Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 26th, 2021

[Scott Kinley]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sidhu.

My comments echoed what Mr. Shaw had said in his opening remarks, with respect to, for example, advertising criteria. The 30-day advertising requirement is redundant in terms of what we as trucking companies do throughout the year. That simply adds 30 more days to the application process. The fee of $1,000 is fine for application; however, it should come with some form of a guarantee or some coaching along the way to make more positive outcomes for the LMIAs.

A good suggestion would be to have a bank of applications—for example, for one to 10 drivers, $4,000 or some set fee. Application processing times can be in excess of a year. The last successful LMIA we had was done 18 months prior to COVID. Status updates would be a great idea. People need to clear up loose ends in their home countries. Drivers who are coming from overseas need to sell their homes and deal with the contracts they're under for employment, cars, families, etc., so some form of status update would be greatly appreciated.

Last of all is the matter of audits and turnaround time. My company has been subject to three audits over the years, which have been very welcomed by our company. They are what keeps us above board. The first was a challenge due to the officer's lack of knowledge of transportation, so perhaps there could be individuals with a greater background in transportation doing these audits. The second went without a hitch. It was a very simple process, but that officer had a family member who was a truck driver, so she was very well versed in transportation.

Our third audit has been pending for over a year. COVID, of course, came into play with that, but also we have had zero guidance or help, and we don't know where to go or who to contact to see if this is being worked on, so we're at a standstill again. Our advertising keeps lapsing and then we have to start from scratch again.

The audit process needs to be streamlined to help us move forward. In the end, we have a great opportunity in Canada to strengthen our workforce by fine-tuning the program and bringing over to Canada people who want to be part of our great country.

Thank you.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Kinley, for sharing your thoughts.

My question is for the Manitoba Trucking Association. Can you please detail what concerns, if any, your associates might have if, hypothetically, the program were switched to a more sectoral approach under which TFWs were not necessarily tied to an employer? Are there any thoughts on that?

That's for Mr. Shaw or Mr. Kinley.

[Terry Shaw]

I would defer to Mr. Kinley or Mr. Arndt. I would suggest there's a fine balance. We want to bring over employees who will connect with not only our industry but also the employer who brings them over, who hosts them. That said, we understand the need for transition.

I don't have a really firm answer in that regard. Perhaps Greg or Scott might have some information they'd like to share on that. That is a challenging situation, sir.

[Greg Arndt, Vice-President, Jade Transport Ltd, Manitoba Trucking Association]

I'm not sure I understood the question. I will try to help out with that if I can.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

That's okay. Mr. Kinley has his hand up.

I'm running out of time. I just want to make sure we get it on the record.

[Scott Kinley]

Being tied to an employer would be part and parcel of the investment that our company or any company in Manitoba or Canada would be making by investing in these people to come over. The costs of flights and training, especially with our mandatory entry-level training program for obtaining a class 1 licence in Manitoba, can mean costs in excess of $8,000 to get a driver's licence. When we lay out contracts with TFWs coming over using the one-year or two-year model, it's an opportunity for that company to bring some value to that investment from that person.

The ability for a successful LMIA or TFW to jump ship as soon as they get to Canada really puts an economic strain on the trucking companies that have invested in these people to come over.

Thank you. That's a great question.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you for that, Mr. Kinley.

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You have 30 seconds.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Okay. This question is a long one, but I just want to address Mr. Groleau's concerns about what's happening in terms of the testing of farm workers.

I know Minister Bibeau and Minister Mendicino are working extremely hard in their respective portfolios. I agree with Mr. Groleau that Minister Bibeau's announcement today is very welcome. It's in regard to a new provider, Dynacare, which is already established in Quebec, helping with testing services for TFWs. I just wanted to put that there as well.

Thank you so much for the time, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Sidhu.

We will now move to Madame Normandin.

Madame Normandin, you will have six minutes for your round of questioning. You can proceed, please.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being with us.

My questions will be mainly for Mr. Groleau and the UPA representative.

Mr. Groleau, I can't help but come back to the issue of quarantines. They've lasted much longer than the expected 14 days, and have extended in some cases to 25 and even 30 days.

In this context, is the $1,500 given to farmers enough to cover the costs associated with quarantine?

[Marcel Groleau]

When you factor in all the costs incurred by the farmers and the time workers have to wait to get to the work site, that amount doesn't cover all the expenses. Isolation must also be considered, because workers must be isolated in bubbles.

So we're even more surprised by the announcement in the last budget that the $1,500 will be reduced to $750 per worker starting June 15. We find this difficult to understand given the current situation.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

You said that the duration of labour market impact studies and work visas should be increased to two years. A Bloc Québécois member even suggested that, in some cases, it should be three years.

Since it's almost always the same companies that use the same workers for the same type of work, in the same unemployment context, there is no reason why the duration should be limited to one year, given the predictability of labour demand.

Is this correct?

[Marcel Groleau]

That's correct.

When these programs began, the intent was to ensure that the workers didn't take jobs away from Quebec or Canadian workers. It was perfectly legitimate.

Today, because of the unemployment rate in our regions, there are no employees available for jobs on farms. Everywhere, companies are posting “We're hiring”. There's a real labour shortage in our regions.

So what was justified then isn't justified now. We need to simplify the processes and reduce the administrative requirements, because these workers aren't replacing Quebec workers, they're filling vacancies.

We need to adopt a different attitude to the management of the temporary foreign worker program. As you said, these workers regularly return to the same workplace for two, three, even five and six years to perform the same work.

In addition, we also use seasonal workers in agriculture. Whether we hire a seasonal worker or a temporary foreign worker, the administrative burden is the same. These types of workers are hired under two different programs, which have different functions. The administrative burden associated with these programs must be lightened.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

With respect to work permit flexibility, you said that some small businesses don't necessarily have the capacity to accommodate employees for 40 hours a week. However, I've heard from companies that their season is short and they need labour, some for apple tree pruning and some for asparagus harvesting a month later.

Couldn't we then consider an exchange of labour between different companies?

[Marcel Groleau]

Yes. In fact, this is already done, but workers have to have a second permit to work in a business in another agricultural sector.

Again, some automatism should be possible. We believe that workers who come back year after year should be able to benefit from a program similar to NEXUS, which allows Americans and Canadians to move easily from one country to the other. The procedure could therefore be considerably streamlined for employers in order to facilitate the transfer of an employee to another company and the return of the same workers, year after year.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

You mentioned that the UPA helps some 1,500 employers process 3,000 LMIAs a year, which is quite an impressive workload.

Could agricultural producers benefit from more support and more training in the foreign worker recruitment process?

[Marcel Groleau]

Actually, producers already have their hands full with all the administrative burden they have to deal with today. It's not just about labour, but also health, the environment and many things. For those producers who have to deal with this burden, they are very happy to be able to count on the services of the Union des producteurs agricoles. If we could reduce that burden, producers would benefit.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

We also heard in committee from some workers that they would like to have the opportunity to upgrade their skills and obtain additional diplomas, which work permits don't currently allow. If they are more qualified, workers might even obtain permanent residency more easily.

Would you look favourably on work permits to also allow for specialization in certain fields?

[Marcel Groleau]

Yes, absolutely.

Currently, producers offer these workers training. For pesticide management, for example, workers are trained to handle these products safely. When they're working on dairy, hog or other farms, they get training on how to handle animals safely. So it would be good to be able to provide them with training.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Groleau.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Sorry for interrupting, Madam Normandin. Your time is up.

We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have six minutes for your round of questioning. You can please proceed.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses.

We heard from some employers in previous panels that the temporary foreign worker would come in year after year, so there's a sense that perhaps what the government should do is actually create a system whereby people can come in permanently. Canada used to have a program in the immigration stream that would allow for high-skilled, low-skilled and medium-skilled folks, the full range, to come into Canada.

Would you support the government's bringing back an immigration stream that would allow the full range of work skills for people to get into Canada, allowing for repeat temporary foreign workers, for example, to access permanent residency?

Perhaps I can start with Andrew on this first question.

[Andrew Carvajal]

I fully agree with that. One thing I find most problematic is that when you look at the breakdown of the employers who are getting LMIAs, and the positions, they're mainly for occupations that are low-skilled. Unfortunately, all the economic programs at the federal level are for skilled individuals, as are most of the provincial programs. There's that big disconnect.

There have been programs created for caregivers, for instance, and now there is the new pathway program, which I think is an excellent start to do this. We need more of those, so those people can stay, because they're very valuable to the Canadian labour force.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

With respect to temporary foreign worker programs, one of the issues is that the government recently announced that there would be a new application process for 90,000 spots for people outside of the different streams, and who are already here in Canada, divided up among the different professions. Those spots are going to be highly sought after and will be filled up very quickly. I wonder if you have any thoughts about what the government should do with respect to that.

There's also confusion in the community as to how that process will work. In the case of caregivers, for example, some of them are already in a permanent residence application process, although it is very slow. Now they hear this, so they're actually withdrawing from the other application and jumping into this program, but there's no guarantee they will actually get into this program. We're going to create all kinds of chaos and problems in the community.

With respect to that, what do you think the government should do? Should it specifically allocate certain spots for certain streams? In the event that people withdraw from one process to go into the other one, thinking it will be faster, what is the recourse if they don't get in?

Andrew, perhaps I can go to you.