Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about budget implementation measures impacting the temporary foreign worker program.
The temporary foreign worker program is extremely important to our members, particularly in communities in western Canada and in pockets in other parts of the country where labour shortages are acute.
I should be clear that 98% of the 1.1 million workers in Canada's food service industry are Canadians or landed immigrants. Of the 2% of our workforce comprised of TFWs, temporary foreign workers, almost 90% are located in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.
I want to give you an idea of the challenges our members are experiencing in sourcing labour. Between 2011 and 2012 the number of restaurants in Saskatchewan grew by 64. With sales growth of 8%, the demand for restaurant employees was estimated to increase by 2000. In reality, employment fell by 400. The unemployment rate in Saskatchewan is 3.8%. Restaurants are delaying expansion plans and reducing their services because they simply can't find workers.
Demographics tell us that the labour shortages our members are experiencing in western Canada will spread across the country and get progressively worse as the labour force ages because our workforce is so skewed toward youth.
About 44% of today's food service workers are 15 to 24 years of age, but this age group has reached its demographic peak and is now in decline. By the year 2021 the population of 15-year-olds to 24-year-olds will decline by 340,000, while our industry's needs will grow by 200,000.
Our members have responded to labour shortages by enhancing their recruitment and retention strategies, increasing wages and benefits, and putting more emphasis on attracting and accommodating under-represented groups, such as aboriginals and persons with disabilities.
A recent survey of CRFA members revealed the extent employers in our industry go to hire individuals from groups under-represented in the Canadian labour market. For example, almost 76% of respondents hire first nation individuals; 84% hire new immigrants; 79% hire persons with disabilities or other abled individuals; and 60% hire social assistance recipients.
Reflecting their preference to recruit domestically, our members have moved far beyond simple job postings in their efforts to attract potential employees, including job fairs and interaction with community groups and social agencies.
Despite these best efforts, in some regions a restaurant's only option is to turn to the temporary foreign worker program.
This program is already cumbersome and costly. We are concerned that the changes proposed will make it more so. However, we also appreciate the need to protect the integrity of the program and to ensure the intent of the program, which is to hire Canadians first, is respected by all users of the program. We are supportive of measures that will ensure that appropriate monitoring and compliance mechanisms are in place, and that abusers of the program are denied access.
We understand the intent of the changes in clause 161 is to give the government authority to deny a labour market opinion, LMO, or revoke an LMO if there are abuses to the program. However, it is difficult to comment on the proposed changes without understanding the parameters of the ministerial instructions.
We are concerned about giving department officials blanket authority to reject an application without due cause or natural justice. What is the oversight process concerning the ability of an individual officer to reject an application? Is there an appeal process? How would it work? What happens to the prospective worker if he or she is already at point of entry or in Canada? If the worker must be returned to their country of origin, who is responsible for the cost? What happens if a Canadian comes forward after the LMO and work permit have been approved to say that they want the temporary foreign worker's job?
The principles that we would like to see established pertaining to clause 161 are as follows:
Public policy considerations in ministerial instructions for rejection or revocation of an opinion must be clear and unambiguous; revoking a work permit should only be considered in egregious cases; and there must be an appeals process.
With regard to imposing a user fee for LMO applications, our members are prepared to help bear the cost of the program, particularly if it leads to improvements that will speed up the application and approvals process. An effective and cost-efficient administration system is in all of our interests.
According to a background document on the TFW program, only 40% of approved LMO positions result in TFW work permits. I want to be clear that employers do not want to obtain or be charged for an LMO without it resulting in a TFW permit.
There is often a lengthy delay between when the employer applies for the LMO and when it is approved. By the time it is approved, the TFW or TFWs identified in the application are no longer available. This is often because TFWs have applied for multiple permits and contract with the first employer whose LMO is approved, or the TFW is not available because embassy officials reject the TFW application following background or health checks. In either case, the employer is forced to begin the application process all over again.
Some principles that we would like to see implemented in the process to establish user fees are as follows. The LMO should apply to the LMO application regardless of the number of TFWs listed on the applications. There should be checks to ensure that the paperwork is in order and that documentation required to verify recruitment activities are the same whether the employer is applying for one worker or ten. There should be a way to fast-track or replace an LMO if the TFW listed in the LMO is no longer available or denied access. The fee for the TFW permit should be set high enough to discourage TFWs from applying for multiple permits with multiple employers.
CRFA would also recommend that the government establish a social insurance number verification process so employers can be sure they are not hiring illegal workers. If that were in place, then CRFA would recommend that in the event a TFW has overstayed his or her work permit and is working illegally, the current employer should bear the cost of deportation and not the Canadian government. However, this could only work if a SIN verification process were in place.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, the TFW program is critical to the continued viable operation of Canada's restaurant industry, particularly in those regions of the country experiencing acute labour shortages. We are interested in working with you to put policies in place that will reinforce and further strengthen the efficiency, integrity, and reputation of this invaluable program.