Human Resources Committee on March 3rd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 10 seconds.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

We'll leave it, then. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Liepert, you have five minutes.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I don't have a specific question but a couple of observations. Then maybe I'll ask for some comment relative to those.

It seems to me that, in looking at some of the programs that are announced, they tend to work at cross-purposes relative to some of the issues that are being encountered. I'll use an example that I believe was in the previous presentations, but it might have been at the beginning of this. I can't remember if it was a percentage, but a high percentage of our labour force vacancies are in areas that require less than a grade 12 education. We turn around and focus much of our programming at educating people, and then we talk about digitization or technology.

I assume that, when talking about job vacancies that are unfilled and require less than a grade 12 education, you're probably talking about workers in the service industries. You're talking about long-term care. You're talking about child care. Digitization and technology improvements will do very little for these vacancies, yet we trumpet out a $10 day care program, which is fine, but what does it do? It creates a greater demand for spaces in day cares, and that's where we have the vacancies.

It just seems there are a lot of cross-purposes in what we're actually doing. They're probably being implemented and announced for the right reasons, but to me, they look like they're working at some cross-purposes. I'd just like to get a comment on whether I'm reading that correctly, or whether that is in fact the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Whichever panellist wants to comment, or all three, you have the floor.

[Pierre Cléroux]

Maybe I can try to answer.

The labour shortage is really in every sector of the economy, and every type of professional work or type of worker. As an example, in Canada, one of the biggest issues in terms of the shortage of labour is people who work in technology. Technology is booming. There is a big demand for technology services. We don't have enough people to work in technology.

As regards the idea of investing in technology, technology doesn't replace people, but it could replace tasks. It could be a complicated task or it could be a more simple task. For example, you can buy software today to make reservations in a restaurant. It doesn't replace a person, but it does replace a task that a person can do.

The solution is really complex, because it really depends on every business model, but the issue is here to stay. That's what we are saying to our clients: You need to have a strategy, because it's not going to go away. The strategy is different for every business and every sector.

[Siobhan Vipond]

We know when we're looking at the care economy that there is a lower ability for automation. The care economy is really about people caring. Whether that's health care or education, from young people to adults and to the end of our lives, we need care work. Automation isn't going to solve that. That's going to be about reducing costs and not increasing the care that people need.

When we look at this mismatch of jobs and say there are vacancies and nobody is taking them, we need to do a deeper dive into that, because you're right. Some of them don't have requirements of maybe grade 12. However, many of them are in skilled work and we're not recognizing that. By not recognizing the skill that people need, it means we don't have the wages to match that and we don't have the benefits, so people aren't staying.

We know there's a high turnaround in care work, whether you talk to child care providers or within health care or long-term care homes that support people. I think that turnaround is because of the quality of the jobs and the quality or the value we put on that work. That is primarily women. We need to start realizing how important care work is to our society, because no work can happen without care work existing. Therefore, that value needs to be there.

When people are paid well, are treated well and have access to their rights in their job, they're more likely to stay. As a retention program, investing in the people who work in this industry and this sector is the best thing we can do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam.

Thank you, Mr. Liepert. I'm not sure if the very important point you made was addressed.

We'll now go to Mr. Collins for five minutes.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

My first question or questions would be for Ms. Nord. We heard in the last presentation from departmental representatives. They made this statement: “While temporary foreign workers play a critical role in filling jobs in the agricultural, food and fish processing sectors—in fact, 80% work in agriculture—it is important to underscore that they make up only 0.4% of the labour force.” That number caught me. I want to follow up on the questions that Member Ruff and Madame Chabot asked earlier in terms of the temporary foreign worker program.

My question would be around what Madame Chabot spoke to, and that was the modernization plan you referenced earlier. I have been working with sectors—the food and beverage and the agri-food sectors in Hamilton—on the temporary foreign worker program, and we're in uncharted territory here with the pandemic in terms of labour shortages. They're asking for numbers in I think a range that we haven't seen before. I'm anxious to assist them with their requests, but of course we need to find a balance. I think you messaged that in your earlier comments with some of your answers. With your modernization plan, what sectors have you found need the most assistance?

Also, through you, Mr. Chair, how do we find that balance in terms of providing a higher level of support without disadvantaging the broader labour pool that's out there and maybe putting too many eggs in one basket?

[Leah Nord]

Thank you, MP, for that question. It is an excellent question. We can talk about temporary foreign workers specifically, but writ large, I think this comes back to the importance of labour market information.

When you talk about immigration levels in the country, about how many immigrants we should let in and in what professions, we need that information to drive this, not only from a professional point of view but also from a regional or geographical point of view as well.

We have pillars of recommendations. The first one is the continued devolution of the immigration selection process in this country, recognizing that it's a federal jurisdiction. It's a process that started with the provincial nominee programs, headed to Atlantic Canada with the Atlantic immigration program, and now includes these pilots, the rural and northern immigration pilots. For communities by communities is really the way forward.

I heard comments earlier about not only rural areas but even populous areas outside of those three or six centres that can use the help. The issue right now in this country is that we.... The labour shortage isn't discriminating. It isn't discriminating by region or geography or profession. We need all workers across the board everywhere. This is multistream. We need to look at immigration. We need to look at.... This is an opportunity. Let's start thinking like we haven't before. Let's put labour, business and government in a room and have these discussions and see what this looks like. It is going to take those who are long-term unemployed and unemployed and underutilized as well.

This a real opportunity, but what drives this is data and information, and this is the first step that we need going forward.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

Can I follow up with your reference to pilot programs? They're done for a reason. We test the waters at all levels of government to try to find out what works and what should gravitate from a pilot program to a permanent policy or a pool of funding or to support, whether it's operating or capital.

Can I ask what pilot programs have worked recently? Which of those would you see transitioning into something that's more permanent?

[Leah Nord]

There are a number of those. What I would argue around the continued devolution is that you can't have a pilot project in every riding in this country, so then we have to start looking at going from the pilot to incorporating it into the larger stream as well. Again, COVID did throw a wrench into the role of northern pilot programs, so the data is a little delayed there. However, it's by community for community.

The other thing I would say about those programs that differentiated them from even previous programs was the involvement of the business community from the outset in those communities. Whether it be a chamber, an EcDev or the local municipality, you had them on board at the beginning in the labour market integration.

As far as pilots go, we're very happy with the agri-food pilot program, of course, and I'd even defer to my labour colleagues as well. Just last week, I heard some fantastic stories about Maple Leaf Foods working with their union and the integration through the temporary foreign worker program. Those pathways to permanent residency don't just happen on their own and materialize. It's a social dialogue with all parties involved.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you for those answers.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

This has concluded the hour with our second panel.

I want to thank the witnesses. I would have liked to be a committee member so that I could have participated in this part of the discussion. This is an interesting area.

Mr. Van Bynen, do you have a point of order?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

We had a lot of references to specific studies we received from labour, from finance and from the Chamber of Commerce. I don't know whether they've submitted those reports. If they haven't, could we request those reports and the recommendations of those reports?

There's a lot of really great information here. I'd like to have the advantage of the fulsomeness of the reports.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

For those witnesses who referenced specific reports, if you could provide a copy to the committee clerk for the benefit of all committee members, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, witnesses, for appearing.

I'll ask for a moment because there's one item I would like to bring to the committee.

While they're going, I have received notice from Minister Qualtrough that she is available to appear before the committee on March 24. If you recall, the last time there was a translation problem. They now have it worked out. I need the committee's consent.

Ms. Ferrada.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Would it be possible to ask Minister Qualtrough to appear in order to discuss her mandate letter and the main estimates?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes.

Ms. Ferrada, is that then two hours?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Yes, I propose a two-hour meeting. The minister would appear for the first hour and representatives for the second.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The meeting will be for two hours on the mandate letter and the mains. We can extend the invitation to the minister for that as that is known to the committee. We cannot compel the minister to stay. If there is agreement that the minister will appear on March 24, we will request a two-hour meeting on the mandate letter and on the mains. We will take direction from the minister.

I see consensus from the committee.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, my understanding is that the minister could appear for the first hour and departmental representatives for the second hour. The minister cannot stay for the full two hours. We suggest discussing the mandate letter and the main estimates at the same time. Otherwise we will again lose another committee meeting. I think we are able to have the minister for an hour and talk about both subjects at the same time.

If we need a motion, I could do a motion and we could vote on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

It's my understanding that the minister advised she would be available for the first hour, but the minister could be questioned on any one of those. The minister will be here for an hour and officials will stay if that's the wish of the committee.

Do we have consensus on extending the invitation to the minister for March 24?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

We can prepare for that. I'll think about it. We might put a motion forward for another hour then. In good faith, I said we would do one meeting for the mains and for the mandate letter.

Like I said, I feel like we are accommodating in that it is one. That is reasonable to me. I don't know why she can't extend her time for two hours. As we saw, an hour goes by very quickly. We can bring her for one, but if I feel one is not sufficient after that, I may call her back on the supplementaries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madam Kusie, motions are always debatable—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Of course. For now, we'll bring her for one hour.

Thank you.