This raises another question, then. They sound as though they have skills and can be employable and can be absorbed by other parts of the economy. What we tend to do is put over-qualified people into jobs they don't need all those qualifications for.
What comes to mind is that Tim Hortons recently hired 100 people from the Philippines, all university graduates, and they're working at Tim Hortons in Alberta at $12 an hour. I wondered about the advisability. If I were running Tim Hortons, why would I want university graduates employed for a year, when I know full well that once the year expires I'm going to lose them? If I didn't have university graduates, the chances are that I would probably have a better chance of retaining them.
I raise that because it points to the fact that we need menial labour, which takes some skills, but when you require too much in the way of qualifications, you might have this happen.
Could you provide the committee with a copy of the contract you had with them? I would really like to see it. I think it would be useful for the committee as we study this and make recommendations.
What they've done is almost assure themselves that when the visa expires, they either go underground or they'll leave the country.