Filipiniana News -
November 2009
Rhyme and
Reason
Canada’s immigration system is far from being perfect.
Aside from stating
the obvious, this reality was further confirmed by a couple of news items that
were published in recent weeks.
The first news
item is the Auditor General’s report raising serious problems with Canada’s
immigration programs. In particular, the
Auditor General raised concerns “about the integrity of the program and the protection of temporary foreign
workers”. Below are some excerpts from
the report:
“Various studies and reports over
the years have recognized that lower-skilled temporary foreign workers entering
Canada may be vulnerable to exploitation or poor working conditions, usually
because of their economic conditions, linguistic isolation, and limited
understanding of their rights.”“There is a risk that live-in caregivers may tolerate abuse, poor working conditions, and poor accommodations so as not to lose the opportunity to become permanent residents. The program’s requirement that the caregiver reside in the employer’s home can put them particularly at risk. A number of CIC internal reports, some dating back as far as 1994, raised serious concerns about abuse of this program by employers and immigration consultants, as well as risks to individuals.”
“(T)here has been no systematic follow-up by either CIC or HRSDC to verify that employers are complying with the terms and conditions under which the LMO application was approved, such as wages to be paid and accommodations to be provided.”
“Furthermore, we noted that the pilot project for occupations requiring lower levels of formal training was launched with limited analysis of risks and without any formal goal, objectives, or basis on which to evaluate its success, nor has it been formally evaluated since then. It has been a pilot for seven years. Combined with live-in caregivers, temporary foreign workers under this pilot project now account for more than half of all temporary foreign workers in Canada.”
The Auditor
General’s findings are nothing really new to foreign worker advocates, and to
those who have gone through the temporary foreign worker program, including the
Live-in Caregiver Program. It is well
known that widespread abuse and exploitation occur within these programs, which
is further aggravated by the fact that there is no effective monitoring of the
employers’ treatment of these foreign workers.
What would likely be more alarming and less known is the fact that
foreign workers in occupations requiring lower levels of formal training
(commonly know as “low-skilled” occupations) and live-in caregivers comprise a
majority of temporary foreign workers in Canada.
We know that a
huge number of Filipino migrants obtain entry to Canada via these “low-skilled”
and live-in caregiver work permits.
Therefore, it is only reasonable to conclude that temporary foreign
workers from the Philippines end up being disproportionately affected by the problems
raised in the Auditor General’s report and will continue to be so as these
programs continue to grow in popularity among aspiring Filipino migrant
workers.
The second news
item dealt with the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which ruled
that sponsors who signed sponsorship undertakings should not be automatically
held responsible for repaying the social assistance debts of relatives whom
they sponsored as immigrants. Instead,
the court has ordered the creation of a process through which sponsors can
explain their personal and financial circumstances and potentially avoid
payment of social assistance debts.
Incidentally, this
involves another popular route of entry for Filipino migrants to Canada. That is, many Filipinos are admitted to
Canada as sponsored family members and the sponsors undertake to provide for
their sponsored family members’ needs.
Therefore, the sponsor will be financially obligated to return any
payments received by the sponsored family member in the form of welfare
benefits from the government. What the
Ontario Court of Justice ruling did was to prevent the government from
automatically enforcing these “sponsorship debts” without allowing the sponsor
to explain their specific circumstances.
It does not necessarily render void the sponsorship undertaking but only
allows the government to exercise discretion in “deserving” and “exceptional”
cases.
Nonetheless, this
is an important legal victory in that it tempers the government’s ability to
enforce these “sponsorship debts” automatically and unreasonably, even many
years after the family relationship may have broken down or when the sponsor
truly has no means to pay.
The immigration
system in Canada has been described as “one of the least controllable aspects
of government activity” not only because it is “fraught with bureaucratic
discretion, but also because its subjects are assumed to be politically
powerless.”
But as these
recent developments show, it may just be a matter of time before the government
authorities will finally realize that their exercise of discretion need not be
inconsistent with reasonableness and compassion, in the same way that migrant
workers will not necessarily remain politically powerless in the face of
recurring injustice and exploitation.
Comments
Post a Comment