Human Resources Committee on May 16th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Hello, everybody.

We're going to get going. We have a pretty full day today, and we have to suspend between the different panels because we have some video conferencing coming in on the second set of witnesses as well as the third.

First, I would like to welcome and thank all our panellists for attending today from far and wide. Today we have, from ACT Immigration and Business Consulting Ltd., Anthony Cochlan, who is a partner. From the Canadian Labour Congress we have Barbara Byers, secretary-treasurer, and Elizabeth Kwan, senior researcher; and from Whistler Chamber of Commerce, Val Litwin, chief executive officer. Thank you all for being here today.

Without any preamble we're going to get moving with the opening statements from each of you. Because we have the three panellists, could we limit it to seven minutes, please?

We're going to start with Anthony Cochlan, from ACT Immigration and Business Consulting Ltd., please.

[Anthony Cochlan, Partner, ACT Immigration and Business Consulting Ltd.]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Now, from the Canadian Labour Congress, Barbara Byers will be speaking for seven minutes.

[Barbara Byers, Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thanks for the opportunity to present our views today on behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress. We will be providing the committee with a written submission in the future. We just haven't gotten it translated yet.

We represent 3.3 million members across the country. We work in virtually all sectors of the economy. Although we are pleased to be here we're also concerned with the limited time frame allocated for the review of the temporary foreign worker program. In May, 2014, several thousand delegates to our 27th constitutional convention called for a full, open, and transparent review of the temporary foreign worker program. We feel like this review undertaken by HUMA does not meet that criterion so we hope you'll give it some further reconsideration.

I'd like to start by saying that it's long been our contention that the temporary foreign worker program is flawed in design and in use. The program is still being used by employers as a way of doing business instead of a last resort. Employers are not motivated to recruit Canadian workers in aggressive and innovative ways including under-represented workers such as immigrants, persons with disabilities, indigenous people, racialized individuals, women, LGBTQ, and youth. They are also not motived to invest in training for Canadians because they can access higher skilled migrant workers.

For migrant workers the design of the program creates a multitude of vulnerabilities for them. The program is completely driven by employer demand and gives employers all control over the labour relationship with the migrant workers. This allows for rampant exploitation and abuse of their human and labour rights. The perennial problem is, of course, of low compensation for migrant workers. Although employers are required to pay migrant workers the median, prevailing wage, they find ways around this.

How do they do that? They do it by hiring migrant workers at the lowest end of the wage range, not paying them for overtime, not allowing rest breaks, demanding work outside of the employment contract, and recovering fees for various business expenses. Paying migrant workers low wages does not provide employers with the incentive to raise the wage floor for all workers regardless of whether they are Canadian or migrant workers. The tactics contravene provincial employment standards and the federal government's own requirements.

I want to highlight two program elements that result in enormous vulnerabilities for migrant workers. First, the employer-specific work permit gives all control to the employer of the workers' employment and immigrant status, their compensation, their working conditions, and their health and safety. The fear of getting fired and deported traps migrant workers in involuntary servitude where they experience horrendous working conditions; diminished labour rights; wage gouging; contraventions of labour, health, and safety standards; abuse; intimidation; sexual advances; coercion of document retention such as passports; and being tricked into illegal status. The most vulnerable are lower-skilled migrant workers with language barriers who work in isolation, and in particular those who are in debt to recruiters.

The second issue is the issue of the four-in, four-out, regulation where a migrant worker can work in Canada for four years and then they're not eligible to work in Canada for the next four years. This is a revolving door of lower-skilled migrant workers, which reinforces how the program creates an underclass of disposable workers. The flawed regulation interacts poorly with other parts of the temporary foreign worker program and has a far-reaching impact on the lives of migrant workers. In Alberta, migrant workers are timing out under this rule because of the processing delays of their provincial nominee applications. Other program flaws are specific to the caregiver program and the seasonal agricultural worker program. For example, the cap on permanent residency applications where there has been none before is particularly harsh in the caregiver program. That has also imposed limitations to pursue further education and training, which has caused hardships for many migrant caregivers. For those in the seasonal agricultural worker program their living and working conditions can only be described as dire. Although migrant farm workers contribute to employment insurance they are not entitled to EI benefits. This was something that they had before 2012, at least access to special benefits. Yet it is the same seasonal agricultural worker program that requires migrant farm workers to leave by mid-December each year invalidating the social assurance and disqualifying them for EI entitlements.

Other concerns include predatory recruiters charging migrant workers exorbitant fees—often in the thousands—to match them with employers for lower-skill, low-wage jobs. The recruiters put migrant workers in debt bondage for years.

One of our biggest concerns is the inadequacy of enforcement of employer compliance. Only eight on-site inspections were initiated out of a total of 5,907 employers reviewed by Employment and Social Development Canada between and 2013 and 2015. It's not enough, as well, when only 340 reviews have resulted from 3,395 tips received between April 14 and December 15.

Finally, more regional and timely labour market data is needed in order to implement evidence-informed operations of the temporary foreign worker program.

We want to leave you with these recommendations.

Implement new pathways to permanent residency for all lower-skill migrant workers, including those in the agricultural program, and the caregiver program.

Concurrently transition towards eliminating employers' access to temporary migrant workers on tied work permits in the national occupational classifications C and D of the temporary foreign worker program, excluding the seasonal worker program and the caregiver program.

Put in place strict new eligibility requirements for employers seeking temporary work permits, including more robust economic needs tests, providing tools to enhance employers' recruitment of Canadians, and permanent residents, including under-represented workers.

Work with employers to provide more training to Canadian workers.

Replace the employer-specific work permits with open permits for lower-skill migrant workers, including the seasonal workers and migrant caregivers. In the transition, offer pathways to permanent residency for lower-skilled temporary foreign workers who are already in Canada.

Eliminate the four-in, four-out regulation, and remove the caps on permanent residency applications and the barrier to further training and education for migrant caregivers.

Change the regulation to qualify seasonal workers for EI benefits.

Aggressively enhance enforcement of employer compliance, particularly by increasing on-site inspections.

Ratify convention 189 of the International Labour Organization on decent work for domestic workers.

And last, greatly enhance labour market data collection. Obviously, we would be pleased to collaborate on this.

These suggestions are not things that don't work. We know they work, or at least some of them work, in the international mobility program, so these are things that we have proven can work.

Thanks for your consideration, and we'll look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much, Ms. Byers.

Now from the Whistler Chamber of Commerce, we have chief executive officer Val Litwin.

Go ahead for seven minutes, please.

[Val Litwin, Chief Executive Officer, Whistler Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, committee members, and other members of Parliament.

My name is Val Litwin. I am the CEO of the Whistler Chamber of Commerce. We have been the voice of business in Whistler for the last 50 years and we represent over half of our business community, which has 700 members.

I am grateful and Whistler is grateful for the opportunity to present before you here today. Thank you.

I have been tasked by the mayor and council of Whistler to speak on behalf of the resort municipality. I have also received permission to speak on behalf of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. The Honourable Shirley Bond is aware I'm here too, and the B.C. Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Responsible for Labour is supportive of my message.

Whistler businesses have a decades-long history of being proactive, innovative, and I might even add—as my colleague from the Canadian Labour Federation just mentioned—aggressive when it comes to hiring Canadians.

Despite the flashy exterior, Whistler's business community is 93% small business. Many of these are run by solo owner-operators. Even the smallest Whistler coffee shop knows that it must recruit across Canada, in Edmonton, Montreal, and Toronto, from coast to coast to attract staff.

Whistler's biggest employer, Whistler Blackcomb travels to nine markets across Canada annually, from the interior of B.C. to St. John's, Newfoundland to meet Canadians face to face and to sell the experience of working and living in our resort town.

There are many initiatives, both old and new that have helped Whistler attract and retain Canadians that I want to highlight very quickly.

The Whistler Housing Authority was founded in 1997 on the assumption that our resort cannot succeed or be successful unless we have a stable resident workforce that has access to affordable housing. As of today, we house 80% of our workforce in resort, versus 40% in benchmark communities like Aspen and Vail, which we consider to be our chief competitors.

More recently, we have built programs in partnership with the University of Victoria's Gustavson School of Business to create specialized customer service training programs for first nations youth, so that the nations can better incorporate themselves into the Whistler workforce and community. We do work as a community very closely with the Squamish and Lil'wat nations.

Our educational partnership with the Gustavson School of Business has also allowed us to train 11,000 workers in the last two years, making university-level education available and affordable to our small businesses, and it can be leveraged as a benefit by them when hiring.

We are very familiar with the millennial market data, and we know that Canadians want to be invested in. We now advertise that all Canadians coming to our resort can receive a university education. To my knowledge, this is a Canadian first when it comes to a town that trains its employees.

In the last 18 months—and this is captured on the public record—our chamber has advocated to our business community to raise wages. This is very unusual for a chamber to do, but we see the bigger picture, and or members have responded. A recent survey showed that 78% of our members have instituted a wage increase in the last six months, and 71% of them have confirmed that the wage increase was between 6% and 25%.

Pulling back to the big picture, our resort of 10,500 people drives 25% of the tourism export dollar in B.C. and generates $1.4 million a day in tax revenue for the three levels of government. That's over half a billion dollars in tax revenue each year. Despite our efforts on wage increases, Canadian recruitment, and innovative housing practices, we have concerns that our inability to find Canadians is damaging our ability to maximize business opportunities.

Whistler currently sits at 1.8% unemployment. We are in the middle of a labour shortage that was identified by go2HR's labour market study in 2012. The report states that we will have a labour shortage of 14,000 full-time equivalents in hospitality and tourism by 2020. Sadly, we are on track to meet that target.

When we can't find enough Canadians to fill positions in the resort, we turn to other mechanisms like the temporary foreign worker program. I want to be very clear that while we view this program as vital, TFWs represent a very limited percentage of our workforce, just under 1% in 2014 according to Statistics Canada. A majority in recent years have been highly skilled snow-sport instructors. The seasonal nature of the ski industry, much like in agriculture, makes it difficult to obtain and keep talent.

Along with Canadians, temporary foreign workers are a valued and vital piece of our labour force. Without them we would not be able to deliver the exceptional customer experience our guests are used to in Whistler, nor would we have the international field that has made Whistler so special for decades. Therefore, Whistler would like to respectfully submit three recommendations. Let me emphasize that we are fully supportive of a program that focuses on integrity and compliance. We want a credible program with proper protections in place for vulnerable workers.

Our recommendations would be the following. First, right now the labour market statistics for the Vancouver mainland southwest catchment show an unemployment rate of 6%, but Whistler's unemployment is almost non-existent at 1.8%.

In spite of all our efforts to recruit, train, and retain Canadians, we have jobs to fill and no one to fill them. For micro labour markets like ours, it would be helpful for our sub-6% unemployment rate to be recognized so that we can qualify for specific urgently needed workers.

Second, the labour market impact assessment fee is high, we believe. At $1,000 per possible job applicant, for only one year of employment, with no guarantee that the position will be filled, $1,000 is prohibitive. The fee should be reduced, especially for small business, and/or the period for which the assessment is valid could be extended from one to two or three years. This would streamline the process and enable small business to remain competitive and viable.

Finally, Whistler would like to respectfully suggest that consideration be given to creating a stream for seasonal workers, like the agricultural program, accessible to all sectors, on the same criteria, where there is seasonal work with proven and persistent labour shortages. The Canada West Ski Areas Association data shows there are simply not enough qualified Canadians in the snow-sport instructor category to serve all the operating resorts in our country.

I hope I've made clear our case around how temporary foreign workers form a small but vital part of the Whistler workforce. I appreciate your listening today and your consideration on this pressing matter. Tourism is a growing and green industry in Canada, and Whistler would like to remain a driver of that economic growth in both British Columbia and Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much, Mr. Litwin.

Before we move on to questions, I want to officially thank Mr. Bratina for joining us today in place of Ms. Tassi.

With that, over to Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before the committee.

Anthony, I want ask you a specific question. Some of the changes to the temporary foreign worker program came in, as you know, in 2014. Some of us come from high-employment areas—Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Prince George—where TFWs are utilized in a great way, and I would say a lot of them in a highly utilized form. But we've heard concerns, too, about Canadian workers being displaced by temporary foreign workers. That's a concern, I think, around this table. We want to make sure we get jobs for Canadians first.

I just want you to speak to the Canadian person at home who's possibly unemployed. What do you say to the unemployed Canadian who sees temporary foreign workers as a threat to their livelihood?

[Anthony Cochlan]

It's a good question. I do think a temporary foreign worker program is one tool, and I think most of us have mentioned that. Often it's said to be the last desperate tool, although I'm not sure I'd paraphrase it that way.

I'm working on a LMIA now for an oil and gas company in your area that's paying over $150,000 to a specialized person. There may be 12 in the world who can do his job. I've already been refused once on it. I've had a horrendous number of odd questions about it. We put in another LMIA at another $1,000, and we're waiting for the answer. That fellow has about 200 people who are going to put down their tools if he doesn't get approved at the next go-round. Most of them are union members; in fact, I suspect that all of them are. He has no intent to stay in Canada. In fact he has a wonderful life in the U.K. He's worked in Indonesia and Australia. He helped all those places with pipelines, which is what he does. It's very frustrating to see that happen.

In the same sense—I'll try to be quick here—a 20-year-old girl sat next to me on the plane yesterday. She doesn't have a job. She told me that she doesn't have anything against a temporary foreign worker; she just doesn't know how to find a job in Canada. But she's in Ottawa, where we just arrived, as opposed to your area, where she'd be picked up off the street and given a job.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

The answer you gave I think answers the question that we in government saw previously, that a lot of these areas where temporary foreign workers are being brought in are areas where there simply aren't enough applicants available to fill those jobs. Typically we look at the service sector, such as hotels, Tim Hortons, and those kinds of places, but there are other highly skilled sectors where Canada simply can't provide an individual to fill a particular job. That's why they're resourced that way.

Val, you spoke about a potential labour shortage coming, saying that, sadly, you're on track to meet that shortfall. When I was a member of government, on the other side, we saw especially in this sector that ski instructors would come across. It wasn't just Canadians appreciating the talent; it really allowed the industry to be even bigger than what it was. Just as Anthony said before, because a few workers came to instruct, it allowed hotel workers to be employed and allowed many other Canadians to be employed as a result of that temporary foreign worker.

Could you just explain, in your terms, that shortfall? How would we change to meet that shortfall? And do you see TFWs as being necessary to fill that well into the future?

[Val Litwin]

Absolutely.

That report is not just for Whistler. It's for the coastal mountains specifically in tourism and hospitality.

What happens especially in ski resorts is if you don't get that baseline number of ski instructors, you're just not getting the customers coming through, and you're not serving them, which means there becomes a reputation in a specific category of snow-sport instructors that they are just always sold out. You can't get a lesson on a ski hill.

When we're performing under threshold when it comes to workers in the resort filling all these key positions, it does absolutely compromise the experience for the guests, and it doesn't allow us to scale at the same time.

As an example, Whistler Blackcomb, not this ski season but previously, had 90 snow-sport instructors. That was too prohibitive a process for them to repeat. They had 53 this year, and I believe—I have the numbers in here—they figure they missed out on $1.5 million to $2 million in revenue this year.

Whistler has always been a community that believes in helping itself before it asks for help. I think the way we are going to overcome the shortfall is by continuing to recruit aggressively across Canada. We will look to innovative partnerships that offer world-class, in fact, post-secondary training to all Canadians who want to come and work in the resort. We will be incredibly diligent in our recruiting in the Lower Mainland as well.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I'd like to speak to the LMIA. Part of the reason too that we cracked down on TFWs were...some abuses that were publicly known, and we felt we needed to do something.

I just would ask about the $1,000 LMIA. I've certainly heard from the initial promises that it was going to make the process expedited and would make it a better process.

In both your opinions, Anthony and Val, would you see that $1,000 LMIA as a success, or has there been no change?

[Val Litwin]

From my opinion and what I'm hearing from my members. it has not streamlined the process. In fact, it has become more onerous and prohibitive to employers.

[Anthony Cochlan]

I believe the same. I think there are lots of inconsistencies. Three or four months is the norm now for an LMIA going in easily.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Bob Bratina, please.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks very much.

I'll go to the Canadian Labour Congress, Ms. Byers and Ms. Kwan.

It's very confusing trying to determine what the real data is with regard to employment. In my city of Hamilton we have gone as low as 5.2% in the official StatsCan numbers. It may be just a little below 6% right now, which sounds to me very good, and yet there are many voices in the area saying there's an immense amount of poverty, and the jobs are not substantial jobs, so I'm not sure we're able to work from any clear data as to what the true numbers for the labour shortage are.

What would you have to say in terms of how that data is accumulated and presented? Are we able to work from numbers that are useful to us?

[Elizabeth Kwan, Senior Researcher, Canadian Labour Congress]

In fact, it is very difficult to get good data, and it is one of our recommendations that there be better and more timely data collection.

The data that's collected right now is pretty high-level data, and it isn't granular enough or localized enough to deal with some of the issues, including the one that Val had mentioned.

One of the things is if we can get better data, that would tell us more, and we believe this program has never been driven by a base that's evidence-informed.

Labour shortages are very difficult to determine. I know a few years back ESDC actually did some work with the Canadian Labour Congress on trying to determine the labour shortage, whether it existed or didn't exist. They are still working on it. The discussion was that it's very difficult to pinpoint.

To tell the truth, if you challenge anyone and say, prove to me there's a labour shortage, or prove to me there are skill shortages, it doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on, they will come up with numbers that really are not terribly good numbers because we haven't done the job yet.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

By the way, I do want to make sure that you provide a copy of your statement and the recommendations. I was trying to keep track of them in my mind. It's a very good list. You'll have that for us after translation?

[Barbara Byers]

Yes, we will.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Okay.

There's another thing that happens with statistics. We have a company in Hamilton, National Steel Car, and typically they had about 1,000 employees. They grew to 2,500 employees in making railcars, but when the model run changes and a different car comes in, they may lay off some people. The headline would read that “400 were laid off” from this company, but that's a temporary retooling layoff. Once again, we're into this confusion about what the real labour market is like.

There are many small machine shops and so on in our area. There are 23,000 manufacturing jobs. I ask them what problem we can help them fix, and it's the skilled labour shortage. Unfortunately, then, we get into the question of whether they are bringing someone in from eastern Europe because they're able to work more cheaply or whether there is definitely a shortage of those particular skills.

How are we going to evaluate that? What suggestions do you have, from the CLC point of view, that will help us understand what the real needs are in terms of skills and so on, and whether they're available or not?

[Barbara Byers]

One of the suggestions that we've had for a long time now would cut across both this area, obviously, and also other areas in employment generally, such as skills shortages, training, and all that sort of stuff. What we've promoted for a long time is that we need a labour market partners forum, where you actually bring together business, labour, government, and other stakeholders to be able to work this out. These aren't issues that can be looked at as if we'll meet today and then next week we'll come up with the solution. That usually ends up meaning that you don't have a very good solution.

We used to have opportunities for that. We had the Canadian labour force development boards all across the country. We had the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre, which again brought together the workplace partners and asked if we did or did not have a skills shortage. It could get through that debate and also call on specific kinds of information.

That would be one major area, we would say. I think it would cut across the area we're talking about today, but also a number of others as well, in order to develop a national employment strategy, because we don't have that either.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I was very concerned about the question of the potential abuse of temporary foreign workers and the ratio of investigations versus complaints. What would you say to that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Very briefly, please.

[Elizabeth Kwan]

I would say that they really do need to more aggressively enforce that. They have built a much better car; the compliance framework keeps getting bigger and more complex. But quite frankly, it has to be followed by strong, aggressive enforcement.

Also, I'm sorry, but when you count reviewing paperwork as “good enough” enforcement, it's not. You have to be able to get on site and check things out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Ashton, please, for six minutes.