Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 3rd, 2021

[Stéphanie Poitras]

Let me come back to what Ms. Laplante was saying earlier. Farms resolved their labour issues once they no longer had to limit the number of workers and were able to bring in workers based on their needs. We feel that, since our activities immediately follow farms' activities, it would be logical to match the requirements.

Why couldn't we—meat producers or perhaps mushroom producers, for example—be considered an extension of farms and bring in temporary foreign workers according to our needs? Our goal is actually to integrate them into society. They generally integrate well.

We view agriculture as a series of activities. Since this is how farms have solved their workforce issues, we could perhaps solve ours in the same way. If not, let's increase the limit to 30%, as I am under the impression that, if it was increased to 20%, we would ask you to increase it to 30% soon.

So that is why we are asking to be seen as an extension of farms. We think that is a logical request.

[Édith Laplante]

I would like to expand on this, Ms. Kwan.

We recommend completely removing the limit, as our activities are a logical extension of primary agriculture. If not, our second recommendation would be to increase the limit to 30%.

However, permanent selection programs must also be improved, especially in our case. I cannot speak for the rest of Canada, but in Quebec, we feel that better alignment between federal and provincial programs is absolutely necessary.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I've heard from other sectors as well, actually we all have, with respect to the language testing and how it doesn't make sense and it does sort of cater to university students the way it exists right now. It really leaves a lot of other people out. Should the government get rid of these language testing requirements, especially for your sector?

I've heard it from the caregiver sector as well. Many of the workers who are already here speak the language in a capacity well enough to be able to communicate with the employer, so I don't know why they have to set up these additional barriers for people.

Ms. Krayden.

[Janet Krayden]

For language testing, it is very true, similar to how the experience in the plant and on the farm is the education the workers need. There also isn't a recognition that, if they're working in these jobs, they are learning English as they're working. That is not recognized.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Krayden, I'm sorry for interrupting.

Your time is up.

I see a hand raised by Ms. Laplante.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Chair, I wonder if the other witnesses who want to answer this question could submit something in writing to the committee, because they didn't get a chance to respond before we ran out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes, of course.

If there is anything you want to bring to the committee's attention and you were not able to talk about today, you can always send in a written submission to the clerk of the committee.

We will now proceed to Mr. Seeback.

You will have three minutes for your round of questioning. You can please proceed.

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

Whoever wanted to answer Ms. Kwan's question, please go ahead, because I want to hear that answer as well.

[Janet Krayden]

For us, with the mushrooms, our number one thing is if we could get the education criteria amended. I think it would be very difficult with the department regarding language, but they are increasing criteria both for language and for education in all the provincial nominee programs. They keep saying they're following what the federal government is telling them.

It's very much a hot potato. They don't seem to want to answer why they're doing this. All of this makes it more difficult for our workers. We're looking for more flexibility for workers to allow them more access. That's what we're hoping for.

Thank you.

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

Ms. Laplante, I see your hand is up.

Please proceed.

[Édith Laplante]

Thank you.

Concerning the pilot program's criteria, since Aliments Asta is a Quebec–based company, we must use the provincial program involving permanent selection. However, it is currently very difficult to meet the criteria for permanent selection. In our case, some 30 Filipino workers have been unable to gain permanent residence owing to criteria related to language, age and education. The pilot program is probably very good for Canada, but we cannot use it. That is why we recommend discussing this more with the Government of Quebec. We have also submitted our recommendations to the provincial authorities.

Our initial concern is more about the limited number of temporary foreign workers than about permanent selection, but I think the criteria for permanent selection must also be a bit less stringent. We just need to be able to recognize years of experience. It must not be forgotten that we also provide training at the plant and, once those people have completed it, they become excellent workers.

We invest in those people's applications, but also in their training. For this to be profitable over the long term, we would like to keep those workers. The criteria, especially those relating to training, could really be reduced, which I think could enable us in industries to deal with those elements to a large extent.

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

The other issue I think I see is that, when we look at having to proceed with the application for PR, I can see enormous challenges for certain workers who have come here. Talking about some of the things we're discussing—education levels, language—how would you envision that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Seeback, but your time is up.

We will now proceed to Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you will have three minutes for your round of questioning. You can please proceed.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I agree with Madam Jenny Kwan. When she was saying we have farm workers or those who work on the production lines, I have seen people come to Canada and work on farms. They didn't necessarily have a Ph.D. in English literature or French literature, but they were able to do great work. We did not have that work shortage in those days. Even these days, when people apply to be a farm worker from overseas, what happens is, number one, a condition comes in that they're not established in their country. If they were established, they would not be coming to work on the farms here.

I would like to ask all the presenters here this: Would it be helpful if the companies were able to apply and have those farm workers be given a visa to come directly to the companies, instead of going into the pool and whatnot?

[Janet Krayden]

Direct immigration programs with more incentives to go to the rural plants and farms is what we all want for permanent full-time jobs. Unfortunately, like we keep saying, the temporary foreign worker program is our only option for placements in the rural.... It functions as a placement agency for those who have full-time permanent jobs. We have no other options with how the immigration programs in Canada are set up. The provincial nominee programs provide some options, but their criteria also limit our workers' access, and increasingly so. They're increasing the education equivalency. They're increasing the education criteria. They're language benchmarking to level 4, so they're basically mimicking the express entry program rather than allowing us more access. That's why we have to use the temporary foreign worker program.

We continue to hope the agri-food immigration pilot is going to provide the pathway to PR that we need, but direct immigration with the LMIAs for the full-time permanent jobs, that's what we'd love, if we could work with the government to achieve that.

Thank you.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

What difference does it make if we can improve that, even if it needs an LMIA? A farm worker's LMIA doesn't need any visa up front, so that's fine as long as there's the LMIA and the visa process. Then the PR status would not be instant but maybe in two years' time, four years' time or six years' time, so that if a farm worker works on a farm for four to six years, that worker is granted PR.

Is that the kind of program that would help?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Dhaliwal. Your time is up.

[Janet Krayden]

We'd be in favour of that, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will now proceed to Madam Normandin.

You will have one and a half minutes for your round of questioning, and then we will end with Ms. Kwan.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to put my question to Ms. Krayden again, as she did not get a chance to answer it last time.

I would like her to talk about the duration of work permits and visas. She also mentioned that workplace training is not recognized by the department and was, therefore, not a springboard to permanent residence.

Would it be useful for work permits to enable employees to attend training in order to specialize, take on a better job or even learn one of the official languages, which could make it easier for them to access permanent residence?

[Janet Krayden]

Yes, that's actually what we're absolutely supporting. If we could get our on-the-job training, two years' experience recognized, then that would, as another path, even within our current agri-food immigration pilot, give them more access. That's absolutely what we support.

With regard to the duration of the work permits for the agricultural stream, we already have two-year work permits. We're supportive of that. I know that meat processing worked with the department. Marie-France was a big part of that. They have a two-year work permit finally back again. It took them four years—four or five years—to get that back, and it was a lot of work.

Absolutely, we need these two-year work permits. We absolutely support a strong pathway to PR. We support open work permits. We would like them to have some access—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

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

We will now end this panel with one and a half minutes from Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you can, please, proceed.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm going to ask Ms. Krayden to finish that last sentence she was going to say.

[Janet Krayden]

Yes, we do support open work permits within the agri-food immigration pilot. We were a bit confused as to why it wasn't included in the criteria. Every plant and farm has a handful of open work permits. We also support them for the vulnerable workers, if they have a problem with the employer. What we want is a strong pathway to PR.

We don't support open work permits for everybody when they come, because they have to work to fill the job vacancy. If we have them going all over when they come, then they would not be filling the job vacancy. We need people to produce our food, so that could be a problem. It would also suppress wages for Canadians.

We support the process. They have to work where they have their contracts. After they get their permanent residency—with the agri-food immigration pilot, for example—then they can go anywhere they want with their valuable experience. We support a strong pathway to permanent residency. It's what we need on the farms so that we continue to produce the food and so that the workers can also learn their skills and get experience through the farms.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

One criticism that we've heard from folks is that, when the government announced the new program, the language testing, for example, was already filled up. It was already booked until September, so even—