Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Jan. 30th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Carrier, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, and welcome.

I am going to follow up on some questions that have already been asked.

In terms of statistics, you said that there had been 113,000 temporary workers in 2006 and that 21 of those workers were exotic dancers. We seem to be focusing on exotic dancers, but ultimately there are not a lot of other figures that might apply to other sectors of industry.

Can you give us some facts that would justify introducing a bill? There has to be potentially something more than 21 people.

[Les Linklater]

That is a very good question, Mr. Chair.

My response would be that we know that about one-half of all temporary foreign workers who come to Canada every year are what we would call low-skilled: people who are required to have high school education or less to perform the work that's being offered in Canada. Many of these people are coming from countries where English or French is not widely spoken. Bill C-17 would certainly provide additional opportunities for protections for that segment of the temporary foreign worker population.

As has also been mentioned, we've seen a growth in the number of temporary foreign workers over the last few years, particularly of the low-skilled, driven by economic developments. We feel that the authorities in Bill C-17 would be helpful to ensure broader protection.

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

On the question of denying an application, I am wondering, given that the Minister could issue negative instructions, under what criteria that decision might be made. Would only the employer involved in the temporary work application be considered, rather than people we are prepared to accept as refugees?

In any event, most of the time these are vulnerable people, whose situation we understand and who we know are going to be able to make their way in our society. There are laws and labour standards that apply here, in this country. So we should not be judging the person making the application, but rather our own employers. We are aware of the fact that when these people work for some of these employers they are inevitably going to be exploited. Given that we know about this situation, I don't understand why we are refusing entry to people and why we are not penalizing the employers who exploit them. I would like to hear your reaction to that.

[Les Linklater]

Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, Bill C-17 is one of the tools we wanted to add to our toolbox. For example, we work with our colleagues from Human Resources and Social Development Canada on developing a framework for overseeing employers in Canada, in cooperation with the provinces. Most of them have responsibility for managing labour standards and the labour market. Bill C-17 will contribute to that effort, which will make it possible to provide vulnerable workers with greater protection.

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

Given that when we talk about labour standards we are talking about laws enforced by the provinces, I imagine that a decision about a particular application would have to be based on a report issued by the province in question. That province, and not an immigration officer doing his or her own little investigation, would determine whether a particular employer presents a risk.

Do you agree?

[Les Linklater]

Mr. Chair, on the questions of the guidelines issued by the Minister, they would have to be based on objective research. For example, if we received a report from a province indicating that a particular industry or employer was causing problems, that might be one of the factors taken into consideration in developing guidelines. However, we would have to be careful and ensure that this did not keep happening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I have three people who have indicated they want to question. We only have about six minutes, so I'll go to Mr. Komarnicki for two, Ms. Grewal for two, and Madam Beaumier for two.

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

I will share my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, just take a couple of minutes each so I can complete my list here. I want to get everyone on who wants to.

We'll get you on, Madam Beaumier.

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

I know there's been a fixation on the exotic dancer category and the statistics. Those statistics may have some relevance, but the issue is not that particular category. Whatever the category--the name doesn't matter--the issue is the objective of the act. So those statistics won't necessarily prove anything. Am I correct on that?

[Les Linklater]

As I said, low-skilled workers encompass about half of the movement every year.

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

The other aspect is to ensure that some safeguards are in place. Not only do you require two officers or personnel from the department, but the instruction needs to be published in the Gazette, with any use of that reported annually to Parliament or to the House as a whole. Is that correct?

[Les Linklater]

Yes. What is foreseen here is that instructions would be published in the Gazette and come into force on the date of publication or on a date specified in the publication. Similarly for revocation, notice would be published. And for refusals, the decision to refuse needs to be concurred in by a second immigration officer.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Batters.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the officials being able to take the time to appear before our committee.

I have a quick question I want to lead you into, Mr. Linklater. I was hoping we'd touch on this, but we haven't yet.

I think we're all in agreement with the purpose of Bill C-17; there are just a lot of questions around the table as to the details, and the devil is in the details. I think we need to have a lot better explanation of how this is going to work with our visa officers abroad, in terms of how these decisions will be made.

For instance, Lady X from Hungary goes to a job in Canada with what many of us in this room and most Canadians would consider an unscrupulous employer--a massage parlour owner. She has a job contract that says she's going to be a cleaner, a waitress, or a registered massage therapist, but that's not the case. She knows exactly what type of work she's going to be doing; she's going to be in the sex trade and she's going to be doing things that are illegal in this country.

Isn't it true that Citizenship and Immigration Canada will ultimately be working with partners such as the RCMP or Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to actually follow up and target which employers are unscrupulous and keep a list of them that will help the visa officers abroad? From my understanding and reading of Bill C-17, unless our visa officers abroad have a list of places that are unscrupulous, they can be told all kinds of stories. How can they possibly make a determination of who is going to work as a legitimate worker and not be exploited, and who will be exploited in Canada?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Good question.

A brief response, if you wish, Mr. Linklater.

[Les Linklater]

Bill C-17, Mr. Chair, would allow CIC officers to refuse a work permit to someone because of their own characteristics. Where they may face that abuse or exploitation right now, the act and regulations are very directive that subject to the criteria being met, a work permit shall be issued.

To allow the minister to have the same authority to refuse as she does to overcome inadmissibilities is the key here.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

This is a really quick follow-up question. Is the goal to create a list of unscrupulous employers that these visa officers can look at and say, okay, we have evidence in the past from the RCMP that in this place they're involved in the exploitation or trafficking of women, for example. Is that the goal?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I think Mr. Linklater understands the question, sir.

[Les Linklater]

Mr. Chair, as part of our ongoing work with HRSDC, we are looking at how we can work to provide better surveillance of employers who use the program and to impose sanctions on those who would abuse it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Batters, did you get your...? We never get answers all the time when we want them.

Madam Beaumier.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Chair, when I'm speaking to people from Immigration, it's very frustrating. I always feel like it's them and us, and it shouldn't feel that way. It's not my fault.

First of all, in order to do what you're proposing, you don't have the capacity to do it. We don't have the capacity to do security checks in foreign countries right now. We have long waiting lists. We do not have the manpower to do what you are suggesting.

When you talk about objective evidence, you're not talking about objective evidence, especially when it's from a third world country, you're talking about gossip. We see in Immigration that so many people are denied entrance into this country because some jealous neighbour or some jealous relative has called the embassy and everything is put on hold. That is not objective evidence.

I really do view this bill, overall, as something that merely gives the bureaucracy more power. You make the regulations. Regulations are not an act of Parliament; regulations are drawn up by the bureaucracy.

I'm sorry that I'm ranting. When you talk about two members, we have two members, oftentimes, in Immigration now refusing visitor's visas or...the one who signs no and the other one who rubber-stamps it.

We're in a position where we've not put enough money into Immigration. We are outsourcing so much of our work in third world countries. We know they don't exactly do business the same way we do. We know that a few rupees will get you a bigger place in line.

We already don't have the staff. It's like the doctor situation in Canada. We don't have the staff to handle all of these in a fair, impartial way.

It's not really you against us, even though I feel it is often. You don't have the resources to implement this. You just don't have the resources. What kinds of resources are being put or will be put in place to enact this new legislation? And we don't care about exploiting Canadians. Canadians are being exploited all the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We've run out of time. We do have some other things to do.

Mr. Linklater.