Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 3rd, 2008

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

And did all those who came here come on private sponsorships?

[Martin Dolin]

No. Very few have come here. That's what I'm saying.

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

Private sponsors have indicated they will sponsor war refugees if they could. The backlog of applications....

[Martin Dolin]

Manitoba Interfaith is the largest private sponsor in Canada, aside from handling government-sponsored refugees. As Hani pointed out, the Iraqi community is one of our constituent groups. Yes, we would most certainly be able to handle many more.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome before the committee. It is extremely interesting for us to receive this type of information directly from people on the ground.

As MPs and as citizens, we are all interested in what is happening in Iraq. I would like you to come back to the issue of fast-tracking the refugees application process. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, is present on the ground.

Did you say that our department or some departments of other governments are involved in these matters afterwards? Is there a common selection process of refugees? How are they selected? We have been told that 20,000 applications were made in 2007 but that only 4,500 refugees have really been accepted out of this number. We have also heard information on how they are apportioned between various countries.

Does the UNHCR refer refugees to various countries which are then free to accept or refuse them? If a refugee is not accepted by a country, the whole process has to start all over again. It would be much simpler if each country were to set its own acceptance criteria in consultation with UNHCR in order to make sure that the selected country would accept those refugees referred by the United Nations High Commission.

[Martin Dolin]

It's hard for me to speak for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, but let me explain my understanding of what they have told us about the way they choose. Basically the signatories to the covenant on refugee protection in the United Nations.... Canada is a signatory. There are few receiving countries. They are now getting more. As I mentioned earlier, a refugee, by definition--and there are various little subheadings to this--is a person who has been persecuted in their country of origin, who has reasonable reason to fear being persecuted if they are returned to their country of origin, and who is outside of their country of origin. That is the basic definition.

The UN makes referrals to the refugee-accepting countries based on that definition. The major countries are the United States, Australia, the Scandinavian countries, Canada, etc. Canada, per capita, takes more than its share. One of the things the UN has told me is that it's based on posts. For example, we have only four posts in Africa that deal with refugees. Now, considering the scenario that's going on in Africa compared to the number of posts we have in Europe, it strikes one that there is an anomaly there. Why are there only those four posts that deal with refugees, in Nairobi, Cairo, Accra, and Pretoria, leaving a huge hole in the centre? Nairobi, in particular, is overwhelmed.

The United Nations tells me they will refer to various countries based on what they feel the expeditiousness of doing it will be. So, for example, what I have been told particularly by a UNHCR officer from the Horn of Africa is that they will refer to Australia or Scandinavia first for the most urgent cases. The reason they give is that it takes Canada so long to process. If they need to move people quickly, they need them processed quickly, so they'll go to the Australians, and they'll go to the Americans before they will go to Canada.

This embarrasses me as a Canadian. It should embarrass all of us. There is something wrong with our system if we can't process as quickly as the other receiving countries.

So when you're asking me how the UN determines, I think they determine the urgency of need, and then if it's really urgent they won't go to Canada; they'll go someplace else because our system is not effective.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Once the United Nations High Commission for Refugees refers some people to Canada, that triggers a selection process, which you say is much too long. Has it ever happened that Canada has refused some refugees that had been referred by the High Commission and who were then sent back to the High Commission? How does this work?

[Martin Dolin]

Yes. UNHCR usually refers refugees who have already been screened by UNHCR. They determine the urgency of need and the need for protection. These are usually people who are in refugee camps being run by the UN. Yes, Canada does refuse them based on interviews, or for a number of reasons, but in most cases UNHCR referrals are accepted. That's my understanding. You could check with CIC to see whether that's the case, but most of them are accepted. As a matter of fact, I think our immigration officers go to the camps and work with UNHCR to determine who comes here as a government-sponsored refugee.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You have been very active about the issue of Iraqi refugees. Supposing that peace is eventually restored in Iraq, are the present refugees the cause of the military intervention that is still going on there? Do you believe that the situation will be resolved once the foreign Forces, such as the Americans, have left the country? Or will the problem remain, if one considers that it is an internal problem due to the situation in the country itself and not a problem caused by the military invasion?

[Martin Dolin]

The question is...first, you mention a peaceful solution in Iraq. That would be when pigs can fly.

The reality is that, yes, the cause of the problem is the American invasion and the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein. What you have now is sectarian warfare in what has basically become a failed state. Can it be blamed entirely on the Americans? I would say the Americans played a significant part in invading Iraq and not exercising control, not developing police, and not keeping the infrastructure intact, etc. But what we're concerned about is the future.

Are there people who are fleeing there who cannot go back and who are going to be stuck in limbo in Syria or Jordan, people who have families here? I think we have a role and an obligation to help protect these people--by stabilizing the situation in the countries they fled to by allowing them to eat properly and have roofs over their heads, in the remote possibility that the situation gets stabilized--and to bring those people who have families here to be reunited with their families. I think we have an obligation to do that.

Who's to blame? I think anybody can make that judgment. Certainly the Americans had a significant role in declaring an illegal war without UN sanction; Canada was smart enough to say that we did not want to be part of it. The coalition of the killing is going on, but that's not the issue. The issue is about the people who have been affected by this, who have fled, and whose lives are in danger. I think we as Canadians have some responsibility to help them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

The one common complaint we've heard in the 12 or 15 panels that we've heard so far between Vancouver and here is that the system is so slow. It is so slow. I think as a committee we're going to have to really look into it. When we make our recommendations, we need to be able to make some good recommendations as to how we can expedite that whole process--not only make renewed commitments to bring more people in, but to find out what's causing all these delays and why we are so slow in trying to move some of these people in here.

[Martin Dolin]

I appreciate that the committee is going to do this. I think it's long overdue.

I've been in this business for 18 years, working with the department. In the 1990s, when Barbara McDougall was the minister, things moved more quickly. It was more efficient, and the numbers being processed were higher. The financial cutbacks in the mid-1990s and the number of staff have never been restored.

Another issue, from my perspective, is that I see glitches and inefficiencies in the system. I think you keep asking the people who are responsible for the system, which is the bureaucracy within CIC in Ottawa, to repair something they have created. This doesn't work very well.

I think the committee should be recommending some external audit of the system to get some efficiency experts in to take a look at some of the processes of the department to see whether it can be sped up at an affordable cost--without necessarily changing the system, particularly, but making it more efficient. To ask the people who have created the system to do this I think is spitting into the wind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Telegdi, did you have any additional comments?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Yes, I do.

On some of the questions you have been asking of the panel and the chair, I think we can do it if we want to. We have done it when we wanted to. We can really take a leadership role in this, and we will do immensely more in helping to stabilize the region than the Americans did in spending billions and billions and billions of dollars in creating the mess there. So we can definitely do it.

Whenever I deal with a conflict like this, it really haunts me. When I was in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I saw unbelievable things. You fly in and see Mostar. When you're high up, it looks like a normal place; then you drop down and approach it, and you see that the roofs are gone in many cases. And when you go through the place, you find that the places where the minorities lived—the three groups, the Serbs, the Croatians, and the Muslims—have been ethnically cleansed.

I remember going to an elementary school where there was wood, or uncut lumber, up against the windows. I asked the guide why it was there, whether it was for firewood. He said, no, it was to stop grenades from being thrown in the windows. It really is awful. I can't overstate enough the tragedies that are happening to all of these people, and we can do a whole lot by providing some leadership.

Now, Mr. Dolin, you mentioned that the bureaucracy created the problem doesn't want to fix the problem. I really have concerns, because we will be dealing with Bill C-50, which would have us give more power to the bureaucracy to make the decisions. I know it says it will be done by the minister, but legal guarantees will be replaced by the pleasure of the minister, which really comes down to bureaucratic discretion, because they're the ones who are doing it. We'll be dealing with that bill, but what you said clearly points to a problem.

I said to the members of the committee, because I've been on this committee for 10 years—and I'm not just picking on the ministers of today or the Conservative ministers, as I have said this to all of the ministers—that we really haven't had ministers who have known what is going on. Their dependence on the bureaucracy means that the bureaucracy is actually running the show, and what we need is some political accountability.

So if we want action, we have to send a very strong message as to what the goals are. There has to be the political will and there has to be solidarity on the political side of it, so that we're not playing political games but are working to solve these problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you have anything else to say, Nina?

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

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you so much for coming here today. We really appreciate your submission. Hopefully, when we finish up sometime around the middle of April, or within a month, maybe we will make some good recommendations that will reflect what you're telling us here today.

I can't say it's all original. We've already heard many, many of the things that you've mentioned here today, but it's good to have them reinforced and reiterated. It shows the legitimacy of the complaints.

So stay tuned. Hopefully, we'll be able to make some good recommendations that reflect your concerns.

Thank you.

[Martin Dolin]

I think Hani and I would both like to thank the committee for coming here to Winnipeg. We appreciate your taking the time to hear us out, and we appreciate your comments and wish you good luck and bonne chance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you very much.

[Hani Al-Ubeady]

Thank you very much for listening to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Hani.

Thank you, Martin.

I don't know if our second group of witnesses is here. I think they are.

Does anyone want to take about five minutes and grab a coffee and give the Manitoba Federation of Labour a chance to come to the table?

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Maybe we can get going again.

I want to welcome our witness today from the Manitoba Federation of Labour, John Doyle—what a fine name.

Speaking as an individual is Kenneth Zaifman, lawyer, Zaifman Immigration Lawyers. Welcome.

From the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, we have John Ryan, acting chief executive officer, and Wenda Woodman, manager, complaints and discipline department. You have a hard department there, the complaints department.

From Maple Leaf Foods Inc., we have Rory McAlpine, vice-president, government and industry relations, and Nick Johnson, vice-president, human resources, commercial and business support, Maple Leaf consumer foods.

We also have some people added: Susan Yaeger, senior manager, international recruitment, Maple Leaf consumer foods, and Sandy Trudel, economic development officer, City of Brandon.

Welcome.

I know you have some opening remarks that you want to make.

Do I start with you, John?

[John Doyle, Researcher, Manitoba Federation of Labour]

Very well.

Good morning. The issue of temporary foreign workers is very high on organized labour's radar right now for a number of reasons, but time limitations being what they are, I'll touch on a few key points and recommendations from the material I've prepared for other purposes. I hope it doesn't sound too choppy in the editing process.

The temporary foreign workers program has been greatly expanded since 2006. Now Canadian employers are able to import workers from other countries when they claim there is a labour shortage in Canada and that they are unable to fill jobs. Which of these cases is based on reality and which are instances of employers creating a low-wage environment that Canadian workers refuse to participate in deserves further exploration.

The changes to the temporary foreign workers program made since 2006 are focused on making the process easier for employers and not necessarily to protect working people. These changes have created lists of occupations that qualify for fast-track permits to import migrant labour. They've created a step-by-step guide in employer-friendly language on how to hire a foreign worker. They've assigned government staff to assist employers seeking to hire foreign workers in cases where a labour market opinion is not required.

The 2007 federal budget provided for an additional $50.5 million over two years to “reduce processing delays and more effectively respond to regional labour and skill shortages”. Employers are no longer required to advertise for six weeks to attract Canadian workers. Only a seven-day period is required before the employer is able to apply for a temporary foreign worker's import permit. There's a lack of effective compliance, monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure Canadian employers respect the rights of the guest workers they invite into the country, as well as the rights of any Canadian workers they may displace.

The Harper government is aware of these issues. They've heard repeatedly from human rights groups, the labour movement, immigrant settlement agencies, community-based migrant worker advocates, and faith groups, all of whom have been pointing out flaws in the program, such as: how guest workers are fleeced by unscrupulous labour brokers who charge exorbitant processing fees in exchange for work permits; how workers are misled with false promises about wages and working conditions; how they're exploited, intimidated, and threatened with deportation by some employers unless they accept terms akin to indentured servitude; how they're faced with social isolation and separation from their families and communities; and, additionally, how they're sometimes exposed to racism and discrimination in the communities in which they work.

It's our belief that many of the stories on the plight of foreign workers that have been carried by the nation's news media are just the tip of the iceberg. In many jurisdictions, action by government authorities is complaint-triggered with no third-party interventions allowed.

Many barriers are inherent in this process. We believe many temporary foreign workers are reluctant to complain about their problems for fear they will lose their Canadian employment and be returned to their country of origin. Many are unaware of their legal rights or don't know how to carry their complaint forward. In many cases, lack of proficiency in either of Canada's two official languages is a further barrier, and in far too many cases, their homeland experience discourages standing up for one's rights in the face of employer or government authority.

We urge this committee to recommend a number of steps in its report to the House of Commons to give the temporary foreign worker program a fresh and more effective start. It must be returned to its original pre-2002 purpose and process. The immigration system should be reformed to make permanent immigration more accessible and efficient.

Foreign workers coming to Canada should be afforded the rights of permanent immigrants. Canadian employers should turn to the training of existing Canadian workers, employment of underrepresented groups in the labour market, and permanent immigration to solve their labour market problems.

Temporary foreign workers, who have worked the equivalent of two years of employment within a three-year period, should be entitled to apply for permanent immigration status. I believe a similar system is already in place for domestic live-in caregivers.

Temporary foreign worker work permits should not state the employer name. Permits should be issued for a particular occupation and province so temporary foreign workers are not tied to a specific employer, allowing them to switch employers without penalty, if required.

The federal government should explicitly prohibit the charging of fees to skilled temporary foreign workers by brokers or by employers. It should establish a team with the resources to investigate and enforce the prohibitions.

The federal government should set up internal worker advocate offices within both Human Resources Development Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada to handle complaints and to assist temporary foreign workers in trouble. This function should include assisting temporary foreign workers in finding jobs with employers with labour market opinions.

Advocate contact information should be provided to all temporary foreign workers when issued work permits. Advocates should be able to maintain confidentiality in the event that workers report that they are working illegally due to broker or employer arrangements.

A comprehensive education module must be developed to ensure that all stakeholders know the rules associated with the temporary foreign worker program, the rights that temporary foreign workers have, the remedies to problems, and how to get action.

Employers should be required to post a bond representing at least one month's wages and return airfare for all workers they hire. If the employer fails to provide a minimal level of employment, the bond would be released to the temporary foreign worker.

Employer obligations regarding housing should be clarified and strengthened. Accommodation standards should be explicit, and employers should be prohibited from earning excessive profits from accommodation of temporary foreign workers.

Employers importing workers into the certified trades should be required to provide proof of efforts to use and train domestic apprentices before being issued an LMO.

Employers seeking temporary foreign workers to fill certified trade occupations should be required as part of their LMO approval process to provide training, education support, and language assistance to temporary foreign workers, and to provide proof that such training is arranged before a worker is issued a work permit. Employers who fail to provide assistance should be barred from future LMOs.

Fines related to this program should be substantial. As well, violating those provisions should result in the violator being barred from future participation.

Of the themes contained in these recommendations, two are paramount: proactive enforcement by the federal and provincial governments, and education, both in the community and for the temporary foreign workers themselves. Having standards is one thing, but they're meaningless unless the workers, employers, and community are aware of them. Having built-in protections is another thing, but they're ineffective when they're complaint triggered and not actively enforced.

Thank you.