benefits on behalf of seasonal agricultural workers through the unemployment insurance program. Most of the $22 million that we have secured for seasonal agricultural workers in the last five years has been under the parental benefits program. That way, when seasonal agricultural workers have finished their contract, they can actually go back to Mexico, Jamaica, Thailand, or wherever, and take care of their newborn children and collect unemployment insurance in the sending country. That is one of the main reasons we withdrew our legal challenge.

In regard to lobbying, we have been very vocal and very forceful in our lobbying efforts, not only with provincial governments, municipal governments, and the federal government, but we've also done numerous presentations in Mexico, Jamaica, and Barbados, encouraging sending countries to lobby the federal Canadian government to make appropriate changes to the program and to actually start to advocate and lobby for appropriate changes to the program to secure basic human rights and labour rights when they're in Canada.

You can see from our speaking notes and other materials we've provided to the committee a number of documents, including The Status of Migrant Farm Workers in Canada 2006-2007 and every...[Technical difficulty--Editor]

Recommendations and points we would like to highlight include an appeal process for repatriation of workers. Currently workers have been repatriated within 24 hours, unable to even document their complaints. It becomes a huge problem. They're usually put on the first plane. They include sick and injured workers and workers who are trying to advocate for their own rights. Talking about housing conditions or other things means employers can repatriate them for just about any reason under the sun.

As well, there are arguments around freedom of association, bargaining collectively at the provincial government levels, equal pay for foreign workers compared with Canadian agricultural workers, and housing conditions. Monitoring and enforcement has been passed down from the federal government to the provincial government to the municipal government, and now to the consulates, where little enforcement and monitoring, if any, is going on.

We advocate that there should be some residency. That they're employed in Canada year after year without having a path to status, some of them for as many as 27 or 28 years, is discriminatory and wrong.

The practice by employers of retaining documents is illegal. We're currently working on a human rights complaint in Quebec, and the commission will be issuing a statement within the next couple of weeks.

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Can I just interrupt you there?

1:10 p.m.

National Coordinator, Agricultural Workers Program, United Food and Commercial Workers Union

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

You've gone into about eight and a half minutes. In the interests of time management, and since I'm always getting a rough time from my own committee members here because they don't have time to interact with you afterwards, perhaps I'll just interrupt you there. Maybe you can make some of your points in the question and answer period.

1:10 p.m.

National Coordinator, Agricultural Workers Program, United Food and Commercial Workers Union

Stan Raper

I would appreciate that. Thank you.

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Thank you, Mr. Raper. I'm sorry about that, but we have to manage time.

Mr. Mooney, you have seven minutes.

1:10 p.m.

Philip Mooney National President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I represent CAPIC, the largest association of authorized immigration consultants in Canada. Every year our members help tens of thousands of individuals come to Canada, to study, to visit, to live or work. We also assist those inside Canada to exercise their rights before the federal tribunals, such as the IRB and IAD. At the end of most processes, we happily help them apply for Canadian citizenship.

In our presentation today, we'd like to offer our understanding of the sources of undocumented workers, to offer practical solutions that can be implemented immediately, and to sound a warning about the future.

What are the sources of undocumented workers? We need to understand the sources, because the remedies will be different in each case. We believe that undocumented workers come in four main streams.

First, we have individuals who have come to Canada and claimed refugee protection and, in the process, have exhausted their appeals. Rather than leave Canada, they go underground.

Second, we have individuals who enter Canada illegally, bypassing inspection at ports of entry, or who gain entry through the use of fraudulent documents.

Third, we have a growing group of individuals who are allowed to be in Canada but who cannot work. This group includes the children of individuals who have valid work permits; inland spousal applicants waiting for approval in principle; spouses of work permit holders, where the work permit itself does not allow them to work; and some individuals who are caught up in the long processing delays involved in the issuance of work permits.

Fourth, and probably the most typical, are individuals who have entered legally but who are now working after their status in Canada has expired, due to a variety of factors.

What are the solutions for each type of case, in our opinion? In the first case, namely, failed refugee claimants, the answer is very clear. They have had the benefit of being able to state their case many times and will not be forced to leave Canada until it has been determined that it is safe to return to their home country. We can endlessly debate how to change the refugee determination system and process, but we must respect the rules of the system while those discussions occur.

In the second case, that of illegal entries, these individuals have demonstrated that they do not respect Canadian laws, and they may even be a threat to our national security. The government must ensure that sufficient resources are available to deny entry to those who try and aggressively pursue those who get through. Even in the sad cases involving human smuggling, where the entrants are more victim than participant, these individuals also have access to Canada's refugee system and agency processes.

The third case, that of individuals who are in Canada legally but are barred from working, is rarely talked about, but it's a growing problem as more temporary foreign workers come to Canada with their families. Parents of a 16-year-old high school student are asking why their children can't work at McDonald's, especially given the recent evidence from high-profile events in major cities of gang activities and what happens to youth who have too much time on their hands. Further, those who work anyway are at severe risk of exploitation, as their parents' right to work in Canada could be at risk if the young worker complains about wages or working conditions.

For the in-Canada class applicants in the spousal class, the wait to be able to work has increased substantially in the last few years, and if their cases are referred to local offices, their cases can stretch to two to three years, adding substantial hardships for the families.

The obvious remedy would be to make all of these individuals eligible for work permits at the time of application for permanent residence or at the time of entry for work permit holders. We have proposed such remedies for several years now, and after discussions at the highest levels of HRSDC and CIC—some occurring as recently as last Friday—we have not been able to effect a change.

Finally, there is the issue of those undocumented workers who entered Canada legally but who stayed and worked illegally. We maintain that one of the principal causes of this is the lack of responsiveness of Canada's immigration system to the urgent needs of employers. The minister herself has confirmed this assessment in her recent justification of Bill C-50. Where there is an urgent and overwhelming demand, market forces will seek to meet that demand. Conversely, if there were no work, there would be no undocumented workers.

The solution in this last category is to have employers offer employment to those working for them without documents, using current procedures. Applications for work permits would then be sent to the home countries of the workers to enter at the back of the work permit queue—not the permanent resident queue—and if there were no security or health concerns, workers could obtain work permits without the need to leave Canada. Of course, individuals who had criminal records would not be allowed to stay or re-enter. Applicants would receive an automatic minister's approval to re-enter Canada.

In this first instance only, and save for the next 12 months, the length of overstay would not be a factor. After that date, the time limit for regularizing the status of such individuals would be set, perhaps at 12 months after their original status expired instead of the current three-month period. This would deal with the problem on an ongoing basis.

The other need is to reduce complexity and eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic complications by amending the regulation that requires that HRSDC approve all jobs. This would effectively exempt all occupations where the demand clearly exceeds the supply. This concept is already being proposed by HRSDC to deal with the situation in western Canada.

Finally, what about the future? As serious as this problem has been in recent years, in our opinion it's about to get much worse, according to the studies by the Bank of Canada, the Conference Board of Canada, and the science of demographics.

CIC has recently implemented a new program allowing employers to bring in unskilled workers for two years, following which the workers must return to their home countries for four months. It is not unreasonable to presume that some of those workers will seek a way to stay in Canada, rather than leave when their work permit expires or if they should suddenly lose their employment.

CIC steadfastly refuses to consider any program that would allow these workers to have a path to permanent residency, including refusing to include them in the new Canada experience class, which will be introduced later this year. Instead, they prefer to simply hand over the problem to the provinces.

We believe that Canada must have a single program with well-understood rules, rather than a patchwork of different programs. Failure to have one will inevitably make the problem of undocumented workers much worse in the years to come. To let you know where the hands of the clock are on this ticking time bomb, the first individuals who gained entry through this program will have their work permits expire in the next six months.

We would also like to bring one very serious concern to your attention. The Immigration Act has severe penalties for employers who hire illegal workers, even though, because this is Canada, the provisions are rarely enforced. However, if an employer actually assists a worker to gain the proper documents but then refuses to comply with the terms of the agreement—even such things as the rate of pay—the worker has no recourse whatsoever to any remedy except the civil court. We're seeing more and more cases of such abuse.

Finally, our members, being professionals in the business and involved on a day-to-day basis with all of these issues, would like to offer a helping hand to any other group concerned about the issues before this committee by way of volunteering their knowledge of the immigration system to advise and assist these groups to better serve the needs of their constituents.

In our experience, a lack of detailed understanding of the current system can cause possible remedies to be missed while groups focus on proposing impossible means to achieve unattainable results.

Thank you for your time.

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Thank you, Mr. Mooney.

Now it's to you, Mr. Amlani.

1:20 p.m.

Alli Amlani President, Ontario Chapter, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants

The purpose of my being here for CAPIC is to answer questions. Thank you.

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Thank you.

Mr. Wong.

1:20 p.m.

Victor Wong Executive Director, Chinese Canadian National Council

Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chinese Canadian National Council is the community leader for Chinese Canadians in promoting a more just, respectful, and inclusive society. We are a national non-profit organization with 27 chapters across Canada, and our mandate is to promote the equality, rights, and full participation of our community members in all aspects of Canadian society.

As a national human rights organization, we believe that legislation and public policies must reflect the humanitarian and social justice values that are commonly shared by Canadians and that such policies should enhance the ability of everyone, including temporary foreign workers and others without permanent status, to make an important contribution to this country.

According to the 2006 census, there are more than 1.3 million Chinese Canadians, and we are the second largest racialized community in Canada.

Our community is diverse, with a rich though sometimes tragic history spanning our 150 years of continuous community in this country. Our community has been subjected to racist immigration legislation in the form of the Chinese head tax, the Newfoundland head tax, and the Chinese exclusion act. We have also been subjected to various exclusionary policies, programs, and practices at the local level. It is our direct experience with exclusionary immigration legislation that guides us in formulating some suggestions for your consideration.

Immigration should be central to a nation-building agenda. So far, our approach to immigration has been less than inspiring. We seem to be working around the edges to solve our problems. We need to be more visionary. There are three key words that could guide us in our strategic vision: nation, dignity, and choices.

We're currently moving down the wrong path. Immigration is not about filling labour market shortages with just-in-time labour. CIC is not a temp agency. We should be building a nation of active citizens. Temporary foreign workers and non-status residents deserve real choices that include a clear path to permanent status and citizenship.

There are about 120,000 temporary foreign workers in Canada, and this number is on the rise. Unfortunately, we have not provided support to this group of workers, who are vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous employers, landlords, and others. Last year, two temporary foreign workers from China died and four others were injured in an industrial accident in Alberta. Another group of temporary foreign workers from China complained about the excessive fees charged by a consultant hired by Maple Leaf Foods, based in Manitoba.

Temporary foreign workers are at risk through precarious work. They experience the impact of family separation, not unlike the Chinese who were separated from their loved ones during the Chinese exclusion act period. Their tenure in Canada is tied to the terms and conditions of their visa, and there will be an impact if they change their employer or get sick or injured and cannot work.

So our first recommendation is that the settlement programs that CIC funds should be available to temporary workers, international students, refugee claimants, and non-status residents.

Some temporary foreign workers experience barriers to permanent status and citizenship. The Canadian experience class only targets international students and higher-skilled workers. It excludes the lower-skilled workers. Are these people not worthy to become Canadians?

As Canada ramps up its reliance on temporary foreign workers to meet labour market shortages, we run the risk of turning our two departments, CIC and HRSDC, into one big temp agency. We should be nation-building instead.

So our second recommendation is that there should be a clear path to permanent status and citizenship for all temporary foreign workers.

With regard to non-status residents, there are anywhere from 50,000 to more than 200,000 residents without status in Canada. They include people who have overstayed their tourist visas and refused refugee claimants who have exhausted their legal avenues.

Not everyone stays in Canada. Actually, only those with the strongest desire choose to stay in Canada. They are left in a situation where they cannot get a driver’s licence, credit card, OHIP card, or apply for a bank loan. They live at the margins of our society. The enforcement of removal orders is ad hoc, expensive, disruptive, and only serves to amplify the unfairness in the system. We need a comprehensive regularization program.

Former Conservative MP, the late Douglas Jung, was instrumental in convincing the Diefenbaker government to introduce the Chinese adjustment program, which allowed thousands of “paper sons” to regularize their status in Canada. In 1994, Liberal Minister Sergio Marchi introduced the deferred removal orders class, DROC, which allowed refused refugee claimants who had not been removed three years after they had exhausted their legal avenues the opportunity to make application for permanent status. This was the last comprehensive regularization program. Of course, there have been a couple of smaller-scale initiatives involving the Somalian and Algerian communities.

Our third recommendation is that we need a comprehensive regularization program, one that offers a clear path to legal status and citizenship. Such a program could be based on residency in Canada--for example, three years of residency. Non-status residents with less than three years residency should be able to apply for a work visa to acquire the three-year residency requirement.

Finally, we would recommend that removal letters still be issued, but that the CBSA refrain from initiating deportation actions, which involve arrest, detention, and forced removal from Canada. Applicants for this program would still undergo the usual medical, security, and criminal checks.

I'd like to make a couple of comments on Bill C-50. The proposed immigration changes in Bill C-50 will not adequately address the backlog unless the immigration targets are significantly increased. Over the last three years, Canada has received an average of 250,000 immigrants with the existing complement of staff resources.

There are disparities that exist in the visa offices. For example, an applicant from the U.S. might wait one year to have his application processed, while the same applicant from China, India, or Pakistan may have to wait three years or longer. Those disparities need to be addressed. The $22 million in extra resources allocated in the last budget to address these disparities should be properly allocated to resource our visa offices. That said, we are within our target of accepting 250,000 immigrants every year. Therefore, the extra staffing resources will not reduce the backlog unless you significantly increase the target range in the 2008 immigration plan.

Our fourth recommendation is to suggest that the government increase the immigration target range from the existing 240,000 to 265,000 to a range of 300,000 to 330,000, which is 1% of the Canadian population, in order to address the backlog.

The other thing is that CIC has not issued a revised operational plan, nor has it provided a transparent update on the impact of the proposed changes in Bill C-50. If there's no increase in the immigration targets, then how will these changes impact on the numbers for the various categories—economic, family class, refugees, temporary foreign workers, and students?

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Maybe you could sum up—

1:30 p.m.

Executive Director, Chinese Canadian National Council

Victor Wong

I'll just give my last recommendation.

The government has had more than three weeks to properly advise Canadians of the impact of these changes.

Our final recommendation is that the government should withdraw the amendments in Bill C-50, the amendments to IRPA, and it should instead issue a proper discussion paper and organize community hearings before drafting legislation.

Thank you.

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Thank you, Mr. Wong.

I have four rounds of seven minutes each.

I'll go to you, Mr. Karygiannis.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Thank you.

Welcome to the great riding of Scarborough—Agincourt.

Mr. Wong, you brought some facts and figures, especially for the Chinese migrants. You also mentioned that we should take a look at and examine Bill C-50 very carefully.

I'm just wondering, sir, if you are familiar with the timeline for waits and the increase in that timeline, especially in Beijing and Hong Kong in the last two years.

1:30 p.m.

Executive Director, Chinese Canadian National Council

Victor Wong

There are longer and longer waits in Beijing. I don't have it off the top of my head, but it's posted on the CIC website.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Let me share this with you. Since the Conservatives took office, the overall timelines in the Beijing office increased by 48%, while the amount of applications decreased by 41%. There was less intake, but in the first two years the wait times increased by 48%. Last year, in 2007, there was an additional increase of 20%. This is in Beijing alone, while the applications have dropped.

I was wondering if you'd like to comment on that.

1:30 p.m.

Executive Director, Chinese Canadian National Council

Victor Wong

Obviously, the government needs to address this kind of resource issue. I don't know the administrative reason for the increase in the timeline. If it's an issue of resourcing, that's what the $22 million was supposed to be used for.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

But it certainly didn't address it, did it?

The amount of cases dropped by 41%.

1:30 p.m.

Executive Director, Chinese Canadian National Council

Victor Wong

Yes, I know.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

So you have a 41% decrease in the applications going in and you have a 48% increase in the length of time it takes.

Does that, to you, address the timelines? Do you include fairness? Does it tell you that the government knows what it's doing, especially in the office in Beijing?

1:30 p.m.

Executive Director, Chinese Canadian National Council

Victor Wong

Obviously they need to do better, and we need to see how they're going to concretely address the backlog and these timelines.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Beijing is the worst offender.

1:35 p.m.

Executive Director, Chinese Canadian National Council

Victor Wong

Well, I want to look forward this year, and to the next year and the year after that.