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.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
I agree with you, but I'm going to run out of time.
Mario, just quickly, yes or no: should the immigration thing be debated before Bill C-50, let's say, is defeated.
2:40 p.m.
Certified Specialist, Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Yes. First of all, there needs to be some correction in the system. It has to be debated.
Just to give you a quick example, picking up on the point about overseas agencies, the Supreme Court of Canada maintained two provisions under the act, section 117 and paragraph (9)(d), and certain exclusionary provisions as constitutional because of the opportunity to have a section 25 relief. If you start playing with one part of the act, it's like a house of cards: other parts are going to fall, and we will find ourselves in a worse backlog than we have now.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I didn't intend to talk about Bill C-50 because it isn't really one of the matters under discussion. But because the Liberals have talked about it and you answered the questions, I have to point out how pathetic what we have just heard was.
In terms of procedure, when we vote for a bill in the House, that is because we support it in principle. The Bloc Québécois does not agree with it in principle and will vote against it. Arguing that it should be debated is bad faith and hypocrisy. I think it is appalling that the House would be urged to move ahead with doing a study that will serve no purpose, because the Liberals clearly do not intend to reject or amend the provisions set out in Bill C-50.
This seems somewhat hypocritical to me. I don't understand this attitude, which amounts to shaming one's self. At least, I would not talk about it. I find this somewhat surprising. So no motion will be made, so that the Liberals can continue to put on a show when they have no intention of putting their words into action.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
There is a point of order. I'll hear a point of order, but I won't deduct it from the member's time.
Mr. Telegdi.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Chair, I work hard to try to be pretty non-partisan on this committee.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
If anybody votes against his own party around this table, it's me.
Mr. St-Cyr, I would appreciate that you not make those personal comments about me. I would appreciate it.
If you'd check my seating plan, I'm sitting in the penalty box again, because I voted against the bill.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
It's not a point of order. I'm not hearing any more submissions on something that is not a point of order. You're eating into Mr. St-Cyr's time.
Mr. St-Cyr, please; I'm not deducting this.
2:45 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am going to move on to another bill, and I would like to know what you think about it: the Bloc Québécois bill on the Refugee Appeal Division, which has been passed in the House. Once that bill receives Royal Assent, a Refugee Appeal Division can be created.
It is now being considered by the Senate. Unfortunately, because the Bloc Québécois has no senators, it rests largely in the hands of the Liberal majority in the Senate. We hope it will pass. If we believe the rumours, the senators would discuss the possibility of adding an additional 180 or 365 days before the bill came into force.
Do you think that after all these years of waiting for something that is a matter of fundamental justice, we should still be adding more time, or should the senators pass the bill as it stands, so that we can move ahead without any further delay?
2:45 p.m.
Director, Human Rights Department, Canadian Auto Workers Union
I just want to answer two things. First of all, once the Bloc Québécois proposes a bill, I'm sure that Quebeckers are capable of handling that and addressing it, either now or through elections.
We came here to this committee to share our feelings with you, our views. What I am hearing here, sadly, is partisan politics. I heard the name of the Liberals mentioned three or four times, and I'm sure that pretty soon other party names are going to be mentioned. Please, I'm requesting one thing. We are here to talk about the issues and to weigh in on this important part. We say this is the way it should be voted on, and there's nothing hypocritical about that.
That's all I wanted to say. All I wanted to say is that we came to speak in front of the committee respectfully. That's all we are doing. We are not here to play. If you want to debate with each other, you should debate in Parliament. That's the place to do it, not here.
2:45 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I simply asked you for your opinion about the bill passed by the House of Commons that provides for the Refugee Appeal Division to be established immediately. There are people whose lives are in danger now because they can't appeal a decision made by a Board member. Some members have ruled against people in my riding. They rule against 98% of the people who appear before them.
I don't think that saying that it's urgent for a Refugee Appeal Division to be established amounts to partisan politics. Human lives are at stake right now. I am going to pressure the government and the Senate and do everything in my power for them to pass those laws. I don't think that work amounts to partisan politics, sir. I would like to know whether you think we should bring that law into force now or there should be amendments, the debate should be postponed and it should be dealt with later. That is my question.
2:45 p.m.
Parkdale Community Legal Services
The Canadian Council for Refugees and many other groups have demanded that the government implement the bill. The RAD--the refugee appeal division--is part of our legislation; why hasn't it been implemented yet? That's why the Senate is doing this bill. I commend the Bloc for pushing forward with this, as well.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I want to welcome Ms. Singh, who is here today as well. I don't know if you have any comments you want to make. Do you want to make a couple...?
2:45 p.m.
Sonia Singh Parkdale Community Legal Services
Mr. Chairman, could I take just one minute?
It's just an amendment to what was mentioned previously around temporary worker programs. I'm here representing the workers rights division of Parkdale Community Legal Services and the Workers' Action Centre, which works with many precarious low-wage workers, including many people here through temporary worker programs.
We are seeing a very alarming increase in complaints about their labour rights from people who are here through temporary worker programs. These kinds of violations range from employment standards violations such as failure to pay overtime or failure to pay basic wages to charging fees for securing work--which is illegal--and serious health and safety violations.
I want to give you one example of a case that we have supported recently. This was someone who arrived on a temporary worker visa to work in a restaurant. His employer had gone to the home country of this worker in order to contract the worker and had charged over $3,000 for the processing of the visa. When the worker arrived, he immediately was put to work in the restaurant working 12-hour days. His passport was confiscated by the employer; he was put in an apartment with four other employees and told not to talk to the other employees. As a result of the very long hours and the very heavy pace of work, he had a workplace injury. He was pushed to keep working. Finally, out of desperation, he was forced to quit his job.
We have to look at the circumstances of this employee. He is now out of work, he has no status, and he has no social safety net. This is the vulnerability that we see temporary worker programs creating for many people.
This vulnerability happens because it's very difficult for workers to speak up about violations without jeopardizing their immigration status. That's directly related to the fact that temporary workers are denied full immigration status: their status is tied to one particular employer, and there is no fair appeal process.
We have a series of recommendations on how to address some of these violations. I would be happy to go through them.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you.
I hope you get a chance; we have about 10 or 12 minutes left.
Did you want to make a comment, Mario?
2:50 p.m.
Certified Specialist, Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
I have a quick comment.
In terms of the RAD, clearly any appellate mechanism or review mechanism would be a welcome addition, as long as it doesn't compromise any review mechanisms earlier on in the process.
I underscore and appreciate the passion on that issue, but I would also like to see that passion expressed toward the issue of undocumented workers. I think it was the Honourable Maurizio Bevilacqua who said before this committee that within 15 years we'll be looking to three workers to one senior. I can tell you that in my practice, just in the last year, I've had plumbers and carpenters, all earning in excess of $70,000 Canadian and filing taxes, who were deported.
I don't know what your personal experience has been, but it's more difficult to get your kitchen renovated now than to get an MRI in Canada.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Those are good points.
All day we've heard the following recommendations. I just want to hear, yes or no, whether there's a consensus:
—Change the immigration point system so that people with lower skills, i.e., the plumbers, can come as landed immigrants, not as temporary foreign workers.
—Allow those temporary foreign workers who are here a chance to apply, even those with lower skills, for landed immigrant status, so that there is a sense that they can bring their families here eventually, to give them some hope if they want to stay.
—Make sure that the CIC settlement funding is extended to assist temporary foreign workers who are here.
—There should be a comprehensive regularization program for the undocumented workers.
—Increase the immigration target numbers to 330,000, as we just heard.
—Lastly, support my amendment in the House of Commons and defeat Bill C-50 so that we don't have to go backwards. We should go forward with these recommendations, not go backwards.
These are what I've heard so far all day—plus accept more Iraqi refugees into Canada.
Is this something there's a consensus on, that everybody here believes is the route we should take?
2:50 p.m.
Voices
Yes.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Yes? That's pretty straightforward.
I just want to say one other thing. Thank you for bringing those heart-breaking, beautiful cards. It is really quite amazing.
Let me see whether I can clarify, then. Under H and C grounds for refugees, you would not be able to sponsor someone who has been excluded. In the past you could do so on H and C grounds, and now you cannot. That's a problem with Bill C-50.
The second one that I've heard, other than the wait times, is that if an employer wants to sponsor someone to bring them here to work, if it's turned down at visa, they have the right to appeal to the Federal Court. But not any more, because the regulations are now going to be changed, if Bill C-50 goes through, from saying the visa “shall” be given out if all criteria are met to the visa “may” be given out. So there's no appeal to the Federal Court.
Am I correct in those two assumptions? I see two lawyers here.
2:55 p.m.
Certified Specialist, Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Yes, I think you are right. What the bill would allow is for any application to be disposed of or retained, but not necessarily to be decided, on the substantive merit of the application, which in effect would eliminate any appeal mechanism. That is a very dangerous way to go.