Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 17th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I am just going to move on. Are you finished up on that, Reverend?

Go ahead, and then I'll move to Mr. Carrier.

[Gordon Sutherland]

I'll try to keep this one to 30 seconds.

Canada Border Services Agency was dealing with this particular case. A year and a half ago, Alexi was suffering from a toothache—I'm sorry if this is taking some time away from yours. He was suffering with an intense toothache. We brought a dentist in who looked at it and said, “If it flares up again, it'll need to come out, but I don't feel comfortable taking it out here in the church.”

Six months later it flared up again, and it was very, very bad. I contacted Canada Border Services Agency and requested permission to take him to the dentist office, directly to the dentist office and directly back, no side trips, no stops. They turned him down. The next day Alexi took the tooth out himself, it was so bad.

When we get into situations where the immigration officials, Canada Border Services Agency, are so intent on removing people that they lose sight of compassion and humanitarianism, we lose as a country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Carrier.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to try to talk about various subjects that my colleagues have not yet addressed. I'll start with Ms. Payne, who I think made a presentation that effectively summarized the idea that I have and that is shared by a number of my colleagues.

Since we're completing our third week on tour, we already have a good overview. You clearly summarize the fact that labour needs cannot be met by temporary workers, but that that should be done on a priority basis through good immigration so that the people who come here want to stay here, not simply do their work and leave. I share your opinion on that point. That could be included in the recommendations that our committee will subsequently have to make.

I would like to address two specific topics: the exploitation of temporary workers, which you mentioned, and, as regards Mr. Pretty, the fact that temporary workers are used during a strike on an employer's premises. So there's a flagrant lack of monitoring of working conditions and labour standards.

I would like to hear what you have to say on the subject. Normally, every province must enforce labour standards. What is lacking so that at least working conditions and labour standards are complied with?

[Greg Pretty]

Thank you for the question.

I believe it starts with the actual application. To date, some of the people who have contravened the system haven't been honest with HRSDC. For example, in the case I quoted this morning, they told HRSDC that the workplace wasn't unionized, when in fact it was. Once that untruth was uncovered, there was no mechanism inside HRSDC to address the problem in the workplace—they couldn't retract....

To answer your question within a broader scope, people coming in here have to know what the ground rules are. They have to know, for example, that they are covered by workers' standards. You don't surrender your passport when you arrive at St. John's airport. Where else does that happen besides Cancun? Sorry about that.

You also have to know that you're covered by workers' compensation in the individual provinces, and there has to be a connection between the provincial government and the worker.

In our experience, it hasn't been that way at all. I once asked HRSDC regarding the P.E.I. workers, while it was still an issue in P.E.I., if in fact these workers were covered by workers' compensation. I couldn't get a response. This was somebody in the program in Ottawa. So there's a disconnect.

[Lana Payne]

Could I just add to that?

I think besides the issues around the expansion being too fast and that we can't therefore get enough people in place to do the monitoring and the accountability—which have been to the wayside—the other thing that has happened is that we have different levels of government administering a program. You have the federal government responsible for the temporary foreign worker program, and then two government departments who are having a say in what's happening with that program, and then there's the expectation that another jurisdiction, the provinces, also have to administer the rights and the labour rights of workers when they come.

If there is not major communication happening between those two federal departments and the provinces, in terms of where the workers are going and what's happening in that workplace, then we are going to have problems.

Up to this point, the communication has not been very good; there's been no follow-through. It just sets up the system to allow mistakes to happen.

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

Thank you. Those are good answers to my questions. I also wanted to address another topic, since we're in Newfoundland.

You noted the fact that you are losing a lot of labour, which is moving out west, mainly to Alberta. It's precisely there that labour is moving. However, you mention that, at the same time, there is a need for labour in Newfoundland.

I wonder what you think about the government's responsibility, that of Canada, which is further stimulating Alberta's economy and thus encouraging the export of labour to that region, to the detriment of provinces like yours. What would you like the government to do rather than stimulate Alberta's economy?

The question I'm asking you seems to stray from the subject we're studying, but we see that there is an impact, that this is creating a need for labour here since yours is heading to the western provinces.

[Greg Pretty]

Let me take a shot at it.

We're at a precipice in our history right now, in that we're about to embark on a huge economic development. Our province is becoming very rich through oil, but there are other developments. For example, in Labrador, on the Churchill Falls issue, there's the hydro power, which could in fact bring a lot of these workers back to Newfoundland.

You have to have an industrial base, obviously, to do that. Up until now we haven't had a huge industrial base, but the future looks pretty good. Once those deals are in place, then we are going to need labourers and construction, and there'll be people coming back into Newfoundland. We'll deal with that issue once these huge industrial deals are in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I want to go to Mr. Wade--he had his hand up here a while ago--and then I'll go over to you, Ms. Payne.

[David Wade]

Sorry on the front end of this. I understand, of course, with workers going to Alberta, possibly the majority will be going into the construction industry, which I represent in this province. I'm not speaking for other industries, just construction.

I'd like to make it quite clear to the committee that in the unionized construction industry in Newfoundland and Labrador there is no shortage of workers. We have an ample supply of workers to meet our needs. We can't supply Alberta and Ontario with all their needs, although we try as much as we can.

Right now, of course, at least in major industrial work, we're relatively slow, which allows us to have a lot of our people in western Canada. We're on the doorstep of major work here in this province, and we anticipate having our people return from either western Canada or central Canada, wherever they may be working, to work our projects. But as of right now, we can fill all of the requirements we have within our province in our unionized sector.

There is a shortage of skilled trades in the non-union sector, and as stated previously—I believe Greg addressed it to some degree—it's solely because of the amount of wages and benefits paid these people, and they have options to be elsewhere, making better wages, better benefits, looking after their families. That's the problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You have ample people to do the unionized part of it. It is the non-union sector that--

[David Wade]

Yes. Most of it is either residential or some light commercial. That's mainly where it's coming from.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

Do you want to follow up, Lana?

And then I'll go to you, Mr. Komarnicki.

[Lana Payne]

I just want to reinforce what Dave was saying, because we shouldn't confuse skill shortages with labour shortages. They are two different things and we should understand that. We have skill shortages for quite a number of different reasons, one being that we haven't done a very good job of labour market planning in our country and we haven't done a terribly good job overall, over the long term, in terms of a training system that matches the needs with giving people the skills for the jobs that are out there. I think we need to do a better job of that.

In our province I would also agree with Dave around the issue of the wage being the problem. It's not necessarily a labour shortage. In many cases, it's the wages that are being paid.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Thank you.

With all of the questions that have been asked and answered, we certainly hear you.

I think one of the words that was mentioned was “balance”, and maybe that is what we are trying to strive for, in terms of listening to the labour groups and your unions and so on.

Of course, employers tend to tell us a different story. They have certain needs that they want. You've mentioned that at least here there are no occupations under pressure, and certainly that's the way it ought to be. Although immigration doesn't deal with labour market opinions, human resources does, but there still needs to be that communication you're talking about to be sure that it's proceeded with appropriately.

I know that employers indicate that when there aren't occupations under pressure, there is a significant amount of advertising involved to ensure you can attract someone, and I understand the wages need to be at least what's going in the market, and perhaps a little greater.

I think Lana said that if we're going to have temporary workers or skilled workers coming in, as far as the temporary workers are concerned, it should be with an eye to saying that if you're good enough to work here, you're good enough to live here and become part of the community.

My sense is that we looked at some programs like the Canadian experience class and others that perhaps need to be broadened to find a way where the spouse can also have an opportunity to work and the children can have an opportunity to become a part of the community. For skilled trades, if you want to call it that, waiting a year or years is maybe not the best option when you look at what's happening; if we truly have a shortage in a particular area of skilled trades, then perhaps we should move expeditiously in that realm, rather than just throwing them into the numbers game. Getting to be 800,001 or 900,002 is not the answer.

My colleague, Mr. Telegdi, waxes eloquent about what he might have done or was just about to do, but this immigration problem has been around for years or decades, and it's time for us to do an overhaul of the system. Probably the time for talk is coming to an end, and it's time for some real action, but it must be action that takes into account the viewpoints.

I think it's important that there be communication between employers, newcomers, tradespeople, unions, and so on, to see if we can achieve a right balance to build our country. There are certain places in the country, as we've heard, where the economy is taking off; the same is about to happen in this province, so you've got to be realistic and yet preserve and protect the workers' basic benefits and rights.

What I've been hearing from the temporary workers' side is that their rights and benefits, if you want to call them that, are regulated provincially to a significant degree, and they vary to some degree from province to province. Perhaps the federal government needs to set some benchmarks across the country that are met across the line, so that if you're going to have somebody, these are certain basic things that need to happen. We've heard quite a bit of that.

I gather you agree generally with my summary.

I think I will close by talking about Pastor Sutherland. I appreciate there is a lot of compassion in particular cases; I know you're closely tied to yours, and I understand that. Others as well have been mentioned.

Because of the particular cases going on, it is difficult for the government necessarily to do their policy and look at it on a bigger-picture basis. That is not to diminish the situation you're going through.

Many have said to us that we need to look at the system we have presently. There are two sides to that coin. Again, there's a balance. A person has to pick a route to come in to the country, whatever that may be, and that is the way they do it. They need to adhere to the rules that apply to that category.

For example, you can make a refugee application, you can come in as a temporary foreign worker, or you can come in as a skilled worker. Once you've done that--let's say as a refugee--and you haven't been successful in a hearing, you of course can apply on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Presumably people look at the humanitarian side of it and the compassionate side of it. You can make the application more than once if there are some grounds for that.

There is leave to appeal to the Federal Court to look at that. Of course, there can be a Federal Court hearing as well, as you mentioned happened in your case. Then there's a pre-removal risk assessment. Presently we're instituting a refugee appeal division that will allow an appeal from the first hearing body. That's in the Senate. I'm not sure if it has passed or received royal assent, but it's in the process.

I'm thinking of this on a big-picture basis, not as an individual case. I've asked some pastors, who said that churches do provide sanctuary, but even if the refugee appeal division was implemented, which adds another layer to four or five, you would probably reserve the right to still provide sanctuary yourself if you weren't in agreement with all of those processes. That's the first question.

Secondly, if we as a government follow all the processes and get a negative decision at some point, does that not have to be respected?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Go ahead. Please feel free.

[Gordon Sutherland]

When it comes to sanctuary, none of us like sanctuary. I wish we didn't need to have sanctuary.

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

But you would probably reserve that right yourself, no matter how many systems or processes we put in place.

[Gordon Sutherland]

Under the current system, when the power to make a decision on someone's life rests with one person and there is no appeal process in place, when the current immigration—

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

But Pastor, the refugee appeal division will be the second appeal in place. If that were in place, would you still not reserve unto yourself the right of sanctuary?

[Gordon Sutherland]

I believe sanctuary is a...not in every case. I mentioned Alexi's son, who was deported. I was asked by the media if I was going to stand up for him. I told them there are some deportation orders that you do not fight.

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

That wasn't my question. My sense is that sanctuary is going to exist, probably in your mind and others as well, whether or not you have another process or appeal level, because you want to reserve that right. Is that correct?

[Gordon Sutherland]

That's right, because no system is perfect, and there are issues around those decisions that we need to question.

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

So my point is that the refugee appeal division, which will be that appeal from the refugee hearing in the first place, will be in place. But even so, churches will generally want to reserve for themselves the right to say they don't agree with that.