Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 17th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I am not going to keep you waiting any longer. We have a couple of committee members who are missing in action. They are probably out having a look at our beautiful city. I want to welcome all of you here today as we continue our cross-country tour, and bring it to an end, actually.

We've been meeting in all the provinces. We're the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Citizenship and Immigration, and we've been mandated to look at three very important items: temporary and foreign workers, immigration consultants, and the Iraqi refugee problem.

As I said, we've met in all the provinces except P.E.I. This is our ninth province in 12 days. We'll have heard from about 52 panels after we finish up today, and we have our analysts and officials with us.

The committee, at the end of it all, will do a report that we will present to the House of Commons. The report will be based upon what we've heard from the various panels as we've travelled between British Columbia and here.

Our committee is an all-party committee with representation from all parties. We have about five or six people travelling from the House of Commons, and we have heard some very interesting comments and some very interesting presentations.

We generally give each presenter about seven minutes to make a presentation to us, and then we turn it over to members of the committee who might wish to have some interaction, put some questions or make some comments.

Today I want to welcome, first of all, from the West End Baptist Church, Pastor Gordon Sutherland. Welcome, Pastor. From Fish Food and Allied Workers, Greg Pretty, industrial director; from the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, Lana Payne, first vice-president; and as an individual, David Wade, who represents the building trades of the province.

We will begin with you, Pastor, if you don't mind.

[Gordon Sutherland, Pastor, West End Baptist Church]

First of all, I want to thank you, members of the committee, for coming to St. John's and allowing me the opportunity to meet with you today.

By way of introduction, my name is Gordon Sutherland. I'm the lead pastor at West End Baptist Church here in St. John's. In addition to my responsibility in the local church, I'm currently serving a three-year term as president of the board of directors of Canadian Baptist Ministries, which links together approximately 1,300 churches across the country and has missionaries serving in many countries around the world.

I'm quite proud of the work that our churches across the country do on behalf of immigrants and refugees, but it is in my role as a local pastor that I come to you this morning.

The church in which I serve is not a large one by some standards. We have on the average about 200 people in worship on Sunday morning, but in that 200 people we have 10 language groups represented. West End Baptist Church has long been involved in working with people who are new to this country. Over the years we have worked very closely with CIC as a sponsoring body to help people from a number of countries come to Canada, and we work diligently with recent arrivals to help make those necessary adjustments to life in a new land.

In April 2005 we began a journey down a new path with CIC when a man from Latvia arrived at the door of the church and asked for sanctuary. As I listened to him, I realized that he had a compelling story, and so for the past 1,088 days--and in case you're going to try to calculate that in your mind, it's eight days short of three years--Alexi Kolosov has been, and continues to be, confined to West End Baptist Church.

This relates to why you are here today, for this man is a skilled worker, but a skilled worker who has been victimized again and again. Alexi Kolosov is an experienced fisherperson with excellent skills in netmaking, which is why he is in such demand in this province. At least two companies have told us they would hire him today if they were able, because of his experience in and knowledge of European netmaking.

Alexi arrived in Canada in 1997 aboard an Icelandic fishing boat. While the boat was docked in the province for supplies, the owner of the boat went bankrupt. The crew was stranded and had to live on the boat. After 22 months on the vessel, Alexi came to shore and asked to stay. He is not someone who schemed to sneak into the country, but because of circumstances, he felt he had little to no option.

Further background to his story is that Alexi's son moved to Canada in the late 1990s and while here married a woman from Newfoundland and began a family. Unfortunately, the marriage ended; Alexi's son got into some trouble and was eventually deported, leaving behind a single mom with four children, Alexi's Canadian-born grandchildren.

Let me say I don't envy those who are the lawmakers in our land or who draw up the policies under which our country operates. It's a tough job, but when the power to decide on a person's application is left in the hands of one person and no appeal process is in place, it means some very worthy candidates are going to be unfairly treated.

Let me give you a couple of examples of the seeming disconnect between what the government says and how someone like Alexi gets treated.

In 2005, one week before Alexi was to be deported, the then minister of immigration, Joe Volpe, announced new initiatives to speed up the process of bringing grandparents to Canada in order to reunite families. That is something I can heartily applaud. Yet seven days later, the local immigration office was prepared to kick out of the country Poppa Loshia. That's what Alexi's grandchildren call him.

In 2005, one week before Alexi was to be deported, the then minister of immigration, Joe Volpe, announced that the government was prepared to spend $36 million to help these grandparents settle in Canada. Yet seven days later, the local immigration office was prepared to spend money to deport a grandparent, who would not cost the country one cent, for he had been living here for nearly 10 years and had proven that he was willing and capable of earning a living. In fact, he had not only been supporting himself, but also providing support to his daughter-in-law and grandchildren.

In the most recent proposed legislation from the current government, the rationale given—and I quote from their website—is that “Canada needs a more responsive immigration system where we reduce wait times so that families are reunited faster and skilled workers arrive sooner”. Yet the local immigration office is prepared to ignore these pressing needs and divide a family by deporting this skilled worker. Do you see the irony here?

Two of the frustrations for me in this journey with Alexi have been the attitude of superiority by the immigration officials and the policy of silence by the government. As I stated in the beginning, West End Baptist Church has been a partner with CIC over the years, and we have proven ourselves, I believe, to be good partners, yet there is an unwillingness to enter into any kind of dialogue and a blatant rejection of the idea that we might have some valid input into Alexi's case.

In February of this year, we filed for a leave for judicial review of the 2007 negative decision on Alexi's H and C application. A Federal Court judge ruled that the local immigration officer had in fact violated a number of CIC's policies, especially in terms of the best interests of the grandchildren. The negative decision on the H and C application was set aside and a new review ordered.

I know that the laws and policies are put in place to try to standardize the processing of applicants, but I wonder how many Alexi Kolosovs have been victimized. How many years and relationships have been lost by not taking into account the best interests of grandchildren? How many dollars have been lost because of a failure to take into account the skills that are needed?

In your policies and procedures, please do not strip away things like compassion and empathy. Not everyone fits perfectly into the box that we set up as a standard for admission into the country. Perhaps some of the people we want to welcome into the country as valued, contributing members of society are already here.

Alexi Kolosov has been victimized at a number of levels, and treated by immigration officials like a criminal, when all he wants to do is to use his skills to make a living and enjoy his Canadian-born grandchildren.

Thank you for listening to me today. I know you are here only for a short time, but I would like to extend to all of you the invitation, if you are able, to come to West End Baptist Church to meet Alexi and to realize there are flaws in the system that you have the power to correct.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Pastor.

Ms. Payne.

[Lana Payne, First Vice-President, Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour]

I guess you're doing questions at the end?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, we do. We generally give everyone an opportunity to make a presentation first. It's easier that way. Then we go into questions and, hopefully, answers. It's Q and A.

[Lana Payne]

I, too, would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present. I'm representing the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour. We're an umbrella organization for 30 affiliate unions in the province, representing about 500 locals and 70,000 working women and men throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our role is mostly an advocacy role. We are trying to improve labour laws, establish workplace rights, build strong public services. We're also involved in quite a number of social justice issues. Today we welcome the opportunity to talk about the temporary foreign worker program and some of the problems we see in it.

Currently, we believe it's been too much, too fast. Since 2005, there has been quite an aggressive expansion in our country. In many places in Canada, in many sectors in our economy, it is no longer a last resort for employers but a first option.

In the last little while, we've seen frequent so-called improvements to the program—expedited procedures, another processing office opening, another occupation under pressure, and pilot projects. It's been one measure after another. In our opinion, this rapid expansion has come at the expense of proper monitoring, accountability, transparency, enforcement, and, most important, protection for guest workers.

It is our understanding that in 2006 HRSDC reported a 36% increase in employer applications. This was followed by a whopping increase of 65% in the first half of 2007 over the first half of 2006.

The role of government, as noted on your website, is to make it easier, faster, and less costly for employers to hire temporary foreign workers, rather than to facilitate a well-thought-out labour market and training strategy for our country.

With respect to the temporary foreign worker program in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have not yet developed a list of occupations under pressure between the two levels of government. Between 2005 and 2007, we've each year had 1,200 to 1,500 labour market opinions, not all of which have resulted in temporary foreign workers.

Most of these have been in high-skilled jobs in the offshore. We have had engineers, some physicians, but not many low-skilled jobs yet. We know from talking to the local people from HRSDC or Service Canada that there is an increase in the number of inquiries about this program, a growing interest in it.

We need to be aware that sometimes it's not labour shortages that we're talking about in the country. Rather, it's a wage shortage. We shouldn't confuse the two. In a number of cases, temporary foreign workers were actually brought into the country to replace workers in jobs held by people who live here.

In our opinion, it's also undermining labour relations. When a labour market opinion is developed, in many cases the definition of a labour dispute is very narrow. If unions and the employer are in negotiations, this is often left out of account. When you're in the middle of a round of bargaining, the introduction of temporary foreign workers in a workplace can cause quite a lot of stress.

There are a number of examples. We have them in our presentation, and you probably heard them as you travelled the country. There are places where the program has been used in the middle of labour disputes. The most recent one involved our national union, the Canadian Auto Workers in Windsor, Ontario, and a fish plant.

In many cases, as I said, we believe this has been fast-tracked too fast. A lot of things fall to the wayside when we expand programs really quickly, and I think we've seen that in this case. We've seen news reports of exploitation and abuse, because we haven't had enough time to put the proper monitoring procedures in place. There are a lot of workers and a lot of workplaces to try to keep track of. And we can't, in all cases, guarantee that these workers' rights are being protected.

We would also argue that this makes for somewhat bad labour market policy, because we're not looking at a strategy for the country. We're looking at individual needs versus what's best in terms of the entire labour market. Also, it's an awfully short-term measure for what is really a longer-term demographic problem for our country.

We would argue that it also makes quite bad immigration policy. We should ask ourselves if we want employers to be the gatekeepers for immigration, or is this something that should be handled in the public sphere?

Not always are we seeing temporary foreign workers treated like guests in our country. We see many examples of living conditions being inadequate. You're probably familiar with the case in Barrie, Ontario. A police officer, after viewing the place where some people were living, said they were economic slaves.

Our position at the Federation of Labour is that if these people, newcomers to our country who are working under this program, are good enough to work here, they certainly are good enough to live here and to bring their families with them. If they are good enough to build our factories and to serve our coffee, they're good enough to be full citizens.

So rather than accelerating the temporary foreign worker program, we might look at an immigration policy and at the reform of immigration policy as the principal means of averting labour and skill shortages. We should look at increasing the proportion of family class immigrants. And we should integrate, certainly, the planning and implementation of immigration and labour market policy at the national and provincial levels.

We've included a number of recommendations. This program certainly needs to be reviewed. We should seriously look at how quickly it's being expanded and maybe put a moratorium on it. We should look at investing, as a nation, in the development of a long-term labour market and training strategy for our country and at integrating immigration planning with the labour market needs of our nation.

We've also included some specific recommendations on the temporary foreign worker program. There was a great analysis done of this program by the Canadian Labour Congress, which I've noted on the last sheet. It could be further reading for you--I'm sure you don't have enough after 52 panels. And there are some other particular recommendations about involving unions, particularly when occupations under stress are being developed.

Unions are part of the labour market. We are a key stakeholder in the economy, and we certainly should be included in any consultations and in the implementation of this program.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Lana.

We'll go to Mr. Pretty.

[Greg Pretty, Industrial Director, Research and Communications Branch, Fish, Food and Allied Workers]

Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members.

Before I start, Pastor Sutherland's presentation jogged my memory on something. Not too long ago, HRSDC would call the union, because we represent the fish plant workers, particularly net menders. If companies wanted to bring a temporary foreign worker into Newfoundland to work, for example, on fishing nets, we'd probably get a call from Ottawa and they'd ask us whether there really was a work shortage here on this issue. We'd identify the problem and we'd said yes, there is, because those skills are gone, for example, on cod trawls and shrimp trawls. That's a specialty. We'd say yes, there is a real shortage and that's a real job opportunity for somebody from the outside. They don't call any more. As a result, we don't know what's going on inside that issue. That's a real deficit from where we used to be.

Anyway, good morning, and I want to get on to my issue. My issue will surround our union, which is about 20,000 workers dealing mostly in fish harvesting, but also about 6,000 people in fish processing. In addition to that, we have people in steel manufacturing, window manufacturing, hospitality industry, hotels, offshore tankers, and, most importantly, brewing. Actually, some of our metal fabrication workers are temporary foreign workers in Alberta, quite frankly, because most of them are working over there right now.

Our union has a lot of concerns about the program of temporary foreign workers. It's no longer a last resort for employers looking for workers, but increasingly, it's their first option in some sectors.

Newfoundland and Labrador is one of the three provinces that currently does not have an “occupations under pressure” list. So the same pressures that you would see, for example, in Alberta and B.C. don't really exist here and certainly haven't been identified by our governments.

But having said that, interest in that program by fish plant processors in particular is gaining speed. In our province, temporary foreign workers average about 1,200 a year, and as I understand it, most of these people are technical people, specialists, and skilled trades.

The fish processing sector is sending signals that it sees the program as an answer to short-term labour shortages. The real facts around perceived labour shortages in the fish processing sector is that we still have a shortage of work in this sector. Plants are closed because of a lack of resources--for example, Fortune and Harbour Breton--and hundreds of workers are forced to leave their communities to commute to Alberta for work as labourers or in some cases skilled trades, for example, workers out of Marystown, Triton, and Bonavista.

An interesting point that a lot of people don't realize is that this province is still a major exporter of fish plant workers. Our workers supply labour in all the Atlantic provinces, but outside of that, you'll find Newfoundlanders working in fresh fish plants in Manitoba and all along the coast of British Columbia. So we're still an exporter of workers. There are reasons for that, of course, one of which is the provincial licensing policy, which hasn't been too kind to skilled fish plant workers.

There are ways of dealing with peak season issues--technology, new products, new markets, better management, including resource management, as I just referred to--but this requires investment in the industry. The TFWP is an easy way out for employers who want to increase their profits the old fashion way through cheap labour rather than investing in equipment, technology, and, most importantly, training to increase productivity.

Restructuring is needed in this province. We have far too many processing licences. There is an era of rationalization going on now in the harvesting industry, but it has not translated into the processing industry. As a result, we have too many fish plant workers, many of whom are unemployed.

Interestingly enough, in places where fish plants are paying close to an industrial wage in Newfoundland, there's no shortage of workers. In fact there are waiting lists to get into those plants. Where we see labour shortages is not too far from St. John's, actually, where there are, for example, non-union plants that are paying wages around the minimum wage, and those are the people who are saying we don't have workers to do our fish. We're going to need some. Very shortly now we'll hit the wall and we'll need access to these workers.

We know as a union that this processor has been making inquiries through HRSDC and through some federal agencies regarding accessing temporary foreign workers in the fishing industry.

As far as we're concerned, the program has been used across Canada to undermine labour relations and the legitimate role of unions and workplaces. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that Ontario issue. But again, that is a fresh fish plant that applied to the federal government, received permission to use temporary foreign workers, and they used those workers while they were on strike against the company. They kept those workers inside the plant. That was forced labour. That's certainly not in the spirit of any program that Canadians should have their stamp of approval on. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that--it's in my presentation--but it was an absolutely horrific use of temporary foreign workers.

We share these concerns for Newfoundland, that a program designated for Alberta or other industrialized areas in Canada would be used in areas of our province suffering from double-digit unemployment. Outside St. John's, if you are lucky enough to get out there in your travels, you'll note that the unemployment rate is about 13%, which is staggering compared to the national average. Yet processors who live in these areas are saying that maybe temporary foreign workers could be the answer to their problems.

With respect to exploitation, who protects these workers from unscrupulous labour brokers and other employers? You've heard the news reports from Alberta, Ontario, and P.E.I., where workers are charged huge fees for the promise of citizenship, and what they get is exploitation. Who monitors the workplace conditions and living conditions? Who is covered by labour standards and workers' compensation?

I'm a co-chair of the National Seafood Sector Council. Our office is in Ottawa. There was an incident in P.E.I., where some temporary workers actually ran away from the plant. I think they drove to Ottawa. I'm not sure about the story. Anyway, they were working in the fish plant there. It was a union plant. They made about $10 an hour, but by the time they paid their labour broker and their food and lodging, they were well under minimum wage. So they ran away. One of the comments from the owner of the plant on CBC Radio the next morning was, “By God, there must be a law to keep these people from running away on me.” I mean, that's terrible. We're going backwards with the program. That's absolutely horrific. I think we should be past that in 2008. Your program is faulty and it needs adjustment.

I just talked about the mixed message on collective agreements and temporary foreign workers. It also has the effect, by the way, of lowering wage rates--for example, non-union temporary foreign workers. You're trying to move the contracts forward and you have people in your area going backwards. We've seen some of that in British Columbia.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'll hold you there. I'm sure we have a number of people who want to chat with you about these things.

Dave Wade is next. His title is not on your agenda, but he's executive director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Building and Construction Trades Council.

Mr. Wade.

[David Wade, Executive Director, Newfoundland and Labrador Building and Construction Trades Council]

Good morning.

I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to present on such short notice. While I've known about the hearings for several months, unfortunately I had no idea about the dates they were to occur. My presentation will focus solely on the construction industry.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Building and Construction Trades Council represents 16 construction trade unions in the province, and I believe you've already heard from a number of my counterparts throughout the country. However, while I know many of them have made some very important points about the industry and the effect temporary foreign workers will have on the construction industry, I have a few additional comments to make that I do not think have been a part of other presentations. I don't want to take up too much of your time repeating the issues that have already been presented; therefore, I will focus on those that are important to this locality and those that I think you may not have heard.

Construction is cyclical, and most construction workers, as you're likely aware, often lead nomadic lives. Some areas of Canada experience construction booms, while other areas are experiencing a drought. Newfoundland has had more than its share of droughts, more than any other construction region of Canada. Therefore, we export our construction workers more often than any other provinces do. This makes mobility a very important issue for eastern Canadian construction workers. The main focus here is to get construction workers to other areas that require them. Some industries that share mobility issues enjoy tax incentives provided by the Canadian government to allow tax breaks on travel expenses. Tax breaks for construction workers who travel across the country to fulfill their work obligations would be a great benefit to the industry in many respects. It would ease the burden on the families who make sacrifices to allow members, both men and women, to travel the distances over spans of time for work. It would also ease recruitment issues for contractors who try to fulfill labour requirements within the country.

The unionized construction industry is heavily involved in apprenticeship and training. I'm sure you're aware that the federal government is promoting apprenticeship training as a means of fulfilling the country's labour needs over the coming decades. The construction trade unions and their contractors have invested substantially as well, both in time and millions of dollars, to support this campaign. The country depends on a large infusion of work in the boom areas to fulfill apprenticeship requirements and complete training programs. For example, work in western Canada right now is helping many of our apprentices complete their programs and become journeypersons. Here in this province, a typical apprenticeship is four years, but with our normal volume of work, that apprentice could take six to eight years to attain journeyperson status.

The person hours required to reach that level are not in our economy right now to make apprentices in the four-year period. If temporary foreign workers are added into this mix, it will have a detrimental impact on our apprenticeship programs, programs that our federal government fully supports. In fact, the major weakness the federal government identifies with apprenticeship right now is the low level of completions.

I'm not suggesting there is no need for immigrants or temporary foreign workers; it's just that we should first look within and handle our internal mobility issues and support our Canadian apprentices before we open the doors too wide in anticipation of a labour shortage that may not happen for another 10 years, and in fact may never happen if we're successful in our recruitment efforts internally. It is difficult to recruit when young people see a nearly decade-long effort to attain journeyperson status and a comfortable wage level.

If contractors are allowed to employ workers from developing countries and pay third-world wages and benefits, it will provide an unfair advantage and bring our own industry into chaos. It would be catastrophic for workers in this country. Canada is a prosperous nation, and its citizens are conditioned to a comfortable lifestyle supported by good wages and working conditions. Unions have struggled for many years to bring our workers to a level where we pay generous taxes, and gladly do so, because it sustains a standard of living we're very happy with. Undermining the gains we have made will have a trickle-down effect on the entire economy.

Foreign workers, who are conditioned to exploitation and starvation wages, feel they are living like kings when they come to Canada and live on government support while they're being resettled. This is a culture clash, and while we do not deny that some temporary foreign workers may be needed in the future, we have some major concerns, both economically and socially, regarding the impacts it will bring if not regulated properly.

All groups throughout the country—government, unions, and industry—are focusing on recruiting women into construction to fulfill the anticipated heavy labour requirements of the future. Construction, of course, has been a traditionally male-dominated career choice; however, since the Hibernia construction project, more and more women are choosing to explore the career option, and we are encouraging that.

There is also a noticeable absence of aboriginal construction workers in our province. We have a significant aboriginal population but a very small presence in the industry. Because of fluctuations of work in this province, they are not encouraged to remain in construction. As well, the Newfoundland and Labrador aboriginal population does not appear inclined to follow the kind of nomadic lifestyle committed construction workers here have to embrace.

As we look down the road to more extensive projects, we hope to see more aboriginals complete apprenticeships and become journeypersons and remain in the industry.

These are two groups with substantial numbers, of which successful recruitment could fulfill a large part of the labour requirements for this province and for Canada as a whole. We recommend that government put more focus on employment equity efforts in the construction industry. This will not just fulfill the requirements of industry, but it will provide good paying jobs for Canadians who really need them.

Looking simply at numbers and moving players around at the level bureaucrats must do at times, it's easy to lose the personal focus. In fact, there are many women and aboriginals who would benefit tremendously from the lifestyle the construction industry could provide. It is simply a matter of, first, allowing them to see that, and second, making the opportunity available to them.

As I am sure many of my colleagues elsewhere have pointed out to you, temporary foreign workers quite often wind up in the underground economy. Then we are all losers. This underground economy undermines government at many levels, the unions and what they stand for, and our Canadian society and lifestyle overall.

The underground economy is gaining strength over time and should be addressed. I understand the Quebec government has realized the substantial losses it is incurring and has initiated actions to end these practices.

We recommend the federal government take a serious look at this matter and take action to address the issue and reclaim the tax dollars lost to this illegal practice.

In summary, my recommendations include (1) tax incentives for construction workers to travel to meet the labour requirements of our country, (2) enhanced support for apprenticeship and training, (3) stronger focus on employment equity within the construction industry so that women and aboriginal populations are encouraged into construction careers, (4) strict regulations governing the importation of temporary foreign workers, tight controls over length of stay in the country, and prevention of exploitation of such workers in terms of wages, working conditions, and benefits, and (5) investigation and controls to eliminate the underground economy in the construction industry.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We've heard four excellent presentations.

We might have to go overtime a bit here to get all the questions in that I know people will want to answer. I'll try to manage the time as best I can, given your schedules, your flight times, and what have you.

I'll begin with Madame Folco.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, this is not my first trip to Newfoundland, but let me say that Newfoundland has risen to the occasion, as usual. I'm very happy to be here. It's a wonderful place.

I have several things.

First of all, to Mr. Sutherland, I'd be very happy to go and visit this gentleman. I don't know whether our schedule will allow, but we'll talk to our chair about this. This is not the first case, you know. I've been in immigration for a long time. I would have thought that what we call humanitarian reasons for staying in this country...given that the grandchildren have no father, and so on. I won't go into the details, but let me just say this, Mr. Sutherland. There are hundreds of cases like this. As an MP with a heavy immigration population in Laval, just north of Montreal, I could tell you horror stories, but I won't take the time to do it now.

I will address the rest of the questions to all three of you, because it's essentially the same problem. I'm very glad to have heard your point of view.

In Quebec, which is where I come from, I've been preoccupied by the working conditions of these temporary workers. This is what hits the newspapers. This is what I talk to the people on the ground about. But since I've been moving around with this committee, I've understood that there is another side to the question, the other side being the employers' point of view, the union's point of view, and so on.

I'm just appalled—appalled—when I hear that temporary workers are used as strikebreakers. I mean, we're going back to 19th century in Britain, for God's sake. So I will ask you to let the clerk or the chair.... I would be very interested, because some of the cases that you mentioned in Ontario and so on, coming from Quebec, perhaps, I haven't heard of, and I'd be very interested in hearing more about these cases. If you could send the documentation to the chair, it will get around to all of us. I'd really like to know more about the circumstances, the court decisions, whatever. This is, I think, extremely important.

To Mr. Wade, on the equity issue, obviously the equity issue is very important, for both women and aboriginal Newfoundlanders. You talked about the government's role, but surely the union has a role in this as well. Surely the union can make it known to its members and its non-members, and the wives and daughters of its members, that.... You know, you can start programs to bring women in. I've done this kind of thing for women immigrants in Montreal, for example, and I would strongly suggest that the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial government also have a hand in this.

Sure, there are equity issues that can be dealt with by the federal government, but the federal government is only one partner. I would strongly urge you, as a union man--and your colleagues as well--to put together a program. I think this is where it really should get started, not out there in Ottawa. The idea is extremely important.

You're smiling, so I can see there are some other things going through.

Yes, David.

[David Wade]

We do to a large degree. As a matter of fact, we make presentations to the high schools within the province to that effect. We also have our own union training facilities that actually devote seats specifically to women, and we encourage women to fill these seats. So it's not a dormant issue with us; it's always been on the plate.

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

And they have been to the construction sites, and you have shown them how it works, and all that kind of thing.

I think the situation here, as I understand it from the three presentations, is a question of how to balance, on the one hand, protecting your own members and prospective members in Newfoundland and Labrador, which you very naturally want to do, and, on the other hand, accepting some temporary workers when they are needed.

Certainly, Mr. Pretty, the lack of communication at HRSDC, which you mentioned, is absolutely important. We've heard in other cases that--and I don't want to be political--there are things to be done by the present government on this. As I said, that balance, which is not easy, is going to have to be brought in, as I see it, through any recommendations this committee will want to make regarding a systemic reform of the whole foreign temporary workers program.

It seems to me that it's like--is it Topsy who grew, and she grew in all directions all at once, and nobody knew where she was going? I get my English literature sort of confused sometimes. But here is a program that had some good ideas, and they grew and grew because there was demand. You've pointed out the fact that they're used by people--not by everybody--overseas as a shortcut for coming into the country. I agree absolutely.

There's a need--and I would certainly ask if you would support a recommendation on the part of this committee to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and HRSDC--to do a complete restudy of the whole system of foreign temporary workers from top to bottom, with some very strong recommendations on how, on the one hand, to protect “native workers”--I don't know what else to call them--and, on the other hand, to make this system work, because there is a need for these people in some industries, some of the time, across Canada, and for yourselves as well.

I'd very much like somebody to perhaps say aloud, so it can go on the record, that they would like to see that kind of recommendation on behalf of this committee.

Thank you.

[Greg Pretty]

Thank you.

I ran out of time, but I had a number of recommendations here that I'd like to put forth right now.

Before I do, as a point of information, the National Seafood Sector Council was approached by the state of Mexico back in 2007. They thought we were some kind of a human brokerage firm. They didn't realize that we actually promoted Canadian seafood training and those products around the world. The officials--and these were government officials out of Mexico City--said, forget about dealing with those agents, deal with us; we're the government. They said they could supply us with 7,000 fish plant workers for Canada, ready to roll. They'd train them, and they'd talk to us about language training. They could go from B.C. to Newfoundland.

Those are the kinds of programs and deals that are out there right now to undercut the Canadian seafood sector.

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

Excuse me, Mr. Pretty.

It's a very good idea. First of all, they make their wage and they send the wage back. Les redevances that they send back to their home countries are an important part of the third world economy, and we know that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Sorry to interrupt. You can tell that Madame Folco has some pretty good knowledge of the province. She was telling me yesterday she taught school here--

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

I taught at Memorial.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

--at Memorial University for a while, I think for a whole summer--so she's familiar with some of the problems we face in those areas.

Mr. Telegdi.

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

Thank you very much.

I think most Canadians are familiar with the exporting of workers from Newfoundland. A good friend of mine, Max Hussey, was the fire chief. He actually started off working in a factory and ended up being fire chief at the Waterloo Fire Department. Now he is happily retired to Ladle Cove in Gander. I think he's heading down to South Carolina next week to play a little golf.

Of course, we have Dr. James Downey, who was the president of our university, Ottawa University, and made huge contributions. So you certainly have been exporting them, and we have Newfoundland clubs right across the country. They're always great places to visit and the hospitality has been fantastic.

Let me tell you, we started three weeks ago in Vancouver, and the chair's disposition improved every day as we got closer to Newfoundland. The man was giddy yesterday when we came in, as soon as we touched Newfoundland airspace. This is a fantastic place, and I really like visiting and I am enjoying the hospitality.

You mentioned the underground economy. That's one of the issues we're studying, because the underground economy in many cases involves undocumented workers who are in an even more precarious position than the temporary foreign workers. The previous government was going to do a regularization so we could get them above ground and make sure they're paying taxes and not being exploited or used to undercut organized labour.

Anyway, the bureaucrats who tend to drive these things.... We're the politicians; we sit here and then ministers come and go. I've been on this committee for 10 years. Seven ministers have come and gone. None of them really get their teeth into the file before they're gone to someplace else, and then you get a new minister. So essentially what you have is the bureaucracy running the department.

This whole question of undocumented workers and the proposed changes coming to the immigration act were things that were tried even before I got on the committee 10 years ago. Quite frankly, this government is asleep at the switch, and they allowed that to happen because they were not aware of what they were doing and the bureaucracy finally got their viewpoint through. They couldn't get it through the previous six Liberal cabinet ministers, because the cabinet of the day was a little too smart. But in this one they did get it through.

I think you really need to make sure it's an issue that you will fight for, because, ultimately, we're probably going to be fighting an election on it, this and other issues.

The immigration policy we have tends to be very elitist, and I dare say 95% of the people who came to Canada...well, no, it would be higher than that. It depends on how far we go back, but 95% of the people who came to Canada who are Canadians now but were not born here would not be allowed to get into the country under today's rules. The reality is that we need people who can do labour and we need them here with their families. We need them here helping to build a country, not to be used and discarded once they're found to be redundant.

This is not dissimilar to what happened when the Chinese were brought in. They were brought in, and when their labour was no longer needed, there was an attempt made to discard them. It didn't happen, but, you know, it goes back historically.

I think it's really incumbent upon the labour movement to keep fighting to make sure that when you come and work in Canada, you're not going to be exploited. I think that's a very strong tradition we have, and I think it's something that really is worth fighting for, because we have to honour and respect labour; everybody does not have to be a rocket scientist. Rocket scientists have to live in houses. It takes people--carpenters, tradespeople, bricklayers, you name it, all the people who can't get into Canada today--to build those houses.

So that's the message I have for you.

As a question, because I want this on the record, would you agree that we should be doing it through an immigration policy, building this nation, instead of trying to bring in temporary foreign workers to be discarded at will?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I wanted to allow some time for the witnesses, if they want to respond. There's only about a minute and a half left; that's why I interrupted you.

Anyone at all, if you wish to respond to Mr. Telegdi, go ahead.

[Lana Payne]

I think he made it clear on both of these points from both of you that from the federation's point of view, we should be putting a moratorium on this temporary foreign worker program until there's been a substantial review. Hopefully your committee will be able to help with that.

Secondly, we need to work hand in hand with a substantial immigration policy, with a labour market policy, so that they're not happening from the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. This needs to be coordinated.

Just as an example, so that you know, in our province we have a tripartite labour market committee. We meet regularly every month with representatives from the provincial government, the labour movement, and the employers' community. We talk about issues like this, but we also do labour market planning, and we try to incorporate the need for newcomers. All of that is discussed at this table.

I would suggest what's lacking is a similar table in the national sphere, where we are bringing stakeholders together—government, unions, the community, and employers—to discuss what we do with this. And I'm not talking about on an ad hoc basis, but as a committee that works and does this work and that is there on a standing basis to advise the federal government on issues of this importance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Lana.

[Technical difficulty--Editor].... Are we okay now?

Go ahead, Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for being here.

Mr. Chairman, since this is our last day of travelling in Canada, I immediately want to thank all the staff who have worked with us over these three weeks. I know there is still another group of witnesses, but I don't want to run the risk. All the members around this table know how important these people are and how important and fantastic their work is. I want the entire public to know that, when the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration travels across Canada, it's much more than a few members who talk a lot. The real work is done by other people, and I want to emphasize that.

At the entrance, you met Kate and Nathalie, who handle logistics. They're the ones who must manage the very full orders of the day and the members' frequent changes of mind. In the interpretation cabin, there are Dagmar, Hélène and Paule. They are the voices of the Quebec members. It's thanks to them that the voice you're hearing right not is quite a bit more pleasant than mine. There are also, obviously, Penny and Sandra, our analysts. They record everything you give us and they'll present that mass of information to us in intelligible form. There's also Andrew, our clerk, whose work is important. In the back, on the controls, we have André, whose birthday it is today, and Stéphane. They ensure that everything runs well. I wanted to take a few minutes to recognize the work of those people.

Mr. Sutherland, I listened to your speech. I think you're right to recall that we must show compassion and never lose sight of the fact that we're dealing with human beings, not numbers or cases. I've known similar situations in my riding. You may know of the case of Abdelkader Belaouni, who has been in sanctuary in Pointe Saint-Charles for more than two years, nearly three years. Abdelkader is blind and comes from Algeria. When he came to Canada, he sought refugee status and dealt with a board member who rejected 98% of the applications submitted to him. I'm convinced that no Canadian would agree to appear before a judge who convicts 98% of the individuals who appear before him. Everyone would say that justice obviously was not done. Abdelkader's case shows that our system lacks sensitivity, because there is still no Refugee Appeals Division. Abdelkader, unlike any Canadian citizen, was unable to appeal from that decision, because the government, be it Liberal or Conservative, has always refused to establish a Refugee Appeals Division.

The Bloc Québécois introduced a bill on the subject. It was passed in the House, but is still moving slowly through the Senate. I hope the Liberals will pass it soon. Apart from that, there could have been a compassionate intervention by the minister. She could have used her powers and shown some compassion for a blind person who has literally been living in a prison for years, in an attempt to save his life. Action should have been taken.

Lastly, I've learned of the case of a woman who applied for a visa to come to Canada to pick up the remains of her husband who had died in Canada. Initially, her application was simply denied. They had to fight, intervene and go as far as the minister's office so that a woman could come and pick up the remains of her dead husband in Canada.

These are examples, but I wanted to thank you for reminding us that we have lost sight of the fact that we're dealing with human beings.

Do you want to add anything on the subject?

[Gordon Sutherland]

The fact that we are dealing with individuals and human beings makes this very emotional. Each case is very emotional. I know it would be literally impossible to operate a country and an immigration program where every case is viewed from an emotional perspective. But in terms of what the other panellists here have been sharing, in terms of bringing temporary foreign workers in, I believe there are a number of people being deported these days, who are already here, who could be very beneficial to our country. But because immigration officials don't look at the needs or the value of what they add, what these people bring to the country—they only look at the method, the route, they took to get into the country—we're in fact in danger of losing some very good people.

I mentioned in my comments that Alexi has been victimized on a number of levels. I'll just share with you two such ways in which he's been victimized. His application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which was filed in March 2006 and the decision rendered in February 2007, was reviewed by the Federal Court judge.

When he questioned the immigration department lawyer about the process that was followed, she admitted that they really simply took the previous decision from another application, which was on an agency basis, and said they just applied the decision from that earlier decision to this application and rejected it.

The judge asked what process they went through to question the validity of his statement, such as whether they contacted anyone who had written letters in his support, and the lawyer said, “We don't know these people and don't know if their opinions would be valid.”

The judge did not know I was sitting in the courtroom at that time, and he said, “Well, I'm looking at a letter here from a Reverend Gordon Sutherland. I would assume he has some level of education and some insight into the situation. You didn't feel it necessary to contact him?”

Alexi gets victimized because they only see the route he took to get into the country.