Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for allowing me to appear and make a presentation.
I'm a partner in ACT Immigration and Business Consulting, an immigration consulting firm in northern B.C. and Alberta. In my previous career, I worked 22 years with Canada immigration. I was an officer and a manager and worked here in Canada and overseas with the Department of Foreign Affairs.
I believe the temporary foreign worker program can work better for temporary foreign workers and their Canadian employers. As we know, temporary foreign workers are requested by Canadian employers who need to fill temporary skills and labour shortages when Canadians and permanent residents are not available. We tend to talk about temporary foreign workers, but the title should be Canadian employers and temporary foreign work. Together the two add to our economy.
A few of your speakers have talked about the categories and the programs so you're pretty well versed in the LMIA, the labour market impact assessment, and the temporary foreign worker program.
The main difference is temporary foreign workers under certain immigration classes do not need an LMIA, international experience Canada or the working holiday visa. Post-grad work permit holders and such folks do not need anything more than a work permit.
The second category of interest to this committee is the labour market impact assessment. Those are high- and low-wage occupations, agricultural workers, and in that line they need both the work permit and the LMIA approval to enter Canada.
What works and what doesn't? I know it's a hackneyed expression, but Canada was built by immigrants. We heard from the former respondents that the temporary foreign workers are a feeder group for permanent residents and new immigrants—David Manicom said that last week—but temporary foreign workers need protection and the employers need options, and the current LMIA process is not answering either.
Canadian employers put their own business and family money into bringing TFWs into Canada. Most employers will tell you they have never seen the person they hired until they arrive on the shop floor or if it's a caregiver they arrive at their house.
I'm going to give two quick examples that may help a bit. First, the caregivers. If my elderly mother needed a caregiver, I would have to look for Canadians. I would put an ad in the paper for a month. I would have to keep it running for two more months. It does not matter if 100 other people have looked already. I must do it with all of them. Even if there's a caregiver next door, and that person is unemployed, they cannot work for me and my mother until I clear them with a new LMIA and a new work permit. A very slow, old system is in place here.
Second, we all hear that the demand for physicians in Canada far exceeds availability. Yet each year every foreign physician who comes into Canada must get cleared and get an LMIA approval. I would rather my doctor was cleared by the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the local health authorities. I'm not as worried about clearance by an ESDC officer.
I offer three suggestions.
One, streamline the LMIA process. There are too many inconsistencies, and there's a lack of communication between applicants and the ESDC. Employers need to know there are standard protocols for the process. Canadian employers invest a large amount of time and money in their employees.
ESDC and IRCC can see there is not a risk within the program. They could move physicians and some caregivers out of the program into a category that would help with that process.
Two, I would like to see some open occupation work permits, a system whereby the work permits are based on in-demand occupations and areas in need, rather than tie an employee to an employer. Much of the controversy is related to unhappy or vulnerable employees.
That would allow employers and employees to choose each other and find a fit. They could also leave if it didn't work. It would be the market that would find the balance. I do believe that the “T” is for “temporary” in “temporary foreign workers”, and that would allow more choice.
My final recommendation is to place LMIA officers in local regions. One size does not fit all. We're a huge country of many regions, and ESDC could be more accountable in local communities. We could have smaller ESDC offices in hub centres. They would know the local environment and the local employers, and they could also gauge the geographic areas of our industries that should have LMIAs.
I remember that in Fort St. John the economic development person there told me that when the LMIA process had its pause back in 2014, $20 million in projects stopped. It's not that the TFWs weren't there. It's just that the Canadian employers weren't willing to invest in their companies unless they knew they could have a mix of Canadians to work and that TFWs would be there as well.
Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you once again for allowing me to appear. I look forward to your report.