Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 16th, 2008

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you very much for coming. It's refreshing to hear your points of view.

I know particularly in the hotel industry you're going through some difficult times in having the appropriate number of staff. I happen to know some business people who own hotels and find themselves putting in extra time, or those close to them, because they can't fill it. It is stressful when people want time off and so on. I know many of my colleagues would complain if they didn't receive the degree of service they expect, but it takes people to provide that.

It seems that the immigration system, as it has been working over the last number of years, is not doing the job. It's failing, and it's particularly failing employers and those who are prepared to grow our economy and provide a service but are not able to because they haven't got the human resources. So it needs to be fixed. We've tried to do patchwork, and I suppose in some measure it helps. One of those programs is for temporary foreign workers, and you've referred to the provincial nominee program. There is that desire to find a way to permanently land those people who are already here and working and integrating into the community, and to find a way to make them become part of the community on a more long-term basis.

I know we've tried the Canadian experience class, in which some temporary foreign workers--students who go to school, to universities, from foreign countries--are given a pathway to become a permanent resident. I'd just like to get your view on that. I gather you would be in favour of finding some means of providing a path for temporary foreign workers, of whatever description, to find their way, after a certain point, into our mainstream society and communities to become permanent residents. Is that your thinking?

[Carol Logan]

Yes, absolutely. We're hand-picking these people. We're interviewing. We're bringing those who want to come, and then based on their experience here, we are saying, “Okay, is this someone who's going to add to our economy, our society, or not?” Then you can say, “Yes”, and then really represent them well, or you can say, “Well, actually, you know, no, it was bumpy.” If it was bumpy and it didn't work after six months, we're not committed for two years. We can say, “Unfortunately, this isn't working and we have to make changes.”

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It's a nice way to integrate and assimilate into the community.

[Carol Logan]

Absolutely.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

We announced the off-campus work permit for foreign students. It was really a great thing for the universities because they had foreign students coming in. The employers could have students working because they were short of people. The students were happy to make some extra cash while they were going to university, so it was a win-win for everybody. In the end, we gave them an opportunity to apply to become Canadians. It seems as if it's a system that responds to the needs of the economy, of the various people involved, so we need to be far more responsive and far more reactive. It's fair to say that having a system whereby skilled workers, or other workers, have to wait four years, six years, or seven years to come in doesn't cut it with business and the way our economy works. It needs to be weeks or months, not years.

I hear what you're saying, and it's certainly refreshing to hear the employer's point of view on that issue.

At the same time, we find, at least when we were in Toronto, that a number of undocumented workers are filling positions in the construction industry. I'm not sure what the situation would be here. Again, I gather part of the reason they were going that way is they couldn't find a legitimate means to come in to do work that was required.

Do you have any thoughts about that, Mr. Cole?

[Cordell Cole]

To date, we haven't had that problem here in Nova Scotia. I know the problem does exist in Toronto, and it certainly does exist in Vancouver. Again, if there's a way these people can come into the country and become landed immigrants, I would much prefer that than on a temporary foreign worker basis.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

And it's fair.

At the moment, it takes years to get a skilled worker through. They have 800,000-plus in the queue, and if you happen to be 800,001, it's a long wait. The idea is that you have to make it better faster or you have to work around some other measure.

I agree with you, there need to be some changes. If we're going to have temporary foreign workers, I hear you when you say there needs to be consultation and communication to be sure that if you have Canadian people here in the community at present that can fit a particular job or occupation, then obviously we should do that. If we can train our own young people into the occupation, that's a good thing. Statistics Canada tells us that if we did all of that aggressively, we would still be short.

So what does one do with the shortfall? I guess we have to come up with some ways and means that make good business sense, that make good sense for the newcomer, good sense for the employer, and good sense for our country. We really need to approach the immigration system in a different way than we have for the past decade or so, because it's not working, is what I'm saying.

Are you telling me my time is up?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Go right ahead.

[Cordell Cole]

One of the things that we found is working for us here in Nova Scotia is a program called Texploration. It's a program that got started several years ago, designed for the junior high level. It makes presentations to young women to try to attract them into a career in the skilled trades perhaps, once they've finished high school. That's worked out very well for us here. We're seeing that now, more and more. For example, we have 12 in our trade, whereas before that wouldn't have happened.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It's a multi-faceted approach. You can't just look at one angle. Even having people coming in, you were saying English language...learning to do basic things like banking and other types of skills that are necessary is important.

Over the last decade there's been a freeze in settlement integration funding. Certainly, in our budget we have put $1.4 billion over five years to directly target that. I know temporary foreign workers can't avail themselves of that opportunity, but it's something we need to look at, I would think, in terms of setting up a base for those who do come in to succeed while they're in and transition more easily into our communities.

Would you agree with that?

[Carol Logan]

Absolutely, and successfully be a part of it while they're here, and what does that look like.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Komarnicki, your time is up.

I cut off Mr. Carrier in mid-sentence. He wanted to finish his thought,so I'm going to allow him to finish that thought. That's why I'll give him a minute now, with your permission.

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

I have a brief question for Mr. Cordell Cole. A little earlier you talked about a lack of coordination. Local labour was overlooked by one contractor that wanted to bring in foreign labour as temporary workers to do work at the Port of Halifax. According to the rules of the government program, an employer wishing to hire temporary workers must show that it has made all possible efforts to recruit local labour before making a request to recruit foreign workers. In the case you referred to, was that study done? Is the problem more a deficiency in the program's operation?

[Cordell Cole]

In that case, there was certainly a breakdown in how the program was supposed to work because there was no consultation. The employer, in that instance, was a firm. The cranes were built in China. They were sent over here, and the Chinese firm wanted to use the Chinese workers to erect the cranes here. Now, we had done several cranes before that, cranes that were manufactured in other parts of the world, but our local people constructed and finished them.

So there was a breakdown there somehow between the government and local parties that there just wasn't any consultation. We met with them afterward and they said in the future they would try to improve the consultation process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

It was probably done by non-union workers in their part of the world. Right? The original erection of the cranes and putting the cranes together was probably done by non-union workers over there.

[Cordell Cole]

The cranes were built overseas. I'm not sure how they were done. You could be correct. They are brought over on a barge and then landed in Halifax.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes. Okay.

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

I simply want to clarify this point. These aren't temporary workers authorized by Employment and Immigration Canada. It's the company itself that hired those people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I have to cut it off in the interests of time management here. We do have other people waiting to begin their presentations as well.

I want to thank you for coming today. At the end of it all, of course, we'll be doing a report and making recommendations, and hopefully the report will contain some of your recommendations as well.

[Cordell Cole]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We'll break for a minute or two to bring up our next panel of people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I want to welcome the Halifax Coalition Against Poverty, Mr. Kevin Wyman, and the Atlantic Region Association of Immigrant Serving Agencies, Gerry Mills, president.

Welcome to both of you. I would imagine you have opening statements. If you do, you can begin anytime you wish to, and whoever wishes to go first, Mr. Wyman or Ms. Mills, feel free.

[Gerry Mills, President, Atlantic Region Association of Immigrant Serving Agencies]

Good morning.

My name is Gerry Mills. I'm the president of ARAISA, the Atlantic Region Association of Immigrant Serving Agencies. Established in 1994, ARAISA is a volunteer umbrella group of 12 settlement agencies in Atlantic Canada whose mandate is to deliver settlement services to newcomers. All of the 12 organizations receive funding from CIC to do this.

Traditionally, the temporary foreign worker program was used to bring in three kinds of workers quickly and relatively easily: live-in caregivers; seasonal agricultural workers; and highly skilled specialists such as doctors, engineers, and academics. For the past five years, Canada's federal government has expanded its temporary foreign worker program in response to demands from provincial governments and employers, who've lobbied for the right to bring workers to Canada on temporary permits to try to address acute skill shortages in certain sectors and areas of the country.

The change in focus has come with a change in TFW profile, and it brings me to ARAISA's first concern. I'd like to temper my remarks after listening to Carol Logan; the remarks I'm going to make around the potential abuse for temporary foreign workers is notwithstanding the great work they're doing here.

Across the country, the program is being used to fill positions that Canadians don't want, often at the lower end of the labour market. The jobs are often permanent, or as permanent as jobs can be in the current global economy. Many of the individuals who've come for these positions have educational levels that are not so high, their language ability is limited, and they're faced with living in a culture that's complex and confusing. They are increasingly vulnerable because of their temporary status.

Theoretically, they have the same basic employment rights as any Canadian workers, but enforcing those rights is nearly impossible. Lack of awareness, language barriers, and misleading employer-provided information are common problems. I'm sure as you've traveled across the country you've heard of documented cases of abuse around wages and working conditions--wages lower than promised, illegal deductions, etc. Monitoring of conditions, although mandated by government, is inadequately funded, leaving a huge opportunity where abuse can thrive.

Traditional avenues of assistance, such as immigrant-serving agencies like ARAISA members, are prohibited by CIC from providing assistance to temporary foreign workers. Which brings me to ARAISA's next point: eligibility for services. Canada is bringing in migrant workers. They're coming with their families; they're bringing their children who are going to school here. They're working, they're living, they're paying taxes, and they're playing in our communities. They're making a significant contribution to keeping our economy healthy.

As a nation, we recognize that immigrants need special settlement services, and we provide a range of services to help them. Being tied to a one-employer job for one or two years does not make you settled. Being a spouse of a temporary foreign worker who has a job does not make you settled. We urge the federal government to rethink the whole issue of denying access to settlement services to temporary foreign workers and their families, especially if we're trying to set up processes for them to move into permanent resident status, recognizing that many want to stay and we want them, as a nation, to stay. Research has established time and time again that early, appropriate, focused settlement interventions lead to successfully integrated newcomers.

ARAISA's third point is around the issue of the temporary status of those who come under the program. Many are coming using this expedited route as a faster way to achieve permanent residency; government is seeing them as an opportunity to increase the population base. While we appreciate that it's a simplistic and unrealistic argument to say, let's deal with the skill shortages with PRs instead of temporary foreign workers, it does highlight that the time may be right for a complete review, or even overhaul, of both the temporary foreign worker program and indeed the immigration program. We're bringing people on short-term contracts into jobs, with many of them wanting to stay permanently. We're bringing in people permanently because of their education and experience, but they're not able to find jobs. There's a disconnect here that we as a nation need to consider.

ARAISA is certainly not advocating a removal of the skilled worker stream. We appreciate that highly skilled migration is generally politically popular and has been a relatively easy policy for politicians to sell to electorates; immigration of low-skilled workers is often opposed because it's believed that they present an extra source of competition in an already low-paid part of the economy. However, Canada's economy has a need for a balanced immigration program that responds on many levels of need and also includes a flexible, simple entry route for lower-skilled immigrant workers.

We should stop making something more difficult than it needs to be. The temporary foreign worker program, and the jobs that go with it, are anything but temporary. But we still have this dual application process from foreign national to temporary foreign worker, temporary foreign worker to permanent resident, made all the more difficult in Atlantic Canada where a permanent job offer to make this happen is, in most cases, unrealistic for an SME.

We urge the Government of Canada to seriously consider the implications of continuing to expand a short-term temporary foreign worker program instead of focusing on long-term population needs. The rapid expansion and emphasis of the program in order to respond to the business and economic pressures have not come without detrimental effects on the other immigration programs. For example, the family reunification processing times have risen significantly in the last few years.

Although temporary labour migration can provide opportunities for labour-sending countries to relieve unemployment and improve economic growth through remittances and transfer of skills when workers return home, there are ethical concerns and questions for us, as Canadians, and this is my next point.

Are we, as a nation, okay with people in this country performing work that boosts our economy for wages that we would not accept? Is business able to keep wages unnaturally low by using temporary foreign workers, instead of letting wages rise to a level demanded by the labour force and labour markets? I heard that mentioned already this morning. Do these lower wages lead to a lack of respect and a lack of acknowledgement for migrant workers? And finally, how has this significant change in the way we deal with skill shortages and economic pressures, bringing in over 100,000 on a temporary basis, taken place in the absence of any real public debate?

I've come to ARAISA's recommendation.

One, identify the additional resources needed to provide stronger legal protection and flexibility for temporary foreign workers.

Two, set up a temporary foreign worker unit for workers themselves and not just for the employers.

Three, in recognition of their social, economic, and financial contributions to the country and their potential to become permanent residents, allow access for temporary foreign workers and their families to CIC-funded settlement services.

Four, create an inland Canada class that would allow temporary foreign workers to apply for residence from within the country.

And last, but certainly not least, revamp the whole temporary foreign worker program and other immigration programs to reflect the real, current, and future needs of the country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Wyman.

[Kevin Wyman, Halifax Coalition Against Poverty]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee. Welcome to Halifax.

My name is Kevin Wyman, and I am presenting on behalf of the Halifax Coalition Against Poverty.

HCAP is a direct action anti-poverty organization. In many cases, we're the people who are organizing demonstrations and protests and similar actions. But we did none of that to you today. We also provide a range of advocacy and education services to the population we represent.

Our purpose in coming here today is to add our voice to those of the many national, regional, and local organizations in support of people attempting to immigrate or seek refuge in this country. HCAP is also here to support the labour organizations that play such a vital role in debates concerning people in this country and around the world. I need to say up front, though, that we are here to support people. We reject those terms such as “illegal” and “non-status” when they are tagged onto people--they're abhorrent to us.

So there is no misunderstanding, we're not here to attempt to cajole the government. We're here to express our outrage. First, and most important, HCAP has sent me here today to say to that we demand the government withdraw the present amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

But there is more. We demand an immediate moratorium on the deportation of all people living in Canada who find themselves in peril with regard to their immigration or citizenship status. The second item isn't a very radical notion. If I'm not mistaken, this motion, or something very similar, was recommended by a previous standing committee. It was presented in Parliament, debated, and passed. Of course, something else happened to it after that.

This is hardly a complicated issue to us. We're all human beings after all. If people are vulnerable, they deserve our care and compassion first.

I'll move on to the next HCAP demand. We demand that a full, inclusive, and accessible regularization program be put in place. As luck would have it, once again it seemed that we had the support of the previous standing committee and Canada's Parliament. The problem, of course, is that that motion died with the dissolution of the House.

Allow me to provide a recap from our perspective. A standing committee on immigration made up of members of Parliament representing four parties recommended similar items. Parliament debated and passed two of the items we have presented here. And then the initiative died on what we and most Canadians would term a technicality. Admittedly, we don't understand the niceties of that, but it's not something strange for a citizen to say. Government then turns around, comes up with a different set of objectives, tucks those into a budget implementation bill, and we all have to do this all over again, under threat of an election this time because it's part of a confidence item. This is beginning to feel more like a hostage-taking than blackmail.

You might discern that we're already suspicious and angry. But aside from the contemptible process, what else is the government bringing upon us? The government is asking for new powers in the amendment. Some of those are arbitrary and dangerous--totalitarian even. You want the sole discretion to reject any worker, student, visitor, or permanent resident application, even if it meets the existing criteria. You want to arbitrarily issue instructions setting quotas on the category of persons who can enter Canada. You want to decide the order in which new applications are processed.

What does all this mean to us?

It means that an immigration system that used to be run according to known, predictable rules would be subject to ever-changing ministerial direction. The legislation would grant the minister the authority to issue instructions regarding the types of applications to be processed—be that skilled worker, family class, or job qualification—as often as he or she wished. In effect, individuals who meet Canada's already stringent entry criteria but aren't on the minister's priority list could effectively end up barred. They could reapply, but the same outcome would likely result, we maintain.

There's nothing in the conduct of this government initiative to date that would convince us to extend this level of trust. We tend to believe that adage about absolute power corrupting absolutely. Similar powers have given us some of the worst examples of discrimination and racism in Canada's history.

More than this, it's proposed that the minister shall examine a humanitarian and compassionate application from inside Canada, but “may” examine it—it should just go ahead and say “might”—if it originates from outside the country. In practice, our friends say, this will have a serious impact on one of the most frequent applications used in family reunification.

HCAP, admittedly, is not a service provider within the field being discussed. We are limited, then, as to the range and depth of the associated issues on which we feel comfortable commenting. Primarily, our concern is with the procedure employed by the government to get its way on these amendments. With respect to arbitrary powers assigned to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, any Canadian, surely, is qualified to be alarmed by the government's amendments in this regard.