Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 9th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I will give up my remaining time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much.

Before I go to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, again, please speak only when I recognize either an honourable member or a witness, because of the translation into Spanish.

I have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for six minutes. Please go ahead.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being with us today.

[Member spoke in Spanish]

[Translation]

Since this is a study that I wanted to start at the committee, I am very happy that my colleagues agreed to undertake it.

Obviously, we cannot ignore what the United Nations special rapporteur has said. Something has actually been said by someone who holds quite an important position on the international scene.

Ms. Kwan, is what the official report said true, in your opinion? Should this get things moving here?

[Elizabeth Kwan]

Thank you for the question.

As I said in my statement, we actually concur with the statement from the UN envoy's report. What he said was, “the agricultural and low-wage streams of the...(TFWP) constitute a breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery”, which is, in my mind, a way of saying the program is structured to allow really nasty practices that harm workers. It would be akin to us driving on the road with really strong and good laws about who can do what on the roads, but with no one actually nabbing the people who are very dangerous and cause accidents.

It really is, to me, structured and systemic. I know many people feel that it is about saying, “I'm a good employer” or “The other person is the bad employer”. This is not about who's good and who's bad in employment. It's a structural issue that I'm speaking of.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I agree with you, Ms. Kwan. Are you also able to understand that the vast majority of the employers who participate in the temporary foreign workers program are good employers? They want to access a workforce that does not exist in Canada at present, and that is why they turn to this program.

These people may actually feel targeted by the comments. In fact, I think some of my Conservative colleagues feel targeted by the United Nations special rapporteur's comments. However, can we tell those people that the fact that we are looking into what is done by some employers who do engage in abusive practices does not make them bad employers?

Do you agree with me that the vast majority of employers are not people who engage in abusive practices toward vulnerable workers?

[Elizabeth Kwan]

If you were to invite ESDC to testify about the inspections they made and the numbers...right off the bat, the program in the last fiscal year, of the cases they inspected—that's based on high risk, so someone phoned the tip line, for instance—shows that only 30% of employers were compliant. The next section of employers—I think it's 47%—had to be brought into compliance, and 10% were non-compliant.

You're asking me to say yes or no, and it's not so easy to say. I think employers can do better, and I think the program can motivate and incentivize them to do better.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

There are no right or wrong answers. I am not trying to promote a political agenda. We simply have to realize that the status quo is no longer working. We have to find different solutions to put in place for this kind of program. I do not know what they are, and that is why we are inviting people to come and make recommendations to us. I am also going to ask Ms. Ramo to give us her recommendations.

We have to understand that some employers invest huge amounts of money to bring people to Canada to work on their farm, in their plant, or in their small business. Take the example of an employer who brings an employee here. The employee is issued an open permit. If the business across the street offers the employee $1.00 an hour more, the employee is going to leave and the money that the employer invested will be lost.

What do we tell these employers now, who have invested huge amounts of money? I am asking Ms. Kwan, and I would ask Ms. Ramo to answer after.

[Elizabeth Kwan]

First of all, I think for someone making so little money, even 10¢ more an hour makes a big difference. That's crossing that situation you described.

In terms of the investment of the employers, the issue is that the program was designed for employers in the 1950s. I think attitudes have changed and the program must change with them.

I have to say—and please indulge me—that I also have trade files. When I look at the U.S. and the EU, I look at some of the rules they have around migrant workers and forced labour and at the human rights due diligence practices they have. If Canada wants to compete, I would say this is a good place to start. Bring the program up to speed and make sure that workers are protected under the temporary foreign worker program and paid and valued for the work they do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

It's six minutes and 41 seconds and I've already accommodated the French-English translation, so we'll come back to Madam Ramo in the next round.

Now I'll go to the honourable member Madam Kwan.

Please go ahead.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for their presentations.

I am interested in understanding the recommendations for government. This particular study is related to closed work permits more specifically. Of course, as we know, temporary foreign workers come to Canada without full status. As a result, many of them are too often subject to exploitation, abuse and so on. It is all too familiar, really.

Beyond the issue around closed work permits, I have a more overriding question. Would you support people being able to come to Canada with landed status on arrival?

This first question is for Ms. Kwan from CLC. I would like to hear from Mr. Escobar on that question as well.

[Elizabeth Kwan]

I think people should have rights and should be able to practise those rights. It is important to give them opportunities to immigrate permanently.

I don't believe there should be a two-step process. I don't know if that was part of what you were looking for in an answer, but I don't think there should be a two-step process with a differential system whereby permanent immigrants on a high-skilled stream can come in without having to work for two or three years to prove themselves. I think that's the differentiation we have, and we need to get rid of it.

We need to provide people with streams to get permanent residency, but quite frankly, the immediate step for dealing with this is to provide people with open work permits so they can come. Let's have some of those streams open to the migrant workers so they can exert their rights and have their rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Go ahead, Mr. Escobar.

[Santiago Escobar]

I would like to share what we are doing right now as we speak. We support that migrants should have a better, flexible path to permanent residency.

The agri-food pilot program was implemented by the federal government. As we speak, our members, temporary foreign workers, are getting support. Our union is helping with ESL classes and with the process to file their applications to get PR so that these workers can qualify and get it. If workers are able to get PR to become part of the community, it's a win-win for all the parties involved: local communities, business owners and, of course, migrant workers and their families.

I think part of the solution is open work permits. I can share, because I'm part of the agricultural team in my union, that we have supported over 200 workers in obtaining open work permits as vulnerable workers. We are talking about low-skilled workers who have experienced abuses. You cannot imagine all the abuses we have been able to document. Employers retain their passports. They have to live in inhumane and overcrowded conditions. There are threats. They have to achieve a set quota in order to continue working. If they don't achieve the set quota every day, they are punished, and if it's the third time they will be sent back home.

Having said that, in order to make society more inclusive to all workers, not just high-skilled workers, low-skilled workers should be included.

That's what I can share for now.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On the question around open work permits, there's a belief that if migrant workers are given open work permits, they will just disappear into the system. You can't track them, and they will not work in the sector they were brought in for.

Given that vulnerable workers are granted open work permits and that, particularly with UFCW, you are working with those workers, do they just disappear into thin air, or are you able to identify these individuals and then line them up with employment and responsible employers so they can achieve what they hope to achieve, which is to work here in Canada with full respect and dignity and with the laws on their side?

[Santiago Escobar]

Unfortunately, what we have witnessed is that workers who have obtained open work permits have been blacklisted. Employers understand that if these workers have obtained open work permits, it's because they came forward and reported their former employers.

We are witnessing right now that hundreds of workers who obtained open work permits as vulnerable workers ended up undocumented. The solution to this is for these workers to have the opportunity to hold open work permits. Then they would be able to leave abusive employers. I'm not saying that all employers are abusive, but those who are problematic and abusive will think twice before they mistreat and abuse workers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You have 10 seconds.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Are there any other recommendations you would put forward to the government?

[Santiago Escobar]

For your information, agricultural workers, local workers and migrant workers in Ontario and Alberta are excluded from the labour relations acts. We claim, as a union organization, that this is a labour issue and that if workers don't have the capacity to defend themselves by being part of a union, by being protected by collective agreements, they are very vulnerable. Part of the solution is to include giving these workers the opportunity to join a union.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much to the honourable member Ms. Kwan.

We'll go to Mr. McLean for five minutes and then we'll go to Madam Zahid for five minutes.

Mr. McLean, the floor is yours.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming here today.

I'll have to be quick, because we have a few things to get through.

Ms. Kwan, you claim that ESDC is only 30% compliant on their inspections, yet we heard previously in committee, when ESDC was here, that they are 99% compliant. How do you explain the wide differential?

[Elizabeth Kwan]

There is no differential. They brought 47% of those employers into compliance. That's how it added up to a bigger number. As I said, there's a section that was compliant, and there was a section that they brought into compliance. Then there was a section that wasn't compliant.

My issue here is that 70%, to start off with, are non-compliant. Why is there such a high degree of non-compliance?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Ms. Ramo, the issue with the sector-specific visa is usually that the sponsor has to pay for the LMIA, the labour market impact assessment. Would you suggest that one party pay for it and then other employers be able to take that employee after somebody has invested in the report? How do we get around that logistical challenge?

[Gabriela Ramo]

You do have to pay for an LMIA. The proposal for the sectoral permit is that employers would participate in that LMIA. The ESDC would set aside—I'm picking numbers out of the air—5,000 workers for this particular sector. Employers who want to be part of that program would pay for the LMIAs in that program. If a worker leaves an employer and moves to another employer, the proposal is for employers to pay for a proportional amount of the time on that LMIA. They're setting up mechanisms to ensure that the employer who originally brought in the individual doesn't pay the full brunt.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I will cede the rest of my time to my colleague Ms. Lewis.