THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 16, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to social affairs, science and technology generally.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario and chair of this committee. I would like to begin the meeting by asking my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Senator Marilou McPhedran, independent senator from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Senator Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Today we continue our study of Canada’s temporary and migrant labour force. Let me just remind my colleagues of the scope of this study. It is to look at the temporary and migrant labour force in Canada, its role in meeting the labour market needs, the labour market needs especially in rural, remote and Atlantic provinces and to take a look at future trends in the labour market.
Today has been a strange day in the Senate, and it will continue to be a somewhat strange day for this committee. We have only one witness for the entire two hours of our committee. Our second witness had to cancel because of the standards on headsets. So we’re following through on the commitments that we have made, but that does mean that we have the full richness of time with our witness. Our witness is Lou Janssen Dangzalan, Steering Committee Member of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association. He will be with us than maybe more time than he intended, but we thank you very much.
As is usual practice, we will start with a presentation from you. I’m going to be a little looser on time because we have got the gift of time, and colleagues, the same goes for your questions, we can be a little bit more expansive and not so regimented with time on this particular Senate meeting.
Lou Janssen Dangzalan, Steering Committee Member, Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association: Thank you, and good afternoon. My name is Lou Janssen Dangzalan, and I’m an immigration lawyer based in Toronto, Ontario, the traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.
On behalf of the Steering Committee of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association, or CILA, thank you for inviting us to contribute to this very important study. We are an association of immigration lawyers across the country, from coast to coast to coast. We promote justice and fairness in citizenship and immigration law. We advocate for improvements to immigration-related policies and departmental operations through public dialogue, submissions, coalition building, court interventions and test litigation.
Today I will touch on eight points that CILA has advocated since its inception, with a particular focus on temporary workers.
The first point I would like to make is the big picture. For semi-skilled and low-skilled immigration in Canada, there is no coherent pathway to permanent residence for these migrant workers, specifically those whom we have acknowledged to be essential, especially in the time of need during the pandemic. A program is still absent from our mix of immigration programs.
This is notably the case in the recently announced Immigration Levels Plan which talks about increasing the size of the pie. What we see here is the federal government increasing the size of the pie, the allocation for further provincial nomination programs and the regional programs, as well as programs at the municipal level.
The question, therefore, is: Is the question of creating pathways for temporary migrants being downloaded to the provinces and to the regions? There is no program at the federal level, point-blank.
The second point I would like to make is the current legalization pathways for out-of-status individuals, where are we at? The government has made several announcements with respect to the Levels Plan. The response to Motion 44 at the Commons, for example, and yet to see concrete plans in the regularization of individuals who are out of status. This chamber plays an important role in reminding the government that this program is important, especially since we have already established that these are economic workers that we do need, especially during the time of the pandemic.
The third point is the Caregiver Program. There has been a balancing of the ill paths of the program with the positive things it has brought about, bringing about a pathway for permanent residence for people across the program’s history. The current pilot program has effectively killed the Caregiver Program as processing times come to years. By the time an application moves forward, a Canadian employer has already moved on and most likely have sourced alternate care for their loved ones.
We appreciate the front-loading of PR requirements that were usually the source of heartaches in the previous iterations of the program. However, the current setup is also untenable. We must go back to the drawing board, and while this is the case, perhaps reintroducing LMIA-backed work permits could be done with additional safeguards to address the growing needs of Canadian families.
The next point I would like to touch on is point number 4, which deals with accessibility and access to counsel, and this touches on migrant workers’ rights. Some migrant workers are not as computer literate as IRCC would like to think. Limiting access to counsel impedes in workers’ abilities to access the immigration system. This severely limits their ability to put forward applications in a timely manner.
In addition, online portals specifically are in abundance to the point that not even IRCC has a website that can actually track all of them in one place properly. In addition, there is no functional tech support available when these portals fail. So if you are applying to a time-sensitive program, and if the program platform doesn’t work, you are out of luck.
Point number 5 is where are LMIAs really needed? Now, in the context of backlogs in immigration, CILA has proposed reviewing LMIA requirements. ESDC can temporarily exempt employers of recent international graduates from advertising and prevailing wage requirements for LMIAs. This advertising exemption for international graduates existed prior to 2014. There were changes into the temporary foreign worker programs back in the day, and they imposed that requirement for international graduates. Reintroducing this will keep the Canadian education and experience talent pool in Canada, and this will help address labour shortages in Canada and prevent potentially thousands of temporary foreign workers or temporary residents from going out of status.
Number six: Essentially, a commendation to IRCC for its open work permit program for vulnerable workers. Our members confirm that the program has been very effective in arresting abuses by employers. The next important question: What is next for these workers? Is there a program to give them access to permanent residence, keeping in mind that the open work permit for vulnerable workers only lasts for 12 months? What if they choose to stay in Canada? Are there any options to them at all?
Point number 7 is with respect to a transforming economy with respect to digital nomads, remote work and the developing knowledge economy. IRCC, the department and even Minister Fraser have acknowledged that Canada is in the midst of a global talent arms race. While Canada is great at attracting talent, we must not rest on our laurels. We must look into what other countries are doing in the world economy as they adjust to the post-COVID realities and to a new geopolitical order.
For example, Portugal, Spain, Thailand, Indonesia, they are trailblazers taking advantage of the rise of start-ups. They have pivoted their immigration system to adjust to the realities of remote work or digital nomads. This is especially important in a knowledge economy that Canada has and something that Canada has as its strong suit. We should investigate possibilities for our immigration system that accommodate purveyors of talent and social capital in our country.
Finally, perhaps it’s time to take a long view, take stock of what our system has and look into the possibility of a royal commission. Looking into the future is something of a task on its own. The immigration department is already beset with untangling the mess created by the convergence of the Creehee system with the massive demands brought about by recent changes in the global order and the pandemic.
It may be time for a royal commission to study where Canada wants to see its immigration system in 10, 20 and 30 years — the long view of history. We face many challenges as a society, including climate change-induced migration waves. We need to start thinking about these things. Immigration is and will always be an immutable aspect of Canadian society. This is too important, and we must have a plan. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Dangzalan. I will be taking questions from my colleagues as they raise their hands or indicate their interest in doing so.
First, Senator Moodie. Senator Moodie, we are going to be a little expansive on time. So don’t necessarily feel pressure to get everything in.
Senator Moodie: The question I have for you today is around how we can enrich conditions for potential individuals who want to come to Canada.
In our last meeting, we heard that when temporary foreign workers come with their families and with some community support, they are more likely to succeed and more successful in filling labour market shortages. Do you agree with this? Do you think that there are adequate supports available to support this right now in Canada? Is this an area that we should be looking at improving? If not, what supports might you suggest?
Mr. Dangzalan: There is truth to the fact that there is an advantage when foreign workers are able to bring their families. We already have this, in fact, in the international student program. These international students are allowed to bring their common-law partner or their spouse and even their dependent children under 18. According the same benefits to our temporary foreign workers would be an added benefit to attracting people who will want to put down roots and settle in Canada and contribute to the Canadian economy.
The question with respect to being able to accommodate them, perhaps, falls more to provincial jurisdiction with respect to the housing and social services that may be available. Perhaps the federal government should be looking into reinforcing those coordination points between the federal government and the provinces when it comes to allocating, for example, slots for temporary foreign workers and their families. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I thank our witness for being with us today.
Based on your meetings with temporary workers or their representatives, what are their health and well-being concerns in Canada? In what industry is their health most vulnerable?
Mr. Dangzalan: It depends on what type of workers we are talking about, senator. For example, if we are talking about international students who work the 20 hours allowed under the law, we have found that some provinces do not have medical insurance for students, for example, while other provinces have health insurance for that person’s entire family.
There is definitely an inconsistency among provinces in terms of the provision of health and social services for families. So if we’re talking about skilled workers, the provinces normally provide health and social services. The issue is more for temporary workers, especially seasonal workers who are employed in the agriculture sector, where people have housing provided and many other benefits. The problem is the oversight by the Auditor General. There was a problem with the evidence provided by employers. So that may be an area where the federal government can improve the situation.
Senator Mégie: Thank you. The government has always stated that temporary foreign workers have the right to be informed of their rights in Canada. Therefore, the government is saying that it is the employer’s responsibility to provide information on rights in Canada. What do you think about this responsibility being delegated to employers? Can you think of any other way to do this that would be safer for those people?
Mr. Dangzalan: I understand that. It’s a bit problematic. I am thinking of an analogy.
[English]
If you put the wolves to guard the henhouse.
[Translation]
The system is based on honesty. It’s a matter of federal oversight. There are also other ways for an employer to disseminate information about rights. For example, I know that the Philippine Consulate General is working with temporary workers here in Canada to educate citizens of the Philippines so that they would be more aware of their rights at work. Maybe we need to be a little more creative in disseminating information about rights because, if we depend only on employers, it is problematic.
Senator Mégie: I also thought this was problematic, which is why I asked the question.
I have a question about the statistics. According to the Statistics Canada study, there were about 620,000 active international students, and that that number has increased. These foreign students could play a role in the current workforce, which is deficient. As for French-speaking foreign students, we know that there is fundamental systemic discrimination, even in the form they fill out to come to Canada. Do you have any data that would make a distinction or that would show that there is a real decrease in francophone migrants? Do you have any data on that?
Mr. Dangzalan: I have data and statistics. I will share them with the committee by email, if you like.
Senator Mégie: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much for being with us today; it’s much appreciated. I also want to dig a little bit on protection and vulnerability, specifically for seasonal farm workers. I asked a question about that at the last meeting, and I talked about the documented abuses that you yourself mentioned. It seems to me that the government does indeed have responsibilities.
There are unannounced visits and inspections. I want to get your opinion on that. It seems to me that the big challenge is the nature of this relationship that puts the individual in a vulnerable situation, as they are someone who has no grasp of the language, the culture or their rights in this context. My understanding is that this farm worker often has to be inclusive of this employer. What are the potential solutions when you have a relationship of that nature, which is very inequitable to begin with, regardless of whether or not there are inspections?
Mr. Dangzalan: First, it is very important to point out that the relationship between the employer and the employee is quite inequitable. There is really an inequity of bargaining power between the two parties.
Associations, including the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association, have already talked about the second solution. We can take the example of the program for family caregivers, where permits are not specific to an employer, but rather specific to an occupation, a trade, a profession. These workers can change jobs by changing employers, which gives them more options and more power.
The problem is also likely related to the issue raised by Senator Mégie. Employees are often unaware of their rights. Even today, the family caregivers I know did not know that it was possible to change employers, even if they have a work permit specific to their profession. On the other hand, last time, it was really closed as a work permit.
These are the potential solution that kind of open up the conversation about the inequity of power between employer and employee.
Senator Petitclerc: While each country has different needs with respect to workers, such as temporary agricultural workers, do you have any examples of countries or jurisdictions that are doing better than we are and perhaps should be emulated, in terms of respecting rights, to ensure that there are no abuses?
Mr. Dangzalan: That’s a very good question. Unfortunately, I don’t have any examples, but I could come back to you on that, if I may.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much, it is much appreciated.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witness for being here today.
I want to pursue the topic of workers who are out of status, which you brought up at the beginning of your remarks. I would like you to elaborate on that phenomenon in a number of ways. Can you tell me what percentage of workers actually find themselves in this situation, being out of status? Are there any particular sectors that you know of that are overrepresented in terms of out of status workers? What happens to them? What do we know about what happens to them? How long do they stay in Canada?
You also alluded to a provincial role in dealing with this now. I wasn’t sure if you were referring to whether the provinces have any role in the status of these workers. Can the provinces regularize their status at all or is this simply a federal issue to be dealt with? Can you just elaborate on some of those points?
Mr. Dangzalan: Thank you for the question. With respect to the stats, I will get back to you, with your permission. I will send the statistics to the committee by email. Unfortunately, I can’t remember off the top of my head what they are.
Senator Dasko: I know you don’t have the stats with you, but are we talking about the majority?
Mr. Dangzalan: That is a good question. The last number I heard is from a news report, but I have to confirm this. It would be in the hundreds of thousands that we’re counting as out of status people. It is a sizable number, but kind of a drop in the bucket compared to the general population of Canada. However, it can make a substantial impact. For example, if they are concentrated in smaller population provinces. We also have to think about the impact on social services, for example. I do understand the preoccupation of government at all levels — municipalities and provinces included — about whether they are able to accommodate such a population, especially in the context of a housing crisis. That is a very good question. If I may, I will get back to you on that.
With respect to examples of workers who are out of status, how do they fall out of status? There are many ways. I have met some of my clients in my practice, for example, where they are here on a closed work permit, and, sadly, a company may shutter its doors, and they would lose employment. Of course, this foreign worker could be deep in debt to come to Canada because to migrate requires a lot of resources as well. When they do so, there is an expectation that A, they will be able to send money back home to their families who are dependent on them if they can’t bring their families; or B, it’s possible they could have taken out a mortgage on their property. They could have taken out a loan from a loan shark in their village, and that could be held against them if they come back prematurely without the resources they expected to get from Canada.
I have encountered workers who are in such situations, unfortunately. What happens to them is very complicated. Some of them eventually find and settle with families in Canada. If they were single, they would be able to start a family in Canada. Some of them apply through the already overloaded humanitarian and compassionate grounds programs; or through refugee status if they might have some sort of claim; or sometimes they are abused by unsavoury actors, for example, and receive advice to apply for refugee status even if there is no basis at all, which inevitably clogs the system.
Looking at it from a systems perspective, we have to find a way to prevent that from even getting to that particular program, where we have legitimate claimants who need that “bandwidth” to be allocated to them and who need humanitarian or state protection, for example.
The other question was on provinces. Was this something that provinces can help with? My understanding of most provincial nomination programs is that they have to be in status in order to apply for it. In the last 5 to 10 years, there has been a shift in the levels plan. Recently — I believe just a few days ago — the minister came out with the levels plan. We are going to see the largest enlargement of the pie yet.
I want to underscore to the members of the committee that the allocation for provincial nomination programs and for regional programs has increased dramatically vis-à-vis the federal high-skill programs. The exception is possibly 2023, where there is still a bit of an overhang of special federal public policy programs. They are still taking a bit of the “bandwidth” of the pie for economic immigration.
There is now a shift toward provinces. The provinces are going to determine the programs and what they need. That’s good news on paper, but do these programs also accommodate for people who may be in danger of losing their status or who are already out of status? One thing that comes to mind is the seasonal agricultural worker program, for example. It is truly a temporary program, and most provincial nomination programs don’t necessarily have an interface with the Statement of Purpose, or SOP, which is a function of the eight-month length limitation of the SOP.
And what that does is it prevents them from accessing a lot of the provincial nomination programs, which is a shame in my mind, especially for provinces which have a very large or are heavily invested in agriculture as part of their economy.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: May I just follow up on that? Is it a federal policy that prevents seasonal agricultural worker programs for applying to provincial nominee programs or is it provincial policy that prevents them?
Mr. Dangzalan: It is mostly the provinces, Madam Chair. The requirements are set by the provinces. In order to be able to obtain the nomination from the program, they have to qualify, and a lot of them are designed in such a way that you have to have 12 months of experience. And by function of that eight-month limitation, they may or may not actually fit into the program as neatly as other temporary foreign workers, for example, or even skilled workers who are coming in on the International Mobility Program.
The Chair: And given your opening statements and your concern for the lack of cohesion pathways for temporary foreign workers, would you recommend that the federal government and the provincial governments sit down and expand eligibility for the Provincial Nominee Program, or PNP, so that seasonal agricultural workers could qualify for permanent status through the PNP?
Mr. Dangzalan: I think that is certainly a conversation that needs to be had. We have established over the last two to three years throughout the course of the pandemic that agricultural workers are essential. We, today, feel the impacts of the supply side of the problem of inflation brought about by problems in the supply chains for food, for example, so having these workers is important to the Canadian economy.
On an editorial note, I’m not a fan of the low-skilled label on these types of workers considering they are essential to the economy, and we’ve seen that in the last two years.
Senator Martin: My colleagues have asked a lot of good questions, and based on your testimony, there are a few areas of questioning that I wanted to do.
Continuing on just how these workers are vulnerable in our overall system that has the provincial and federal gaps, for lack of a better word, or tension, would you tell us: In which Canadian industries are temporary and migrant workers most vulnerable to legal and immigration issues? You have named a few, I think.
Mr. Dangzalan: Certainly temporary foreign workers who are working in sectors that are deemed to be low-skilled or semi-skilled are definitely vulnerable.
It is also a function of the type of recruitment that happens where language may not necessarily be a requirement, so they may not necessarily be as savvy as someone who has complete command of English or French, for example. In those situations, they could be prone to abuse.
I cannot identify a particular sector. But one thing that does come to mind, and it is well documented, would be caregivers, for example. It has a history of almost a century’s worth of abuses. It has brought about a lot of positives in the Canadian economy and Canadian society writ large. I believe that there was a documentary that dealt with the rise of the feminist movement that was enabled because the domestics were able to fill in the gap for a lot of Canadian women to actually take on jobs, for example. That is a clear contribution that the Caregiver Program has brought about.
At the same time, there is a trade-off. The abuses are there. The government has to be commended for actually making program changes in the last few years; however, what we have had in the last 10 years with respect to the Caregiver Program is a cacophony of pilot programs that even the best of immigration lawyers, or refugee lawyers, will have a hard time to understand how their client would fit into that particular program.
From the employers’ side, as I mentioned during my opening statement, a lot of employers do not see a functional program anymore because an application could last originally months, but now we’re looking at years.
Senator Martin: I have heard four years, is that accurate?
Mr. Dangzalan: Yes, it is untenable.
Senator Martin: And is that delay based upon the fact that the program itself needs to be fixed and there are issues within the processing, et cetera? Or what are the issues in this program?
Mr. Dangzalan: I think IRCC would be the best institution to answer the question.
If I may, I think what is happening are the supply of slots for the particular programs — because they would receive a certain number of allocations, because they have essentially front-loaded the permanent residence component of it. They are essentially screened for PR eligibility at the front end of an application, which slows down the application. Even without the pandemic-related delays, it was already slow.
In the context of 2.4 million in backlog last I checked, it’s not helping.
Senator Martin: Right. I believe you said you need to get back to us, but you used the phrase “global talent arms race” and that really grabbed my attention. You listed a number of countries. I was curious about countries where Canada would be competing, the Commonwealth countries, the United States. I wonder if you have examples of what they are doing well that we need to look at.
Mr. Dangzalan: Well, the United Kingdom, if I may, recently implemented a program relating to graduates of top universities of the world. If you are a graduate of the National University of Singapore, for example, which is usually classed in the top 10 or top 20 depending upon which ratings you are using, these folks would be eligible for openwork permits to come to the U.K. and work in any industry that they would like. That is the sort of competition that we are facing from Commonwealth countries.
Of course, as the pandemic eases up, we’ll see Australia and New Zealand reopening their doors, and they will ramp up on immigration as well. That competition, in view, especially, of the backlogs, we might lose some talent.
Senator Martin: Yes. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for making the trip to meet with us in person. It is much appreciated.
I wanted to ask a question about the target that was announced for 500,000 incoming new Canadians, hopefully, and really pick up on some of the comments now made to Senator Martin about the backlog.
We know there have been recent announcements about increased hiring at IRCC. We would all agree that that is essential given the backlog. I have two questions. One is the big picture, one is much more detailed.
The big-picture question is the 500,000 incoming new Canadians and the backlog. I understand that nobody has a crystal ball, but you have a great deal of experience in processing and supporting workers who are coming into Canada and wanting to stay in Canada. Is there something missing in this potential program? Is there something that you wish that you had heard or seen that did not show up so far from what we have heard from IRCC?
Mr. Dangzalan: Yes. Thank you for the question. It is my pleasure to come here to Ottawa. This used to be my stomping grounds. I went to the University of Ottawa.
In terms of big picture, what we would like to see as an organization is a little bit more transparency from the department when it comes to how they want to deal with the backlogs.
One particular example that I have in mind is their digital transformation strategy, which, I think, is very important. It is an important component in modernizing their creaky processing system, based out of the global case management system which has helped IRCC through the years. But it is an aging technology that needs to be replaced.
There are plans in place, but if it weren’t for some people in the immigration bar making some noise about the use of artificial intelligence and advanced analytics, IRCC would not be as in the mood to disclose how these programs are actually being implemented. What we have seen of late — from Minister Fraser specifically — is that they’re becoming more proactive in sharing that these programs are going to be implemented in particular immigration programs. For example, they announced in October that they will be using advanced analytics for study permit extensions from inside Canada. We appreciate the transparency. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has also called on the department to be a bit more transparent when it comes to using advanced analytics and artificial intelligence. I feel that the conversation is just beginning, and it is a very important component of immigration decision making in the future.
I suspect we need to keep encouraging the department to keep talking about this.
Senator McPhedran: I grew up in a rural area, and it happens that my hometown — I come from Neepawa, Manitoba — has seen a doubling of its population as a result of incoming workers from countries who are settling there.
I also know from growing up in a rural area that injuries occur.
Drawing from your extensive experience, I wonder if you could speak to what happens when someone becomes disabled either temporarily or — predictably — longer term. How does Canada handle that? Do we have opportunities for improvement?
Mr. Dangzalan: What I will say is this is variable from one province to the next depending upon the level of access to health care. Most foreign workers in most provinces have access to the Medicare system in Canada. In terms of disability, that is also something that is dependent upon the province.
For example, Ontario’s social assistance programs may not be the same as what Manitoba would be giving to someone who has an injury befall them. It is a function of the differences in the workplace-related rules we have for occupational and health safety. Unfortunately, this is not my wheelhouse. It is no longer immigration. However, my understanding is that it is very much a patchwork.
Perhaps it should be a conversation between immigration and the provinces when they expand the provincial nomination programs, given that the provinces are being given more leeway in determining their own immigration pathway.
Senator McPhedran: This next part of my question may be more in your wheelhouse. Have you experienced people coming to you because they are, in effect, being forced to leave the country as a result of a disability that has occurred in the course of their working in Canada?
Mr. Dangzalan: Unfortunately, I have not, so I can’t speak to that matter, Madame Senator.
Senator McPhedran: That in itself is very interesting.
The Chair: Generosity is my middle name today with time.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, I appreciate that.
My other question is about gender — more specifically about sex: female to male. It would appear that in the major programs, we see a much higher number of men in both of those programs. Whenever I see that, I wonder if there is some bias operating. It may be unconscious bias. It may be deeply systemic and not seen or experienced as conscious discrimination. But the numbers are very interesting. It looks like it is about 80% of men in one program and 50% in the other program. Could you just give me a sense — again from your experience — of what is happening for women who want to come to Canada and be a part of the programs we offer?
Mr. Dangzalan: That is a very important question. It is not so much that the system discriminates by pigeonholing men or women into particular occupations. Yes, there is something to be said about the perpetuation of such stereotypes and gender roles. However, it is also a function of recruitment. We also need to be cognizant that caregivers, for example, are recruited from abroad, and sometimes there are societal biases that may be outside of Canada’s reach when it comes to recruiters operating in a foreign jurisdiction.
That goes the same way for the seasonal agricultural worker program. I think there is a gender stereotype that men are more robust and that they are going to be able to bear the brunt of a hard day’s work in the field, which we know is not necessarily true. That is the same for the health care sector where it is predominantly women — especially nurses, registered practical nurses, nursing aides and orderlies.
What I will say is that the department is implementing a more robust analysis. From what we have heard and seen from their disclosures, they are now implementing a gender-based analysis — GBA Plus — in their program and policy development. So we look forward to having more conversations about the role of gender and sex in terms of crafting an immigration policy. It will be an interesting conversation as immigration now shifts to the provinces and regions.
We all need to be reminded — you are right, there is an overemphasis and overrepresentation of men, especially in the agricultural sector, and there is an overrepresentation of women in the caregiver sector.
Senator McPhedran: Can I continue to drill into that more?
The Chair: A little.
Senator McPhedran: I just want to ask: In these conversations that you have been describing, is the gender disparity on the agenda? Is it being looked at specifically? Are the programs being analyzed through the lens of Gender-based Analysis Plus? Is that being applied?
Mr. Dangzalan: What I know is that the analysis and the policy and program development — GBA Plus — is now a regular thing that IRCC undertakes.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: My apologies for coming late. If I ask you something that you have already said, just tell me that I missed it because I was late. All right?
I have one observation and then three questions. I was distressed but secretly somewhat relieved to have you describe the programs as a cacophony because as someone who is trying to make sense of this — I’m rather new myself, and our chair knows this stuff way better than me, for sure — I find it completely confusing. It must be horrific for someone who is trying to figure their way through this. There is one program, another program, this program starts on this day, another ends on this day. It is bizarre, frankly.
I feel better having said that.
You talk about the United Kingdom top universities model. That is a very interesting one as has been suggested here many times.
Regarding the “genius visa” that the United States uses to fast-track top-level foreign workers: I suppose, unless you are Donald Trump, you can fast-track really top talent — particularly scientists and high-tech workers in Silicon Valley — right on in. They take a much shorter time to get citizenship. Does Canada have a similar fast track approach and, if it doesn’t, should it?
Mr. Dangzalan: Are you referring to the O-1 visa, senator?
Senator Kutcher: Yes, it is called the genius visa.
Mr. Dangzalan: One of my clients actually took advantage of the O-1 visa in the United States, and my understanding was that there was no pathway to a green card for that particular program. They have to transition themselves into another program to permanent residency in the U.S. But they are definitely attracting a lot of talent in a fast way and bringing them in very quickly through an O-1 visa. My understanding as well is that they have to be sponsored in the U.S. in order to do that.
Is there a similar program in Canada? We do have the self-employed visa for permanent residents. That would be the closest analogue that I can think of. As IRCC describes it, it is designed for artists and athletes. As it happens, I have a client who is both an artist and an athlete in a foreign jurisdiction who we are trying to put into that category. The processing times are really slow. We are looking into the order of two to three years pre-pandemic. I don’t even want to know what it is right now, quite frankly. I have not extrapolated the latest numbers in terms of processing for that particular program.
Should we have a program similar to that? Perhaps it should be added into the mix of the conversation. You mentioned the one that the U.K. has for top graduates. There are other ways to attract talent. Last month Spain, for example, passed the start-ups law which allows for start-ups capitalization of a particular amount to come in. The analogue in Canada would be the Start-up Visa which is problematic and riddled with a lot of problems. CILA has spoken on this particular program in the past. I think it needs a thorough review and a rethink in order to see where the start-up economy is actually going.
We should look to countries such as Portugal and Spain when thinking about start-ups and digital nomads as well because they also bring a reserve of talent — not necessarily for them to immigrate per se, but to rub elbows with start-ups here in Canada. The function of start-up incubators is an interesting phenomenon across the world. It really is a germination point of innovation, creative thinking and disruption in critical sectors of the economy that potentially lead to a lot of benefit for the country.
Senator Kutcher: That is useful.
The Chair: Can we focus on low-skilled, temporarily foreign workers?
Senator Kutcher: Yes. Next, I want to know about what, in Canada, is called the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act so that if your business goes bust, the workers have some form of protection. What happens to low-skill workers who come and the farm goes insolvent or the fish plant that they are working in crashes? What happens to them then?
Mr. Dangzalan: With the committee’s and the senator’s permission, I would like to get back to you with an answer on that. This is a very important question. Unfortunately, I cannot answer it. This is beyond the scope of what I normally do. This is a bankruptcy and insolvency question. I will get back to you on this point.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
The other question that I have is on recruiters. Is there any oversight for recruiters in third countries who recruit these temporary foreign workers? I hear horror stories about them paying exorbitant amounts of money to these recruiters. When they come here, however, they can hardly make what they’ve paid already. Does Canada have an obligation to people who do that? Do we do something about that?
Mr. Dangzalan: My understanding of the rules surrounding recruitment is that there are already regulatory provisions that prevent them from recouping the costs of recruitment from employees, which was typically the standard practice and still, unfortunately, it is being done by unscrupulous recruiters.
In terms of enforcement, this is where the difficulty comes in. A lot of these recruiters operate in foreign jurisdictions, and IRCC has no jurisdiction to enforce the regulations outside of Canada. It only becomes a question here, in Canada, when it becomes a question with the LMIA compliance. One of the components of the Labour Market Impact Assessment Agreement that an employer signs are that they have to respect the regulations, including not recouping the recruitment costs from the employee. There is a mechanism to enforce that.
I would go further, especially now that we are facing the brave future of pushing the envelope of immigration toward provinces and the regions. The provinces, the territories and the municipalities should be seen by the federal government as partners in the enforcement of these particular regulations. They would know better what is going on in their own territory and what laws apply in their particular jurisdiction when it comes to employment standards, labour standards, occupational health and safety standards.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much.
Senator Moodie: I want to dig a bit deeper into the data. I was hoping to ask your thoughts around the data we collect around temporary foreign workers. From your perspective, is the data we collect useful and meaningful? Does it give you the ability to understand how migrant workers are doing, how we need to support them and where the gaps are? To your knowledge, does this data influence the Temporary Foreign Worker Program currently in place? Is it complete? Are there serious gaps?
Mr. Dangzalan: That’s an important question. Thank you for that.
The data that IRCC collects is an important baseline from which we can do wonderful statistical analysis in regard to where the program is and where it is headed and, historically, where it has been and what trajectory we are taking.
For example, I collected data on the approval rates of study permits from 2007 to 2016. I ran it with a standard correlational analysis. My other pivot was GDP per capita. In our own side project, we saw that there was a relationship between the GDP per capita — PPP adjusted, obviously for each country — vis-à-vis the approval rate for a study permit from that country. I would be interested to see the approval rates for temporary foreign workers as well. I have not had a chance to look into that.
IRCC collects a good source of data. Where the gaps are, I believe — and we have argued for this and made submissions to both IRCC and CIMM in the past — is that IRCC does not collect race-based data. They only collect data when it comes to nationalities and citizenship, not data on race. That is in contrast to comparable countries such as the United States. They do collect race-based data. I believe that will open new vistas for us in crafting policies, crafting laws and crafting regulations. It will allow us to see where our blind spots are. For now, it is a blind spot. It is something that they can start doing. I hope that IRCC will undertake to do this.
The Chair: With your permission, colleagues, I have a few questions of my own. I am taken by the word that you used to describe the complex pathways to entry and permanency for caregivers. You called it a cacophony. As far as I know, there are five or six concurrent pilots running. I could not make out which strain I would fit them to.
If you were in the driver’s seat, what changes you would make to the caregiver program?
Mr. Dangzalan: First, I would do away with pilot programs. Even the best of immigration lawyers that I know who works in the immigration space is starting to get really confused as to which programs apply.
Supposedly, there was a one-time program or, in its other iteration, a two-time program, namely, the interim pathway for caregivers. This was some time in 2019. The vision for that temporary program was to clear the backlog of the live-in caregiver program, for the caregiver program and for the caring for those with high medical needs and caring for children. I think that I have identified four programs. That was supposed to clean it up, but it didn’t. They tried to do it twice.
The weakness for that particular program was that it was only open for a short window period. Try to imagine yourself as a caregiver who works in, say, King City, Ontario, where public transit is not exactly the best. Your only time off is Sunday. As it happens, you do not have access to public transit on Sunday there. You are going to try to head to downtown Toronto to do your language test. However, because you are saddled with a lot of work during the weekdays, you cannot prepare yourself to do your language test. Keep in mind that the program is only open for about a month-and-a-half, twice. This person isn’t given a lot of time to prepare or to pass this exam that would have qualified him or her for a pathway to permanent residence. If I were in the driver’s seat, I would do a robust reopening of the interim pathway to clear the backlog.
In conjunction, I would learn from the lessons and the mistakes of all programs in the last 10 years, including the programs under former Prime Minister Harper for example, the Caring for People with High Medical Needs Program, Caring for Children Program and the Trudeau pilots which are the current home care program and those for children; try to learn the lessons from those programs.
One of the big takeaways, I think, is the removal of the LMIA requirement, which removes a lot of the stress on the foreign worker, also the removal of being employer specific. This is one of those programs that IRCC had that is occupation specific so they can switch employers. So long as they stay within their occupation they are fine, and it prevents a lot of abuses. So that’s a huge positive that should be carried over to the next program.
What I would probably not carry over are the stringent measures that they have undertaken — and I understand where they are coming from — where they upfronted the requirements for permanent residents because they want to prevent the heartbreak.
But IRCC and the government need to understand that there are needs from Canadian families for care, for example, so perhaps acknowledging that not all caregivers have the intention of actually staying in Canada anyway. That’s probably a very small percentage, but it is still a thing that does happen. I have spoken to caregivers who have no intention of actually remaining in Canada. It is very rare, but they do exist.
Perhaps going back to the drawing board regarding front-loading the PR requirements could be one of the things that could be reviewed and in a new program. If that goes hand in hand with the reimplementation of an interim pathway, that should clear up the backlog, and address a lot of the needs for our Canadian families requiring care.
The Chair: So you would like to go back to the original two-step program, where live-in caregivers came, worked for a certain time, proved they are X, Ys, and then applied for permanent residency. That was the old program, and the numbers were small, but it worked well?
Mr. Dangzalan: I think there is merit to talking about it, but there is also merit to talk about keeping the positive aspects of front-loading the permanent residence aspect of the program. Because at the end of the day, let’s not kid ourselves. A lot of these caregivers do want to become permanent residents, and it is a given and definite pathway that’s lasted for almost a hundred years now.
Being honest about it is critical, but at the same time, there has to be a balancing of interests here in the sense that we do need to provide an avenue for Canadian families to hire caregivers in the interim while this program is being worked out.
The Chair: You talked about language tests. Could you please inform us about the cost of the language tests every time a caregiver or a temporary foreign worker has to renew their visa, what does it entail?
Mr. Dangzalan: Language test costs anywhere between C$250 to C$350. I have known caregivers who have taken these tests five to ten times just to get the right scores that they need. That is in the order of $3,500, and that’s usually a month’s worth of salary if we’re using Ontario’s minimum wage as the standard here. So it is a very heavy burden that they have to undertake.
What is interesting is when they do apply for their work permit, there are certain credentials that are already required from them, and one of this is a language assessment, also an interview. My understanding of the requirement for a language test is so they can integrate well into Canadian society, which to me poses a big question. They are already in Canada. They are functioning members of the Canadian economy. So why is it that there seems to be a preoccupation on obtaining a five out of ten score for a particular test?
There is also the underutilization of accommodation when it comes to disabilities, for example, for those who are taking the test. I have had clients in the past who have possible learning disabilities for example, or who have severe test-taking anxiety. You talk to them, and you know they have functional English or French; however, they don’t perform well when they are being tested. So privatizing this portion of discretion to an officer to interview should be reviewed.
One analogue that I can think of is under the Citizenship Act, a citizenship judge can actually interview an applicant if they have problems passing the test, for example. Sometimes, in certain situations, it could be waived. For example, people over 55 are no longer required to take the citizenship test. Why is it that we can’t do something similar for caregivers?
The Chair: Senator Moodie, I am terribly sorry. I think I may have cut you off.
Senator Moodie: No, but I could ask another question.
The Chair: But you have to wait for Senator Petitclerc’s turn first. Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: My question will be short because you already answered many of my concerns. I’m one of those members who find it quite complex, and I’m still trying to figure it out. So I was going to ask you about an example, your clients, what issues and what obstacles, but you did cover a fair bit of that right now. But if you have a little more, what are the major issues or obstacles when someone comes to you that keeps coming back?
Mr. Dangzalan: Well, there are situations when, for example, a temporary foreign worker enters Canada with a clean bill of health because they completed the medical exams from their home country or home jurisdiction. They have stayed in Canada for a certain number of years, but then they develop certain maladies that essentially make them inadmissible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. So those situations can arise. Yes, they have coverage while they are temporary foreign workers. However, that essentially bars them from becoming permanent residents ever. So the fact that they develop that disease while they are in Canada, there is something about that that touches the conscience.
Senator Petitclerc: Yes, and they have no recourse.
Mr. Dangzalan: The recourse is under section 25, the humanitarian and compassionate grounds application, but I think I should underscore to this committee that the approval rates for agencies are in the single digits.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
The Chair: If I may, let me probe further on language tests because I do find that incredibly onerous for low-wage workers to have to keep taking and retaking these tests.
We have heard the minister, and many others say that the best path to integration is employment. Now, if these workers are employed, can we not make an assumption that by virtue of being employed, they are furthering their integration? Would you like to see subsequent language tests abolished or made optional under the circumstances?
Mr. Dangzalan: I think for those who have been made to submit language tests in the past, if they have already gone through that gate keeping, there should be some leniency when crafting new programs for them to transition in the two-step immigration process from a temporary resident to a permanent resident. It should be subsumed, understood, that they have already integrated from a language perspective if they have already submitted their language tests when they were applying from Jamaica, for example.
And certain countries as well, there could be a level of facility of English that is not necessarily on par with what IRCC may want, however, may be functional and sufficient for the economy. And that is usually the situation with some of my clients who have their employers vouching for their language abilities, but for some reason can’t do the tests or can’t perform well during the test. So, certainly, exemptions should be made.
My understanding of the two pilot programs at the moment is that they were created out of special public policy under section 25.2 of IRPA. So that if they ask for humanitarian and compassionate grounds for an exemption from language tests — that is, if they have flunked a test five times and they don’t want to pay for a sixth one — that application gets transformed into a pure agency application, which, as the members of this committee may know, is a higher onus to meet if you are dealing with the full-agency application. You are doing all sorts of analysis, including undue hardship, if you are only dealing with adults and whatnot.
Something has to be said about these public policies being crafted under section 25.2 and their recourse to section 25 for humanitarian and compassionate grounds exceptions. If this were a PGP, a parent/grandparent, application, you have agency resources even if you belong to that particular program alone. It doesn’t need to be transformed into a pure agency application. However, if you are with an interim pathway for caregivers, for example, which is a section 25.2 program, and you ask for one small exemption, it gets transformed into pure agency and you are sent over to the Vancouver office.
The Chair: My understanding of the evidence is that farmers and cooks are in the sector that has the highest demand for temporary foreign worker positions and their employers are farms and restaurants. However, farmers and cooks do not qualify for settlement services because they are temporary foreign workers. Yet, we know that they fall into moments in their stay in Canada where they need advice and counselling. Would you like to see the settlement sector better supported or would you like to see eligibility for settlement services by temporary foreign workers?
Mr. Dangzalan: I would like to say both. That is, to expand the eligibility and to put more resources toward these settlement organizations.
What we have also seen — and this is verified by my sources in northern Ontario, for example — is that there is now an oversubscription by international students and their families for social services because they can access food banks and whatnot. There is definitely a need for more resources for people coming in. A line of dialogue for both the federal government and the municipalities is certainly an opportunity that is waiting to be taken advantage of.
The Chair: You would like to see settlement funding and eligibility expanded to temporary foreign workers and international students?
Mr. Dangzalan: Absolutely.
Senator Moodie: One of the biggest problems in the sector is the additional and unregulated financial burden placed on the temporary worker who wishes to transition and is seeking a pathway. I call it preying on these folks. You talked about a lot of this activity happening in jurisdictions outside of our control. That is true, but a lot of it is happening here.
What sorts of activities and information — whether it be information sharing or anything else — do you think would help improve the knowledge base of individuals who are in this position and who often get charged an additional amount, for example with the language tests, to fill out a form? It’s a significant additional amount. They are being preyed upon, and there is little effective regulation it seems. What needs to happen here?
Mr. Dangzalan: First, the services need to be downloaded even further and in a substantive and meaningful way such as making the resources available in multiple languages beyond the official languages of Canada. We should base it on statistics and facts, depending on what the census data tells us, on which newcomer population is largest, for example, if it’s Tamil, Tagalog, Farsi or Hindi. We can allocate resources in order to penetrate those communities further.
The other thing that comes to mind is last month I was in Calgary. I spoke to an organization there that does regular public legal education to members of their own community to orient them with respect to their rights as temporary foreign workers. Looking into organizations that do this and funding them, backing them, supporting them and encouraging them is far more effective than a lot of the typical mainstream campaigns that we can think of. That is, the grassroots approach when it comes to community organization and to diffusing information such as this.
One thing we need to understand about temporary foreign workers is that some of them come from a culture of keeping to their circle of friends. If they do source their information from trusted sources within their own community, they tend to believe that more. That would prevent situations where they are preyed upon by unscrupulous agents, for example, who would charge excessive fees just to fill out a form.
Senator Moodie: What about other means of giving out information beside word of mouth? Many folks don’t have access to computers, and that tends to be our traditional go-to approach. What strategies could we add here?
Mr. Dangzalan: There are social media campaigns. For example, the Province of Ontario — I live in Ontario, so I’m a little biased because I see it all the time — diffuse a lot of the information with respect to workers’ rights in languages of particular migrant communities. That is effective. Even if it’s social media — and I know that there could be technology and accessibility issues — we also know that a lot of people are now plugged into smartphone devices, for example. That is one way.
Apart from community organizations, other ways to do that would be places of worship, where there are people that they would naturally trust, for example. These are places where you can intervene. Essentially, we have to look at the community organization issue if we want to truly go down into the grassroots of it and diffuse the information.
Senator Moodie: Do we capture the data around people who are preyed upon?
Mr. Dangzalan: I can’t speak to that, but I can look into that for the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is working to implement a new version of the national occupational classification system, which was originally skill-based. The department wants to introduce something new that would have six levels. I’m sure you’re aware of this; the system would be based on training, education, experience and responsibilities.
Do you think these changes will have a significant and positive impact on the ability of foreign nationals to become permanent residents in Canada?
Mr. Dangzalan: It’s probably a little too early to tell if this will be positive or negative. However, with the changes to the TEER category system, it is now a five- or six-level ranking system; levels B and C have been branched out to provide a bit more nuance in the ranking of occupations. This gives IRCC the opportunity to admit certain professionals and workers to the express entry program. This may foster an opening, for example, for workers in long-term care residences.
We also talking about people who were previously classified as semi-skilled, but who can now access the express entry program.
This provides opportunities for applicants, but that remains to be seen, in my opinion. We really need to wait for a few rounds of invitations to determine if this works or doesn’t.
Senator Mégie: Okay. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you so much for being so patient with all our questions. I have one regarding closed, sectoral and open work permits. Clearly, employers like closed work permits because it gives them control, but we also know from evidence that employees — temporary foreign workers — are likely to tolerate abuse because they are interested in transitioning to the next step, whatever that step may be.
I wonder if there is a bridge that can be thought of, and that is open work permits. For example, in an industry where we know the demand is high and permanent — let’s say mushroom growers — an open work permit would be created for temporary foreign workers in the mushroom industry, and this would be planned with the participation of mushroom grower associations in Canada.
Mr. Dangzalan: I see. That’s a very interesting proposition, Madame senator. At the moment, we do have occupation-specific work permits, but sectoral-specific work permits are definitely a creative solution that would keep them within the same sector when we know that there is a particular need. It’s definitely a bit more targeted. As IRCC transitions into more data collection, big data and e-governance, I think there is a case to be made, depending on what data they collect and depending on what they are willing to divulge — because they are a little bit secretive when it comes to certain stats and how their machine works. But I would say that it is certainly a creative solution.
I will also say that in 2019, just before the pandemic, IRCC actually did do a call-out for comments on occupation-specific work permits. I’m not sure if they followed through. I don’t think they did. I think it just got overtaken by the pandemic. Now that we’re hopefully at the tail end of this global pandemic, we can start having that conversation. Your notion of a sector-specific work permit is definitely worth that conversation.
The Chair: As we’re coming to the end of our questions, let me ask you a million-dollar question. We are studying temporary foreign workers, their conditions and their route to permanence. What would be the top-line recommendations you would like to see in our report?
Mr. Dangzalan: What we would like to see is a coherent program that talks about transitioning temporary foreign workers into permanent residents, at least for those who wish to stay in Canada. We have used the two-step immigration process to great benefit to our country, but I think it’s also important for us to recognize that these are important workers who have a place under the Canadian sun and that they need to be cared for and they need to be appreciated for what they do for us.
The Chair: Thank you very much. The Canadian sun, when it shines, should shine equally on all of us. Thank you so much. You have been most generous with our questions. We thank you very much also for the information that you have promised to send to us.
I think we are adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)