CIMM#85: Application Backlogs and Processing Times and Closed Work Permits and Temporary Foreign Workers

I appreciate Mr. Possberg's comments about the concern over violations of labour codes, whether it's a domestic worker or a temporary foreign worker. I guess the operative difference, though, between those two categories of workers, is that temporary foreign workers do not have full status. People who are here—Canadians or people with permanent resident status—have status and, therefore, protection.

In the case of temporary foreign workers, the biggest problem, of course, is this: Because they don't have full status, they have very few options. When they are subjected to mistreatment or abuse by the employer, what happens to them? They have dilemmas. They have difficult decisions to make. If they report this situation, they stand to lose their job. If they lose their job, they run into a whole host of other problems. These include not having financial resources, not only to support themselves but also to send home to their families.

We also have situations where a lot of workers may not have access to information about where to go to make their reports. There have been surveys done. The Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, for example, has done a lot of work with migrant workers. When they survey migrant workers, how many of them have actually received information about their rights? The vast majority of them say they haven't. Then, when you ask further questions about how many of them received information about their rights in the language they speak, that number reduces even more. You can anticipate the difficulties with all of that.

Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 28th, 2023
Evidence of meeting #85 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session

 

4 p.m.

 

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you, Mr. Possberg.

We'll go to the honourable member, Madam Kwan, for six minutes.

 

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations and for being here today.

I appreciate Mr. Possberg's comments about the concern over violations of labour codes, whether it's a domestic worker or a temporary foreign worker. I guess the operative difference, though, between those two categories of workers, is that temporary foreign workers do not have full status. People who are here—Canadians or people with permanent resident status—have status and, therefore, protection.

In the case of temporary foreign workers, the biggest problem, of course, is this: Because they don't have full status, they have very few options. When they are subjected to mistreatment or abuse by the employer, what happens to them? They have dilemmas. They have difficult decisions to make. If they report this situation, they stand to lose their job. If they lose their job, they run into a whole host of other problems. These include not having financial resources, not only to support themselves but also to send home to their families.

We also have situations where a lot of workers may not have access to information about where to go to make their reports. There have been surveys done. The Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, for example, has done a lot of work with migrant workers. When they survey migrant workers, how many of them have actually received information about their rights? The vast majority of them say they haven't. Then, when you ask further questions about how many of them received information about their rights in the language they speak, that number reduces even more. You can anticipate the difficulties with all of that.

Now, I want to get into the issue of status. The Canadian government has put in place something that says temporary foreign workers who may be subjected to abuse are “vulnerable workers”. They can report, and there's a process people can go through. If, through that investigation, it's proven there has in fact been abuse, they would be able to get an open work permit. What I don't understand is why we have a system that says only after you've been subjected to abuse—you've already experienced terrible working and housing conditions, and what have you—can you get an open work permit.

The question for me is this: Why not offer the open work permit upfront to people? I get that people will say, “They'll all leave. They won't come and we will lose the sector.” In our last panel, that question was asked of the witnesses. It is an issue of working conditions and competitive working environments, so you can attract and retain workers both locally and, I guess, possibly from abroad.

I will share this with you: I am an immigrant. My family immigrated here. When we first arrived as a family of eight, we had a low income. My mom went into the workforce and worked in the fields at a farm. She made $10 a day to support the family. She left at 5 a.m. and did not get back until 9 p.m. She made $10 a day. Now, I know that was a long time ago. Ten dollars is not very much now, but back then it wasn't very much either. That was the reality. She did that for two years to support the family. She eventually got a better job making minimum wage.

The question then is this: If employers were to consider better working conditions and competitive wages to attract and retain domestic workers as well as temporary foreign workers, wouldn't that be a much better way, instead of subjecting people to potential abuse? I'm not saying all employers are abusive. It's potential abuse.

I'm reading a report from the news here, which indicates the government did a series of assessments and found 116 violations, with 93 employers facing monetary penalties totalling $1.5 million.

What were their violations? We are talking about wages not being compliant with what they were supposed to pay workers and that workers thought they were signed up for. Inadequate accommodations and issues around safe working conditions were among these violations. This is the reality that people are faced with.

What I would urge you to consider is this. What should be done to ensure that workers' rights are protected?

That is the big question which, in my mind, is absolutely critical. I would urge all employers to take it into consideration.

 

 

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

You have 30 seconds to respond to the question. You can always come back to it in the next round.

 

 

Kenton Possberg

From a broader context, the foreign worker program, first and foremost, needs to protect the Canadian workforce and the Canadian worker. That's at the very top.

This is probably in the same study you're referring to. In a recent study, 96% of employers were compliant. What I found really interesting was that of those 4% that were not compliant, the majority were non-compliant due to things like not keeping documents for six years.

Now, I know there are instances where there could be potential abuse. If they are verified, that's not good. We have systems in place already to deal with these situations. These employers are dealt with. They are blacklisted from the program. Whether it's for a foreign worker or a Canadian citizen, they need to have these protections in place.

 

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
Liberal

Absolutely. For temporary foreign workers, the problem is that they often don't.

 

 

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Madam Kwan, you are almost at the seven-minute mark.

Mr. Maguire, we'll go to you for five minutes.

 

 

4 p.m.

 

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you, Mr. Possberg.

We'll go to the honourable member, Madam Kwan, for six minutes.

 

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations and for being here today.

I appreciate Mr. Possberg's comments about the concern over violations of labour codes, whether it's a domestic worker or a temporary foreign worker. I guess the operative difference, though, between those two categories of workers, is that temporary foreign workers do not have full status. People who are here—Canadians or people with permanent resident status—have status and, therefore, protection.

In the case of temporary foreign workers, the biggest problem, of course, is this: Because they don't have full status, they have very few options. When they are subjected to mistreatment or abuse by the employer, what happens to them? They have dilemmas. They have difficult decisions to make. If they report this situation, they stand to lose their job. If they lose their job, they run into a whole host of other problems. These include not having financial resources, not only to support themselves but also to send home to their families.

We also have situations where a lot of workers may not have access to information about where to go to make their reports. There have been surveys done. The Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, for example, has done a lot of work with migrant workers. When they survey migrant workers, how many of them have actually received information about their rights? The vast majority of them say they haven't. Then, when you ask further questions about how many of them received information about their rights in the language they speak, that number reduces even more. You can anticipate the difficulties with all of that.

Now, I want to get into the issue of status. The Canadian government has put in place something that says temporary foreign workers who may be subjected to abuse are “vulnerable workers”. They can report, and there's a process people can go through. If, through that investigation, it's proven there has in fact been abuse, they would be able to get an open work permit. What I don't understand is why we have a system that says only after you've been subjected to abuse—you've already experienced terrible working and housing conditions, and what have you—can you get an open work permit.

The question for me is this: Why not offer the open work permit upfront to people? I get that people will say, “They'll all leave. They won't come and we will lose the sector.” In our last panel, that question was asked of the witnesses. It is an issue of working conditions and competitive working environments, so you can attract and retain workers both locally and, I guess, possibly from abroad.

I will share this with you: I am an immigrant. My family immigrated here. When we first arrived as a family of eight, we had a low income. My mom went into the workforce and worked in the fields at a farm. She made $10 a day to support the family. She left at 5 a.m. and did not get back until 9 p.m. She made $10 a day. Now, I know that was a long time ago. Ten dollars is not very much now, but back then it wasn't very much either. That was the reality. She did that for two years to support the family. She eventually got a better job making minimum wage.

The question then is this: If employers were to consider better working conditions and competitive wages to attract and retain domestic workers as well as temporary foreign workers, wouldn't that be a much better way, instead of subjecting people to potential abuse? I'm not saying all employers are abusive. It's potential abuse.

I'm reading a report from the news here, which indicates the government did a series of assessments and found 116 violations, with 93 employers facing monetary penalties totalling $1.5 million.

What were their violations? We are talking about wages not being compliant with what they were supposed to pay workers and that workers thought they were signed up for. Inadequate accommodations and issues around safe working conditions were among these violations. This is the reality that people are faced with.

What I would urge you to consider is this. What should be done to ensure that workers' rights are protected?

That is the big question which, in my mind, is absolutely critical. I would urge all employers to take it into consideration.

 

 

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

You have 30 seconds to respond to the question. You can always come back to it in the next round.

 

 

Kenton Possberg

From a broader context, the foreign worker program, first and foremost, needs to protect the Canadian workforce and the Canadian worker. That's at the very top.

This is probably in the same study you're referring to. In a recent study, 96% of employers were compliant. What I found really interesting was that of those 4% that were not compliant, the majority were non-compliant due to things like not keeping documents for six years.

Now, I know there are instances where there could be potential abuse. If they are verified, that's not good. We have systems in place already to deal with these situations. These employers are dealt with. They are blacklisted from the program. Whether it's for a foreign worker or a Canadian citizen, they need to have these protections in place.

 

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Absolutely. For temporary foreign workers, the problem is that they often don't.

 

 

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Madam Kwan, you are almost at the seven-minute mark.

Mr. Maguire, we'll go to you for five minutes.

 

https://openparliament.ca/committees/immigration/44-1/85/jenny-kwan-1/

Latest posts

CIMM#115: Pension Transferability and Access to Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF), and Delays in Permanent Residence and Visas for Hong Kongers Recent Reforms to the International Student Program

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I would say that's generally the case. If the work permit they obtained was originally connected to the public policy, that's correct. I don't know if that's the situation in all cases. In some cases, applicants may have had an LMIA-based work permit to begin with.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
That's right. However, under the special immigration measure, the LMIA is not required.  I have a list of applicants in those circumstances. Their work permit renewal application was rejected. They were asked to submit an LMIA, which makes no sense. I want to flag that as a deep concern now emerging for people whose open work permits are being rejected as they wait for their permanent resident status. At this rate, given the immigration levels plan numbers and the processing delays happening, and with the number of applicants in place, you can imagine that it's going to take something like eight years to get through the backlog of people getting their PR status. This means that if they are trying to get their pension, they will not be able to do so for eight years, because they are required to provide proof of permanent residence.
I want to flag this as a major concern. I hope the department will take action to fix the error being applied to applicants whose open work permits are being rejected under this stream.  Can I get a confirmation from officials that this will be undertaken?

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, that issue has been raised with the department already, and we're looking into it to see what exactly happened in those situations.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
Okay. Officials are aware of it, and yet it's still happening.  I have cases coming to me that are happening. I'm about to prepare a giant pile of this stuff for the minister, so I hope the officials will fix that.  The other thing related to the pension, of course, is lengthy delays for people to get their permanent status.  Based on the immigration levels plan and the number of applicants in place, is it the officials' anticipation that it will take about eight years to get those applications processed?

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
We have looked at that possibility. Certainly, it will take longer than we had previously indicated to the committee. I would note that the first year of the levels plan is the fixed year. The years that follow, in this case, 2026 and 2027, are flexible. There are opportunities to adjust those numbers in the future, and that could affect that timeline. It's hard to say whether eight years will be the timeline, but it will be longer than had been originally predicted because the numbers have gone down.

CIMM#114: Recent Reforms to the International Student Program

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
Aside from looking at patterns of potential violators—the groups and organizations taking advantage of students with these fraudulent letters of acceptance—will you be including in the analysis what types of institutions are being utilized for these fraudulent letters? In other words, is it private institutions versus public institutions, colleges versus universities and so on? Will that be part of the analysis?

Bronwyn MayDirector General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It's not always the case that a letter originates from an institution. We would need to look at various possible sources.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
Maybe I can reframe that.
Obviously, as these are fraudulent letters of acceptance, they wouldn't be issued by the institutions. However, regarding the list of institutions being used for the purpose of these fraudulent letters, I would be interested in obtaining information to determine what percentage are private institutions and public institutions, how many of them are colleges, how many of them are universities and so on. That will tell us very specific information that I think is important when trying to tackle fraudulent activities.

Bronwyn May, Director General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I completely agree. That's a very important line of analysis.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
I will make the further request to make sure you share this information with the committee. I'll argue that this information should not be kept secret. It should be public and transparent—shared with all Canadians—so that we're aware of what the landscape is and of how international students are being taken advantage of. With respect to that analysis, will there be information and data on what countries are being targeted?

Click to read the full discussion from the Committee meeting

CIMM#113: Pension Transferability and Access to Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF), and Delays in Permanent Residence and Visas for Hong Kongers

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
All right. Thank you.
Hence, we have this problem. You have the Canadian government, which created this lifeboat scheme for Hong Kongers who are fleeing persecution in Hong Kong as a result of the national security law. The government, in its wisdom or lack thereof, created this lifeboat scheme that only provides for temporary residence by way of a work permit or a study permit. Then these people have to go to the queue to make an application for permanent residence, and we know that there is a huge backlog and delay in processing.
In the beginning, there was swift action, but as time has passed, it's been lengthened by way of the delay, to the point where the former minister even made an announcement to further extend people's work permits and study permits for another three years. That is to say, a person could be here for six years—as long as six years—under this current scheme without getting permanent residence. This is because the minister anticipated that people would not be able to swiftly get their permanent resident status. That is the reality.
As a result of that, people are not able to provide proof of permanent residence, because the application is in process. To make it even worse, the government—the minister—just made an announcement about the levels plan, cutting levels to the tune of 105,000 permanent resident status applications.
You can imagine how long the wait-list is for Hong Kongers as they continue to wait. Now, these Hong Kongers have zero intention of returning to Hong Kong, because they know that they would be persecuted if they did. People know that. I think the Canadian government knows that.
This is my question, then, to you as the manager of their pension, which, because of this rule, they're unable to access: Would your organization be willing to write to the regulator to ask for consideration for these applicants who are in a prolonged period of waiting for permanent resident status, to ask that their declaration indicating that they do not intend to return to Hong Kong be accepted as proof that they intend to leave Hong Kong permanently so that they can access their pensions? Is that something that your organization would consider doing?

Maryscott GreenwoodGlobal Head, Government Relations, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company
I think I understand the question.
The basic premise of your question has to do with the period of time it takes for the Government of Canada to determine and provide permanent residency or citizenship. It seems to me that this is a function of the Government of Canada, as opposed to a regulated entity. That's how I would answer that.

Laura HewittSenior Vice-President and Head, Global Government Affairs and Public Policy, Sun Life Financial Services of Canada Inc.
Yes. I would say that it's not within our authority to change the criteria.
However, our numbers show that once that permanent residency does come through, we're able to process the applications and approve Canadian permanent residents.

Are you ready to take action?

Constituent Resources
Mobile Offices
Contact Jenny

Sign up for updates