Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Jan. 30th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, we'll try to do that.

Mr. Karygiannis.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

On a point of order, I would like us to invite the other group back. There are questions we need to ask of the first and second presenters, especially the second presenter with respect to some of the statements he made. I think we will be doing the other presenters a disservice to not give them equal opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm going to hear one more point and then I'm going back to--

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

What time are the bells, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

The bells are at 5:30 for a 5:45 vote.

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

So we can go for an extra five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, we can go a little bit extra.

Madam Dench.

[Janet Dench]

Thank you.

I am going to split the time I am allowed with my colleague Mr. Rico-Martinez.

The Canadian Council for Refugees is an umbrella organization with about 170 member organizations across Canada. This year, we are celebrating 30 years of work on behalf of refugees and immigrants. Our mandate is the protection of refugees in Canada and around the world, and the settlement of refugees and immigrants in Canada. We are active on a wide range of issues and we have had the privilege of appearing before this committee on a number of these issues in the past.

Our members have been concerned about the question of trafficking in persons for several years. With support from the federal government, we held a series of consultations locally and nationally in 2003, in order to promote awareness and develop recommendations. Through the consultations we identified two priorities: first, a need for increased awareness of the reality of trafficking in Canada, and second, the need for measures of protection for victims of trafficking.

Since then, we have continued our work on trafficking issues, coordinated through a subcommittee of the CCR which brings together representatives from various cities in Canada, in order to promote networking of anti-trafficking activists across the country.

With respect to our reaction to Bill C-17, when the earlier version of the bill was tabled as Bill C-57 we put out a press release giving our response. You should have a copy of that release before you.

We oppose Bill C-17. Not only does it fail to protect the rights of trafficked persons already here in Canada, but furthermore its approach is condescending and moralistic. It empowers visa officers to decide which women should be kept out of Canada for their own good.

We find Bill C-17 problematic in a number of ways. First, the bill fails to address the root problem with the existence in Canada of jobs that humiliate and degrade workers. Work permits can only be issued by visa officers after the employer's job offer has been validated by Human Resources and Social Development Canada. Why is such work available in Canada if it humiliates and degrades workers?

Second, only a handful of work permits have been issued to exotic dancers in recent years. Parliamentary time would be better used to address the broader problem of the exploitation of non-citizens in Canada.

Third, the bill proposes to address the problem of exploitation by excluding people, mostly women, from Canada. It is demeaning for women to have a visa officer decide that they should be kept out of Canada for their own protection.

The bill also fails to address the situation of the most vulnerable of exploited non-citizens, those who have no valid work permit. In fact, closing the door on valid work permits may expose women to greater vulnerability, by forcing them underground.

The government's focus on strippers betrays a moralistic approach. Instead of passing moral judgment, the government should work on ensuring that non-citizens' rights are protected and that they have the freedom to make informed choices about their own lives.

We also note that where there is a suspicion of trafficking, it is wrong to simply refuse a work permit to a woman without referring her to the appropriate local institutions or authorities for her protection and for the prosecution of the criminals involved. This is a clear violation of our international obligation under the UN protocol.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Rico-Martinez is next.

[Francisco Rico-Martinez, Former President, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Because we oppose the bill, we have a proposal to make and you have a copy of the proposal.

As mentioned earlier, one of our areas of priority is focusing on the need for protection for trafficked persons in Canada. We have been advocating for this for many, many years. In 2006, we welcomed Minister Solberg's introduction of guidelines for temporary resident permits as a step in the right direction. However, our monitoring of the experience with these guidelines has convinced us the guidelines are not sufficient to protect trafficked persons.

We decided it is necessary to amend the law to ensure there is a clear and permanent policy of offering protection to trafficked persons. Since measures to prosecute traffickers are in the law, it is appropriate that measures to protect victims are also in the law. Guidelines can only go so far. We know that. They do not have the force of law and may be changed as easily as they are adopted, and we know that as well.

We decided it would be helpful to develop a complete proposal outlining what we see as necessary. We present it to you, and we are going to read the key elements of the proposal.

The main objective of the anti-trafficking legislation must be to protect the human rights of trafficked persons. This bill doesn't.

Canada should follow the definition of trafficking found in the UN protocol. This bill doesn't.

Protection must be offered to trafficked persons without conditions. This bill doesn't.

Immediate temporary protection is to be offered if there are any reasons to suspect the person is a victim of trafficking. This bill doesn't.

There is a possibility of permanent status in certain cases after the trafficked person has had the time to make her own decisions. This bill doesn't.

We must remove from the regulations the provision that makes a risk of trafficking a factor in favour of detention, including of children. Trafficked persons should be treated as the victims of crime, not as criminals.

In conclusion, I have a few extra points. This bill needs a gender analysis. Traffickers exploit people's vulnerabilities and women and children tend, globally, to be more vulnerable than men in this particular area. Trafficking deprives those trafficked of control over their lives. It is therefore extremely important to approach the issue in a way that gives back to trafficked persons full control of their life. Bill C-17 takes exactly the opposite approach, closing off options, rather than giving greater power.

Consider the reports from Eastern Europe that a few years ago, in response to instances of trafficking in women, border officials trying to reduce trafficking refused admission to women trying to cross the border. Perhaps it made it more difficult to traffic women, but this also led to discrimination against women who were simply trying to cross the border to go about their own business.

About children, this bill thoroughly left out children. Children are among those who are trafficked. Bill C-17 fails to protect them because the bill only refers to temporary workers, which legally means persons over 18 years of age, and not children.

Non-status people in Canada are among those who are also exploited. Bill C-17 fails to protect them because they are already in Canada.

We encourage you to study our proposal and take action to have the principles turned into law. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We have seven people who want to speak, so I think it would be appropriate, given the time constraints, to go for five-minute rounds and see how we work it out there.

Ms. Beaumier, you're first.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I'm sorry we didn't have you first. We could have eliminated the others, because what you have brought up is so very interesting.

Mr. Muise was talking about exploitation of children for sexual purposes. I have no knowledge of what that has to do with immigration or how it possibly even relates to this bill.

Janet, I was extremely impressed with what you had to say. This bill does not address exploitation. All this bill addresses is making the playing field smaller and smaller at the discretion of the bureaucracy. We're talking about people who are being exploited in Canada, and what do we do? We reward them by deporting them or taking away their work permits.

We have a number of people in Canada right now who are being exploited because they're having to work underground. Not only are they being exploited, they're exploiting the system. They're not paying into the system, but they're not allowed the benefits that people in Canada are allowed. And I think it's unfortunate.

When you talk about the trafficking, I'm not sure what you mean by trafficking. People don't do trafficking through legal means, do they? They sneak people in. I don't know how you can go and get a working visa at the border.

And Mr. Muise, I don't understand what immigration has to do with sexual exploitation and trafficking of children. I just don't understand.

So I wish we had more time.

Maybe someone could answer some of these.

[Janet Dench]

Thank you, Ms. Beaumier.

Yes, I'd like to comment on your question about how people can be trafficked into Canada. From what we have seen, there is a variety of different means used, and that is one of the reasons we say this bill doesn't necessarily help, because it focuses on one means of entering Canada.

It's true that somebody could enter Canada on a temporary work permit and on that basis be kept or forced into a situation where they were under the control of the traffickers and exploited. But that is not the only way. They could enter without a visa at all.

We have children who enter Canada and who are kept as sort of domestic servants, not going to school. There is a wide range of different circumstances. In some ways, someone who has a temporary work permit is in a better situation than someone who has none at all, which is one of the reasons we don't see it as a very positive step to be closing off legal options.

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

Just let me add that they use other means as well. For instance, we have at least two examples in my office of people who were trafficked into Canada; they were exploited. And they came with student visas. That decision was not their original intention. We have other people who come as visitors, and they are exploited after they enter Canada.

So the relationship between the legal means to enter Canada and trafficking is very close, and we know that at the practical level.

[John Muise]

I will add two things to that. For me, a child is somebody under the age of 18. Somebody else might think it's someone under the age of 15. So there is a potential, and I think Ms. Dench referred to it.

But ultimately, I mentioned one of the other three solutions, and I believe one of them--and that's why I talk about children--is licensing combined with rescuing of children legislation, which needs to be done in each province, because ultimately the rescuing of children is a provincial jurisdiction. So is licensing of the places where people are trafficked. And both children and trafficked people end up in these places. They say 18-plus because it keeps them out of the most important trouble to law enforcement currently.

So at the end of the day there's a significant connection. I'm not saying the only trafficking is about sexual exploitation, but there is absolutely no doubt that's a big part of what trafficking is around this world, Canada included.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

But I don't know how you figure this legislation is going to help. All it does is give the bureaucracy more discretion as to who they're not going to allow in. Well, you can be absolutely sure that the bureaucracy today does have the power to deny entrance to people who they think they're going to be exploited.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Let's try to pick that up in the next question.

Thank you, Madam Beaumier. I'm sorry, I have to be a little strict on time here.

We'll go to Mr. St-Cyr.

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

Thank you all for being here. Your presentations were very interesting.

Comments have been made concerning the bill that is before us. Ms. Dench and Mr. Rico-Martinez told us that they were clearly opposed to this bill. You made some proposals for amendments or changes. You understand that because of parliamentary procedure, we can't initiate those new aspects, but it seems to me that you think that this bill, in its present form, results in more problems than solutions. I conclude that you are recommending that I vote against it.

Ms. Jeffrey's comments were also quite clear.

It seems to me that you have listed four other measures that should be given preference if we are to solve this problem. One of them escapes me. I noted down the right to change employers where there are problems, to check on the employer first to make sure that it genuinely respects its employees. The fourth thing I wrote down, I think, was information about these people's rights, that is, that employers be aware of what rights they have to respect.

Was there a third? Am I missing one, and if so, which one?

[Leslie Ann Jeffrey]

The final point was on the United Nations convention on the rights of migrant workers, which Canada is not a signatory or a party to. None of the major developed countries are. But many ascending countries are parties to it. What the convention does—it's one of the smartest conventions I've seen—is lay down a base level of rights that must be protected for all migrant workers everywhere, whether legal or illegal. And it encourages legal and orderly migration by giving a higher level of rights to those who regularize their status. So it's what's been laid out.

The Office of the High Commissioner has, on December 18, International Migrants Day, said that countries should be signing and ratifying this convention.

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

I am going to go back to Mr. Muise because you also listed a whole series of recommendations about what we should do to reduce abuse. But in terms of this bill, as parliamentarians, we are going to have to assess whether it has more positive than negative effects. Personally, do you recommend that we vote for or against this bill?

[John Muise]

First I'd recommend that you vote for it.

If you don't do some of the things I've suggested, and quite frankly, some of the other things suggested here.... I don't know that the bill is going to do more harm than good, but it's not going to do much good. If you don't add to that particular.... It's a building block. I think Mr. Komarnicki might have referred to it as such. This is a building block. To me, it's overarching legislation. We're concerned about the rights of people who come here. If you don't do these other things, it's just going to kind of be there.

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

I am going to stop you because I would like to ask one final question. I would like to know whether this is a subject of major concern for you. We ourselves are concerned about the significant latitude being given to the Minister of Immigration in terms of issuing guidelines to immigration officers, guidelines whose scope is ultimately not under the control of Parliament. Is this something that concerns you? I am thinking particularly of people who work with refugees, and perhaps also Ms. Jeffrey.

[Janet Dench]

Yes, in fact, this is something that concerns us because it is up to Parliament to establish the legal framework and then to be able to make sure that the officials are working within that framework. When you give enormous powers without any supervision, who knows what might happen under a future government, for example.

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

Also, if you remember the example the employee from the ministry gave, it was very clear that if the person speaks very good English and the person has experience in a western country and if the person speaks French and whatever.... What that means is that there's a clear sense that we are discriminating against people who don't speak English and French in a particular way or have western experience, which is not the goal of the bill. The example is totally clear about what the bill is going to do.

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

Ms. Jeffrey.