Human Resources Committee on Nov. 26th, 2024

[Yann Morin]

I am absolutely in favour of defending victims' rights. As a result, I'm always very open to three, four or five years, because there are always people who would need it. More time is always a very good thing. I understand that, in law, you have to weigh the pros and cons of a decision and that there are consequences. For the time being, based on our experience, we think the two-year timeline is reasonable. It seems to be working well in Quebec, even though there are some exceptions that would benefit from a longer timeline.

Obviously, as I guide people through the legal system, I'm also aware that the more time has passed since the events, the harder it is to be accurate and credible. Therefore, I understand that there are pros and cons to setting the timelines.

Today, I am prepared to say that our organization as a whole finds that six months is not at all sufficient. Two years seems reasonable to us. We would be very much in favour of a timeline longer than two years, for both Quebec and Canada.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

My question is for you, Dr. Morin.

Employment and Social Development Canada tabled its 2021 annual report entitled “Taking action against harassment and violence in work places under Canadian federal jurisdiction”.

We found that out of the six federally regulated workplaces, the most complaints were about the public service and Crown corporations. We don't know the number of complaints rejected based on timelines, but it would be interesting to see how many of the already numerous complaints have been rejected. Given your testimony, I imagine we'll note a marked difference between incidents that have a longer timeline and all incidents that are rejected because the timeline has been exceeded.

Did the Institut de la statistique du Québec keep statistics on complaints that were rejected because the limitation period had run out?

[Yann Morin]

I'd like to properly answer your question. Statistics can be complicated, and I'm not a professional researcher. I don't have access to hidden data, only to data that is very open to the public. In addition, it is hard to clearly identify the reasons for rejections. The Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, or CNESST, which is our source of data on harassment, does not usually keep statistics on the grounds for rejections. We really only have the number of harassment complaint files, for example, that have been rejected every year. That is easily obtained. At best, I can tell you about a study by Rachel Cox—

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

Okay.

[Yann Morin]

—which recently came out, based on CNESST health data. In fact, the research into sexual harassment and sexual violence is precisely where we found that there were various reasons for rejection. That data, which is recorded, is not necessarily accessible to the public. The most common reason is always the six-month timeline. I imagine the same is true across Canada.

However, there are also other grounds for rejection that Ms. Cox feels are problematic. They are often based on a lack of understanding of sexual harassment and sexual violence, as well as on the many prevailing stereotypes. For example, cases would be rejected because someone wore a skirt on the day of the incident. We still get feedback like that too.

I think situations like that still occur, but I'm hopeful it will be resolved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Morin.

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Zarrillo, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

That's really a good segue into data collection. In the last meeting we had on this bill, there was talk about data collection and more data collection. I had some questions for the sponsor of the bill about the risks of privacy when it comes to that data.

Witness Thompson, is data collected now? How do you feel about data being collected around complaints? Obviously, they would aggregate it, or they should, but we know that human resource departments are notoriously, often known to be the least confidential office in a business. How can we protect privacy if there's data being collected? Is data being collected? Does data collection present a new risk, especially for marginalized groups?

[Nicholas Marcus Thompson]

First, I'll share with you what I think about whether or not data collection should be part of this. Data helps to inform a lot of the decision-making on these processes, what the outcomes are and whether they are effective or not, but the confidentiality of the process must be safeguarded. Aggregating outcomes and not specific situations I think would be helpful in understanding what repeated issues are happening and why they're happening. It would also be helpful in looking at the root causes of that for accountability for an organization.

If an organization is able to identify that they've had hundreds of these complaints and that this was the recurring theme, from that perspective they may be better positioned to have a change in workplace culture. But that has to be protected in terms of who the complainants are and what their experiences are, particularly on their journey to recovery.

I don't have an answer for you on the collection of data currently or on how or if that is mandated.

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

Chair, could I ask that we request that? I'd like to get some data on what's being collected right now regarding workplace complaints in federally regulated workplaces and the federal public service.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Seeback, you have about two and a half minutes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The current government actually tried to make some changes/improvements through Bill C-65, where they would allow the victims of harassment to apply for an extension and explain why they needed it. To me, that seems like almost revictimizing the victim.

Mr. Thompson, I wonder if you would comment on that, and then I would ask Monsieur Morin the same thing.

[Nicholas Marcus Thompson]

Thank you, Member Seeback.

Bill C-65 made some progress in this entire framework, but that time frame extension is still subject to the employer's approval. I would say it's a subjective process. You now have to go back and find all this information and you're often not given the benefit of the doubt. The employer holds the hammer to sort of crush you.

That's why this is important. It's to make it very clear that there is a two-year period. It removes the subjective decision-making from the employer. It gives those who face oppression in the workplace a little bit more time. My colleague, Mr. Morin, spoke about the six months. It's six months to 18 months for trauma recovery, and even longer for some people. Imagine going through that trauma and then having to come and justify yourself, find documents and make that representation. It even adds to and exacerbates that trauma.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Yes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Seeback and Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Morin.

That will conclude the first hour of today's meeting.

I want to thank the witnesses.

We will suspend while we move to the next motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, we are back in session with the second hour.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on October 8, 2024, the committee is resuming its study of workers in the seasonal industry and the employment insurance program.

I would like to welcome our witnesses, Mr. Pierre Laliberté, commissioner for workers; Mr. Allan Melvin, president, Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture; Mr. Brodie Berrigan, senior director of government relations and farm policy, Canadian Federation of Agriculture; and Mr. Philip Mondor, president and chief executive officer of Tourism and Human Resources Canada.

Mr. Pierre Laliberté, we'll begin with your opening statement for five minutes.

[Pierre Laliberté, Commissioner for Workers, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee.

Of all the issues related to the problems with employment insurance, the treatment of workers in seasonal industries is the most glaring. In Canada, these industries are mainly in outlying regions. It is also the most symptomatic of the problem with the employment insurance program. It is a symptom of a broader problem that is experienced perhaps more intensely by seasonal workers.

The basic problem stems from the fact that the program parameters have not been adjusted since the last major reform, which happened in 1996. This is particularly the case with the table of benefits. The table tells applicants what they are entitled to based on the number of hours worked, the unemployment rate in their region and the benefit period.

Although Canada has 64 employment insurance regions, when the table was drawn up in 1996, there was only one employment insurance region with an unemployment rate of 6% or less. In that region, workers had to accumulate 700 hours of work in order to qualify for 14 weeks of benefits. Today, that applies to 39 of the 64 regions. Now, almost 60% of workers have to accumulate 700 hours of work to be able to qualify.

Another concurrent problem is the lack of adjustments to the employment insurance regions. Since 2000, no adjustments have been made to follow changes in the labour market. Our regions are not up to date.

The actual result of the lack of adjustment is a kind of hidden reform of employment insurance that basically prevents a large part of workers from accessing employment insurance, or makes it much more difficult for them to do so, because most workers are ineligible.

There is good news, however. In theory, the unemployment rate is going down. That's why benefits are harder to qualify for. However, the problem is that the drop in the unemployment rate is not always a sign of good economic health. That is the case for some regions where employment is growing and everything is going well.

I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you that I am currently taking part in a meeting in Rimouski with labour and community groups in the North Shore, Gaspé Peninsula and Lower St. Lawrence regions to talk specifically about seasonal work. These groups feel that it is a very pressing issue for their local communities.

I have heard quite a lot today, but to go back to the unemployment rate as a sign of prosperity, I will give you one scenario.

In the Gaspé region, the unemployment rate has dropped from around 17% to 7% over the past 10 years. Ten years ago, after working 420 hours, a person qualified for 32 weeks of employment insurance, which was enough to get them through the off-season. Today, the same person who holds the same job at the same employer would need 630 hours to qualify for employment insurance for 14 weeks, which is not enough to get them through the off-season.

I could talk about other parameters. For example, I would be very happy to talk about applicants' best weeks.

What I was trying to get at is that in many regions, not only in eastern Canada, the unemployment rate drops due to regional devitalization.

That doesn't mean there are more jobs. There are 1,000 more jobs in the Gaspé than there were 10 years ago. However, 7,000 people have left the workforce. The unemployment rate is a ratio. It can go down for more than one reason. In this case, the reason is regional devitalization rather than an economic boom.

I'd be happy to talk more about that and the pilot project as well—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Laliberté.

We'll go now to Mr. Melvin for five minutes or less.

[Allan Melvin, President, Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the committee for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Allan Melvin. I am the president of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, but I'm here today representing the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I'm a sixth-generation vegetable farmer in Kings County, Nova Scotia.

The CFA is Canada's largest general farm organization, representing 190,000 farms across Canada. The CFA's mission is to promote the interests of Canadian agriculture and agri-food producers and ensure the continued development of a viable and vibrant agriculture and agri-food industry in Canada.

The Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector generated $150 billion of Canada's gross domestic product in 2023 and contributes significantly to the well-being of Canadians in both rural and urban Canada. However, like many other sectors, agriculture is facing a chronic and increasing labour and skills shortage. Some producers are facing acute seasonal needs, while others require labour on a year-round basis. These positions range from field work harvesting fruits and vegetables, to piloting highly advanced farm equipment that continues to evolve at a rapid pace.

The most recent statistics from the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council, which is also known as CAHRC, identified over 98,000 job vacancies in the agriculture sector in 2022, over 28,000 of which went unfilled in Canada's sector by the year's end, costing $3.5 billion in lost revenues.

These unfilled positions remain, despite Canada bringing in over 70,000 temporary foreign workers to fill vacancies in a wide range of agricultural occupations in 2023. The agriculture sector needs the temporary foreign worker program and seasonal agricultural worker program, which account for upwards of 20% of the total employment in the sector. These workers pay into EI, but rarely draw on EI, as oftentimes when employment ends, they head back to their home countries.

There are several factors impacting the growing labour shortage in Canadian agriculture. For example, fewer family farms in Canada can meet their labour needs solely through family labour due to growth in the size of farm operations and demographic pressures, such as an aging workforce. This is increasing the need for non-farm labour. At the end of the day, the lack of available labour to meet the sector's diverse needs, both seasonal and year-round, represents one of the most significant constraints facing the competitiveness and sustainability of Canadian agriculture.

In terms of measures to support the needs of seasonal employment, the Government of Canada should ensure that the employment insurance system does not create disincentives for workers that would prevent employers from retaining skilled workers or undermine the viability of seasonal industries.

Historically, the unique skills required by many agricultural operations place an onus on on-the-job training and other informal educational approaches, such as online education modules produced through CAHRC, workshops held by equipment manufacturers, and other non-traditional educational arrangements. These sector-specific training opportunities have not always been eligible for EI-funded support, despite the crucial role they play in retention during less labour-intensive seasons.

We're concerned that the reduction in funding available under the labour market transfer agreements will make this problem worse, especially in the Atlantic region. For example, given the remote and rural locations of many farm operations, the travel and accommodations needed to participate in in-person activities can be prohibitive for many farm employees.

Finally, it is our view that employers need to maintain oversight and input into the use of any funds generated through payroll deductions. Those deductions need to remain earmarked for initiatives aimed at achieving their stated outcomes.

At the end of the day, we are of the view that the EI program is a critical tool for supporting the temporary income replacement needs of workers. However, we need to ensure that it does not create disincentives to work for seasonal workers, supports the unique training needs of employers in seasonal industries and is used to support programs that benefit the employers and the workers who pay into it.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Melvin. I'm sure there will be questions.

We'll now go to Mr. Mondor for five minutes or less.

You have the floor.

[Philip Mondor, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tourism HR Canada]

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee, for this opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of Canada's tourism industry.

The tourism industry employs just over two million people, which represents about 10% of Canada's workforce, with work in over 274,000 businesses across Canada and employment in nearly every riding.

The sector is highly diverse. It comprises five industries with the types of jobs that cover the complete career span. It's a wide spectrum. We have jobs that require no Canadian work experience or proficiency in one of the official languages, for example. We also have jobs that require highly specialized credentials.

It's important to appreciate that the services provided by these workers are essential to Canadians and not just to the visitor economy. Youth make up 30% to 35% of the workforce. Most are getting their first foothold in the labour market through tourism employment. New Canadians represent about 30% of our workforce. Permanent, full-time workers account for nearly 70% of the workforce.

In 2023, 12% of the tourism workforce was seasonal or temporary and 6% were casual workers. This percentage of seasonal workers is down from 20% about a decade ago.

The recreation and entertainment industry has the highest percentage of seasonal workers within the five that we represent, at 24%. This is largely indicative of the nature of that sector, which includes a lot of indigenous tourism, outdoor recreation and entertainment. This is followed by the accommodation sector at 15%, and food and beverage services at 7%.

I want to note that seasonal workers may include workers who work for seasonal operations, which are open for limited periods, but they also include year-round operations for those that need workers to help address influx or high-demand periods.

Many seasonal tourism operators have expressed the need for an EI system that provides supplemental income to help sustain their workforce in off seasons. This primarily concerns rural and remote operators, of which there are many and most of which are small to medium enterprises.

In many cases, these tourism businesses are the economic and employment anchors of their community. Without them, the communities will see a further migration of the population to larger centres. Workers who are able to access EI as supplemental income in the off-season help keep these people in those rural and remote communities, so EI is important not just for the employment needs of tourism businesses that most often are the single anchor employer in the region, but is also essential to sustaining populations in those areas.

The tourism sector has not fully recovered from the pandemic. It's taken five years to get back to the 2019 levels, just in September of this year, but this falls short of meeting the needs. For example, this past summer, we had a shortage of 177,000 workers. Today, that's about 181,000.

There are many impacts or consequences of not having workers to meet the demand. There are lost revenues, for example. Without the necessary skilled workforce in the tourism, Canada is losing about $11 billion annually in potential revenue. Business closures, reduced ability to compete, reduced productivity and service standards, and reduced investment and innovation are all tied to not having these workers.

Last summer was especially difficult and in coming months, it will be more difficult. Reduced quotas on temporary foreign workers—who incidentally make up only about 1% of our workforce—and reduced numbers of international students and the hours they can work has added further constraint to the industry.

Other factors impacting attraction and retention in rural areas include housing, transportation, care services and even internet connectivity.

I mention this because it's important to think about the broader context. EI is one tool to help our businesses retain workers at a time when other options are simply not available. A well-designed EI system can complement the needs of our seasonal businesses.

Further considerations to policies are needed to enable seniors to work without penalties or clawbacks to their pensions or for people with disabilities to work without clawbacks to their disability benefits.

Enabling international students to work an additional 10 hours per week can make a big difference for our industry.

These are examples that may not be feasible, but they're all examples of things that can help our employers fill job vacancies in their seasonal needs, especially in rural and remote areas.

I would be remiss if I don't mention that with respect to EI, Restaurants Canada, which is one of the main national associations in our sector, is advocating for lower EI premiums—from 1.66% to 1.57%—to offset costs.

Indeed, in the first half of 2024, bankruptcies in the food service sector increased by 55% over 2023 and that's not telling the full story. Many businesses are shuttering permanently or underperforming locations without declaring bankruptcy.

To summarize, EI benefits are helpful in keeping tourism businesses afloat in rural and remote areas. In fact, they're essential. The diverse nature of our sector and the regional and sectoral differences suggest that EI premiums and policies need to be sufficiently flexible or tailored to the regional needs.

Finally, a holistic approach is needed to ensure that policies and programs are working together to optimize the workforce.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Mondor.

We'll begin with Mr. Seeback for six minutes.