Bill C-17 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow officers to refuse to authorize foreign nationals to work in Canada in cases where to give authorization would be contrary to public policy considerations that are specified in instructions given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are now dealing with clause 207, which also talks about the issue of instructions, so I'll speak to that more broadly. We do have, as I indicated, a great number of problems with that. The instructions, as to what's going to happen here and the scheme that's established using these instructions...it makes it very difficult for the public to examine it and to understand what's going on.

The Canadian Bar Association said they wrote the ministry looking for an example of the proposed instructions, or the kind of criteria that would be used to instruct officers. They received no example in response, and they were very concerned about that.

Again, they said what I said earlier. The focus should be on ensuring that working conditions for newcomers in Canada are appropriate, safe, and non-exploitative, and ensuring that the criminal laws are strictly enforced against those who exploit vulnerable people.

We're talking here about the exploitation of women, perhaps in keeping with some of the other concerns about women being exploited for sexual purposes. But again, there were expert witnesses, people who provided testimony on previous occasions. For example, at the Citizenship and Immigration Committee on January 30, 2008, Professor Leslie Ann Jeffrey of the University of New Brunswick stated as follows:

It is very problematic that Canada would choose to address the issue of potential exploitation of migrant labourers by attempting to stop their legal migration rather than addressing the conditions of work. Trafficking most often occurs in precarious forms of labour that are unprotected by labour laws, government oversight, and union organization.

The fact that they're working in vulnerable sectors is what gives rise to the concern here, and the response.... Instead of depriving these migrant workers of an opportunity to work in Canada—they may be in vulnerable sectors, but they're also sectors where it's very difficult to get Canadian workers. That's why they're given work permits in the first place, because these workers are necessary to the economy or to the enterprise that is looking for them, and because they wouldn't qualify if Canadian workers could be found to fill those jobs. It is an opportunity for migrant workers to have the chance to enter Canada for work purposes—and we're talking about legal migration. In order to fix the problems, the focus should be on fixing the labour laws themselves.

There was another concern raised by Ms. Janet Dench, who was the executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees and also testified on the previous iteration of this, Bill C-17. On January 30, 2008, at the same meeting of the Citizenship and Immigration Committee, and she said:

Not only does [this legislation] fail to protect the rights of trafficked persons already here in Canada, but furthermore its approach is condescending and moralistic. It empowers visa officers to decide which women should be kept out of Canada for their own good.

Once again, the concern here was raised by the Canadian Council for Refugees, which, through another witness on the same day, said that the main objective of anti-trafficking legislation must be to protect the human rights of trafficked persons, and that the bill doesn't do that.

There's a whole series of aspects of this bill that we are trying to improve upon by making amendments, some of which have unfortunately been ruled out of order. But the point is that we don't believe that this bill adequately addresses those concerns.

It fails to provide an opportunity for parliamentary oversight of the instructions in order to be able to determine through parliamentary debate—committee or otherwise—what the effect of those instructions could be, and frankly, it fails to be concerned that the application of this particular provision is actually aimed at the objectives that were proposed, and not used for some other reason, as raised in the concerns of the Canadian Bar Association—the unfocused and awfully broad statement of whatever instructions under public policy that the minister might choose to give.

Those are my comments, Mr. Chair.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Did we forget Bill C-50 or Bill C-17?

(Motion negatived)

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

That's fine. We'll certainly take that through.

I want to make one point before we move into the study itself. We have partially completed Bill C-17, having heard some witnesses, but have not concluded that process, and we need to conclude it. It should be the first order of business when we get back, unless we're going to have further meetings at this point.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

The first point I want to raise is that we still have some unfinished business from this session when we come back. We must not forget Bill C-17. It needs to be completed--we're part way into it--before any study starts.

To speak to the motion itself, there's probably some agreement on the committee's part that the point system should be looked at or studied. Indeed, Mr. Telegdi brought a person before the committee not that long ago to point out some of what could be considered the issues or concerns related to the point system. There's no problem with dealing with the point system, but whether one needs to travel to Australia and New Zealand to be able to deal with the point system is another matter.

It would seem to me that the problems or issues we have with the point system can be studied here. We can certainly get the people who are knowledgeable of the Australian system here either by teleconference or by actually having them come here, as one or two persons, as opposed to having the whole committee, and everything that goes with it, going there.

So I would proposed an amendment to that motion that deletes the words “and that, as part of the study, the Committee travel to Australia and New Zealand to examine the analogous systems in those countries”. I would so move.

Motions in Amendment

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I am pleased to rise to speak in absolute and sincere opposition to the proposed amendments to Bill C-50, amendments that would seek to effectively delete the government's proposed improvements, and I emphasize improvements, to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which are contained in part 6 of Bill C-50.

I note that the amendments originate with my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, but they are supported by my colleagues down the way in the NDP. Sadly, this is yet another occasion where the NDP, despite its rhetoric, will vote against crucial measures proposed by this Conservative government to help immigrants.

The NDP's track record on immigration is a sorry one at best. In this Parliament alone, the NDP has voted against $1.3 billion for settlement funding, after a funding freeze of 10 years under the previous government. The NDP also voted against the establishment of a foreign credentials referral office. It voted against cutting the immigrant head tax, which our government cut in half, despite the NDP.

The NDP has even voted against providing increased protections for vulnerable foreign workers. Its continued opposition to Bill C-17 is preventing vulnerable foreign workers, who could be subject to abuse and exploitation, from getting protection that they need and deserve.

Despite their talk, the New Democrats do not step up to help newcomers to Canada. This Conservative government, however, does and continues to do so with our immigration changes proposed in Bill C-50.

Our proposed amendments in part 6 of the budget implementation act addressed the legislative roots of Canada's broken and overloaded immigration system. Neither Canadians nor prospective newcomers to our country benefit from an immigration system that, due to its systemic deficiencies, forces prospective immigrants to wait for up to six years before their applications are looked at, let alone processed.

The current system is especially problematic, since by 2012 fully 100% of our net labour growth will come from immigration. The systemic flaws in the current immigration system continue to hinder our country's ability to meet the needs of newcomers and the social and economic needs of our country. Urgent action is required. That is why changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act were included in budget 2008.

“Advantage Canada” 2006 identified that Canada needed the most flexible workforce in the world, an issue that is critical to Canada's future. Without our proposed legislative changes, the uncontrolled growth of the immigration backlog will continue, the backlog we inherited, by the way, from the previous Liberal government, which currently stands at over 900,000 people waiting in line to come to Canada.

This backlog is unacceptable. Urgent action must be taken so the backlog can be reduced. A new and more efficient processing system is desperately needed, a system that is both responsive to the needs of the newcomers and the needs of Canada.

To move toward accomplishing these goals, the legislative changes contained in part 6 of Bill C-50 are absolutely essential. The fact is Canada faces serious international competition in attracting people with the talents and the skills we need to ensure our country's continued growth and prosperity.

Compared to the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, we are the only country that does not use some kind of occupational filter to screen, code or prioritize skilled worker applications. Compared to other countries, Canada's system is simply not flexible enough. While Australia and New Zealand are processing applications in six to twelve months, if nothing is done, processing times in Canada will reach ten years by 2012. As more people submit applications and our current obligation to process every application to completion remains, the backlog continues to grow and Canada's labour shortages worsen.

If we do nothing to address the problem, we risk having families wait even longer to be reunited with their loved ones and we risk losing the people our country needs from other countries. Because those countries are in fierce competition with us for the skills and talents that newcomers bring, our government believes that without this legislative intervention the system is destined to collapse under its own weight.

It is important to note that the legislative changes contained within Bill C-50 are but one aspect of the government's approach to addressing the backlog problem. These legislative changes would prevent the backlog from growing, but let me be crystal clear on two key points about these proposals.

Contrary to the misinformation that is out there, we will not be placing any limits on the number of applicants that we will accept. Canada remains open to immigration and anyone can still apply.

However, under the proposed legislative changes, we will not have to process every application. Those applications not processed in a given year can be held for future consideration or returned to the applicant with a refund of their application fee. Individuals in this category would be welcome to reapply. The result would be that the backlog will stop growing and actually start to come down.

This flexibility in managing the backlog would accomplish three things. It would help reduce the backlog and ensure that immigrants have the jobs they need to succeed and allow our country to continue to grow and prosper.

Once these changes are implemented, the immigration backlog will stop growing and will begin to decrease the long lineup waiting news on entry to Canada through other important measures our government is taking.

Among other things we have committed over $109 million over five years to bring down the backlog.

Other steps that would be taken include: organizing visa officer “SWAT teams” to speed up processing in parts of the world where wait times are the longest; providing additional resources to these busy missions; helping build capacity to meet future levels and increasing demand; and coding applications in the existing backlog with the appropriate national occupational classification code and destination province where they are requesting to reside, so applicants with the skills we need can be referred to provinces for possible selection by provincial nominee programs.

Part 6 of Bill C-50, when combined with these non-legislative measures funded in budget 2008 and beyond, would act to control and reduce the backlog and speed up processing. Because immigration is so important to Canada's future, we need a modern and renewed vision for immigration.

These proposed changes are part of a vision that involves creating a more responsive immigration system, one that allows us to welcome more immigrants while helping them get the jobs they need and building better lives for themselves and their families, because their success is our success.

Urgent action is required. Part 6 of Bill C-50 and all of budget 2008 would deliver this much needed action.

I end by expressing my gratitude to my colleagues opposite in the Liberal Party who have so graciously helped our Conservative government ensure speedy passage of our budget legislation through the House. I am pleased the Liberal Party supports our proposed immigration measures and budget 2008. I am pleased the Liberal Party recognizes that budget 2008 and Bill C-50 are full of positive measures for all Canadians, those present now and those soon to be here as well.

I encourage all members of the House, especially my colleagues in the Liberal Party, to defeat these detrimental amendments to Bill C-50 and continue to work toward its speedy passage unamended.

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

I have been working with immigration refugee agencies in Canada for almost 19 years. What you see in Bill C-50 and what you see in Bill C-17, and you hear presentations about it, is basically the dream come true of the bureaucrats. It is the position we have been listening to from the bureaucrats of Immigration Canada for the last 18 to 20 years. They want to have power to reject applications. They want to have power to not accept them, ignore them, screen them, whatever.

I am repeating what you said, but that is basically the position of the NGO sector. We are basically receiving, in the form of a bill, the position of the bureaucrats of Immigration Canada every time, and now we receive Bill C-17 and Bill C-50, or whatever.

[Alex Stojicevic]

If the goal of the minister would be, for example, as she tagged to Bill C-17, parameters to prevent certain vulnerable persons from being issued work permits, she can issue an operations memorandum on this point. She can have her staff instruct her people in the field to be very mindful of particular issues, and that will have an effect on how many visas are issued.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Please answer the question I posed to you with respect to Bill C-17. What are these strong guidelines that you suggest would achieve the same goals? What are they? That's the question.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

My time is limited, and my question to you is to deal with what you meant by saying strong guidelines would achieve the same goal with respect to Bill C-17. That's what you made reference to.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It's inappropriate to go otherwise, and this committee has been allowed to do that. I don't agree with that, but I think in fairness it needs to be balanced out.

You said there needed to be strong guidelines, as opposed to using Bill C-17 and the instructions that are there. What did you mean by saying strong guidelines would achieve the same results? First of all, we're dealing with vulnerability of workers; you're saying we could deal with that issue of protecting them because it's not restricted to a particular category of person. What do you mean by strong guidelines, and what might they look like?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I accept that. There will be a time and a place for that to be discussed.

Going back to Bill C-17--which we are discussing, and which we should limit our discussion to--it's absolutely appropriate.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

And both Bill C-17 and any other bills that deal with instruction have to be charter-compliant, do they not?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

First, isn't there a difference between exercising discretion...? Bill C-17 is the one that's before this committee, and you talked about that.

[Alex Stojicevic]

If I may, and I'll try not to comment on Bill C-50 within the parameters here, but Bill C-17 is effectively wrapped in the same language. Mr. Chan talked to you about 45 workers who didn't get visas from the Canadian consulate in Shanghai. He raised that in his testimony. What he didn't say is that the minister's office intervened in that case and had 20 permits issued. I know this because this is a case out of my law office. I'm not suggesting for a minute that this government and this minister aren't sensitive to specific issues where there are ministerial instructions or where there are laudable objectives from both ministerial instructions and/or a change that would give more discretion over which categories are going to be processed. But that's an example of the minister—under the current act, the current legislation, and the current framework—assisting in the facilitation of a visa, of a series of visas, where there was some element of controversy.

So to suggest the system now isn't responsive to those kinds of problems is simply incorrect. And that begs the question, from our perspective, of why you need this legislation then. This minister has made it abundantly clear that she will entertain full public consultation, etc., on any changes, but who's to say that the next minister won't?

To me, to the member's point, that's actually the problem. From the perspective of the end-user who doesn't read the Canadian media every day, this system becomes a lot less transparent and a lot less objective. If we're relying on the minister's staff and on the department officials to continually update information, you're making a system that is complicated right now that much more so.

[Alex Stojicevic, Chair, National Citizenship and Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, about some important issues that you are travelling across the country to study. I've heard some of the discussion that occurred before us here, and you certainly have a lot of lively issues that you're considering.

I don't envy you your task of balancing a lot of different regulatory or legislative changes and their impact, as well as conflicting priorities that you're being asked to look for here.

I speak to you as chair of the citizenship and immigration law section of the Canadian Bar Association. The CBA is a voluntary association of approximately 37,000 lawyers, notaries, law teachers, and students across Canada. My section has approximately 900 members who practise immigration law across the country. Our mandate includes seeking improvement in the law and administration of justice, and that's the lens through which I am speaking to you today.

I would like to address specifically two of the issues you have raised, although given the liveliness of some of the other things you've talked about, I have views also on the live-in caregiver program and other programs. But I'll leave that for the members.

In any event, the two issues in particular—and you have copies of my speaking notes—are the impact of Bill C-17 on temporary foreign workers and the issue of undocumented, as well as licensed, immigration consultants.

We've raised our concerns with the government about both of these issues. We do have existing submissions to the minister's office on both.

Our concern with Bill C-17 really flows from the broad and relatively unreviewable powers it gives the minister, which, in our view, risk eroding the rule of law, plain and simple. We think the existing measures within IRPA and the existing regulations and processing procedures can be used more effectively to meet the government's objectives. In many instances, including as far as Bill C-17 is concerned, in terms of the stated goal, which was to protect certain workers such as strippers from being exploited, it can be done in other ways that don't require Bill C-17. Ministerial instructions are too severe and too unnecessary an approach to take when, instead, strong guidelines from the minister's office would likely achieve the same goal.

Also, we wonder if it's necessary to have a system of ministerial instructions centralizing power in the minister's office when we have a handful of these stripper visas issued to begin with. I've heard conflicting reports of between 4, 18, and 20. It seems not very many to really have to change a law. If that's the principal motivation, we question that somewhat.

The existing act and the existing procedures provide for transparency and objectivity that we feel Bill C-17 erodes. We have some of the same concerns on the government bill that was put forward, I'm told, in the House today, Bill C-50. If you take a system that's already difficult for the end user, that at least now has some rights accruing to the end user by the use of such words as “shall” be issued a work permit, or “shall” be issued a temporary resident visa or permanent resident visa, and if you erode that objectivity by changing the language to “may” or by having a scheme of ministerial instructions, you make it that much more complicated.

That's the danger of eroding the language in the act, as far as we're concerned now, even though we recognize that there are some really legitimate public policy objectives that inform some of these two bills. Certainly, we applaud the government for moving forward on those objectives. It's just that I'm not sure legislative changes, especially the ones that are being contemplated, are necessary for those objectives.

We ask that you recommend that the government use the measures that exist in the act, rather than the issuance of ministerial directions, to fulfill these legitimate public policy directions.

The cornerstone, in our view, of the proper administration of justice is transparency, and our concerns with the direction the government has taken with Bill C-17 and with a number of legislative initiatives, including the other one that I alluded to, Bill C-50, is to sacrifice clarity and transparency for the sake of giving more direct control over processing issues to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This trend, in our view, will have the net effect of centralizing authority over processing in the hands of the minister and the department, rather than where it exists now, which is within the body of the regulations.

It is a very interesting line that we're taking. The minister has gone on public record today as saying that any changes she puts forward in these ministerial instructions, under both bills, will involve consultation with stakeholders and will also be pre-published and gazetted. As far as that's concerned, we applaud the minister, but what about the next minister or the minister after that? Once these powers—the ministerial instruction power under Bill C-17 and also, potentially, under Bill C-50, the ability to pick and choose which immigrant visa categories that are already provided for in regulation can be moved forward.... We are concerned that this centralization isn't necessary for the government to meet its immigration objectives. What's more, it causes a risk of abuse down the road from either the department or from a future immigration minister, if not this one, using it in ways that are fundamentally undemocratic and that will not allow immigration changes to be properly debated, in this body or any other, but rather will involve senior government officials talking to other senior government officials to make policy.

We recognize the need for flexibility, and we recognize that the minister and the government are dealing with some very complicated and challenging problems, balancing numerous different and competing policy goals. This has been the reality of our system for as long as I've practised immigration law. It's not an easy balance to maintain.

Certainly building a system that's responsive to both Canada's current economic needs and long-term economic needs as well as its humanitarian objectives is a challenging one. Despite the fact that this goal requires a certain degree of flexibility to adapt to economic changes, it must not be at the price of a system that uses objective criteria. This risks the use of arbitrariness, upon which I've already commented, and essentially allows the minister to override objective criteria that are already contained in regulations, and this, we feel, is wrong. Canadians want transparency.

Another issue I want to address today is immigration consultants. I have a lot of personal knowledge of the history of this brief in particular. It was the Law Society of British Columbia that brought forward the Mangat case in the late 1990s, which resulted ultimately in the Supreme Court of Canada deciding that there was a role for immigration consultants to play if they were regulated. What we have is the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants as a result.

I want to address two issues there. First, the Canadian Bar Association has some concerns that at the moment CSIC appears to be poorly funded to handle disciplinary measures. It is at least worth investigating how good a job they are doing so far in terms of disciplining their members. Do they have the budget to do it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay. It's understood too that we were going to talk about Bill C-17, possibly when we get back, or if there was a date available beforehand, we would be talking about Bill C-17 also.

We have a request in to bring the minister before our committee for supplementary estimates, and the news on that happens to be—

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Flowing from that, I would certainly encourage the committee to bring Bill C-17 back before this committee for consideration as a piece of legislation.

I noted that you handed out a pamphlet called Important Information for Temporary Workers Working in Canada, which essentially gives them what their rights might be and their obligations, who they can contact, including the various provincial departments dealing with labour standards and that kind of thing. That is one example of perhaps how this issue of temporary foreign workers can be dealt with.

I noticed that in the live-in caregiver side of the program, they are either given courses before they come here to Canada, which are given in their language, or there are certain steps that are taken that would certainly enhance their ability once they got here to deal with labour standard types of issues and others as well. How is that being done, and can that be transposed to temporary foreign workers other than those in the live-in caregiver program?

[Les Linklater]

Bill C-17 is designed to provide visa officers with the tools to be able to deny a work permit to someone who may be destined to a situation of potential abuse or exploitation. This would happen overseas before the potential worker was actually in Canada. But as I mentioned earlier, the way the act and the regulations are written now, they are very directive. There is no opportunity for negative discretion of any kind within the act. So Bill C-17 would allow the minister, based on objective evidence, to issue instructions to visa officers for them to take into consideration any evidence that would link particular situations with vulnerability or the potential for abuse or exploitation and refuse the permit to someone based on those circumstances.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I have just a couple of questions flowing from the discussion on temporary foreign workers. Bill C-17, as we talked about briefly, is a step in the direction of offering some form of protection to vulnerable temporary foreign workers. Can you expand on that, and would it or an expanded form of that be the type of direction that could be taken to protect temporary foreign workers?

[Les Linklater]

As I think Mr. Kenyon said earlier, the current regulations are very directive, so should certain thresholds be met for an employer, HRSDC shall issue a labour market opinion. For Citizenship and Immigration or for the Border Services Agency, subject to a temporary foreign worker meeting certain thresholds, we are obliged to issue the work permit.

This is one of the issues we're trying to bolster through Bill C-17, the legislation on vulnerable workers, but I think as we move forward with regulatory reforms--to be able to provide sanctions within our regulatory framework, to refuse service to employers that have not met certain benchmarks, and to be able to share the information with provinces, as we've alluded to earlier--having that common base of information will be key to being able to employ a sanctions regime.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Minister.

Minister Finley, there may or may not be an election coming. There are some practical implications to some of these bills not passing. With respect to Bill C-17, what are some of the practical implications of the impact of delays that would happen if an election came on planned activities in Canada over the next couple of years, specifically, obviously, the Olympics?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I firmly believe--and I suspect and certainly hope this committee feels the same way--that if even one woman is trafficked, that's one too many. Absolutely. That's why we need laws that will help to protect them. We don't have that many right now, so we're trying to put forward Bill C-17 and maintain flexibility in the legislation we do have.

There is a private member's bill before the Senate, as we speak, that would reduce the flexibility we have to address human trafficking. I mentioned earlier how we extended the TRPs from 120 days to 180 days. If the Senate bill that's before the House now had passed, we would not have been allowed to do that. We would not have had the flexibility through ministerial powers to extend that protection period.

We need to be flexible in our response, because we're still learning, as is the world. We want to be able to be responsive to the needs as we identify them. So I think we have to make sure we protect these women and children. They are vulnerable individuals. It doesn't matter how many or how few, they all deserve our protection in this country.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ministers, for your time and your presentations. We truly appreciate that.

My question goes to Minister Finley. Last week the citizenship and immigration committee, of which I am a member, considered Bill C-17. During the meeting, Liberal member Mr. Jim Karygiannis scoffed at the small number of women being protected by this bill. He seemed to think that passing a bill that in his mind only concerned a “very minimal number of people” would be wrong. He implied that such a very minimal number of women, regardless of their vulnerability to trafficking or exploitation, was unworthy of protection under Bill C-17.

Could you please respond to Mr. Karygiannis' criticism?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister Finley, I want to get back to this issue of Bill C-17, which is currently in committee. I just want to get your sentiments or thoughts on why this bill is being held up. You mentioned that there were some witnesses who were denied access to the committee or who were turned away.

Could you give us a bit more information on your understanding of this predicament?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Minister Day and I will both address that because we're both involved.

We set up the TRP program to remedy exactly the kinds of situations you describe. It was meant to give women the opportunity to take some time and figure out what they want to do—with some safety, with some security, with health benefits. This would put them in a better position to decide where they want to go.

We're trying to get Bill C-17 through Parliament as a means to prevent trafficking and keep these women out of situations in which they could be abused. Right now it's being stalled. The committee is not addressing it. We were due to hear from several groups, including the Stop the Trafficking Coalition, the Salvation Army, and the Future Group. This week, they were mysteriously de-invited from attending, and the issue was dropped from the agenda.

We'd like to see the legislation put through as quickly as possible, not just for the Olympics. We need it now, for the situations you're describing. These women—and in some cases men—need protection now, and we'd like to see the opposition move forward with it.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, ministers, for joining us this morning.

I am concerned more specifically about one component of Bill C-17. Earlier, we talked about measures taken to assist persons already in the country, that is those who have crossed the border and are found to be victims of abuse or human trafficking. Persons turned away at the border would likely be sent to other countries where no legislation is in place to govern human trafficking.

Have measures been taken to prevent a situation where these persons end up in a country where they are even worse off and where they would still be victimized? Just because they are refused entry into Canada does not mean that they will be sent back to their country of origin and resume their lives there. Have any agreements been concluded with other countries?

Mr. Nicholson, you stated that you have been working with the United Nations.

Mr. Day, you said that you are working with different groups.

Will measures been taken to help these persons?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ministers, for coming today. This is an area that has been very important for us, so we appreciate the time you're giving us.

To Minister Finley first, I appreciate the changes you've already made with respect to the 120 days to 180 days and the support services to victims and the ability for them to apply for landed status during that process so that they can choose to stay in the country, which is one of the things we had recommended.

One of the things, though, that you just mentioned with respect to Bill C-17 was the stopping at the border. My question is twofold. Have there been any changes with respect to the criteria for immigration? A lot of these women should be able to come in here as legitimate immigrants. The problem is, in many cases the criteria and skills training criteria prevent them. They don't fit any of the criteria we have, and it's very hard for them to come in. We need to look at the immigration structure to make sure it's more sensitive.

The other question is, of course, about the live-in caregivers, who to some degree face a lot of abuse as well. It goes unnoticed and unreported most of the time because women are very vulnerable. Again, it's women. One of the things we were looking at was that the immigration criteria keep out women who are in desperate need, financially, to immigrate, as men do, to be able to come to this country legitimately rather than having to figure out ways around that and come in, in other ways.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you. I would like to thank the committee for inviting us here today to address the very important issue of human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

Our government is taking real action to combat human trafficking while assisting its victims.

And that is why we continue to examine ways to further improve our actions in this regard. Let me begin by sharing with you some of the initiatives of my own department, Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

My department's initiatives to target human trafficking aim, first of all, to protect the victims of the crime. To build on our ongoing anti-trafficking efforts, we've taken several important steps to increase protection of victims of human trafficking.

In May 2006, for example, my predecessor, the Honourable Monte Solberg, introduced a fee-exempt, 120-day temporary resident permit for individuals who've been preliminarily assessed to be victims of human trafficking.

The intent of this initial temporary resident permit, TRP for short, was to allow victims of trafficking in Canada to escape their traffickers and feel secure in the knowledge that they have legal status in Canada. Although this was an important improvement with respect to what we had before, we recognized that more needed to be done.

That's why last June, in response to concerns raised by stakeholders and by the standing committee, I was pleased to extend the fee-exempt temporary resident permit from 120 to 180 days. This was an important change, and it allowed victims to apply for a work permit, an option that wasn't available to them under the 120-day permit.

A valid work permit, of course, gives the victims the opportunity to earn a living in Canada while they consider their options. During that time, the victims can access health care services, including trauma counselling, under the interim federal health program. Similar to the initial TRP, the initial work permit is fee-exempt.

The TRP also allows victims time to reflect and consider, for example, whether they want to return home or apply to stay in Canada and whether they want to assist officials in investigating and prosecuting the traffickers. Victims can also apply for extensions of the permit.

Madam Chair, it is important to note that, through all of these procedures, immigration officers are instructed to treat the individuals that come forward as victims, not as criminals.

Victims are not required to participate in a criminal investigation or testify against accused traffickers in order to receive the Temporary Resident Permit.

This Government believes that these guidelines provide us with the necessary flexibility to respond in a timely fashion to evolving issued surrounding trafficking in persons.

Madam Chair, our approach to confronting human trafficking doesn't stop with protecting victims. Prevention is also key. One way to prevent trafficking is to use the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, as we call it, as a basis for refusing entry to foreign nationals who are destined for such situations. That's exactly what we did by introducing Bill C-17. If it becomes law, Bill C-17 will help prevent vulnerable temporary foreign workers, including exotic dancers, from being abused, exploited, or possibly even becoming victims of human trafficking. This legislation will give me the authority, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to instruct immigration officers to deny work permits to vulnerable foreign workers who could be subjected to humiliating and degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation, in Canada.

This legislation will help ensure that Canada's immigration system is not used by criminals to victimize people.

For those people applying to enter our country, Canada represents hope, safety and a new start. This is one more measure that helps ensure that this hope is not shattered through exploitation, and that the expectation of safety within Canada is preserved.

Without this legislation, immigration officers cannot deny a work permit to someone who meets all the requirements to enter Canada, even if the officers believe there is a strong possibility of exploitation or abuse. Strengthening the minister's authority would provide the Government of Canada with a tool to respond to situations in which a permanent applicant could be at risk. Essentially, the current rules allow officers to refuse work permits based principally on present status or past record—for example, cases in which the applicant has a communicable disease or criminal convictions.

The proposed amendments will allow an officer, according to instructions issued by the minister, to refuse a work permit based on reasonable concern for what will happen, namely, that the person could be in danger of being trafficked, exploited, or degraded once in Canada. Immigration officers would make their decisions on a case-by-case basis, and each application for a permit would be assessed on its own merit.

The proposed changes could be used to prevent abuse in a number of possible scenarios, which could include low-skilled labourers and exotic dancers as well as other potential victims of human trafficking. For example, some applicants for work permits may be inexperienced, without a support network, or overly dependent upon their employer. In many situations, this would not be a problem. In some situations, however, this could lead to humiliating and degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation. Where there's evidence that these concerns are serious and well founded, ministerial instructions would provide the government with a mechanism to protect applicants from the abuse and exploitation they might otherwise experience.

In short, Bill C-17 would give us another tool to help stop trafficking at our borders and prevent foreign nationals from becoming victims of this heinous crime. It would seem to me that in Bill C-17 we have a real opportunity to ensure that additional protections are provided for vulnerable women and children subject to sexual exploitation and abuse. I urge all individuals and stakeholders concerned with fighting human trafficking to encourage the opposition to support the swift passage of Bill C-17.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, our government is committed to taking real action to combat human trafficking, while assisting its victims.

While we're working hard to continue our efforts to combat human trafficking, we recognize that more can, and indeed must, be done. In this regard, I look forward to hearing from stakeholders and concerned citizens about how best to proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you very much for that impassioned plea. There is no question that this legislation is long overdue. I can tell you that before the committee left they said Bill C-17 would be the first order of business, and that's why it was there.

With respect to this particular bill, I would ask particularly the Liberal members and the critic there to get their members to support the bill as it is. In fact--

Citizenship and Immigration

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the subcommittee, which is opposition dominated, met and mysteriously, for no apparent reason, Bill C-17 is no longer on Monday's agenda.

I think the opposition members on that committee should explain to these stakeholders, and indeed to all Canadians, why the protection of vulnerable women and children is not a priority for them. I can assure members that it is a priority for our government.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, stakeholders such as The Future Group, Stop the Trafficking Coalition and The Salvation Army believe that Bill C-17 is important legislation to help further combat the plague of human trafficking and the exploitation of women.

Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please comment on why stakeholders who had confirmed their appearance on Monday before the committee have now been told they are no longer welcome to appear before the citizenship and immigration committee, and why Bill C-17 is no longer on Monday's agenda?

Status of Women

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, anyone who has read the book The Natashas: Inside the New Global Sex Trade by Victor Malarek is probably horrified by the amount of sex trafficking and sex slavery occurring right now in the world.

We often talk about sex slaves and trafficking, but somehow our country treats these individuals as criminals rather than people in need of protection. The only provisions in the current law relating to trafficking serve to criminalize trafficking and to favour the detention of trafficked persons. There is nothing in the law to protect the human rights of trafficked persons.

It was mentioned today that women and children are trafficked most often, although trafficking is not kept strictly to women and children. Children are most in need of protection. We need special measures to reflect their vulnerabilities and needs.

We know that persons involved in the sex trade often feel a real sense of shame. They have not been given any choice in this. They often need some time in a secure environment to recover and reflect on what they are going to do next. That is why a proposal must include a provision for immediate temporary protection, which cannot be discretionary.

Certainly some people choose to return to their home country. However, for some trafficked persons, returning home would involve significant hardship. They may feel stigmatized in their home country, especially if they were involved in sex work. They may fear retribution from the traffickers, who may still be in their village. They may be at risk of being forced into a new trafficking situation. Because they have been trafficked, they may have lost their ability to make choices about their lives. That is why asking them to make a choice in a very short period of time is difficult.

The only place in the present Immigration and Refugee Protection Act where trafficked people are mentioned in is in the regulation which includes having been trafficked as a factor in favour of detention, including children. There is nothing in the law to specifically protect the rights of trafficked persons.

With the recent change in 2006, there is a temporary protection permit. This permit can be extended to 180 days, but the problem with this process is that the individual is not allowed to apply in Canada in a permanent way. People need to have an alternative presented to them. They need to know that they have the choice to remain as permanent residents. We need to find ways to protect these people. Why? We need to protect them because they are at their most vulnerable.

There are factors that need to be taken into account when deciding whether there are reasonable grounds for people who have been trafficked to stay in Canada. We need to look at their allegations. We need to look at the facts about their arrival in Canada. Perhaps we could look at representations from credible non-governmental organizations that believe these people have been trafficked. We need to offer protection, alternatives, choice and hope for these people.

In the case of a child, the immigration officer should be responsible for making sure that the child is placed immediately under the protection of child protection services and has access to necessary services, including counselling. That is critically important. These children have to recover. If they do not get counselling, they are often at a loss in regard to what to do. The counselling component is extremely important. The temporary permit should be extended to six months. Or if the circumstances warrant it, they should be allowed to stay in Canada.

When the enforcement officers are interviewing these women or children, I think it is important that we have guidelines to make sure these officers do the interviews in the most sensitive manner. Hopefully we could also include the guideline that people can be accompanied by a representative of a non-governmental organization so there is an advocate working for these people if they so wish, so there is a helping hand, a person they can lean on and who knows and understands what they are going through. Therefore, training is important and having an advocate is also very important.

The other aspect is permanent protection, which is done so these people will not be at risk of being re-trafficked. In Mr. Malarek's book, we find situations where people are returned to their home village or country only to be scooped up again by people who are preying on the most vulnerable in those villages or small towns, and thus they again end up in the sex trade.

There needs to be psychological support, as I have said. As well, we need to make sure that a safe house, for example, will be made available to them. We know they need to have housing support. That is an aspect that has to be developed, expanded and funded.

The people who have been trafficked should be exempt from all fees, not just the application fees but also the right of permanent residence fees. They could be seen as protected persons. That law also has to be changed, because right now this is not the case. Women who have suffered from violence still have to pay the application and landing fees, but often these people are totally destitute and do not have the financial means. They are also very fearful.

We have to change the family reunification class so that trafficked persons will have the right to include family members, both inside and outside Canada, as protected persons, so if they have children they may be able to bring the children into the country.

In terms of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, we also need to amend section 133 to protect trafficked persons from prosecution for offences related to entry into Canada. If we do not do so, they would be too fearful to come forward, and any laws we put in place would defeat their own purpose. Currently we allow refugees to stay in Canada even though they may have an offence related to the way they came into the country. This amendment is critically important.

There is also an important amendment to the regulations, part 245 in the immigration act, which is flight risk, and also one to part 249, “Special considerations for minor children” to remove reference to a trafficking connection as a factor in favour of detention.

If we do not do those kinds of things and if we do not amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, we will have just what we are seeing now. We had an instance of this in the summer of 2007. Because all the rules and regulations that were changed in May 2006 are discretionary, they are sometimes not offered to a trafficked person. They impose an unreasonable burden of proof on that person. The mandatory involvement of law enforcement agencies ends up deterring some of these victims from applying.

Despite the introduction of the guidelines, we heard in summer 2007 about a woman who was apprehended at the U.S.-Canada border despite being identified by Canadian officials as a victim of trafficking. She was never offered a temporary resident permit. She was held in detention and was deported before she was able to meet with a lawyer. This was an instance where we could have helped that person, but we lost that opportunity because we had not made the proper amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The only bill that is front of the immigration committee right now is Bill C-17. Bill C-17 does not offer all of those changes. It does not deal with the problems that have been identified. We absolutely have to make those changes right now. It needs to be seen as a priority so we can send a clear signal that a permanent policy is in place to offer protection to trafficked persons.

Also, with regard to overseas, an immigration operations manual has been in the works for two years and is still not finished. It is called IP9 and what it actually does is go after the so-called consultants. Really, they are the recruiters. They are the people who are bringing women and children across the border into the sex trade in an illegal manner. They need to be punished. They need to be charged, but right now there is no operations manual to instruct the immigration officer to be on the lookout for such recruiters and unscrupulous consultants.

On average, each year we have 110,000 foreign workers coming into the country. Some are recruited by these unscrupulous consultants and yet the Canadian Immigration Center has one secretariat and one part time person who has no power because that person is under the Canadian immigration department rather than the Canada Border Services Agency. So far we have not seen one person charged, convicted or jailed as a person involved in trafficking.

Therefore, the message we are sending is not very clear. We talk about punishing those who are involved in trafficking, yet our overseas officers do not have enough instruction and there is not enough training for them. In Canada, there is no coordination. It is not clear whether it is the immigration department, RCMP, CSIS or CBSA that is really in charge. That small secretariat with one part time person cannot do all the jobs that need to be done. There is no clear line of reporting. Of all the cases filed and all the complaints, hardly any have gone to court so far, and there have been no convictions whatsoever.

In looking at this situation, not only do we need to protect the people who are in Canada, but we also have to deal with the overseas immigration offices and the embassies to stop this at the source. We need to make sure the immigration officers know to whom to report. We need to make sure that charges are laid so there will be clear convictions.

I talked briefly about the need for safe houses and secure housing. We have heard of situations where women want to leave an exploitive situation but cannot find a safe haven. They do not have access to advocates who can support them because a lot of sexual assault units are not properly funded.

In downtown Toronto, for example, there are agencies helping young street people and yet they have no permanent funding. It goes from year to year. They do not have enough funds to provide the counselling, the advocacy for these sex slave victims.

Members of Parliament who are interested in knowing more about this issue can go to the website, trafficking.ca, which was put forward by the Canadian Council of Refugees. It contains a lot of information. It gives a definition of trafficking and provides recommendations. Round table discussions have been held across the country. There are very specific legislative bills that we can act on right now that could remedy the situation. I hope that we can take immediate action and not necessarily wait until the Olympics come to Canada.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from London—Fanshawe for once again bringing this motion on the issue of human trafficking to the House.

Human trafficking has become a big issue in Canada. After two attempts to get this issue to the status of women committee, I finally got it there. I must commend my colleague for being a part of that committee and getting on the human trafficking issue.

The Government of Canada takes this issue seriously and is taking real action to address this horrendous crime. Several initiatives have already taken place. It is hard to get a hold on the crime of human trafficking. Things need to be put in place quickly to help the victims and our government has done just that. We have taken quick action to implement laws and programs that are helpful to the victims.

In 2007, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced changes to the guidelines for immigration officers to help victims escape the influence of traffickers. The new guidelines extend the length of the temporary resident permit, or TRP, for which victims are eligible from 120 days to 180 days. In individual cases it can be extended beyond that.

With respect to our actions on improving the guidelines to help victims of human trafficking, the president of the Canadian Council for Refugees said:

These measures mean that the government will begin to treat trafficked persons, often women and children, as victims of a crime, rather than as people who should be detained and deported. Like many other organizations, the CCR has been calling for this policy change for several years – we are very pleased....

I must commend members on all sides of this House who have worked hard with our government to ensure that action was taken very quickly.

We have also introduced legislation to help prevent the potential exploitation and abuse of foreign nationals seeking to work in Canada. Bill C-17, which is in committee right now, would help prevent the sexual exploitation and abuse of foreign nationals seeking to work in Canada. It would also address an important gap that currently exists in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-17 would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the authority to instruct immigration officers to deny work permits to individuals who might be at risk of exploitation or abuse should they enter Canada.

Why is that so important? It is important because our law enforcement and NGOs are beginning to understand how easily it is for innocent victims to be trafficked into Canada. As the member for London—Fanshawe said, traffickers become friendly with girls travelling alone. They will convince her that she can have a new life in Canada. They show her how she can get through customs and often the perpetrator is going through customs at the very same time.

The training video for RCMP officers on the human trafficking issue shows how this happens. I was at an event last night where the RCMP video was shown. People need to understand the nature of human trafficking and what happens to these women. Border guards need to be trained and alert. They need to wonder why a girl is travelling alone. They need to ask her questions and listen very carefully to her answers.

Bill C-17 would provide a window for protecting the most vulnerable young men and women. People think it is only women but it is not. Without the authority in Bill C-17, our immigration officers are not able to deny a work permit to someone meeting all the requirements to enter the country, even if they believe there is a strong possibility of exploitation and abuse.

The fact is that a gap exists where people can supposedly meet all the requirements but red flags should go up all over the place when a girl is alone. One must wonder why she cannot answer the questions in quite the way she should.

With respect to Bill C-17, we have strong support from various stakeholders because they have experience working with trafficked people and they know the gap was there, which was frustrating.

Sabrina Sullivan of The Future Group said:

[The] Immigration Minister... has taken an important step to protect women from sexual exploitation and end a program that made Canada complicit in human trafficking. It is clear that [the] Prime Minister’s... government is serious about combating human trafficking.

I would dare say that members on both sides of the House are very concerned about this issue and are very aware that it is a growing issue. They have made a number of recommendations as outlined in the report from the Status of Women to ensure that this human trafficking issue is stopped.

The Salvation Army has worked very extensively with trafficked women and children. Christine MacMillan, the territorial commander for the Salvation Army in Canada and Bermuda, said:

This announcement is an excellent advancement towards the protection of women from sexual exploitation. It is another positive step in the fight against human trafficking, and we are encouraged by the leadership shown by the Federal Government.

As was John Muise, director of public safety for the Canadian Centre of Abuse Awareness, said, “Bill C-17 is part of the response that needs to occur in protecting women and children in the country”.

It goes on and on.

The member for London—Fanshawe mentioned another important point. She talked about the 2010 Olympics. As is well-known, sporting arenas or any big events that occur in any country are often magnets for human traffickers to set up shop and to make as much money as they can off the backs of innocent victims.

I know ministers throughout our government have met, continue to meet and are taking specific action across all ministries to ensure the educational component is in so the public is aware of human trafficking. They are also in the process of implementing initiatives. As the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, I have been very concerned about the 2010 Olympics. It is something that we on the committee for the Status of Women talked about. I dare say that it is something our government is extremely concerned about and is taking concrete action to ensure vulnerable citizens and people from inside and outside of our country are protected.

Also, Bill C-2, which is sitting in the Senate right now, addresses a myriad of crime issues. It would help to put laws in place in Canada to suppress criminals who exploit children, the age of consent being one of those laws. This side of the House has been trying for a long time to raise the age of consent and the bill is still sitting in the Senate. I hear, to my dismay, that about 59 witnesses have been lined up. I am really suspect of the number of witnesses required to get this very important bill through. The age of consent has been in the House for such a long time and was finally put into Bill C-2 and now it is being held up in the Senate.

When we talk in the House about stopping the crimes against vulnerable victims, this is the concrete kind of action that needs to be taken. We need to pass Bill C-2 to ensure the laws of the land are in place to protect our most vulnerable citizens. We need to ensure that Bill C-17 is passed and in place, so border guards and patrols, NGOs and people who work at the borders can spot these vulnerable citizens who come through. We need a tool to use to ensure we can do something in a concrete way and protect these people.

We know human trafficking occurs in Canada. We have studied it and we know about the severity of the situation.

I commend the ministers in our government who have taken this issue extremely seriously. I also commend the members in the House who take this issue very seriously as well.

I caution that we should work together and support this. We can stand in the House and say that we need tougher laws, but when Bill C-2 is stopped in the Senate, we cannot get age of consent on the books as a law of Canada. It means that what is said in the House is not carried through.

We need to ensure that everything is done. Bill C-2 needs to be passed. The age of consent has to be raised. It helps innocent victims, not only the ones who are being trafficked but the young girls who are being sexually exploited. They go to court and because they are a certain age, they are up against older adults who can intimidate them. There is no law in Canada that raises the age of consent. If they are 14 right now and if a lawyer is skilful enough, he can prove it is was consensual sex.

We can do some very concrete things right now. Every one in the House of Commons can support the kinds of things that need to be done by allowing the things to go through in a timely manner and to ensure we also work together for additional support for our most vulnerable citizens, our youth.

The educational component of human trafficking is of paramount importance. If we can as Parliament stand up for the right laws, work together and ensure that Bills C-2 and C-17 are passed, that is a good start.

The educational component for the Olympics is already being talked about as well as other things.

I call on all members in the House to work together. I think we are all on the right page in many respects. We have to put our partisan differences aside and we have to work together.

I commend the member for London—Fanshawe for her interest, her support and for what she has brought forward this morning. However, I caution that the partisan issues need to be set aside. We need to get Bills C-2 and C-17 passed as laws in Canada. Then we have to continue to work, as we all are right now, on the human trafficking issue. It is very serious.

[Francisco Rico-Martinez, Former President, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Because we oppose the bill, we have a proposal to make and you have a copy of the proposal.

As mentioned earlier, one of our areas of priority is focusing on the need for protection for trafficked persons in Canada. We have been advocating for this for many, many years. In 2006, we welcomed Minister Solberg's introduction of guidelines for temporary resident permits as a step in the right direction. However, our monitoring of the experience with these guidelines has convinced us the guidelines are not sufficient to protect trafficked persons.

We decided it is necessary to amend the law to ensure there is a clear and permanent policy of offering protection to trafficked persons. Since measures to prosecute traffickers are in the law, it is appropriate that measures to protect victims are also in the law. Guidelines can only go so far. We know that. They do not have the force of law and may be changed as easily as they are adopted, and we know that as well.

We decided it would be helpful to develop a complete proposal outlining what we see as necessary. We present it to you, and we are going to read the key elements of the proposal.

The main objective of the anti-trafficking legislation must be to protect the human rights of trafficked persons. This bill doesn't.

Canada should follow the definition of trafficking found in the UN protocol. This bill doesn't.

Protection must be offered to trafficked persons without conditions. This bill doesn't.

Immediate temporary protection is to be offered if there are any reasons to suspect the person is a victim of trafficking. This bill doesn't.

There is a possibility of permanent status in certain cases after the trafficked person has had the time to make her own decisions. This bill doesn't.

We must remove from the regulations the provision that makes a risk of trafficking a factor in favour of detention, including of children. Trafficked persons should be treated as the victims of crime, not as criminals.

In conclusion, I have a few extra points. This bill needs a gender analysis. Traffickers exploit people's vulnerabilities and women and children tend, globally, to be more vulnerable than men in this particular area. Trafficking deprives those trafficked of control over their lives. It is therefore extremely important to approach the issue in a way that gives back to trafficked persons full control of their life. Bill C-17 takes exactly the opposite approach, closing off options, rather than giving greater power.

Consider the reports from Eastern Europe that a few years ago, in response to instances of trafficking in women, border officials trying to reduce trafficking refused admission to women trying to cross the border. Perhaps it made it more difficult to traffic women, but this also led to discrimination against women who were simply trying to cross the border to go about their own business.

About children, this bill thoroughly left out children. Children are among those who are trafficked. Bill C-17 fails to protect them because the bill only refers to temporary workers, which legally means persons over 18 years of age, and not children.

Non-status people in Canada are among those who are also exploited. Bill C-17 fails to protect them because they are already in Canada.

We encourage you to study our proposal and take action to have the principles turned into law. Thank you very much.

[Janet Dench]

Thank you.

I am going to split the time I am allowed with my colleague Mr. Rico-Martinez.

The Canadian Council for Refugees is an umbrella organization with about 170 member organizations across Canada. This year, we are celebrating 30 years of work on behalf of refugees and immigrants. Our mandate is the protection of refugees in Canada and around the world, and the settlement of refugees and immigrants in Canada. We are active on a wide range of issues and we have had the privilege of appearing before this committee on a number of these issues in the past.

Our members have been concerned about the question of trafficking in persons for several years. With support from the federal government, we held a series of consultations locally and nationally in 2003, in order to promote awareness and develop recommendations. Through the consultations we identified two priorities: first, a need for increased awareness of the reality of trafficking in Canada, and second, the need for measures of protection for victims of trafficking.

Since then, we have continued our work on trafficking issues, coordinated through a subcommittee of the CCR which brings together representatives from various cities in Canada, in order to promote networking of anti-trafficking activists across the country.

With respect to our reaction to Bill C-17, when the earlier version of the bill was tabled as Bill C-57 we put out a press release giving our response. You should have a copy of that release before you.

We oppose Bill C-17. Not only does it fail to protect the rights of trafficked persons already here in Canada, but furthermore its approach is condescending and moralistic. It empowers visa officers to decide which women should be kept out of Canada for their own good.

We find Bill C-17 problematic in a number of ways. First, the bill fails to address the root problem with the existence in Canada of jobs that humiliate and degrade workers. Work permits can only be issued by visa officers after the employer's job offer has been validated by Human Resources and Social Development Canada. Why is such work available in Canada if it humiliates and degrades workers?

Second, only a handful of work permits have been issued to exotic dancers in recent years. Parliamentary time would be better used to address the broader problem of the exploitation of non-citizens in Canada.

Third, the bill proposes to address the problem of exploitation by excluding people, mostly women, from Canada. It is demeaning for women to have a visa officer decide that they should be kept out of Canada for their own protection.

The bill also fails to address the situation of the most vulnerable of exploited non-citizens, those who have no valid work permit. In fact, closing the door on valid work permits may expose women to greater vulnerability, by forcing them underground.

The government's focus on strippers betrays a moralistic approach. Instead of passing moral judgment, the government should work on ensuring that non-citizens' rights are protected and that they have the freedom to make informed choices about their own lives.

We also note that where there is a suspicion of trafficking, it is wrong to simply refuse a work permit to a woman without referring her to the appropriate local institutions or authorities for her protection and for the prosecution of the criminals involved. This is a clear violation of our international obligation under the UN protocol.

[John Muise, Director, Public Safety, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness]

Thank you, Mr. Doyle.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the immigration committee.

Just by way of introduction, I'm a retired 30-year veteran of the Toronto Police Service. I retired last year and have been the director of public safety at the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness on a more or less full-time basis for almost two years and as a volunteer for several years previous to that.

I've been to Ottawa on a number of occasions testifying on a number of criminal justice bills, but this is my first time before this committee, so thank you for the invitation and the opportunity.

Since 1993, the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness, an organization that survives solely through charitable donations, has raised awareness about the true cost of neglect through its support of victims of child abuse. Based in Newmarket, Ontario, north of Toronto, the CCAA is powered by a committed group of staff and volunteers who provide support to 70 partner agencies—we have a little warehouse, and we give stuff out to them, among a number of other things. Whether it's fulfilling a child's dream wish, assisting crime victims, developing abuse prevention programs and resources, or advocating publicly for legislative change—that's what I do—CCAA is committed to ending abuse.

In 2004, the CCAA went around the province of Ontario and spoke to 150 front-line criminal justice professionals, crime victims, survivors, and other interested parties, and from their voices we wrote a report called the Martin's Hope report, named in memory of Martin Kruze. Some of you will know that name. He was the survivor of the Maple Leaf Gardens child sexual abuse, who courageously disclosed publicly, and then subsequently, four days after his offender received two years less a day in prison—I guess it was the last straw for him—he jumped off the Danforth Viaduct.

The report lists 60 recommendations, 40 for legislative reform, directed at the federal government. We released the report in 2004, and we continue our work to try to get the recommendations instituted. Many of them relate to children in the sex trade, sex tourism, and similar ancillary matters.

With respect to the bill today, that human trafficking is an issue of significant worldwide concern there can be no doubt. Trafficking in women and children is a global issue that results in untold agony and suffering for hundreds of thousands of individuals and families. Source countries are most often third world and/or developing, where poverty is widespread, the rule of law is at best a fleeting mirage, and corruption is endemic. A number of government and NGO publications have and continue to detail this trade, and few, if any, commentators refute it.

Although Canada is not considered a source country, it is a destination and transit country for women and children trafficked into the commercial sex trade. Countries in Asia and eastern Europe are the principal sources, in addition to a number of other locations around the world. Asian victims often arrive in Vancouver and western Canada, and eastern European victims come to Toronto and other eastern Canadian urban centres.

That we are a destination should come as no surprise. With economic opportunity, the rule of law, little or no government corruption, and absence of civil strife and violence—quite frankly an embarrassment of riches—is it any wonder that we would have a flood of immigrants hoping for a new and wonderful life here in Canada? Whatever the reason or intention of the person arriving, the expectation is of a life improved, not impoverished.

The commercial and illegal sex trade is alive, living, and well in this country, from strip clubs or exotic dance clubs to the street corner, massage parlours, Internet child abuse, escort agencies, bawdy houses, telephone and Internet dating, and so-called holistic centres to name but a few. Anyone who has browsed the back pages of any urban independent daily, like the Toronto-based NOW magazine, or Eye Weekly, will find it all up front and centre for anybody to see, and much of it focuses on ethnicity and age. I'm talking about the fact of age being young, not old.

It's not so secret, a commercial and illegal sex trade. Page after page of adult classifieds offering all varieties of sexual services for a fee are on display, and many of the classified ads focus on the ethnicity of the provider. The sex trade is out in the open and booming, and it's clear what's being offered.

We don't believe that individuals wake up one day and decide, “Yes, I think I'd like to give a career in the commercial sex trade a try.” Although personal choice is usually a precursor--unless false pretenses or force are used--it is almost always as a result of life circumstances, including poverty, abuse, and other negative social circumstances that they may be escaping here in this country or from abroad. Even if some make the choice of their own free will, the majority are later subjected to emotional and physical abuse, forced drug use and concurrent addiction, and theft of income. As a result, many end up as indentured sex slaves.

These are the circumstances that confront a Canadian who ends up in the sex trade. The vulnerability and risk for a foreign national on a temporary visa would be increased significantly.

The CCAA raises all of this not because we are here looking for this committee to eradicate the sex trade. That won't ever happen. There has always been a sex trade and that will never change. Our concern is for the vulnerable and at-risk, people who the CCAA sees--and, we believe, society increasingly sees--as crime victims. Make no mistake about it, the people plying their trade in the back pages of these urban dailies and many others like them are the victims of serious crimes. Some have been victimized through human trafficking.

Our focus is on how we as a society can best ameliorate the risk to those vulnerable at the hands of these sex entrepreneurs and predators. We see the response happening across a number of fronts, including prosecution, prevention, and education. Before I finish today, I will briefly touch on some of those.

I was also happy to see Ms. Chow, Mr. Komarnicki, Mr. Carrier, and Mr. Batters all speak to some of the things that need to be done concurrently or post this legislation.

As all of you know, the amendment in Bill C-17, previously Bill C-57, proposes to protect from exploitation and abuse the potentially vulnerable foreign nationals who come to work in Canada. Doing so would allow--with concurrence from a second and presumably supervisory officer--an immigration officer or visa officer to refuse entry by a foreign national to work in Canada, where a person is “at risk of being subjected to humiliating or degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation”. That's what the legislation says. The guidelines or regulations governing this policy would require posting in the very public Canada Gazette.

We understand that current government policy decisions all but disallow entry to anyone who applies for work in the exotic dancer category. We salute the effort on that front to reduce sexual exploitation. We believe the proposed legislation takes these good policy intentions to the next level by providing statutory clarity. In other words, it would be carved in stone, and the policy underpinnings of the statutory requirement can be amended as necessary in real time for inclusion in the weekly Canada Gazette for all citizens to see. This approach, we would contend, is open and transparent, and we support it.

I know that some of you have wondered why this might be necessary when government policy already functionally does this in relation to those who attempt to enter as exotic dancers. In the same way the tap was recently turned off for exotic dancers, future governments could turn it back on. With this legislation, if an attempt is made to do that, presumably we'd find out as a result of the altered public policy published in the public Canada Gazette.

In addition, it should be noted that the language used in the enabling amendment in Bill C-17 would make it difficult to do this in any radical way. We believe there's a good way to conduct government business and enhance public safety and the prevention of crime at the same time.

Though we support this proposed amendment, we would be remiss if we didn't point out the necessity of responding to the issue of human trafficking on a number of fronts. Some of you participated in, or are certainly aware of, the work done by the Status of Women committee on human trafficking. Due to circumstances beyond our control, we were unable to attend and present, but we had made a number of recommendations for legislative and policy reform in relation to the sex trade. We've included them in our Martin's Hope report. They can also be viewed on our home page, at www.ccfaa.com. I'll provide this to the clerk later.

In any event, as you continue this essential work, these priority areas require more attention, in addition to this proposed legislation, if we are to protect those most vulnerable. The three areas that we think need significant help include working with all provinces to encourage passage of provincial legislation that will allow intervention to rescue children lost in the sex trade, and also, as a component of that legislation, providing enhanced licensing mechanisms to allow unfettered entry, padlocking, asset forfeiture, and prosecution of sex entrepreneur predators. These are the premises where we will find those who have been trafficked into the sex trade. Some of these premises are here in this magazine.

We should work with the provinces to provide the resources necessary to local and provincial law enforcement to create specialized units dedicated to the fight against human trafficking and other forms of sexual exploitation. We applaud the first step of creation of the national coordinating unit and the support provided to victims of human trafficking, including the extension of work visas and the protection of people who actually come forward.

The reality is that to track this problem in a substantive rather than accidental way, which is how most trafficking investigations are commenced now, we need boots on the ground locally and provincially. Organizations like the Ontario Provincial Police and the Toronto Police Service need to be able to do this.

The last one is to ensure appropriate training for immigration officers--I know Ms. Chow spoke to this in a certain fashion--to best recognize those at the highest risk for being trafficked into the sex trade and to ensure entry is denied where the risk is high. In addition, we should ensure appropriate government manpower is available to provide follow-up investigations in this country where certain temporary workers might have an increased possibility of risk for sexual exploitation. These are some of the things that Mr. Carrier, Mr. Batters, and Mr. Komarnicki spoke of.

This committee may want to consider a request to the interdepartmental working group to consider and develop these three recommendations.

Finally, we'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to weigh in on this most important public safety matter. If there is anything that CCAA can do in relation to the human trafficking file or as it relates to the points immediately above, we stand ready to help.

Thank you very much.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Well, I guess we'll put Bill C-17 off until we get the information.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

We'll stall Bill C-17 until we get the information, Mr. Chair. Is that what you're suggesting?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, before the witnesses go, they did undertake to provide us some information. Through you, sir, I would like to ask directly to the witnesses what would be an acceptable time before we get those answers.

The parliamentary secretary will want us to move Bill C-17 along. I don't want to stall Bill C-17 while we still don't have an answer. Unless we get the answers, we can't move along, so I want to find out, through you, sir, what's an acceptable timetable.

[Les Linklater]

Bill C-17, Mr. Chair, would allow CIC officers to refuse a work permit to someone because of their own characteristics. Where they may face that abuse or exploitation right now, the act and regulations are very directive that subject to the criteria being met, a work permit shall be issued.

To allow the minister to have the same authority to refuse as she does to overcome inadmissibilities is the key here.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the officials being able to take the time to appear before our committee.

I have a quick question I want to lead you into, Mr. Linklater. I was hoping we'd touch on this, but we haven't yet.

I think we're all in agreement with the purpose of Bill C-17; there are just a lot of questions around the table as to the details, and the devil is in the details. I think we need to have a lot better explanation of how this is going to work with our visa officers abroad, in terms of how these decisions will be made.

For instance, Lady X from Hungary goes to a job in Canada with what many of us in this room and most Canadians would consider an unscrupulous employer--a massage parlour owner. She has a job contract that says she's going to be a cleaner, a waitress, or a registered massage therapist, but that's not the case. She knows exactly what type of work she's going to be doing; she's going to be in the sex trade and she's going to be doing things that are illegal in this country.

Isn't it true that Citizenship and Immigration Canada will ultimately be working with partners such as the RCMP or Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to actually follow up and target which employers are unscrupulous and keep a list of them that will help the visa officers abroad? From my understanding and reading of Bill C-17, unless our visa officers abroad have a list of places that are unscrupulous, they can be told all kinds of stories. How can they possibly make a determination of who is going to work as a legitimate worker and not be exploited, and who will be exploited in Canada?

[Les Linklater]

Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, Bill C-17 is one of the tools we wanted to add to our toolbox. For example, we work with our colleagues from Human Resources and Social Development Canada on developing a framework for overseeing employers in Canada, in cooperation with the provinces. Most of them have responsibility for managing labour standards and the labour market. Bill C-17 will contribute to that effort, which will make it possible to provide vulnerable workers with greater protection.

[Les Linklater]

That is a very good question, Mr. Chair.

My response would be that we know that about one-half of all temporary foreign workers who come to Canada every year are what we would call low-skilled: people who are required to have high school education or less to perform the work that's being offered in Canada. Many of these people are coming from countries where English or French is not widely spoken. Bill C-17 would certainly provide additional opportunities for protections for that segment of the temporary foreign worker population.

As has also been mentioned, we've seen a growth in the number of temporary foreign workers over the last few years, particularly of the low-skilled, driven by economic developments. We feel that the authorities in Bill C-17 would be helpful to ensure broader protection.

[Les Linklater]

Mr. Chair, Bill C-17 would build on some of the things that have already been done. In June, the minister announced an extension of the temporary resident permit for victims of trafficking from 120 to 180 days. This allows them to have access to services, including trauma counselling.

[Les Linklater]

With the growth of the temporary foreign worker program over the last number of years, we really do need to look at a suite of measures to ensure that while the economy gets the skills it needs, we are putting in place the appropriate checks and balances to make sure that workers are not going to be abused or exploited by unscrupulous employers or recruiters or agents.

Bill C-17, as I said, is one of the pieces of that tool kit, if you will, that would allow us to provide that extra measure of protection when, all things being equal, the person might be able to do the job but because of their own circumstances--poor language skills, lack of supports, their own personal experiences--they would be at risk of abuse once here in Canada.

[Les Linklater]

Yes, a lot of the authorities around monitoring and compliance can be done through regulation. One missing piece that Bill C-17 does move to fill is the whole issue of negative discretion based on the individual circumstances. So even though the employer may have a legitimate job to offer in Canada, if in fact there is evidence that the person in their individual circumstances could be abused, or is at risk of exploitation, we would be able to refuse the work permit for their protection.

[Les Linklater]

We're looking at unscrupulous recruiters. Certainly the western provinces, Alberta in particular, have legislation on the books that prohibits recruiters from charging fees to the workers they recruit. As part of our broader work on temporary foreign worker reform, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we're looking at ways, with HRSDC, Service Canada, and the Canadian Border Services Agency, to work with the provinces to ensure that we're working with recruiters who are above board.

One of the issues we find with recruiters is that we learn about their presence only if the applicants themselves tell us or have a complaint to make about them, and if they're receiving a benefit it's unlikely they are going to come forward with any complaint about a recruiter.

We feel that with Bill C-17 as part of our tool kit we would be able to limit the exposure and, as part of the assessment of the overall application, tell the individual that we think, given the evidence that we have linking the particular occupation or the situation the person is destined to, that with the person's individual characteristics, he or she might be at risk of abuse.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

So we have no figures of how many people Bill C-17 would actually affect, besides the exotic dancers.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

But this Bill C-17 will in fact be an administrative bill that will look after the 113,000 temporary work permits that were issued last year. This bill would affect them, would be administrative.

[Les Linklater, Director General, Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Les Linklater and I'm the Director General of the Immigration Branch of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to speak to you today on Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the IRPA.

When the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration appeared before the committee in November, you heard about the government's commitment to improve its immigration programming, including numerous improvements to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

But any improvements in efficiency must be accompanied by better controls and protection for vulnerable workers in order to encourage the legal movement of Temporary Foreign Workers into Canada.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and its regulations allow officers to refuse work permits based on concerns such as prior criminal convictions or medical conditions. Bill C-17 would go further. It would allow officers to prevent prospective temporary foreign workers from entering Canada when doing so would subject them to the risk of exploitation and abuse.

It is well known that Canada has always extended the same protections to temporary foreign workers that Canadians are afforded. Unfortunately, as the committee knows, temporary foreign workers who have weak official language skills, an absence of friends or family in Canada, and little money, perhaps, given a fear of police and/or government, sometimes need more protection than Canadian workers need. Their lack of support networks in Canada leaves them vulnerable to unscrupulous employers or job brokers. Bill C-17 is one of a series of steps the government is taking to reduce this risk of exploitation.

Bill C-17 begins by seeking to change the objectives set out in paragraph 3(1)(h) of IRPA from protecting the health and safety of Canadians to protecting public health and safety of any person who is in Canada legally, including temporary entrants. The government's obligation to protect health and safety should embrace any person who is in Canada legally, whether they are a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident, or a temporary resident.

Bill C-17 then goes on to provide that, on instructions issued by the minister, immigration officers would be allowed to refuse work permits to foreign nationals who otherwise qualify but who officers believe would be at risk of humiliating or degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation, once they are admitted to Canada.

You will note the emphasis on “officers”, Mr. Chair, because under the legislation, applicants cannot be refused work permits based on ministerial instructions without the concurrence of two immigration officers. This provision reduces the likelihood of an instruction being applied inappropriately or incorrectly.

It is important to note that the legislation itself does not provide any instructions. It merely establishes the authority for the minister to issue instructions. Such instructions will only be issued where there is objective evidence that concerns for the safety of some temporary foreign worker applicants are serious and well-founded. This may cover exotic dancers as well as other potential victims of human trafficking or other abuse or exploitation, but the research and analysis to support any such instructions has not yet been completed.

Each decision involving any future instructions would be made by immigration officers on a case-by-case basis. Each application for a work permit would be assessed on its own merits.

Instructions must be published in the Canada Gazette to become effective. Being the federal government's publication of record, the Canada Gazette is regularly reviewed by the media, the immigration bar, and any other interested parties.

Furthermore, any instructions issued during each year must be reported in the Minister's Annual Report to Parliament. This degree of transparency is essential, given the discretionary nature of the authority.

Mr. Chair, the committee knows this discretionary authority is similar to powers found in the laws of Australia and the United Kingdom. It is also similar to a provision that currently exists within IRPA that allows the minister to exercise positive discretion, that is, to waive inadmissibility based on public policy considerations.

Bill C-17 is one of many steps CIC is taking along with our colleagues at Human Resources and Social Development Canada/Service Canada to make the temporary foreign worker program better for employers and better for foreign and Canadian workers.

Following a series of administrative measures announced since November 2006, including improved employer outreach and streamlined processes, Budget 2007 provided new funding for CIC and HRSDC to deal with increased volumes more efficiently, to fill gaps in current programming, and to establish a more effective monitoring and compliance framework for the temporary foreign worker program.

We are aware of the need to improve the program to ensure employers are meeting their commitments to workers, and that workers have the tools to raise awareness of their rights and responsibilities.

Provinces and territories, which are largely responsible for monitoring of employment standards and occupational health and safety, are also actively engaging on this file.

The recently signed Canada-Alberta and Canada-Nova Scotia agreements on immigration contain provisions to negotiate an annex on temporary foreign workers in the coming months, including recognition of the need to protect the interests of workers.

We are also working to help temporary foreign workers in Ontario by making workers aware of eligibility requirements for health insurance, benefits, pension plans, and other protections under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Employment Standards Act, and the Labour Relations Act. Along with Bill C-17, these and other measures will help to maintain the integrity of Canada's immigration program.

Citizenship and Immigration will continue to address the issue of protecting vulnerable workers temporarily in Canada in coordination with many other federal departments that aim to address these challenges.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

So, Mr. St-Cyr, you have big shoes to fill.

I want to welcome two panels today.

Our first panel will be officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Mr. Les Linklater, director general of the immigration branch; Maia Welbourne, director of temporary resident policy and programs development, immigration branch; and Mr. Eric Stevens.

Welcome to all of you as we begin consideration of Bill C-17. Thank you for coming today.

We have a new analyst at the table as well; Laura Barnett is from the law and government division. Laura will be helping us with our consideration of Bill C-17.

We will begin immediately.

I will pass it over to you to make some opening statements if you so wish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Our meeting will come to order.

I want to welcome all of you here to our committee today as we begin consideration of Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I want to welcome a new member from the Bloc party, Mr. St.-Cyr, who is taking the place of Madame Faille. Welcome.

I think we should instruct our clerk to write a letter of thanks to Madame Faille for the great contribution she's made to the committee over the years. She has been an invaluable member of the committee, so I think we should do that.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you.

First of all, I would like to thank the committee for all the work it has done on the lost Canadians issue. We have been following your deliberations very closely, and we are factoring that into the legislation we'll be proposing. I'm hoping we'll be able to move that through pretty quickly. Obviously, I'm interested because Bill C-17 is already coming before this committee, and having that one go through, we can get that protection to people who don't have it now even sooner.

In terms of the worker shortages across the country, you're absolutely right on that one. I hear it wherever I go. We have an aging population, a dwindling birth rate, people who are retiring earlier and expecting to retire even earlier, and it's creating worker shortages right from the PhD level. We're short of PhDs in research. We're short of almost every position, right down to dishwashers. It's a challenge to meet our labour market needs, no question. That's why we've done so many things to try to expand the temporary foreign worker program. We've worked with the provinces as well to expand the provincial nominee programs, because each region has unique needs and we didn't want to impose national program criteria on them.

We've been working with them so they can individually reflect their own needs, and we're really pleased to see the progress many of them have made in advancing the PNP. As I mentioned, Manitoba has been a real leader in this field. Nova Scotia is jumping on board. Alberta is going full-steam ahead, and of course we've opened new TFW offices in B.C. and Alberta to help them meet their temporary foreign worker needs.

One of the challenges with granting some sort of recognition program to those workers who are in the country right now who are undocumented...it's twofold. I'm very sympathetic to the uncertainty they face. But one of my great concerns, of course, is that if we recognize these individuals and grant them permission to stay here right out of the chute, then it's a question of fairness to people who have been waiting for a very long time to come here through legal channels. My concern is if we were to put forward that position, we would be encouraging more and more illegal entrants. That's not something we want to do. That would not help preserve the integrity of our immigration system.

I would point out, too, that a previous Liberal immigration minister took much the same position as I'm taking. I have a quote:

...the granting of a blanket amnesty to undocumented foreign workers would send the message that there is a reward for those who remain in Canada without the proper authorization.

This is something I'm very concerned about, protecting the integrity of our immigration system.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, honourable members, for allowing me the opportunity to be back here before you.

As you know, you have before you my department's supplementary estimates (A) for the current fiscal year for your consideration and approval. I'm looking forward to your feedback, and I'd be happy to respond to any questions you have after I make my opening statement.

Mr. Chair, most of the items in the estimates are routine in nature. I would, however, like to draw your attention to two items in the estimates, which reflect fundamental changes we are making to our immigration program in order to make it more responsive to the needs of the Canadian labour market.

First, I wish to note spending of almost $4.6 million for our Temporary Foreign Worker program, an increase of 10%. As you know, the program allows employers to hire temporary foreign workers when there are no Canadian citizens or permanent residents available for the positions needed.

And as you are also no doubt aware, Canada is facing a crucial need for more skilled workers in different regions of the country.

We continue to respond to that need. Last year we took in over 112,000 temporary foreign workers; two years ago that number was just over 99,000. This reflects substantial growth in this program.

As we bring in more temporary foreign workers, we also need to ensure they are protected in the same way all Canadian workers are. We must ensure employers comply with the terms of the contracts they enter into with workers from abroad, honour these contracts, and treat temporary foreign workers fairly, the same way all other Canadian workers are treated. Additionally, we must work with the provinces to ensure labour standards are met.

While a number of facilitative measures have been taken by Human Resources and Social Development and CIC, additional work does remain. This includes the introduction of more robust monitoring and compliance provisions to ensure the temporary foreign worker program continues to help meet the needs of the economy while taking measures to prevent abuse and exploitation of immigrants to Canada.

To better ensure worker protection, Budget 2007 allocated $51 million for improvements to the program. My colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, and I will be bringing forward regulatory proposals in 2008 to enable implementation of these proposals.

Mr. Chair, the other item to which I would draw your attention is the $2.3 million allocated to support our foreign credentials referrals office, or FCRO, that I launched in May this year.

Let me be very clear: our government wants newcomers and their families to succeed in Canada. And newcomers want to contribute to our country by working in the fields for which they have been trained. We want to help them do that. But as all of us know, it is all too common for individuals to come to Canada and find either that their professional credentials from other countries are not recognized here or that the process to have them assessed is slow and complicated.

While provinces have jurisdiction over regulating professions, the federal government has a responsibility to give newcomers the information and references they need to find how their professional credentials could be assessed and recognized, what upgrades they might need to meet Canadian standards, and what jobs might be available in various fields. We know that there is a real need to provide this information to newcomers. And in many cases, if we provide information to prospective immigrants abroad, they can take steps to get accredited before they come to Canada so that when they arrive, they can contribute more quickly by working in their chosen field.

As I said, I launched the program in May with six Service Canada centres offering foreign credential referral services in person. By the end of this month, there will be over 300 Service Canada centres across the country offering this service in person, as well as via telephone and on the Internet. Since its launch, the credentials.gc.ca website has had over 120,000 hits, two-thirds of which were from outside the country. The dedicated phone line has received over 900 calls, of which half were for information and half for referrals to assessment bodies. In addition, overseas sections have served more than 1,200 prospective immigrants already.

In addition to providing these services, the FCRO is also working with federal partners, provincial and territorial governments, employers, and other stakeholders to work together on this important issue.

As well as reaching prospective immigrants through our website, FCRO is also working overseas through pilot programs in China, India, and the Philippines to help skilled workers in these countries prepare to work in Canada while they're still overseas.

In fact, I traveled to India just a couple of weeks ago, where I had a chance to visit these pilot orientation sessions, delivered through a contribution agreement to the Association of Canadian Community Colleges. I also met key people in the business and education communities and told them about our programs so that they might encourage talented people to come to Canada. This chance to see our programs gave me a valuable personal insight, both into the programs we support and the dedication of our people overseas.

Mr. Chair, there are two items in the estimates that highlight efforts to make our programs more responsive to the labour market. This was a goal we articulated in Advantage Canada, the government's economic plan.

Toward it, one of the significant initiatives that we launched this year is the Canadian experience class. First announced in the last federal budget, this new immigration stream will allow certain temporary foreign workers and students graduating from Canadian universities to apply for permanent resident status without having to leave the country. Previously, students and temporary workers had to go back to their home country to apply.

This, we believe, will help us tap into a pool of talented people who've already demonstrated that they can succeed in our economy and in our society. It will also help us retain those students already studying here; it will help temporary foreign workers benefit from the Canadian work experience they are busy building and enable employers to recruit talented newcomers.

The good news is it's a two-way street. We believe the prospect of eventual Canadian citizenship gives us a marketing advantage as our schools and our employers look to recruit the best and the brightest from around the world.

This program will let us keep good people, not just in our major urban centres, where many newcomers head, but in rural areas as well.

If they have studied in a rural area or worked there temporarily, they may be more likely to remain there. We want to ensure that the entire country benefits from immigration. We want to get the right people in the right place at the right time. The Canada Experience Class will help us do that.

At the same time, we will ensure the smooth operation of the Provincial Nominee Program, which has grown substantially. The program allows the provinces to identify the people they need, and we help to get them here quickly.

Manitoba has been a leading participant in this area, welcoming close to 5,000 people last year--almost double the number of a year earlier--and other provinces are catching on as well. For example, we recently signed new framework agreements with Alberta and Nova Scotia that include provincial nominee annexes, while the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has just renewed a prior agreement.

Mr. Chair, we are also putting substantial effort into helping people succeed once they arrive here. The government's commitment of $1.3 billion for settlement funding across the country represents a significant increase in this important area. Working closely with the provinces and service providers, we are helping newcomers find jobs and integrate into communities and schools.

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I just don't have time to go over all the recent and upcoming initiatives in my department, but I trust that members have reviewed the annual report tabled in Parliament on October 31. This demonstrates that we will continue to play an important humanitarian role in accepting refugees and in reuniting families.

Committee members are aware of our specific commitments to resettle several thousand Karen, Bhutanese and Iraqi refugees. For Canadians looking to sponsor a relative from Iraq, we are processing those applications on a priority basis.

Beyond this, I have also initiated measures to assist the population of ethnic Vietnamese in the Philippines to apply for admission on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. This group, which has been a focus of attention for this committee, has welcomed the initiative.

Before concluding, Mr. Chair, I'd like to touch on a couple of pieces of legislation that I look forward to working on with this committee in the months ahead.

Bill C-17 addresses an important gap that currently exists in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The proposed amendments in this bill would give me, as the minister, the authority to instruct immigration officers to deny work permits to individuals who might be at risk of exploitation or abuse should they enter Canada. Without this authority, our immigration officers are not able to deny a work permit to someone meeting all the requirements to enter the country even if they believe there is a strong possibility of that individual's exploitation or abuse.

As the honourable members know, temporary foreign workers--some with weak language skills, with no family or friends in Canada, and often with very little money--sometimes need more protection than Canadian workers. Some of these individuals could be at risk of degrading treatment, such as sexual exploitation.

The amendments we are proposing would make Canada a safer place by helping us stop human trafficking at our borders. I therefore urge all honourable members to stand with key stakeholder groups such as the Salvation Army, the Stop the Trafficking Coalition, and The Future Group and support this important legislation.

The other piece of legislation on which I look forward to working with you concerns citizenship. The issue of “Lost Canadians" preoccupied this committee, and me, in the last session. I promised to bring forward legislation to address it. In the interim, I have used my discretionary powers to grant citizenship to some of those affected in this manner. We will clarify the rules governing the loss of citizenship and work to make them fairer. And we will do so in a way that protects the value of Canadian citizenship.

I look forward to tabling this draft legislation in the near future.

We have celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Citizenship Act over the past year, and I've had the tremendous opportunity to attend many citizenship ceremonies. I have to tell you, seeing citizenship through the eyes of newcomers who have just become Canadians certainly underscores the enormous privilege it is to be a Canadian citizen.

To conclude, the values we cherish as Canadians—freedom, peace, and respect—help make up the foundation of Canadian citizenship and immigration. I welcome the opportunity to work with the members of this committee to put these values into practice and to highlight Canada as a country that welcomes newcomers from wherever they come.

As the Prime Minister noted of the welcoming nature of Canadians:

East and West, North and South, French and English, immigrant and Native-born, we are all proud champions of these founding values—of the Canadian way.

Thank you for your time. I am now prepared to take questions.

Thank you for your time. I will now be prepared to answer your questions.

Human Trafficking

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, our government is taking real action to address human trafficking and to prevent the exploitation of women and children.

We have taken several initiatives, including a series of changes to the immigration guidelines that would address the unique needs of victims of human trafficking.

Yesterday, we reintroduced Bill C-17, legislation to help prevent the exploitation and abuse of foreign nationals seeking to work in Canada.

I would urge all members of the House to put aside their partisan ways, to do the right thing, get behind Bill C-17 and support it.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to a special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-57 was at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)