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

FINA#147: Bill C-69 on Concerns Around Expanding Immigration Detention into Federal Prisons

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will speak to it very briefly.

As I was indicating, on March 13, over 80 civil societies, settlement agencies and religious organizations wrote a strongly worded letter to the Prime Minister with their concerns around expanding immigration detention into federal prisons.

Earlier today, the provisions around setting up this format were passed, but with that being said, this amendment is an attempt by the NDP to at least try to put some parameters within that framework, to have “high risk” clearly defined in legislation rather than leaving it up to regulation and having it be defined behind closed doors.

To that end, Mr. Chair, that's what the amendment seeks to do. The definition of “high risk” is really meant to provide some limitations around what would be deemed as high risk in this instance.

Mr. Chair, I just want to highlight a couple of elements within that. I won't, of course, read the entire amendment into the record here.

Really, we attempted to put some parameters there as to the nature and level of danger to the public the person poses related to, for example, any conviction to do with sexual offences or an offence involving violence or weapons and for the same conviction outside of Canada. As well, there are provisions with regard to pending charges for these offences. Also, we wanted to put parameters around engagement with terrorism or gang activities and such.

Mr. Chair, I think these are some of the provisions for declaring what is deemed to be “high risk” in that context.

The other thing worth noting here is that we're also adding to this with an amendment around mental health; when considering these matters, the mental health aspect of the individual should also be taken into consideration. That's written within the amendment here.

Of course, there are some accountability measures related to it, which means that when someone is to be detained, there has to be some level of accountability with respect to written notice advising the individual as such and then, of course, allowing the individual to undertake representation if they seek to do so.

That's a quick summary of where it is at in terms of trying to put these parameters in place.

Are you ready to take action?

Constituent Resources
Mobile Offices
Contact Jenny

Sign up for updates