Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 10th, 2008

[Nicole Filion]

I just wanted to add that authorities more readily grant permanent residence based on job qualifications, whereas it is not imediately granted for workers who occupy less skilled jobs. Discrimination based on social condition must absolutely be banished from these programs.

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

In June of last year, the House of Commons approved a motion that I moved in this committee, and this committee approved it. The three parties in the House of Commons came together and supported the motion that basically set a moratorium on the deportation of undocumented workers--people without status--until we fixed the entire system.

My belief has always been that if you're good enough to work here, you're good enough to stay here. We should be bringing in these workers as landed immigrants, but our point system is broken. We know that. There's no queue for them to line up in because they may not have the degrees.

I'm wondering whether, or I would assume that you would support, that unless they...or the best scenario is to come as landed immigrants. If not, temporary workers really should come; or the visa should be given to the profession, not employer, standard.

Also, there needs to be both federal and provincial enforcement to check the workplaces to ensure there are no violations of labour laws. We want to make sure that the consultants--the recruiters out in their countries--are not getting big bucks, that they're not unscrupulous. We want to make sure that there is an advocacy centre--funded perhaps by different levels of government and stakeholders like yourselves--to make sure that you can advocate on their behalf. We want to make sure that the HRSDC funding or CIC funding would be given to immigrant-serving agencies to help temporary foreign workers, etc.

There is a whole series of recommendations. But to get to my question, I think that some members of Parliament know what needs to be done. We've said it several times in different locations. We've heard it different times.

Perhaps to the league and to Amnesty, how do you think we can collectively get the points across so that matter which party, which government, whatever level--let's say the federal level--they cannot ignore the plight of these workers? The workers are being seen as really cheap labour, and when we're done with them, a lot of them have to leave.

For live-in caregivers, at least there's light at the end of the tunnel. The 24 hour, 36 months is a problem, but still there's a bit of hope. For a lot of the farm workers, for others who are low-skilled, there's no hope for them to ever become landed immigrants.

How do you think we can collectively work to impress upon different parliamentarians that there absolutely have to be fundamental changes? It's a slightly more political question.

[Béatrice Vaugrante]

The first thing that's necessary—and we raised this point in our presentation—is to conduct research on this phenomenon. The live-in caregiver program concerns trafficking in women. Of the women who enter the country, legally or illegally, 90% do not take part in the program. Ten per cent of them come through the live-in caregiver program, but 90% of domestic workers are in irregular or other situations. First, we should document that, conduct research and agree on definitions of the words “trafficking”, “traffic”, “live-in caregiver”, “working conditions” and “jurisdiction”. We should really document this and conduct in-depth research together.

In my opinion, the second thing to do is to invite the organizations, which are excluded most of the time, to come up with a definition of working conditions and a definition of contracts, whether it's for migrant, seasonal, seasonal agricultural or domestic workers. These organizations must take part in discussions so that we can hear what they have to say and hear about the rights violations that people suffer. We can create nothing, invent nothing, if they are not at the discussion table.

[Nicole Fillion]

I'd like to add something. It's true that we're currently in a general context in which human rights are trivialized. There is a rights recognition regression.

I believe it is essential to remind the public and members of Parliament that they have human rights obligations. We don't acknowledge human rights as a result of a person's status, but because that person is a human being. If there is one principle that must be recalled when we want to make the public aware of working conditions and the very existence of these persons, it is that one.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Thierry St-Cyr]

Ms. Boivin, you have about 15 seconds left.

[Louise Boivin]

When we talk about regularizing undocumented individuals, we're talking about regularizing human beings who are living in sub-human conditions, in illegal places, and who contribute to the Canadian economy. Employers benefit from that, and they should be required to give them the same rights and protections as are given to the entire Canadian labour force.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Thierry St-Cyr]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Grewal, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank all of you for coming here. I thank you for your time, and I thank you for your presentations.

It's now almost two weeks, and we've heard a lot on undocumented workers, temporary workers, Iraqi refugees, and immigration consultants. My time, as you know, is very limited. I won't take much of your time so that you have enough time to answer my question.

My question is this: what suggestions, improvements, or recommendations do you have with regard to the current temporary workers program and to the refugee system as well?

Could each of you please answer, just in a nutshell?

[Claudette Cardinal, Coordinator, Refugees, Canadian Francophone Section, Amnesty International]

Is that for the refugee system also?

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

Yes.

[Claudette Cardinal]

In that case, do I have all day?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Claudette Cardinal]

For the refugee system, I believe numerous groups have appeared before this committee and have made suggestions. This committee has made recommendations to government last May or June, in 2007, which the government declined to accept, saying the system was not broken. I believe the committee and the government are well aware of the various suggestions in terms of refugees.

In terms of the reason we are here today, the temporary workers—Ms. Chow was also asking what can be done—I believe a media blitz can be done. I can give an example and draw an analogy. Right now there is a bill before the Senate, Bill S-218, which codifies a new approach to trafficked persons. I have been told by lawyers who are working with some of these women that in Quebec there have only been two women who have been able to benefit from this program. Other people who have gone and consulted lawyers are told, “Well, let's make a refugee claim”, because the lawyers don't seem to be aware that there is a program to protect trafficked persons, particularly women.

I believe a media blitz of some sort or a ministerial announcement would certainly be useful in that one particular issue. It would certainly be helpful.

As was mentioned, human rights don't seem to be very important any more, and yet Canada has a reputation for being a place where human rights have always been respected. It seems to not be as important now as other aspects of our life. That has to come to the forefront.

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

Okay.

Let's give a chance to the other people.

[Alain Vallières]

As regards the refugee process, my advice would definitely be to instill in everyone the idea that not everything is necessarily working well and that we can have self-doubt. If we keep in mind that we can doubt ourselves, that everyone is human and that we make mistakes, that may subsequently enable us to find processes to correct those errors. However, everything currently operates as though everyone everywhere were perfect. The board members don't make any mistakes, the Federal Court judges are convinced that the board members don't make any mistakes, and our public servants are perfect and review their files perfectly, giving them the necessary time. We are living in the best of all worlds. There is no need to rectify or correct anything, at least judging from the way everything operates right now. If we start with that assumption, we will realize that many things, everywhere, need to be improved.

As regards temporary workers, in my opinion, one of the first things that could be done quickly, and at low cost, is education. One of my clients—I'm a practitioner, so I use practical examples—a farm owner, asked me whether a family could come and work on his farm as farmers. Indeed, a family is an interesting proposition since, he told me, even the children can work in the fields when it isn't too cold. When I say children, you understand, I'm talking about young children, and they can do things.

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

Perhaps you could just go to the recommendations. If you go into examples, then the others won't have much time. Thank you.

[Alain Vallières]

My first recommendation would be to go for education first. It would be the first thing. It would cost less and it could be efficient in a short time.

[Nicole Fillion]

I'd like to go back to two essential aspects of our presentation that were not discussed with members.

First is the question of the moratorium on deportations and a regularization program. The presentation that we made was quite brief. The duration of that program is to be determined, but we believe an evaluation mechanism should be planned once the program has been put in place.

The other point I wanted to recall, if such a program is established, is that, in the event individuals would have to be excluded from the regularization program for reasons of national security, those individuals must absolutely be guaranteed all rights and legal guarantees provided for in the Charter.

Another essential point concerns those persons who wind up without documents, deprived of all recourse and all protection with regard to economic, social and cultural rights. I insist that these people be granted access to health services, education and social services.

[Louise Boivin]

This access is provided in a number of American states, and there is a program called Don't Ask, Don't Tell in Toronto, under which people can call the police if they are experiencing marital violence, among other things.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Thierry St-Cyr]

We'll start the second round. Ms. Grewal, you will then have the opportunity to complete your question.

Mr. Telegdi, you have three minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

One of the issues I want to touch on is that the whole issue of temporary foreign workers is about importing disposable labour. It's not all that different from what was done with the Chinese when we brought them in to build the railway. Now this is the new kind of way we're going at it; we don't call it slavery, but it comes close to it. We have indentured workers and we really have no respect for the folks with lower skills.

I just want to point to Frank Stronach, Magna International; Frank Hasenfratz, chair of Linamar Corporation; Mike Lazaridis, who makes the BlackBerry. None of them would get in under today's system. This just points to the silliness of the whole system.

In my mind, if you wanted to deal with some temporary foreign workers who have a lot of power because their skills are really in demand.... They don't have a problem; the people who have the problem are the people at the bottom end.

In terms of regularization, the previous government was working on it and was very close to coming forward with legislation. The government fell and the bureaucrats went back to their stance under the previous government and gained control of the issue. The point I'm making here is that a lot of this stuff is driven by the bureaucracy. To the extent we've had seven ministers of immigration in the last 10 years, it points to it. In a lot of cases, we've been fighting the bureaucracy in trying to get something done.

I hope that when Bill C-50 comes along, you will all come out. It's going be here soon, as it's surely the big elephant we're going to be dealing with next.

In terms of the refugee system, the problem is that we have now created a crisis. The backlog was down to 20,000, and we finally had the system fixed, and then Jean-Guy Fleury ended up quitting because of political interference. And now the backlog is up to over 42,000; it's going to hit 60,000 by the end of the year; and we have a shortage of something like 58 adjudicators. So the crisis was created when we already had the system fixed. By politicizing it, it really created a crisis.

I think the public has to be made aware of what is going on in immigration, because I don't think they are, and we must not let it be exploited for political purposes, such as getting votes.

I'd like your quick comment.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Thierry St-Cyr]

Now you'll really have to be very quick, Ms. Boivin, because there are only a few seconds left.

[Louise Boivin]

The previous government talked about a regularization program to grant temporary status in certain sectors, such as construction. We're saying that it is human rights logic that must prevail over the logic of corporate needs. In that respect, we're talking about permanent status under regularization. That status should not be linked to specific sectors, but must be considered in terms of access to universal rights for all persons.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Thierry St-Cyr]

Thank you.

Sir, your time is unfortunately up. Your comments were very lengthy and there was little time left for the answer. All members must manage the time available to them.

Mr. Carrier, it's your turn.

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

Thank you.

I would like to reassure Ms. Boivin. We haven't asked a lot of questions on your recommendations, that is to say the moratorium and the establish of a regularization process. We have previously taken note of that at other hearings, and we think you've made a very good recommendation there. This is precisely part of the problem of changes that must be made in the immigration field.

Let's talk about abuse cases. We have to talk about the present situation, which won't be resolved that quickly. I'm familiar with the legislative process, and I know that it takes a lot of time to prepare and pass a bill. In the short term, shouldn't the federal government have a file on all employers who are reported, who are mentioned, when abuse cases are in the spotlight? You are members of organizations that take note of that. Would you consider it a good idea if the government at least had a kind of file on these employers who are likely to mistreat or exploit temporary workers?