Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 2nd, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes. I'm not getting into partisan politics here now. Come on.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

With 13 members to one, we must have been talking small-l liberal, Mr. Komarnicki.

To Mr. Johansen and Mr. Hopkins, welcome. For me, it's great to be home to the friendly city of Moose Jaw, to my constituency, and it's a real pleasure to host everyone here in the great riding of Palliser.

Mr. Hopkins, you talked a lot about needing people to pour coffee. I've heard exactly the same stories myself, shop owners saying they can't find someone to pour coffee for $10 an hour. I definitely think that's a problem in Saskatchewan.

Of course, we also have a skilled worker shortage. This is a considerable problem in terms of doctors, nurses, construction workers, welders, and tradespeople in general. We're going to hear later on today—and this is what has come to my office—about the shortage of truck drivers, a significant shortage, where they've had to go to Great Britain or the Ukraine to bring in truck drivers.

I was very proud to listen to you talk about the economic potential in this province, in Saskatchewan. Our new economic growth potential is really limitless. You talk about our province with such pride. I enjoyed hearing that.

We currently have a 850,000- to 900,000-person backlog in the immigration system. This has ballooned from 50,000 people only a few short years ago under the then Liberal government.

I'm going to ask a rhetorical question. Obviously you support legislation that would reduce that bottleneck that prevents us from getting the labour we need to fulfill our potential. Right?

[John Hopkins]

Yes. That's perfect.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

We have a situation right now where it takes approximately six years to get people into Canada, and six months into Australia. The Australians will say that's one of their biggest selling features, the fact that it takes six years to get into Canada. That's expected to be 10 years by 2012 if it's not addressed.

This government is trying to address this. We're trying to reduce this bottleneck and ensure that we get both skilled and unskilled workers that we require in this country.

I have to say, in response to Mr. St-Cyr's comments, this is something that has come up a fair bit at the committee, the concern about temporary foreign workers and the abuse of temporary foreign workers. Maybe it's just because I live in the province of Saskatchewan, but I honestly do not hear of these cases coming into my office in Moose Jaw or Regina, where people are saying, “Listen, I'm here under the temporary foreign worker program and I'm being abused by my employer.”

I think you're right, Mr. Hopkins. If we ever saw that, we'd simply direct them to the right office and that would be dealt with very promptly.

I'm just going to wrap up, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hopkins, you did refer to the fact that foreign credentials have to be recognized. Our government has set up a foreign credential referral office to do just that, to speed up that process so that we don't have, as Ms. Beaumier said, cardiologists driving cabs when we have a shortage of cardiologists, or radiologists or OB/GYNs. We have that office set up, and we're going to try to expedite that, to get those people their credentials verified as soon as possible and get them into their trained field that they're a master in.

I want to wrap up by saying that we have welcomed to Canada this past year more immigrants than we have in nearly a century. As a quick fact, Canada this past year welcomed the highest number of newcomers in our history—429,649—surpassing the previous high in 1911.

So we're certainly moving in the right direction, and I'm glad you gentlemen approve of the movement by our government to reduce the bottleneck. Thank you very much.

If you have any comments or....

[John Hopkins]

If I can pick up on something you said, I want to maybe give you a little bit more information on that.

When I talked about Stephen King and he talked about going to Australia, it was six months. I didn't say that, but it was six months. I just thought I couldn't say that, because it didn't sound real—six months.

What he said to me was that the people he has talked to would far more prefer to come to Canada, because Canadians, by and large, are far more welcoming than Australians. But the problem is the five years, or the six years now, and maybe it will be 10 years soon enough if we don't do something.

People want to come to this country. It's just the backlog, the time it takes to get here.

And then there's another issue, and just because it comes to mind I'll say it. We have some unscrupulous immigration consultants in other countries, which is a problem. What we do about that I don't know, but I just raise that also as a flag. I'm glad you mentioned that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, we've been hearing that.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

We know who many of them are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, and when we get to Toronto, we've got some of these people coming in--immigration consultants and CSIC and what have you.

In any event, thank you. We appreciate your presence here today.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Johansen had a comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you have a comment, Mr. Johansen?

[Eric Johansen]

I'll make a couple of comments in response to Mr. Batters' and Mr. Komarnicki's comments.

One is about the general stream in Manitoba. We have a somewhat comparable stream in our skilled worker stream that's based on points. The difference here in Saskatchewan is that we do require a job, and the Manitoba general stream does not require the individual to have a job here. That was a judgment call we made out of concern about ensuring that the nominee actually comes here and stays here. We felt when we created our skilled worker category that the job was the best assurance we could have, and that skilled workers coming here would actually settle in Saskatchewan, because as you know, once they have landed immigrant status, they have the right to leave. That's why we made that judgment when we created the category a couple of years ago.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

To follow up on that, when you have a skilled category, are you able to broaden that to include those you might need for lesser skills, or other skills?

[Eric Johansen]

Yes, and our long-haul trucker category is an example of where we've looked below the NOC codes A, B, and 0 and said there's a particular need we must respond to, and we created an avenue that uses the foreign temporary worker program to address that. We recognize there is pressure to look at other low-skill occupations--I shouldn't say low-skill, but semi-skill occupations--and see if there's a way we can use these two programs to address them appropriately. We're hearing it from the business community.

With respect to the backlogs in the steps of the legislation that recently passed, we will welcome anything that helps reduce the processing times overseas. We certainly see it as important for the nominee programs, and I recognize that the legislative measures don't seem to be addressed directly to nominee programs, but when the whole system is backlogged, that's going to slow down nominees as well.

In the longer run, it will be interesting to see how it does play out. It's been very important for provinces that the federal posts do give priority to nominees, and that's been very helpful.

Saskatchewan, and I think other small provinces, got into the immigration game because we felt the national immigration program didn't work successfully for us. Our percentage of immigrants was very low. For us, it's important that as the processing issue is dealt with, we continue to give some priority to nominees, as I think Mr. Komarnicki was characterizing it, so we can target immigration to our specific needs within the province.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you. We really appreciate your submissions today--very good indeed.

We'll take a 10-minute break now before we get our next group to the table. Believe me, your submissions will be taken into consideration and the recommendations we....

Do you have a point you want to make, gentleman and lady? Just one second, I think Mr. Carrier had a point he wanted to make.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to be brief.

Yesterday, we were in Alberta. The representatives of temporary workers described to us a situation so dramatic, in terms of the poor conditions of those workers, that Canada's international reputation was at stake. Among other things, they said that there were more temporary workers in the province last year than there were workers who were landed immigrants. The situation seemed to be out of control. Even the representatives of the Alberta Federation of Labour came to report the situation to us.

Today, in Saskatchewan, we haven't heard from representatives of those workers. You seem to be saying that the situation is under control and that there are no problems. Is that because the Government of Saskatchewan is doing a better job on the labour standards that apply both to those workers and to others?

I would like to hear Mr. Johansen's comments on the subject.

[Eric Johansen]

Let me offer a couple of thoughts on it.

First, because our economic boom is a fairly recent phenomenon, this province hasn't used the temporary foreign worker program to the extent it has been used in Alberta. In 2006, I think we had 1,400 temporary workers, and a large portion of them would have been quite highly skilled workers. Last year we had 3,000 approvals under the temporary foreign worker program. So it's growing fairly significantly, but it hasn't been used as expansively as it has in Alberta.

A second factor is that to a greater degree than in Alberta, Saskatchewan's goal has been to not simply bring people in on a temporary basis; we see the temporary program as an avenue to landed immigrant status. Over the last several years we have used the temporary foreign worker program as a stepping stone toward permanent immigration through the nominee program.

I don't have statistics to back this up, but part of the situation in Saskatchewan may be that people are on temporary foreign worker status for a shorter length of time because they're progressing on to the nominee program.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

I'm sorry I overlooked you, Mr. Carrier. I didn't quite understand what signal you were giving me. I thought it was to let him keep on going, or what have you.

But thank you. I appreciate it very much.

We'll take a short break.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I want to welcome you back as we begin our third panel this morning.

We welcome the Saskatoon Immigration and Employment Consulting Services Incorporated, and Daniel Hirschkorn, director. Thank you, Daniel.

Mr. Chris Thomas from Tim Hortons group is the fellow who got everyone in the country addicted to Tim Hortons coffee. Chelsea Jukes is on her way. Sandra Cornford, a clerk from the foreign worker liaison, is missing in action as well.

We'll begin with Mr. Hirschkorn.

Mr. Thomas, if you wish to make opening statements we'll be pleased to hear from you.

[Daniel Hirschkorn, Director, Saskatoon Immigration and Employment Consulting Services Inc.]

Thank you very much. I'll just plunge right in regarding foreign workers in Saskatchewan.

In Alberta, B.C., Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, P.E.I., and Quebec, we have occupations under pressure lists that reduce the advertising requirement for anyone trying to bring in foreign workers. Saskatchewan does not have that list, even though we have right now the second lowest unemployment rate in Canada. I would strongly urge that we get that list developed here in Saskatchewan.

Secondly, Service Canada on the provincial level is very short staffed. It's easy to just ask for more money to hire more people, but I do talk to all the workers on a regular basis, and they are under a lot of pressure to work on a lot of files. Without a word of a lie, I'm sure we could double the number of foreign worker officers in Saskatchewan. Doubling the numbers would probably help. I don't know if that's possible, but it's certainly something that needs to be done now.

On policies regarding how Service Canada assesses files, I know Mr. Thomas will talk a bit about that as well. There are requirements when you submit labour market opinion applications. I've done enough LMOs, as we call them. I've done plenty of LMOs. I've standardized how I do it. I can submit two identical LMOs to two workers. One will get approved; one may get denied. I would just like to see some clear policies. I have done an information request to, I think, HRDC in Quebec, to the information office, requesting an organizational chart and the policies and procedures manual for Saskatchewan region. If memory serves me correctly, I've been unable to get either of those things. If I had a policies and procedures manual, by all means I'd quote policy when I submitted LMOs. If something was denied, I could say, show me the regulation that states that.

Third parties. In immigration you get the third parties, which are often CSIC consultants. I'll hold my comments back about CSIC, but there are a lot of recruitment companies that are called third parties. I would be considered a third party. I get the authorization from a company to submit an application on their behalf. Here again, you have six workers in Saskatchewan; half of these workers will phone me and phone the employer regarding the file, and the other half will not phone me. I talk to the employer after the fact, and the employer says, “I got a call from so-and-so, and we talked on the phone for 10 minutes”, and what I have heard twice in the last month was, “It was all Greek to me”.

Companies hire third party representatives such as me because the companies don't know how to do it themselves. By all means, the Service Canada officer should phone the company directly, ensure that I'm an authorized representative, ensure there's a job there, ensure that they're aware of the requirement for the employer, the return airfare for low skills, all these sorts of things. I would urge clear direction to all the workers to cc the third party on any correspondence and make a quick phone call to the third party as well. It creates so many hassles when I talk to the employer and the employer has no idea what transpired over the phone. Service Canada uses acronyms. Employers don't know what these acronyms are. That's why they hire me.

Another thing about Service Canada is that they are fairly distinct from CIC. As a small recommendation, it's probably not a good idea to have Service Canada workers offering advice on immigration matters, because it is a very separate field. It doesn't happen a lot. When I hear an officer telling a client that while he's coming over from the Philippines he cannot bring his spouse, I get upset. As we know, skilled workers on temporary farm work permits have the option of bringing their spouse and family.

Regarding wages and Service Canada, I did a lot of work with hotels in Saskatchewan. Eight months ago a hotel cleaner would make $8.25 to $8.50 an hour, depending on which hotel. That has been traditionally one of the lower-paid jobs. It's also one of the more difficult jobs. Six months on, three hotels in Saskatoon had moved their wages up to $10 an hour, and that was to get the foreign workers in. They're paying other Canadians $10 an hour. But what you're looking at is a 20% to 25% increase over six months. A lot of companies can't quite handle that.

In Saskatchewan we have a 4.1% unemployment rate. A balanced unemployment rate is 5%. Below 5%...out of every 10 people out there able to work, one is generally considered unemployable. So having Service Canada telling companies that they have to raise their rates to get foreign workers and attract other Canadians is not a good direction to be going in.

Do you want me to hold on for a second?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

No, you can go on. We'll welcome them afterwards.

[Daniel Hirschkorn]

Again, about wages, I understand that Service Canada is there to protect the Canadian labour market, and I'm fully supportive of that. My background in immigration is actually in settlement. I could talk here at great length about the point system and settlement.

I don't believe in the abuse of foreign workers. I have turned down some companies, big contractor companies, because I knew they wouldn't treat their foreign workers right. But it's to the point where a lot of employers are very upset. I know they're calling the transition coordinator at Service Canada here in Saskatchewan, Miss Rose Hill, and are probably calling Eric Johansen, because they can't get approvals for some of their positions, and they are actually paying decent wages.

One quick example--this was six months ago, and the rates have probably gone up--was the case of an entry-level construction worker. One company wanted to bring in a few Mexicans and applied for the LMO. Service Canada is quite nice in Saskatchewan. They phoned back and said that everything looked good, but the company couldn't pay $12 an hour; it had to pay $15 an hour. The employer said he wasn't paying $15 an hour to anyone who walked in off the street, so why should he pay $15 an hour to a worker he'd never met. That's a good point.

My point to Service Canada--I didn't argue it much--was that if I walked into any construction company and asked for a job, they would start me at $12 an hour. So why is it any different to bring in a foreign worker at $12 an hour? The response was that it was because of what they call the prevailing wage rate. In Saskatchewan they do a study every six to 12 months to peg it. The prevailing wage rate is the wage rate at which the company says people stick around. What they're starting with is what keeps the workers. They look at the retention rate.

It's a bit tricky to use prevailing wage rates when you're hiring people you've never met. You're a little bit leery about their skill sets. Starting them a bit lower and then agreeing to move them up after one year to a higher wage rate, to the prevailing wage rate, would be acceptable. Companies would be more open to that. But telling companies that they have to pay $15 an hour to a construction labourer, basically a grunt worker, is a tough one for them. So a lot of companies have shied away because of that.

I'll say a little bit more about wages in the food service industry. I think Mr. Thomas will talk more about that. I do a lot of work with restaurants, fast food restaurants, and the hotel industry. There are tips and gratuities that everyone makes. Service Canada doesn't account for that in the wage. I understand that it's problematic; you can't guarantee that you'll get tips. But when it comes to banquet servers, for example, when the hotel gives the bill for the food, they add a 15% gratuity. That's fairly concrete. They know you're going to be getting that.

On behalf of some of my client hotels, I wonder if Service Canada would take a look at somehow factoring in tips and gratuities in some of these positions. What they're saying right now is that you can't hire banquet servers for less than $10 an hour. Banquet servers get $8.70 an hour. They average $2 to $3 an hour in tips. Hotels aren't about to bump them up to $10 an hour, because they're doing well already.

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You can make some opening remarks if you wish.

[Chris Thomas, TDL Group (Tim Hortons)]

Sure, definitely.

Thank you all again for inviting us down today. It's greatly appreciated.

I'm here today representing our 2,700 locations in Canada, and by their calculations, all the store owners figure that with 2,700 locations, at seven minutes each, we should be here for about 13 and a half days, so I sure hope everybody's prepared for that on this side. So we'll be going from there.

One of the things I wanted to talk about today is that we've been involved with this for a fairly long time now and have been dealing with a lot of the issues that have cropped up. We have about 178 store owners in Canada who are currently looking at this program. We have over 600 candidates already in Canada. We are looking at another 400 arriving here by the end of the next quarter. So the number is going to continually increase.

We're seeing this across the board in Canada. This is just not an Alberta-B.C. issue. We hear people all the time saying, “Well, the only reason is the oil and gas, it's the Olympics in Vancouver”. This is everywhere. We're seeing this in Saskatchewan. We're seeing this in Manitoba. We're seeing this in Toronto, where we're getting a lot of people coming and saying, “You know what? I want a job, but I am a radiologist. I don't want to work at a Tim Hortons; I want to work as a radiologist.” We'll certainly work with them, but we know that obviously their hearts are in another place where they want to be.

We're seeing this in Quebec and we're seeing this in the Maritimes, so this is something that's coming fairly quickly across all of Canada. So I think it's just something for most of us to be prepared for.

One thing gives us a little bit more of an opportunity to see versus a lot of the other businesses in Canada that are looking at this. Because this is happening Canada-wide, we're seeing a lot of process and standardization issues across the board. What you end up seeing is a duplication of efforts all the way through, whether it's at Service Canada, the various embassies, CIC—the processing of the same candidate multiple times for multiple reasons.

You will see a person who gets a stamp from the embassy to come into Canada for a two-year work permit, and Border Services turns around and puts six months onto their stamp when they come in. All of a sudden, then they've got to go back to Vegreville, Alberta, get another year and a half put on there, for an additional $150 charge, if they're lucky, and they have to start the whole process all over again.

Why are we doing this same thing multiple times, again and again and again? It causes an issue for the candidates, it's an issue for the store owners, and I think it's an issue for the government. When you talk to the various levels of bureaucrats, they're saying all the time that their paperwork is getting harder and harder and there's more and more of it. The idea is how to cut this down. Standardization of processes would help a lot with it from there.

Regarding definition and publication of program regulations, how much effort is spent on incorrect applications? Not every company in Canada is like ours, where they have somebody in place like me who can help the store owners through this process. We've got a lot of small mom-and-pop operations out there, and they're trying to do this application, and we're hearing stories of applications going to the government six or seven times before finally getting approved. Again, if it were standardized in terms of what was required in the application, and as Daniel mentioned earlier, if this same information were being provided for each one of the workers, it would make it a lot easier to process the people through and get it done on a quicker, more timely basis.

On the contracts and prevailing wage calculations, the idea of a prevailing wage isn't so bad. It lets us at least know where we're starting from. The problem seems to be in the calculation of it. How exactly did they determine the numbers? What you see is that even though it's a federal program, each province defines it differently as to how they figure out the information and where they're getting the information from, and they don't necessarily follow normal industry standards.

For our industry on the quick service side, we get people all the time saying, okay, it should be a $9- or $10-an-hour job, and then you find out that people who work in prisons as food counter attendants make $24 an hour, so we'll include that into the wage as well. When you throw that into the mix, of course it throws off the numbers all across the board.

On contract enforcement, one bit of clarification from what we heard in the previous presentations is that once workers come to Canada, contracts are provided under labour standards by each one of the provinces. Individuals are free to move if they want, as long as they can get another contract, all legal, through various CIC offices. As long as they can do that, they can move from employer to employer.

The issue that comes up with this is for the lower-skilled positions such as ours. We have to pay for recruitment of the individuals. We have to pay for airfare of the individuals to get to Canada. The problem is that if a second employer comes and takes that individual, we're still responsible for the recruitment and the airfare for them on that side. This is unfair from that standpoint. There has to be something in there for the workers or for the secondary employers or the third employers, such that they have to take on the responsibility of those costs.

Concerning lack of acceptance of secondary costs, Service Canada, as Daniel mentioned, does not seem to define that things such as tips, housing, housing accommodation items, training, and time put into this effort be recognized, as apportioned by what store owners have to do to get this done. They think it's a very easy process, and evidently it's not.

Concerning recruitment standards, one of the things we're seeing here a lot--and I know you heard a lot about this in Vancouver as well as in Edmonton yesterday--is that realistically this program is punishing people who want to do it legally and ethically in Canada.

Basically, right now when somebody comes into Canada and they have used an illegal recruiter—they've had the candidates pay fees—and then the candidates end up disappearing or go MIA on them, nothing is done to them. In the case of the ones who do it right—spend the money up front, do everything properly, and then the people leave—there is the thought, “Oh well, so what? You lost three candidates. You lost the people; we can't do anything about it.” Again we are rewarding people for doing it illegally. Something has to be done about this.

As to various offices and officers not understanding the impact of a “no experience required, no English level required”, this is something that comes up fairly often. What you see is different industries writing into their LMOs that “we don't need someone who speaks English, we don't need someone who has any experience”. Then when we try to bring the people over, various embassies are saying no, we won't let you do that. So what do they do? They start looking at quick service industries, manufacturing industries, trying to draw the people out of there, because they know they can get them at a lower rate, and they're already in Canada, where their processing times are going to be reduced.

It is an unregulated industry. As a result, many issues are happening overseas and in Canada causing additional issues for government offices, business owners, and the candidates themselves. More regulation of this industry has to take place when you're bringing people over. Whether it be further intervention through CSIC members or through immigration lawyers, something has to be done to make these people accountable for their actions.

Finally, one of the things we have heard today—Colleen, you mentioned it earlier—is that the temporary foreign worker program is supposed to be a temporary program, and in the long term the idea should be immigration. What we need to do is have clearly defined pathways for temporary foreign workers to become citizens or permanent residents. Right now it's a bit of a crapshoot. One officer tells you maybe they could do it like this; another one says possibly it is like this. There should be a clearly defined pathway showing us exactly how to do it. If the people are not going to be eligible for it, we have to tell them up front. If there is that opportunity in Australia for them, let them go. It's Canada's loss at that particular point in time.

Finally, I'll talk about industry-targeted immigration streams. We need people in our industries who want to work in our industries. We gladly accept individuals from all over Canada. It is, however, very unfair to expect a professional such as an engineer, a doctor, an accountant, a radiologist to work in our industry, because there are barriers in their industry to getting in. We have to give people who are coming to Canada the impression of coming here to work at their profession, and that is what we want to make sure we are available to do.

If we are opening these doors up for engineers, for radiologists, and for accountants, what we are expecting is that obviously the same thing comes up for our service-level industry as well--that we can bring the people in and help them out from there.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Chris. Your comments were very interesting.

I want to welcome Chelsea Jukes, presenting on behalf of Westcan Bulk Transport Ltd., and Sandra Cornford, foreign worker liaison. It is good to have you here as well—from wonderful, beautiful Moose Jaw.

Chelsea.