Thank you, Marc.
We have some very specific and detailed recommendations, and some general ones.
First, we ask that Quebec employers be exempted from having to provide workers' names until their LMIAs have been adjudicated, as is done in all other provinces. In Quebec, employers are required to provide the name of the temporary foreign worker with the LMIA application, even though the LMIA has nothing to do with the worker, because they must file for a selection certificate from Quebec immigration at the same time.
This means that they can't apply for the LMIA unless they already have identified and recruited the worker. They can't recruit in parallel; they have to do it sequentially. Because of the total time involved, which, as Marc said, can be in excess of eight months, and the very competitive nature now of the international recruiting industry, many skilled workers, such as welders, machinists or IT workers, choose another offer while waiting. As a result, employers lose the worker, the time they took to find the worker and the $1,000 they paid to ESDC. They cannot substitute other candidates.
Our second recommendation is to amend the LMIA process for most occupations to focus only on the compliance program, not the job approval process. Under the law, LMIAs are required to ensure that Canadian jobs are protected. We're not suggesting that the law be changed, even though some would like to see LMIAs completely eliminated. Indeed, thanks to its rigorous compliance program, the LMIA is a great tool to protect vulnerable workers from unscrupulous employers who are trying to reduce costs by underpaying foreign workers. We don't want to lose that tool.
The ESDC apparently already agrees that there's a labour shortage, because many occupations in demand are now exempt from meeting the advertising standards, which are onerous and take at least one month. Why, then, should the employer have to complete another 10 pages of unnecessary information and wait to have everything reviewed by an officer, who can then reject the form if a simple mistake is made on it? While the labour shortage continues, why should an approved company have to justify hiring more temporary foreign workers in order to grow the business? Why should employers in the same industry and the same geography, sometimes on the same street, each have to justify their own needs? They should only be required to enrol in the compliance program.
There is precedent for this simplification. The forerunner to the LMIA, the labour market opinion process, was changed to meet the needs of employers in western Canada when processing times were reaching up to a year. The emergency LMO and the accelerated LMO processes streamlined the system so that industries could bring in urgently needed workers much faster.
Our recommendation is a short-term fix that could be implemented immediately and inexpensively, while in the mid-term, ESDC could work to set up partnerships with local community economic groups, similar to what they've done with the global skills strategy, to issue exemptions from having to prove labour shortages for certain employers, those in need, enabling those firms to use the simplified process. The partners might even take on some of the administrative burdens in times of heavy or urgent demand.
Our third recommendation concerns the processing for work permits at IRCC visa posts. Under the global talent stream, IRCC processes work permit applications within 14 days, whereas current processing times at visa posts range from two weeks to 39 weeks. We recommend that work permits from all LMIA-approved applicants also be processed within the 14-day standard.
Already, some visa posts meet a 14-day standard. The problem is not the process. The problem is the decision-making at each of the visa posts. The reason why a few visa posts are at 39 weeks needs to be understood. By issuing revised instructions to immigration officers, directing them to review applications only for security and health concerns, and, for high-skilled applications, checking the applicant's ability to perform the work, the process would be greatly shortened.
We also suggest that IRCC set up a task force including immigration practitioners and department managers to streamline the process as much as possible, identifying where roadblocks are and eliminating them.
Finally, for a longer-term solution, we recommend using a different method to evaluate language abilities that would allow temporary foreign workers a path to permanent residence, recognizing that working in Canada for years is proof that they are successfully settled. This would provide a long-term solution to the skills shortages we are now experiencing.
Having arranged employment in Canada is the most important factor in determining if an immigrant can become successfully settled, and yet many temporary foreign workers are prohibited from transitioning to permanent residence because of the current method used to evaluate language skills.
French or English language skills are important to successful settlement, as we all know, but we question the appropriateness of the tests that are now used to qualify skilled workers. For example, the current language tests, namely IELTS and CELPIP, are not the best way to determine if welders who have lived in Canada with their families for three years can successfully settle here. They already have.
The current language standard gives permanent residence to a 29-year-old Ph.D. holder in an obscure occupation, even without any prospect of ever getting a job in that field in Canada, yet denies a 29-year-old master technician who earns $150,000 a year and who has worked in Canada for three years, simply because he has difficulty writing an essay in English.
Prior to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, language skills were evaluated by an officer during interviews, but that practice was discontinued at the time because the decisions were inconsistent and interviews were time-consuming. Initially, language tests were optional. Soon, however, they became mandatory for most skilled worker applications. However, the levels that skilled workers had to reach were arbitrarily set by the department without any consideration other than uniformity and mitigation of possible legal action from individuals claiming that the system was unfair.
While we recognize that the ability to communicate in French or English is important to settling in Canada, what we propose is that the level and particular skill be adjusted to better determine integration ability and especially to take into account the time spent working in Canada. This would not replace language testing but would add more appropriate levels to it.
Thank you for your attention. We look forward to answering any questions you may have.