Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 9th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I call the meeting to order.

We have to move along here. We have to be out of here at 4 o'clock if we're going to catch our train. If we don't start on time, that means we eat into the witnesses' time, and I don't want to do that.

Today we have, from the International Association of Immigration Practitioners, Ramesh K. Dheer, national president. Welcome again, sir. Welcome as well to Luin Goldring, associate professor in the department of sociology at York University, appearing here as an individual; and from the C.D. Howe Institute, Colin Busby, policy analyst.

Thank you for being here. I don't know if you have a lineup of who will speak first, but we can give you seven minutes for opening statements. Anyone at all can start. Mr. Dheer has already been here, so maybe we'll put him on last.

It's up to you as to how you want to proceed. Just take your time and we'll see how it goes.

Mr. Goldring, Mr. Busby...?

[Colin Busby, Policy Analyst, C.D. Howe Institute]

I guess I'll go first.

Immigration has been a significant contributor to Canada's labour force. Recent census data show that from 2001 to 2006, Canada's labour force grew by 1.3 million, of which roughly 40% is directly attributable to immigration. Seasonal and temporary immigration programs have been part of Canada's overall immigration plan since the late 1960s, but have grown significantly in recent years. Under the temporary foreign worker program, workers help fill skill and labour shortages in Canada and contribute to overall economic growth.

Large levels of immigration and shifting policies have led to a variety of concerns. Most often mentioned is the dubious claim that increased immigration has taken away jobs from native-born Canadians. Further, immigration policies have sometimes been emphasized for the wrong reasons. It is not true, for example, that a numerous and more youthful distribution of immigrants could easily cure the challenges of an aging population.

Yet, tight labour markets have begun to pose a strain on the growth of certain sectors and regions. Canada's aging workforce, a rapidly expanding economy, and technological change have resulted in a shortage of qualified employees, predominantly in western Canada. Job vacancy rates have risen, forcing both private and public sectors to look for immediate relief, driving employers to tap into the pool of temporary foreign workers. Meanwhile, the federal government may have a useful role in helping employers and potential employees match up. The temporary foreign worker program helps fit the ambition of foreign workers with Canada's domestic needs.

That said, we should not look to the temporary foreign worker program to deliver more than it can. Canada has a number of policy tools that can do more to increase the performance of our labour market than can a dramatically expanded temporary foreign worker program. Similarly, improvements in other areas of Canada's immigration program may produce larger and more lasting benefits.

For the purposes of this brief, the temporary foreign worker program is seen to potentially target three distinct shortages in our labour force. The first is to meet the need for work that few domestic residents will do, such as seasonal farm workers and live-in caregivers. The second is to meet the need for skilled employees who are not present in our labour force, such as specialized nuclear technicians or professionals with precise and extremely rare skills. The third looks to fill jobs that workers in our labour force may undertake but who face barriers in moving to meet employment demand.

Ultimately, the temporary foreign worker program serves as a good tool for the first two conditions, but we should resist extending the program to address shortages when they are symptomatic of other problems in our labour market.

Markets generate wage and price signals, and often policy distorts them. As an example, high global energy prices highlight the demand for western Canada's resources, causing investment to rise, which in turn places further demands for a large flow of capital and labour. This drives wages up and sends other price signals through the market.

Notwithstanding a low national unemployment rate, unemployment is high in certain geographic pockets. As of March 2008, unemployment ranged from a low of 2.9% in central Alberta to 19.1% in southern Newfoundland and Labrador. These statistics suggest rigidity in our labour market.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Would you repeat that? I missed that last statistic.

[Colin Busby]

As of March 2008, unemployment ranged from a low of 2.9% in central Alberta to 19.1% in southern Newfoundland and Labrador, suggesting rigidity in our labour market. Jobs are available in some areas, but only a trickle of unemployed workers move in response. Notably, labour market rigidity is confined mostly to central and eastern regions.

Although the temporary foreign worker program acts as a stopgap measure for labour needs, some of the forces behind the growing use of foreign workers are prime examples of an interprovincial mobility problem. The need to meet short-term labour demand is a concern, for the temporary foreign worker program cannot be comprehensive if larger underlying problems go unaddressed.

Although meeting the immediate concerns of business is important, foreign workers are not the only policy route. Some of the objectives of the temporary foreign worker program could be achieved by policies that encourage a greater level of labour mobility. In this vein, one would be to modernize the employment insurance program.

The role of temporary foreign workers in meeting acute and persistent labour market shortages should not distract attention from long-term policy goals. For example, does increasing the level of temporary foreign workers harm the existing immigration program by filling jobs that could be more beneficially filled by new permanent immigrants? If so, how large is the trade-off? Finally, to what extent do the goals of the two programs overlap?

Where job shortages appear to be more permanent, the temporary foreign worker program should identify areas for a streamlined application process. This is true for the seasonal agricultural worker program and the live-in caregiver program, which address jobs for which there is no willing domestic labour force, nor will there be in the medium term.

The same should apply to labour shortages in areas in which Canada lacks specific and ongoing domestic expertise, areas where shifting economic fundamentals would not likely impact the flow into these positions. Specifying areas where more permanent labour shortages exist would expedite judgments about whether foreign workers are needed in regions or sectors. Streamlining applications for permanent areas of concern would be beneficial to businesses and free resources for use in more ambiguous cases.

The expansion of the temporary foreign worker program should not divert resources or attention from measures that would speed up and facilitate the permanent immigration of foreign students in Canada. Many of our visiting students have much to offer and are eager to take up residence. A relatively untapped source for skilled workers is in our universities.

Further, our system of colleges could look to expand access to foreign students. At present, it's rare that students come to Canada to study trades. However, our post-secondary education system could serve a much greater role to facilitate our immigration needs.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Busby.

Ms. Goldring, please go ahead.

[Luin Goldring, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, York University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

Some of my colleagues today are going to be making submissions arguing for a moratorium on deportation or for regularization programs for people without immigration status. I support these positions, but my comments today cover other aspects of the issue. I want to talk about terminology, about how people end up with various forms of precarious status, about the role of policy in creating precarious status, and about some of the implications for Canadians.

Let me start with terminology. The term “undocumented” has gained currency because of the large number of people entering and living without state authorization in the United States, Europe, and other regions. It's also a response to such terms as “illegal alien”, which have the effect of dehumanizing and criminalizing people.

The main way that people become undocumented in the U.S. is through unauthorized border crossing. The term “undocumented” makes sense in this context, because there is no record of entry. The U.S. undocumented population is currently estimated to be approximately 12 million people.

In Canada the situation is quite different, as I think we all know, and this calls for different terminology. Undocumented entry is not the main pathway to living or working without authorization. On the contrary, many people enter with some form of documentation and then fall out of status. Thus, people whom we might be tempted to call undocumented are often documented in that they are known to authorities, having entered with some form of legal immigration status.

I argue that precarious immigration status is a better way of describing the situation of people often referred to as undocumented. The reason for this becomes clearer if we consider pathways to precarious immigration status. There are many, but let me just highlight four.

One is through sponsorship breakdown. When people enter as sponsored relatives and so forth, and there's a breakdown in the relationship, there's also a breakdown in the sponsorship. This is particularly problematic for affected spouses and children. A second pathway is through rejected refugee and asylum claims. A third pathway is through the overstaying of temporary visas, whether they're foreign worker visas or student visas. A fourth way is through unauthorized entry.

In the first three of these cases, people arrive with some form of documentation, and then, through various processes, end with precarious status of one form or another. There may be movement between different forms of precarious status. Thus, “precarious status” covers a range of situations.

With this in mind, I'd like to turn to the question of how immigration policy and other related policies are related to precarious status. One way policy contributes to the creation of precarious status is through the reduction in admissions for permanent residence. As opportunities for permanent entry and settlement decrease, people may search for other avenues to enter Canada.

A second way is through humanitarian or refugee policy and the refugee determination system. Difficulties in filling IRB positions, together with the enormous refugee backlog, mean that many people are caught in a lengthy limbo-like situation. They may have authorization to work, they may have authorization to reside--maybe not both--and they may have access to some services, but their situation is less than secure or stable.

A third mechanism is through the expansion of the temporary worker program; we heard about this from the previous speaker. The number of temporary workers in Canada, or the stock of temporary foreign workers, grew by four times between 1980 and 2006, starting at around 39,000 in 1980 and growing to about 172,000 in 2006.

The expansion of the temporary worker and guest worker programs in other countries suggests that temporariness can become permanent, and it appears that the same thing is happening in Canada. Temporary workers come year after year after year. They spend eight to ten months of the year here. This becomes permanent for them and for the employers who fill jobs through these kinds of programs.

Another way in which policy contributes to precarious status is through periodic deportations. Deportations assure the public that something is being done about the problem. But there aren't enough resources, and this is not an effective means to solve the problem completely. It does more to criminalize.

A fifth way is through limited recourse. There are limited options for regaining or gaining secure immigration status in the event of falling out of status.

Now, let's think about some of the implications here. We know from case studies and anecdotal evidence that people with precarious immigration status are disadvantaged in many ways: lower pay for comparable work, fear of reporting problems associated with dangerous work, lack of payment, poor housing conditions, and so forth. As a result, people may not report criminal activity, violation of labour standards, illnesses, and so forth.

If we want people with precarious status to come out of the shadows, we need to fully implement “Don't ask, don't tell” policies so that people are not afraid to report abuse at work, not afraid to report criminal activity, so that they can enrol their children in school and seek medical care, and so that they can live with less fear. We also need to begin a debate around regularization and conduct research on a variety of aspects of precarious status.

I could go on about research needs, but I think there's a deeper question that needs to be addressed, and that has to do with what kind of a Canada we want.

We stand at a moment when we have to make decisions such as whether we want to build a nation in which people with precarious status continue to live in the shadows and in fear. In this model, citizens and permanent residents occupy the top tier of society, while those with precarious immigration status occupy the bottom tier. Even if there are pathways to permanent residence and citizenship, the presence of a segment of people with precarious status raises questions about the value and scope of citizenship and democracy in Canada. Are these to be enjoyed by one segment of society? In this model, immigration status becomes a legitimate basis for discrimination, and communities become divided through fear.

Alternatively, do we want to live in a society that addresses these issues by bringing precarious immigration status out of the shadows and into public discussions through debate, research, and advocacy? In this model, the presence of a segment of society with most of the rights that the rest of us take for granted is considered a problem. The question becomes how to reduce the insecurities of precarious status while also reducing the number of people in situations of precarious status through positive policies, rather than criminalization.

In order to begin to develop meaningful responses, and build healthier communities that are not divided by fear, we need to conduct informed debates.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Ms. Goldring.

Mr. Dheer.

[Ramesh Dheer, National President, International Association of Immigration Practitioners]

Thank you.

I'm going to start with the temporary foreign workers issue, and then I will address the issue of so-called undocumented workers.

I've prepared a few notes, and I'm going to go step by step. I'm not going to go into a lot of details, because everybody knows what is required and what has to be done. I'll make suggestions on behalf of our association.

In our view, the CIC should compile a list of the professions and trades that are meeting the demands of the labour market. There's no need to bring here, under the point system....

In the last three or four weeks, I had two people come to my office. One of them was a lady who has a master's degree in psychology, and the other one has a PhD, I think, in agriculture or some profession. The lady is working in a factory, and the guy with the PhD retrained himself as a car mechanic. I'm not saying that a car mechanic is not a good profession, but the fact remains that this person who has done a doctorate, Dr. So-and-so, is now a car mechanic. What is the use of bringing in these people who cannot find jobs in Canada in their own professions?

I would recommend that CIC should, from time to time--maybe every six months--compile a list of the professions that are in high demand and that the selection of immigrants should be geared towards that list. That will also help the employers. If we want 1,200 carpenters or 700 nurses or 450 doctors, those are the people we want to bring here.

Also, when they are being brought here on temporary work permits, of course we need cooperation from the human resources department. HRSDC should consider exempting certain caregivers, for example. I've rarely heard that a caregiver request for LMO is denied. Most of them are approved. It's a recognized fact that we are short of caregivers in Canada.

Similarly, maybe the human resources department should give consideration to making a list of the professions that are in high, high demand. Then the potential immigrant doesn't have to go to the long waiting line to get the LMO, labour market opinions. This is how it should be done, in our view.

In our view, the temporary workers who come to Canada should be allowed to become permanent residents. If we bring somebody here and they work for two or three years and they contribute to the economy of this country--they are employable, able, their qualifications are recognized--there is no need to send them home. If we need them, then they should be allowed to stay. With the situation of permanent residence, there will be certain criteria, that they already have a job and the employer likes them and all that. Obviously they are not going to take a Canadian's job, because they were initially brought in to fill that vacancy because there was no Canadian available.

Concerning the fear that Canadians will lose jobs to these foreign workers, I don't think it is justified to say it like that, because this is why we have a human resources department here. They issue labour market opinions, and of course they have the idea of who to give one to or not.

I'm going quickly so that we can get through all these points I have.

We also suggest that CIC should publish a negative list of professions and trades. If we do not need PhDs in agriculture, then that should be listed in the negative list of professions. This will only help people overseas, because then they will know that if they go there, they're not going to get a job.

Also, regarding credentials, CIC should have some kind of guidance mechanism in overseas posts, and the potential immigrants should be advised, if they're engineers, that they have to come and do the papers again here, so that they don't complain that they had to drive a cab for three years before they got the papers.

I do respect professionals from overseas, and also, of course, the tradespeople, but again, CIC should advise them overseas.

I personally came to Canada 36 years ago. I worked for a Canadian company in Kenya, east Africa. I worked for Falconbridge, and they helped me come to Canada. My boss was the chairman of the board of directors. I went to see him, this old man—of course, at that time I was a young boy coming to Canada—and I asked him, “Sir, I'm going to Canada and I need your advice and guidance.” I remember his words. He said, “Ramesh, if you are not ashamed to work with your two hands, you will be successful in Canada.” I remember his words, after 36 years. And when I came to Canada, I was just lucky and I got a job in my profession. I was very lucky, but I know it doesn't happen to everybody. It's luck from God.

But what I'm saying here is that in this country there is a lot of dignity of labour. The people who claim, “I was a big shot back home, and now I'm doing this here,” I tell them, “With all due respect, if you were a big shot back home, then what are you doing here?” That's number one. But at the same time, I do understand their dilemma, so I think CIC should have some kind of mechanism back home, in the overseas post, to give people the right kind of advice regarding their credentials and their recognition.

I don't know if it's true--I read a lot of things in the newspaper—but the Minister of Immigration may be given some kind of discretionary powers to be able to cancel or whatever some of the people who may have been approved by your visa officers overseas. But I also have some information—I cannot disclose any names and all that—that this may not be true. I hope it is not true. Our humble request is that the minister not be given this kind of power, because it is contrary to our democratic rules in this country. I hope our request will be listened to.

The other thing is—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Dheer, I know you can keep going and going, but we did have seven minutes available for you and you're now at almost nine minutes. Maybe you could make some points in the question and answer period.

[Ramesh Dheer]

I haven't talked about undocumented workers at all yet. But if you people will ask me about that, I'm okay then, no problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm sure people will ask you some questions on undocumented workers—

[Ramesh Dheer]

Please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

—and you can address the issue at that point.

[Ramesh Dheer]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

If anyone in the audience would like to use a translation device, just put up your hand and we'll have somebody bring it down to you. Channel one is English, channel two is French.

Mr. Telegdi.

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

And channel five is in Hungarian?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Hungarian is on channel five.

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

Thank you very much, Professor Goldring.

I like your take on this. I've kicked around on undocumented workers for a long time, but I didn't quite put it in that scope, so I thank you for bringing that forward.

You mentioned some numbers. I think you said 39,000 in 1980 and 179,000 in 2006?

[Luin Goldring]

That was with reference to the stock of temporary foreign workers.

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

Oh, it was temporary foreign workers. I was thinking about undocumented workers.

In 2002 we changed the point system at the urging of the bureaucrats. I have learned, having been on this committee for 10 years and having seen seven ministers come and go, that when you talk about the minister having this power or that power, the bureaucracy has this power or that power. The ministers don't do a whole lot. It's done by the bureaucracy.

I go back to the issue of people in precarious status, undocumented workers. I've used those words interchangeably for a while. The numbers really got driven up because in 2002 the point system was changed when the bureaucracy persuaded the minister to sign off on it, notwithstanding the fact that the citizenship and immigration committee warned the minister that this would not work.

The bureaucracy at that point in time lied to the committee. It's a matter of public record that they lied to the committee. It also went on to a court case in which it was part of a decision. They misinformed the committee, and I really think we should have had them in for contempt. What that has done is driven up the number of people who are undocumented, because the people who were allowed in legally as landed immigrants were no longer capable of fulfilling the jobs that the economy wanted, mostly trades jobs.

We actually have more skilled people, and I could say to you--I've been using this as an example--Frank Stronach of Magna International would not get in. Frank Hasenfratz, chairman of Linamar, would not get in. Mike Lazaridis, the inventor of the BlackBerry, wouldn't get in. I dare say that 95% of the people who came in as immigrants wouldn't get in, and what I find curious is, when the bureaucrats grab for power, given the track record they have, what we need is transparency and accountability within the department.

I'm going to throw it over to you, Mr. Dheer, because you wanted to talk about undocumented workers, or should I say precarious immigration status. Would you agree with me that this is a problem?

The other problem we have is that by bringing in more temporary foreign workers, we're creating the kind of society that.... Germany had problems with it, and other countries have had problems with it. I want people coming in here whose kids are going to get up and make inventions such as the BlackBerry, which is made by a world-class company.

[Ramesh Dheer]

Thank you, sir.

Yes, I have to agree about the guest workers or whatever you want to define them as, illegal workers... You see, the fact is that once they're here for a couple of years or three years, they get used to the lifestyle here, which is of course probably better than in their old country.

Until now, there has been no mechanism to give them landed status from within Canada. So now the only option they have is to return to their native country, and the majority of them, probably 95% of them, do not go back. The U.S. is having the same problem. In the U.S., this category is called H-1b visas, which are for three years plus three years' extension. After six years, there is no extension, but rarely does anyone go back. We have the same thing in Canada. Once the work permit runs out, they're supposed to go back, but they don't, so that adds to the number of so-called undocumented workers. Yes, it is true.

[Luin Goldring]

Initially, were you asking a question about numbers as well?

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

Yes.

[Luin Goldring]

I would point out that there is no systematic research on numbers of people without documents, at least as far as I know. If anybody here can correct me, I would love to know about that.

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

The two figures right here are 200,000 to 500,000.