THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 16, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 11:30 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; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda.
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. I am the chair of this committee, and I would like to welcome our guests. I also want to apologize to our guests because we have scheduled and rescheduled this meeting a number of times. That is, unfortunately, the schedule in the Senate, but we are really happy you were able to join us today.
Let me start by asking my colleagues to go around the table and introduce themselves to our witnesses, starting with the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Bovey: I’m Patricia Bovey, from Manitoba.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, independent senator for Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc, independent senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator from Ontario.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We continue our study of Canada’s temporary and migrant labour force. Joining us by video conference are — and we welcome you — Andrew Griffith, Fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute; and Fay Faraday, Assistant Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University. Welcome. Thank you for being with us today.
We will begin by asking both of you to provide an opening statement of five minutes each. Mr. Griffith, we will start with you. The floor is yours.
Andrew Griffith, Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for this invitation. I’d like to address three major points in relation to temporary foreign workers. The first one is the issue of competitiveness and productivity. The second one is transitioning to permanent residency. The third one is with respect to the annual levels plan which should include information and planning for temporary residents, whether students or temporary workers.
Turning to competitiveness and productivity, we always have to ask ourselves, “What is the purpose of having temporary workers?” Fundamentally, it’s about improving competitiveness and the productivity of Canadian companies and addressing serious labour gaps in essential sectors, such as health care, agriculture and the like.
However, from a productivity point of view, increased numbers and flexibility of lower-skilled workers outside of essential sectors does little to enhance Canadian productivity and per capita GDP growth. In contrast, higher-skilled workers make that contribution.
While the case can be made for essential workers using the helpful Public Safety definitions, the increased easing of caps and lengths of work permits effectively provide a disincentive for companies to invest in productivity and improvements in working conditions, as Mikal Skuterud and his colleagues have argued recently in an article entitled, “The economic case against low-wage temporary foreign workers.”
Similarly, the easing of work time caps on international students is an additional disincentive along with the harm to education objectives. We really all should remember 2013-14 when the previous government had to reverse course as its easing of restrictions led to abuse by employers. The current government may be repeating that mistake with its recent reversal of the 2014 restrictions.
The committee may also wish to consider Skuterud’s call for a “cap and trade” system that would effectively have Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, issue a fixed number of permits per year and gradually reduce them in future years, allowing employers to trade unused permits rather than the current open-ended system. Over time, this would incentivize employers to improve productivity.
Second, transition to permanent residency. About one third of permanent residents first come to Canada as temporary residents, as reported by Statistics Canada. Transition rates are greatest for the International Mobility Program and international students and are weakest for temporary foreign workers, according to IRCC data. These numbers have consistently increased over time. The assumption that all temporary workers should or want to transition to permanent residency disregards some of the sectoral realities of seasonal agricultural work and the nature of intracompany transfers, which may be time limited. But by all means, we should improve the pathways and streamline the processes. However these pathways should be based on full-year employment, not part-time.
Finally, on the integrated levels plan, a number of your previous witnesses have argued that the annual report to Parliament should include projected levels for temporary workers and international students to provide a complete and comprehensive picture of Canada’s immigration plan. I fully agree given the large increase in temporary workers and international students since the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, mandated the report and the related increase in transitions since that time.
In short, a more critical look at the lower-wage temporary workers is needed, particularly with respect to longer-term productivity and per capita growth. I have added a number of recommendations to my statement that I would like the committee to consider, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Griffith. Professor Faraday, the floor is yours.
Fay Faraday, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, as an individual: Thank you very much, chair, and thank you, senators, for inviting me to be here.
I’ve been working with migrant workers on the front line as a lawyer for over 30 years, and I’ve had the privilege of appearing before the Senate, before the House of Commons, before legislatures across the country and feel I’ve been having the same conversations for 30 years. I hope that the Senate is taking this opportunity to have a very serious, deep look at the human crisis that we are creating with temporary labour migration. I really encourage you for the study you’re doing and hope that you’ll be looking at deep changes to secure real decent work and decent lives for people.
We have to remember that what is at stake are human beings, not inputs in labour — human beings who are part of our communities who are being routinely abused by employers and who live in a state of perpetual insecurity and long-term separation from their families. These are our neighbours, our friends and the people who particularly, through the pandemic, helped our economy function.
What I want to focus on is the absolutely critical, generational opportunity that is before us now to ensure that all undocumented workers are regularized and receive permanent residency status. Again, there are over 500,000 undocumented workers who are working throughout the economy across the country, without whom many sectors of the economy would collapse. They have been driven into undocumented status in many cases because of the constraints and limitations in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, the repeated need to renew work permits and the extent to which that system allows employers to exploit workers and to put them out of status.
It’s also a reflection of the fact that for many low-wage workers there are no pathways to permanent residence, and yet the economy needs them. There’s no reasonable way for permanent immigration to support all the jobs in our economy. Our economy cannot ever be one that is exclusively professional, upper-middle class and highly skilled. We need workers throughout the economy at all levels of the economy, which, again, was painfully obvious during the pandemic when it was migrant and undocumented workers who were on the front lines doing critical work keeping the economy moving.
Therefore I encourage you at this point to focus on two things: One is to push for and develop a regularization program that will allow all of the half million people who are part of our communities and our economy to receive regular status. That will enable them to enforce their rights. It will stop abuse. It will bring the parts of the economy that are off the books onto the books and ensure that our economy is operating appropriately.
We’re in a moment where Canada is experiencing a labour shortage, and without regularizing these workers there is going to be a need to recruit and replace even more workers in a context where we are in deep competition globally. In conjunction with that, it’s absolutely critical that deportations stop. The governing party is looking closely at developing a regularization program, and deportations should stop in the meantime.
Finally, it’s imperative to develop an immigration system for permanent immigration that recognizes that we need workers at all levels of the economy. The way our system is currently created excludes working class and lower-wage workers even though they’re essential.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Faraday.
We will now move to questions from our colleagues. Our first question will be from Senator Bovey, the deputy chair of the committee.
Colleagues, to help us keep the meeting running smoothly, we have two witnesses. I understand that many of you will want both witnesses to answer the same question. Could you kindly pinpoint who goes first? Help me out here.
Senator Bovey: I’d like to thank both the witnesses.
I basically have the same question for both of you. Mr. Griffith, because you spoke first, I would ask you to respond first.
You both talked about the need to improve pathways and — to use Dr. Faraday’s line — to push and develop regularization for all undocumented workers.
Dr. Griffith, you felt that the pathway should be based on a full year of employment rather than part-time employment.
Can I ask you both, please — and you’ll have to be succinct, given the time — just to flesh out the two points that you made with regard to the pathways?
Thank you.
Mr. Griffith: Well, in terms of the pathways, from everything that I understand in terms of following immigration is that all pathways to immigration are very complex for a number of various reasons.
There’s really a need, in my view, to actually undertake a thorough review of all the pathways and find ways that could be more streamlined, more user-friendly and the like. There, obviously, are some gaps with some programs, the pathways are easier and we see that in the data. That’s what I would say to that.
In terms of full-time, I think that if we’re really trying to encourage regularization and participation in the economy, and we’re looking at addressing labour shortages, I think the priorities should be full-time or full-year employment rather than part-time. We have other areas where part-time is allowed — international students, for example — so I don’t really see the need to expand that.
I’ll leave it at that.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
Dr. Faraday, can you comment with specifics? We’re looking for recommendations, not just that something needs to be reviewed. We need to have your thoughts as to what we should be looking at. We can’t invent what to look at. We can only report on what you tell us to look at.
Ms. Faraday: I’m happy to give you concrete examples.
First, I’d like to start off by saying that pathways are a problem rather than a solution. Pathways refer to two-step immigration programs where people are here on temporary status and may or may not have an opportunity to acquire permanent status. Number one, when I say that we need a permanent immigration system that allows for immigration with status, that means stop with the pathways and develop that permanent immigration system at the front end.
Number two is that regularization is something that is required because of a failure of the existing system that’s created so many people without status. That is something that should be broad, and should include all workers without status and not be based on what industry they’re in or how long they’ve been here. We have people who have been here multiple decades and some who have been here fewer years, but a full regularization for everyone regardless of the route that they got here and what industry they’re in.
In terms of full-time versus part-time, I think that is a dangerous distinction and one that’s effectively artificial. I have seen over the last decade seasonal work outside of farm work shift from being staffed exclusively by Canadian workers to being almost exclusively migrant workers. That is a policy choice that has created precarious work. The proliferation of all these different pathways for migration that are dead ends is part of the problem, not the solution.
I’m happy to talk about that more. Whether jobs are full-time or part-time, we live in an economy where the existence of full-time jobs is disappearing. Most work is part-time, and holding multiple jobs is a regular feature of the economy. Creating artificial barriers to regularization is a problem.
I have one final point. With all these pathways, there are tiny caps because Canada has been proliferating these routes to migration as pilot projects where, under the law, the cap is 2,750 people per program. As an example, for migrant care workers, that cap for Canada was filled in three hours this year.
It’s not just a matter of looking at the pathways. We’ve created the pathways that are still leaving most people on temporary status or undocumented.
Senator Bovey: Thank you very much.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you to our witnesses.
I’m going to tread in an area that is outside my area of expertise, so if I get things wrong, please feel free to correct me, and that is the issue around unionization of temporary foreign workers and migrant workers.
Cesar Chavez showed how effective that can be, but that’s going way back to 1962, followed by the grape boycott. If I remember correctly, it was 1975 when that finally all ended.
In 2011, at the Supreme Court of Canada, there was a constitutional challenge as I recall, and they excluded migrant and temporary workers under the Labour Relations Act. Do you think it is time to revisit that with another Supreme Court challenge? Do you think that migrant workers and temporary workers should be allowed to form a union to fight for their rights?
I know there is a small, united union in Canada that mostly operates in B.C., Quebec and Manitoba, but I don’t know how effective they are. My understanding is there’s legislation in Ontario — I could be completely wrong — that prohibits farm workers from forming a union.
I’d like your understanding, expertise and advice on this, please.
Ms. Faraday: I’m happy to respond to that, as I was counsel on those constitutional challenges. Every single argument that we made in those constitutional challenges is now the law. The right to unionize, the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike are constitutionally protected, but farm workers and migrant care workers are excluded by law from exercising them.
Bringing a constitutional challenge is a multi-million dollar endeavour that takes a decade to get to the Supreme Court, so asking migrant workers to bring a fifth constitutional challenge is ridiculous. We know what the law is. Governments at all levels should ensure that workers have those rights. In Ontario, migrant farm workers do not have the right to unionize. Quebec and other provinces have restricted those rights, making it harder to unionize.
But fundamentally, even in industries where there is the right to unionize, migrant workers can’t exercise it because of the precarity of their employment and the fact that they are tied to an individual employer who can dismiss them at will. Workers have unionized, but mostly when they try to do that, they’re fired and deported.
There’s a matter of having rights on paper, but the security of actually being able to exercise them depends on having status.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you. Before Mr. Griffith answers that, to deal with this, do you think that an amendment to the Labour Relations Act — that could be a legislative amendment — would actually solve that problem?
Ms. Faraday: Yes, it would be very simple. A number of provinces have provisions in their labour relations acts that exclude farmer workers. It’s not that workers are excluded based on their status of whether they’re temporary or permanent. They’re excluded based on industry, and as a result, industries have become predominated by migrant workers because the inability to unionize depresses the conditions.
It would be just a matter of repealing the provisions in legislation that exclude those sectors from unionizing. In Ontario, it would be a matter of excluding what’s called the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, which basically blocks workers from unionizing.
The Chair: Ms. Faraday — I won’t cut into your time, Senator Kutcher — can I ask you to clarify for us, when you say amendments to the labour relations code, you’re talking about provincial legislation?
Is there something in the labour law in Canada, which, of course, has different reach for working people? What do you think there?
Ms. Faraday: I think that for agricultural work specifically, that’s regulated almost exclusively at the provincial level. Again, if there are any sectors of work that are excluded in the Canada Labour Code, those exclusions should be removed.
More on the administrative end of implementing these programs is ensuring that workers have the security to actually unionize and to ensure that when they come to Canada, they are given full information from the government about their right to unionize and given contacts with unions in the areas they’re working.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Kutcher, back to your question for Mr. Griffith.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you. Mr. Griffith, could we have your thoughts on that particular issue?
Mr. Griffith: I have very little expertise on labour law and labour issues, so I leave that to Ms. Faraday for her comments. She has much more experience on this than I do.
Senator Kutcher: Thanks very much to you both.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My question is for both witnesses. Perhaps we could start with Mr. Griffith.
We’ve heard a lot about the abuses we see on the ground. We also heard some testimonies about possible solutions regarding work protection, inspections, and means of spreading information. That said, we know that even when workers are informed, they are not necessarily going to make use of the resources.
My question is, can all of these possible and potential solutions be effective as long as the worker is tied to one employer? Should this exclusive relationship be addressed first and foremost?
Mr. Griffith: Yes, that’s a good question because governments over the years have tried to improve labour standards, increase information sharing and all that, but we’ve never managed to solve all the problems. I don’t know if it’s a problem for 10% of employers or 20%, because we don’t have enough data.
Of course, there are issues with binding contracts. As far as companies are concerned, their perspective is that if they have invested in an employee, they are afraid of losing the employee under these conditions. There’s no solution that’s going to satisfy everyone. That is very rarely the case.
[English]
In balance, I think a greater move to flexibility is in terms of not having these closed work permits, at least finding ways that allow people to get out of those situations. In one sense, a lot of my concern is with productivity, but this is also about working conditions. Sometimes if you change those factors, you can make an improvement there. Thank you.
Ms. Faraday: I’d like to respond to that. Tied work permits are recognized by the United Nations as an invitation to exploitation. That’s been recognized for decades, and they should be eliminated. To the extent that workers are arriving with temporary status, they should be given open work permits or sectoral permits.
We do have a lot of statistics over many years about the rates of exploitation. There are many concrete strategies to prevent that exploitation, and I will happily send you two reports that I recently wrote for the World Bank that set out very detailed recommendations for reform.
However, the impediment isn’t that we don’t know what the solutions are. The impediment has, frankly, been lack of political will and the fact that we have a system that is — both through the immigration system, but even more so through the lack of enforcement of employment standards — one that seriously favours employers and gives licence to exploit. These are all known realities, but there’s been a lack of political will to address them. I will send you reports with concrete recommendations.
The Chair: We look forward to receiving them.
Senator Petitclerc: Mr. Griffith, you mentioned something on productivity. You just alluded to the fact that maybe if there were more flexibility and better quality and conditions of life, perhaps the workers would stay. I don’t want to say that’s what you said, but is that realistic? To me, it makes sense that if the conditions are better and there’s more flexibility, there would be no problem with workers going from one place to the other.
Mr. Griffith: It’s a good question because the thing is that if you make it too easy for employers in any number of respects, they’ll have less incentive to improve the conditions and to invest in other productivity enhancements.
One of the main points that I’ve been making is that we will always need a certain percentage of lower-skilled workers in certain sectors. But if you give employers too much flexibility, they will shift even more to those sectors rather than investing in Canadian workers whether they have been here for 5 years, 50 years or the like.
One of the things we always have to keep in mind is that you are trying to balance the labour shortages that business is complaining about at different levels, and the reality is that business will always complain about worker shortages and they will always want more people because that allows them more flexibility. That really doesn’t help the overall productivity of the Canadian economy, as we have seen over the years.
Senator Moodie: My question is primarily directed to Ms. Faraday. In our last meeting, we heard that educating migrant workers about their rights really is not enough, as advocating for their rights would likely lead to them losing their status as their status is — as you point out — inevitably tied to their employment with the closed work permit system.
Is this something you have seen reflected in the people you work with and the work you’re doing? I’m particularly interested in your thoughts on this issue from a legal perspective.
Ms. Faraday: Yes. It is 100% what I have seen in my practice for over 30 years. It is absolutely well known that when workers assert their rights, the first thing that happens is that they are fired and deported. In terms of the tied work permits, that is absolutely one of the most damaging tools. Contrary to what my friend Mr. Griffith was saying, if you removed tied work permits and improved the working conditions, people will stay. If the only way you can keep a worker in your workplace is by legally prohibiting them from working elsewhere, you have a problem with your business.
The reality is that because workers are so precarious, when they assert their rights, they are fired, deported and often forced to remain in those exploitative working conditions because they have had to pay massive bribes — what are politely called recruitment fees — in order to get those jobs. They have mostly paid about two years’ worth of salary in their home country to get the jobs. There are a lot of layers of precarity that make it really hard to enforce rights.
Senator Moodie: The question is this: Is the only solution to this open work permits? Is there anything the government could be doing proactively to help enforce and uphold the rights of these workers in your mind besides open work permits?
Ms. Faraday: Open work permits are critical because in that situation if workers are being abused, they leave in the way that Canadian workers do. What the federal government really needs to do is to crack down on private recruitment, which is one of the most corrupt industries globally where workers are being forced to pay massive bribes to get jobs. It is illegal under the Canadian temporary labour migration program, and yet it is the norm. Workers who are fully documented are coming here having paid illegal frees, and that is a huge impediment to enforcing rights.
There are a number of things that can be done. There absolutely needs to be proactive inspection and enforcement of rights at every workplace where it is known that migrant workers are employed. Currently, the federal system regulates the relationship with the employer who has applied for the Labour Market Impact Assessment, but it doesn’t deliver rights to the workers. They have to enforce that provincially.
What really is needed is a centralized enforcement system that is designed specifically for migrant workers, and has specialized knowledge about the precarity that they face and the multiplicity of levels of exploitation that intersect to make it really difficult for them to enforce. Right now, they have to go to a multiplicity of different tribunals to get enforcement, which is never happening.
The Chair: Ms. Faraday, if there is a way you could send us a recommendation based on enforcement from the wisdom and research you have done, we would welcome seeing that at committee.
Senator McPhedran: My question is to Professor Faraday. I think I’m quoting you correctly when you said deportations must stop. I wonder if you could please enlighten us further. It is a very clear statement, but could you tell us more for the record of the committee’s proceedings why you would be making such a clear statement and what you would see as the ways to bring about greater justice and effectiveness in relation to deportations?
Ms. Faraday: Absolutely. What is happening right now is that the Liberal government has been working for an extended period of time on looking at developing a regularization program. There was a commitment to do that in this mandate and a lot of work has been done in that direction, which is really important. But in the meantime, even though this is really close, worker leaders across the country who are undocumented are being deported even though we are in the active process of developing a regularization program.
As an example, Danilo de Leon, who is the leader of Migrante Canada, the Filipino migrant workers’ association, is under a deportation order, even though Migrante Canada is a critical organization in pulling together migrant workers to ensure that people can get regularized. The government is working at cross purposes — while developing a system, it is deporting people who would be benefiting from that system, some of whom have been here for decades.
To be deported on the eve of a regularization program is inhumane and inconsistent policy implementation.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I would take it one step further and say given your extensive knowledge of the appeal process, what are the countermeasures in the current situation that could perhaps make a difference in these deportations you are giving us as examples?
Ms. Faraday: Often, people have tried to make humanitarian and compassion applications, which are discretionary applications, to remain in Canada, but they are not being granted. Media and public pressure have resulted in some delaying of deportations, but deportations are still happening. There is no enforceable right. If someone is deported in those circumstances, because they have been in Canada inconsistent with a work permit or other documentation, they are prohibited from applying. It bars their future application to remain in Canada.
At this moment, we have people who have been part of our community for decades and are on the verge of seeing a regularization program come into effect who are being denied access to it. Not only is it affecting them, it is going to undermine trust for everyone else who is undocumented about whether they can actually come forward and enforce their rights when a program is put into place.
Senator McPhedran: Is it the immigration minister who could stop this?
Ms. Faraday: Yes. I would urge you to strongly urge Minister Fraser to stop all deportations.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you, witnesses, for being here with us today. I have a question that follows up on an answer I got yesterday from another witness. The question was whether the government could not, in its plan, allow the process of obtaining permanent status to begin as soon as these temporary workers arrive. This could prevent abuse by those who come on a closed visa. We were told that we can’t give permanent status to everyone, because we need the temporary worker status, but it would be nice to have an open visa. What do you think about that?
Mr. Griffith: I’ve noticed recently that there are more and more people transitioning from temporary to permanent status, but it’s mostly skilled categories of people or foreign students. Very few temporary foreign workers.
What’s also true is that there are sectors or situations where it’s truly temporary employment, whether it’s agricultural workers, taking into account the seasons in Canada, or intra-company transfers, contracts, or people working in the service field for three or four months.
We have to have the flexibility to make the transitions and find fairly clear, predictable, user-friendly ways, but the nature of the Canadian economy means that we will always need people who come for a limited period of time and people who want to come here to make a life. You have to have flexibility.
It’s not an all-or-nothing issue. In my view, we need to determine the terms and conditions, the specific ways to ensure that the system is fair, open and flexible enough for the needs of the economy. Thank you.
Senator Mégie: Thank you. Ms. Faraday, do you have anything to add?
[English]
Ms. Faraday: Yes, absolutely. What you are talking about is a system of conditional permanent residence where people arrive having applied for permanent residency, but instead of waiting out that processing period in their home country, they come, immediately start work and the processing happens while they are here.
That is something that makes sense. It prevents that lengthy family separation. If people can come and work, bring their families and have everything but the final paper giving them status, but knowing that it is happening. All of that can make it smoother for people. The processing period would be, ideally, a matter of a couple of months rather than two to ten years, which people are experiencing now.
It is important to ensure that the requirements under that are fair. Right now, the English-language tests that certain workers, such as care workers, are being required to pass are higher than the English-language skills they need to do their job or higher than the language test for citizenship. Those kinds of artificial barriers to participation and integration into the community need to be eliminated so that the conditions on which people are being brought in for permanent residence are fair and consistent.
In terms of what my friend has said, it is important to make a distinction between work that is inherently temporary — like someone coming on an inter-company transfer for six months — and work that is seasonal, but a permanent part of the economy. Farm work or work in the hospitality industry are permanent parts of our economy.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much to the witnesses who are giving testimony.
Yesterday, we heard from organizations representing temporary foreign workers, farm workers and home caregivers. First of all, just to get it on the record — I’m sure that other senators have said this — our profound thanks to all of these essential workers for their courage and for coming to our aid during the pandemic, and to those who are still suffering here. I was part of that essential workforce, so it really resonated with me.
This is all tied together. I have a bit of a roundabout way of getting there.
Professor Faraday spoke about the false dichotomy between lower-skilled and skilled work, and essential and non-essential work. I was looking at the National Occupation Classification, the new one that was most recently updated, and I see no recognition of essential work. I return to what Professor Faraday was talking about in terms of essential work being work that is an integral part of the functioning of our society. This classification doesn’t seem to take that into consideration.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the classification and what it would mean to have a more expansive definition of the labour needs of our economy.
Ms. Faraday: Thank you. The classifications don’t reflect how critical work is to our communities and economies. For example, a personal service worker, though absolutely critical, isn’t recognized as that. It is categorized as a low-skilled job. The categorization replicates an attitudinal prejudice to work that is low paid and done primarily by people who are racialized. It is something that just replicates our class structure.
Essential work is all the different work that makes our communities run. During the pandemic, we saw that the critical work was health care, all the broad, care economy labour — things like food services, food delivery, people who are making deliveries, public transportation — all those essential things that we rely on in our communities. However, those aren’t recognized in that point system as having value.
Mr. Griffith: One starts with the fact that if you look at the overall bias of the immigration system, it is towards higher-skilled workers. You see that in Express Entry and in the points and how that’s done.
On the other hand, there isn’t much more latitude — and maybe it hasn’t been exploited enough — in terms of the Provincial Nominee Program. If you’re in that program, you automatically get 600 points or something like that, so you’re already there. The provinces have considerable latitude to provide immigration pathways for lower-skilled workers if they wish to do that.
Traditionally, some of these lower-skilled jobs have been carried out by family members or refugees just because that was what was available for them.
I would look at it in terms of some sectors being more essential than others, like the caring economy in terms of health care, personal support workers and so forth. That’s an obvious one. In other sectors, like the hospitality industry, you could argue and start to see some signs of this: Companies in other jurisdictions that are facing similar labour shortages or challenges are investing more in technology. They have to do that because they want to make money.
I’m always a bit cautious about automatically saying, “Let’s address every need that the private sector says they have for lower-skilled workers,” without actually asking, “Is that really a benefit to the overall Canadian economy? Are we letting companies get away a bit too easily?” I’ll leave it at that.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Griffith. I have a couple of questions of my own. Let me start, Mr. Griffith, with a rather simple question about numbers because you are the numbers guy. Yesterday, we heard powerful testimony at committee that, in fact, if we need essential workers and we want them to come to Canada to do essential work, then they should be granted permanent residency on landing. The immigration level for next year calls for 485,000 permanent residents to be landed. If we were to make that recommendation, what impact would that have in the next year on that 485,000? To what level would that be increased?
Mr. Griffith: That’s a hard level. You didn’t give me enough time in advance to crunch the numbers.
The Chair: You can get back to us.
Mr. Griffith: I will do work on that because it is an interesting question. I think, fundamentally, the levels plan has to factor in every different aspect of that. The question should say: When we look at the plan, what the provinces are doing and what the federal side is doing, do we have the right balance in relation to the current and future demands of the economy?
The Chair: You also raised a very interesting point about the capacity that provincial nominee programs have. They are closer to the ground and have greater latitude. Do you believe that one recommendation should be that provincial nominee programs in various provinces should be enhanced with a view to essential workers? They have the capacity, they have the knowledge and they should get the numbers.
Mr. Griffith: I think it is a valid proposal. The challenge, of course, is that the provinces are also overly attracted by the higher skilled rather than the lower skilled. But I think you are seeing some signs in health care that they are starting to review that. I think that is one consideration the committee should definitely look at.
The Chair: Staying with you, Mr. Griffith, I heard what you said about productivity, and I have read most of the articles in the newspapers about what economists say — that the real measure of Canada’s prosperity is GDP growth per capita as opposed to GDP growth per se. I’m not an economist, but I have had it explained to me by Mikal Skuterud that if the size of the pie remains the same and more people are eating from that pie, it means less and less for every individual. Whereas what we need to do is grow the pie. We can grow the pie by improving wages, improving working standards and tapping into the domestic market. Do you believe that Canadians, even with improved labour market conditions, are willing to pick raspberries, work in fish processing plants, care for senior citizens or make beds in hotels?
Mr. Griffith: That’s almost a rhetorical question because I think the answer is pretty obvious: no. The working conditions are not attractive, and that’s why we have a Temporary Foreign Worker Program to address those sectors.
The challenge is whether we rely on immigration — temporary or permanent immigration — to fulfill those demands or do we look at the ways we can improve the working conditions. In some of those sectors, I think we can do that. In some sectors, there are greater opportunities in terms of technology. You’re seeing that in some other jurisdictions on agricultural harvesting.
To answer shortly, those jobs are not attractive to Canadians. In fact, the trades, which are skilled occupations, generally are less attractive to Canadians. I’m sure for most of us our kids didn’t end up in trades. They ended up as knowledge workers, so to speak.
The Chair: Ms. Faraday, a quick clarification from you. You mentioned the figure of 500,000 undocumented workers in Canada a number of times. Where is the evidence of that number, and if you have it, can you send it to us?
Ms. Faraday: The evidence comes from a RCMP report, but it is acknowledged as being a lowball figure. Given that people are undocumented, it’s hard to count.
GDP isn’t a measure of how well we’re doing; GDP is a measure of the scale of profit. It is not a measure of the distribution in the economy. I think GDP can be misleading because it doesn’t look at how people are actually doing. When you say, “Will people do those jobs?” Yes, they will, if they are paid appropriately and the conditions are safe. But they are not, which is why people who have other options go elsewhere.
On the provincial nominee program, no, they are going to go for the shiny high-skilled jobs the same way the federal government has. In order to make this happen, the federal government has to take the lead and say, “We need a direct immigration route for these people in critical jobs that actually contribute to people’s well-being in our economy and in our communities.”
The Chair: Thank you to both of our witnesses. We look forward to receiving any further submissions. In particular, Ms. Faraday, you said you would get us some, and I believe, Mr. Griffith, you said that too. That would be enormously helpful.
Senators, we now move on to our second panel.
We welcome Amanda Aziz, Staff Lawyer, with the Migrant Workers Centre. Thank you for coming in person. By video conference, we have Jennifer Rajasekar, Co-Chair, Immigration and Settlement Working Group, with the Canadian Council for Refugees.
Thank you very much for being with us today. I invite you to provide your opening remarks. You will have five minutes each for opening statements, which will be followed by questions from our members.
Ms. Aziz, the floor is yours.
Amanda Aziz, Staff Lawyer, Migrant Workers Centre: Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today, and for this important study that you’re conducting.
My name is Amanda Aziz. I am an immigration and refugee lawyer, and I am here on behalf of the Migrant Workers Centre, which is a non-profit organization based in Vancouver on the unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples, including the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations.
Founded in 1986, our organization facilitates access to justice for migrant workers who have been abused or exploited in their employment. We provide free legal advice and representation to over a thousand migrant workers each year. We are also part of the Alliance for Gender Justice in Migration, which is a national project to address the intersecting vulnerabilities of women migrants.
I will address three points in my time today, and I am, of course, happy to elaborate on these issues during questions.
My first point, as you have heard over and over again, is regarding employer-tied work permits and the fact that they render migrant workers prone to abuse and discrimination. As the committee knows, most low-wage workers arrive in Canada with a work permit authorizing them to only work for one employer, in one location and in one type of occupation. As a result, they rely on their employers for their jobs and their ability to remain in Canada. These conditions make it very difficult for workers to access and negotiate their rights and their working conditions, to make a complaint against their employer or to leave an abusive situation.
In 2019, IRCC introduced an open work permit for vulnerable workers, and though this program has helped some workers flee abusive employment, it does nothing to stop abuse from happening in the first place and it remains inaccessible to many workers.
A study conducted by our organization on this open work permit last year examined the case of 30 migrant workers who had applied for such a permit. The majority of the workers were racialized. The report found that over 96% of the workers faced financial abuse in the form of unpaid wages, excessive work time, being forced to repay a portion of their wages to their employer or having paid an illegal recruitment fee. Furthermore, 70% of the workers reported experiencing psychological abuse, including threats of deportation and racism, and 30% of the workers reported having experienced physical abuse. Disturbingly, 10% of the workers reported sexual abuse by their employer.
My second point has already been made, and it has to do with Canada’s temporary foreign worker programs being discriminatory by design in that lower-wage workers do not have access to permanent residence. This is particularly the case for the thousands of farm workers that sustain Canada’s food supply chain, along with other low-wage workers across many sectors, including cleaners, grocery store workers and construction workers. As you have heard, many of them have no means of becoming permanent residents because Canada does not consider their work to be skilled enough.
Even for those low-wage workers who do have a pathway, such as care workers, the caps on the number of applications and restrictive eligibility criteria make the programs inaccessible to the majority of workers. Processing times, as you’ve also heard, cause workers to be separated from their families for many years. For example, with respect to care workers, these workers are mostly racialized women.
Workers without status do not have any pathway to permanent residence, and this includes workers who may have lost their status because of fraud or abuse at the hands of their employer or an immigration consultant. These workers are especially prone to abuse because of their lack of status. They have limited or no access to many social services we take for granted, such as health care.
Third, we have witnessed countless examples of workers who have been victims of fraud, misled about the conditions and nature of their work or charged illegal recruitment fees by employers, immigration consultants or recruiters only to be subject to unfair enforcement proceedings due to unknowingly falling out of status or working without authorization in Canada.
We are currently engaged in a class action against an immigration consultant who is alleged to have defrauded over 100 people after promoting a fake immigration program, causing many people to lose their status. These consequences are almost always faced by workers with very few options to fix one’s status after experiencing such fraud and abuse.
In wrapping up, I would submit to you that we can and must do better for migrant workers in Canada, specifically ending employer-tied work permits and ensuring permanent residence on arrival for workers. Permanent residence will reduce the risk of exploitation and put migrant workers on a level playing field with other workers, lifting the floor of labour protections for everyone.
In addition, there must be access to permanent residence for low-wage workers already in Canada, including for those who are undocumented. A broad-based regularization program for those without status in Canada needs to be implemented immediately, which includes everyone regardless of how they arrived in the country.
There are many ways that workers lose their status, often through no fault of their own, and many of these workers have put themselves at risk of COVID-19 on behalf of Canadians throughout the last three years.
Finally, I would end by saying that consequences of fraud and misrepresentation must be borne by employers and immigration agents as opposed to the workers who have been taken advantage of. There has been widespread awareness of unlawful recruitment practices, yet we continue to see workers suffer unfair consequences with little oversight and investigation of employers and recruiters. These workers need access to permanent residence, and should have the ability to regularize their status. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Aziz.
Jennifer Rajasekar, Co-Chair, Immigration and Settlement Working Group, Canadian Council for Refugees: Dear members of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, thank you for inviting us to attend today’s session.
The Canadian Council for Refugees, or CCR, is a leading voice for the rights, protection, sponsorship, settlement and well-being of refugees and migrants in Canada and globally. CCR is driven by the member organizations working with and for those communities from coast to coast.
CCR has been committed to advocate for issues related to migrant workers through the migrant workers committees that have been active for over 15 years, where members such as The Neighbourhood Organization develop recommendations and regularly engage with IRCC on these issues.
I have a few key points I want to address today.
Canada has a long-standing commitment to migrant workers. However, the system is still challenging for them. We have a system where temporary foreign workers are left very vulnerable to abuses by employers and to precarity caused by their temporary status. Migrant workers are made vulnerable by the cracks in Canada’s immigration system.
Migrant workers are subject to abusive and exploitative practices from their employers, putting at risk the workers’ fundamental labour rights and dignity. Despite the efforts of Canada to mitigate the harm created by the employer-specific work permit, there are various gaps that undermine the policy’s effectiveness as a proactive measure, including the inability of many workers to even apply for the work permit.
Some of the open work permits have many gaps, so it’s not accessible for a lot of workers. One of the examples that was given was if you’re applying for an open work permit in a vulnerable sector, most of the workers were blacklisted or were not allowed to go to another farm or practise with the open work permit. There are so many gaps and effects with regard to that. Canada should recognize the value of the labour contributed by newcomers at all levels and admit those workers required by the labour market on a permanent basis.
Having said that, I just want to speak to a few recommendations by the CCR committee. First, recognize the value of the labour contributed by newcomers at all levels and admit those workers required by the labour market on a permanent — not temporary — basis, which is in line with Canada’s traditional policies. Second, while the Temporary Foreign Worker Program continues, end the use of employer-specific work authorizations. Third, while the above recommendations are being implemented, address the multiple shortcomings of open work permit policies by implementing the recommendations laid out in the attached report called Band-Aid on a Bullet Wound. It was submitted in September 2021.
Regarding international students, the most concerning part is the fact that they do not get access to health care even though they have the right to legally work in Canada while studying, as many of them do. They still have to pay for access to health care with their own means.
Thank you. I look forward to any questions or clarifications.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Rajasekar.
We will go now to questions from our colleagues. You have five minutes per question. Please make sure not to lean into the mic or take your earpiece off if you do so.
Senator Osler: Thank you very much to the witnesses. This is a question that can go to both of you. My question is regarding work permits and has three parts.
Why are the majority of work permits employer specific? Are there situations or sectors where an employer-specific work permit is absolutely needed? Are there situations or sectors where an employer-specific work permit benefits the temporary foreign worker?
Ms. Aziz: I can start, Ms. Rajasekar, and then hand it over to you.
I’ll start in backwards order. I would say no, employer-specific work permits do not benefit temporary foreign workers. As you’ve heard, I listened to the committee hearings yesterday and the other panellists this morning. Fundamentally, employer-specific work permits do not benefit workers. They prevent workers from accessing their rights. They prevent workers from leaving abusive situations. I would say, unequivocally, no, they do not benefit workers.
In terms of sectors, I would say the same thing. If the issue is that we’re not able to obtain workers or have workers if there are labour shortages in certain sectors, or that we’re not able to obtain or get workers to work without tying them to an employer, then that, as Professor Faraday said, is an issue with that sector and that employer. Tying a worker to that employer is not the solution.
In terms of why the employer-specific work permits exist, historically, we have tied workers to employers in Canada at the start of our temporary foreign worker programs. I think one could have all sorts of arguments in terms of class, racism and discrimination as to why we do that. Certainly, I think any of the motivations that we had 30, 40 or 50 years ago no longer should be supported.
Ms. Rajasekar: I agree. Workers shouldn’t be tied to a particular employer. That leads to abuse. Ms. Aziz also raised other points that I echo.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you to our witnesses for being here with us today.
I have a quick question, and quite honestly, I’m not sure you’re going to have the answer, but I was wondering if you could tell us whether there are any models of countries elsewhere in the world that are doing better than we are. I’m very aware of the wide variety of immigration programs, laws and needs. Who is doing better than us in terms of how workers are treated and respecting their rights?
[English]
Ms. Aziz: It is an interesting question, and one that I don’t have a very specific response to.
From working with colleagues in Australia and the U.K., I know that a number of people are interested in what Canada is doing with respect to the vulnerable worker open work permit and how it has been implemented, but I’m not sure I could point to a specific jurisdiction where migrant workers are treated in a way that I think Canada should be aspiring to. That is to say that, as a country, we have and can take leadership in terms of setting examples for the world.
There is one place I would highlight. It’s not specific to work permits, but it is with respect to regularization. I think we could be looking, for example, to Ireland. They have just completed a mass regularization program where they regularized almost 10,000 people — maybe not just workers — in Ireland.
There are examples of certain jurisdictions or certain kinds of processes or things we could be learning from other countries. I know there is some collaboration with countries trying to create better situations, but nothing that I could point to specifically.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, and I am aware that my question is not a simple one.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Petitclerc, you have time. Would you like Ms. Rajasekar to try to answer that?
Senator Petitclerc: Yes, if she has anything to add.
Ms. Rajasekar: To be honest with you, I’m not familiar with other countries’ policies.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. I knew it was a difficult question. I just think it could be interesting to see what other countries achieve and if they do better than us.
The Chair: On that point, I should note Germany does something interesting. Maybe we can call them, but let’s see.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you to the witnesses. I have two questions. The first is to Ms. Aziz and the second to both of you. I’ll give them both at the same time to make it easier.
I want to follow up on the union question that you heard earlier. I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court in 2011 excluded farm workers from the Labour Relations Act, which is a federal act. Is there a remedy for addressing this issue with changes in that legislation?
The second question to both of you, please, is: The oppressive conditions that we’ve heard about, the large number of undocumented people, are those classic situations that lead to modern slavery? You mentioned sexual abuse in your report.
Is there any data or do you have any concerns about movement of people, particularly racialized women, into modern slavery because of the conditions that migrant foreign workers face?
Ms. Aziz: Maybe I can start and then hand it over to Ms. Rajasekar.
I would just concur with what Professor Faraday said in terms of unionization and a worker’s ability to access unions. I think there are two parts to that. One is the sort of legislation that prevents agricultural workers’ access to unions. The other side of that is also just the realities on the ground in terms of workers being able to assert their rights. As long as we are tying workers to employers, even in the case of sector-specific work permits. Right now, the seasonal agricultural work program operates on a sector-specific program, not a specific employer. Anyone who does front-line work with agricultural workers knows that those sectoral permits do not protect a worker. Farm workers work together, and if a worker leaves one farm, it’s very difficult for them to get access to another farm.
I think the issue is both in terms of legislative change that should absolutely be implemented, but also on the other side of that is ensuring that workers are even able to access whatever rights they have. In British Columbia, where the majority of my work deals with migrant workers, there is access to unionization. However, it’s practically impossible because workers, especially for farm workers who are here for short periods of time, to access their rights.
I can comment on the second question, too, but Ms. Rajasekar, I don’t know if you want to comment on the unionization question.
Ms. Rajasekar: No, you can go ahead.
Ms. Aziz: Just to say that I have listened to other witnesses and I would concur with what they’ve said in terms of modern-day servitude. The report that we published last year does speak more to the kinds of abuse that workers face that we were assisting.
The employer tying measure is akin to modern-day servitude in Canada. Unequivocally, I would say that. The solution is not sector-specific work permits. As I’ve said, the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program has shown that doesn’t work. The issue has to do with the way we tie workers to employers and make it virtually impossible for them to quit an abusive employer because of the risks they face with regard to status in Canada, even just in terms of their own economic means to support themselves and their families back home.
Ms. Rajasekar: I just wanted to comment on the accessibility, even through the union, apart from that, to regular rights for people to access information when you are tied to a particular employer. They have to give access to people who are sharing this information, getting the proper information and running a session. If they don’t give accessibility to the workers to participate or allow us to be where they are to share the information in person, it’s very difficult. That’s number one why they’re not able to have the same access unless the employer decided to allow us. That leads to abuses. Not knowing what your rights are is a big barrier, I would say, when an employee is tied to an employer.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question is for Ms. Rajasekar. I see that you are from the Canadian Council for Refugees. My question is about the wait time for someone with refugee status. How long do they have to wait to get a work permit? Does it take very long?
[English]
Ms. Rajasekar: I’m not able to answer with respect to the timeline. It also depends on each case and individual. We cannot simply say this person has to wait this long. I’m not an expert in that area, so I will leave it at that. Maybe Ms. Aziz is able to answer that question.
Ms. Aziz: Sure. Since COVID, a lot of the processes with respect to making a claim for refugee protection have transitioned to an online process. Now, when a claimant is making a claim, they can automatically just say that they would also like to obtain a work permit.
There were many issues at the beginning of this process. We heard some refugee claimants waiting many months for a work permit to be issued. I think the processing time has reduced now, and the process has become more streamlined in terms of people being able to access their work permits, but I think it can be a month or a couple of months to obtain it. Certainly, it’s not a perfect system, but there have been some improvements recently.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I have a quick question. The reason I brought this up is because we have heard here in the past, through testimony, that there is some sort of categorization for temporary migrant workers. I wondered if it takes a long time. Is there not a way to create a program that could put these people in a category where they would be eligible for an open temporary work visa?
Things could move faster, but since you say the wait time has decreased, perhaps my ideas aren’t helpful since the wait is not as long now.
[English]
Ms. Aziz: If I understood your question correctly, in terms of workers being able to get open work permits, just the processing time?
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: While they are waiting for the process of obtaining a work permit through their refugee status, isn’t there a way to give them an open temporary work visa in the meantime, while they wait?
[English]
Ms. Aziz: Right. Yes, for sure. That process is a lot more efficient and effective, I would say. Somebody who comes to the country and makes a refugee claim is eligible for a work permit right away, and for the most part will get that work permit. It’s an open work permit, as you’ve noted.
I think the important aspect of that is that it is an open work permit. These are vulnerable people coming to Canada seeking our country’s protection. We issue open work permits. For the most part, I think that system is effective. I think there were just some bumps in terms of the transition to the online processing.
In terms of the categories of workers, I guess one other thing I would say is that there is such wide variety right now in terms of processing times for different workers, processing times for extensions of work permits and transitions to open work permits. Yesterday, you heard from many witnesses talking about care workers. Under these very restricted pilots, there is the ability of a care worker to apply for an open work permit once they’ve submitted their application for permanent residency. As opposed to the process where a refugee claimant submits their claim and is then issued a work permit, our experience has been that care workers wait more than one year, sometimes more than two years, for these open work permits to be issued it — so just sitting and waiting in Canada. If they cannot find another employer to support them with an employer-specific work permit, they are sitting in Canada with maintained status but an inability to work for any other employer.
I think we do need to look at the different ways in which we issue these open work permits right now, and certainly I think move towards a system where workers are being issued work permits who are here and, of course, permanent residence as well.
Senator Bernard: Let me offer my thanks to both witnesses for your testimony today but also for your advocacy for very vulnerable people that perform essential services for us every single day.
Two statements that were made today have been resonating with me at a very deep level. One, that the Temporary Foreign Workers Program is discriminatory by design. The other statement is that we must stop putting Band-Aids on bullet wounds.
What I’m hearing from both those statements is the fact that we have deep systemic discrimination for which we need transformation. I’m wondering if you could both make any specific recommendations to our committee that would lead to such transformation.
Ms. Aziz: Yes, there are a number of recommendations that we heard from witnesses yesterday and certainly today. In terms of the discrimination by design, unfortunately, I think it is a very large structural problem that needs to be dealt with in terms of the way we view workers — and I think you said it yourself in the introduction — which is that right now our system is fundamentally classist in the terms that we view workers. Those who are in a so-called low-wage stream we consider to be so-called low skilled — I know you have already spoken about this today. So I think language is very important when we are talking about workers, immigration, migrants and immigrants. To use the words “low skilled” really undervalues the work of workers who are essentially ensuring our food supply chain continues uninterrupted in Canada.
The first border opening after our borders closed when the COVID-19 pandemic started was for migrant agricultural workers because we knew we would have a big problem if we didn’t accept agricultural workers across the border. So I think there is an issue in terms of the way we view and value different workers, and then the values and rights we assign to those different levels of workers. That needs to change. The way we are looking at our system and the way we are designing our system in terms of our values, whom we value and whom we consider essential needs to change in both language and design.
Professor Faraday spoke about this, and our organization is also very keen on a regularization program. Right now, there is an opportunity to provide permanent status to those who are in Canada without any permanence. That, I would argue, is fundamental in terms of providing some kind of equalization for the workers who are in Canada right now and who have contributed in many ways throughout the last three years.
On top of that, I think there is a short-term solution in terms of regularization and the pressing need for that. The longer-term solution is to look at how we value workers, how we design our immigration system, what kinds of things we value and what kinds of things we would put into an immigration system.
Currently, we are very classist and discriminatory towards workers who are — primarily, I would say — from countries where they had the opportunity to learn English or French, and where people may have more access to post-secondary education. I think we need to rethink what we value as a society vis-à-vis our immigration programs.
Ms. Rajasekar: One of the recommendations is to talk about accessibility to services and the practice of what the service is, holding employees responsible and accountable — finding more practical and realistic ways to hold employers accountable when they are bringing in employees to work for them in so-called essential work.
The other thing is that the status “open permanent residency” is very important. The fundamental thing is that if the workers have the right to work in Canada and contribute to our economy, then they have the right to stay in Canada. They are contributing to it, and that’s what we would say.
We also pointed out a few remarks from CCR and submitted a lot of reports to IRCC. We could probably send out more information if you need it.
The Chair: Thank you. We would appreciate any information you believe is essential for our understanding of this matter.
Senator Osler: Thank you again to the witnesses.
I’m going to probe a little deeper into the question posed by my honourable colleague. I would like to get your thoughts on whether changes are needed to regulations or to legislation. Ms. Aziz, you mentioned some legislative changes earlier.
In September 2022, there were amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. I would be interested to hear if you have any knowledge of information or data on those regulatory changes. Did they do what they set out to do — improve protection for temporary and migrant workers in Canada? As well, I would like your thoughts on if it is more regulatory change that we need or more legislative change.
Ms. Aziz: Thank you for that question. I think it is complicated because, of course, our immigration system is laid out in both legislation and regulation. However, I think a lot could be done by regulation in terms of just the way work permits are issued. A lot of the work permit oversight can be found in regulations. There has been, I would say, some tinkering here and there in terms of response in recognition of the abuse that is widespread among particularly low-wage migrant workers.
I would say that quite a bit of impact could be made through regulatory changes. For example, the open work permit for vulnerable workers is one of the changes that occurred in 2019, although — as my colleague said, and our organization also issued a report with respect to this — it is not exactly the solution. It is a Band-Aid solution. There are many changes that could be pursued by the government.
With respect to the regulatory changes that happened last year, they do show that the government is aware of the abuse of migrant workers and wants to take some action. However, they did not have an impact on protecting workers. As we heard yesterday and again today, just the sharing of information of rights to migrant workers is not a solution. Ensuring employers have to provide information about migrant workers’ rights to their employees is not a solution. Really, the solution and crux of the issue has to do with tying workers to their employers. Unless we are making progress to untie workers from their employers and ensure that people have non-precarious status in Canada, all the other tinkering and changes are going to be very superficial in terms of doing what we want, which is to ensure workers are able to access their rights and are not being abused in their workplaces.
On the other side of things, I think there have been quite a few changes in the last number of years with respect to the compliance regime that employers have to go through when they want to hire a foreign worker. I would say that part of our recommendations also have to do with proactive investigations and inspections. Right now, we are mostly a complaint-driven system both when it comes to individual complaints at the provincial level — somebody is complaining about an employment standards issue, and it is up to the worker to complain — and similarly at the federal level in terms of the compliance regime. There are systems in place to inspect workplaces, but I would say that a lot of the time we see these inspections only happen if a worker or advocacy organization is able to make that complaint.
Senator Osler: Ms. Rajasekar?
Ms. Rajasekar: I don’t have a comment.
Senator Osler: I have a very quick follow-up. Could I get both of your thoughts on the trusted employer status or trusted employer plan?
Ms. Aziz: From my perspective, we don’t work with employers at the Migrant Workers Centre. We only represent workers. I don’t have very many comments on that specific system — just to say that there does need to be more compliance and proactive inspection against employers.
Ms. Rajasekar: We don’t work that much with employers either. We are trying to create a system where we are able to communicate with associations and different players on the ground, but I don’t have much to comment on that.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Aziz, I have a brief question for you based on previous witness testimony and what you said.
I’m struck by how little we know — in this committee, at least — about the recruitment industry that swirls around this constellation. We have heard from Professor Faraday a pretty stunning comment that some workers pay two years of their wages to be recruited into the industry.
Could you and Ms. Rajasekar provide us with some further knowledge about this industry? Does it operate inside Canada? Outside Canada? Is it within our sights to regulate or not? How does it function?
Ms. Aziz: Thank you for that question. I think it is very important and often overlooked. Unfortunately, I think it is also something that, although we are very aware of — there have been numerous CBC reports, and there was recently a report on the recruitment schemes with respect to international students — there is still very little action happening by our government to correct these recruitment fees.
From what we see at the Migrant Workers Centre, recently we had a group of workers who paid $70,000 or $80,000 U.S. in order to get a job placement in Canada — workers who are being charged these fees inside their own countries by a recruiter who promises they are able to connect them with an employer in Canada, and that the work permit is a pathway to permanent residence. They are being promised all sorts of things not just in terms of employment, but also their pathway to permanent residence. I can think of one example of a worker who arrived thinking they were going to work in some kind of tech sector, and then once they arrived in Canada, they were shuttled off to a farm. This is a trained engineer in their country of origin. They are then working on a farm, and managed to find the Migrant Workers Centre. They hear the awful news from us that there is no pathway to permanent residence for the work permit that they’ve been issued, and, in fact, they have been completely defrauded by this outside-of-Canada recruiter.
There are some government officials who will say it is very difficult for us to do anything with these outside recruiters, but they are almost always working with people inside Canada. I think we wash our hands of what’s happening outside of Canada by suggesting it’s outside of our jurisdiction, but these recruiters are almost always tied to somebody inside Canada, whether it’s an immigration consultant, an employer or an employer who is acting as an immigration consultant. We cannot wash our hands of that. If we are bringing people to Canada to work, we have an obligation to protect these workers. That includes protecting them from these unjust and illegal recruitment fees, and ensuring there is some remedy.
Once a worker pays those fees inside or outside of Canada, and let’s say that job they arrive for doesn’t exist — we have seen a lot of examples of that too, with workers paying these fees, coming to Canada, finding out the job doesn’t exist and the employer says they have never heard of that person before. It is extremely difficult and very work- and labour-intensive to try to help that worker gain status if they lose that status or to put them on a path towards being able to work with authorization and recover from what they have experienced.
I think that is a very big thing missing from the discussion and the consequences of our immigration system — that we penalize workers a lot of the time in terms of if they have lost status or they worked without authorization because a consultant or someone has told them they are able to. We really put it on the worker to have to fix their situation, and often there is no fix.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Rajasekar, did you have any comments to add?
Ms. Rajasekar: Recently, we have seen more cases where inside Canada, people are being promised pathways, especially for agricultural migrant workers, and money is being collected when they are not even qualified to apply for pathways. They pay thousands of dollars and are being promised guaranteed jobs.
The other instance is the construction field promising job placements. They place them for one month, take all their money and then leave them. These workers then become undocumented because there is no status and no papers. It is happening, and then people are repeatedly paying with tax fraud. Consultants are making false claims, and a lot of migrant workers end up penalized for having to pay back the money.
These people are practising immigration consultants or licenced paralegals. This leads to our clients, who are temporary migrant workers, not having the proper information about what services they can access. Employers are supposed to inform them about their rights and responsibilities and what services are available to them so they don’t fall through the cracks, and that is not happening.
We heavily depend on the employers who bring them. They have a relationship with these migrant consultants, paralegals and immigration consultants who say, “I promise you can bring your family” and sometimes they don’t even renew their applications or Labour Market Impact Assessments. Recently, we lost a man who was without status for eight years, with no health care and he died of cancer — a very young man. The employer had a connection with the paralegal who was supposed to help him, but they did not help. They took the money and left.
These are the things happening every day when you are on the ground.
The Chair: Thank you for that information. If you have any further briefs or recommendations on the recruitment industry’s role in all of this, please send them to us.
Ms. Rajasekar: Yes, CCR is working with IRCC to help settlement and community organizations provide the ability to supply the clients with information, and are helping them with immigration applications and forms so they will not fall through the cracks of the consultants charging them money. They are able to access services for free, and the staff are trained to do the job. They are submitting reports and it is ongoing. We can send that report as well.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: I want to follow up on two issues that have been discussed a little bit. What I’m after from each of you — I want this on the record — is specific remedies, things you have already thought of that are specific remedies to these issues.
First, following up on Senator Osler in terms of the proactive inspection that you talked about, I don’t know what the processes are, the substance or the frequency of the inspections. What specific remedies about those issues could you suggest for us to consider?
My second question is following up on our esteemed chair with regard to specific remedies for the victims but also specific remedies to address the practice. You’ve shared with us a lot of concerns — we hear that — but we would really like to hear some specific remedies. Thank you.
Ms. Aziz: Just to clarify, the second part of that is with respect to recruitment fees?
Senator Kutcher: Yes.
Ms. Aziz: With respect to inspections, I think one of the ways that they could be concretely improved is by surprise inspections. We often hear of employers being warned that an inspection is going to take place. Then from workers whom we represent who are on site that day, we hear about inspectors being taken to a very nice bunkhouse where workers have lots of access to nice services, but ignoring the five other houses that are in major substandard condition. Surprise inspections is one remedy.
In terms of proactive inspections, I think Service Canada could be doing a lot more in terms of being very proactive. With respect to taking data, right now we have a data set from the vulnerable worker open work permit program, which is just a tiny subset of workers who have been able to access these open work permits and are able to make their case, saying, “I have experienced abuse or exploitation in the context of my employment.” There is a list of those employers. We know where those workers are coming from. At the Migrant Workers Centre, we often see those same employers a few months or one year later, still operating, still hiring migrant workers and the same situations of abuse. Where are the inspections of those employers?
We have some of that data, so it is not difficult for us to be translating those open work permit issuances into inspections. In fact, that was part of the regulatory announcements when the vulnerable worker open work permit program was announced — that those issuances of those open work permits would lead to automatic inspections. The data is not so clear that that is happening, but that is, I think, a concrete remedy.
On the other side, in terms of workers who are at those places of employment, I think it is also ensuring that if an inspection happens and a workplace is, for example, prohibited from employing migrant workers because of the conditions of the workplace, then the other workers who are on-site must be issued open work permits immediately without having to apply through the vulnerable worker open work permit program.
For recruitment, I think it is a little bit more complicated because of the connections of people outside of the country and inside the country, but there are some things that can be done practically on the side of regulating recruiters, immigration consultants and employer agents — those who are doing the recruitment. I think ensuring that there are real regulatory bodies for these groups — I know that the government did implement a new regulatory body for immigration consultants two years ago, and I think it is yet to be seen if it will have the teeth that it needs.
At the Migrant Workers Centre, as I mentioned in my remarks, we have an ongoing class action against an immigration consultant who after having her licence suspended because of alleged fraud and selling an immigration program in response to COVID-19 that didn’t exist — so at a time when people were very vulnerable — continued to operate, even though her licence was suspended and people knew. She continued to retain new people, new clients. For us, it was very frustrating to watch. Despite the licence suspension, what is happening? Where is the follow-up in terms of preventing people from continuing to defraud people?
In terms of those who are the victims of that fraud, there are very few options currently. We have a temporary resident permit, which is a very discretionary process and only provides status for the time that the temporary resident permit is valid. It is very difficult to get, and takes a long time to process.
We need to have concrete ways that workers who are without status can access in order to regularize their status. Whether that is through an open work permit, whether that is being eligible for the vulnerable worker open work permit — even if they are out of status — or pathways to permanent residence if they have already been able to show that they have been the victim of abuse and exploitation at the hands of recruiters. We need to have more concrete ways that workers can regularize their status because right now it is very difficult.
Ms. Rajasekar: I think she mentioned most of it. One of the things to enforce again and again is the surprise visits. Also taking a community organization along to act as a witness. Publishing all the employers who are in violation. By having them listed, hopefully it will not happen again.
The same thing goes with the regulation of immigration consultants. After what has happened to these people, are they coming back? Because we’ve heard of the same people going and opening up another organization or having a partner and practising the same thing, so there are no consequences after that. This has happened, so maybe publishing and posting what the violation is and openly informing.
Some of the inspections happen when the workers are not in the bunkhouses or where the workplaces are. Informing the employer when the inspectors are coming, the time and date, that is not going to help. Opening up and listing them — that will be a practical way to let others know.
The Chair: That’s an excellent suggestion.
Senator Moodie: I am going to try to make it simple, but it isn’t simple.
This is a population of people who are often very dependent — or feel they need to be dependent — on others to understand processes, to enable themselves to apply for processes or whatever. No matter what we do around regulation, no matter how we try to control the internal movement of recruiters — and we have total lack of control over the external, international recruiters — is there a fix to this system that alleviates the need, that makes it so simple that there is no other way to do it, that takes all the recruiters out of the picture so that the industry disappears? What is that fix?
Ms. Aziz: Very simple question.
Senator Moodie: Sorry, but I have been listening to this problem over and over again, and we have tried to control it, and we can’t control it.
Ms. Aziz: Yes. One thing I would say is that if we make it easier for people to obtain authorization to work through open work permits, certainly that will reduce the abuse in terms of specific employers working with specific recruiters.
People are having to find a specific employer in order to gain authorization, which leads to all sorts of abuse, even in the recruitment process. Without having somebody to help connect you with an employer et cetera, we hear about people responding to advertisements overseas — it is very tricky.
I see some of these ads, and you would think, “Yes, I can totally understand why you paid that money and thought that this person was authorized to do this in Canada.” If we eliminate that sort of restriction and the need to find these specific employers, that is one barrier or one issue that would help.
Simplifying processes. I take your point that, yes, as someone who practises immigration and refugee law, I find it amazing when people come to me and tell me they have been able to navigate something on their own because with all the changes and things that are happening constantly, it can be very complex. As much as we can try to simplify processes, I think that the more that there are non-profit advocacy and support organizations that are able to help workers — supporting those organizations to be able to help workers through these processes is important as well.
On the other end, it is that compliance, that cracking down. People, I think, are operating with impunity. There are very few prosecutions happening or very few investigations that lead to high-profile consequences. I think on that end, there needs to be some stepping up of consequences.
Senator Moodie: Just remind me, the inspections, you have to be invited in?
Ms. Aziz: For the inspections? There can be inspections. You don’t have to be invited in. Service Canada, I think, can initiate the inspections as well. But from what we have seen, it is often initiated once a worker has experienced something, and they need to make a complaint.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Aziz. We would love to have heard Ms. Rajasekar on this as well, but our time is done. I have begged five minutes from the staff here to extend this meeting for a brief in camera session.
I wish to thank Ms. Aziz and Ms. Rajasekar for enriching our understanding of the context and the issues. Thank you very much.
(The committee continued in camera.)