Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 8th, 2008

[Macdonald Scott, Immigration Consultant, As an Individual]

I'm here to speak briefly about temporary foreign worker permits and temporary foreign workers, and then my colleague Kirpa Kaur will be tying that in as well with some critiques of Bill C-50

Currently temporary foreign work permits, as you're probably aware, are available in a variety of areas. Most involve the obtaining of a labour market opinion from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, except in a few areas mainly relating to higher-skilled jobs, like jobs under the NAFTA agreement, the GATT, IT jobs, etc. The exceptions in the lower-skilled jobs right now include the live-in caregiver program and the seasonal agricultural worker program. The low-skill program that we had for a while is basically dead at this point.

So essentially you end up with permits in low-skilled jobs being available only where there's a job shortage, with not enough Canadians to fill the position. I'll tie this into Bill C-50, but I think this is going to become more and more a common practice--the issuing of temporary foreign work permits under the Conservative government. Our problem with temporary work permits is that because workers are not permanent residents their rights are greatly diminished. If they complain about their employer, the employer can fire them. They can apply for a new work permit while in Canada, but that can take up to four to six months, and in the meantime they can have their status revoked and they can be removed.

In my firm we've had a number of recent cases, and I'd like to draw just anecdotally the case of Ashok and Navin, who came here to work for a religious establishment as cooks. They're working 12-hour days, being paid less than minimum wage. When Ashok actually burned his arm while on the job, from a grease pan, he was kept on the job, had to work with just basically a rag wrapped around his arm. Their passports were held by their employers and basically they were forced to make...I wouldn't say a false refugee claim, but basically a refugee claim without merit because they had no other way of keeping their status once they left their employer, and that's what we're looking to in the future.

As the Conservative government issues more temporary foreign work permits, what we're going to see are more people in these situations where they can't complain.

Now, we do have the exception. We have the live-in caregiver program, where of course live-in caregivers can apply for permanent residency after fulfilling two out of three years working in their area, but even there we see terrible situations. We have clients come to us all the time who have had to leave an employer because of terrible situations of sexual abuse. They haven't been able to get a new work permit for four to six months. When the three years are up, they don't fulfill the 24 months, they don't get their permanent residency, and the Federal Court and CIC have offered very little leniency in these situations.

So we're looking at a situation, I think, with Bill C-50--and again. Ms. Kaur will speak more about Bill C-50--where essentially what we're going to be doing is creating two different tiers of immigration. We're going to be creating a situation--and this is also with the Canada experience class, I would add--that allows you to apply after two years in Canada working in a high-skilled job for permanent residency. We're going to be offering permanent residency with all its commensurate rights, privileges, and access to services to those who come from middle and higher classes, upper classes, and preferably from north countries. Then we're going to be offering a sort of serf status, almost, to those who come to lower-skilled jobs, those who come from south countries, those from poor and working classes in other countries.

I would just put this to you. Is this the kind of Canada we want to create: a Canada where there are two classes of people; a Canada where we have an underclass of people who have no rights on the job, suffering through terrible positions like Ashok and Navin suffered through, and then a Canada where we have people in higher-skilled jobs who have rights, access to services, access to status? I would put it to you that this is the direction we're headed in, and I think this committee needs to intervene and make sure this is not the direction we end up in.

I'd turn it over to my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

Ms. Kirpa Kaur.

[Kirpa Kaur, Activist, No One Is Illegal]

Good morning. My name is Kirpa Kaur. I am a student at the University of Toronto in the equity studies department, a youth crisis worker, and an executive in the Sikh Activist Network.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Toronto, Ontario, No One Is Illegal contingent today. No One is Illegal is a national organization consisting of chapters in six major cities of Canada. My speech today is in solidarity with their voice, mandate, and demands.

We mobilize with immigrants, refugees, workers, trade unionists, students, activists and--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

May I just interrupt you for a moment? You're going a bit too fast for our interpreters, so if you could slow it down a bit we'd appreciate it.

[Kirpa Kaur]

That is no problem.

We mobilize immigrants, refugees, workers, trade unionists, students, activists, and community members to demand justice and dignity for all immigrants, migrants, and refugees.

We continue to fight against the Conservative government's ongoing attacks on migrant communities. The last year has seen unprecedented targeting of refugees in sanctuary. Asylum seekers have been arrested in schools, workplaces, and even hospital beds. Families have been torn apart. Over 12,000 friends, family, and community members have been deported in the last year.

We continue to mobilize against deportations. We outreach to students, workers, and community members about the need for a full, inclusive regularization program. And we join in solidarity with our allies to fight against poverty, the exploitation of workers, and the conditions that cause displacement, such as war and occupation, corporate terrorism, plundering, and economic market hijacking.

We have forced immigration enforcement out of Toronto district schools and inspired front-line community workers to take up the struggle for access without fear. We have fought for and won a full “don't ask, don't tell” policy in many community agencies.

Today I'm here to speak on the alarming discriminatory, racist, and violent amendments being made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act through Bill C-50. As Eva Mackey has stated in The House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada:

Nationalism often depends upon mythological narratives of a unified nation moving progressively through time--a continuum beginning with a glorious past leading to the present and then onward to an even better future. These mythical stories require that specific versions of history are highlighted, versions that reaffirm the particular characteristics ascribed to the nation. In Canada, nationalist myth makers draw upon particular versions of national history to explain the nation's “fairness” and “justice” today.

It is the responsibility of the decision-makers of the present--that's you--to reflect insightfully upon Canadian history and make sure that mistakes are not made again.

The series of amendments being made through the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in Bill C-50 will allow the immigration minister absolute, subjective, and arbitrary power to reject and/or deny any migrant applications. Currently, the act states that anyone who meets the myriad discriminatory and class requirements shall be granted status. However, under the proposed changes, regardless of whether or not you meet the requirements, you can be rejected, no questions asked, and have no appeal. I am speaking here to proposed subsection 11(1).

Further, the bill will allow for official quotas to be implemented on how many migrants Canada wants, from which category of application, and from which country. The stats since the 1970s, since the implementation of the NIEAP, the non-immigrant employment authorization program, already show that there have been fewer and fewer migrants granted immigration status versus increasing temporary worker status or no status at all. Now with official quotas being put in place, this legitimizes this process. So instead of a system in which we have each and every individual application regarded within an unbiased and humane framework, we'll be looking first at which country this person is applying from, checking then that they make the cut-off line, and then cross-checking that they are not one too many in the category in which they are applying for status. This process allows for racism and classism to be organized under the neat titles of logistics and economic strategy.

As has been stated in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees handbook, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, it is important to note that most people who are seeking to migrate from around the world today are doing so because they are being pushed to leave their homes for survival. They leave their communities, families, histories, friends, and lives behind not in pursuit of more opportunities but of an opportunity.

For many and most, it is a matter of simple survival, and this situation, ladies and gentlemen, is inherently tied to the reality that it is our Canadian corporate companies that are forcing themselves upon the lands and homes and economies of these people. We do house the greatest and largest mining firms in the world. If they are leaving their homes, it is because of us.

It is in the case of war that millions of refugees have had to flee countries, as in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti. These are just three recent examples of the Canadian hand in displacement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Can I just interrupt here? You've gone over 10 minutes now. I have about 28 minutes, which allows seven, seven, seven, and seven minutes. I think you'll have an opportunity to make some of the points you didn't make in the Q and A. So can I shut you down and go for seven minutes? That's fine.

Mr. Telegdi or Mr. Karygiannis, you decide who goes first.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We wanted to talk about Bill C-50. We wanted to tour on it. We proposed a week ago Monday that we talk about it, and the Conservatives strenuously objected that it was not the purpose of this tour. I am glad to see they changed their mind on this issue.

We have a horrific problem. Under Bill C-50, the minister gets all the power. But don't kid yourselves--I've been here ten years on this committee, and we have had seven ministers--when you say the minister has the power, you say the bureaucrats have the power. The proposal as to what they're going to do—take an objective system and totally turn it on its head—is totally unacceptable in the kind of society we have built.

It reminds me of the time in our history when we brought in the Chinese to build the railway, and then of course, when the railway was built, we were going to get rid of them. We're doing the same kind of thing with temporary foreign workers who are low-skilled and who come here indentured, and the problems go on and on.

I know you have a great deal of expertise on the issue of undocumented workers; I have worked with some of you folks in the past on that. The reality is that we had a point system that was changed, that essentially barred people the economy needs. It drove the need for undocumented workers. It drove the demand. You said 500,000. I think that is probably the correct figure versus the 200,000.

Essentially it's the result of the screw-up by the bureaucracy, because it wasn't the minister who changed the point system; it was the bureaucrats who changed the point system. The ministers allowed it to happen because they didn't know any better.

We've really got to come to terms with the undocumented workers, because we're spending resources, which should be spent on processing, rounding these people up and getting them out of the country. The regularization was being put in place. Had the previous government not fallen, we would have dealt with that issue.

This government comes in and listens to the mantra of the bureaucrats, which is “We don't reward cheaters”, and then proceeds to spend good money to get rid of undocumented workers when we could be regularizing them. They already fit. We see the ones who are being deported getting booted out of the country. And then what do we do? We spend a lot of money to bring them back again. This doesn't make any sense. I think we really need to have political will around it. It will take education, because the bureaucrats will repeat the mantra, “We're not going to reward cheaters”. It was the bureaucratic screw-up that caused the demand for those undocumented workers.

We're going to come back and debate Bill C-50, because I think it so significantly alters the whole characteristics of what we finally got to, having an objective system that is not racist, that does not allow the government to differentiate, and goes back to the dark period of our history, if you will.

Comments?

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Karygiannis. Two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you. I'll make it very quick.

The minister yesterday, in the House, stood and said that we have decreased the reunification time by 40% and we're bringing families into Canada sooner. That is total hogwash. Instead of decreasing it, they're increasing it. In the year 2007 there was another increase of 7.62% in the length of time it takes to process applications. The number of people coming into Canada between 2005 and 2007 dropped by 25,547 people.

Indeed, we have this piece of legislation, and the parliamentary secretary yesterday, in this committee, did some grandstanding, if you want—and we certainly clapped for him—and said that we should have this brought to the committee and studied until May 7. This committee goes back on April 28. It has four sitting days.

My question to you, as stakeholders, is this. Can this committee invite petitioners, invite lawyers, invite the ministers and study Bill C-50 in four days?

Your comments?

[Amy Casipullai]

I'm sorry, I guess I was facetious.

The Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, which is a member of the STATUS campaign, wrote a letter to Prime Minister Harper requesting him to take a serious look at this. That's because immigration is very important to Canada. We think it's far too important a subject to be dealt with in such a cavalier manner.

It's a question of taking adequate time, but it's also a question of using the expertise at hand, namely the committee here, to use the resources Canada has to make wise decisions that will have a long-term impact.

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

But you are the resources. You're the stakeholders. You're the ones who need to be invited to discuss this particular installation.

[Amy Casipullai]

And we've been silenced.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay. There are 10 seconds left.

I'll go to Mr. St-Cyr, seven minutes.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you very much for being here.

I won't speak at length about Bill C-50 because the Bloc Québécois isn't in favour of its immigration provisions and will vote against it. The NDP will do the same.

I find it somewhat curious that the Liberals are so scandalized by those provisions. If they find them so scandalous, they should merely vote against them, and we wouldn't need to debate this in committee. We would simply reject the negative provisions and we could move on to something more constructive.

At some point, being political men and women, we have to go beyond political show and be consistent with our convictions. When the time comes to rise in the House, let's rise and say that these provisions are unacceptable, and then live with the consequences of our actions. Politics is more than show.

That said, I want to go back to your address. Mr. Rico-Martinez mentioned the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. He said that, for the moment, it wasn't easy to exercise real control over immigration consultants. That's not the case of all immigration consultants, but some of them, who are not very scrupulous, simply exploit individuals who are fighting for survival or, at least, to improve their lot.

I'm an engineer, and I belong to the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, a professional association regulated in Quebec. It doesn't have a mandate to see to the welfare of engineers, but rather to that of the public. Above the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec is the Office des professions du Québec, which oversees all professional associations and intervenes when an engineer is at fault. However, there is no structure of that kind for immigration consultants.

Would the public be better served if the profession of immigration consultant were regulated by provincial governments, which already know how to go about ensuring that the professions regulate themselves properly, instead of leaving that up to the federal government, which clearly has neither the jurisdiction nor the knowledge, nor even the desire to intervene in this field in order to establish truly effective regulation?

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

In Ontario, there is a law that now regulates paralegals, and they are regulating them. Paralegals have to be members of the Law Society of Upper Canada. This is going to create an issue with the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, because if you're recognized as a paralegal, why are you not recognized under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to do work and represent people before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Immigration, or whatever?

So you are creating a dual jurisdiction, because the federal government created CSIC through the IRPA without putting any substantial regulations or definitions about what CSIC was going to do. Now the different local law societies are going to start regulating the industry of paralegals and consultants, and you are going to have a double jurisdiction.

Are we equipped in Ontario or at any provincial level to deal with the situation of paralegals and consultants through the different law societies? The answer is yes, and that's one of the ways that you can take a look. The other way is to give a statute, a law, to CSIC and make CSIC able to go after the people who are basically destroying the lives of immigrants and refugees.

The other thing you can do is treat the whole situation of unscrupulous consultants as a crime in the legislation, as a criminal situation. Then the police and the authorities can go and make it a priority to stop this.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

There are obviously two possible options. I think we should concentrate regulation at the provincial level. On the one hand, the provinces have the expertise to do that, and, on the other, the immigration situation can be quite different from one province to the next.

In Alberta, where the economy is overheated and a lot of foreign workers are being brought in, the situation may be quite different from that of Quebec or Newfoundland, for example.

My second question is for you, Ms. Casipullai. I read your brief on the STATUS Campaign, in which you talked, among other things, about immediately implementing the Refugee Appeals Division. You know the Bloc Québécois tabled a bill on that subject, which was passed in the House. We're still waiting for the Senate to do its job, if it's willing to do so, and pass it as it stands as soon as possible.

We requested that because since there is only one board member to review claims instead of two, we get the impression that refugee status is like winning the lottery. We call it the board member lotto. Depending on the board member you appear before, you know in advance whether you will be accepted or not.

I'm going to give you the example of Abdelkader Belaouni, who is living in sanctuary in a church in my riding. His case was reviewed by board member Laurier Thibault, who at the time rejected 98% of claims submitted to him.

I'm going to ask you a question, even though I already know the answer. If you had to appear before a judge who rejected 98% of claims, would you feel that justice was being done?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Give a brief response, please.

[Amy Casipullai]

Well, certainly not, and I think it also speaks to the fact that because the implementation of the RAD has been delayed for so long, it has actually contributed to creating a much bigger non-status population.

Again, as was mentioned earlier, a big part of the problem is the resistance from the bureaucracy to go ahead and implement this. They raised questions about resources: that there would be too many cases, that it would be too confusing.

I'm so glad this committee has shown leadership and the Bloc has also shown leadership in calling for this. We are still waiting for it to happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Ms. Chow, you have seven minutes, please.

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

I have two questions. One is about consultants overseas.

Do you think Canada should sign agreements with different countries--say Mexico--to make sure the Mexican government cracks down on illegal consultants, or recruiters, who charge a huge amount of money to people who are coming to be temporary foreign workers? The response that we get is, “Well, you know, we don't really have power overseas to crack down on the illegal behaviours of the consultants.” It becomes buck-passing between different countries.

Is that a route to take?

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

If we start doing our own business inside Canada first, I think it will be possible. But we have to start cracking down on the illegal consulting businesses here—and believe me, the authorities don't do anything about that. The only thing the government is doing is, if these illegal consultants send in an application, send the application back to the person and ask them to find another consultant. They don't supervise. They don't monitor the legality of their advice or anything that happens and the money they'll receive—nothing.

In that case, to go to Mexico and ask them to do something about the illegal consultants related to Canada would be a double standard, because we don't do our own business here first.

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

That's a very good point. Thank you for that.

At one o'clock today, our Deputy Minister of Immigration will be having a briefing about the new Bill C-50. Unfortunately we're here, and the briefing is going to be in Ottawa. There will be presentations.

I think you talked about the dramatic changes. Do you believe a briefing session should be made in different parts of the country so that it becomes very public and clear what's being proposed? Right now, there's a lot of confusion as to what's being proposed and what's not being proposed. There are different stories. I'm pretty clear, but there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding.

I don't need to repeat what my colleagues have said about what's so negative about this bill, but is that something people think would or would not be useful?

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

I would just say that one of the problems we have with the bill itself is the preliminaries. If you check the Immigration Canada website, the only thing you have about Bill C-50 is questions and answers. Part of it is very short and doesn't have anything to do with all the discussions and issues that we are bringing to you now.

For instance, we heard that they're going to continue processing humanitarian applications overseas for family-related applications. That's what the minister said. If you go and check the bill, it doesn't say anything about that. If you go and check the questions and answers, it doesn't say anything about that.

The lack of information to the whole civil society of Canada is just amazing. That's part of the hysterical response that you are having from the civil society, because it's a blank cheque and we don't know. We receive contradictory explanations about what is in and what is out, which then creates this uncertainty that the people try to avoid.

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

Right now you talked about the temporary foreign workers and the 12,000 being deported. We had a briefing, and we found out in this committee that it costs about $23 million, or $25 million, or something thereabouts--some $20 million--to deport people. That's a lot of money.

Right now, as Mr. Scott said, for temporary foreign workers who are in categories C and D, not the ones who have—