Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 9th, 2008

[Luin Goldring]

Estimates range from 20,000 to 600,000. With that kind of estimate, I think it's difficult to come up with anything serious.

[Ramesh Dheer]

The more realistic figure is 300,000 people, more or less. It's a very close estimate.

[Luin Goldring]

As far as I know we don't really have systematic research on this issue, nor do we know.... We have guesses about the labour markets--the occupations that people with less than full status or with precarious status have--but again it's not systematically documented.

[Ramesh Dheer]

I'll tell you how I calculated it.

Last time I remember immigration had this backlog program, that came about 15 or 16 years ago. At that time they gave permanent residence to everybody who was out of status at that time. For the last 14 to 15 years, no program has come to regularize the status of these so-called undocumented workers.

Now, how do we calculate that? It is based on the number of refugee claims every year. Of the refugee claims, 50%--no, it's more than that--are accepted, but then there are a number of claims.... If there are, let's say, 35,000 refugee claims every year, 10,000 don't get through and hardly 10% will go back. We calculate the number of refugee claims made in the last 15 years, the number that have been turned down, and the number that have gone back. Immigration's removals unit does not have enough manpower to ship people out. It's very difficult because of the manpower availability within CIC.

If you add these numbers, it will come to a minimum of 300,000 people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

The reason we have to be strict on time today is that we have to be out of here by four o'clock. It's a must that we be out.

Go ahead, Mr. St-Cyr.

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

Thank you, everyone.

Mr. Busby, as our chairman asked you, you cited some statistics showing the variation in unemployment rates between central Alberta and a place whose name I forget somewhere in the Atlantic Provinces. You mentioned 2% compared to 19%, I believe.

When I sat on the Finance Committee, representatives of the C.D. Howe Institute addressed this problem and that of labour mobility. I think you're looking at things backwards. Perhaps we should talk more about job mobility. People are not livestock that we can move from one end of the country to the other based on economic needs. If people live in the Atlantic provinces, were raised there and have lived there, it's because they prefer the smell of the sea to that of the oil sands. If people from Quebec don't go to Alberta, it's because they belong to a different culture, their language is different, and they don't want to go and live in Alberta. However, other people live there and like it there, and so much the better.

Whether it be through our immigration policies or any other social policy, we should try to establish our economic policy so that it meets our social needs rather than try to move people and adapt our social policies to economic reality. That's what we see these days, and we wonder whether we should continue encouraging the oil sands development, in particular.

I'm not going to go too far in that direction because I'm straying from the subject and our chairman is very touchy about that today. Getting back to immigration, do you think we're not really solving the problem by relying mainly on temporary foreign workers to offset major labour shortages in certain places? Shouldn't we opt instead for an economic policy designed to create jobs in certain regions, thus striking a better balance?

[Colin Busby]

What is your question exactly?

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

Don't you think that this policy on temporary foreign workers, which is designed to meet local labour needs, doesn't correct, but rather exacerbates the economic imbalance currently prevailing among regions in Canada, as you so eloquently demonstrated?

[Colin Busby]

You're entirely right: people have reasons for not wanting to move, whether it's a matter of culture or family, in particular. There are a host of reasons. However, many people live in the Atlantic region because there was fishing 50 or 100 years ago and that was very popular. People moved there for that reason.

Now Alberta is highly sought after, and that's because of its economic activity. You are right, but there are also economic responses. This also concerns labour and capital. It's hard to answer your question. Whatever the case may be, there should be more reactions to the labour issue.

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

Alberta's economy is obviously overheated, and I'd like to know whether it's preferable to put our foot on the accelerator to overheat it even more or to apply the brake, to be more prudent and to take into account the fact that those resources won't last forever.

If there isn't enough labour locally, that's not the end of the world. It may not be dramatic if people invest elsewhere in Canada. Isn't it being shortsighted to bring in thousands of temporary foreign workers, disposable workers that we'll send back to their countries when we no longer need them, and all because of an overheated economy?

[Colin Busby]

I don't exactly understand the question.

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

Perhaps Mr. Goldring could answer it.

[Luin Goldring]

I don't know whether I clearly understood the question, but perhaps I could ask you one.

If we want to overheat the economy and we need this labour, why don't we permanently accept the workers who can play that role? Why just accept them temporarily?

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

That's essentially my point of view. Alberta's economy is currently overheated. You talked about fishing in the Atlantic region and about the fact that situations of that kind would reoccur. It seems to me that, under the present program, workers are considered more as disposable. We give them work and we involve them in the economic boom, but once that's over, we send them back, then we look for other workers who will meet other needs.

I believe Mr. Dheer also wanted to make a comment on the subject.

[Ramesh Dheer]

Thank you, sir.

I can answer that in two steps. One is that you rightly asked whether, if people don't want to move from other parts of Canada for various reasons, we are going to let Alberta, for example, suffer a slowdown in its economy. No. Immigration has become more of a global phenomenon. Wherever we get the labour cheap or immediately available.... If I have to do something and have a company, then I'm going to try to get somebody from within Canada, but if there is nobody available I should be allowed to bring someone from wherever I can get someone, number one, cheaply, and, number two, readily available.

There are statistics that Alberta alone in our country is short of 400,000 workers, which are required there right away. If nobody is moving from Newfoundland or from Ontario, what do these guys have to do? They have to bring people in. This is my one point.

The other thing was why they should not be brought here directly as permanent residents. This is because the practice of immigration for bringing people into Canada directly as landed immigrants or permanent residents is a very comprehensive exercise. A lot of checks have to be done. A lot of things have to be identified, and this and that. Then, we have a backlog in the department—I'm not criticizing either Tories or Liberals on how the backlog got into the situation, but the fact remains that there is a backlog—so that with 900,000 people on the front line, if I make an application today, I am at the tail end. Right now the waiting period from India is six years, from China it is seven years, and from the U.K. it's four years. Which company here is going to wait for a plumber to come here? If somebody has a construction company and wants fifteen carpenters and ten plumbers, will they wait for six years? No.

What we have to do is bring people in on a temporary basis as a quick thing, and it can be done within a number of weeks. Then the employer has workers here. That is the reason they are being brought as temporary workers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Very good. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Khan.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Dheer, you made some very valid points, and they are well taken. We also thank you for giving credit to the government of 16 or 17 years ago for the amnesty. That was a Conservative government.

You also made a good point about bringing people in quickly and the economy of any province. It is not only Alberta, Quebec, or any other province. British Columbia's economy is going pretty strong, along with Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and even in the Newfoundland economy—offshore oil is there—and I foresee in the long term we will be looking at almost 100% net labour market requirement based on immigration. We do need to expedite those things.

Thank you for your comments.

I also want to show you that the minister does not—and I categorically tell you that—have the arbitrary power to overrule the visa officer's decision, so you can sleep easy and let people know that is the case. Thank you, sir.

On the other thing, I would like to go to Mr. Busby.

I want to talk a little more about labour flexibility. Some comments were made that people do not want to move from Newfoundland or Quebec, and you answered “Well....”. But at the same time we have to realize that people have come to this country from four corners of the world. They are going to continue to come from the four corners of the world. Why are people coming here? We are a compassionate country. We have the best real estate in the world, we have a good job market requirement, and we have great social programs built over the years.

If they can come from India, China, Pakistan, or wherever, I don't think they will have a whole lot of problem moving from Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Quebec, or anywhere else. That's if they wish to move; the decision on whether they wish to move or not should rest with the people, not with politicians like me or anybody else in this room.

How would you see the labour market flexibility, and how can we bring it about?

[Colin Busby]

I agree with you entirely, but what I'd say is that often policy can get in the way and pose obstacles and not give people the ability to move from one place to another if they so choose. There are numerous reasons why that could happen. There could be incentives to stay back home, such as the way the employment insurance program is structured. It's structured so that people would have a better system of return if they were to file their claims in their home province. There are other things as well, such as people who under 35 years and are repeat users of the employment insurance program falling under the same requirements as anyone else. There are numerous ways in which policy can get in the way of labour mobility, and I'd like to draw that to your attention.

I agree with you that it's not necessarily our say whether they should or shouldn't, but there are also ways of allowing them to make that choice themselves.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

My colleague Ms. Grewal will share the time with me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Ms. Grewal.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All of us know that there is a shortage of workers here, whether in construction, hospitality, farm work, or driving. My question is very simple. I don't like to waste time, and that's why I'll ask a very short question so that you have enough time to answer: what improvements would you recommend to the current temporary worker program?

[Ramesh Dheer]

Thank you, Madam.

As I said in my previous presentation, the CIC should compile a list of the trades and professions that are in high demand. That should be sent overseas. The new people brought in as temporary workers should be in those categories, not other categories. I think I've answered your question. CIC has to make a list, for example, we want 700 nurses, 200 plumbers. That is how it should be done.

The other thing is, when you're bringing a plumber or carpenter here, there has to be some kind of lowering of the language requirement. You don't need a high proficiency in English or French for a person who is going to come and do cleaning in a hotel or motel, or for somebody who is coming here as a caregiver or a bricklayer. The bureaucrats tend to apply the same level of education on low-skilled worker programs. We need hundreds of thousands of temporary workers to come here under the low-skilled category. Why do they need a grade 12 education? Grade 10 would be okay.

When I appeared in front of the parliamentary committee on immigration, I gave the example of Toronto. I was driving with a friend of mine downtown. We were talking and he told me that downtown Toronto was built by the Italians. I said these buildings probably can understand and speak Italian, but they may not understand English.

What I'm saying is that English may be a requirement for professionals--that is understood--but for the low-skilled workers program, in order to bring them in quickly, I think a lower level of English and grade 10 should be the minimum requirement.

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

There are some workers being exploited by their employers. How can we protect these vulnerable people?

[Ramesh Dheer]

These employers--we can say unscrupulous employers--may not be able to do that for a long time. I understand that the people who come to Canada as temporary workers, which is being extended to the students, will be allowed to apply for permanent residence from within Canada. I think there is some talk that they may be allowed, if an employer is abusing them, to change their job.

So I think this will be eliminated automatically.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Good. Thank you.

Mr. Carrier, you have a couple of minutes.