Bill Siksay

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 8th, 2007]

With regard to marriages for immigration purposes: (a) how many individuals have been deported or had their permanent residence status cancelled by Citizenship and Immigration Canada for entering into a fraudulent marriage or a marriage of convenience for immigration purposes in each of the last 10 years; and (b) to which countries were they removed?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about another area where there has been a real failure in the budget.

I do not think the budget, in a serious way, addresses the growing economic inequality in Canada. It is becoming a very serious matter, certainly around the whole question of income distribution. It is something about which New Democrats have always been very concerned.

We know, for instance, that the average earnings of the top decile are now 81 times that of the poorest decile in Canada. When we look back, in 1976, the difference was only 32 times, so there has been a huge growth in that gap.

In fact, the gap between the rich and poor in Canada is at a 30 year high in after tax terms. It has been growing quickly in the past 10 years that under economic conditions that traditionally leads to its falling. So none of the projections that we hear commonly from the Liberals or the Conservatives have proven true.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the increasing polarization of income in Canada and what that really means for Canadian families.

[Petitions, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, over 50 residents of Montreal, Quebec and Toronto also call on this House to commit to respecting and promoting international standards in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights by adopting the principles of the declaration of Montreal on LGBT human rights and the Yogyakarta principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity.

Both of these very important international documents merit the support of the House and the government.

[Petitions, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today.

Over 80 residents of Montreal in the province of Quebec have pointed out that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not explicitly protect transsexual and transgender people from discrimination, harassment and violence based on their gender identity or gender expression.

The petitioners note that they are victims of discrimination, harassment and violence because of their gender identity and gender expression. They experience injustices such as the denial of employment, housing and access to transsensitive health care, and the inability to obtain identification documents because of their gender identity or gender expression.

The petitioners call on Parliament to immediately implement legislation to update the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination.

[Conscientious Objection Act, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That Bill C-348, An Act respecting conscientious objection to the use of taxes for military purposes, be withdrawn from the order paper.

[Child Labour, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, 24 grades six and seven students from Lochdale Community School in Burnaby wrote to me about their work on human rights and child labour.

An estimated 218 million children aged 5 to 17 are engaged in child labour, over half in hazardous situations.

Children work long hours, often in unhealthy conditions, causing lasting harm. Some are forced into armed conflict as child soldiers, the sex industry, or are trafficked. They are denied education and a normal childhood. These human rights tragedies are faced by children worldwide, some even here in Canada.

The International Labour Organization establishes and supervises international labour standards. ILO convention 138 and recommendation 146 call for the abolition of child labour and raising the minimum age for employment. Sadly, Canada has not yet ratified this key tool against child labour.

World Day Against Child Labour is on June 12. I join the students of Lochdale School to call for an end to child labour in Canada and around the world.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with it is the job essentially has already been done. The initiatives were started by the previous government and are continued by the current government. As I said, back in 2004, 423 such permits were issued. Last year, there were only 17. The bill would really add nothing to the protection of foreign workers in Canada.

As the Canadian Council for Refugees said in its press release:

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.

Bill C-57 does not do it. It is a waste of our time. In this corner, we cannot support it for those reasons.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we started out well when the member described me as his good friend. It kind of went downhill from there, unfortunately.

I know the member tried to seek unanimous consent for that motion last week, but my understanding was that he did not do any negotiating ahead of time, so it took everybody by complete surprise.

The good news is the motion introduced at the committee, the report on stopping deportations of undocumented workers until a new policy was in place, a motion that New Democrats put forward, was approved and reported to the House. The member for Trinity—Spadina moved concurrence on that several weeks ago. It was debated in the House, and it will come to a vote tomorrow night.

Therefore, we will be able to see exactly who in the House supports ensuring that undocumented workers, who make a huge contribution to the Canadian economy and who are absolutely necessary to the functioning of the Canadian economy, can stay on the job. We will also see who is supporting their families being able to continue the important contributions they make to Canadian society. That opportunity is coming up tomorrow night.

The member for Trinity—Spadina has a very keen interest in the situation of undocumented workers. I know from her work in Toronto that she has been incredibly supportive of those people and has done a lot of work to recognize their contributions and the contributions of their families to Canadian society. I am glad she took that initiative. We will have the opportunity to act in the House on the recommendation put forward by the NDP.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is a problem with temporary worker programs here in Canada. Sadly, it is a long term and historical legacy of Canada. We all know about the problems that were experienced by Chinese workers who came to Canada to work on the railways and the lack of concern for their safety and well-being.

Sadly, I believe that legacy continues through to this day. We see it with agricultural workers in Canada who often work under very difficult conditions. We see it with agricultural workers facing racial discrimination. We saw very blatant racial discrimination recently in Quebec. We see it in terrible working conditions and living conditions for agricultural workers. We see it in limitations on their ability to change jobs.

We often see employers interfering in the basic human rights of temporary foreign workers by doing things like seizing passports and not allowing them access to their travel documents.

We also see that legacy in the example that the member gave of the live-in caregiver program, where a live-in caregiver is not able to change employers. It has been said in the past that those workers are often like an indentured servant to one particular family. They do not have the ability to change employers even if there are problems with the working conditions in that workplace.

The government has expanded and has speeded up the approval process for temporary foreign workers even though there are continuing problems. We have seen that recently with exploitative brokers, who charge foreign workers huge amounts of money to find them temporary positions here in Canada. We saw it with Chinese workers in the tar sands who were recently killed on the job. There are concerns about safety standards in some workplaces and the ability to communicate appropriately with foreign workers who may not have English or French as their first language.

We have also seen it on the rapid transit project in Vancouver where workers were brought in offshore from Central America and South America. They were paid at a rate that initially was something like $3.27 an hour, much below the minimum wage here in Canada.

Many of us are concerned that temporary foreign workers can be used as a way of driving down employment standards and wage standards here in Canada. The example of the temporary workers working on the rapid transit project in Vancouver certainly draws our attention to those specific problems and makes it patently obvious that that seemed to be what was going on there.

There are all kinds of problems with temporary foreign worker programs here in Canada. Sadly, this bill does nothing to address any of those very major concerns for any of those workers.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to resume speaking to Bill C-57.

Before question period, I was saying that the appropriate place to stop someone coming to Canada to work in a degrading or humiliating workplace surely was at the labour market opinion stage where Human Resources and Social Development Canada puts forward an opinion about that workplace and that particular job.

Doing the survey of the workplace and the job would be the appropriate place to make the determination about whether it was an appropriate place to work and an appropriate job to do. The process should be ended before anyone even applies for a work visa overseas.

However, it seems to me that this has largely been accomplished. It is my understanding that the number of work visas issued specifically for exotic dancers has already been dramatically reduced. My understanding of the statistic is that there were 423 such visas issued in 2004 but that last year, in 2006, that number was only 17. I do not believe there is a serious problem at this point. It seems that it has been largely addressed through existing programs and existing legislation. I do not believe, therefore, that this is serious attempt to deal with important issues of human trafficking.

It seems like now this is a rather minor program in terms of overseas workers and certainly a very minor attempt to deal with the important issue of human trafficking that exists here in Canada and around the world.

More than that, it feels like it is entirely a politically motivated piece of legislation. When the bill was first announced, it seemed like it was an opportunity to write the rather pejorative term “stripper” in a press release, to write it almost 10 times over the course of one press release and to drag up an old scandal that faced the previous government.

Rather than a serious attempt to deal with issue of human trafficking, I think this was a rather sad attempt by the Conservative government to drag up an old scandal of the Liberal government.

The stated goal of the bill is “to protect foreign nationals who are at risk of being subjected to humiliating or degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation”. In reality, it does nothing to accomplish that since all it would do is deny people a visa to come to Canada to work.

If they were under the influence of traffickers or unscrupulous people who were exploiting them for degrading or humiliating purposes, the bill would do nothing to remove them from that influence or from those circumstances. It merely denies them work visas to come to Canada. It leaves them in the clutches of the trafficker or the person doing this exploitation.

The bill does nothing to break trafficking rings. It does nothing to improve the situation of those people who seek this kind of work. It does nothing to address the working conditions in the sex industry in Canada or for exotic dancers in Canada or elsewhere. It does nothing to address their human rights. It does nothing to address flaws in criminal laws. It does nothing to address attitudes toward women in Canadian society.

The bill seems to say that there are some workplaces in Canada that are inappropriate for foreign workers but, because it does nothing to address the apparently serious problems of those workplaces, that it is all right for Canadians to work there. Surely this exposes the flawed approach of the government with this legislation. If this is an inappropriate workplace for a foreign worker, it should also be an inappropriate workplace for a Canadian worker, and this legislation does absolutely nothing to address that situation.

I believe that in some quarters there is hope that the bill might be able to improve it or amend it but, frankly, I am not optimistic about that but I will not slam the door shut on it. I believe this bill is likely to make it to committee and I will do my job there to see what comes before the committee in terms of amendments and improvements. However, it does not change my mind about the bill. I am still opposed to the bill before us but I will do my job when it comes before the committee.

Many of us believe that many foreign workers, including temporary foreign workers, agricultural workers and live-in caregivers, are exploited in Canadian workplaces. Those concerns have been expressed time and time again over many years without any action being taken on that exploitation that happens already here in Canada.

The concerns include: wages that are below the Canadian wage standard in many industries; employment standards such as hours of work; inappropriate accommodation; special charges; workplace safety; restrictions, such as the requirement that makes it impossible for a live-in caregiver to change employers; and temporary foreign workers inability to address permanent resident status and, ultimately, the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.

Those concerns are all well-documented problems with our temporary worker program here in Canada. This bill, by seeking to only address a tiny piece of the problems facing temporary foreign workers, misses the point.

Many people believe that these concerns that have been expressed about other temporary worker programs amount to degrading and humiliating treatment because they are conditions that would be absolutely acceptable to Canadians working in those industries. It is no surprise that Canadians are often unwilling to work for instance in the agriculture industry because of some of the working conditions there. Canadians are unwilling to work as live-in caregivers because of the conditions of work that are in that profession.

The bill does nothing to address degrading and humiliating workplaces in Canada. If these workplaces are unacceptable destinations for foreign workers, they should also be unacceptable for Canadian workers.

For those reason, the NDP cannot support the legislation. We say that we should be focusing on the harm caused due to the problems of those workplaces. We should change the unacceptable conditions that plague these workplaces and these particular programs that temporary foreign workers face when they come to Canada.

Instead, what we are offered by the government in Bill C-57, I believe, is an attempt at moralistic legislation that bandies about the pejorative term strippers as a way of mobilizing support for something that I think is a very small piece of the problem. It is also paternalistic in that it seems to indicate that an immigration officer knows better than, for instance, the woman overseas who is applying to come to work in Canada.

If we had better employment standards and tougher requirements for employers who want to employ temporary foreign workers, the bill would be completely unnecessary.

I want to talk a bit about the report of the Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with regard to Canada's solicitation laws. The report was called “The challenge of change: A study of Canada's criminal prostitution laws” and was tabled here in December of last year.

The report makes a recommendation on human trafficking. It was the second recommendation of the report and I would like to read that into the record because I think it was a helpful intervention. It states:

The Subcommittee recommends that the Government of Canada ensure that the problem of trafficking in persons remains a priority so that victims are provided with adequate assistance and services, while traffickers are brought to justice.

Unfortunately, the bill before us today, which purports to deal with the issue of human trafficking, addresses none of that. It does not ensure that traffickers are brought to justice in Canada. In fact, it only prevents someone who the minister may feel might be subjected to trafficking, from escaping the clutches of that person in their country of origin. It also does nothing to improve the assistance that is available to victims.

We need to ensure we are identifying and prosecuting people who engage in human trafficking. Why are these people not being identified? If they are, why would any of them be able to have a job vacancy certified here in Canada?

The special committee on solicitation also made other recommendations. One of them was to ensure that police had the training resources that are necessary. They also talked about the need for a good understanding of prostitution and the sex industry in Canada.

The subcommittee's sixth unanimous recommendation was:

The Subcommittee recommends that the Department of Justice coordinate research on prostitution on a priority basis with other levels of government, institutions, and non-governmental organizations, as well as persons selling sexual services. This research should include an examination of best practices adopted in Canada and abroad.

What that recommendation goes to is the fact that we do not clearly understand the workings of the sex industry in Canada. We do not clearly understand what is the most helpful approach to prostitution and to the sex trade here in Canada and sex work here in Canada. The research is incomplete. We do not understand what sexual exploitation really means in our society. There is contradictory research on those issues.

The subcommittee on solicitation said that we must be clear, that we have to develop good public policy alternatives and that we need to do that work. Again, Bill C-57 does nothing to ensure that that work is undertaken, so that we come to a clearer understanding of that in Canadian society and here in Parliament.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women also recently tabled a report that made 33 recommendations on human trafficking and on trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. That report is, “Turning Outrage into Action To Address Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation in Canada”. It was tabled in February 2007.

I realize there is some concern about some of the recommendations and about the thoroughness of the study that the committee was able to undertake, but it is very interesting to look at the report. I think there is a helpful discussion.

I note that in its over 58 pages not once does it suggest the course of action taken by the government in Bill C-57. Not once does it suggest that the way of addressing human trafficking is to deny visas overseas to people who might come to Canada to work in a degrading or humiliating workplace. Instead, it discusses anti-poverty measures but interestingly not in a global context, but which is surely an issue when we are dealing with international human trafficking.

That report also discusses gender equality, sexual exploitation, Criminal Code changes, sexual tourism, increasing awareness of trafficking, women in migration, immigration policies and regulation, the need for a Canadian counter-trafficking office, training for law enforcement officers, victims services and resources for the police.

Not once does it suggest denying visas to women who might potentially be trafficked. Instead it outlines a long and detailed agenda of many other issues which go to the heart of human trafficking in Canada and around the world.

Again, I have to say that Bill C-57 seems a very paltry contribution to the whole issue of human trafficking, especially given some of the recent work done by subcommittees and standing committees of the House of Commons.

I would contend that poverty is an issue when we are looking at human trafficking. Therefore, our foreign aid commitment is an issue.

Canada's determination to lead wealthy countries to address poverty is also an issue when we are trying to address the issue of human trafficking. If the economic situation of women and of all people worldwide improved, it would put a huge dent in trafficking and make it less attractive as a mechanism to escape poverty, a less attractive mechanism to finding a more hopeful future for some people and women around the world.

We should also be addressing immigration possibilities for women and ensure that women's success as independent applicants addresses the financial disadvantages that many women face in the immigration process. Again, there is nothing in Bill C-57 to address that kind of problem.

In fact, I would rather see a program that would help immigration officers overseas when someone has come to them to apply for a visa to escape either poverty or exploitation as a trafficked person. Those officers should have options available to them to ensure that something is done to protect the person and to ensure that the person is safe, that something is done to ensure that action is taken against the trafficker or the exploiter and something is done to help that person establish himself or herself successfully in his or her own country or even here in Canada.

It would be better to look at Criminal Code amendments here in Canada. Surely it is through the Criminal Code that we would deal with issues of trafficking and exploitation, and issues of humiliating and degrading work. Surely those are issues that demand Criminal Code attention and not just the action of an immigration officer overseas.

We also need to make sure that international agreements are promoted by Canada and upheld by Canada to ensure that human trafficking is addressed in those kinds of forums around the world.

Trafficking and sexual exploitation are serious issues that demand serious action. Unfortunately, this bill is not that action and we in this corner cannot support it.

We do not see it as a serious attempt to stop trafficking, to prevent people from being exploited in degrading or humiliating workplaces, or to address sexual exploitation. We have to address the workplace here in Canada, deal with the exploitative employer, deal with the work situation that causes someone, anyone, to be degraded or humiliated for whatever reason, not just sexual exploitation.

We need to deal with the flaws in the approval process that allow temporary foreign workers to come to Canada. How does an employer who operates a degrading or humiliating workplace get approval to seek temporary workers in the first place?

We need to deal with Canadian employment standards. If there are degrading and humiliating workplaces here in Canada, then they should be shut down, plain and simple. If a workplace is a legitimate workplace suitable for Canadians, then there should be no problem in allowing foreign workers to make a living there either.

That is the problem that must be solved. I think the bill misreads that problem and proposes no solution to that serious matter. Other organizations agree with that.

The Canadian Council for Refugees is the most widely respected organization working with immigrants and refugees in Canada and includes representatives of almost every refugee serving organization in the country. Its position on this legislation is particularly enlightening. The CCR says very clearly that Bill C-57 takes the wrong approach to the problem of trafficking. I want to quote from the council's press release where it says:

“This bill does nothing to protect the rights of trafficked persons already here in Canada,” said Loly Rico, chair of the CCR's Anti-Trafficking Committee. “Worse, the bill takes a condescending, moralistic approach, empowering visa officers to decide which women should be kept out of Canada for their own good.”

That points very clearly to a serious problem with the legislation. The Canadian Council for Refugees also goes on to talk about five other ways that it believes this is flawed and wrong legislation. The council points out that the bill fails to address the root problem of the existence in Canada of jobs that humiliate and degrade workers. The council believes that parliamentary time would be better spent to address the broader spectrum of the exploitation of non-citizens in Canada.

This is a very problematic piece of legislation. We in this corner of the House cannot support it because we do not believe that it gets to the heart of the issue, dealing with human trafficking, dealing with issues of exploitation in degrading or humiliating workplaces.