Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 8th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Tanya.

Mariela.

[Mariela Salinas, Student intern (Settlement), Mennonite New Life Centre of Toronto]

Good morning. As you heard, my name is Mariela. I believe everyone who comes to Canada has a story, and this is mine.

I was about 17 years old when my family and I received a removal order. The year was 1998, exactly eight years since we had come to Canada. At that time I was finishing secondary school—grade 11, to be exact. My sister had just passed grade 5, and my parents were working in their own business, which had been open for about two years.

It didn't feel fair to be removed when all these years we had confirmed and contributed to Canada. We had nothing to go back to. My younger sister didn't even speak Spanish. The deportation order was already in progress, and so we had no choice other than to go underground, fleeing from our everyday lives.

This meant that even the house we lived in had to be abandoned, with all our belongings. Years of hard work were lost in a matter of hours. The business that my parents owned was left with the person who had co-signed our lease.

We had lost part of our identity. We were no longer part of Canada, the country we used to call home. There were nights I spent thinking about the concept of being illegal, being without any status. It seemed to me that I had lost everything that mattered to me. We were close to despair.

Our only option was to look for hideaways as if we were criminals. With nowhere to go, with no one to help us, we trusted unreliable immigration paralegals who did nothing for our cause other than rob us of our hard-earned savings. In our fear, we were taken advantage of not only by immigration consultants but also by unscrupulous employers.

My parents had no choice other than to work under the table, making half the minimum wage, only to have enough for us to eat. Sometimes they even worked 18 hours a day, while my sister and I prayed each day that they would come home safely.

As a refugee claimant waiting on an answer, we managed to go without any social assistance. I even opened a small business. We were part of many multicultural events held in Toronto. We did everything possible to integrate into Canadian society.

This country felt like our home. We were as proud as any Canadian, the only difference being that we never knew how long we were going to stay.

I was taught by my parents and our school that education was important, but after we received the deportation order, even finishing secondary school was questionable. My whole future seemed to be in the hands of immigration. My dreams were put on hold.

No legal status meant living in anguish and horrific conditions. No one wanted to rent to us, because we did not even have proper identification. No legal status meant losing all my friends because of the fear of being reported to Immigration. School was hard. The thought of being caught made it difficult to concentrate and enjoy learning. Our fears put our health at risk and also prevented us from going to the hospital.

The hardest part was the feeling of betrayal by the country I loved most. I believed we'd crossed many barriers and were important to Canadian society, but being denied just about everything from one week to another was like being punished for trying to live as a good citizen would.

The day my family and I were accepted as permanent residents was the day our dreams were renewed. However, not all people acquire that privilege of being accepted. The fact that there are people whose voices are still not heard and who continue living in fear has encouraged me to focus my studies on the settlement sector.

I believe no child should see their parents break down in front of their eyes, as was the case in my family. At the end of it all, all we wanted was to become responsible Canadian citizens who pay their taxes and vote in elections, to be part of Canadian society.

[Tanya Molina]

As you've heard from Mariela's story, living without full permanent status means exploitation at work, fear in accessing basic services, and unnecessary suffering while waiting for the processing of applications for permanent status.

I'd like to leave you with three brief recommendations from the Mennonite New Life Centre.

One, expand eligibility criteria for humanitarian and compassionate applications and/or introduce a regularization process for persons without status, and protect applicants against deportation while their application is being processed.

Two, expand eligibility criteria for federally funded settlement services so that all newcomers can access services without fear, including assistance with regularization.

And three, prioritize access to permanent immigration over temporary labour programs. If there's an identified labour shortage, workers should be allowed the opportunity to achieve landed status.

I'd encourage you to take the time also to read our brief. Thank you again for the opportunity to share our concerns and recommendations. We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you for the very interesting presentation, very well done.

We have 28 minutes, so four questioners at seven minutes each is appropriate. I'll go to the Liberal Party first.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be sharing my time with my colleague Mr. Telegdi.

Mariela, let me assure you that some of us do know the meaning of refugee. Both my colleague Mr. Telegdi and I did come to Canada claiming refugee status. I'll let Mr. Telegdi speak about his own experience, but I remember at 11 years old arriving at the airport in the old Terminal 1. We were fleeing persecution because my father was a union worker or a union organizer in the old country, and the dictatorship had just set in.

So I do know exactly what it means, but those times were a little bit more lenient. Those times were even better in that you arrived at the port, and as soon as you told your story you were able, within a couple of days or a couple of hours, to do your claim, and you were landed.

However, I do want to discuss with you a couple of things.

First, would you agree that until these hearings are over and until we write the report, the Government of Canada should cease to deport undocumented workers on an immediate basis?

Anybody?

[Cosmo Mannella]

Absolutely. In fact, we have been advocating for that cessation until a solution is found, and we have in fact put forward a solution. I must tell you that we met with the current minister, and all indications from our dialogue were that she was quite impressed with our solution and in fact was happy that we were a group that was bringing forward a solution.

The whole issue behind our solution was to hold off on any deportations at least until we get a handle on this problem. We cannot, as a civilized world leader, a world-leading country, continue to deal with this problem every 15 years or so, because quite frankly, our immigration policy has not kept up with the realities of our economy.

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

This committee proposed that we do hold off on deporting folks until we had our hearings, and I sought unanimous consent in the House of Commons.

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

It was passed in July.

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

You know, colleague, I really appreciate the fact that you said it passed in July, so I'm going to go on the record here--and it's been on the record. I sought unanimous consent that we stop deporting the folks. The Conservatives were asleep at the switch--there was nobody in there--and the only person who ran in from outside was Olivia Chow, stating “No, I'm not seeking unanimous consent”. So this is what we have to deal with.

So I'm asking you again whether you think, for people who are in Canada, undocumented workers, people who are slaving away—and the horror stories we hear—the Conservative government should immediately, today, stop the deportations.

[Tanya Molina]

Without getting into partisan conflicts, I say let's continue to focus on the people whose lives are at stake here. I have another client who's going to receive her PPRA decision today and is going with much fear and trepidation of what the future holds for her.

I think certainly to put a halt to deportations while the hearings take place is a very needed and important first step. I think it's also important that you take the time to consider all the views that are put forward to the committee and to look for long-term solutions that will allow people channels to access permanent status in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

You're splitting your time, Mr. Karygiannis, with Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Telegdi, go ahead, please, for three and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

The issue of undocumented workers was on the verge of being solved before the last election was called. A lot of the growth in the undocumented workers class was driven by the 2002 changes to the act and the point system. It really denied entry to people the economy needed. One of the reasons we're going through with Bill C-50 is that the people the economy actually needed were not able to access Canada under the old point system.

There's a vote on Bill C-50 tonight in the House. I want to make it clear that having examined Bill C-50 in the context it's being voted on, if it doesn't go on to committee we won't be studying Bill C-50; we'll be going into an election without the problem being solved. I think we need to very rigorously debate Bill C-50 and make the country aware of its implications.

Mr. Mannella, you mentioned you had a talk with the minister and she seemed sympathetic. I hate to disabuse you, but she parrots what the bureaucrats say. I'll tell you exactly what the bureaucrats want to do with undocumented workers: they want to get them all out of the country because they represent the mistake of their previous decision. Make no mistake, they're the ones who drove the changing of the point system. You're going to get precious little relief from that area.

If the minister or the Conservatives wanted to do it, the regularization was in place, but it came to a quick, screeching halt when this government took over. It's important that you as a community, particularly in Toronto, are very aware of what Bill C-50 is about, because it would remove the objective nature. The parliamentary secretary will say something else, but it will remove the guarantees for qualified people to get into the country--that's one problem.

We also need to make sure the point system gets fixed so the people the economy needs can get in here. The other problem is to make sure undocumented people are dealt with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

There are 40 seconds left, if you want to reply. Mr. Telegdi can go on and on.

Mr. Mannella.

[Cosmo Mannella]

I would like to make a comment. Let's set aside the issue of compassion for a moment and talk about real economic hard numbers. Even with the tenuous economic situation we have here in Ontario, this morning's paper reports that building permits for housing units went up by 21% since the beginning of the year. The largest number of these folks, as far as we're concerned, work within the home-building industry.

Construction is now the underpinning of the economy in this province, and if there were a concerted effort to remove these people forthwith, the housing market would collapse. I don't think any of us wants that, so let's set aside the whole issue of compassion and stories.

We have a few stories of our own. The business manager of our local union--the largest local union in the construction industry in North America--was himself an undocumented worker who was normalized in the early 1990s and today leads the largest construction local union in the country.

I would put forward to the minister to please consider the economic impact of deportations on the home-building industry, which is currently fuelling the economy of this province and perhaps to some degree the economy of this country, given what has happened in the U.S.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Mannella. Those were good points.

Mr. St-Cyr, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to share my time with Mr. Carrier.

We will have to vote on Bill C-50 today or in the next few days. Personally, as an elected representative, I attach considerable importance to the votes we hold and in which I take part. That is probably our first duty as legislators.

I'm convinced that the provisions of this bill are too serious and too harmful for us to let them continue through the legislative process. For that reason, I believe we should vote against them immediately and close the debate. What is being proposed is unacceptable. That's my opinion.

I would like to have the opinions of each of you. What would you do if you were members of Parliament? Are you recommending that members vote in favour of this bill, vote against it, or abstain?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Anyone can answer.

[Alfredo Barahona]

We stated at the beginning that we're deeply concerned and disappointed with those changes. Obviously we'll recommend that you vote against them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Mannella, do you have a point to make on that to Mr. St-Cyr?

[Cosmo Mannella]

The issue of the minister's power is not foremost in our minds. If it means bringing about amendments with consultation from the broad interest in Canada, then someone obviously has to be the decision-maker at the end of the day. We want to ensure that it's not an arbitrary process, where the minister makes arbitrary decisions.

Clearly the minister is the elected official. If it comes down to the minister having to make the final decision, that's fine. What we advocate is that the decision not be made arbitrarily in any way, shape, or form.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Anyone can speak on it, if they wish.

[Tanya Molina]

Thank you for concerning yourselves with this important subject. As I previously said, we are very troubled by the new legislation.

I think we've had a fairly recent example of how the powers of ministers can be used in ways that weren't anticipated. It was promised at one point that legislation would never be used to prosecute people supporting refugees out of humanitarian motives. Yet Janet Hinshaw-Thomas was prosecuted under the immigration legislation.

I think it is dangerous to give broad discretionary powers to ministers in ways that go against the interests of the people we're trying to serve. So I would recommend that you vote against this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Carrier.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As members of the Bloc Québécois, from Quebec, we're learning a lot about temporary workers, since we started in Vancouver last week and we have gradually moved eastward. I'm becoming aware of the importance of this part of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which makes it possible to accept temporary workers, but also of the problems it causes. We've been told about cases of abuse and exploitation of these people, which is unacceptable.

Although labour standards should be better regulated, I believe that monitoring in that regard is better in Quebec, but it appears that it's different in each province. We see that it wouldn't be an ideal solution to have this part in our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

In order to regularize the present situation, you would like these people to be able to become real landed immigrants and to obtain the same rights as other Canadians. For my part, I feel that the government should establish a special catch-up program, but that must nevertheless be seriously studied. Accepting a permanent resident creates more serious obligations than accepting a temporary worker, who, in principle, comes to work then returns to his country.

Would you agree that each case should be examined individually so that individuals can be accepted as Canadian citizens?

[Tanya Molina]

Definitely. I believe claims will still be the responsibility of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. What we are seeking is for there not to be two types of status for Canadian citizens and immigrants: those who have money and professional training and those who work in construction or in the fields. I believe that

the monitoring of labour conditions

is very important.

You say that Quebec is concerned with that. I believe the Bloc has come up with some very good immigration ideas and proposals.

Seasonal agricultural workers in Quebec also told me a number of stories about very tough conditions. So there's still some work to do.