FEATURES 3 SS Ed SO e Continued from page 14 unemployment. Management for its part has absolute power to force Workers to comply with its work rules and the safety legislation. It has the Power to fire, suspend and discipline Workers for not complying. Workers have no such power to force an employer to comply, and joint committees are strictly advisory and Consultative in nature by law. When inspectors are brought in over unresolved safety issues, a long process of mediation and protracted Negotiations ensue. The result and _ Practical effect is a process of trade-off and standard-setting at the level of enforcement. In effect, the effective level of protection provided by law is determined by negotiations between the regulators and the employer. There is a sense in which the current approach to regulating the workplace environment amounts to issuing a license to kill and maim workers. By _ Overlooking violations, not enforcing regulatory requirements and declining to invoke sanctions, regulators condone and in effect provide license for corporate activities which endanger workers’ health and safety. By the same token there is also a sense in which this approach amounts to pronouncing the death sentence for thousands of workers who enter the workplace just to earn a living. It is interesting to note that while the voluntary compliance approach is _ Strongly advocated by representatives of the business community, many of its aspects derive from social democratic experiments in industrial democracy a la Sweden. Indeed, the first province to embrace this approach was the province of Saskatchewan during the New Democratic Party’s tenure in office in 1982. In that province, where very few prosecutions were ever undertaken, it became evident that joint committees were ineffectual “‘paper’’ committees. According to _ Bob Sass, former Director of the Occupational Health and Safety Branch, “‘there were serious deficiencies in the actual implementation of workers rights regarding work environment matters.” It became apparent that much would not change without a shift in the balance of power between capital and labor. In the absence of such a shift in _ power and in the absence of a more conventional regime of externally imposed sanctions to support it, the . system of voluntary compliance is - doomed to failure even under social democratic governments. In fact, such experiments under social democratic governments could result in leading workers to the slaughter. The lessons of the last decade in _ ‘health and safety suggest that there is . no substitute for a workforce mobilized to protect its own health and safety. The early health and safety - movement of the 60s and 70s drew its strength from its ability to link questions of health and safety to questions of power on the shop floor. Conclusion: Worker health and safety is not simply a question of the proper use of — highly technical information. It is a question of changing the balance of power between capital and labor. Our efforts and struggles in this area must be directed clearly to this end. Immigration law open to abuse Discretionary powers in law used against people of color Sukhram Ramkissoon is a legal advisor with the Toronto law firm of Roach, Smith, specializing in immigration law. After 12 years dealing with Canadian immigration authorities, he believes Canadian immigration law is applied in a racist manner. Mr. Ramkissoon talked to the Tribune about his concerns. : In criminal law, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty; the onus of proof is on the prosecution. In immigration law, the onus of proof is on the in- dividual. Do you consider this a denial of ‘‘natural justice”’ as it is conceived in Canadian jurisprudence? : Yes, to a certain extent. The immigration depart- ment makes the accusation against an applicant; it is the ‘‘accuser’’. Then it places the onus of proof on the applicant. He has to defend himself. So there is a lot of room for challenging immigration law. The main problem is the wide discretionary power granted immigration officers under the law. If your case for permanent residence is heard by one immigration officer, you will be granted it on a golden platter; if exactly the same case is heard by another, you might be thrown in jail. : So immigration officers, at their own discretion, and according to their own social outlook interpret immigration law as they see fit. : A glaring case is the ‘marriage of convenience’. This is used to deny status especially to people from A %& Third World countries. Marriages that are bona fide, with substance, and with roots are being rejected by these officers on flimsy and minor technicalities. [have spent.a lot of time at the appeal board arguing for applicants whose traditions and customs are laughed at by first instance immigration authorities. policy towards favoring ‘‘entrepreneurs’’, people with money. : True, but even money is sometimes not the deter- mining factor. We have a client from the West Indies who has the equivalent of about $2.5-million in Canadian funds, he has a Canadian-born child, his wife is a permanent resident here, and he was turned down. Another instance involves a young man from the West Indies, who completed his grade 13 here, his BS at Queen’s and then his MBA — nine years studying in Canada. He has never broken any Canadian law. When he applied for permanent residence, I asked him if he could get any job offers. He went to Price-Waterhouse, Clarkson-Gordon, and three other reputable financial institutions. They all were willing to offer him a job, all guaranteeing over $25,000 a year. But Texts tovaasvoring repress pom ih immigration says he doesn’t meet the criteria. Yet every year we take about 90,000 immigrants. But who are they? Those who jump the line, who jump the boat, who come here through dubious and illegal means, who come with forged documents, these are the ones who make it. government guidelines, are a) rich, b) white, and c) right wing, would you have a better chance of getting into Canada than someone who is not? R : Especially if you are white. There is no doubt about r é \: Here is a loaded question: if you, according to it. If you’re European, no problem. But if you come from Third World countries, you'll have difficulties, even if you have the points. And that should not be so. The way the law is applied prevents unification of Third World families, prevents them from bringing their children to Canada. You have to prove that you are a Conrad Black before they let you into Canada. Immigration law has to be revised and rewritten to remove the current discretionary powers immigration officers now have. : Because of the discretionary powers, there must be abuse of the system by officials for one reason or other. : Yes, let me tell you something I am really upset about. We see hundreds of thousands of people com- ing from Portugal. The Canadian Embassy in Lisbon is aware of the flagrant abuse of our immigration laws. Young single men, 20-24 years old, who come to this coun- try from Portugal under the guise of visitors, go to lawyers who say: we can get you permanent residence if you claim to be a refugee, a Jehovah’s Witness. Bingo! They are accepted. The government has imposed a visa quota for years. But it is being abused. From July 1986 until now, thousands of visas and permanent status for Portuguese have been granted over the quota. But for people from Jamaica, from Guyana, from elsewhere in the West Indies or real Third World? Even those with all their relatives here? Only a mere fraction of the requests have been aie by Canadian immigration. That tells you every- thing. “There is no doubt about it. If you’re European, no problem. But if you come from Third World countries, you'll have difficulties, even if you have the points.” ik ANADIAN IMMIGRATION PotrTicat REFUGEE ? y - ‘ rv ROE ia Gr - WHERE'S THE Gee ‘> Se nd weet aes) = PROOF ad Set Cae =~ oi !