THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 7, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:01 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents); and to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to social affairs, science and technology generally; and, in camera, to discuss observations.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I begin by welcoming members of the committee and members of the public watching our proceedings. My name is Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario, and I am chair of this committee.
Let us introduce ourselves to the public and our witnesses.
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler from Manitoba.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator from Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents).
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. If at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to always ensure that we all have the same understanding of where we are in this process.
As chair, it is my job to do my utmost to ensure that all senators wishing to speak, have the opportunity to do so. For this, I need to depend, however, on your cooperation. I ask all of you to consider other senators and to keep your remarks to the point and as brief as possible.
Should we overlook your hand in our lineup of speakers, please don’t hesitate to do whatever you think is necessary to catch our attention.
Finally, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which obviously provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on process? If not, we can now proceed.
Colleagues, is it agreed that the committee proceeds to clause‑by-clause consideration of Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Burey: May I ask a question, chair?
The Chair: Of course.
Senator Burey: I have a possible observation. Should I wait until you’re finished with everything and then ask? Thank you. That’s the clarification.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? I know that there are observations, colleagues. We have two submitted to us from Senator McPhedran.
Colleagues, does the committee wish to discuss observations in public or in camera?
Senator Burey: In public.
The Chair: In public. Colleagues, we have two draft observations prepared by Senator McPhedran, which were circulated to you yesterday. The page is providing copies if you require one. There’s an updated version of the observation coming around.
Senator Seidman: Excuse me? Is the one we just received now different from what we received in advance?
The Chair: Yes, it’s updated. We’re going to get it to you for your eyes, and in Senator McPhedran’s absence, I will read it out.
Do we all have a copy in both official languages? Yes? We have it in both languages. Thank you.
The observation states, and I will read this out:
Your committee heard from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada that allowing super visa applicants to purchase foreign medical insurance may introduce changes to the existing insurance regulatory framework. Your committee notes that Bill C-242 is devoid of any implementation framework for the creation and ongoing monitoring of a vetting process for international insurance providers, which may cause potential difficulties in compiling a list of foreign insurance providers that comply with existing federal and provincial-territorial regulatory requirements.
The committee therefore recommends that extensive consultation and research be carried out in conjunction with provincial and territorial partners, regulators and health sector experts before approving any foreign insurance providers.
Is the observation agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The second observation is this:
The Committee observes possible legislative redundancy because the stated objectives of Bill C-242 may be accomplished under the current Ministerial Instructions framework regarding parent and grandparent super visas, and recommends that attention be paid to ensuring administrative efficiency in the implementation of Bill C-242.
Is this agreed, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Can someone help us with the French version of these observations?
Senator Cordy: I have a question. This is fine with me, but the bill does say that the insurance company has to be approved by the minister. Could this be a little bit more succinct? I don’t have a problem with it, but maybe it could just be more succinct — or we can leave it just the way it is.
The Chair: I’m not the author of this, so I am at a bit of a loss here.
Senator Seidman: I wasn’t here for the testimony.
Senator Cordy: I wasn’t either.
Senator Seidman: I was not on the committee when you heard the testimony, so I don’t know what to [Technical difficulties].
The Chair: Many of us were here, and we have had this issue of the validity of the insurance-provider list. We called the government back twice.
Senator Kutcher: It makes it extremely difficult for us to understand the fullness of the observations if the person who is bringing it forward is not actually here.
The Chair: I’m sorry, Senator Kutcher. I’m going to have to ask you to repeat that.
Senator Kutcher: Okay. I hope I can remember what I said. Basically, I’m saying that it’s very hard for us to get into the nuances of some of these things that are just now coming from the discussion, without the person who has brought forward the observation being here to help us sort this out. I just want to raise that and ask how we should proceed given that that is the current situation.
The Chair: I have just received a message from Senator McPhedran. She’s unable to attend. I’m going to ask my clerk for a bit of advice on this.
Colleagues, does the committee wish to discuss observations in public or in camera?
An Hon. Senator: In camera.
The Chair: Thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Colleagues, we resume our meeting. The first item of business is completing our decision on Bill C-242.
Is it agreed that I report this bill with appended observations to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
We now move to our second item on our agenda, which is to continue our study on Canada’s temporary and migrant labour force with a panel focusing on the seafood industry.
Before we begin, I would like to do a quick round table and have senators introduce themselves to our public and to our witness, starting with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: I’m Jane Cordy. I’m a senator from Nova Scotia. Welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard. I’m also from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I’m Rosemary Moodie from Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Good to see you again. I’m Stan Kutcher from Nova Scotia.
Senator Burey: I’m Sharon Burey from Ontario.
Senator Osler: I’m Gigi Osler from Manitoba.
Senator Seidman: I’m Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
The Chair: Welcome to our committee, Mr. Paul Lansbergen, President of the Fisheries Council of Canada. Thank you for joining us today.
You have five minutes, Mr. Lansbergen, to make your opening statement, and then we follow with questions from the senators. Please.
Paul Lansbergen, President, Fisheries Council of Canada: Good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.
Before I get into my specific comments about the topic, I would like to provide some context on the council, the sector and advantages of seafood.
The Fisheries Council of Canada, also known as the FCC, is the national voice for Canada’s wild captured commercial fisheries, and our member companies are processors that are small-, medium- and larger-sized enterprises, as well as Indigenous enterprises, who collectively harvest in Canada’s three oceans. They, first and foremost, are processors, but all of them have harvesting activities.
The Canadian seafood industry creates 90,000 jobs, mainly in coastal and rural communities. In essence, the sector is the beating economic heart of these communities, and the sector accounts for $9 billion in gross domestic product, or GDP, and exports to over a hundred countries.
Growing global demand for protein, including fish and seafood, points to growth opportunities for our sector. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, or UN FAO, is projecting global seafood demand to grow from 7% to 10% annually. You might wonder where this is going to come from — 71% of the Earth is covered by oceans; yet, only 3% of our total diet comes from oceans.
The High Level Panel for a Sustainable Oceans’ research indicates that the ocean could sustainably supply six times more food than it does today. This would represent more than two thirds of the animal protein needed to feed the future population. Because ocean-based food has a low carbon footprint, increasing its fraction in the global diet would contribute significantly to climate change mitigation.
The last statistic I want to share with you on the ocean economy is that the World Resources Institute estimates that every $1 invested in ocean-based protein yields $10 in health, environmental and economic benefits, which is a great return on investment.
Back to the topic at hand, the fisheries sector is comprised of two highly integrated activities: Commercial harvesting and seafood product preparation and packaging, with the latter typically involving the addition of some value to seafood products through processing like portioning, canning, smoking, freezing and packaging. Overall, employment is split relatively evenly between the two segments of the industry.
The fisheries sector is like our larger food sector, and we have significant labour shortages. During the pandemic, job vacancies were as high as 25% and had an impact on production volumes. Our labour challenges are not new. We have an aging workforce, and of our workforce in Atlantic Canada, one in three are over 55 years old, which means that retirements will continue to be a challenge for us.
Seasonality and poor perception of employment in the sector are a barrier for some, and operating in small communities can be a double-edged sword. There is a great work-life balance but also a small labour pool. While the working conditions for some positions may not be attractive to some potential workers, the sector does offer good wages, particularly for small coastal communities.
The sector has a number of activities to address some of these issues. First, companies in the sector promote themselves in order to attract workers. This often includes the great work-life balance of coastal communities.
Second, the FCC has a sector-specific career development program called Future Leaders Canada, whereby companies can invest in their employees’ development. We launched it in 2019 and have earned great feedback from our participants.
Third, this year the FCC has partnered with Food Processing Skills Canada to support their Achieving Our Workforce Destination project. This is a suite of new workforce resources for Canada’s food and beverage processing industry.
Fourth, companies invest in automated processing equipment to stay competitive, enhance product quality and eliminate job vacancies, and there are retraining opportunities for any workers displaced, sometimes filling other job vacancies.
Fifth, despite these efforts, companies are becoming increasingly reliant on temporary foreign workers for both seasonal work and year round. Temporary foreign workers help address the workforce gaps. We were pleased with the improvements made to the program in 2021, and the temporary measures were extended until October 31, 2023, while being further evaluated. We’d like to see them made permanent.
A further improvement would be to make it easier for temporary workers to become permanent residents. The pathway to permanent residency needs to be expanded to meet demand. Also, reduce the paper and cost burden of the program. It is costly and plagued by slow processing times.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lansbergen. My apologies for the interruptions.
Colleagues, we only have one witness today, so you have the luxury of time. We will start with questions from senators starting with Senator Cordy, and everyone will have five minutes for their question, which includes the answer.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for being here today. Senator Kutcher and I are on the Fisheries Committee, my inclination is to first talk about the stocks of fish and all that kind of thing. Forgive me if I go over the line a little bit.
It’s interesting to look at your statistics. I’m from Nova Scotia, from Atlantic Canada, and the fisheries sector is very important there. We have had the biggest influx of population — I shouldn’t say since I don’t know historically — in my lifetime. We now have over a million people in Nova Scotia. The numbers have been staying relatively stable in Nova Scotia, but we now have a significant input.
The challenges, of course, are the points that you raised. First of all, it’s the rural area, which is a good lifestyle and all of that, a lower cost for housing and so on, but the challenge is that people who are immigrating to Nova Scotia — I’ll speak just about Nova Scotia — tend to want to go to the more populated areas. I’m not quite sure how we deal with that aspect of it.
The aging population is another one. In Nova Scotia, the population is aging, and I think that’s true all over Atlantic Canada. How do we encourage our younger people to go into the fishing industry? Those would be my two questions.
Mr. Lansbergen: Thank you for your questions; they are difficult ones. I think it would require the collaboration of the federal government, provincial governments, and also community organizations to create a more welcoming environment to attract immigrants to some of those smaller communities. There are more support organizations in the larger urban centres, so it makes it easier for them to acclimatize to our society. We need to do a better job of trying to attract them to the smaller communities. Companies need to do as much as they can to make those positions that they have available attractive as well.
Senator Cordy: You spoke about the path to permanent residency being made easier. How do you see the government doing that? That is something that the federal government can do.
Mr. Lansbergen: From what we’ve heard from our members, it’s just the sheer number that are allowed through that pathway. We had a company in B.C. that wanted to get some of their temporary foreign workers into that part of the program, and it was oversubscribed before they could complete the paperwork, get the medical testing and such of the workers to be able to submit the applications. Larger numbers would allow more employers and workers to be part of that program.
Senator Cordy: What percentage of the temporary foreign workers who do come to Canada actually want permanent residency? I know a lot in the farming industry come to Nova Scotia, and their intent is just to stay for the planting and harvesting. In the fishing industry, what percentage wants to stay permanently?
Mr. Lansbergen: I don’t have specific numbers on the percentage, but I think there is definitely a mix where the workers who have more seasonal work want to go back home to their families in the offseason. Those who would have the luxury of more year-round work would be more interested in permanent residency, but I don’t have numbers, sorry.
Senator Cordy: That’s okay. Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you for being with us today. Canada’s seafood sector is predominantly located in the East and West, on the two coasts. What I want to talk about is the comparison in the labour markets between those two coasts and whether there are any differences in the jobs available or the work and living conditions for temporary and migrant workers on those two coasts.
Mr. Lansbergen: Thank you for the question. You’re right that our industry is predominantly in Atlantic Canada. However, there is a growing part of it up in the eastern Arctic and Nunavut as well. I’ll talk about the three coasts.
The type of work is fairly similar in terms of a mix between seasonal and year-round employment. I think perhaps it might be a little stronger in the East where there is more of an offshore harvesting fleet that can provide year-round employment. The prospects of the industry are better right now in Atlantic Canada than in the West, so job prospects are probably a little bit brighter in the East.
Senator Seidman: Jobs are brighter on the Atlantic coast?
Mr. Lansbergen: Yes.
Senator Seidman: What about the North?
Mr. Lansbergen: In Nunavut, because it’s Inuit communities, I’m not aware of any of our members using the Temporary Foreign Worker Program in the North. What they typically try to do is increase the number of Indigenous workers as part of their workforce. They’re trying to recruit and train the Inuit to work on the vessels and there are only some small plants up north.
Senator Seidman: If I could just get a little more specific, are there demographic differences between the worker populations of temporary and migrant workers on the Atlantic coast compared with the Pacific coast?
Mr. Lansbergen: I’m not aware of any measurable difference between the two.
Senator Seidman: Okay. Are there differences in the kinds of jobs available for temporary and migrant workers?
Mr. Lansbergen: I think I should maybe characterize — and you’ll get more of a flavour for this at your next meeting when you have representatives from the lobster sector, because that particular fishery and the processing plants do rely more heavily on temporary foreign workers than other fisheries. I think that might be a good standout between the two coasts.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you for your testimony today. My question is on the labour workforce in Atlantic Canada. You made reference to the great work-life balance being a positive.
In 2020, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency reported that the percentage of women participating in the workforce in Atlantic Canada was 3.5% lower than the national average, and the majority of all fishing and fish processing workers in Canada are male.
I have two questions. First, do you have data on the gender breakdown among temporary and migrant fishing and fish processing workers? Second, what would you say are the barriers to women’s participation in the fisheries workforce in Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Lansbergen: Those are good questions, and I do have some statistics here on gender breakdown. The source of this information from Employment and Social Development Canada, also known as ESDC, and Service Canada would likely be from Canadians and permanent residents as opposed to my grant workers. It’s still definitely male dominated, 72% versus 28% for women. The vessel crews for the offshore fleets are predominantly male and probably even higher than 72%. Then, for processing plants, it’s predominantly women.
For migrant workers, I don’t have a breakdown. I would hazard a guess that it’s probably still predominantly male, but I don’t have any statistics on that.
Senator Osler: For the workforce that you do have data on, have you got any qualitative information, qualitative data or observations on barriers for women’s participation in the workforce?
Mr. Lansbergen: Companies are trying to actively recruit more women, more diversified workers and more minorities, but the reputation of the industry is still that it is male dominated. I think that’s probably one of the biggest barriers to overcome in attracting more women to the workforce.
Senator Osler: Has the Fisheries Council had that discussion at the council level about the stereotypes or how to attract half the population or slightly more to the workforce?
Mr. Lansbergen: Yes, we have discussed that. I’m pleased to say that, on our board, the number of women has increased; I think it has doubled since I joined the council. That is not necessarily because of me and my particular efforts; I can’t take credit for it. However, in a short five and a half years, I’ve seen a doubling. It’s still male dominated. I think out of 17 on our board, 12 of those are still men.
In our career development program, we’ve seen a predominance of women. This year, there are nine people in the program, and seven or eight are women. So we are making slow progress.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you once again for being with us. We appreciate that very much.
I have a number of questions. What are the predominant source countries for temporary foreign workers in the seafood industry in Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Lansbergen: That’s a good question. Honestly, as a council, we haven’t spent lots of time on the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, aside from some of the issues that the government was considering last year. I will have to get back to you on that. I don’t want to take a guess.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you. I appreciate that.
The industry is very strongly vertically integrated, as you mentioned, and there are very close links between harvesters, processors and the value-add components of that chain. What proportion of the people who are here on the temporary foreign worker programs would be working in the harvester side as opposed to the processing side? That would be one question.
Then, what proportion on the harvester side would be involved in inshore fisheries as opposed to offshore fisheries?
Third, are there substantive differences in those workforces?
Mr. Lansbergen: Those are great questions.
There is a great difference. On the offshore fleet, in particular, the vessel crew has to be Canadian or permanent residents. We’re not allowed to use migrant workers there, as far as I understand, certainly on the West Coast. Members have said that. They would like that to change, because they have such a shortage of workers.
On the inshore harvesting side, certainly in Atlantic Canada, there are owner-operator rules. So the licence holder has to be the captain of the ship — the owner. As to their crew, I don’t know of any particular rules and whether they would allow or prohibit migrant workers from being part of that.
I would have to say that the vast majority of migrant workers are in the processing plants.
Senator Kutcher: Okay, thank you.
Has your organization heard any concerns about exploitation or maltreatment of people who have come in under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, or would you be an organization that would hear about them if there were such concerns or complaints?
Mr. Lansbergen: I don’t think we would necessarily be an organization to hear it directly. We would hear it in the media, perhaps, and we monitor things relating to the industry.
From my vantage point, there is a low percentage of workers in the food system who are temporary foreign workers. From what I understand, reading the evaluation reports from the government, the number of inspections that have found non‑compliance is very low as well. Certainly, the media stories that we do see are a very small number of the overall numbers of temporary foreign workers. But the bad news gets coverage.
Senator Kutcher: Right.
The vast majority of the inshore fisheries are from small communities, with the local captain and the crew is different, but the harvesting plants tend to be in larger communities, although they bring in people from different places.
Have you heard of any challenges for temporary foreign workers who might be racialized or from different kinds of source countries having difficulties making the transition into small fishing communities or within the slightly larger communities where the plants are located?
Mr. Lansbergen: Our plants are still located in relatively small communities. There are not that many in Halifax, for example. Whether they’re in Lockeport, Dartmouth or Shelburne, they’re still relatively small communities.
I think it just gets back to the fact that there are fewer community organizations and municipal supports for migrant workers to integrate more smoothly into some of those smaller communities. That’s a challenge, but that’s not just for seafood; I think that applies to small rural communities in agriculture across the country as well.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much.
Senator Petitclerc: I am afraid maybe you will not be able to answer my question, because it goes into the line of what Senator Kutcher has already asked. I want to have your comments on working conditions and the welfare of the migrant workers.
You talked about the media and the stories, but I was more concerned about a study that came out from Dalhousie University last March. They did have interviews with 15 migrant workers from New Brunswick. It really painted a very disturbing story on low pay, long hours and overcrowding.
My understanding is that your organization — it’s not what you do — monitoring, documenting, knowing about those things. That’s what I’m understanding.
Mr. Lansbergen: Yes.
With our mandate, we tend to focus more on policy initiatives that will make a better policy environment for the industry for it to compete, invest and support its communities.
Having said that, I know the report you’re referring to, and the one reaction I have — and this is not to belittle the stories of the 15 workers whom they interviewed — but that’s not a representative sample of the over 2,000 temporary foreign workers who were in the seafood industry in New Brunswick that year.
I would hope that any of those stories were fed to ESDC to further investigate, because any abuses like that in the report should be investigated. If they’re found to be true, then those employers should be penalized or kicked out of the program.
Senator Petitclerc: How about recommendations? Does your organization have a position on the recommendations that we hear and see in this report? We’ve heard them here as well on work permits and not employer-specific, that sort of matter. Do you have a position on those recommendations, or do you have recommendations when it comes to welfare?
Mr. Lansbergen: Our companies are leaders in the industry on sustainability and we do our best in terms of attracting our workforce and treating them well.
My personal reaction to the recommendation of open permits is that the program is already very costly. That would add more risk to the companies trying to get temporary foreign workers; if they were allowed to come and then quickly move to another employer, it would create more problems than it would solve.
In the case of any abuses or anything like that, there’s already a provision for a temporary transfer, or more effective transfer in the case of an abuse. We just need to make sure that those provisions are used effectively.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Lansbergen, I want to follow up on Senator Petitclerc’s question about the report from New Brunswick. You stated that the 15 respondents to the report are not representative of the makeup of your workforce, yet you stated earlier that you don’t gather evidence on migrant workers in your workforce. Help me with my confusion here.
Mr. Lansbergen: Certainly. In preparation for this appearance, I looked at evaluation reports from ESDC and at reports from the Cooper Institute. The report itself said there were over 2,000 temporary foreign workers in New Brunswick in that given year. To me, 15 interviews out of 2,000 doesn’t sound like a representative sample, and certainly not statistically significant if it was a quantitative sample.
In terms of Canada as a whole, in 2021, there were 61,000 temporary foreign workers out of employment in the agriculture and agri-food sector of 2.1 million, which would represent about 3%. Temporary foreign worker use is still a small part of the overall labour force in our food system, but it is an important one to address some of the labour challenges that we do have.
The Chair: Thank you. You may well know that members of this committee will be embarking on a fact-finding mission. We will go to New Brunswick and P.E.I., so we will dig a little further.
I want to ask you a question about open work permits. Again, in response to your answer to Senator Petitclerc, you said there is a concern that people with open work permits will move from one employer to another. Is that not the cost of doing business? Isn’t that what employees do all the time: make a choice?
Mr. Lansbergen: Yes, certainly. However, I think that in terms of the cost of participating in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, there are additional costs outside of attracting a Canadian or a permanent resident to work for you. They first have to show that there’s no Canadian available to work in the position. They then have to conduct the Labour Market Impact Assessment, try to attract a worker from a foreign country and work with that government as well as with the authorities here. There are additional costs already in the program. If it’s an open permit where the worker could leave easily, that adds to the risk.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much for that answer.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Given the aging population across Canada — in the Atlantic region as well — how can you manage this through the opportunity to hire international students?
When they arrive, do they go straight into this industry? Have they been hired for it? Also, from the moment they get their permanent residency permit, are you aware of any of them wanting to change options, or are there so few options that they don’t move? Are you aware of any such situations?
Mr. Lansbergen: That’s a good question.
[English]
I think attracting university students and graduate students to the industry is as challenging as it is to attract unskilled labour to our industry — certainly, the better educated the more mobile you are.
We see a lack of fisheries scientists in government and universities who conduct the core fisheries science. FCC has started an annual scholarship to help attract fisheries scientists in universities.
In terms of other skilled trades, like engineers, certainly for the vessels, we compete with other sectors like oil and gas. That’s a challenge, because they tend to pay even more than we do.
It will continue to be a challenge, particularly because, as you said, we have an aging workforce. We need to continue doing as much as we can.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I’ve heard about all the challenges in your region. I understand that it’s the community organizations in a region that usually plan programs to welcome newcomers. From what I understand — I don’t know if I understood correctly — some organizations tend not to encourage newcomers; did I understand correctly?
Mr. Lansbergen: That’s a good question.
[English]
The industry is very diversified. The fisheries can be very different from one to the next. The association representation of the industry is diverse because of this. The companies and harvesters, even for their own organizations, tend to look to us for certain things and it tends to be a little narrower.
Quite frankly, I’d be at a loss to identify an organization with the particular mandate to help address some of those issues. For us, it’s not within our mandate.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I see. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Mr. Lansbergen, thank you for being here, for your testimony and for your responses so far. I think some of the questions I’m going to ask you will follow up on some of the questions my colleagues have already asked and you’ve not been able to answer. For the record, I’m going to ask again and ask that you provide this information to us in writing after today.
One of my questions has to do with the host countries of the temporary foreign workers. I would like you to provide that information to us. That’s following up on Senator Kutcher’s question.
I’d also like to follow up on Senator Osler’s question around gender and bring an intersectional lens to that and ask for intersectional data around gender and also around race and disabilities. I’d be really interested in knowing who is currently participating in the industry from those intersectional identities and which host countries you are attracting temporary foreign workers from. I know you won’t have that information. I’m tabling it so you can get that to us. Thank you in advance.
Now, a question I hope you can answer: In your testimony you alluded to one of the reasons for there being a labour shortage was because of one’s perception of the working conditions. I would like you to say a bit more about that. What are the perceptions of the working conditions that are keeping folks on the East and West Coasts from going to these jobs that you describe as very attractive ones?
Mr. Lansbergen: Right. The processing plants are a cool, wet environment, so not everybody wants to work in an environment like that. On the vessels, certainly for the offshore fleet, they go out on a voyage for several weeks at a time, so they’re away from their families. It’s long hours when they’re on the vessel, and it’s hard work. Not everybody would necessarily be attracted to that. To compensate, we try to offer the best wage as possible as well as benefits and things like that.
In an evaluation that ESDC did, they had a survey of Canadians and the top reasons why they are not interested in applying for positions in our sector are: 37% said hard work and physical labour; Twenty-seven per cent was non-standard work schedule, which would probably lean more toward the vessels; remote location, the double-edged sword of small communities; uninteresting work and repetitive, 21%; temporary and seasonal jobs at 19%; and, poor working environment at 18%. I guess there are multiple answers that you can give because it adds up to more than 100%, but those were the responses that came up in the evaluation. I would have to say they’re probably fairly reasonable. Some people like the type of work and some people don’t.
Senator Bernard: Is your organization doing any research yourselves in this area?
Mr. Lansbergen: No, we’re not.
Senator Bernard: Do you think you should?
Mr. Lansbergen: It gets back to what fits within our mandate and our resource level. We’re a small organization of three and two-thirds people, leanly funded. There are only so many hours in the day that we can tackle the issues we have in front of us.
Senator Bernard: Maybe partnering with some university researchers could be a way to do that.
I think this is probably my most important question. I’m wondering if you could tell us how the new developments in Indigenous fisheries on the East Coast have been. Are they filling the gap for you or filling any of the gaps in terms of labour shortages?
The Chair: I’m afraid we’re going to have to park that question and get back to it.
Senator Bernard: Could I go on second round, then, please?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Burey: I would like to echo what my colleagues have said. Thank you so much for being here and thank you for sharing how valuable the fisheries industry is to Canada and its potential for growth.
I heard you talk about the permanent labour shortages that were here even before the pandemic and, of course, things have gotten much worse since then. I also believe I heard you talk about a possible solution to some of the labour shortages, such as a pathway to permanent residency. I hope I’m correct, but you can tell me if I’m completely off base. I want to know how you think a pathway to permanent residency could stabilize the labour workforce, and because you’re in fisheries, particularly in fisheries.
Mr. Lansbergen: Thank you. As I said earlier, I think one of the big fixes or improvements to the pathways to permanent residency would be to increase the number of people who would be eligible for that part of the program because we’ve had companies that wanted to participate and it was oversubscribed.
One of the reasons why I think that is important is, as I said, we’re having trouble attracting people to work in the industry, and immigrants aren’t necessarily going to the small communities where we operate. But if there are temporary foreign workers who are interested in permanent residency and are willing to work in the industry, then allowing them to expedite and get that permanent residency would be very helpful. They’re already in the industry, so we should be able to maintain and keep them.
Senator Burey: Following up on that, you were talking about your organization recommending policy initiatives that could stabilize the industry. Would that be a recommendation for us? Would that would be something to look at?
Mr. Lansbergen: Yes, and we’ve made that same recommendation previously to the government.
Senator Burey: You also mentioned automation. I’m interested in that. Could you talk more about that and the effect it’s having on the industry?
Mr. Lansbergen: Yes. In some plants, it is still very labour intensive. Again, some of that would be repetitive work and perhaps not as pleasant for some. Where there are particular job vacancies and where it is repetitive work, and certainly with modern technology, we can put in automated processes to eliminate that repetitive work and then perhaps retrain workers to some better positions that would give them better work conditions while at the same time improving product quality and yield.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Thank you for your contribution to this committee today.
I wanted to pursue some of the concerns around the conditions that you say workers aren’t particularly interested being in. I would think that cramped quarters, exploitation, racism and threats of deportation might be some of those things. I’m wondering how you feel we can get a better understanding of what the conditions for workers really are.
We know that inspections are voluntary, I believe, in this sector. What is the proportion of the total number of operations in your group that are inspected? Do you have any understanding of that?
A follow-up to that would be if there is an opportunity to increase that number so that, as you put it, the statistical validity of who and how many we’re talking to can be increased, what would be your suggestion as a policy group? How can we increase the number of inspections and get better information on conditions?
Mr. Lansbergen: One question I would have is, what resources does ESDC have to conduct the inspections? Do they have the resources to do more, even if it is voluntary?
Senator Moodie: Do you know the numbers?
Mr. Lansbergen: No, I don’t know the numbers.
Also, just to be very clear, when I talk about the working conditions not necessarily being attractive to some people, I’m not referring to any of the abuses and other things that you imagine.
Senator Moodie: But I am.
Mr. Lansbergen: That shouldn’t happen anywhere, and that’s an issue of enforcement in terms of compliance and things like that.
Senator Moodie: Is this data available? Do we know what proportion of the total number of operations actually get inspected? Is that a problem, do you think?
Mr. Lansbergen: The one stat I saw relating to that in some of the research I was doing — and I think it was in the evaluation report — is that there were 1,612 inspections between April 1, 2022, and January 29, 2023, and only 5% were found non-compliant. I don’t have any more statistics than that.
Senator Moodie: Do you know the total number — that 1,612?
Mr. Lansbergen: That would be 1,600 inspections of roughly 60,000 temporary foreign workers. So again, that’s a small number, admittedly.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Bernard, let’s pick up on your question about Indigenous workers in the industry unless you want it repeated.
Mr. Lansbergen: No, I remember.
Up North, as I said earlier, they’re trying to actively recruit and also advance Indigenous workers through the companies in all positions and up into management ranks as well. In other communities across the country where there are First Nations communities and Indigenous peoples, that is a pool of labour that companies can try and better utilize. There are some efforts to attract them as well.
I can also say that, with the Indigenous reconciliation agenda, the government is trying to increase Indigenous participation in the fishery and in the sector. However, they’re focusing on licences and quotas versus employment levels. That’s a much more complicated issue — perhaps one for another day.
Senator Bernard: Do you have any information specifically on what’s happening in the Atlantic region with the Mi’kmaq fisheries?
Mr. Lansbergen: In terms of employment in the industry?
Senator Bernard: Yes, and addressing the labour shortage gaps.
Mr. Lansbergen: No. We haven’t looked into it. To the extent that I monitor issues relating to the industry, I haven’t seen any data that talks about the level of employment among Mi’kmaq in the industry as skilled or unskilled labour.
In terms of access to the resource, that tends to be where there’s more effort in increasing their access — through licences to the resource as well as their treaty rights to fish, whether it be for food, social and ceremonial purposes, or commercial fishing.
Senator Bernard: So there seems to be a gap there.
I’m also wondering about whether your organization is linked with the work being done with the Port of Halifax in terms of engaging more with African Nova Scotian communities and looking specifically at some of the conversations that are happening around reparations following the destruction of Africville and how that links into employment in fisheries.
The Chair: Senator Bernard, I’m going to give Mr. Lansbergen one minute to answer that question. We really have to respect our time here. Thank you, Mr. Lansbergen.
Mr. Lansbergen: Frankly, I don’t have an answer. I’ll have to get back to you on that one.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I heard you talking earlier about annual scholarships, university science programs — an organization, or the government, offers annual scholarships. Have you seen any interest in these scholarships? Are there people interested in trying to get them?
The reason for my question is this: The more engineers or other people there are in the same sector — in the fishing industry — the more of them will be trained to a high level. This would perhaps encourage research and development in the field, which could perhaps lead to automation, as Senator Burey said, to make life easier and less challenging, and enable the retention of these employees. The more working conditions improve and are alleviated by automation, the more it could encourage them to stay. Do you know if people are interested in these scholarships?
[English]
Mr. Lansbergen: I don’t have any information relating to scholarships, but in terms of researchers in and around the industry and what their particular areas of focus are, a lot of the automation part has already been developed outside of Canada. The technology is readily available from the service providers. There are companies in Canada that are available to help them assess their processes and identify opportunities for further automation, how to do it and what equipment would be best suited to do that.
In terms of other research and developing new technologies in Canada, I think a lot of the focus is precision fishing as a terminology to make the harvesting activities more efficient, effective and targeted. That would reduce fuel usage and also reduce environmental impacts, such as bycatch or disruption on the seabed floor.
Those types of things are really where some exciting things are happening, as well as in better utilization of every part of the fish or shellfish that we harvest to create more value. That’s also another exciting area that’s happening in Canada.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lansbergen and Senator Mégie. We will move on.
Senator Osler: I would request that the answer and information be provided back to us in writing; don’t answer my question now, please.
Are you aware if the industry — or does the Fisheries Council of Canada — provide any formal cultural awareness, education and training for the employers on the culture and countries of the home countries of the temporary foreign and migrant workers? Feel free to answer in writing.
Mr. Lansbergen: No, it’s a simple answer.
No, we don’t have any programs. As I said, it gets back to resources and what our mandate is. It would fall outside of our typical mandate and the priorities that the members have given us.
The Chair: Mr. Lansbergen, I have a final question and then we will let you off the hot seat.
I noted with interest your comments on why the industry is unattractive to many workers. I want to assure you that your product is delicious.
I’m also struck by the lack of information you have access to. You are constantly citing reports from ESDC. It does not seem to me that you collect information. So I wonder if your association has considered a simple mechanism like a complaint hotline, both for employers and employees. That would be the base of getting some evidence.
Mr. Lansbergen: I appreciate the suggestion. We’ll take that back and discuss with members as I give them a report of this particular appearance and the questions I was able to answer and not answer.
One last thing in terms of culture training. It’s not related to foreign workers, but as part of our Future Leaders Canada, which is the career development program for the sector, we do have a component that provides Indigenous culture awareness training. We have at least taken that part on.
The Chair: Mr. Lansbergen, I have a final question. If there are any questions here that you were not able to answer, please do get back to us in writing.
Canada is not the only country that relies, to some extent, on temporary migrant workers in the seafood industry. What lessons can you derive from the Nordic states if any?
Mr. Lansbergen: I will have to get back to you on that, yes.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Our time has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Lansbergen. Your testimony has been very valuable and assisted us greatly in our understanding of your industry.
Colleagues, we will continue our study on Canada’s temporary and migrant labour force at our meeting tomorrow, Thursday, June 8, upstairs in room C128.
(The committee adjourned.)