In Committee

CIMM#92: Closed Work Permits, Temporary Foreign Workers and Committee Business

I want to thank the special rapporteur for joining us today at committee. I also very much appreciate your coming to Canada and looking into this issue.

As many of the witnesses have said to us, the issue around the immigration system as it's set up, with the closed work permit approach, is that it actually sets these workers up for exploitation. From that perspective.... It's not to say, as the Conservatives would suggest, that you were alleging that all employers abuse workers. I don't believe you said that at any point in time; rather, I think the issue is about the immigration system that Canada has.

Instead of having this closed work permit situation, what would you say is the remedy to address the exploitation that many of the migrant workers you spoke with directly experienced?

 

Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, United Nations, As an Individual
Tomoya Obokata

My recommendation is, certainly, to modify the closed nature of the program. If the workers are able to choose their employers at their own will, that reduces the instances of abuse and exploitation.

More importantly, whether it's closed or not, employers have to comply with the relevant legal obligations. I accept that a large number of employers already do. It's those others who do not who require further attention from the provincial and federal governments to see whether they can take appropriate law enforcement actions against those who breach labour standards legislation.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

With respect to exploitation, one of the issues that migrant workers are faced with is that they don't have full status here in Canada; they have only temporary status. One issue that has been identified is the closed work permit. The other issue is in terms of having rights. Being able to have their rights protected also means that they have to have status here in Canada.

How would you suggest the policy side of things should be amended to ensure that these migrant workers have their rights protected?

CIMM#91: Government's Response to the Final Report of the Special Committee on Afghanistan and Committee Business

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I thank the committee members for supporting the last motion.

I have another motion that I'd like to move at this point. Notice has been given for it. It reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities and relevant officials together for two hours, or invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship with relevant officials for two hours, and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities to appear separately with relevant officials for one hour to update the committee on:

(a) the work of the task force addressing the exploitation scheme targeting international students as many students are still reporting that they are in limbo and have not heard back from officials about their status;

(b) the measures taken by IRCC and institutions to help prevent and protect international students from fraud schemes;

(c) the justification to increase the financial requirements for international students by more than 100% to $20,635;

(d) the justification for putting a cap on international study permits; and

(e) the plans to address the housing crisis for international students and efforts made to collaborate with provinces, territories and post-secondary institutions.

I think the motion is self-explanatory on all elements, and I think we would benefit from having the two ministers appear before our committee. We've also deliberated this issue at length at another meeting, so in the interest of time, I won't revisit all of those points.

I hope committee members will support this motion.

 

CIMM#90: Briefing on Migrant Trafficking and Smuggling

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

I think it would be useful to have that. Seeing as the specific study of the motion is to talk about Mexico, I think it would be useful to have that information. We know that migrant workers, temporary foreign workers with a closed work permit, are subject to abuse, and this is an ongoing issue that I know the minister is aware of and the committee is as well.

From that perspective, there have been ongoing reports. In a recent report in Ontario, I think some 67 migrant workers were subject to abuse in that regard, but it's not the only example. There are many. I won't bother citing all of them. Many people have said over and over again that the reality is that, when people are subject to a closed work permit environment, they are actually at a severe disadvantage and are subject to exploitation.

I know that there's a system whereby the people themselves can report and go through the ministry to apply for an open work permit as vulnerable workers. Will the minister consider providing open work permits to people from the beginning—so that they're not having to face exploitation and then seek recourse—to be more proactive and pre-emptive in the face of this ongoing situation?

Marc Miller Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC

It's something that we're definitely looking into. Obviously, we want to deal with the exploitation as it occurs, regardless of the conditions that people are in. It is clear that, when you have a closed work permit, it does make you more vulnerable. It makes you more hesitant to report abuse and take action, and it gives you less of an ability to move from one place to another.

Looking at the next policy options we have in our tool kit is something that both I and Minister Boissonnault are looking at intensely. I think it's something that we will be working to fix in the coming months.

CIMM#89: Issue with Committee Press Release content and Mandatory Provident Fund for Hong Kongers

I was saying that we're moving towards the end of the year. There's some unfinished business that I would like to wrap up with respect to this committee.

Committee members will remember that, back before the summer recess, we were actually embarking on the process of the study around international students who were being cheated and subjected to exploitation by bad actors.

The committee agreed with respect to a motion that I had made related to that, and a subsequent press release was to be issued. The former chair—not you, Mr. Chair—did follow through on that. However, the press release that was issued did not actually reflect the will of the committee and was done without the consent of the committee. I took great offence, not just for myself but because, given the way we operate with the work we do here, it has to reflect the will of the committee.

A motion I had put on the table at that time was debated but it was not resolved. That was back on June 19, 2023.

To that end, Mr. Chair, I'd like to bring this motion back up. I would like to move:

That the committee report to the House of Commons the potential breach of privilege resulting from the issuance of a press release by the committee on June 14, 2023 which altered the language that was adopted in the motion unanimously on June 7, 2023 by editorializing the content of the motion, adding additional information that was not part of the original motion, and outright omitting information, including the specific call to waive inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation; the motion specifically instructed the committee to issue a news release to “condemn the actions of these fraudulent 'ghost consultants' and call on the Canada Border Services Agency to immediately stay pending deportations of affected international students, waive inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation and provide an alternate pathway to permanent status for those impacted, such as the Humanitarian and Compassionate application process or a broad regularization program” and this was not accurately reflected in the content of the issued press release.

CIMM#88: In Camera on Closed Work Permits and Temporary Foreign Workers

CIMM#87: Subject Matter of the Supplementary Estimates (B), 2023-24: Votes 1b, 5b and 10b under Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP

I would say this: I get that there are other factors that have to be navigated through in order to actually get the people to safety. First and foremost, for them to get through the first barrier, is the Canadian government willing to accept them and, therefore, create a policy that allows for it in a fair and systematic fashion, not in a one-off situation? Without that policy change, they can't even get through the first door.

I would ask the minister to act with utmost urgency because people are literally dying. The executive director of UNICEF now calls the Gaza strip “the most dangerous place in the world to be a child”. That is the reality that people are faced with. I think there's no time to waste. I don't think it's a difficult policy to change in that regard.

I would also ask the minister to provide a special immigration measure for people with family members in Gaza so that they can bring them to safety. Again, without a pathway, people have nowhere to go. They have no ability to begin the process to help bring them to safety.

Will the minister be working on that as well?

Marc Miller Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC, Liberal

Recognizing that I am not the sole decider in this.... It's stuff that we are working on with our colleagues at Foreign Affairs and with our partners in the region. It is something, as you've said, that is of the utmost importance.

Again, the policy, perhaps, will not contain everything you're advocating for. It's something that we are working on. It has to be realistic, and it has to actually reflect our ability to extract people, which, I would reiterate for this group, is still extremely limited, even within the categories of people we are trying to get out. I know that you suggested that this is piecemeal, but in cases where we have had facts, circumstances and the ability to get people out in a secure and safe way, we've done so and, I would say, with modest success.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP

What I'm trying to avert for the government, actually, is to not get into the situation where in the case of Afghanistan there was this hit-and-miss approach. Some people got out and other didn't, to the point where authorization letters that were not official from the department were being handed out. We don't want that kind of controversy. We should learn lessons from what's happened before. It's really important that we do this right.

I would urge the minister to take immediate action to bring in special immigration measures—one, to expand the extended family into the immediate family definition; and two, to allow for people in Canada to bring their loved ones to safety. That includes extended family members. I'll just park that there. I don't want to spend more of my precious time on that during my six minutes, because I want to raise another issue.

With regard to Afghanistan, I've handed a pile of files to the government. I get that you don't want to get into individual cases, but there are cases where de facto dependants are part of that application. Everyone else has been approved within the application except for a single sister, for example, an unmarried sister who will be left behind. There are de facto dependants under the definition of IRCC. That can't be allowed to happen. The minister must understand the grave danger that this woman would be exposed to if she were left behind. Now the family's stuck in this situation trying to make a decision. Do they leave? Do they not leave? This is not a choice.

Why are de facto dependants being excluded in applications? What is wrong with the system?

CIMM#86: In Camera on Application Backlogs and Processing Times, Government's Response to the Final Report of the Special Committee on Afghanistan and Committee Business

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.

CIMM#84: Government's Response to the Final Report of the Special Committee on Afghanistan and Closed Work Permits and Temporary Foreign Workers

I want to say thank you to all the witnesses, as well.

I want to carry on the conversation with responses from Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Pilon.

On the issue of temporary foreign workers, I understand you're indicating there is a system problem. The system, of course, creates an environment where there's an imbalance of power. The reality is that temporary foreign workers have zero power. They are entirely reliant on their employer. If they complain about the employer, they get fired from the job. They are then in deep trouble, because they're not making the money they need to send home to support their families, for example. From that perspective, in that power imbalance environment, there can be abuse that occurs. You have cited some horrific examples to that end.

In order to create a better balance of power, some advocates have advanced the notion of an open work permit. That is to say, the employers would have to treat these employees fairly. If they don't, they will move on somewhere else. Some people argue that having an open work permit means you can't keep them in the sector, because they can go anywhere. However, as with all jobs, to be competitive and get good workers, you need to pay them and have good employment conditions.

I wonder whether you can comment on the need for system change. Should the government be considering an open work permit option for migrant workers?

HUMA#78: In Camera Meeting on Finanancialization of Housing

HUMA#77: In Camera Meeting on Financialization of Housing

HUMA#76: In Camera Meeting on Financialization of Housing