Human Resources Committee on June 22nd, 2020

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Ms. Douglas and Mr. Thibodeau.

My questions are for you, Mr. Thibodeau. Thank you for your presentation. As you said at the outset, seasonal workers are an important part of Canada's economy. Before we talk about pilot projects and ways to make things better, I have a question for you.

Clearly, COVID-19 gave rise to uncertainty. Seasonal workers, who were in the spring gap, had no hope of earning enough income to qualify for another benefit period. Consequently, they were given access to the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB. It took a lot of work to make that happen, but in the end, they were allowed to apply.

What do you think the solution is? Normally, at this time of the year, workers are filling up on hours, so to speak, leading up to next year. We think the time during which workers didn't go back to work and were receiving the CERB should count towards their EI eligibility. After all, they weren't able to return to their jobs.

Do you think that's a good idea? Are there other things you would recommend?

[Fernand Thibodeau]

That's a very good solution.

Certainly the seasonal workers were in a black hole. A provincial government pilot project ended in late March. At that point, I received many calls, over 300 in one week. People were calling me because many of them were in a black hole and had no income. These people had to turn to the Canada emergency response benefit for help. They were then able to return to work.

I think that it's necessary to look at the employment insurance system as a whole to be able to meet the needs of seasonal workers. Can we fish in the winter? Can we make a living from tourism in the winter? Can we pick blueberries in the winter? Can we harvest peat in the winter? Can we cut wood in the winter? The answer to each of these questions is no.

We must avoid judging seasonal workers. These people work 70 to 80 hours a week on cement, in the heat and with sweat running down their foreheads. The reason is not that they don't want to work, but that it's all they have.

We mustn't forget the economic importance of seasonal workers, who constitute the backbone of 60% of Canada's economy. Today, stores are open. Who's running them? Retired people and seasonal workers.

Full-time workers—I have nothing against them—work in offices until 5 p.m. or later. From 9 a. m. to 5 p. m., who keeps the businesses running? Seasonal workers. They're very important to the economy.

It's important, if not essential, to study the employment insurance system and the current situation as a whole. The COVID-19 pandemic has given us momentum and the opportunity to change things. I think that it's necessary to change the areas and hours and to look at the employment insurance needs of all workers.

The COVID-19 pandemic is sending us a message. We need change. We need to dust off the furniture.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

We'll try to do this with an environmentally friendly product.

You referred to the pilot project, which ended in May 2020. The mandate of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion was to improve the pilot project by establishing a permanent program that provides consistent and reliable benefits. However, regulations have just been passed that simply extend this pilot project in its current form by one year. The regulations provide an additional five weeks of benefits.

I gather that the improvement issue is significant. Basically, the industry is seasonal, not the workers. Is that what you mean?

[Fernand Thibodeau]

That's exactly what I mean.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

The goal must be to eliminate the risk of black holes as much as possible by improving the regular employment insurance benefit system.

[Fernand Thibodeau]

Exactly. We're disappointed that the pilot project isn't permanent yet. We held meetings with all the Atlantic regions, which is significant. We then had meetings in Rimouski with all the people from Quebec. We prepared a report, which we submitted to the minister. However, I don't think that the report was taken into consideration. It should be.

We heard that the one-year extension was the result of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, I don't think that this is the reason for the extension.

We need a permanent system. Employment insurance must be reconsidered from A to Z. It must be changed, especially for seasonal workers.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

The short-term goal is to review the number of hours required to qualify for employment insurance. We also know that some people don't qualify for it, particularly women, as a result of the atypical nature of their work.

Could you suggest three main ways to resolve the issues with the current system?

[Fernand Thibodeau]

At this time, the hours issue must be resolved. The divisor must be reviewed and the calculations must be adjusted.

It's also necessary to change the areas, which don't meet needs. For example, Restigouche—Albert is quite close to the Moncton suburbs. When we talk about “changing,” we aren't talking about changing a small part of the area. We really need protected areas for seasonal workers to meet their needs.

It's necessary to review the areas and hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Thibodeau and Ms. Chabot.

Next we have Ms. Kwan, please, for six minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Is it my turn now, Mr. Chair?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations.

I'm going to come to you, Ms. Douglas, if I may. First off, thank you for the work of OCASI in our community. It's much appreciated.

In terms of rights for migrant workers, we heard in our previous panel the situation that has prevailed for years and years. The most recent report that was made public was “Unheeded Warnings”. Have you had a chance to look at that report?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

It is.

[Debbie Douglas]

No, I haven't had a chance to look at the report in any detail, though I think I'm familiar with some of the issues that may have been raised in there.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay, maybe I can go to this.

On the critical issue of addressing the abuses and the problems that exist in the system, there is to call for landed status on arrival—that is, to recognize the workers on arrival and to give them status. Is that something OCASI supports?

[Debbie Douglas]

Absolutely. It is one of our policy priorities. We believe that workers should be landed on arrival.

We need to look at two things. We need to provide a system to land those who are already here and to then open up. That's why I talked about looking at our economic selection process as a way of addressing some of that. Those who are coming in to work temporarily should not be coming in temporarily but as permanent residents.

I know that Syed Hussan makes fun of people like me who say things like, “Good enough to work, good enough to stay.” I absolutely agree with him, but it goes back to the earlier questioner about folks paying into our EI and CPP and not being able to have those benefits.

Yes, workers should be landed on arrival, and those who are already here should be given some regularization program so that they can become permanent residents on their way to citizenship.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay.

There's a difference, then, between landed status on arrival versus being given a program towards citizenship. A pathway to citizenship is a two-step program, right? If you land here without status, then you're not getting the rights you're afforded, so there's a major difference.

[Debbie Douglas]

Absolutely.

We took a turn to temporariness in Canada's immigration program decades ago, and we are seeing that it's led to dire exploitation of workers. If you look at the seasonal agricultural program, you see that folks who have been coming here have been coming for decades. They have been working and they've been paying into our system, yet we send them home when they're sick. They have no access to the benefits they have paid into. We have taken their labour, and then we send them back when we have no more use for them. That is wrong.

If folks are going to come to Canada to work, they should be landed and they should have all of the responsibilities and privileges of having permanent resident status here in Canada. It will certainly take away the first point, the exploitation by employers and being afraid to complain about working conditions because of fear of being fired and/or fear of not being called back the following year.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much for that clarification.

On the issue with our immigration system, there was a point in time when we brought in people with a whole range of skills—not just high skills and not just economic immigrants, if you will, but the whole range of skills. To boot, we actually also had a more extensive family reunification process that included sponsorship of siblings, as an example. Could you comment on whether the Canadian government should be changing our immigration system to incorporate the full range of skills, such as high-, medium- and low-skilled workers, as part of the permanent residence immigration stream?

[Debbie Douglas]

Absolutely. If the pandemic has shown us one thing, it is who our essential workers are. They are the ones our immigration program should be targeting as well.

Yes, we need, as I said, those who are highly skilled, and yes, we need folks with post-graduate degrees, but on the ground, for our day-to-day living, we need the people who keep our communities going. These are folks who are building our homes. These are folks who are packing our meats. They're picking our vegetables and they're planting them. These are the folks who are driving the trucks that get those to the grocery store. There are folks who are working as cashiers. Those are the folks who drive our daily lives. The fact that they do not have access to permanent residence through a transparent immigration process is just wrong.

If nothing else, I think this is the time for the federal government to respond, to take a look at our points system to see how we can enhance—for lack of a better word—the express entry program. I think this can be done through an economic class program.

I also think you're correct that families are a net benefit to immigrants and refugees who are here. Expanding the family reunification class makes absolute sense. Expanding it to siblings but also to children over age 22 is what I would suggest.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

One of the issues that is before us is Bill C-17. The government has tabled legislation to penalize people for “fraud” in accessing CERB. As we know, there was a lot of confusion about the program itself. People were encouraged, even by parliamentary secretaries who were encouraging people to apply and to interpret the government's rules liberally.

To that end, what are your thoughts on the sections in part 4 of the bill that deal with the penalties with respect to CERB? Do you think that they should be withdrawn?

[Debbie Douglas]

I think we need to be very careful that we don't demonize and stigmatize folks who needed to access the CERB program, especially those who are immigrants, refugees or other migrants, and especially those who are racialized.

Bill C-17 sounds very punitive. Our concern is that it will end up punishing those who may have in very good faith thought they were eligible, applied, got the funds, realized they weren't eligible, and never went back. Others went to CERB when they should have been on EI.

Especially when the government talked about putting this very flexible program in place to support Canadians and not wanting Canadians to fall through the cracks, in the end to turn around and penalize what may very well have been good-faith mistakes is a dangerous slope to start going down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Douglas. Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Mr. Albas, you have five minutes, please.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, would you mind passing my time to Rosemarie Falk?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Falk, you have the floor.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to thank both of our witnesses for your contributions to the work of this committee today.

We know many sectors in Canada lean heavily on the temporary foreign worker program. In a riding like mine in rural Saskatchewan, I know how important it is to those in the agriculture sector specifically. It's a sector where the needs are absolutely time-sensitive. We know too that the recent deaths of migrant farm workers are truly heartbreaking, and the reports around their work conditions are cause of great concern.

The success of the program is obviously in the interests of workers, employers and the government. I would suggest that the success of the program has to be measured against not only having timely access to employees but also against health and safety in the work environment.

My question is for Ms. Douglas. With those measures in mind, in your view, do employers of temporary foreign workers have the appropriate resources to comply with provincial and federal governments' COVID-19 requirements?