THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 17, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 11:33 a.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: I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. My name is Ratna Omidvar, a senator from Ontario and chair of this committee.
I would like to do a quick go-around for my colleagues to introduce themselves to the witness.
Senator Dasko: Thank you. I am Donna Dasko, a senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Senator Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Today we continue our study on Canada’s temporary and migrant labour force. For our first panel, joining us by video conference, is Elizabeth Kwan, Senior Researcher with the Canadian Labour Congress.
Our second witness was unable to appear because of technical issues. Hopefully, we can reschedule her for another time.
We have the gift of time with our one and only witness. We can dig as deep as we like with her. Today, colleagues, is an unusual committee meeting in that we have to adjourn this committee meeting at 12:55 p.m. because the Senate will be sitting and staff have to move.
I would now invite Ms. Kwan to provide opening remarks. We usually have five minutes for opening statements. Given that you are the only witness, and we have more time, I will be more accommodating today on the time issue than we usually are in this committee meeting.
Please proceed, Ms. Kwan.
Elizabeth Kwan, Senior Researcher, Canadian Labour Congress, as an individual: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Good morning, senators. Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee today.
As an individual, I have advocated for migrants and immigrants for decades. I currently work at the Canadian Labour Congress, or CLC, which is Canada’s largest central body for 3 million workers in every sector across Canada.
Migrant workers come to Canada through two programs: the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, the TFWP, and the International Mobility Program, the IMP.
I want to start my comments with the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which is viewed by government and employers as an employer-demand-driven program, as well as an employer-controlled program, and operates as such.
The TFWP is structured to ensure a tremendous imbalance of power between migrant workers and the employers in the employment relationship because of the employer-specific work permit condition.
This makes migrant workers vulnerable to abuse and exploitation and provides employers with a stable low-wage and compliant migrant workforce. The vulnerability of migrant workers is further compounded by regulatory and policy deficiencies, such as fewer rights for agricultural workers under some provincial labour laws and employment standards and weak government oversight and enforcement of employer compliance within the TFWP.
The resultant impacts on migrant workers are numerous and serious, including substandard housing for migrant farm workers, poor or no adherence to health and safety standards, wage theft, debt bondage, human trafficking, poor work conditions, racism, discrimination and inadequate access to health care.
The narrative that the abuse and exploitation of the temporary foreign migrant workers are merely due to a few so-called bad actors detracts from the real issue, which is that the Temporary Foreign Worker Program by design systematically allows for these violations of labour and human rights.
Senators, I would like to move to the International Mobility Program, or the IMP, which has three times the number of migrant workers compared to the TFWP.
According to the government, the IMP’s objective is to advance Canada’s broader social, cultural and economic interests and competitive advantage.
The TFWP’s objective seeks to address labour and skill shortages by helping employers fulfill their labour requirements on a temporary basis when they are unable to find a Canadian or permanent resident to fill the position.
This differential characterization of migrant workers is an arbitrary one that depicts TFWP workers as less valuable and beneficial to Canada compared to the IMP workers, which I think we all know now is not true. Accordingly, the government exerts fewer accountability and due-diligence demands on IMP employers than on TFWP employers.
For example, the IMP employer can hire a migrant worker without a labour market impact assessment, or LMIA, whereas the LMIA is an employer requirement of the TFWP. Consequently, some employers use the IMP to circumvent the costs and the requirements of the TFWP. Canada actually has little data on the jobs being filled by the IMP migrant workers.
Senators, the implementation of the TFWP and IMP must be aligned and coherent with the government’s obligations on labour standards in Canada and internationally as well as its ambition to eradicate forced labour. It is concerning that some of the violations of the TFWP arise within the ILO definition of forced labour.
Migrant workers must have equal rights and the agency to assert their rights that are on par with Canadians and permanent residents through meaningful access and opportunities to permanent residency.
The Canadian Labour Congress will continue to advocate for rights, protections and justice for migrant workers.
Some of the CLC’s work in the last three years — so just pre‑pandemic and over the course of the pandemic — has been the development of the Migrant Worker Support Network pilot, the Agri-Food Pilot, the provision of the out-of-status construction workers in the GTA pilot for undocumented workers, advocacy for migrant workers during the lockdowns, advocacy for the temporary resident to permanent resident pathway for 90,000 migrants and numerous submissions, including those on strengthening migrant worker protections, the agriculture labour strategy, migrant workers’ housing and health care.
I have actually very diligently made my notes fit into the five minutes, so I will stop here. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to a robust round of questions from senators.
The Chair: I think that you will get to all your points in the one hour we have dedicated to you. It is really to our benefit that we get depth from you as opposed to just five minutes.
Colleagues, it is your turn to ask questions. Let me kick off with one for clarification. Ms. Kwan, you spoke about the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the International Mobility Program. Yesterday, we heard from witnesses about the dominant occupations in the TFWP: farm workers, cooks, caregivers, et cetera.
Could you tell us what the dominant occupations in the IMP are?
Ms. Kwan: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the question. Because there are administrative requirements under the TFWP, we actually understand what jobs are being filled when migrant workers come under the TFWP. In my comments, I said that the IMP is a little bit more lax in that regard. It does not require a labour market impact assessment, which means there is actually not enough information on what types of positions are being filled through the IMP.
Generally, the last time I looked, about 70% of the jobs in the IMP are under the broad category of “unknown skills.” So it is a little difficult to answer your question precisely.
Where I speak to the point of people using the IMP instead of the TFWP, for instance, if someone comes in to pick apples in an orchard under the IMP, what difference is that to someone picking apples in an orchard under the TFWP except that the programs are distinguished differently?
I think this is something that needs to be looked into because over the course of the last number of years, the number of people who have arrived under the IMP is now over three times that of the number of migrant workers under the TFWP.
Thank you.
The Chair: My understanding of the IMP is that the workers are generally intercompany transfers as well as workers who fall under agreements such as NAFTA and student exchanges that allow students from certain countries to come and work.
Should you have any further information on the interplay between the two and the fact that the IMP is being used as a lower-bar entry for TFWs, then do please let us know.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, Ms. Kwan, for being with us today. I have a couple of questions.
First of all, you said that the IMP is now being used as an easier way than the TFWP to get workers in. Do you feel that these two programs should be merged? Would that be a possible way to deal with the way the silos are structured right now? That is my first question.
My second question is as follows: I guess I was under the impression that the government was trying to deal with some of the abuses in the TFWP. I would really like a sense from you as to whether you feel there has been progress in dealing with the abuses in the program and, if so, where progress has been made, or where a lot more work needs to be done.
Those are my two questions. Thank you.
Ms. Kwan: Thank you, senator, for the questions.
Senators, as much as I appreciate the whole hour to myself, it also makes me very nervous.
To answer the first question about whether it should be merged, I do not think that the two programs should be merged because, if nothing else, what the chair said is correct: There are other streams that allow for transfers under our trade agreements, for instance, academics come in through the IMP. It is a mix, although I guess there are many streams in each of those programs. But it is a mix.
I am not sure if merging both of them would add value. In fact, it might add more confusion to the confusion that is already there. So I would say no.
But there are issues that need to be — how shall I say it — we need to be clear-eyed about how some of the positions in the IMP are being used. For instance — this is an older example — several governments ago, when there were some changes to the migrant caregiver program and there were more demands of the employers through the program, people could not find migrant workers through the TFWP. I know that what they did in that case was to go to the youth exchange program in the IMP to have someone come in to look after their kids instead.
It is about making sure we have systems in place and that people are actually able to follow through those systems. Again, the apple pickers, whether it’s the IMP or the TFWP, are both doing the same jobs, right? So I think these are more system and program issues that need to be sorted out. I definitely do not think that they should be merged because they are different.
I have to say, though, that I object to the premium given in the objectives to the IMP program because during the pandemic, without farm workers coming in to work under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, we would have been much worse off.
In terms of the abuses and violations under the TFWP, I would say that there is continuous work to try to make some progress and improve the program. For instance, some new amendments in terms of providing more protections for workers were just announced. However, there are two things here: One is that as long as the employer-tied work permit is in place, which means that the worker can only work for the one employer on the work permit, that imbalance of power will always exist. You can tweak it all you like. Fundamentally, that is the thing that is really creating a lot of inequality for workers.
I would say that, yes, the Canadian Labour Congress and myself have put in submission after submission to improve accommodations, protections and health services. There is work, but the progress needs to go toward ensuring that the migrant workers under the TFWP have equal rights as Canadians and permanent residents and can exercise those rights when they are here. And the way the TFWP is set up, especially with the closed employer-specific work permit, won’t allow that. That is why we advocate for permanent residency.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, Ms. Kwan, for being with us today.
I was struck by a phrase; I tried to write it down, but I may not have gotten it correctly. I think it is that people in the TFWP or the IMP should have rights and agency equal to Canadian workers. If you were advising us in terms of an overarching recommendation for this study, where would that fit in your list of recommendations?
Second, are there specific components that are related to that which need to be highlighted for each of those two different programs?
Ms. Kwan: Senator, thank you for your question. Can you please elaborate on the second question?
Senator Kutcher: Why don’t we do the first one first, and then I will move on to the second one? Thank you.
Ms. Kwan: Okay.
The equal rights element builds on my answer to the previous senator’s questions, which is that equal rights can only be available if people are not treated as another class of people or workers. In this case, the TFWP itself is structured to actually promote that imbalance.
When it comes to equal rights, there are a number of things. As I said before, the most important thing is that the workers who are under the TFWP are able to have meaningful access to and more opportunities for permanent residency if they want. Let’s say that we are moving toward that; in the meantime, the issue of the closed work permit has to shift to an open work permit so that, for instance, if there is exploitation or abuse, they have the right to move to another employer and move out of that situation of abuse and violation.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that.
Let me be more explicit. Would you recommend to this committee that we should, in our recommendations, note that the rights and agency of people in the TFWP or the IMP should be equivalent to that of Canadian workers? Would you suggest that as a good recommendation for the committee?
Ms. Kwan: Yes, I would. I believe that is in line with Canada’s obligations under its international commitments.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for saying that.
I want to move now to some of the operational specifics underneath that larger statement. One thing I have heard you say is to stop the employer-tied work permit and move it to an open work permit. Again, would that be a recommendation that would be a specific recommendation?
Ms. Kwan: Yes.
Senator Kutcher: Are there any other specific recommendations that you would make or urge us to make that would similarly improve the movement from what the situation is currently to a situation that is equivalent in rights and agencies to Canadian workers? Could it be housing, access to health care, et cetera?
Ms. Kwan: Thank you, senator.
Many of the things I have listed in terms of housing, health and safety, health care, work conditions — all of those things could be improved. Those operational elements can be improved with stronger government oversight and enforcement of employer compliance.
Let me give you a very recent example; I read this yesterday or the day before. There is a farm worker who was a day away from flying home after the season. He was struck by a car when he was on his bicycle and smashed his hip. They had to take him to hospital and all of that stuff.
The reason he was on a bicycle was because he was taking his laundry to a laundromat. Now, in terms of provisions of housing, those things are supposed to be available. Without strong oversight and enforcement, even though it might seem like a small thing to us sitting here, it sometimes ends up being very detrimental and harmful to the workers themselves.
I would say the same thing with regard to housing. When you have overcrowded bunk beds and when you are housing workers in buildings that none of us would even think of stepping into, let alone living in for months — those are the things about which the government has to step up in terms of oversight and enforcement of what is in the program.
However, having said all of that, the best thing that can happen — and this would be a recommendation — is to provide access and more opportunities for migrant workers, especially the low-wage migrant workers under the TFWP, to permanently immigrate to Canada.
The Chair: We will come back to you, Senator Kutcher.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Many thanks to our witness today; we really appreciate your being here.
I would like to pick up on some of the vulnerabilities of temporary workers, particularly farm workers.
To delve deeper into the topic, I would like to know exactly what happens when a worker is facing abuse. What kind of information does the person receive, what resources do they have, and who represents them? Do we know whether workers use those tools and resources, and whether the power imbalance is considered?
[English]
Ms. Kwan: Thank you very much for those questions.
What happens when a worker is abused? There is a program element now that the government provides for workers who are abused and who want to leave their employer. They can use that program to leave that abusive situation. The government puts them under this particular program for migrant workers who have been abused and then provides them with an open work permit. The work permit is a very time-limited work permit. I am reluctant to say what period of time that work permit is for, but it is a very limited open work permit, so the worker now has to find other employment.
This is what is less spoken about: You have policies and programs in place, for instance, in this case, but how does it actually work on the ground? First of all, you had a question about resources. It takes a tremendous amount of resources for a worker to actually file and get that open work permit.
What then happens is you have unions who represent agricultural or greenhouse workers, such as the United Food and Commercial Workers union, or UFCW, who go in and pull resources to help them file their situation with the government. You have other community groups, such as the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, who also put a lot of energy to support and provide resources to help workers literally fill in the paperwork and the proof that they have been abused or exploited, which is the other big thing.
It is not an easy thing to access because of resources and because of what is needed to file the abuse, so that leads to representation. I believe that the workers do need representation. We try our best with our situation right now because workers don’t have representation. In Ontario, you can’t unionize. There is no representation. In Quebec, there is some, but it’s not full representation. It doesn’t cover off everyone. Similarly in Alberta.
This is what I was saying about there being deficiencies in terms of labour laws and employment standards in certain provinces. Now, Ontario is probably the big one because most of the farm workers — I think about 40% — come to work in Ontario, which is where I am. They have no ability for representation. They have no ability to unionize. That’s the other thing.
Now, I want to say something to this committee. Again, how do these things play out on the ground? I have heard that the workers who actually make it through and get that open work permit are actually having a very tough time finding another job because the employers won’t hire them.
Policy has to work on the ground. That’s my philosophy and how I do my work. If it doesn’t work on the ground, it doesn’t matter how good it looks on paper; it really is not as effective as it could be. That was a brilliant example of how things can improve.
The last point that you asked about, whether workers use the program because of the power imbalance — it would take a lot. It would take, I think, a lot for people to actually speak up, given that so much depends on them not speaking up in order to continue working and also to come back the following year. The ones who do speak up are either so abused and exploited that it is totally unbearable or they basically suffer and hope that they will be called back next year.
Senator Moodie: I would like to thank the witness for being here today.
I would like to talk a little bit more about the resources that are available to temporary workers. I have had conversations with the other side of the penny, if you will, with individuals who are actually in the business of supporting and working with people to transition workers into open permits. They talk about the fact that individuals need help because of capacity issues around English and being able to cope with the complexity of some of these application forms and the need for basic help, such as writing the application on behalf of. These folks are in the business of charging for that service.
What supports do we offer to help individuals in this position deal and cope with some of the complexity of this process that is, in fact, going to protect them from some of the industry that preys on them to pay for this service?
Ms. Kwan: Thank you, senator, for that question. I think that it is very difficult in the world of the migrant worker to sort through the business interests of different people in the mix. This is not just about immigration consultants; it’s also about labour recruiters. It’s about other people who then may use other ways in our system to basically circumvent some of the requirements as an employer.
In terms of people going, in this case, to someone and paying them to fill in an application, we need more resources, and representation of workers is actually a very good way of doing it. We need more resources to support the migrant workers because, quite frankly, senators — I always say this, and it doesn’t matter who I’m talking to; I could be talking to the minister’s office, to the department or to you — government forms are not easy. I am well educated, I do policy and I read a lot. You could give me a form to fill out, and I don’t understand what information they want from me. To say that it’s purely because they don’t have enough English — I would say it is just that the forms are difficult. English or not, aside from that, the forms are just difficult, so they do need resources and supports.
Supports come in different forms. One is the provision of information of the workers’ rights, and that’s why there was the Migrant Workers Support Network pilot program, to provide information. Secondly, again, back to what I said, you can have the information and understand your rights, but you have to have the agency to actually be able to exert those rights. It’s not just about one thing; it’s about two things now.
To the previous senator’s question, when I say it takes a lot of resources to help someone file an abusive situation with the government, we’re talking hours and hours of time being spent to support that worker because of the requirements and the forms. It takes a lot of resources.
I don’t want to say that anyone who charges a fee is doing a bad job, but we also know that many who charge a fee actually do a bad job. Sometimes we, as unions or people who work in the community, who are activists and advocates for migrant workers, actually spend time undoing the paid mess that the worker then comes to us with.
It is very complicated. I think that if there were more resources that are not profit-driven, if there were more representation, then we could get ahead of this a little bit more.
The Chair: Ms. Kwan, are you suggesting that settlement and legal support networks should be available to migrant workers in Canada?
Ms. Kwan: Yes, absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Hello, Ms. Kwan. I don’t know if you have already answered my question since I arrived after your introductory remarks. Let me know if that is the case.
In your experience — because so far we have talked about temporary workers and how they can get permanent residency and so forth —, what percentage of them would really like to get permanent residency? Does it depend on whether they came to Canada under the TFWP, the temporary foreign workers program, or the IMP, the international mobility program?
We have often heard that many farm workers are happy to come and work here and then go hack home because they have earned enough to achieve their dreams or plans in their home country. What percentage of them really want to stay here?
[English]
Ms. Kwan: Thank you, senator, for that question. No one has asked that question yet.
I would say that the difference with the IMP would be that the chance of gaining permanent residency is a little higher than under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Some improvement has just been introduced, yesterday in fact, to adjust the Express Entry that would allow more people through the permanent streams.
For the most part, the permanent immigration system we have very much caters to what they would call educated, high-skill applicants. Over the years, it has really basically left very few alternatives to the temporary migrant workers, especially the migrant workers who are low wage. I say “low wage” specifically because they are not low skilled; they are obviously very skilled. You and I could not harvest asparagus as quickly as anyone who comes in to harvest asparagus every season.
When you ask what the proportion is, I think many would like to gain permanent residency. How many? We have to ensure that those who want to actually do get the access and the opportunities to do so, and the ones who don’t — well, we have to make sure that the programs actually work so that they are not subordinated under a program with such an imbalance of power.
I am very sure that many people would like to access permanent residency. This is not scientific, but the voices that you have heard lately in the media and in the work and in the protests and the advocacy work on gaining permanent residency for many migrant workers would be proof that there is a great demand for that. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Kwan. I think I hear you say — and correct me if I’m wrong — that our system in Canada for permanency is geared to class.
Ms. Kwan: Yes.
The Chair: And we need to bring more equity and justice into it — is that what I’m hearing you say?
Ms. Kwan: Yes.
The Chair: Can we switch to international students? International students are technically not temporary foreign workers, but, more and more, that back door is being used by international foreign students and being expanded by our government to fill the labour market needs. Many international students, I hear, come for the work as opposed to the education. What do you know about their working conditions and their rights as they try and navigate this world of studying and working or maybe just working and staying?
Ms. Kwan: Thank you, senator. Generally, I own up to not having a depth of expertise on the international student front. If we have people who are here to study, to work and all of that, why wouldn’t we welcome them? On the other hand, I do know that many new entrants to the Canadian labour market, whether newcomers or international students, enter the market at a disadvantage. In most cases, they end up in low-wage jobs or in jobs for which they are overqualified. That needs to be addressed.
International students get caught up in the system as well, sometimes being stuck in low-wage work. For instance, this comes to mind immediately. If you were an international student and you got a job at a gas station, working for half a day every day, what do you put on your résumé? It sort of perpetuates. When you enter a low-wage position, your experience builds on that experience. I think it takes away from what that person can actually offer to their fullest potential when that happens.
There are many ways to support students entering the labour market by doing jobs which are a little bit more commensurate with their education. They do what they need to do — and this is the reality part of it — to have some money to live off and make sure they have food and shelter. It’s difficult, but we must be careful that we’re not relegating international students to start off and stay in low-wage jobs.
It’s similar, senator, to the situation many years ago when we invited immigrants with high qualifications, but then the doctor ends up driving a taxi. You lose skills when you are stuck in a low-wage job that you need to get by, but it doesn’t build on either your existing or future credentials. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Kwan, for being with us for an extended period of time. We have been really well informed by you during this period. Please send us any further information that you would like us to receive.
Colleagues, for our second panel, we welcome by video conference Deena Ladd, Executive Director, Workers’ Action Centre. This is not the first time or likely the last time that Ms. Ladd will appear before this committee. Thank you for being with us today. I now invite you, Ms. Ladd, to provide opening remarks.
Deena Ladd, Executive Director, Workers’ Action Centre: Thank you, Senator Omidvar.
Honourable members of Parliament, thank you for inviting me to speak to you today on behalf of the Workers’ Action Centre.
Our organization supports many workers in precarious and low-paid work, many of whom are migrant workers and undocumented. We are also a member of the Migrant Rights Network, which is Canada’s largest national migrant-led coalition.
The current treatment of migrant and temporary foreign workers is fundamentally about whether we want a fair society where everyone has the same rights, the same access to justice and the same opportunities, or whether we want one that favours a system of growing inequality.
On a daily basis, I witness the horrific abuses that arise from our unjust immigration policies. We have to do better, and we need leadership from the Senate to ensure that we are implementing a comprehensive regularization program for undocumented workers without caps and exclusions. This is so critical right now.
We also need your leadership to ensure that we have a just system that protects migrants from abuse and exploitation, which is why I’m calling on you to demand that Canada must include full and permanent immigration status for all migrants, including farm workers, care workers, students, refugees in Canada and landed status on arrival for all migrants in the future.
Every month, our meeting room is packed with migrant workers who are dealing with wage theft, racism, discrimination, violations of their basic rights of work and have nowhere to turn.
I want to talk to you about a worker I met five or six weeks ago who came to our centre for help. Let’s call him Miguel. Miguel responded to this country’s call for workers. Right now, chefs and cooks are in high demand from restaurants. He paid approximately $4,000 to various recruiters and processors to get an LMIA to work as a chef in a Toronto restaurant.
He put down first and last month’s rent on an apartment, so used up his savings to come here, leaving his wife back home. He got a tied work permit to work in this restaurant, and only this restaurant, for the next two years. He worked for this restaurant for six weeks and was fired. His crime: to stand up to the verbal abuse and bullying from the restaurant owner.
He came to the centre and said, “What can I do?” He had filed for an open work permit for vulnerable workers, which is supposed to protect workers like him. It was denied. Immigration basically said that he could only work for this restaurant for the next two years. So basically the lesson he has learned is to keep your mouth shut, put up with the abuse and do nothing.
He has found another employer who wants him, but they have to apply for a new LMIA, and the application and the legal costs are at least another $5,000 for this process. The employer doesn’t want to pay. He feels that he is doing Miguel a favour. How does Miguel come up with this money? His savings are gone.
The laws in Ontario are supposed to protect workers from things like this, but if Miguel doesn’t pay, he doesn’t have a job or an income. He can’t do anything except pay, pay and pay, keep his mouth shut if anything happens. But all this could have been avoided if we had allowed Miguel to enter this country with PR, permanent residency.
In April of this year, Canada made it easier for employers to hire migrant workers on closed work permits using the excuse of labour shortages, but for workers themselves, there are no protections. Whether it’s provincial labour laws or federal inspections, access to justice relies on workers speaking up and complaining, and workers like Miguel and hundreds of thousands of others face poverty, homelessness and, possibly, deportation if they stand up for their rights without permanent resident status.
I want to be really clear that this is not about a pathway to permanent residency. Miguel has a pathway, provided he pays this employer’s costs, puts up with the abuse and works for a year. These pathways are minefields of exploitation. Everyone in the country must have permanent resident status on arrival so that we can have equal rights and be able to deal with the kinds of situations that we’re dealing with at the centre on a daily basis. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Ladd.
Senators, your turn for questions. Please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or, if you do so, remove your headpiece.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, Ms. Ladd, for speaking to us today. One of the things that just hit me as I listened to you talking about restaurants — and I’m somebody who likes to go to restaurants, especially now, in the post-COVID period — is there a list of employers who have abused workers? I would like to see that because I would respond to that. I would not go to establishments that have a record of treating workers badly.
That’s just one of my questions.
For my second question, you have just told us that you believe that workers should enter as permanent residents. We have heard, and I’m not an expert in this field at all; I’m learning very much in this committee about the programs that we have, the silos, the requirements and so on, but what about the open permit idea? In your opinion, would this be a way to introduce migrant workers into Canada before they come as permanent residents? Just your thoughts on that, to clarify what that mechanism can do.
Ms. Ladd: Thank you. Yes. First of all, there is no list. The Ministry of Labour in Ontario — I can only speak for Ontario — has very few inspectors to actually do proactive inspections.
In the case of Miguel, as you could see, as soon as he stood up for himself and started speaking about the abuse, he was fired immediately. Many workers do not feel comfortable coming forward and speaking about what is going on. He is about to try to get into another restaurant. The lesson that he learned in his first case is not to say anything and not to do anything because his ability to earn money and to stay in Canada will be jeopardized.
We really do have to fundamentally address that issue.
In terms of the open work permit idea, I guess what I would like to say is my family and I, we came here in 1987 from England. We did not have to go through an open work permit to work here. My dad is a car mechanic; my mom is an office worker. We did not come through the business-class program. We did not come as professionals. We came as working people.
My dad ended up working in a warehouse, and my mom was an office worker and worked through many temp agencies to get full-time jobs.
If we had to go through an open work permit, we would still be vulnerable because that permit would not give us access to the same rights and working conditions and the same opportunities that my family had.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Ms. Ladd, thank you for being with us today. My question is quite broad. Feel free to tell me what you know about this. I am referring to foreign students before they come to Canada. When they fill out the forms, they indicate that they will indeed return to their country. That is what we ask them to do. Yet when we want to refuse one or more students, the only argument to justify denying them entry is that we have no proof that they will return home.
So I find it incongruous that we are talking here about measures or avenues of access that Canada wants to establish to welcome them here. What are your thoughts on that?
[English]
Ms. Ladd: I think that people want to make Canada their home. I think that international students spend a fortune getting an education here and also, while they are here, they are working and doing the kinds of essential jobs — we saw that especially during the pandemic — that nobody else wanted to do. They did not have the choice to stay at home and take care of themselves.
The thing is that we need a system that provides the process of ensuring that people who want to make Canada their home and work here have that without being indentured in many different ways, whether that is through horrifically high fees that are making people completely debt-ridden for the rest of their lives, and their families back home, or through tied work permits.
Some of these unfairnesses that we see, we have to tackle it at the root cause. We have to realize that, for many of us who came into this country, people are dealing with all kinds of things back home. We need to ensure that our system is fair. Right now for international students, it is incredibly unfair, and we have seen the impact of that.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: We don’t even let them in the country, that is, we refuse them before they even get here, after they have filled out their forms, saying that we don’t think they will go back home. That is why I am asking this question.
[English]
Ms. Ladd: No, absolutely. The system, from its root cause, has to change. We have to ensure that we are not putting people in an untenable situation. I completely agree. It is ridiculous, the kinds of torturous processes that we put people through that absolutely do not make sense.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I asked questions about abuse and potential abuse of highly vulnerable workers. I would have liked greater detail about what happens and how employers found guilty of such abuse are dealt with. What is the process? What happens to them? What are the consequences? Does that prevent the employer from hiring someone else later on? Can you shed some light on this for us?
[English]
Ms. Ladd: Yes. That is an excellent question. I think that basically the system is rigged against the worker because of the massive power imbalance due to the tied work permit. It is very difficult for workers to come forward. It is against incredible odds that they do. If they are farm workers, we have to rescue them. I am part of the Migrant Rights Network, and colleagues of mine whom hopefully you will hear from and who work directly with farm workers have to rescue farm workers directly from farms. I have had to go to people’s homes to rescue live-in caregivers from their homes because it is also the place where they live.
As you can imagine, when a worker is actually trying to challenge their employer, they are losing their home. They are losing any of the monies or investments that they have made.
For the worker then, their question is for survival. Sometimes they just do not have the capacity to take on those employers.
For us, when we are dealing with workers who are dealing with unpaid wages, we work with the worker to talk about how to challenge those employers. We visit those employers in their workplaces and challenge them for the unpaid wages. It is a very difficult, labour-intensive process because many undocumented workers do not feel comfortable filing Ministry of Labour claims because if the employer has information about them, they are worried that they will report them to CBSA.
It is a very difficult situation but, where we can, we at the Workers’ Action Centre challenge those employers directly. But can you imagine? We are a small non-profit, and literally just two weeks ago we had 160 cases of unpaid wages by individual workers, some of whom have ended up going back to their home countries in frustration. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
For us to be able to try to find those employers, challenge them all, follow the thread, I mean, sometimes you feel like a private investigator trying to find those employers.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ladd.
Senator Patterson: Thank you, Ms. Ladd. Your recommendations were clear that there should be a PR granted upon arrival for all migrant workers, that they should be allowed to work for more than one employer in the same worker category, as I understood what you said.
What about the LMIA? You spoke about the difficulties and costs of obtaining that. What is your recommendation about whether an LMIA is even needed when there is such a need for workers all over our economy?
Ms. Ladd: I just do not think that it’s needed. I think that people should be able to come and work and immigrate just like my family was able to do. We did the jobs. My parents did the jobs that needed to be filled, right?
Everyone has bills to pay. If you come into this country, and restaurant workers or shipper/receivers or warehouse workers are needed, those are the jobs that you get because you are trying to make this country your home.
I think LMIA is actually an awful process in so many ways because it ties a worker to an employer. It effectively muzzles them in a fundamental way to stop them from speaking up about anything. It is a device that has led to great abuse and unnecessary stress, mental anguish and horrific situations. We have seen a lot of evidence of that.
Senator Patterson: You are doing good advocacy work, as you described.
Can you tell us about whether or not you are getting any support from the federal government and whether that would be helpful?
Ms. Ladd: We are really excited about the fact that the government has committed to a regularization program for undocumented workers. This is the first time we are seeing this movement in many years. Through the Migrant Rights Network, we are working with the Immigration Minister to ensure that that regularization program is the best that it can be, with no exclusions and no caps, and can ensure that undocumented workers can get permanent residency.
In addition to that, we are again doing advocacy to show why it is not necessary to have these closed permits and the processes that they have at this moment to tie people to employers. This is where the Senate could play an incredibly valuable leadership role to support the advocates on the ground doing this work to ensure that we listen to what migrant workers want in order to make Canada their home and that we work with them to ensure that they do not have to put up with the kinds of situations that we have seen over decades.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for being here with us. We really appreciate your thoughts and your help with this. You made it very clear that open work permits are a major issue for us to focus on.
When I was preparing for this session, I naively typed into “Professor Google” “IMP Canada” and came up with a company that stated, “We are uniquely positioned to assist Temporary Residents with all requirements for Permanent Residency.” I do not know a lot about these types of companies. Do they assist temporary foreign workers or people who have come in through the IMP program? If they do, what is their value? What is their utility? What is your knowledge or your thoughts about this kind of thing?
Ms. Ladd: I do not know specifically about that particular agency.
We do know — and horror stories have been shared — about immigration consultants, recruiters and agencies that prey upon people to supposedly help them get LMIAs, get them permits and get them into Canada. Obviously, this is the unintentional consequence of a system that is complicated and produces many ways to abuse the system. We hear many stories about workers being told by them, focusing on different communities, using their first language to say, “We can help you with whatever your immigration needs are.” They take people’s money and then they disappear or they screw up their applications, and then these people become undocumented.
That is why, again, we need a public administrative system that is robust, that is funded and that is viable, which supports people to effectively move through an immigration system, which does not tie people to permits and LMIAs and gives a number of ways for people to take advantage of workers who, at the end of the day, want to stay in Canada and contribute to the economy and make this place a home for their families and themselves.
Senator Moodie: Thank you to the witness for being here today.
I wanted to dig more into the question of simplifying the system and removing the requirement for LMIAs, which I think I heard you say is something that would improve the system.
My understanding of the LMIA is that there are aspects of it that are employer-focused, that commit the employer to certain agreements and tie them into certain requirements that are actually protective for the individual who is applying for it.
Would you recommend keeping those pieces of the LMIA in some form — that is capturing them to continue and retain those protections — or would you say that the entire process needs to go?
Ms. Ladd: I would say the entire process needs to go from my own experience of advocating with workers. I think that Miguel’s situation was a perfect example of that because nothing worked to make that happen.
The whole notion that employers somehow have to show that they have put forward a job description and that they’ve advertised — there are consultants out there who will handle that for them. They know how to work the system. They know how to do the ads. They know how to show it. They make up all of the evidence. At the end of the day, the employer wants a worker to come in tied to their restaurant or to their company but without the ability to speak up. The LMIA controls them to such a degree that, in many cases, their accommodation — as I have said before — is also controlled. All aspects of the workers’ lives are controlled.
I think of ourselves. If I came into this country and I was tied to an employer — that is, my ability to stay in this country was tied to my work performance and my ability to be an obedient worker and not say anything about anything that was going on — that would be horrific. We have seen how this has played out in history and why we need to not do this. Yet, that is the process implemented in Canada. It is quite a horrific human rights abuse. We have seen the abuse that comes out of it.
We need to be able to give people the ability to have a voice and basic rights as they work in this country; otherwise, we see what we have seen.
The Chair: Ms. Ladd, when I speak to employers about either an open work permit or permanent residency, here is what I hear — and you hear this too — namely, “Well, if I need someone to pick strawberries, and they come in on an open work permit or permanent residency, what stops them from moving to a job at Walmart, and I lose my employee?”
The whole reason for a closed work permit is that we have the people we need in the jobs that we have, as opposed to people in the economy.
Do you have a response to that?
Ms. Ladd: Yes. I hear that all the time as well.
First of all, the employer has to look at their working conditions and all of the kinds of accommodation and issues that workers need to be able to pick strawberries, tomatoes, mushrooms in the best way possible.
What we have seen through the pandemic and through organizing is that those conditions are pretty bad on those farms. That is not to say that all conditions are terrible on all farms. It is up to the farmer and the farm to ensure that those conditions are decent.
The issue is if you go down a process of saying to someone that they cannot choose to move, and you are restricting their movements and their ability to stay in the country, and you are restricting any opportunity for that person to speak out or to have any rights, then what you are doing is creating an indentured slavery system. You can’t get away from that.
We would not want that for ourselves. We would hate that for ourselves. That we are okay for that to happen to workers who do these jobs, but only if they come from certain countries, I think says a lot.
We really need to challenge those employers and ask, “What are your working conditions really like? How are you treating people?” You have got to make sure that those conditions are fair and just.
There is a reason why people do not want to do those jobs, and that is because they are not very good jobs. It’s like meat processing plants as well. Nobody wants to do that kind of work. So how do we make that work good-quality work, with high pay and decent working conditions? That is not what those jobs are right now.
The Chair: I would like to thank you, Ms. Ladd, for your participation in our study. We have benefited a great deal from your perspectives.
(The committee adjourned.)