Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 16th, 2008

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Just a couple a minutes, but go ahead. I think we're fairly good on time here.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Andrew.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly Andrew expressed my feelings exactly. I'm thrilled to hear what you had to say this morning, and the first thing I would ask, before I forget, is this. I suspect you did not hand in a report, or at least a speech, because it's only in one language. I would really appreciate it if you would let the clerk have a copy of what you just read out, so we could have it translated and distributed, because I agree with just about all the things you said, but some of them were very much in detail. And your recommendations I think are very important to take note of.

I can tell you that one of your recommendations, regarding the landing of temporary workers, is already in the books as far as this committee is concerned, and we discussed it earlier this week. From what I understand, we are certainly pretty well in agreement, as members of this committee, that this is something we should recommend to the government.

We heard from a witness in Quebec City a couple of days ago. I forget which day this is now. If this is Wednesday, should it be Halifax or should it be St. John's? I don't know any more. But we heard from a witness in Quebec who compared the situation of temporary workers to, as she called it, “servitude”. I think it's more of a French word than it is English. It was a shocking word to use, but it woke some of us up to what can happen. I'm not saying that this is what happens across the board, by any means, and a lot of employers are very concerned and take care of their workers, etc.

This is what has to be looked at: the systemic approach, not the individual approach. The system itself allows for this sort of thing that you've talked about to happen, and this is what we have to look at. We have to look at how to change the system, not just to say to somebody, “Well, you're doing badly”, and to somebody else, “You're doing well”.

What worries me about the system also is that.... I'm worried about the two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Everyone will be given ample time.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

There's another side to this: what happens to these people. Who are these people who come from other countries? Some of them come, and they are low- or middle-skilled, as you've just said. But not all of them are, as we know. This is a way for some people to come in and sort of disappear into the underground economy afterwards, and the system doesn't allow it, but it doesn't do anything to prevent it. And as we heard from witnesses yesterday afternoon in Fredericton, once it happens, there's nothing we can do about it. So in the sense that the system has not looked at that particular aspect, it allows for this to happen.

The other thing that worries me is the fact that some of these workers are not necessarily low-level workers. They really are high-level workers, but this is the only way they can get into the country. They get into the country, and maybe they fulfill the terms of their contract or maybe they don't. They work for a while, and then rather than return they ask for refugee status. Once they get into the refugee status path, they then are allowed to work, etc. So that's another part of the system that is wanting.

But looking at the other side, it's a brain drain for the countries they come from. It's a brain drain for these countries that are losing people who they have trained at some cost and who are almost irreplaceable in their countries. I'm thinking particularly of some of the African and South American countries.

So although I'm not of the opinion of my colleagues, that our system is rotten to the core and should be totally changed—I think it's a good system, and it tries to be a good system—I believe there are gaping holes here and there. Some of the things you address are some of these gaping holes that we have to look at.

So thank you very much for saying that.

The last comment I'll make, Mr. Chair, has to do with the fact that my idea of the Atlantic provinces—because I was once parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and I dealt with employment insurance—is that employment is a real problem in the Atlantic provinces. I cannot balance this. If employment is really a problem—trying to find people who will work during the winter months, for example—why does business in the Atlantic provinces go to find people from wherever to come into this country? I think that's part of your argument as well, and I fully agree that this is something that has to be looked into.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. St-Cyr, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here today. We've travelled a lot in Canada. We've talked about a lot of things, and from a fairly broad perspective. Yesterday once again, I had the opportunity to talk a little with the people from New Brunswick about how they integrate their francophone immigrants. I had a chance to speak with the people from the Fraser Institute about the economic imbalance in Canada. I had the opportunity to talk about the policy of accepting refugees in general and the immigration policy in general. The only taboo subject in this committee is Bill C-50. That defies understanding. That's probably because the government wants to wait to do its advertising in order to propagandize and indoctrinate the public before parliamentarians have the time to talk about it. It's paradoxical that the government finds it inappropriate to talk about Bill C-50 in the context of immigration policy, but considers it entirely normal and appropriate to talk about it in a fiscal policy context. That's ironic to say the least.

I was really lucky to be able to say all that without Mr. Komarnicki rising on a point of order.

That said, going back to the subject of your presentation today, you talked about worker protection. This subject has been coming back again and again since the start of our consultations, as has the issue of closed visas for temporary workers, in particular. A worker is assigned to a single employer, which gives that employer a disproportionate advantage. If the employment relationship is broken, the worker, to all intents and purposes, must return to his country.

It seems increasingly clear that that will have to change and that, in our report, we'll have to recommend an open visa, but restrict it to a specific employment area and to a specific province. We have to give workers the choice of changing businesses along the way, like any other workers.

That said, employers have told us that, when they bring in foreign workers, they have a certain number of expenses. They have to pay a recruitment firm, for airline tickets and so on. It also seems clear to me that, if we allow foreign workers to change jobs along the way, we must require new employers to compensate the first employer for the expenses he has incurred.

Do you think that would be a good compromise, a good solution, that would help workers, while respecting employers? My question is for both witnesses.

[Rick Clarke]

I think the open visa obviously is a much better fit than what we're seeing right now, just for the reasons you gave, with the control the employer has, when it's a single employer, when that link is broken. Those workers are under extreme pressure when they come here to work. We know you'll hear that they're treated the same as everyone else. When you come here from perhaps an oppressed country or environment and then you get sent home.... These workers work under conditions that aren't fair. They may not be getting the top competitive wage. Your proposal that within the qualification or the skill range they be able to go and apply or take employment with another employer in the same locale is better than what we have. But I honestly think we should go back to where we used to be, when they were part of an immigration strategy rather than being in the temporary pockets. That's much more open, much more transparent, and fairer to everyone in the long term.

I can't help but say something, by the way, when the employers say there is a cost. I'm not comparing this to another era in history, but I can almost imagine when they were talking about abolishing the slave trade, when government stepped in and abolished slavery. People at that time would have said, “We went to great cost to get those people here”. We took a stand on human rights and said that's not the way to treat people, and we made changes. Yes, there are costs. There are going to be costs to recruiting. But they're reneging on other costs.

I'm glad there are some MPs here from Quebec, because we just had a very good discussion with our minister. We have a new minister in our new Department of Labour and Workforce Development. Because we have concerns about what's happening with youth not getting opportunities for training, we're trying to model what Quebec has been doing. We've talked about that at a round table with employers and government representatives, and we've talked about it with our new department, because of the devolution of funding coming from the federal government to the provinces. We want to look at trying to set up a training program so that there's a responsibility for employers to provide training, to give opportunities. If this program is escalated, that can undermine all that. It's not helping our economy. It's not helping our future, and it certainly is not going to be a welcome mat for new Canadians. We do need a solid immigration strategy along with what we're doing within this country.

I'm very concerned about the temporary aspect of it in general. An open visa is much better than the closed visa.

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

Do I have a little bit of time for Madame Stewart to answer?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you have any comments on that, Ms. Stewart?

[Mary-Lou Stewart, Chief Executive Officer, Nova Scotia Labour Relations Board]

No, I don't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

I'll go to Mr. Carrier.

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

Good morning, Mr. Clarke and Ms. Stewart.

We started our tour of the country in Vancouver, two and a half weeks ago. To encourage you to express your ideas, I want to tell you that we are learning a lot from your testimony. The purpose of our tour is to learn about people in the field. That's why we're taking the trouble to go to all the provinces. What you've presented to us confirms what we thought. Personally, I agree on your position.

It seems that, despite the improvements that can be made to the Immigration Act to focus government action more on immigration, it will always be helpful to have temporary workers, for exceptional cases only. One of the recommendations you made on the subject, and that I noted, is that there should be someone responsible in each of the provinces to monitor the working conditions of those workers. That's currently lacking, since these people aren't aware of their rights and can easily be exploited.

Ms. Stewart, you represent the government in labour relations. You haven't spoken so far, and I would like you to say whether the government organization to which you belong deals with labour relations or represents the unions. I would like to know how you are currently involved with temporary workers.

[Mary-Lou Stewart]

I'm here on behalf of the Nova Scotia Labour Relations Board, which is an independent agency, so I'm not here on behalf of the government. We do not have any comments on temporary foreign workers or undocumented workers. All I can say is that they have a right under the Trade Unions Act to form a union, as long as there are two of them, and make application to the Labour Relations Board.

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

Mr. Clarke, do you want to supplement that answer?

You didn't say a lot about the rights of the province's temporary workers. Are they being exploited? Are they in a bad situation in the province right now? Is this a special problem as a result of which the unions don't protect them? Are they currently at the mercy of employers?

[Rick Clarke]

I think the closed visa puts them in a very tight, controlled atmosphere. We don't have the huge numbers you have in Ontario or Alberta, but we do hear of verbal abuse that the workers are taking. They feel there's no place for them to go.

I'm sure they're not aware of where they can go to find out about labour standards if they think some of their working conditions are being abused. I'm sure they're not aware of the Occupational Health and Safety Act requirements, because the best information we're getting right now is that that type of information and training are not being provided.

I referenced that what we're starting to see in Nova Scotia--and I won't speak for the rest of the Atlantic region--is more abuse of the program and of the workers under the program. So it is a very serious concern.

We probably speak out as a federation as much on behalf of unorganized workers as we do for organized workers. In fact, I sat on the minimum wage review committee, and the poverty reduction working group that's mandated by legislation. So all workers are a concern, and we do everything we can to try to stop abuse and exploitation.

This type of program just opens the door for exploitation because they're in such a confined, restricted allowance to be here.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Madame Chow is next, and then Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Thank you.

While we are here speaking to you, the minister and the staff of CIC have been travelling around and have been in Ottawa, Vancouver, and Toronto giving presentations about temporary foreign workers. I have these documents, and from one of them I want to read to you two paragraphs specifically about the temporary foreign workers program.

One of them, the backgrounder, says:

Improvements have been made to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to make the process of hiring temporary foreign workers easier, faster and less costly for employers when they are unable to find Canadians to do the job.

The 2007 budget committed $50.5 million over two years to increase processing [of these workers].

Then there is a PowerPoint presentation that talks about a growing demand on the temporary side, from 100,000 work permits in 2005 to 130,000 in 2007.

That's a 30% increase. It's 30,000 more. This legislative amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is to deal with this and to address the pressures and modernize the immigration system.

It also said that it would allow CIC greater flexibility regarding the type and number of applications to be processed. What you're hearing is that there's going to be flexibility to deal with the whole notion of getting more workers into Canada on the temporary side.

I think the whole drift is that there is a federal legislative change, Bill C-50, which you mentioned. It's 130,000 in 2007. It is going to grow dramatically, and you're going to see more resources funding, more staff energy, and a lot more flexibility to have a lot more of these temporary foreign workers coming into Canada. That is basically my interpretation of what is in front of Parliament right now.

Your recommendation said that we should go back to the 2002 level--stop expanding it, get it fixed, and not use people as cheap labour. Given that, how do you think labour unions or ordinary workers are going to deal with this legislative change, because instead of stopping it, apparently we are about to massively expand it?

[Rick Clarke]

I see it as a major undercutting, and that's part of our concern. From the industry I come out of, what we call what the minister is talking about is “greasing the slip” for when we're doing a launch. It's to make things move a lot faster. Going faster in the same direction isn't addressing the problems we're having. It's a major undermining of our economy.

I couldn't help but think--and I apologize, I forget his name--that someone talked about the kind of Canada we want and where we're going; all of us here are descendants of temporary or foreign workers coming into this country.

What kind of country would we have today if we had the ability...? I thought about this, this morning, for some reason that came into my head. I tried to envision what Canada would look like today if they had had the transportation ability to bring our ancestors in and then when they had done the job they were brought for they sent them back. What kind of country would we have today? That's what I'm afraid we're missing here.

When I made the reference to the shipyards, that was a great strategy. A lot of those workers came in on a temporary basis. They came in on work visas, but they had the opportunity to apply to be landed immigrants, to become Canadians, and to bring their families over. Now they're growing our community. They have stayed here. That's what we need.

We've had a panel. We've had a session here. Our provincial government is trying to get a good immigration strategy going, because our demographics are very bad--partly, thank you, because of the oil sands, we have a huge problem with out-migration--and we have to find a way to nurture that. Undermining opportunities for displaced workers, for current workers, or even for people who want to become Canadians, and fast-tracking that process, is a scary thought.

I hope there's going to be a public debate on this. I really don't want to rub a sore issue, but the fact is that there are restrictions on talking about a piece of legislation that will cause such woes. I think it's why we're in this crisis today. We never had a debate on the big trade agreements since 1989, and we've lost jobs. We can't sit by and not have public debate on something so important to the future of our country.

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

The folks from Nova Scotia who are working in the oil sands are not making as much as they could because Alberta is bringing in at least 40,000 temporary foreign workers and quite a few of them are working in the oil sands. The last we heard from the Alberta Federation of Labour, the employers were applying for 100,000 workers for Alberta alone. What's happening in Alberta is in fact depressing the wages.

Anyway, I'm running out of time.

[Rick Clarke]

We have Nova Scotians returning now because they're being replaced and they're not being recycled to other jobs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay. I have seven or eight minutes, and I have to give that to Mr. Komarnicki, given that I doubled the time for most people around the table.

Mr. Komarnicki, you can take the rest of the time we have left.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To clarify, there will be an opportunity for debating Bill C-50. There will be a committee to hear that. I think we all understand the agenda for the meeting, and we need to stay within that. It's not a question of limiting it; there's a different occasion and time for that.

Mr. Carrier indicated that in some circumstances there will be a need for temporary foreign workers. We need to deal with the issue in relation to that. I know different segments of the country are experiencing an economic boom, if you want to call it that--for example, in my province and in some of the western provinces. I think everyone agrees that we should find suitable Canadians or permanent residents to fill the jobs we can. We should do training and have programs. We have to ensure that happens. But the truth of the matter is that there are some jobs that are unfilled.

I know we had Tim Hortons presenting in one of our committees. Notwithstanding the remark about how stupid it is to try to get somebody flown in to work at Tim Hortons, the reality is that in some places you can't buy a cup of coffee past a certain hour because the place is shut down. That's the reality. You'd like to have somebody working, but they close. And some of the employers do pay a significant sum to get people over here to work.

But having said that, there is the question of need. Would you agree that there would be some need to protect the vulnerable temporary foreign workers from certain employment practices and to set certain standards? Would you agree with that?

[Rick Clarke]

Oh, definitely. That's why we made a recommendation for an advocate, so people have some place to go.