Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 28th, 2021

[Myriam Mekni]

Thank you, Craig.

I'm Myriam Mekni. I'm a board member on ARAISA and executive director of the Multicultural Association of the Greater Moncton Area, which is also a settlement agency.

We want to emphasize the key roles settlement agencies play in adapting and developing programs that respond to local labour markets. We innovate. We support bridging programs, English in the workplace, programs for racially visible immigrant women, and a lot more. We have strong relationships with employers throughout Atlantic Canada.

Some of the challenges we see with the LMIA are summarized in three points.

One is processing times, which are the longest for lower-paid jobs. The processing times are different, and the lower-paid jobs that are needed here are the longest and COVID restrictions have made them even longer.

The cost attached to the program, $1,000 per employee, is a non-refundable cost, but it's also not an affordable option for small business owners, who represent the majority of the employers who choose this stream.

The last point is the closed work permit that comes attached to this stream. It's a closed work permit to a single employer, which can be very risky when circumstances change in the workplace, even with the new laws and legislation put in place against employer abuse.

We strongly urge this parliamentary committee to examine a recently released report by the Royal Society of Canada, titled “Supporting Canada's COVID-19 Resilience and Recovery Through Robust Immigration Policy and Programs”. Some of the recommendations include the following: coordinate FPT planning around levels of temporary foreign workers that responds to current and short-term future labour market needs; as soon as possible, develop more pathways to permanent residency for TFWs; provide targeted settlement funding for supporting TFWs who transition to permanent residence, because currently IRCC only funds settlement agencies to support permanent residents; issue a sector-specific, rather than employer-specific, work permit that allows temporary foreign workers to work for any employer within the sector; incorporate adherence to national standards of safe conditions and fair compensation into the labour market impact assessment; and finally, pilot an expansion of universal health care coverage to include temporary foreign workers.

The report to which we are referring was released last month and contains excellent research and a number of high-quality recommendations.

In summary, not only will greater support for temporary foreign workers help the Canadian economy, but giving these hard-working individuals a pathway to permanent residency will enhance our diversity and make us culturally richer.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you for that.

We will now proceed to our round of questioning. We will start our six-minute round of questioning with Mr. Seeback.

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

Thanks very much.

I want to pick up quickly where Chris was talking about agriculture. I have a large agricultural community in my riding. Agriculture is the number one employer, and it is the number one contributor to economic growth. I've heard from farmers in my riding many times about how difficult the process is, some of the things that you've outlined, the challenges with deadlines.

We've talked a little bit about a trusted-employer model. I'd like to know what your thoughts would be on that, whether you think that would make a lot of sense in the farming sector.

Also, how do you develop a system to deal with the bad apples—to use an agricultural term? We do have some of those who are bringing in temporary foreign workers.

[Chris van den Heuvel]

There are two things.

Yes, I think the notion of a trusted-farmer model would go a long way to helping alleviate some of the issues that we've seen in processing delays. Some of these farms have been bringing workers in—oftentimes the same workers—for years, if not decades. Streamlining that process and not requiring them to renew their applications year after year and to go through the same delays.... Especially as we've seen during these pandemic times, there are oftentimes program changes on the fly. We understand the reasoning for it. We certainly respect and know that we have to keep Canada healthy and safe. However, at the same time, we have to keep Canadians fed, as well, so I think that would go a long way.

As far as the comment on the bad apples, unfortunately, you're correct. There's no doubt; no matter what industry or sector you're in, there are going to be some of those that try to undermine the process and whatnot. We do support fully an audit system.

We have multiple levels of government that come in, whether they're federal, provincial, local municipal, or public health authorities. Oftentimes, farmers don't understand who's coming in and why, so we need more clarity on that. We need to understand, I think, from a holistic approach. That is the reason for our comment that a national labour strategy is going to be so important: so that we understand the full ramifications of what's going to be expected from us as an industry in the years and decades ahead.

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

I'm going to follow up. Sorry to put you on the spot with that.

What would the metrics be, or how would you design the trusted-employer model with respect to farming? What would you want to see in place? Have you turned your mind to that as an organization?

I want to figure out how we can design these things that are actually going to work and that the government will accept.

[Chris van den Heuvel]

I think that consulting—like you're doing—with the industry is certainly a first step.

I'll defer to Scott Ross, our assistant executive director, who might have some more knowledge on any details.

[Scott Ross]

I think that, on the notion of a trusted-employer model, we've seen the program evolve over the last few years, and with that, our understanding of what that model might look like has sort of changed.

We've seen LMIA processing for agricultural employers, for example, speed up a fair bit, and it's working quite well.

Where we do see a need for some more focus, as Chris said, is in some areas where there are just chronic labour shortages with the same employers year after year. We need to find ways to streamline that labour market assessment and make it a little tighter so that that component of the LMIA process is a little smoother.

Then, when it comes to the inspection regime, I think what we would like to see is more of a risk-based lens applied more generally to focus resources where they're most needed. When you see a long history of compliance, multiple overlapping inspections across areas of government, coordinate those so that you're not having as many disparate engagements that are putting a lot of burden on the employer, and do this while targeting your own limited resources to where they're best served on those that might not have that same line of sight all the time.

Those are a couple of what we see as really critical elements of that trusted-employer model.

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

If you think about it later and have some submissions that you'd like to make to the committee on that, to please send them in. When we write our report, I'd love to have some very specific recommendations.

I want to just turn back to the actual application process. We're talking about how we can simplify the process. It's one of the top three complaints that I hear from farmers, who are busy. It's a challenging environment for them, and they find the whole process very complicated. Sometimes they're at their wits' end trying to figure out exactly what the government wants in these applications. Do you have an idea of how we should simplify these applications so that they're a little more user-friendly for the average farmer?

[Chris van den Heuvel]

Scott, do you want to take that?

[Scott Ross]

Yes, I can speak to that as well.

When we hear concerns coming from farmers about the application process, one reality is they can't just always discern what's the LMIA process and what's the work permit process. There's not a lot of transparency, necessarily, there, and understanding of what is holding up the process.

Increasingly, as we've seen some really significant improvements on the processing side of LMIAs, it's now the work permit side of the equation that is slowing things down, everything from access to documentation from international consulates to issues where an administrative change that's quite minor in scope has to go through a number of intermediaries to be communicated between two government departments. It's not any one specific issue—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Ross. Time is up.

We will now proceed to Ms. Dhillon.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.

I'm going to start with Ms. Arellano. My first question is regarding abusive and exploitative employers. We've heard much testimony about that. People have experienced that.

What do you think about the introduction, by our government, of an occupation-specific work permit for caregivers rather than having them tied down to one employer so they can escape these abusive and exploitative conditions of work, sometimes?

[Faye N. Arellano]

In the current two pilots, one of the best features that they like is it's now occupation-specific rather than employer-specific. That allows caregivers to move from one employer to another more easily. With the fact that the two new pilot projects do not require LMIAs anymore, it's easier for them to escape abusive situations. That is really a good thing.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Ms. Arellano, earlier this year Minister Mendicino announced a plan to overcome the pandemic-related roadblocks that have interfered with processing applications from caregivers and their families, by announcing a plan for 2021 that includes finalizing of permanent resident applications for up to 6,000 caregivers who have completed their in-Canada work experience, and their immediate families, by December 31, 2021; making at least 1,500 first-stage decisions on applications for the home child care provider and home support worker pilots by June 30, 2021; increasing the digitization of caregiver applications; and ensuring applicants receive acknowledgement of receipt letters by May 31, 2021.

Can you please tell the committee if you feel these initiatives will have a positive impact on the backlog for processing of caregiver applications?

[Faye N. Arellano]

Yes, that announcement, recently, by the immigration minister was welcome news to the 6,000 caregivers who are waiting for determination of their applications, and the fact that their families are also included in that determination is really welcome news to those caregivers.

The only thing that I would like to point out at this point is that we're also aware that there are caregivers who have already lost their status because of the long wait in LMIAs. Some of them, due to no fault of their own, have lost their status and the ability to work with legal contracts or work permits. We are concerned about those types of caregivers because those are the ones who are in need of advocacy. They need to be brought into the light so that there won't be as many precarious situations for them in terms of vulnerability, abuse and exploitation.

We would like to recognize the work that these undocumented caregivers have done in the past, prior to losing their status. Providing them with an amnesty program in which we could bring them back on track to work legally again is, I think, a step in the right direction as well.

Especially in this pandemic time, we hear of people needing essential workers or caregivers right this minute, but because of the backlog or even the bottleneck in the applications outside of Canada....

Remember, as I said earlier, we haven't really heard about those applications under the two new programs to be admitted to Canada. There really is a dire need for these caregivers to be on hand and working when they are needed. I thought that these caregivers having lost their status would mean a solution to that kind of problem that we're facing now in addressing the shortage of these foreign caregivers.

Maybe this committee would like to reconsider providing a program of amnesty for these non-status caregivers who might be a big help in continuing to grow the economy in Canada. That would mean that working families could leave for work without having to think about people looking after their children, people with disabilities or seniors who are at home. Canada can actually benefit so much from having these caregivers who have lost their status. They're still here, and they need another chance to get back on track.

I would put it before the committee to please reconsider that and just take a look at that project. There was one project like that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Arellano. Your time is up.

We will now proceed to our next member.

Madam Normandin, you will have six minutes for your round of questioning.

You can please proceed.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My thanks to all the witnesses for joining us.

My questions are for Mr. van den Heuvel and Mr. Ross.

You talked about the problems with Switch Health and the financial assistance for temporary foreign workers in agriculture. We have heard from other groups, including the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA), that the amount of $1,500 this year may not be as sufficient as it was last year. The circumstances are different and the quarantines are longer in some cases, especially because of Switch Health.

Could you speak to that? Would it be appropriate to increase the amount, and if so, why?

[Chris van den Heuvel]

Yes, we definitely think that the amount should be increased. As you've mentioned, the time frames for the quarantine period have often increased, and with some of the delays that you've mentioned with Switch Health and some of the other processing delays, a lot of farm workers are being held in quarantine for even much longer than required. Those farm worker costs are being borne by the farmers themselves. If you only have one or two workers, or half a dozen workers, that's bad enough, but some of our farms are bringing in hundreds of employees, and it adds up very quickly and has a significant financial impact.

Scott, I don't know if you have anything further to add.

[Scott Ross]

I would add that transportation logistics under COVID-19 in particular have been a real challenge. For charter flights, particularly where a number of workers aren't able to board the flight due to pre-departure testing, the cost of individual tickets can double or triple. This is all borne by the employer without any available support. Similarly, if you are quite a distance from an approved port of entry, the cost to get your workers to your operation is also done through private means and it can be quite expensive.

We've seen a continued rise in incremental costs throughout the pandemic and have not seen that reflected in the mandatory isolation support program.

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

Thank you very much for your very thorough answer.

You also talked about the lack of information when changes are made to different programs.

Do you have any ideas or suggestions for ways to help you?

The UPA mentioned that it helps 1,500 employers. That is a lot. They process 3,000 LMIAs per year.

Do you have any ideas on how the government could help you? Perhaps it would help to have a dedicated phone line for groups like yours.

Could you speak to that?

[Chris van den Heuvel]

Thank you.

Scott, do you want to address that?

[Scott Ross]

Yes, I can speak to that.

One of the challenges under COVID-19 has been that there's quite a bit of variability in the cost, region to region. It's not a simple answer to put a dollar figure on what the increase should be.

We are aware of some employers paying up to $3,000 per worker in incremental costs, on top of the normal costs associated with the program. These are vital, essential workers in our food system who play a fundamental role in Canadian food security.

Ultimately, we would like the flexibility of that program to significantly increase. If not in that program, we would like some additional funding programs made available to target the specific issues that continue to evolve throughout the pandemic because it really isn't a one-size-fits-all issue.

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

Thank you very much.

In terms of the flexibility of programs, what do you think about the idea of longer-term LMIAs and work permits, in addition to the trusted employer program?

Since the same workers return to the same employers year after year, there is predictability. So would having three-year LMIAs and three-year work visas be a good idea?

[Scott Ross]

It's not something we've discussed directly in terms of the length of time that would be appropriate. We do recognize that for those employers who are bringing the same workers back year after year for upwards of decades at a time, there is a significant administrative burden associated with that process that, in many respects, could be avoided through some amendments and flexibilities there.

It's certainly an issue that we're sensitive to and an area we would welcome discussion on.

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

At the moment, the permits are often closed permits. The worker is only allowed to work for one employer.

Would it be a good idea to have more flexible permits so that they are a little more open, and employers can share the workforce to better respond to a crisis?