EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration NUMBER 018 2nd SESSION 39th PARLIAMENT Monday, March 31, 2008 Le lundi 31 mars 2008 Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE March 31, 2008 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 018 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 018 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 018 (Version officielle) 18 31 03 2008 2008/03/31 13:05:00 House of Commons Comité permanent de la citoyenneté et de l'immigration Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration CIMM Chair Mr. Norman Doyle 39 2

(1305) [ English ] The Chair (Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, CPC)) : I would like to call the meeting to order, please. Good day, everyone. I want to welcome you all here today as we begin our cross-country deliberations. We are the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, and we have been mandated to hold hearings on three very important matters, matters that we know are of interest to you and, judging from the number of people who want to meet our committee, of interest to quite a number of people right across the country.

We have approximately 52 panels that we will be hearing from between now and April 17. We're starting, of course, here in British Columbia and finishing up in St. John's, Newfoundland, some time around April 17. If you're not already aware, our committee is made up of members from all parties in the House of Commons. After we complete our hearings, we will be presenting a report.

Our officials here will be helping us to compile a report and make recommendations to government based on what we hear on these three very important topics that we are going to be hearing about, which are temporary and undocumented workers, immigration consultants, and Iraqi refugees. Before recognizing the people we have at the table here, I have a point of order from Mr. Telegdi. Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. There are two points I want to address. First, we are undertaking, as you mentioned, a cross-Canada tour, and I think, Mr.

Chair, that when I conducted hearings as the chair, going across Canada, the media were allowed to film. That's why they're public meetings. I really hope your opening comments are on the record, because I think it's important for Canadians to know that we are travelling across the country to discuss important issues. That's one, and I'd like to deal with that first before going on to the second. The Chair : I will ask the clerk for some advice on that.

I am advised by the clerk that the only reason we allow press at our meetings on the Hill is that they are governed by an agreement that allows the press to come to our meetings. I don't know if it would have been necessary to have agreement on that before we undertook our discussions. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : Mr. Chair, I have done cross-Canada tours before in 2003 and 2005, and the reason for going across Canada is to raise awareness of the issues. With all due respect to the clerk, I don't think he knows what he's talking about. The clerk does not run the committee. The committee runs the committee.

I think it's time the committee recognized that. Otherwise we could have stayed in Ottawa. There's a very definite purpose why we are going on the road, and if need be, I could move a motion that the media be able to film the committee. I so move. The Chair : Well, it's not that the chair doesn't want to have the press here. It is that the clerk informs me that it's not a power that is delegated to the committee to have press at the meeting. Now, the committee is master of its own rules, and I don't know how all members of the committee would feel about that, but it's not a power delegated to the committee. Hon.

Andrew Telegdi : Well, I've put the motion. Let's put it to a vote. The Chair : I'm not sure I can accept motions, because we did have a motion moved by Maurizio Bevilacqua before we left, saying that there would be no substantive motions put forward during these hearings. And of course that was agreed to unanimously, so I think that's in violation of what we already voted upon. It came from your party that we wouldn't have substantive motions-- Hon. Andrew Telegdi : This isn't a substantive motion. The Chair : Yes, it is. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : We didn't say anything about being filmed in front of the committee.

The Chair : That's a substantive motion. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : I'd like to challenge the chair on that ruling. The Chair : I don't think we can. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : Mr. Chair, the chair can be challenged at any time by the committee. The Chair : Well, let me just say-- Hon. Andrew Telegdi : You're not running a road show that you can shut down like a dictator. The Chair : I'm not dictating to anyone. I'm reminding the committee what they have agreed to. And what they had agreed to at our pre-committee meeting was that Mr.

Maurizio Bevilacqua of your party put a motion on the floor that we would have no substantive motions at these committee hearings while we went across the country. We agreed on that. I called for a vote on that, and everyone agreed and said unanimously that we would not have any substantive motions. Now this is what you have agreed to, and this is how we set up our meetings on this. Mr. Karygiannis. Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : Mr. Chairman, I think the public knows that anybody can sit at the back of the room with a video camera and you can't throw them out. These are public meetings.

I don't care what the clerk says, and unless you come up with something in Beauchesne's that says the press can't be here, the press has just as much right to be here as any citizen that can walk in and listen to what we are saying. If you want to shut the press down, sir, then why don't you start by shutting this meeting down? The Chair : I'm not shutting the press down. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Oh, you are. The Chair : I'm not shutting the meeting down; I'm just saying to you-- Hon. Jim Karygiannis : You are shutting the press down. You are refusing the democratic freedom of the press to report.

You are refusing that. The Chair : No. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : You are. The Chair : I'm just reminding you what the agreement was. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Chairman, this is not something procedural. It is a public meeting. The public is here. They have the right to record and the right to listen. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : This is a procedural motion. The Chair : Order, please. I wanted to get this meeting under way, but I'm having difficulty doing that. Mr. St-Cyr, and then Ms. Chow. [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In my view, this is a procedural motion, but, as we are already running quite late, I simply move that we request the unanimous consent of the people around this table to allow the media to film our proceedings. If we have unanimous consent, nothing should stop us. Do you want me to repeat what I said? [ English ] The Chair : I want the committee to know that I have no objection to any of this. The clerk says we should reserve our decision on that until we get some advice. Can we proceed until then, or do you want to suspend? Hon. Andrew Telegdi : It is not a substantive motion; it's a procedural motion.

The Chair : Order, please. I'm going to suspend for five minutes until I can get somebody to sit up here so we can get moving in a reasonable fashion. The Chair: I apologize to the witnesses that we can't get started on time, but we will try to give you some extra time as we move along. Okay, let's get back into session again. Mr. St-Cyr. [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was saying that I also thought this was a procedural matter. In any case, since no one is opposed to it, I think we can simply request unanimous consent.

I find it hard to see how a member could object to the media being allowed to view our proceedings. [ English ] The Chair : Ms. Chow. Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) : I actually have one other point of order, which I will get to later on. Let's just deal with this one first. Mr. Chair, let's not start off in such-- The Chair : An acrimonious fashion? Ms. Olivia Chow : Either a meeting is public or it is private. There's nothing in between. If it's public, then anyone under the law has the right to do whatever they like--film, take photos--because it's public.

If it's private, because of a personnel matter or a financial matter, then it is totally understandable that we would not have filming. But this meeting at this point is not private, so I can't see how we could say that the meeting could not be filmed. I do have another separate issue, which we will come to later on. But in terms of the filming, I'm just letting you know how I feel. The Chair : I would like to make perfectly clear that I have no objection to it personally. It's just that we had our meeting before, back in Ottawa, setting the ground rules as to what we would do.

These things weren't talked about, and I have a duty and obligation as chair to ensure that everyone is heard on this matter. Mr. Komarnicki. Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) : I would just like to make a couple of remarks. I think we should get a clarification from the clerk who is making some calls. I think we should hold the meeting in abeyance until we get some appropriate instructions. There's no doubt that there was a motion saying there would be no substantive motions. The question is whether this is procedural or substantive-- Hon. Andrew Telegdi : Oh, come on. Mr.

Ed Komarnicki : You had your opportunity. The Chair : Order, please. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : You had your opportunity to speak. Let me speak, and then you'll have your chance. There's sufficient time for that. The Chair : Order, please. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : I think there should be a decision first on whether it's a procedural or a substantive motion.

On the position on the press, it's certainly obvious from some of the comments that there may be a measure of grandstanding for political and biased purposes when we're here to hear from witnesses on what they have to say on specific issues, which we'll eventually write a report on. Certainly the press is there before and after to ask questions, but during the meeting it is as open for us to have the press in as not-- The Chair : Well, let me bring it to a close here.

The clerk points out to me that Standing Order 119.1(1) of the House of Commons says: Any committee wishing to have its proceedings televised, other than by means of those facilities provided for that purpose by the House of Commons, shall first obtain the consent of the House thereto. Have we obtained that consent? Okay. Let me go to Mr. Komarnicki to finish his remarks. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : My remark is that there needs to be reason and order, and if that's indeed in the Standing Orders, then it needs to be abided by and that's how we should proceed.

I know some members would like to take these hearings and these proceedings and turn them into something that might be of some advantage to them, but the fact of the matter is that there are some rules, and there are some procedures. As the Speaker of the House said before we adjourned, there needs to be respect for process and procedure, and they can still accomplish what needs to be accomplished. So I think we need to wait for all of the information the clerk has and whatever other information he gets. The Chair : As chair of this committee, I'm certainly governed by the rules of the House of Commons.

Are the cameras proceeding now?

(1310) Hon. Andrew Telegdi : Mr. Chair, before you finish the debate, I want to speak to what the parliamentary secretary said, because— The Chair : I'm not shutting down debate on this; I'm going to continue. But I just want to draw the committee's attention to the fact that if anyone is interested--and you have a copy--it's on page 90 of the Standing Orders. It's Standing Order 119.1(1), that “Any committee wishing to have its proceedings televised...shall first obtain the consent of the House thereto”. I'm governed by that. Mr. Telegdi. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : Mr.

Chairman, the point I want to make is that there is a difference between reporting for the press, coming to a meeting and making a news clip, and having something televised. When we have something televised, we have a committee meeting and coverage of that meeting from start to finish. And this is not the case. This is no different from having somebody from a radio station or any of the other media people coming in, taking some notes, talking about the issue, and dealing with it. This is not being televised.

There will be a news story on it, but right now, we're not being filmed, and this is not playing on the air. When we're back in Ottawa, when we have televised meetings, then it goes from gavel to gavel, and that's televised. This is totally different. Getting back to the motion, Mr. Chair, this is a procedural issue that we're dealing with, not a substantive motion. And I can tell you, Mr. Chair, the two times I chaired the committee, in 2003 and 2005, when we went from coast to coast, we never tried to shut down the media.

I know there have been manuals written for the chairs of committees on how to frustrate the work of committees, but, Mr. Chair, I really hope you don't go down that road. I have another motion I want to raise after this. The Chair : Well, I'm not about to get into defining what is televised and what isn't. I can only tell you that we're governed by the House of Commons rules, and the House of Commons rules are very clear in the Standing Orders. As chair of the committee, I'm bound by the Standing Orders.

With respect to motions, I want to remind the committee again that we did have a motion before we came to the committee, saying that we would not have any substantive motions come before the committee while we were having these hearings, and we all unanimously agreed to that. I would say to the committee that we're wasting valuable time here. So the ruling is that I have to go by Standing Order 119.1(1) of the House. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Is the committee the master of its own decisions? My question to you is very simple, sir. Are we the masters of our own decisions?

The Chair : We cannot alter the rules of the House of Commons when it comes to the Standing Orders. We can't adjust or ignore what the Standing Orders are. We're governed, as every member knows, by the Standing Orders. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : With due respect, sir, is this being broadcast live? I understand that the Standing Orders say that when we're in session, it should be broadcasted. The Chair : No, it doesn't say anything about live or not. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Well, in the House of Commons we are being broadcast. Yes or no? The Chair : That's irrelevant. We're talking about the committee. Hon.

Jim Karygiannis : It has relevance, sir, because if my constituents wanted to amend— The Chair : I'm asking the committee to respect the fact that we have witnesses here today who want to present their views to us so that we can in turn present those views to the minister at some point. Now, we're wasting valuable time, and I would ask— Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Chair, I asked a question. I want an answer, sir. The Chair : I will shut down this hearing if I can't proceed.

(1315) Hon. Jim Karygiannis : If you shut it down, then I'll challenge your shutting it down, sir. The Chair : I will shut down this hearing if the committee can't proceed. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Sir, in the House of Commons, people can tune in and listen. Are we having the same capability here? Can anybody tune in and listen to what is happening to the committee--yes or no? The Chair : I am not about to define what the standing order is. It's very clear. The standing order says that we have to have permission first of all from the House of Commons to do it.

Now, do you want me to proceed here, or do I have to say to these witnesses, who have gone through an awful lot of trouble to be here today, that we are not going to hear them and we're not going to hear the other people who have come here? Is this what you want me to do? We have come thousands of miles to hear these people. Now, will you-- Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Chair, let's not play politics here. You got a request to let these people in. You ruled against it. The chair was challenged. Let's put it to a vote. The Chair : No. This is a standing order of the House of Commons and we have to abide by it. Hon.

Jim Karygiannis : What does the standing order say about travelling? The Chair : The standing order is very clear. We have to have permission of the House of Commons before we can allow-- Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Could you read that again, sir? The Chair : It reads as follows: Any committee wishing to have its proceedings televised, other than by means of those facilities provided for that purpose by the House of Commons, shall first obtain the consent of the House thereto. It's very clear. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : That states in the House of Commons; does it state when it's travelling?

The Chair : Look, I'm not going to entertain this any longer. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : You're shutting down the press. That's what you're doing. You're muzzling the press. The Chair : We have come a long distance to hear these people, who have very important things to put before us. We either respect that or we don't. I am asking committee members to be cooperative. We set the ground rules before we came here, at a meeting in Ottawa...by your own immigration critic, Mr. Bevilacqua. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : This is not a motion here. This is a democratic process.

This is letting the freedom of the press, that you do not want to-- The Chair : Order! Mr. Carrier, please. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ) : Mr. Chairman, I was initially in favour of allowing the media to convey as much of the committee's proceedings as possible. I received some evidence earlier. People are very satisfied with the fact that we are travelling to Vancouver. My colleague and I have come from Montreal specifically to hear the people of British Columbia on a very important subject.

Consequently, I was in favour of the media being able to broadcast our discussions as much as possible. However, if there is a Standing Order clearly indicating to us that we must have approval for that to be televised or filmed, I think we must comply with the Standing Orders of our own House of Commons. I think that the media here will nevertheless be able to take notes and to report in their newspapers or respective media on the good work we'll be doing. So it seems to me there is no reason to discuss the value of broadcasting or not, but are we— [ English ] The Chair : I agree. [ Translation ] Mr.

Robert Carrier : —complying with the House Standing Orders or not? So if we hold a vote on the question, we'll vote in favour of the Standing Orders. That's clear. [ English ] The Chair : Yes. We're not voting because we've already agreed that there would be no motions on the road. There is no motion before this committee. I'm just outlining what we've already agreed to. I'm hoping the committee will respect that and will allow me to go ahead and hear these witnesses today. Ms. Chow. Ms. Olivia Chow : I have another point of order. The Chair : I think we have to deal with this one first. Ms.

Olivia Chow : If he wants to finish his first, that's fine, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Okay. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : Mr. Chair, when I got up I said I had two points. I would just finish off by saying that you're asking for respect from the committee. Then I'm asking you, as chair, to have respect for the committee. There's a difference between televising a meeting-- The Chair : I think we've been through that, Mr. Telegdi. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : --and doing one for news purposes. I'm letting-- The Chair : I'm asking the committee to wait on this. Let me hear the witnesses today.

We have a cross-country tour that's going to take us into 10 provinces. We can contact the House of Commons to see if that can be done. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Why didn't we do this before we started, Mr. Chair? The Chair : We have a schedule-- Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Why don't you call the clerk's office and get a ruling? The Chair : The ruling is right here, Mr. Karygiannis. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : No. The ruling, the way you want to describe it-- The Chair : The ruling is right here in House of Commons Standing Order 119.1(1). Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr.

Chair, why don't you suspend for 10 minutes and call the clerk's office and find out?

(1320) The Chair : I think we have a clear ruling here. I'm going to proceed. I want to welcome Mr. Collacott— Hon. Andrew Telegdi : Mr. Chair, I had a point of order. The second one I wanted to raise— The Chair : Ms. Chow is first on the list. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : Mr. Chair, I said when I started that I had two points. We dealt with one, and I'm going to go and make a phone call on that to find out, because I think you are misinterpreting the rules.

But regarding the second point I was going to raise—and again, it's a procedural point, not a substantive point—the fact of the matter is that before this House adjourned for the two-week break, without this committee knowing anything about it, the government tabled Bill C-50 , in which they brought major changes to the Immigration Act, an incredible change in the Immigration Act that would take away a right to— The Chair : Order, please. These hearings are not about the Immigration Act. They're about three matters that we agreed to and that I went to the liaison committee about.

That is an all-party committee of the House of Commons, and I had to get approval to travel for those three items. It's not about Bill C-50 . Hon. Andrew Telegdi : Can I just finish speaking before you interrupt me? What I'm saying is that we have made such a huge change to the Immigration Act through that proposal that it will substantially alter the whole process of immigration and the right of people to come into Canada as immigrants. Instead of having the process that we now have guaranteed by law, we changed it into a capricious lottery.

This so fundamentally alters the Immigration Act in this country that, quite frankly, sir, I should be back in Parliament debating the issue. It makes a joke of the travelling undertaken on cross-Canada consultation, because the Conservative government— The Chair : Order, please. Order. We are here today to discuss those three issues. That is totally irrelevant. Ms. Chow, please. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : If I can finish on that motion— The Chair : No, you're not finishing, Mr. Telegdi. You're finished on that one. Ms. Chow. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : Mr.

Chair, my motion on that is going to be a procedural motion, and it's something we can all agree on. The Chair : We are not accepting motions. We agreed that we would not accept— Hon. Andrew Telegdi : Mr. Chair, it's a procedural motion. The Chair : The meeting is adjourned.

(1325) The Chair : Order please. Again, I'm asking the press to shut off the cameras. I'm asking committee members to get back to the table, please. We do have a quorum, and I'm very anxious to get this meeting on the go again. As I said a moment ago, we've all come long distances, including our witnesses who are here to give us their views on some very, very important matters. Ms. Chow spoke to me before the meeting adjourned. She had a brief comment she wanted to make, and I will go to her. Then I will go to witnesses to make your points, please.

(1330) Ms. Olivia Chow : I just beg your indulgence for the next three weeks. I think there will be some witnesses who will stray into the whole notion of what gets debated in the House. Rather than our getting into a debate each time when they stray into that, if it's within the seven minutes, let's not debate whether they should or shouldn't, whether it's in order or not in order. Sometimes it's very difficult for the witnesses to tell the difference. They get confused. I just want to make sure that's the case, so we don't get into a big fight each time, because I can just see it coming.

The Chair : We're going to be very flexible. I've indicated to the witnesses that it's their time. If they wish to go over, that's fine. I would welcome witnesses and apologize again on behalf of the committee that this happens. You have briefs that you wish to distribute to the committee, and you've given them.... I want to welcome you again. I would ask you to make your opening statements, please. I'm sure committee members might have some questions they would like to ask you. Dr. Roslyn Kunin (Director, British Columbia Office, Canada West Foundation) : I'm Roslyn Kunin of the Canada West Foundation.

I'm going to talk about temporary and undocumented workers, because my colleagues here can cover the other areas very thoroughly. I want to paint a picture in the heads of the committee members of why we are having this issue of temporary workers and undocumented workers at a level that we have never had before in this country in living memory of anybody in this room. That is because, particularly in the west, we are facing a perfect storm of very, very high demand for workers.

We have a very strong economy, which needs lots and lots of workers at every level, from entry-level workers to wash dishes, up through senior health professionals, and all the trades and technical workers in between. So on the one hand we have very strong demand, particularly in the west. When I say the west, I mean Manitoba through B.C., because all these areas are now really booming economically.

Second, along with this very strong economic demand for workers, we are facing the beginning of a demographic trend, which we all knew was coming, in that most of the people walking around in Canada now are baby boomers. They were born between 1945 and 1965. They are reaching retirement age, and they are leaving the labour force. So in addition to our need for workers to feed a booming economy, we desperately need workers to replace all those workers who are reaching retirement age and are retiring. So we have a very, very strong demand for workers.

It has reached a point...and as an economist, this is something I have never seen, and frankly, never expected to see. Businesses sometimes don't operate because they can't get money, and businesses sometimes don't operate because they can't get customers, and businesses sometimes don't operate because prices for their products aren't high enough for them to make a profit. But now, for the very first time, I am seeing businesses where all these conditions are met and they aren't operating because they can't get enough workers to do their particular business.

So that is why we have unprecedented demand for temporary workers, that's why we're starting to have a problem with undocumented workers, and that's why we need to make a system as flexible as possible to meet the needs of the labour force. One other change--before I run out of my seven minutes--that has occurred is the nature of work.

The idea of work that most of us grew up with, that you grow up, you enter the labour force, you get a job, and you stay with that job for years, if not for your career, is long gone, and now in many of the most booming industries--construction, hospitality, technology, and many others--jobs are temporary.

Not only do we need workers, but we need to give all workers, including temporary workers, foreign workers, and so on, the flexibility so we can say, “We need you because we need the work you can do; we don't need you just for one vacancy.” So if we do have temporary workers, we should say, “You can stay here as long as there's work for you in Canada, not just as long as the initial employer you came for needs you.” If he or she doesn't, there are an awful lot of other employers who do. Those are the main points I wanted to make, Mr. Chair.

(1335) The Chair : Thank you. Mr. Collacott. Mr. Martin Collacott (Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to talk, first of all, about labour shortages in general, then go on to temporary foreign workers, and finish up with undocumented workers, very briefly. I think you have to look at what constitutes a labour shortage. Certainly, we have them, as Roslyn just pointed out, in the construction industry. In B.C. it's very apparent, and in other parts of the country. Some people see the temporary foreign worker programs as the best way to deal with them.

Some regard that as better than bringing in large numbers of people permanently who may not be needed. If you're in a cyclical industry, like construction, you may not need them in five or ten years. But we also have to look at the extent to which we can use the resources of people already in the country. Let's say something about temporary foreign worker programs, first of all.

In the words of Alan Green, who's a very prominent expert on immigration and labour markets at Queen's, in the 1960s, when we began choosing immigrants on the basis of their qualifications rather than their origins, we did not have the educational facilities in place to meet all our skilled labour shortages. According to Professor Green, we do today, although temporary shortages may occur until they're met by normal market forces. This conclusion was reached by other people.

Human Resources and Development Canada had two researchers who found that there was no reason to believe that globally Canada is suffering from a broad-based shortage of skilled labour or that its workforce cannot fulfill the economy's needs. The researchers found that although there's been an increased frequency of specific labour shortages in certain sectors and occupations in recent years, it doesn't appear that these gaps are more common today than they were in the past or in similar stages in the business cycle. That's something on which we differ somewhat in our emphasis, Roslyn and I.

One of the issues that I think we have to look at is that employers naturally want to meet their worker shortages as quickly and inexpensively as possible, and if this involves bringing in workers from abroad, they will seek to do so. We have to look, though, at the impact this will have on Canadian workers, taxpayers, and the economy in general. In terms of productivity, for example, labour shortages lead to higher wages, which in turn leads to increased investment in human capital through education and training and through higher productivity levels.

A good case can be made that one of the reasons why growth in productivity in Canada has lagged behind that of the U.S. and other countries in recent years is that we have the highest immigration intake per capita in the world. On this point, a Statistics Canada study released last May reported that between 1980 and 2000, immigration played a role in a 7% drop in the real earnings of Canadians with more than a university undergraduate degree. There was an interesting precedent for the guest worker programs. The Bracero program in the U.S was created to bring in Mexican temporary workers during the war years.

Eventually, in 1964, it was discontinued. The agro industry said they just couldn't afford to do without the cheap labour. When it was discontinued, they made more investment in mechanization, and the productivity actually increased. What we should be doing is making every effort to draw unemployed Canadians, including aboriginals, women, and older people into the workforce. It doesn't make sense to leave large numbers of people unemployed or underemployed and then bring in workers from outside the country to do work that could be done by people already here.

As one senior American government official put it, “immigration fixes undercut efforts to improve public education, create better retraining programs and draw the unemployed into the labour market”. I'm not saying we shouldn't have temporary foreign workers, but we have to look at this carefully. The Quebec government, incidentally, announced less than two weeks ago that it's going to spend $1 billion on incentives to get welfare recipients and unemployed into the foreign workforce rather than automatically bringing people in from abroad.

I would just make a couple more comments before getting on to temporary foreign workers. On the relationship between immigration and economic prosperity, there were periods in Canada's development when immigration was crucial--for example, the settling of the west before the Americans did it for us--but interestingly, immigration for the most part has not been a critical element in Canadian economic development.

The Economic Council of Canada, for example, found that most of the fastest growth in real per capita income of Canadians in the 20th century occurred at times when net migration was zero or even negative. We also do not require an ever-increasing population or workforce to ensure the prosperity of Canadians, nor will immigration have any significant impact on offsetting the aging of our population. Canadian prosperity depends on sound economic policies that increase productivity and make the best use of the existing workforce.

Now turning specifically to questions of temporary foreign workers, or guest workers, as they're often called, from 2001 to 2006 we saw a dramatic increase in the number of temporary foreign workers in B.C. They increased by 129%, from just under 16,000 to more than 36,000. For Canada as a whole, there was an increase of 76% in that period, from 87,000 to 166,000. We don't have the complete figures yet for 2007, but it looks as though the increase will be even larger. Canada had a pretty good track record on its initial temporary foreign workers program.

It's the seasonal agricultural worker program that began in 1966 to bring in seasonal agricultural workers from, first, the Caribbean and then Mexico in 1974. But in 2006, in response to requests from employers, we established comprehensive lists of what are called occupations under pressure, under which employers can apply for accelerated processing of permits for temporary foreign workers to come here initially for a year. That's now been extended to two years. With these longer periods, though, we're moving into largely uncharted waters as far as Canada is concerned.

Studies done in other countries on these programs have shown there can be a lot of major problems, particularly if foreign workers stay for more than a few months, if they come from countries with significantly lower wage levels, and if they're allowed to bring family members with them. Some of these problems are that such workers are vulnerable to exploitation. In countries like the U.S., it's been discovered that there's a high level of fraud in the applications. I won't stop to tell you what kind of fraud, but I'll describe it later if you want.

Then most people coming from poorer countries want to try to stay indefinitely when their contracts are completed, when their services are no longer required. What is required to make such a program work is a very extensive system for administering and monitoring the entry and departure of such workers and the application of strict sanctions in the case of employers who hire those who no longer have legal status in Canada. There's now a list of 235 occupations under pressure that are eligible in British Columbia alone for temporary work permits.

In addition to obvious cases like a shortage of people for the construction industry, you also have a long list of occupations that you wouldn't think would be on the list. That includes writers, journalists, photographers, conductors, composers, arrangers, actors, comedians, announcers, broadcasters, athletes, coaches, and real estate agents. What we have to do is look very carefully at how this program is working, do some research on it, and find out what other people have done.

I think there is a place for temporary foreign workers, but I don't think we have any idea of some of the problems that are coming up, and we should be looking at them. I have one quick word on undocumented workers. We don't know exactly how many there are, but estimates are that there may be 200,000, and up to 500,000 if family members are included. Apart from the problems they experience of being vulnerable to exploitation, the basic problem is that if their status is legalized, you will have a lot more coming here.

In 1986, the United States granted amnesty to three million illegal workers in the hope of eliminating the problem, but once they got amnesty, there were a lot more coming in, because they expected that they would get amnesty eventually. There were something like 11 million or 12 million of them. The McCain-Kennedy bill in the U.S. Senate last year included a provision for the regularization of the status of several million illegal workers. It was defeated by public pressure. It's extremely unwise to give legal status to undocumented workers.

If they want to stay here in Canada, they should go back and come here legally, either under permanent immigration or under the temporary foreign workers program. Those are my comments.

(1345) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Collacott. We'll go to Mr. DeVoretz. Professor Don DeVoretz (Professor of Economics, Co-Director and Principal Investigator of the Centre of Excellence on Immigration and Integration, Simon Fraser University, Canadian Immigration Policy Council) : Thank you very much for inviting me. It actually says that in the first line. These notes have been made available. If you don't have them, I'm sure you can pick them up afterwards. I would like today to report to you on my 15 to 20 years of scientific research on temporary foreign workers in Canada.

My goal, not only in these seven minutes but in subsequent minutes, is to tell you about the pluses and minuses. What do I think are success stories and the reasons why, and what are reasons for caution in other stories? As an economist, and I am an economist--you'll hear from other people who are sociologists--I only look at one feature when it comes to the temporary foreign worker program: does it create a net economic benefit to Canada, to Canadians who are here? What does that mean?

It means the people or agents who are involved in this process, which are the migrants, who we've just heard about; the public treasury, which represents the Canadian government; employers who would like to have these temporary foreign workers; and resident Canadian labourers. In sum, all of these benefit from the presence of a new, temporary foreign worker. This does not mean that any one individual in this calculus might not suffer a loss. But on average, is it a net benefit?

This has been the rule that's been more or less in place for evaluating the temporary foreign worker program in Canada for at least 25 or 30 years. I have two success stories. Martin has already alluded to them on economic grounds. First is the agricultural workers program. All you have to do is contrast our program with any other agricultural worker program, whether it's in Israel or Germany, with Polish workers, or Les États-Unis . They are failures. So why is ours a success? The first reason is that it's small.

If you keep it small, both the costs of administration and the ability to enforce the rules inherent in those regulations, such as adequate pay, access to health care, and payment of taxes, are all able to be monitored. The second program, which has been very successful economically and is not unique to Canada--it's very large in Southeast Asia--is the so-called nanny program. You'll hear from other people in the program that there are problems with the nanny program, and I agree. Those are social problems.

But based on my role as an economist, it's been a boon for middle-class, well-educated women living in this country. There is no doubt about it. It was put in place also to create some benefits for, largely, Filipino nannies in the form of having rights of conversion--that is, from temporary to permanent--and rights of reconciliation. Based on my rule of net economic gain to those people here, those are two successful programs. What are the lessons? They're small and they're focused, and part of those programs is a transition to some sort of permanent status if you contribute. But those are small programs.

The big programs for temporary foreign workers have not been mentioned. Those are the trade-related ones, the so-called TN visas, the NAFTA visas. We have agreements with Chile, Israel, and soon perhaps with South Korea, but certainly with the United States and Mexico, with mobility provisions built into trade agreements. We really got snookered on that one; we really did. For every three Canadians who leave, one highly skilled American comes here. That has been an avenue of a large brain drain, especially prior to 2001. There's a lot of evidence on it, not just my own.

In addition, Canadians use that back door of a temporary visa to become permanent residents in the United States. Americans don't do that. When they're done working here, they go back to Cleveland, God bless them, or wherever they come from. But Canadians use that reciprocal program to remain in the United States, by either marrying or getting an E-visa. The point about that program is that it was structured after the fact. It was a hang-on to trade, and many of our temporary foreign worker programs are like this--ad hoc. You can't change the content in that program.

There are 67 occupations; you can't change them. Going in the direction of adding on temporary foreign worker programs to trade agreements, in my mind, is the wrong way to go, especially when you're doing it with an elephant living next door. They simply refuse to negotiate on it any more; they won't change the list or anything. We have these success stories based on the “net economic gain” principle, and some very large, less-than-successful stories based on that principle too. So what are we going to do in the future?

Roslyn has outlined conditions whereby we may need more temporary foreign workers; Martin has cautioned us that nonetheless, this is what we're looking at. What would I do if I were queen for a day or immigration minister for a day on this? I would be sure that I took the lessons of the past and had a very well-focused temporary foreign workers program; not a list of 86, or whatever, but of ones that I'd know beforehand will present net economic benefit to Canada. Some of them are obvious, and you don't even have to talk about them: construction out here, more agricultural workers out here.

The second thing is, I would always provide a sunset clause. There would always be a sunset clause in any temporary foreign worker program. I'm not going to do this so that I penalize people and they go underground; I'm not stupid—I'm almost 66, but I'm not stupid. That would create a negative incentive. Everyone would become undocumented. They'd disappear, as they do in Toronto.

What I would do is have a conversion path for them to become permanent residents in this country, so that if you continue to rely on temporary foreign workers to either prop up or maintain an industry, they have an avenue to permanent status, and you won't get the undocumented. Finally, you keep the program small. Thank you very much. I await your questions.

(1350) The Chair : Thank you very much. It was very informative indeed. We'll go to some questioning by our committee members, for seven minutes for each member. Who is first? We have Mr. Telegdi. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. To the witnesses, as you know, we have some exciting times going on in Parliament with this whole issue of Bill C-50 . If you got part of a debate that you weren't particularly happy about, I apologize, but we will hear all the witnesses who came before that. I have had a great number of problems with the whole issue of undocumented workers.

The reason is that when we changed the Immigration Act in 2002...I would love to say we did it because the minister came out with a vision of how things should go, but we essentially did it because the bureaucracy came up with a plan to cut the 800,000 people on the waiting list. What they essentially ended up doing is barring people this economy needed, such as was mentioned: construction workers, other folks. They could not come in as immigrants because they would not qualify under the new point system, which was set by regulations.

If you didn't have the language, if you didn't have the education, you would not get in. The fact that we needed construction workers...well, that was too bad, and I think we saw a growth in the undocumented worker category. So there was a mismatch created by the Immigration Act to what the economy needed and what we got. That's a real concern. The other concern I have, and maybe you can address it as well, is more and more our reliance on temporary foreign workers. We've had farm workers who have been coming to Canada for 30 years, and some even for 40 years.

They come here without their families, and then they have to go back. They keep coming back. I have a worry that I see the number of temporary foreign workers rising. I'd rather have people who come to Canada and decide that this is the place they want to live, raise their families, and become Canadians. I don't think it's healthy to have a high population of single folks. It reminds me of what happened when Canada built the railways. We brought in the Chinese, and then when the railway was finished, we wanted to send them back. We changed all that, where we had an open immigration program.

Now I see an analogous situation. We want to bring in people to help build the tar sands or help build the Olympic facilities, and when we're finished with them we're going to send them back. I wonder if Mr. Collacott and Mr. DeVoretz could respond to those points.

(1355) Mr. Martin Collacott : I will. You raised a number of interesting points, Mr. Telegdi. I'll start with the last one and work back, because I remember it most clearly. The Chinese labourers who built the railways came in as unskilled workers, and when the railway was finished, the thinking was that we didn't really require them any longer. The Chinese who are coming in today are mostly skilled immigrants and their families, so we're really dealing with a very different situation. I'm glad we've moved on, to not having any racial barriers.

My wife is an immigrant from Asia, as I think I mentioned last time I appeared before this committee, so I'm all in favour of an open immigration program. But there is a difference there. Also, on the question of construction workers, yes, we are very short of construction workers. In B.C., in particular, we have a deadline to meet in terms of the Olympics, so we have to get that done. However, construction is a cyclical industry, although we may keep building in B.C. for some time, and the tar sands in Alberta are a pretty long-term issue, both technically and for construction.

We have to be very careful not to bring in so many people that we discourage Canadians—and by “Canadians”, I don't just mean citizens but landed immigrants, now called permanent residents. They're here, and we have to do the best we can by them. If you bring in very large numbers, it's great for the employers, but you will push down wages, which has happened. You will discourage Canadians from getting training and you will basically leave people on unemployment; you will bring in other people and keep Canadians out of the job market. So you really have to look carefully at how you're doing that.

You can't have the kind of unlimited situation you have now. The Chair : You have a minute and a half, Mr. Telegdi. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : I'm waiting for Mr. DeVoretz to comment. The Chair : Okay. Prof. Don DeVoretz : I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman. My sunset clause that I mentioned at the end was to address what you just said about using the temporary foreign worker program as an ever-expanding crutch for industries. There are many anecdotal and real illustrations in the agricultural sector where technological change has been made to substitute for the crutch of temporary foreign workers, or their absence.

So if you put a sunset clause in, it certainly will give knowledge to the employers that they can't use this program indefinitely, whether for fruit pickers here or the wine industry on the escarpment. But more importantly, the sunset clause will force the bureaucrats, who were mentioned earlier, to think of alternative programs than the temporary foreign worker program.

(1400) Hon. Andrew Telegdi : I want to say one thing, just in closing. This BlackBerry, one of the great Canadian success stories, was developed by Mr. Mike Lazaridis from Waterloo, who came to Canada in the mid-sixties as a Greek refugee from Turkey. His father was an apprentice tradesperson. If that person tried to get into this country today, he could not. This company employs something like 6,000 Canadians, and it's going to employ many more.

I think this is the kind of stuff we have to keep in mind, because if I look around today in my community, 95% of the people who came as immigrants would never be allowed in today. That includes Frank Stronach and Frank Hasenfratz, and the list goes on. The Chair : Thank you. Are there any closing comments? Sir, you go right ahead. Prof. Don DeVoretz : I just wanted to answer his second point, his major point, about the possible relationship between a mismatch in the permanent immigrant program and the rise of undocumented workers. I think that's a very good insight.

I think the market—because I am an economist—will attempt to correct it. If you have a points system that doesn't really reflect the demand for workers, you're going to have an unhappy world. You're going to have highly skilled Chinese coming here who can't practise their professions, because either they're not in demand or they lack credential recognition. And you're going to have employers who don't have enough workers, who will take a chance on hiring an undocumented worker to build a house, either here or in Toronto. So this is the connection. The Chair : Thank you, sir. Mr. St-Cyr. [ Translation ] Mr.

Thierry St-Cyr : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, for being patient enough to stay. I'm sincerely sorry that you had to watch the somewhat pathetic spectacle earlier. I would like to start by asking Ms. Kunin some questions. I understood that you were an economist at the Canada West Foundation, but I would like to know more about your organization. What does it do? [ English ] Dr. Roslyn Kunin : I am a labour economist and have been studying the economy of B.C. and Canada, particularly the labour market, for many decades.

I have my own economic consulting business, and I'm facing shortages of labour. There might be a bias there. Also, the Canada West Foundation is a 35-year-old non-partisan think tank...to build a strong and prosperous west in a vibrant, united Canada. We look at economic, political, and social issues. [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : You talked about how important you thought it was for Canada to have foreign workers in order to meet labour needs, among other things.

Many people have appeared before us and raised concerns about the working conditions of those individuals, not only those who are undocumented, but even those who have documents, who may be exploited by ill-intentioned employers. What measures do you suggest to the committee should be taken to prevent foreign workers who come here from being exploited? [ English ] Dr. Roslyn Kunin : It's very important that undocumented workers and any worker in Canada, any person in Canada, not be exploited. We have labour codes, we have laws, and we have to use these existing mechanisms to enforce....

But if we can get systems going where we work better through temporary or permanent immigrants, or through developing the Canadian labour force through training and so on—and we need that too. I predict that the labour shortages will be tight enough that we will need all of these mechanisms; it's not a case of either/or. Then we can avoid that. There are always going to be some unscrupulous law breakers; they are going to exist.

But right now in B.C., the labour market is sufficiently tight that the limited evidence we can get for undocumented workers is that they are already in the industries that pay low wages, like restaurants and hotels. They are already earning more than the minimum wage because the labour market is so tight that even undocumented workers can now set their own terms and conditions, and they are rather hard to exploit, because if you exploit them, there are other employers who would want them. [ Translation ] Mr.

Thierry St-Cyr : We heard the comments of two other witnesses on the fact that we wonder—I do as well—whether the massive influx of temporary foreign workers is a long-term solution to the labour shortage. [ English ] Dr. Roslyn Kunin : Hopefully it is not a long-term solution. I look more to developing Canadians, to encouraging Canadians to train in the areas that we need, to having permanent immigrants, to recognizing the immigrants' credentials, and to try to better hone the people we invite into Canada to meet our labour market needs.

I see that the labour market is so tight, and I see it as a long-term demographic cyclical trend, not as a long-term secular trend because of demographics, and not just as a temporary cycle. So I think we're going to have to look at all possible answers to meet our labour market needs. (1405) [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : Do you agree that we'll nevertheless have to proceed slowly, thoughtfully and carefully to ensure that doesn't become an easy solution and to encourage all stakeholders, government and entrepreneurs, to first make the effort of using already available labour? [ English ] Dr.

Roslyn Kunin : I think most employers are already strongly in favour of using existing workers. They are only driven to temporary foreign workers or undocumented workers when there are no living, breathing bodies at almost any level, trained or untrained, who they can find to accept that work at all, at any price they can possibly afford to pay. The labour market here and in Alberta is so tight that in some places workers at entry-levels jobs in places like McDonald's and hotel cleaning and so on are being paid $20 an hour. They still can't fill all their positions.

Some of these basic restaurants are cutting services to the point where they will operate only a drive-through because they do not have enough bodies of any calibre at up to $20 an hour to do their job. That is the shortage we're facing. I am saying it is going to continue right through the foreseeable future, for the next 20 years, as the demographic of no young people and lots of retirees happens. [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : Mr. Collacott, in your presentation, you emphasized the impact of the massive influx of foreign workers on wages. That makes a certain amount of sense in view of supply and demand.

From the moment more workers are ready to work for lower wages, one may think that wages might fall. Your colleague says that isn't a problem. In any case, wages are currently rising because the market is very tight. Where do you stand on that? [ English ] Mr. Martin Collacott : I'll just comment on what Roslyn Kunin said in that respect. We do have a very tight labour market right now. I am not quite so convinced it will always stay that tight. We're having a boom. The American economy is doing well. I think we could well have changes.

We won't before the Olympics, but I'm not at all certain that we won't have downturns. So I have doubts about the endless progression. That does not usually happen in most economies indefinitely. I'm not sure I answered your specific question. [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : If I understand correctly, you're ultimately saying that that may be a good idea in the short term, but that it's not a long-term solution for the labour market in Canada. [ English ] Mr. Martin Collacott : No, and furthermore, the idea that we're going to be perennially short of workers I think is questionable.

A hundred years ago a British demographer said we had 14 workers for every non-worker. Most people died when they were 65. It's now down to four. It will be down to 2.6 as the population ages. But he pointed out that productivity advances--if we concentrate on that--have outstripped this changing relationship, so that when we get down to 2.6, if we can keep up our productivity, we'll probably be quite well off. So the assumptions that we'll be perennially short of workers or that the economy won't tank at some point I think have to be looked at carefully.

It doesn't mean we don't bring in temporary foreign workers to keep things moving, but I think we have to be more cautious and look for possible downsides. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. St-Cyr and Mr. Collacott. Ms. Chow, please. Ms. Olivia Chow : My question is for the professor. Do you know of other countries that give foreign workers visas for their trade? Rather than the visa dealing with an individual employer, if, for example, a carpenter is to come into the country, the visa is for that carpenter to work in the carpentry trade. That person could work in company A, B, C, or D, as long as it's in carpentry.

Have you seen such a practice? Do you think it's a good idea? If we do so, it's letting markets dictate. Then you introduce the element of competition from different companies. So it would rise to the highest level of employee benefits. Sometimes if you have the worker lock into one employer, it gets to the lowest common denominator. That would lead to what I've heard previous speakers talking about: cheap labour or a violation of labour rules and conducts, etc. Is that something you would support? Prof. Don DeVoretz : You asked me whether I know of other countries, and then do I support.

Yes, I know of other countries. You could look to Europe. Prior to the expansion of the EU, Polish workers were allowed into Germany under these conditions; that is, they had the right to convert their original visa to a secondary employment as long as it was in the same sector, the same general description. The Germans made sure this wasn't an indefinite procedure. They tied it very clearly to training, so the Polish workers had to be given training in the German sector.

This was to get the goodwill of the Polish country as well as the Polish workers, but it was also very clever, because if you train them, there's an incentive for them to go back home. The second thing, as I mentioned before, is there were always sunset clauses in these. You couldn't do this indefinitely for any one worker. I think it's worked in the German case, but it's very expensive to monitor.

(1410) Ms. Olivia Chow : Is it something you would support? Prof. Don DeVoretz : Yes. Ms. Olivia Chow : The second question is about the experience class, which is being debated right now. It is only 20,000, only those who have skills, who have degrees, who speak English or French. So out of 120,000, perhaps only 20,000 of them would qualify. The rest of the 100,000 would have no chance of becoming permanent residents. You suggested you want to give them a sense of hope, so that they can upgrade, so that they can bring their families over, so that they can establish bonds in Canada.

Is it fair to punish those who have lower skill sets? We need their labour, but because their skills are not the degree types of skills, we do not allow them to apply, or even if they apply, they do not have enough points and therefore they cannot become landed immigrants and therefore they would not be able to bring their families to Canada. I don't see that as being fair. How do you think we should restructure the experienced class so that they have a fair chance, just like the live-in caregiver? If you go to school, you apply, and likely you're going to qualify.

Should the experience class mirror the experience we have had with the live-in caregiver program? Prof. Don DeVoretz : I'll get to the bottom line. Generally, I'm in favour of the experience class, but with some conditions. If you look to the current plans for the experience class, there are linguistic requirements. There are requirements about employment success, in the sense of being employed over a period of time. There are questions of minimal requirements in terms of having some attachment to Canada.

If you put those in place, I doubt you're going to get all 100,000 temporary foreign workers applying in the first place. I think it would be more like 30,000 or 40,000. When I interview temporary foreign workers in the Niagara escarpment, most of them say they want to go home at the end of the year to visit their families. So the key is whether they can bring their families or not. Ms. Olivia Chow : Of course. Prof. Don DeVoretz : That program doesn't have just unskilled workers; it also has graduate students and students. Generally, I'm very much in favour of it.

(1415) Ms. Olivia Chow : That wasn't my question. Prof. Don DeVoretz : I misunderstood. I'm sorry. Ms. Olivia Chow : My question is this. That program would only limit those who have degrees, who have very high skill levels. There are four categories, A, B, C, and D. If you are D, if you're general labour—i.e., you're a farm worker, or you work at a McDonald's in Alberta, in Fort McMurray—you will never get a chance to be able to come in or apply for landed immigrant status. Is that fair? Prof. Don DeVoretz : I would have all skill levels have an equal chance of getting in.

So I would say it's unfair as it's set up. But I would do it with a proviso, which is one for one. If you let in one more person in this experience class, then you remove one person out of the permanent class. Ms. Olivia Chow : Why? Prof. Don DeVoretz : Why? You have to have some sense of a balanced program here. You can't suddenly raise it from x . Let me just say that the country can only absorb so many people in the short run, in the economy. Ms. Olivia Chow : What would that number be in your mind, since you raised it? Prof. Don DeVoretz : A considerably larger number than we have now. Ms.

Olivia Chow : Maybe 330,000, one per cent of our population? Prof. Don DeVoretz : It depends on who is coming in and where they're going. I'll just say a considerably larger number--I'm a politician. Ms. Olivia Chow : Thank you. The Chair : You're very good at timing, Ms. Chow. You only had ten seconds left. Thank you. Mr. Komarnicki. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : Thank you very much. Obviously we can talk about the numbers, and that's something that would need to be settled. My understanding is that you're saying there's sort of an optimum absorption number, and that's where you should start from and work from that point.

Is that correct? If I were to just go back to the undocumented workers, I think perhaps one or both of you mentioned that those individuals are here primarily because, as you indicate, there isn't some legitimate way for them to come in to meet some of the needs the country is facing on the economic stream.

Would it be fair to say that what I'm hearing from you is that you're looking for some reform or change to the way we do things with immigration, to better align it with what the needs of the country might be economically, and of course apportioning that appropriately between the economy, family reunification, and our obligations with respect to refugees? I guess I'm asking you whether you are looking for us to come up with new means and ways to accommodate what the country needs. I'll ask you first, and then you can pass it on. Prof.

Don DeVoretz : For better or worse, I think the experience class, which I've promoted for the last 30 years, is one way of melding the two together. If you don't know precisely the exact number, like 386,441, you'll get some feeling from the labour market if you need more or less if you use the temporary workers program. I think the experience class, if run right, does the trick. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : Roslyn, you had a point to make. Dr. Roslyn Kunin : I definitely agree that we do need, we are going to need, and we can't absorb more immigrants than we're getting now.

I think we often forget that it isn't just our choice that we are competing with the entire world for capable immigrants, whether they have the training and the skills we need or whether they're capable of acquiring that once they get here. I had the privilege of working for Parliament, for the then-Minister of Immigration, to write a report about 10 years ago called Not just numbers/Au-delà des chiffres , which looked very comprehensively at the entire immigration program, including refugees.

We looked at the idea of attracting a class of people we called the new pioneers, people who did not necessarily have a pile of credentials that would give them points under today's system, but who did have the set of hard and soft skills—and the soft skills are harder to measure—that they could be the new pioneers and could develop and contribute to Canada as previous generations did. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : I'll just follow up from that, and I'll come back to Mr. Collacott.

You said there is some competition for the types of people we might want to attract--that's between countries--and certainly, as you know, our system has had significant backlogs, great delays, and you would like to see some change in that to make it more competitive.

(1420) Dr. Roslyn Kunin : I have met some very excellent people in Europe, in Australia, in many other countries who, when they discover I'm from Canada, say, yes, I applied to come to Canada, but the United States responded first, or Australia responded first, or Britain responded first, so I went there. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : So we need to get with it and become competitive, is what you're generally saying. Dr. Roslyn Kunin : Exactly. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : In terms of the temporary reform worker, I think I hear Mr.

Collacott saying that it needs to be targeted and perhaps be more specific, and we need to be ever mindful of ensuring that those who do come in have certain protective rights, just as you mentioned under the nanny case where there are certain provisions. Is that where you're coming from? Mr. Martin Collacott : That's certainly an element. I think people should be protected if they're coming in as temporary foreign workers. I would like to comment, if I may, though, on a couple of points that have been made. Roslyn Kunin just said we need more immigrants.

The fact is that immigrants haven't been doing very well on average. Some have been doing terrifically, like Mr. Karygiannis and Mr. Telegdi. But in fact their economic performance has been much lower than earlier immigrants or Canadians--higher poverty levels--so I think that whole issue has to be looked at. The question that Ms. Chow raised--is it fair just to take highly educated people?--is an interesting one because our immigration policies aren't based on fairness. Humanitarian programs--refugees--are based on humanitarian considerations, but our programs should be based on what's good for Canadians.

For instance, on tradespeople, we do need some right now, but we may not need so many once the current construction cycles are over. So I think we have to look at that carefully. We may find-- Mr. Ed Komarnicki : Excuse me. Perhaps you could close quickly because my time is running out and I have another question. Mr. Martin Collacott : We may find we need some of them on a permanent basis, but I think we should be more cautious in that sense. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : In taking off from that, it would seem we have had the Canadian experience class, which you referred to, Mr.

DeVoretz, working in Canada for a certain period of time. I'm assuming they're able to become acclimatized and used to the circumstances under which we become part of the community. Would they not be a logical type of person to not only be here but to also bring their family here and settle perhaps in various communities, as the needs might present themselves across the country? Prof. Don DeVoretz : The short answer is yes. I think, though, that it has to be broad.

It can't be just directed toward graduate students and have high barriers and linguistic and educational barriers, or you'll get the same problems you have with the permanent class. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : So what you're saying is we want to get it broader than it presently exists and ensure that it goes across various trades and occupations. Prof. Don DeVoretz : As long as the “net economic benefit to Canada” rule works across these skill groups, yes. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : So what you're saying is we have to realign things to fit the economic trends and needs of the country. Prof.

Don DeVoretz : Yes, from time to time. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair? The Chair : Thirty seconds. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : I know our population, just from census statistics, shows that we've increased approximately 1.6 million over the last five years, which was the amount of increase in population in five years, and 1.1 million of that was through immigration.

Would all of you agree with me that if we want to meet our needs of a growing, expanding country, we're going to have to look abroad--in addition to training the best we can, with those we have here--and be competitive at the same time? The Chair : Whoever wishes to respond.... Dr. Roslyn Kunin : If we agree--and Martin doesn't--that we need a growing population, and if we want to increase within the next twenty years, during which time all the people who are going to enter the labour force have already been born here, we're going to have to increase immigration. The Chair : Thank you so much.

I wish we could continue, because I know other people--Mr. Karygiannis--wanted to ask some questions, but we do have another group coming on the same topic: undocumented workers. I'm reluctant...although I see people who are asking for a minute. Okay. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : I don't want a minute; I want a point of clarification. I was mentioned by Mr. Collacott, as well as Mr. Andrew Telegdi. I do want to make Mr. Collacott aware of something, if he really wants to research a little bit of my background. It's not me who serves as a success story; it's my father.

I came to this country as a refugee at the airport, and he claimed refugee status. So the success story does really belong to my dad and not to me. I had everything here. So if you can call him an undocumented worker, and if he's a success story, so be it. I certainly—

(1425) The Chair : That was a good minute. We'll go to you, Mr. Carrier, and I think Nina wants a minute. Then we'll dismiss our witnesses and get on to our next group. Mr. Carrier. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Carrier : Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have to go quickly, unfortunately. I draw a distinction between temporary foreign workers and immigration. As the expression indicates, a temporary worker comes here to meet a temporary need,

whereas, in an immigration case, we apply stronger criteria than those for employment, such as culture, language and belonging to this country. Ms. Kunin said earlier that temporary workers should be able to stay in the country as long as there is work for them. Ultimately, that constitutes back-door immigration. We'll keep them as long as we have work to offer them. That's not necessarily the kind of citizen we want to take in. We don't just want workers; we want good Canadian citizens. I would like to hear what you have to say on that. [ English ] The Chair : Okay. Ms. Grewal, you wanted a minute.

Again, I remind our members that the next group coming on is also on undocumented workers, and you'll get a chance, I'm sure, to make your points to these witnesses also. Ms. Grewal. Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I would like to thank each and every one of you for your time and your presentations. If you have a copy of your presentation, could you please give it to the clerk. Those were well informed, and all of us can really learn something from them. I know all of us are talking about the shortage of workers here and there.

Could each of you say in one, two, or three sentences what improvements you would recommend to the temporary worker program? The Chair : Maybe a minute from each of the witnesses to also address Mr. Carrier's point, if you will, please. Anyone at all—Mr. Collacott, Ms. Kunin. Mr. Martin Collacott : Sorry, could you just repeat the essence of your point? I was preparing another comment. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Carrier : I drew a major distinction between temporary workers, who meet a temporary need, and immigrants, who are selected on the basis of a number of important criteria for a country.

So allowing temporary workers to stay as long as there's work for them is tantamount to back-door immigration, which is inconsistent with the government's objectives. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Collacott. Mr. Martin Collacott : I would have a problem with that too. There may be cases where a temporary foreign worker then qualifies for permanent residence here. I think there is some provision for that. But it's true, you can't let them stay indefinitely; you're going to have social and other kinds of problems. So that has to be dealt with.

Just to summarize my thoughts very briefly, we do need to do more research on this. We have to have a clearer picture. We should see what other countries have done and where it doesn't work, because we've suddenly gone into this massively expanded program, and I think there are problems. We really should be looking at them more carefully. The Chair : Thank you. Ms. Kunin. Dr. Roslyn Kunin : First of all, on Mr. Carrier's point about being temporary versus permanent, I think we should look at the experienced worker program to give us an idea there.

The temporary workers who we should invite, allow, permit, and sometimes encourage to stay as permanent citizens are the ones who, while they were here temporarily, learned the languages, adjusted to the culture, and became useful contributors to Canada. Those are the ones who should contribute, not the ones who otherwise have difficulty fitting in because they don't have skills or they don't have language and so on. On the temporary foreign worker program, I do agree with Don DeVoretz's views on how we should best use that program, with sunset clauses and so on. The Chair : Thank you. Mr. DeVoretz.

(1430) Prof. Don DeVoretz : To answer Madam Grewal's question directly, as a resident of the Fraser Valley, the very first thing I would do in this province is to make sure the conditions under which temporary foreign workers work in the agricultural sector are enforced before any more are brought in. You and I know enough tragedies that we don't even have to talk about that any more. That could be done by simply enforcing these orders against employers.

To respond to Monsieur Carrier's question, I think the experience class, with its linguistic requirements, employment requirements--showing good employment history--and attachment to the country, is exactly the kind of thing you want to do, coupled with my idea of a sunset clause. Not everybody is eligible. If you keep repeating it, you've got to put them forward. The Chair : Thank you. Thank you very, very much. Thank you for your presentations. I'm sure you've been very helpful to us in compiling our report and making recommendations to government. I will call our next groups.

The Independent Contractors and Business Association, B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council, and also the Trade Union Research Bureau are coming to the table. I'll give them a moment or two to get here. Mr. Karygiannis is first on the speaking list. Ms. Olivia Chow : Mr. Chair, I have a question about procedure. I encountered people who wanted to speak to these hearings but didn't know we were conducting the hearings. So if they've missed the opportunity to get into the hearings, then they cannot.... Their question was how the committee advertised the hearings.

Did we let people know there were hearings? What would be our answer to that? What was our notification? The Chair : There was a press release that went out. I saw it myself. It was reported a couple of times in the paper--I think once in The Globe and Mail --and I think committee members submitted names to the clerk. We have 52 panels, I believe, between here and St. John's, Newfoundland, so it's going to be difficult to work any more in. As a matter of fact we turned down a number of groups who wanted to come. You have to draw it somewhere. Ms. Olivia Chow : So would you be able to notify them, then?

The Chair : Yes. Ms. Olivia Chow : I wouldn't mind knowing the response so we can have a similar response about notification, because people asked why they didn't know about it. The Chair : Okay. I appreciate that. I'm glad we got such a big response to our meetings. Now, we have three more hours to go, and we have the Independent Contractors and Business Association, the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council, and the Trade Union Research Bureau. I think you're well aware of the drill of our committee. You have seven or eight minutes, whatever, to present opening remarks.... Sir?

Mr. David Fairey (Researcher, Trade Union Research Bureau, British Columbia and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council) : I'm David Fairey. The Chair : What organization are you with? Mr. David Fairey : I'm with the Trade Union Research Bureau.

(1435) The Chair : Okay. We will begin. If you have opening comments, please feel free to make them in whatever order you wish. Mr. Peppard, go ahead, sir. Mr. Wayne Peppard (Executive Director, British Columbia and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council) : I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear. We've been trying to get listed on the committee for two years. Just by way of information, we found out late. You'll notice that we have submissions that are in English. We did not have time to do them in French.

We apologize, but we did not find out until late, and we had to fight our way up. The Chair : They'll be translated anyway. Mr. Wayne Peppard : Thank you. The BCYT is not opposed to the importation of foreign workers when there is a proven shortage of Canadian workers and provided that these workers are not used as a source of cheap labour. Unfortunately, the experience for many temporary foreign workers has been less than welcoming. Our office regularly receives calls from foreign workers looking for ways to address exploitative and abusive situations.

This brief submission identifies some of the basic flaws in legislation and regulations under IRPA governing the foreign worker program. At the same time, we consider the global and local forces that result in undocumented workers and the unconscionable fees charged by some immigration consultants. In the conclusion we summarize our recommendations to solve problems caused by the current policy and regulations. There has been much talk previously about skill shortages. I am a plumber. I know what's going on. I've been in the industry for more than 35 years.

These are high economic times, and yes, there are shortages in some areas, but it's not consistent. Shortages have to do with a whole bunch of issues--not just wages and wage packages, but our ability to be mobile across this nation, between the provinces, and from foreign countries as well. That has to do with credential recognition. It also has to do with domestic training, and it has to do with increasing our own domestic capacity in the construction industry.

Temporary foreign workers are vulnerable—and I stress “vulnerable”—to exploitation and abuse because of their work permit restriction to a single employer, language barriers, a lack of understanding of their rights, worry about their immigration status, and unequal power relationships that are set up, dependent on their employer for income and for information. The common examples of exploitation and abuses include broken promises on wage remuneration, garnisheed wages to pay for illegal placement fees by immigration consultants, and illegal payroll deductions for accommodation, meals, and transportation.

Employer coercion and intimidation are met by slow-moving and largely ineffectual provincial employment standards and labour code protection processes. It's not enough for the federal government to drop it down to the provincial government if the provincial government does not have the capacity or the intent to provide those protections. Human rights protections are only available to temporary foreign workers with legal representation. Already our council has spent in excess of $200,000 on one single case in the last two years, to protect a group of foreign employees on one site.

To expect a foreign worker who may be making $15 to $20 an hour to purchase the services of a $250- to $700-an-hour lawyer is absolutely ludicrous, and that's what you need to walk through the system, whether it's at the labour board, at the human rights panel, or through the courts. On cheap labour, global construction labour markets are now boasting an excess of cheap accessible workers, averaging $1.50 per hour. Placement fees and loan sharks connected to brokers and then to the contractors are issues we have.

It's not enough to control what we can in our province or in our nation, but it's the effect it has from the country of origin as well. We have no control over that. So the brokers, the loan sharks, all those people have that control from the host country. They're ineligible to collect benefits for EI and CPP should they run into problems and know that they can't be kicked out by their employer. Federal government payroll deductions are a misappropriation of temporary foreign worker earnings in this case.

On human trafficking, some undocumented workers are temporary foreign workers who have fled to the black market or the underground economy or have been directed that way by contractors. In order to escape from abusive conditions with their legal employer, others have overstayed tourist and student visas. In fact, undocumented workers are even more vulnerable than temporary foreign workers. Employers of undocumented workers have an additional hammer over workers who are worried about their immigration status.

A lack of monitoring and enforcement--and I emphasize this one--has opened up the door to widespread non-compliance and abusive conditions by unscrupulous employers. That certainly isn't all of them. There are only a few rotten apples in the basket who make it bad for everyone. No system is in place to identify and locate temporary foreign workers. There is no tracking right now, so how could you even monitor if you wanted to? Temporary foreign workers need orientation, advocacy, and settlement services provided by government in order to access their rights.

I've appended some documents that we have provided in presentations both provincially and federally on these issues. We need to tell every immigrant worker who comes to Canada what their rights are. Not only do they have to be apprised of their rights, but they have to have a place they can go when they need those rights to be enforced, which is an advocacy centre, and that requires further monitoring. Foreign credential recognition is a huge aspect of all of this.

I can't get into the whole thing in the few minutes that I've been given, except to say that we're working very clearly on foreign credential recognition. But there is no standard across Canada. Every province, every organization that brings in foreign workers, be it S.U.C.C.E.S.S. or any other group, has their own credential recognition processes. They are not standardized, and that impacts on our capacity to even know who we're getting and what their skills and experience are.

In conclusion, the B.C. building trades call on the federal government to call for a royal commission to travel the country and take submissions from all stakeholders on the issue of temporary foreign workers, undocumented workers, and immigration consultants. We call on the government to immediately allocate significant resources to monitor and enforce the terms of labour market opinion agreements. Joint federal-provincial compliance teams should involve Service Canada, CIC, Revenue Canada, the Employment Standards Branch and the WCB, or WorkSafeBC in this province. We did this before and it worked.

We identified, within a three-month period in the province of British Columbia, with a compliance team, that there was in excess of $80 million that was going uncollected. That was in a three-month period before this government actually brought that down, after they got elected. We call for joint federal-provincial advocacy centres across Canada to assist temporary foreign workers. Referral information and assistance are required by thousands of workers looking to solve abuse and exploitation by their employers. We call for orientation programs for temporary foreign workers at the point of entry into Canada.

These orientation programs must alert workers to their rights and obligations as temporary foreign workers. Even the written word in their own language may not be sufficient because they may not even be able to read their own language. Information about their rights under employment standards acts, the labour code, human rights, WCB and occupational health and safety regulations, residential tenancy laws, and access to health care are absolutely fundamental.

We recommend the allocation of significant resources to support settlement services designed for temporary foreign workers, especially ESL and French as a second language training, and services to facilitate adaptation to Canadian culture and society. We recommend reassessment of labour market opinion approval criteria. Canadian workers faced with the challenge of living-out allowances, mobility costs, and retraining opportunities must be included in the labour market opinion evaluations.

In closing, we further recommend that pre-approved labour market opinions be re-evaluated at least every six months and that employers not be allowed to lay off Canadian workers before temporary foreign workers in the event of work shortages. Finally, we call on the Canadian government to ratify the UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families It is time for developed countries, particularly members of the government, to make a binding commitment to end the exploitation and abuse of migrant workers.

This is about orientation, it's about advocacy, and it's about monitoring and compliance. Thank you very much.

(1445) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Peppard. We'll go to Mr. Fairey. Mr. David Fairey : Thank you. First I'd like to thank the committee for coming to British Columbia to give us an opportunity to reach the members of Parliament on this important issue. I, too, only heard of your meeting on short notice and obviously was not able to get to you a written submission in time for translation. My name is David Fairey. I'm a labour economist with extensive experience in labour policy research.

I'm appearing today to share with you some of the key findings and policy recommendations that resulted from a recently concluded two-year study on the impact of recent B.C. provincial policy changes on immigrant and migrant farm workers. It was done by a group of academic and community researchers like me, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, under a community-university research alliance called the Economic Security Project. The academic researchers on this project included Dr. Arlene Tigar McLaren and Dr. Gerardo Otero of Simon Fraser University and Dr.

Mark Thompson of the University of British Columbia. Our study report will soon be published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The following questions guided this study: What implications do changing legislation, policies, and practices have for immigrant and migrant farm workers in British Columbia? What impact does this changing legal and policy context have on farm workers' experiences? And what alternative models of employment standards and enforcement procedures would be able to better address their needs for economic security, health and safety, and labour rights?

Of relevance to your investigation is our examination of the seasonal agricultural worker program, SAWP, for temporary migrant farm workers in the British Columbia context and our interviews with 25 Mexican migrant farm workers in British Columbia who were here under SAWP. The B.C. labour policy background to this aspect of our study was the significant reduction in B.C. employment standards regulations for farm workers in 2003-04 and the B.C. government's decision to join the federal-provincial SAWP in 2004.

Recent changes in B.C. employment standards that have had a significant negative impact on the supply of farm workers from the local labour market and on the conditions of employment for both resident farm workers and temporary foreign workers brought to B.C. under SAWP--and now for farm workers being brought in under the low-skilled worker pilot project--involve the following: their exclusion from statutory holiday pay, annual paid vacation, and hours of work and overtime pay provisions under the regulation; a reduced minimum daily pay from four hours to two hours per day; the introduction of a $6 minimum hourly wage for those employed for the first time or those without experience; significantly reduced employment standards, branch-site inspections, and enforcement activity in the agricultural sector; and no increase in the minimum wage for seven years.

We're told that there's a labour market problem, that there's a shortage. Well, it's interesting that it was the farm owner community, the farmer owners, who were the strongest advocates for these reductions in the employment standards for farm workers. They then pressured the federal government and the provincial government for inclusion in the seasonal agricultural worker program. It's obvious that the employers and the provincial government have created labour market conditions that have contributed to the shortage by creating a labour market, a supply situation, that is untenable for local workers.

Historically, B.C. has drawn on specific groups from four non-white countries as a source of cheap labour for dangerous occupations with inferior employment and citizenship rights in Canada. Early in the 20th century, British Columbia farmers successfully petitioned the federal government to admit South Asians and Japanese to work in agriculture. Canadian immigration policy continues this racialized pattern by allowing specific groups from the global south to enter Canada to fill jobs with poor pay and working conditions, which other populations are unwilling to fill.

Their racialized and highly vulnerable status allows the employers to justify substandard working conditions. In entering Canada under strict conditions with inferior citizenship rights, immigrants and migrant workers are susceptible to highly exploitative wage work. B.C. farmers in the Fraser Valley rely largely on immigrants from the Punjab to replenish their labour force. Today about 90% of these farm workers are Indo-Canadians. The majority are women, many in their fifties and sixties.

Most migrated to Canada under the federal family reunification program, sponsored by their Canadian children or grandchildren. While most B.C. farm workers in the Fraser Valley are Indo-Canadian, this traditional source of labour was curtailed by Citizenship and Immigration in 2003 when it restricted the admission of parents and grandparents in its family reunification program. This measure contributed to the labour shortage that was emerging in B.C. agriculture.

Accustomed to paying seasonal harvest workers no more than minimum wage, and sometimes less, B.C. farmers had been facing a labour shortage in the early 2000s. The provincial government did not raise wages in agriculture to meet these shortages, nor did the federal government seek to increase the number of immigrants. And mechanization of farm work proceeded slowly. The horticulture industry, instead, extensively lobbied the federal program to negotiate with B.C. and Mexico a memorandum of understanding for the province to join the SAWP.

In 2004, B.C. joined the SAWP, which grants farm workers temporary employment visas in agriculture, with wages slightly above the provincial minimum. In the first year of the program, in 2004, there were 50 workers brought in under the SAWP. This year it is projected there will be 3,000 SAWP workers in British Columbia. As I said, the low-skilled program is also being extended to agricultural workers. Canadian government officials and employers defend the SAWP program as necessary due to domestic labour shortages and an unstable workforce in agriculture.

The government requires a labour market opinion from employers applying to the SAWP to show that they have tried to hire local labour and that a supply is not available. In the case of migrant agricultural workers, the government does not address the way low wages and poor working conditions fail to attract local workers. In addition, the government has not adequately acknowledged how the SAWP exposes workers to inadequate employment and safety protections, which renders them unable to exercise their rights as workers.

In particular, the SAWP does not allow workers to freely choose their workplace or residential location, in contrast to citizens who have the formal right to circulate in the labour market. SAWP workers are only allowed to come to Canada if they work for a specific employer, live in their employers' designated premises for a specified period of time, and then return to their home country. In being bound to a single employer and having a temporary status, workers are unprotected from the threat of repatriation.

Dismissal by an employer can mean that a SAWP worker will be sent home to Mexico without their anticipated earnings. The threat of repatriation is a powerful deterrent to workers' rights. The temporary worker status also separates SAWP workers from their families, making them further vulnerable to employers' excessive demands. SAWP visas are different not only from conventional landed immigrant categories but also from other temporary migrant worker programs, in that they only allow the holder to stay in Canada for up to eight months.

There is more in my submission, but I think I should go essentially to the recommendations. Could I just conclude with some of our recommendations? The Chair : Yes, you can have a couple of minutes more, but we have quite a number of questioners who want to get in. Mr. David Fairey : Our recommendations to the federal government are as follows. We make recommendations to the provincial government and to municipal governments as well. First of all, there should be coordination with provincial and municipal authorities.

HRSD/Service Canada should move from being a labour market matching service to a service that protects workers. It should assume leadership in ensuring that all levels of government, including the Employment Standards Branch and WorkSafeBC, exercise their responsibilities. To begin the process of coordination, HRSD needs to inform provincial authorities of the number, job title, and location of SAWP workers. There is no registry of these migrant farm workers, so the Employment Standards Branch doesn't know who they are or where they are. They have no way of knowing where they should be doing enforcement.

The federal government should develop a transparent system of pay rates for SAWP workers. The process for determining appropriate rate of pay should be transparent, represent a substantial improvement over the minimum wage, and correspond to the specific duties performed by the worker. Workers are just getting the same rate regardless of the duties they perform. The process should also require growers to provide evidence that wage increases substantially above the minimum wage have been unsuccessful in attracting domestic workers.

The federal government should require employers to demonstrate a satisfactory record of compliance. Right now there is no test of satisfactory performance in the application for a SAWP worker. When applying for an LMO to hire workers under the SAWP, employers are not compelled to demonstrate a satisfactory record of compliance with the Workers Compensation Act and the Employment Standards Act. SAWP workers could be asked about an employer's treatment, with evidence to be considered in the reapplication. So there should be an assessment of the performance of the employer after a review of a program.

There should be a removal of the employer's right of repatriation. The employer now has the right to repatriate a worker. Growers who wish to dismiss SAWP workers must demonstrate proper cause before doing so. Illness or injury is not a cause for repatriation of SAWP workers. On the contrary, they should be covered by the B.C. Medical Services Plan for treatment here or in Mexico for the full length of recovery. Workers must have the right to appeal dismissal to an independent body. Repatriation is the main deterrent for SAWP workers exercising their labour rights. Dismissal should not be linked to repatriation.

There should be a restructuring of SAWP. The designation of migrant workers to a single employer and housing by the employer for a specified period of time amount to unfree labour. Workers have little recourse in negotiating the terms of their contracts. At a minimum, the SAWP should allow workers to move more freely from one employer to another. The SAWP should also explore possibilities for securing rights to employment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan for workers once they are in Mexico, or refund all employer and employee contributions. The SAWP should enable immigration.

If workers are accepted into the SAWP, they should be able to apply simultaneously for permanent resident status. They should have the right to live here with their families and become Canadians. Finally, we would like to endorse, from the previous presentation, that Canada should sign on to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and our legislation should be geared toward compliance with the standards of that charter.

(1455) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Fairey. Do you want to make a few comments, Mr. Barrett? Mr. Joe Barrett (Researcher, British Columbia and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council) : Yes. Thank you very much to the committee for your interest. [ Translation ] I'll be brief. [ English ] The language barrier is one of the vulnerability issues. I was involved in the building trades with the workers on the Canada Line. They were Spanish-speaking workers who were being paid less than $5 an hour on a federal-provincial project. Our taxpayers were paying them less than $5 an hour.

This case has been at the Labour Relations Board in B.C. and is now at the human rights board. We have a decision from the human rights coalition. There is coercion. There is intimidation. The employer has been ordered to pay half of the legal costs. We're right at the very beginning of this issue, and five years from now it will be much more.... I am called daily, “ Señor Barrett, se me puede ayudar ?” In another life I was a Spanish teacher. I have now become the advocate for the Latin Americans in this city, who come after being promised $25 an hour. All of their paperwork is fine with Service Canada.

These promises are broken time and time again. It's widespread. The Shangri-La tower, the Children's Hospital, two buildings at UBC, and public projects...because the construction industry is subcontracted, it might be SNC-Lavalin at the top, but it's subcontracted and subcontracted. By the time it gets to the worker, it's $7 an hour, $12 an hour on public projects. It's widespread, not just in Vancouver, but throughout Alberta. Please take a few minutes to read our submission. Wayne can talk about these legal costs--expensive. We're not a trade union movement that has $200,000 to spend on every case.

Thank you very much.

(1500) The Chair : So these general contractors make a promise of these high wages, $20, $25 an hour, and then when they sub.... Mr. Joe Barrett : No. Simply put, it's easy to hide the actual employer. The employer is the subcontractor. It's a contextual thing. To understand the construction industry...it's very easy for undocumented workers.... Again, it's in our submission. The underground economy is what Wayne was referring to, the joint compliance teams. We have Revenue Canada, Service Canada, the Employment Standards Branch, WorkSafeBC--these different ministries are all working together.

All it takes is a team of government officials out there, unannounced spot checks, and the word will spread like wildfire that the government is watching. The Chair : Okay. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. That's very interesting indeed. Now we'll have our questioning. Mr. Karygiannis, seven minutes. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Before I talk about CPP, a question for you, sir. If the employer and the employee contribute to CPP, are you telling me that once the foreign workers or the undocumented workers are removed, go back to their country, they cannot collect the Canada Pension? Mr.

Wayne Peppard : I'm not sure whether they can or cannot. I'm saying they're not. They don't even know they are entitled to that. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Barrett is shaking his head. They cannot collect? Mr. Joe Barrett : They cannot collect. We confirmed that with CPP. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : You have confirmed that? Mr. Joe Barrett : Yes. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : I've got news for you, sir. They can. Mr. Joe Barrett : The person I spoke to at CPP-- Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Sir, you're wrong. They can. If you pay into Canada Pension, you can collect Canada Pension.

There are a lot of agreements with a lot of countries where you can get it directly. You can get Canada Pension, if you contributed to it, with a 25% deduction when you turn 65. So get your facts and figures before you say anything to the committee. I have a further question, Mr. Peppard. You talked about tracking, and Mr. Fairey you also said something about tracking. Can you tell us what you mean by tracking? Mr. Wayne Peppard : Tracking? Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Tracking. Both of you mentioned tracking undocumented workers. What exactly did you mean? Mr. Wayne Peppard : No, sir. I haven't used the word....

I'm saying that for the temporary foreign workers, once the LMO is accepted and the workers are brought into the country, CIC does their check and that's about it. When they come into the country, they go to work for an employer. We have alleged incidents right now, a number of alleged incidents, where employers have been taken to task by labour brokers, who are being used as vehicles for getting people into the country. We have no tracking. When I say tracking, I mean we don't have a list of all the people who come into the country as temporary foreign workers.

We don't know where they are, or even if they're working for the employer they said they were coming to work for, or what monitoring and enforcement conditions they're working under. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : So what exactly are you insinuating? What are you suggesting? What kind of tracking do you want? Mr. David Fairey : Under the live-in caregiver program in British Columbia, live-in caregivers have to be registered with the Employment Standards Branch.

If the same program were required under the SAWP, for example, or any of the temporary foreign worker programs, then the Employment Standards Branch, which is the principal enforcer of employment standards and rights, would know who those workers are and where they are, and then could target their investigations and enforcement activities. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Investigate whom, the foreign workers or the employers? Mr. David Fairey : Investigate the working conditions. Hon.

Jim Karygiannis : So what you're suggesting is a tracking system whereby when somebody comes into the country as a foreign worker, they automatically report where they are, what work they do, and what conditions they're working under. Mr. David Fairey : The employer who sponsors them, who has an agreement with the Mexican government, would register those employees and their workplaces with an agency. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : A temporary worker who comes to Canada, or somebody who gets a temporary work permit, gets a temporary work permit that's specific to a particular employer. Am I correct on this?

(1505) Mr. David Fairey : Under some programs, yes. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Under some programs? Mr. David Fairey : Most programs, yes. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Most, all, or some? Which one is it? Mr. David Fairey : Well, I'm referring to the SOP and those programs where there is employer sponsorship. Now there are other programs where you can come in, and I'm not sure what the arrangement is. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : In the 1960s, there was a program of foreign workers who were allowed to go to Germany, and there was tracking.

Every night, as temporary workers—or people who had gone to Germany to work on a work permit—we had to go and report. If that's what you mean by tracking, I have difficulty with it. Mr. David Fairey : No. I think we're talking about the agencies that are responsible for enforcing the working conditions and the laws of Canada. They should know where those workers are, who they're working for, and what their names are. That's all. Right now the program fails because— Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Should the same thing also exist for Canadian workers? The Chair : We're going to stop there. Mr.

Fairey, did you want to say something else? Mr. David Fairey : We're not talking about domestic workers; we're talking about temporary farm workers who are vulnerable and whose rights are not being enforced. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : If I'm getting it right, sir, you're saying there should be a tracking system for the foreign workers. Mr. David Fairey: Yes. Hon. Jim Karygiannis: And they should be treated differently from Canadian domestic workers. Mr. David Fairey : They are being treated differently from domestic workers. They're not— Hon. Jim Karygiannis : You're suggesting a tracking system. Mr.

David Fairey : Yes, so that the enforcement authorities can inspect their places of work to ensure they're properly protected. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Do you want to answer the question, Mr. Doyle, or— The Chair : No. I'm simply saying that what Mr. Fairey is saying, that it would help the worker, seems to make sense to me. You're looking at helping the worker so that his place of work is fit for him, so that the employer is not taking advantage of him, and what have you. Isn't that what you're...? Mr. David Fairey : That's precisely my point. The Chair : Exactly, which is— Hon.

Jim Karygiannis : Are you conducting my seven minutes right now? The Chair : Go ahead. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Thank you. I do have a problem when we treat foreign workers any differently from domestic workers. I do have a problem when people are asked to register. It brings back some memories that are not welcome. Mr. David Fairey : Well, I think you misunderstand. Their names are already known by Service Canada and by the Customs and Immigration authorities, the border services. Their names are known, because they entered into a contract— Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Fairey, are you listening to yourself, sir?

Are you listening to yourself, to how you're sounding? Mr. David Fairey : Yes. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Their names are known. It's like these people.... I'm sorry, maybe I got confused in your tone, but it certainly sounds as if we're not welcoming them. This is the sense I'm getting from you. Mr. David Fairey : That we're not welcoming them? Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Their names are known. Mr. David Fairey : Yes. I'm saying that the enforcement authorities don't have their names.

The provincial enforcement authorities, such as workers' compensation, such as employment standards, don't have their names, and those are the authorities that are enforcing their rights. How can they enforce their rights if they don't know where they are? How can their conditions of employment be enforced if the location of their jobs is not known? Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Should they be any different from domestic workers? Yes or no. The Chair : Okay, time's up. Mr. St-Cyr. [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I urge you to put on your earphones to hear the fantastic work being done by the interpreters here with us. I'm going to ask you a number of questions. You need not feel stressed. If you don't have a complete answer, I won't hold it against you; I won't get angry. We're happy that you're here to answer our questions. Mr. Fairey, I understood from your remarks that there is already a registry of caregivers, of people who stay at home and who help parents with children. Did I understand correctly? [ English ] Mr.

David Fairey : Under the Employment Standards Act of British Columbia, there is a special provision for live-in caregivers to ensure their rights are being protected, because live-in caregivers are living in isolated situations with individual families. The Employment Standards Act requires that those live-in caregivers, who are here on two-year temporary work permits, and their employers be registered with the Employment Standards Branch. (1510) [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : I understand. Now I want to understand the British Columbia model.

Does the government go further than simply entering the names of these individuals and the places where they work in a registry? Does anyone check with these individuals from time to time to determine whether they are being well treated by their employers and whether the conditions are being met? Beyond good intentions, is there an effective control? [ English ] Mr.

David Fairey : I can't speak to the extent to which those workplaces are investigated, except that the Employment Standards Branch knows where those workers are, has the ability to investigate, and should be enforcing the regulations with respect to that employment. The extent to which they are investigated--I don't know; I can't speak to that. However, it ensures a better regulation of that industry or that occupation than we find for other seasonal agricultural workers. [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : Unlike the colleague who preceded me, I understood that you and Mr.

Peppard want to monitor what's being done in the field and to see whether the rules are complied with, because these individuals are highly vulnerable to exploitation. I find that interesting. Mr. Peppard explained that, if potential employers of dubious morality knew they could be investigated at any time, they would probably be more careful. However, those investigations might be difficult to conduct. An unscrupulous employer could very well intimidate his employees, even at the time of the investigation.

Some groups have proposed that foreign workers with temporary permits be entitled to change employers in order to be less vulnerable to those individuals who hold their lives in their hands. Mr. Peppard and Mr. Fairey, do you agree with that proposal? Mr. Joe Barrett : There's no monitoring. They all have the same rights as Canadians. However, they can't leave their jobs and look for another one like a Canadian would do. They are really tied to their employers. They don't have a choice; they have to continue working for that employer. They also can't speak the language and don't know their rights.

They come from countries where those rights are not respected. Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : I'm going to stop you. You raised those points earlier. I'd like Mr. Fairey to answer my question because my time is limited too. [ English ] Mr. David Fairey : Absolutely. Without the right to change employers, we have a second-class system of indentured slavery, essentially. The temporary farm worker program, where workers are tied to a single employer, makes workers indentured slaves, in the modern sense of the word. There's no other way you can characterize it. [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : All right. Mr.

Fairey, our agenda doesn't mention your exact title. At the start of your presentation, you said you were a labour economist. What organization do you work for? (1515) [ English ] Mr. David Fairey : I do labour consulting research and policy research. [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : So you are self-employed. Who are your main clients? [ English ] Mr. David Fairey : My customers and clients are labour organizations, government agencies, and public policy institutes. [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : You also talked about farm workers. Do you agree that these are generally unskilled jobs? I may be wrong.

You said in your presentation that an artificial labour shortage had been created by making these kinds of jobs less appealing. Did I understand correctly? [ English ] Mr. David Fairey : What I believe I said was that, first of all, under the provincial employment standards legislation, the protections for agricultural workers are less than those for other workers. They have fewer rights and their conditions are inferior. These are hazardous jobs; agriculture is a hazardous industry.

The agricultural employers are attempting to, in our view, create conditions of shortage unnecessarily--that is, artificial shortage--by pressuring for legislation that provides lower standards, lower wages, so that the domestic labour supply is not going to respond. The farm employers are not behaving like competitors in a free market. They want to have protections and they want to have subsidies. In my view, the temporary farm worker program is a subsidy to these employers. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. St-Cyr. Ms. Chow. Ms.

Olivia Chow : I'm hearing three recommendations, and I just want to make sure I'm hearing them correctly. Whoever wants to comment on this, please do. The first one is to give the visas to the workers within their trade, not to the employer. Number two is to make sure the workers get the orientation they need when they arrive in Canada, have an arm's-length centre where, if there are problems, they can file some of the complaints in a fair manner.

Third is to make sure there's decent inspection by an inspection team, a SWAT team that is organized by the federal government, the provincial government, and stakeholders, whether those are unions or non-profit organizations. Then there will be the inspection by the provincial government, but with the federal government supporting it. The advocacy

part is that there needs to be a group that will support these workers to make sure these workers, when they don't get the justice they need, will have a group that will support them and advocate for them. Are those the general outlines of the three or four key recommendations you are looking for? Are there other recommendations? Maybe Mr. Peppard would like to talk about these from the construction side and then from the research side. Are those the key recommendations? Have I missed other areas of overarching importance? Mr.

Wayne Peppard : Certainly, I would put in there the credentials recognition as an issue that comes out over and above this, because I didn't get to speak a whole lot about that. It's a huge issue in and of itself. The key issue here is the vulnerability of temporary foreign workers, whether they're in agriculture or anywhere else. If we can address the issues of vulnerability, then all of that will fade away. We won't be in a position where we have to track individuals or employers or anything, if we make sure the system is working properly.

Number one, I think the key is the visa permit that is attached to the trade. These people, as foreign workers, are invited to work in Canada first and in the province second. If they're invited to Canada, they should work under Canadian standards and have all the rights and responsibilities of a Canadian.

If Citizenship and Immigration recognizes that we need, for example, 20,000 carpenters in the next year, then they should say, “We need 20,000 carpenters; let's go get 20,000 carpenters.” But when they come here as carpenters, their work permits and their visas would be in the industry in which they work--as carpenters--so they can freely move. That takes away their vulnerability. If they're being mistreated, they can move. I think that's of prime importance--absolute prime importance. Second is the orientation and advocacy.

If they are given the right and they know what their rights are, that doesn't mean they're necessarily going to be able to use those or go somewhere. Where do they go? If they're given an orientation program by someone they trust who is non-partisan, and that becomes an advocacy group, whether it's for problems they have on the job or--for example, as Joe just had to do with one of the employees who came to us--they have to go to the hospital.... They didn't know the health system.

Their employer was not going to walk them through going to the hospital or going to the doctor, getting referred and all of that sort of stuff. There are many implications--and that's a simple one--of what it means to be a foreign worker in a foreign land, not knowing just the language, but also other barriers as a result of that. So an advocacy centre can be much more than just providing support for when an employer abuses an employee. Finally, if you don't have the compliance team in place, if you don't have a monitoring system...and that's what I meant by tracking.

I don't mean tracking the individuals; I mean monitoring the system to see that it works pr