Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 10th, 2008

[Farida Osmani, Coordinator, Undocumented and Temporary Foreign Workers, Association des aides familiales du Québec]

Thank you for welcoming us today. We've submitted a brief to the clerk. Unfortunately, it is not translated, but we suppose it will be. It consists of notes we're using to make our presentation.

The Association des aides familiales du Québec has been in existence for 32 years. Its vision is to advocate the rights of live-in caregivers through representation and cooperation activities in particular. Our objective today is to bring to your attention the problems of migrant live-in caregivers, that is temporary workers whose status is precarious. Some of them wind up without status and are abused by unregulated agencies, recruitment and placement agencies and unregistered employers who receive no penalties when they commit abuses.

There are three categories of live-in caregivers. Live-in caregivers who are not residents include citizens whose rights to date have been well protected. Migrant live-in caregivers without status are the most vulnerable. They are the ones we want to talk about today. These live-in caregivers are in Canada as part of the live-in caregiver program, the LCP.

That program, which was established in 2001 under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, has continually undergone changes. There have always been abuses since the end of World War II. Attempts were made to improve, to amend the program. In our opinion, it contravenes the conventions that Canada has signed, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Live-in caregivers, who are mostly women, come here and suffer abuse as a result of their legal status.

We have identified abuses upstream and downstream from the program. As regards the program's characteristics, we're talking about a temporary permit. Live-in caregivers must work 24 months over a 36-month period. Consequently, if they are dismissed, they may face a waiting period that can jeopardize their status. They have a work permit that names an employer and is restrictive, that is to say they are assigned to an employer and cannot change employers without first undergoing administrative formalities. They have an obligation to remain with the employer, which involves abuses, in particular.

Upstream from the program, there are delays in processing applications from family caregivers. This results in abuses by consultants, lawyers and numerous intermediaries who claim to be able to expedite their applications. To date, these agencies are not regulated. Furthermore, when the live-in caregivers arrive here, it may occur that they have no employer, that there is a fictitious employer.

Downstream, their status proves to be somewhat catastrophic when they do not have an employer. According to Citizenship Canada, 10% of them wind up without employers on arrival. There are also delays in obtaining new permits. Sometimes they must justify their dismissal. Evidence is based on their good faith and that of their employer. The placement agencies act as intermediaries to find them another employer and take money from them.

There are protective measures, in particular under the Act respecting labour standards, the Commission des droits de la personne, and so on. There are also criminal and immigration statutes, but they remain insufficient in our view. These measures are related to immigration law, labour law, social protection and fundamental rights. We think there must be regulation and that some of these acts must be amended.

In our view, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act must be amended first of all, so that it includes the occupation of live-in caregiver among the occupations in demand in Canada, and so that it takes into account the experience of these workers, which is not currently the case. This is all the more necessary since Canada will be dealing with an aging population in the coming years.

The integration of these live-in caregivers should be facilitated because, since they are attached to a single employer, they must deal with abuses when they do not find a new job.

We recommend the introduction of an open work permit, not attached to a single employer, but rather to a sector of activity for a limited period of time. We also recommend that these workers be granted permanent resident status, which would prevent situations in which they would become without status. Those who lose their work permits live in situations similar to slavery, in that, if they wind up with abusive employers, the latter confiscate their documents and abuse their vulnerability by not paying them. They are sometimes confined or shut themselves away because it is recommended that they not go out, or else they risk being deported. They can also suffer breakdowns in relationships with their families and live in social isolation.

With regard to labour rights and social protections, in spite of the labour standards in effect, that is to say a contract, compensation and leave, not all these elements are always present. We therefore recommend that live-in caregivers be entitled to occupational mobility and improved conditions. We therefore recommend that the obligation to reside at the employer's home be removed and that the government inspect—this is the fifth recommendation—housing conditions at the employer's home, where that is the case.

Based on our observations and findings in the field, we have seen that live-in caregivers are often afraid of losing their jobs, of filing complaints and so on. In spite of all the resources that may be put at their disposal, they are afraid. They also have no guarantees, where they file complaints, that their complaints will be heard.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Thierry St-Cyr]

If you could conclude very quickly.

[Farida Osmani]

In our seventh recommendation, we propose that services be increased for these live-in caregivers. We think it is imperative that the government legislate in this area to establish a clear code of ethics with immigration consultants, as well as regulations for live-in caregiver recruitment agencies, which are the cause of their condition. One final recommendation is that they be subject to the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases, like all other workers in Quebec.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Thierry St-Cyr]

Thank you very much.

Now, from the Centre des travailleurs et travailleuses immigrants, we have Mesdames Lavigne and Montgomery. You have seven minutes.

[Valérie Lavigne]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'll briefly introduce the Centre des travailleurs et travailleuses immigrants. Our centre is located in Côte-des-neiges, in Montreal, and mostly does business with an immigrant population. Much of our work is advocating the labour rights of that population. At the centre, we see a lot of immigrants who are victims of poor working conditions, abuse and exploitation. It is not unusual to see workers who do not have any breaks, no vacation, unfair wages and are dismissed without reason. Most clients who appear at the centre do so once they have been dismissed, when it is too late. The reason they appear when it is too late is that their situation is precarious and they are afraid of not finding another job. It's worse for temporary workers, whose situation is even more precarious in view of the fact that their status depends on their employer and they have a closed working visa.

The new program will not only include agricultural workers and domestic workers, but, from what I've understood, will also extend to a number of other classes of workers.

That causes a problem for us, first because it's already very hard to reach the clientele. These people are not necessarily aware of their rights, and it's hard for us to go after them. If, in addition, they are put in a number of labour categories and are isolated, if they have no one to talk to about their problems with working conditions, I think that's a problem.

I'm also going to talk briefly about the family problem. Workers who enter Canada through the Temporary Foreign Worker Program experience family separations. That ranges from six months to two years, and they can't come with their families. When they are reunited with their families, there are often problems. It's hard for the family and for the worker. That's also one of the reasons why they don't complain more about violations of their rights: they don't want to lose their jobs because their families are still in their country and they have to send them money. These are all conditions that make it very hard, specifically for temporary workers, to defend their labour rights.

[Lisa Montgomery, Community Organizer, Immigrant Workers Center]

I'd like each of you on the committee to picture the worst job you've ever had in your life. After that, I would like you to remember the kind of work you were doing and the boss you had.

Probably what you did was either quit the job or look for another job. I'd like you to picture me taking all those options away from you--because that's what we at the Immigrant Workers Center believe you're going to do when you have a program like the temporary foreign workers program.

The fundamental principle of functional labour is the ability and the mobility of someone to leave a job. So if you tie the status of someone to that job, you are not going to be able to have that mobility and to have the bargaining power for better working conditions, or better anything.

I would like to state that the people we see are exploited and discriminated against, and most of the time they're in fear of retribution from their employers. And these are the people who have permanent status; these aren't the people who are going to have no status in this program.

In conclusion, from our experiences on the front line, more temporary immigration into precarious jobs will not help the situation. It will open the doors to more exploitation, discrimination, and abuse for those people who we want, in our country, to work. It is our position that we need these workers. Therefore, we should be providing them with permanent residence. If they're good enough to work, they're good enough to stay, and this is a temporary solution to a permanent and ongoing labour shortage that we need to address.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Thierry St-Cyr]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Ms. Purna Malla and Mr. Henaway, from Solidarity Across Borders. You have seven minutes.

[Anna Purna Malla, Representative, Solidarity Across Borders]

My name is Anna, and I'm going to speak on behalf of Solidarity Across Borders. We're a network of migrants and allies here in Montreal.

I want to speak a bit about Bill C-50, which I'm sure you've all heard of. On March 14 the Conservative government introduced a series of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, buried in this bill, a 136-page budget implementation bill. This fundamentally undemocratic move sneaks in critical changes to Canada's immigration policy without proposing any of those changes before Parliament.

Basically, by making it a matter of confidence, the government forces opposition parties to either accept them or call an election. As I'm sure you also know, this already passed its first reading yesterday.

This series of amendments, by putting more arbitrary power in the hands of the immigration minister, reproduces a history of explicitly racist and anti-poor immigration policy in Canada.

Under the existing section 11 of the IRPA, anyone who meets the already stringent criteria to enter Canada as a worker, student, or visitor, or to become a permanent resident, shall be granted that status. But under the proposed changes, despite meeting the already established criteria, the minister will have the discretion to arbitrarily reject an application.

Basically, Diane Finley can just make that decision based on her not wanting people from that country to come, based on whatever it is she decides. She has the power to do that.

This unprecedented modification of IRPA would risk putting in place covert equivalents of the explicitly racist immigration policies that characterized much of Canadian history, including the Chinese exclusion act of 1923; the order in council of 1911 prohibiting the landing of “any immigrant belonging to the Negro race”; and that of 1923 excluding “any immigrant of any Asiatic race”.

These are not crazy links to make. These are very, very real links. I want you to all think really hard about that.

An additional power given to the minister under these proposed modifications is that of deciding the order in which new applicants are processed, regardless of when they are made. So if someone made an application three years ago but Diane Finley decides she likes someone who applied yesterday because they're a middle-class worker and they're going to fill the gap in the labour shortage we have, she can make that decision.

So the new sections would allow the minister to simply hold on to, return, or throw out a visa application and deny any opportunity to review that decision in court. That is really scary.

The Conservatives argue that these changes are necessary to “modernize” the immigration system and reduce the existing backlog. However, the true objective is clear from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s comments that the government seeks a “competitive immigration system which will quickly process skilled immigrants who can make an immediate contribution to the economy” .

It is clear that the priorities will be middle-class people applying under the skilled worker program, wealthy investor class applicants, as well as increasingly vulnerable temporary migrant workers.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Thierry St-Cyr]

I'm going to ask you to speak a little more slowly to let our interpreters translate.

[Anna Purna Malla]

Well, we don't have very much time, so....

Also, we know that prioritizing immigration applicants based on their ability to fulfill the needs of the Canadian job market is.... We have a quote here from Diane Finley about “whether it's people to wash dishes and make sandwiches, or whether it's the highly skilled engineers”; so we know where these priorities lie.

The Conservatives' attack on immigrants makes clear that poor people, working people, people of colour, and families of people from these groups need not apply to come to Canada as permanent residents. They should only come if they are willing to come temporarily as workers in exploitative and marginal jobs where complaining about work conditions can result in job loss, loss of status, and thus deportation.

This is particularly revolting in a context where the Canadian government and Canadian corporations actively participate in the creation and reinforcement of a system of global displacement of migrants and refugees fleeing poverty, persecution, war, and corporate exploitation of their lands.

We must oppose the anti-democratic and anti-immigrant changes. We must fight for a society that does not exclude and marginalize poor and working people, people of colour from the global south, and that does not deport, detain, and further exploit immigrants and refugees.

[Mostafa Henaway, Representative, Solidarity Across Borders]

I just want to briefly touch upon three points.

One is that I'm an organizer with the Immigrant Workers Center, and I'm speaking for Solidarity Across Borders.

I think originally this forum was meant to take place in Côte-des-Neiges. It's regretful that it isn't there, because I don't think many of the people we work with, whether they be the domestic workers themselves or whether they be Sri Lankan migrants in textile factories--the people whom this is actually going to affect--are actually able to be here to present. So it's really regretful that this hearing isn't taking place in Côte-des-Neiges, where it was originally meant to be held.

I want to speak about regularization. For Solidarity Across Borders, I think we see the temporary foreign worker program as well as what will start to take place--the low-skilled worker pilot project--as inherently flawed. Essentially you create a permanent two-tiered immigration system. Many people have already explained the situation of those who will be limited in terms of their rights, limited in where they can actually work, limited in their labour rights, and thus limited in actually being able to exercise the same full rights that people with permanent residency or citizenship actually are able to exercise.

I want to speak about the case of someone who flew all the way from Edmonton to Montreal because she couldn't find any help. She's here on the temporary foreign worker program working at a Super 8 motel in Edmonton with a group of other Filipino migrants. The abuse was so grave in their workplace that they left the workplace. She lost her status and had to apply for restoration and wasn't able to gain her restoration until she got another labour market opinion. If you're tying immigration to a labour market opinion, immigration is going to fall under the HRSDC, and this creates a permanent two-tiered system. Now she faces deportation back to the Philippines after she came here to seek a better life. When she came here, the only reason she was losing her status was because she no longer wanted to be abused in the workplace.

Full regularization is completely possible. We've seen it in Europe. We've recently seen it in Spain. I know a motion was tabled in Parliament last session to discuss full regularization. You are right now creating a system in which you have minimum 250,000 people without any rights who are non-status “illegal”, and on top of that you have 200,000 more people under temporary foreign worker programs.

This situation is similar to apartheid in South Africa. To create a situation where half a million people have different legal status from the rest of society, so that they can bear the brunt of the Canadian economy--

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Thierry St-Cyr]

All right.

I'm going to have to stop you, unfortunately, but you will probably have an opportunity to continue and provide more details during the questions and comments by members.

I wanted to reassure you as well about the location. All the members around this table are not really happy about being in Dorval. I can tell you that those responsible for the logistics made every effort to get us closer to the population, rather than in a field beside an airport. However, as the committee is travelling across Canada, this was the only option. We are all as saddened as you.

We'll now move on to questions and comments. We'll begin the first round of six minutes with Ms. Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Mr. Henaway, I checked with the clerk, who tells me that this meeting was never going to be held in Côte-des-Neiges, so I think perhaps you have this committee confused with another committee. However, as it stands, just as we are representing the people—I represent the people of Laval—Les Îles, and am an elected member—I consider that you, Mr. Henaway, represent a number of voices, just as everyone sitting around this table does. So although it would have been perhaps fantastic to be in the middle of an immigrant community of Côte-des-Neiges, this isn't what this committee is about. This committee is about hearing a few people who represent thousands and thousands of people. The fact that you're able to present your voice on behalf of hundreds of people of Côte-des-Neiges and elsewhere is to me very satisfying.

Secondly, I would like to speak to Madame Malla on Bill C-50. Needless to say, I'm a Liberal and I absolutely agree with you, and I know that my colleague Mr. Telegdi also does. We both have talked to our Liberal colleagues on Bill C-50. This bill cannot be allowed to pass. Without going into the detail here, because I know I'm not going to have the time for it, and I'm quite willing to do it at another place and another time with you, there are a number of strategies that we have started putting in place right now. The other parties are doing different things, but we're doing certain things to make sure that Canadians across Canada are aware of what Bill C-50 is about.

I can tell you that I held a meeting in Montreal a few days ago, and I know that other parties are having meetings across Canada as well. We are working against Bill C-50. There are different ways of doing it. Those things you mentioned about Bill C-50, such as the discretionary and discriminatory powers of the minister, I'm absolutely against. They give too much leeway to an individual, when we all know that what is important in Canada is not the individual but the rule of law. The individual translates the rule of law, but it is the rule of law that predominates.

The fast-track application also worries me a lot, because it means that somebody could always drop to the bottom of the line and wait forever before his application is received. In fact, we know, because I've talked to the civil servants on this bill, that if Bill C-50 passes, part 6, which has to do with immigration, would mean that Immigration Canada would no longer be obligated to receive the immigration request of a person who asks to immigrate to Canada, which now must be accepted by Immigration Canada in whatever embassy across the world. In other words, if I were to go to, I don't know, the office in New Delhi and say that I want to be an immigrant, right now they're obligated to at least take my request. Under Bill C-50, once that backlog is done, they are not even obligated to take it. They can say, “We're sorry, but there are too many people already. Forget it. We'll see you in a couple of years.” This is really what it means.

So as far as Bill C-50 is concerned, I'm entirely with you, and I would strongly urge you to get other people who are like-minded--people like you and the other people around this table--to speak up against Bill C-50. We're doing it in our own way, which will not be the same as yours, obviously, but there's a meeting of minds.

I would now like to go back to Ms. Osmani, if I have any time left.

Ms. Osmani, you and I have known each other for a long time. Twenty years ago, I worked with the group of domestic workers from the Philippines. The problems you talked to us about are the same as those we tried to solve 20 years ago. I almost feel like I've gone back to that time.

Without going into the details, the problem that troubled us 20 years ago concerned the disposition of the provincial jurisdiction relative to the federal jurisdiction. In the short time remaining to you, Ms. Osmani or Ms. Ouar, can you talk to us about federal jurisdiction? What can we do to help you?

[Samia Ouar, Project Leader and Worker, Association des aides familiales du Québec]

The live-in caregiver issue is currently under federal jurisdiction from a number of standpoints. Gains have been made with regard to labour standards in the past 20 years. As a result, live-in caregivers are covered by the law. Technically, they are protected by Quebec's Act respecting labour standards, but the program, as it currently stands, absolutely has not helped them because they cannot exercise that right.

Let's take the case of a live-in caregiver who lives in the employer's home and who thus does not have a house. Let's imagine that she is dismissed by her employer or that she leaves her employment because the situation is unacceptable. In your opinion, would she go and file a complaint or look for a new employer?

The time is 24 to 36 months. You don't find an employer from one day to the next. You don't find an employer by knocking on just anyone's door. She'll go to a recruitment agency, which won't necessarily respect her rights. Could she receive employment insurance benefits? Not necessarily. Well, everything is explained in the document. I won't address the matter of the employment insurance technicalities, but that's under federal jurisdiction.

She has a work permit naming an employer. Would she be available to work? That's not clear. She doesn't have any money, no place to live; she is outside. She has to sleep somewhere and pay. Will she go to work? No, because it's illegal, with a work permit naming an employer. She therefore has to find an employer as soon as possible. A number of months go by before she obtains a work permit.

I ask you the question: does she have any rights? I doubt it.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Thierry St-Cyr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ouar.

We'll move on to Mr. Carrier. You have six minutes.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to reassure you: the Bloc Québécois will also ask that the part of the bill concerning immigration be reviewed by our committee. We do take into account the entire immigration issue when we hear the complaints you've told us about today. You've summarized a good portion of all the problems, and they are not easy to solve. In any case, it's definitely not by letting a person from the department say that he or she will accept or not accept such and such an application. The problem is much more serious than that.

We are well aware of the problems that the citizens you represent are experiencing. We find it unfortunate that the government wanted to amend this part of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by means of an act concerning the budget. We will make every effort so that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration can study this bill and make the necessary amendments to it.

I wanted to take advantage of your presence here to obtain some clarification regarding the live-in caregiver program. Ms. Osmani, you mentioned that 10% of the employers are fictitious. I wanted to know the conditions of employment. Are the hours of work stated or specified in a kind of contract or agreement? Is the wage stated in it as well?

You also asked that workers not be required or compelled to live in the same place as the employer. What alternative are you proposing? Should the employer undertake to pay for a residence outside the family residence? I'd like to know the answers to those questions.

[Farida Osmani]

I'm going to answer the question concerning jobs; I'll let my colleague talk about the rest.

As regards the fictitious jobs, a study was conducted by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. It was done in Manila in 2005: the individuals who come here come mostly from the Philippines, but others come from other countries. The CIC people did follow-up for the employers. In 10% of cases, when they called the employers, the latter said they did not know the person and had never seen her. The Association des aides familiales du Québec is currently trying to draft a prevention guide and to document the fraudulent practices of the agencies, which sometimes demand as much as $10,000 from live-in caregivers, for whom they do not find employers.

The live-in caregivers who come and see us, who turn to our association, say that they don't have an employer when they arrive. We try to determine how many there are and how many cases there are a year.

I'll let my colleague answer the other questions.

[Samia Ouar]

As regards labour standards, as I explained, they have a signed contract in accordance with Quebec's Act respecting labour standards. So they are supposed to work 40 hours a week, and overtime must be paid. The employers aren't necessarily in bad faith. We're not saying that all employers are mean and don't comply with the act. The employers themselves are very uncomfortable with the program. They tell us that the workers live at their homes. At what point do we decide that they stop working? At what point do we say that they are working? We tell them that they have to have a log book to record the number of hours.

The current provisions of the program make it very difficult to say how many hours they work. In the majority of cases surveyed by the association, more than 90% of the time, overtime is not paid. The live-in caregiver lives at the employer's home, at the employer's private residence. As a result, the employment relationship is very hard to monitor. I don't think the government could find other solutions than the one you've proposed, that is to say that they live outside in a residence paid for by the employer. Living at the employer's home makes the relationship by private agreement very hard to manage.

[Farida Osmani]

We've recommended that they be admitted as independent workers. In the same way as all other independent workers, it is the workers' responsibility to house themselves.

[Samia Ouar]

When they arrive as landed immigrants or, if that's not possible, with an open work permit, that is to say one in the live-in caregiver category, if the employer's name is not entered, it is easier for them to change jobs without necessarily being penalized with respect to the application of other acts.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You found that 10% of the employers were fictitious. When a live-in caregiver permit is granted to a couple or a family, do the employer's name, social insurance number and signature appear on it to signify that he undertakes to hire that couple or family?

[Samia Ouar]

I'll try to be very brief, even though it's very complex. An employer who wants to bring in a live-in caregiver from outside Canada must absolutely first do business with Human Resources Canada to have the employment offer validated. That's where the actions of the recruitment agencies are very difficult and bizarre.

The employer receives the authorization to bring in someone to Canada so as not to penalize the landed immigrants already here. CIC issues a work permit stating the name and address of that employer. Everything is recorded. If a live-in caregiver arrives in Canada as a result of a fictitious employer, that means that something was very poorly done at the outset by Human Resources Canada, the agency or a third person. Those three stakeholders are required to work together, in addition to Immigration Québec, of course.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Thierry St-Cyr]

Ms. Chow, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Thank you.

You know that last June, in 2007, the motion that I moved and that this committee supported went before the House of Commons. Three parties, at least, supported it in the past in the House of Commons. We're still waiting for the Conservative Party to implement it, make it real, get it done.

In the past we have said, or at least the NDP have said, that we need to stop treating people as economic units and see them as human beings—they have families, they have lives—and need to stop expanding the temporary foreign workers program. At the bare minimum, we should bring the workers in with a visa for their jobs, not an employer-specific visa. Better still, we should have them in as landed immigrants so that they're not subjected to abuse and a complete imbalance of power.

That being said, you've talked about Bill C-50, and unfortunately—I didn't raise this the entire day, Mr. Chair—yesterday our Liberal friends did not support my motion. At 3:30 there will be a vote in the House of Commons, and it will get to second reading passage. It will pass today at second reading. After that—I assume the Liberals will support it again, unfortunately—it will then go to committee. It will go to the finance committee. We will push for hearings at the finance committee, so that the finance committee can hear what you have to say.

At this committee, I believe the parliamentary secretary has a motion to study it. The motion is going to be in front of us April 28. Hopefully the finance committee won't have finished with it. You wouldn't want to have it finished and have passed the House of Commons when we study it; that wouldn't be fair. Hopefully we will be able to have a real dialogue about the fundamental changes that are in Bill C-50. In many ways, it prioritizes classes of immigrants and separates them: some are more important than others. I thought human beings were all important, but some seem to be more important than others.

All of you have made very good recommendations. My question is that knowing all that we do, how can we move forward and work together to make sure that the Conservatives, and it was the Liberals before them, hear what the communities want? Perhaps after the consultation, the Liberals will also say, “Well, maybe we don't like the changes in Bill C-50, and we'll vote against it.”

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I think the Liberals already have...[Inaudible--Editor]