Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 31st, 2017

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Levonian.

[Louise Levonian]

Definitely, we have that data on how much is expended on the temporary foreign worker program.

I'm not sure about the second part, but we'll look into it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

It looks as if you're going to have some homework to do there, and thank you for that.

I tell the committee as well that if there's a question that.... My understanding is that two of you are going to have to leave fairly soon. If there's a question that you feel wasn't answered properly or you have extra information, please just include that back to the committee, because we will be doing a report on it. Thank you for that.

I think we're going to suspend for just a moment and allow our deputy and Ms. MacLean to leave and to bring two others in from the department to take their places.

We'll suspend momentarily.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're pleased to call the meeting back to order.

Our deputy minister had to take an exit, but we welcome Elise Boisjoly and Ms. Hébert. We were very pleased that she was able to be here for the first hour and 15 minutes. Mr. Thompson stayed, as well as our Auditor General.

We'll continue with Mr. Chen.

We're still on the second round, Mr. Chen, so you have five minutes.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the new witnesses who have joined us for the meeting.

I'm looking at this audit, and I'm focusing on the purpose. The purpose is to determine whether or not the temporary foreign worker program was properly managed. To me, that is the key question here. It's a program that is intended, as we all know, to allow Canadian employers to hire temporary foreign workers for labour shortages, and I would gather that this would be used as a last resort for these employers.

It's very clear that the Auditor General is saying in his report that management of this program “was not complete”. I look on this page, and I have certain things that are jumping out at me that are clearly very troubling.

On page 19, paragraph 5.97, it says, “the Department did not conduct analyses of the labour market to determine whether there was a real labour shortage of caregivers.” To me, that's a fundamental question. The whole point of the program is to fill labour shortages.

As a country, we are bringing in temporary foreign workers for providing care, and we don't know? How can we not know? How can we not know and analyze the information we have? Clearly the federal government has a lot of data. How are we not asking ourselves that simple fundamental question as to whether there's a “real labour shortage”?

Can I have a response from the department?

[Paul Thompson]

Thank you.

As with all occupations, we carefully monitor trends in the use of the program by all the different streams and all the different occupations, including caregivers.

As was noted earlier by one of your colleagues, we've seen a fairly significant reduction in the number of caregivers coming in through the program, so there's been diminished use of that provision. We're heavily reliant on recruitment efforts to demonstrate the shortage and that the employer went to the requisite efforts to find a Canadian. If they weren't able to, that is often the trigger. However, we supplement that with the use of labour market information.

That supplementing with labour market information is an ongoing challenge, and we'll be trying to do more and more of that in the future. That was one of the weaknesses pointed out by the Auditor General that we're working on further improving.

On overall impact on the labour market, that's a pretty complex question that's best suited for an evaluation. As our deputy noted, we have an evaluation planned that will do the economic analysis of the resulting impact of the program on the labour market. That can't be done on a month-by-month basis.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

A few paragraphs up, in paragraph 5.95, it says, “the Department found that almost 2,000 temporary foreign workers had claimed EI in the 2013-14 fiscal year, most of whom were laid off because of a shortage of work.”

My friend across the way, Ms. Rempel, mentioned there are Canadians who are being laid off in certain industries and are unable to find work. At the same time, this finding indicates that there are also temporary foreign workers who are claiming EI. They too are facing a shortage of work and were all working within a program that is supposed to bring in workers to address temporary shortages of work.

Do we have any more information other than what is presented here? Do we know more about the 2,000 temporary foreign workers who claimed EI? What were their situations? Are there any specific industries that this is more prevalent in than others? Can we have more information about that?

[Paul Thompson]

Temporary foreign workers are fully eligible for employment insurance. They pay premiums. They have all the rights of a Canadian or permanent resident who is working. They too face interruptions in work, unanticipated interruptions, with a downturn in the business or an event that perhaps disrupts the work. Perhaps an employer has an application for a temporary foreign worker and the situation dramatically changes when the temporary foreign worker arrives. These are provisions that are in place to support TFWs, just as we would support other Canadians who are in the program. The EI program does come into play with the temporary foreign workers in that regard and we continue to track those issues.

There are a number of industry sectors where that would be the case. It is not unique to one industry sector.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

The department representative who was here earlier mentioned that we have—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Your time is up. I'm sorry, Mr. Chen. Good try, though.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

First off, just to underscore, we've made a big point of making sure that the deputies are here since they're the legal accounting officers, and I know that the deputy had to leave. It was originally one hour. I want to underscore that it's my understanding that the deputy was really concerned about leaving for that 35 minutes in light of the importance of the deputy being here. Of course, it was originally scheduled for an hour, so we understand.

I wanted to underscore that because I'm one of the ones who scream the loudest when they don't show up, but I also want to be one of the ones who compliment them and thank them for recognizing the importance of being here. That was reflected, so I want to give the deputy something positive to go home with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'll also add that she made it very clear that she was disappointed, but that if there was anything she had to come back for, she was more than willing to come back.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

She's lucky we won't measure her disappointment. It's human nature; I'd be glad to get out of here.

I want to turn to paragraph 5.37 on page 7. To me this underscores a lot of the concerns. By the way, I know I don't have a lot of time, but I appreciated Mr. Lefebvre opening up with the concerns in his area, pointing out to the other side, and to my own colleagues—given some of the areas they represent, it's the same thing—that it is a complex issue. The broader concern I think is very much captured in paragraph 5.37. It's very brief. It says:

In addition, some employers of fish and seafood processing plants—

where we've had particular problems

—told the Department that temporary foreign workers were required because some Canadians had quit their positions because of the conditions or difficulty of the work. In our [the Auditor General's] opinion, this type of situation appeared to be a retention problem not a labour shortage problem.

This means that the working conditions are so poor and the pay is so poor that you can't keep workers. That's very different from, “I have a select need for a certain niche talent and I don't have it here.”

Also, going back to paragraph 5.18 on page 4, again the Auditor General says—and this is the link, and then I'll come to our guests—“This finding matters because the number of temporary foreign workers kept increasing over the years, as some employers were building their business models on the program.”

We can see a connection between the two.

My question would be to Mr. Thompson. Talk to us about how you view this issue of whether or not it's a retention problem or a labour shortage. Do you agree with the Auditor General that for some of those conditions where your department has said, “Yes, we recognize you have a need”, it's actually a retention problem and therefore a misuse of the program?

[Paul Thompson]

There are a few points there. I would say overall the use of the temporary foreign worker program by the seafood industry has diminished over the years. There were about 1,800 temporary foreign workers in 2012, and that number has dropped significantly.

It's not a wage issue, in our view, at least as far as we can see. We have rules that require them to pay at the prevailing wage for fish processors, or above, so there are very solid wage rules that are enforced quite rigorously on what workers are paid.

I can't claim that working in a fish plant is an attractive job offer. That's something that employers work on. We have worked closely with the industry on recruitment plans. They definitely have challenges on the HR front and we're supporting them in working with provinces and territories to help recruitment. I mentioned a couple of examples of working with young people, working with indigenous groups, working with the provinces for social assistance recipients and other unemployed people in the province. These are all efforts that the federal and provincial governments are doing to help with the recruitment, and certainly the industry is seized with retention as well.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You're now doing some on-site inspections. For the ones that were completed, you're bragging that 50% needed to take some sort of corrective measure. I'm looking at that as a half of them aren't compliant. How is that a success story? How did it get to the point that they're that far into the program and 50% aren't compliant? How is that?

[Paul Thompson]

I can start and my colleague Elise can elaborate.

There are differences in the degree of.... There could be a minor non-compliance issue that's corrected or there could be a more significant contravention of the rules, which would lead to penalties and fines. We have significant measures in place in our framework that can lead to fines of up to $1 million and a lifetime ban from the program, so there are significant penalties in place for serious abuses. When it's a minor contravention, as Elise can explain, we take issues to make sure they become completely compliant with the rules of the program.

[Elise Boisjoly, Assistant Deputy Minister, Integrity Services Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

As my colleague pointed out, there are various degrees in terms of non-compliance. When there's non-compliance, let's say, around wages, we strongly encourage the employer to correct it and make sure that the temporary foreign workers are paid the amount of money they should be paid, and also to ensure that working conditions such as vacation pay or overtime are paid for as well. When the situation is corrected, we say that they've been compliant with compensation, so they've compensated the worker. It allows the company or the employer to keep their jobs filled with the people that they need to continue to grow their business. It allows the temporary foreign worker to continue to have a job and be able to support himself.

It's not a good news story. We're not bragging about it. It's really trying to maintain the integrity of the program while maintaining the opportunity for the temporary foreign workers to work and for the business to grow.

When we have a case of serious abuse, we would refer them to enforcement authorities. We would make sure that we remove the worker from any employment of abuse. We would work with IRCC to find, potentially, an open permit or some other job for the temporary foreign worker.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, when there is a case of abuse with the employer, are there red flags there? How does the program work with temporary foreign workers, later, if it's the same employer? Is there a red flag with that employer?

[Elise Boisjoly]

When there's serious abuse, absolutely, an employer cannot hire another temporary foreign worker. Quite often, we will refer it to an enforcement agency, and there could be criminal charges laid against that employer. From there, we would ensure that this employer is banned from the program. When there's an RCMP investigation, obviously we rely on the RCMP to do the investigation, but we follow up with our own inspection. We make sure that this employer—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Mendès.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before I begin my questions, I would like to clarify something. I believe the deputy minister said earlier that on-site inspections will not begin until they determine how to do them. Now I hear that on-site inspections are being done and that 50% of them identify non-compliance. Something does not add up. I do not want an answer now because I would like to talk about something else, but I would like someone to check that.

I worked in the immigration sector for a very long time. I would like to talk about the elephant in the room, that is, that some Canadians do not want to do certain jobs, which is certainly their right. The program was established in 1966 specifically to deal with that problem. At the time, employers and farm owners were facing a major skills shortage. In the end, the solution was to create the temporary foreign workers program.

If we examine the program without considering this problem, that is very unfair to the people who were hired and to employers who have a lot of trouble finding people to do those jobs.

There have been many changes over the years. In the past 15 or 20 years, a major factor has emerged, that of family caregivers. We have increased their number greatly by recruiting people from all over the world. I am very concerned that, in 2009, there were about 20,000 applications to hire family caregivers, as compared to just 3,000 or 4,000 today, as my colleague Mr. Arya said.

Can you explain such a huge drop even though the demand for those workers has not decreased? We all know very well that the demand has not decreased in our ridings and in our communities. Families are still struggling to find family caregivers.

Why has this program been cut so much? How are we going to find people to do those jobs? I am certain—and I see this—that no Canadians want those jobs.

[Paul Thompson]

I can't give you a complete answer, Ms. Mendès.

The Department of Employment and Social Development receives applications under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, and we've seen a decrease in that program category. In addition, there were changes in immigration policy for family caregivers. I expect that these changes had an impact on the number of applications.

The deputy minister mentioned that there was an increase in fees of $175,000 per job, but the government announced a reduction in those fees. We are implementing a reduction in these fees for middle-income families. If these fees constitute a determining factor, we may see changes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

That brings me to the point. I think the demand is still there. There's still a huge demand on caregivers. The increase in fees was probably one of the biggest reasons for this dramatic drop in the applications, because it hasn't disappeared. Even in bad economic times, the request for caregivers has been constant, and it's something I've personally witnessed in a very direct manner through my office. I don't think the reason is that the demand has diminished. It's because the fees have increased so very much.

Okay, you've taken some steps, or IRCC is taking steps to diminish the fees, or is it you...?

[Paul Thompson]

It's our fee. We charge the $1,000 fee per—

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

On top of the application fees for immigration.