Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 56 - Evidence - Meeting of October 4, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 4, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8 a.m. to study how the value-added food sector can be more competitive in global markets (topic: Temporary Foreign Worker Program).
Senator Diane F. Griffin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. I’m Senator Diane Griffin from Prince Edward Island and I am chair of the committee. Today, the committee is continuing its study on how the value-added food sector can be more competitive in global markets. Before we hear from the witnesses, I’m going to ask the senators to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator R. Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Terry Mercer, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you. Before we hear from the panellists, we have a lot of people here to ask questions. If everybody could be as concise as possible in their presentations and answers, and if the questioners could be concise, we’ll get through the panel and hear from everybody.
We have Ryan Koeslag, Executive Vice-President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Mushroom Growers’ Association. From HyLife, we’re joined by Baerbel Langner, Legal Counsel-Immigration and Past Chair, Canadian Bar Association, National Immigration Section. Also with us is Justine Taylor, Science and Government Relations Manager, Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers.
Welcome. Thank you very much for accepting our invitation to appear. We’re going to start off with Ms. Taylor.
Justine Taylor, Science and Government Relations Manager, Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers: Good morning honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Senate committee’s study on how the value-added food sector can be more competitive. My presentation today will focus primarily on the importance of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the associated workforce to the continued success of Canadian horticulture.
Greenhouse vegetable production in Ontario represents a thriving sector that contributes heavily to the Canadian economy and delivers fresh, healthy and local food to Canadians year-round. With over 3,000 acres of greenhouse tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers across the province and a historic annual compounded growth rate of 6 per cent, the sector is a significant economic driver.
Collectively in 2018 we estimate our members will be responsible for over 12,000 jobs and a contribution of $1.7 billion to the economy. The sector has a well-earned reputation for excellence, and has established a significant market in the U.S., with over 70 per cent of what we grow currently going for export. The sector is well poised to contribute to meeting the Advisory Council on Economic Growth’s challenge to double global market share by 2027. Through a multi-pronged approach, sector growth can be achieved by increasing the consumption of fresh vegetables in Canada; expanding existing markets in the U.S; identifying new markets in the Pacific Rim; increasing productivity through efficiency and innovation; extending the local season through supplemental lighting and offset planting; and developing new products in both the fresh and value-added segments through innovative processing techniques.
Using recent historic growth trends, the sector could grow by another 900 acres over the next five years, resulting in over $1 billion in direct construction investment, an additional contribution of over $500 million to the economy and the creation of 3,700 new jobs.
However, there are challenges with achieving this growth agenda, many of which were accurately captured in the recent Agri-Food Economic Strategy Table report. Today, I would like to focus specifically on the challenges the sector faces with regards to attracting a reliable workforce.
Whether it be in a greenhouse or in the open field, fruit and vegetable farming requires a significant amount of manual labour to ensure these delicate and perishable products are fresh when they reach your table. While automation and innovation continue to be major drivers within the sector, there remain many manual challenges that are difficult to automate using today’s technology.
Our members aim to hire Canadians first. Recruitment campaigns both locally and in underemployed regions are ongoing. As an organization, we have increased our outreach efforts to ensure potential employees fully understand the opportunities offered by modern agriculture. Greenhouse sector jobs are diverse and far-ranging, from engineers to entomologists, to marketing, logistics and HR. However there remain many misperceptions about the nature of greenhouse work and many Canadians are not interested in the seasonal nature of entry-level jobs.
Our sector relies heavily on a workforce hired through the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program and the agriculture stream of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to meet workforce shortages when Canadian employees cannot be secured. We are keen to do our part to ensure these programs support a thriving Canadian agri-food sector for employers and employees alike.
We have recently highlighted our concerns with the current program as part of ESDC’s primary agricultural review of the TFWP. I will not go into these in detail, but suffice to say fairness, transparency and expediency in a framework that supports the evolving nature of modern agriculture are key to ensuring the success of the Canadian agri-food sector.
It is not an exaggeration to say that without access to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, Canadian horticulture as it is known today would grind to a halt. The contributions from this international workforce are vital to ensure we are competitive in a global market and provide significant economic benefit to the economies at a national, provincial and regional level. In turn, wages earned in Canada are invested in families and communities in home countries, where many struggle to make ends meet.
In addition, farming knowledge gained in Canada, one of the leaders of modern agriculture, can be transferred to developing nations and used to develop sustainable agricultural practices across the globe.
Canada’s TFWP and long-standing SAWP are the envy of many countries and are often held up of as examples of successful international workforce programs. These programs, which have worker protections built in, provide our farmers with a competitive advantage over our nearest neighbour to the South, whose own international agricultural worker programs are scheduled for major reform.
As producers, we see the importance of this workforce day-to-day. We value and respect all of our employees and seek to help them with their plans for the future. As an organization, we have embarked on a pilot project aimed at increasing inclusion and acceptance of our international workforce in rural communities. This work is being piloted in the Kingsville-Leamington, region where the majority of our members operate.
The intent of this project is to build a regional network of resources that will support the international farmer community in accessing services, establishing culturally appropriate supports and addressing issues of concern.
The first in a series of three community outreach sessions was held in June and saw engagement from the migrant workers support organizations, health care providers, community organizations, health and safety representatives, municipalities, growers and religious affiliations. The event was well attended and the initiative has been embraced and supported widely. The remaining two workshops will aim to more fully incorporate input from the international farm worker community, develop a strategy to ensure intent is translated into action and establish a robust leadership structure to guide the process going forward.
In addition our organization has taken the lead on the development of a smartphone app that will be made available to the international farm worker community to aid them in finding information on regional services and events, navigate the regional healthcare network and linking to resources on their rights and responsibilities under the TFWP. It is our intent this model could be used across the country to support our international farm workers in other regions and other crops.
I have no doubt my esteemed colleagues, who presented throughout this proceeding, will provide you with the necessary background, facts and figures to illustrate the importance of the TFWP to ensure the global competitiveness of Canada’s value-added food sector. The value this workforce provides cannot be overstated. It is critical we work together as agri-food, government and rural communities to ensure this workforce is welcome and supported across the country. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We’ll now hear from Mr. Koeslag.
Ryan Koeslag, Executive Vice-President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Mushroom Growers’ Association: Thank you very much for allowing me to come here and talk today about our mushroom industry and specifically about the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and how it affects our competitiveness. I have a handout I have provided today, as well as an infographic for some of the information I am going to be covering today.
First a little bit of a background on our industry. Currently, Canada produces about 134,000 tonnes of mushrooms across the country. That’s anything from white, brown button mushrooms, to portobello, oyster, king oyster or Shitake mushrooms. Those are all grown within this country with over 4,000 people working in our industry.
About 50 to 60 per cent of those mushrooms are produced in Ontario, 30 to 40 per cent are grown in B.C. and the rest are scattered throughout the country.
There has been a period of expansion, currently and over the last decade, during which the mushroom industry has been expanding and growing, not only domestically but south of the border. We have a product viewed as superior in quality than what they have in the United States. Of the 134,000 tonnes of mushrooms we produce, about 30 to 40 per cent of it is exported to the United States. There really isn’t a grocery store within Canada where you won’t be able to find a fresh, Canadian mushroom. It’s a good story for Canada and for Canadian agriculture.
When we’re looking at what Canada can do in order to increase the competitiveness of our industry, it comes down to the physical task of getting that mushroom to market. Right now, we understand our job vacancy rate is running at about 9.7 per cent. We have a lot of vacancies within our mushroom industry.
A study conducted by the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council found that about 75 per cent of our workforce is Canadian. We still need to rely on the Temporary Foreign Worker Program in order to meet the demands we have for picking our mushrooms.
A mushroom expands in size 4 per cent every hour, or every 24 hours it doubles in size. When you think of the timing to have that mushroom picked, you have to have people there to pick that product. With the vacancy rate at 9.7 per cent, we are throwing away 20 per cent of our product, which equals about $100 million a year. It’s a sad case to be unable to pick those mushrooms. Although we’re still expanding, it all has to do with timing. A mushroom bed is picked about three times. The first has the highest rate of production, and then you go back and pick again. It’s all about timing and having people available to pick them when it’s the optimum size to take to market.
When we talk about how we can improve the program and get more temporary foreign workers into the mushroom industry, we have a few things we want you to consider.
First of all, what we hear back is that we’re not paying enough to the workers. We conducted a wage study with the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council, we found — and it was verified — we were paying our mushroom workers anywhere from minimum wage up to $30 an hour for the work they are conducting. For supervisors and managers we see wages ranging from $35,000 to $80,000. For managers, $42,000 to $171,000. It’s not so much an issue of pay for our industry. We see it as being a job that isn’t always the most desired profession for a Canadian individual. Although we do have a 75 per cent Canadian employment rate, we still need temporary foreign workers to fill the void, get all the jobs done and satisfy market delivery requirements.
What can do to improve that program, or how can we get more access and try and reduce that vacancy rate? The one thing you may have already heard about, and that I want to stress again, is we have labour market impact assessments or LMIAs. There is a delay in the processing of LMIAs right now. It takes six months in order to access a worker and have that worker come to this country. When we’re in a period of expansion we want to get that moving more quickly than the current six-month time frame.
We also have arbitrary rulings for some of these LMIAs. We hear from our farmers that they applied for an LMIA for five workers and the people reviewing it say, no, you can only have three. Or you post the job position on the Canadian market, you have nobody apply for it, you get your LMIA and you apply, and they say no, you should be able to find a Canadian who can meet that job. Even though we fulfilled all the requirements in order to access the LMIA, they are still coming back and saying no, you can find a Canadian.
Something that probably pertains to this committee meeting most prevalently, and I’ll read the statement we have from one of our producers, it goes back to the arbitrary ruling and trying to find more workers when they are in an expansion phase:
Every LMIA keeps getting harder and harder to apply for because we have to prove why we need these workers and why our required numbers are what they are. We keep having to explain the same data and information again and again. Also, we have almost doubled the temporary foreign workers we used to have in a short period of time because we are going through a farm expansion. We have been told we cannot apply for temporary foreign workers to support growth in our farm until the very first mushroom has grown. We explained that means we would have to be growing mushrooms with no one to harvest them so we have to throw the mushrooms out. It takes over six months to complete the application for the temporary foreign worker and access a permit. A Service Canada officer told us that this didn’t matter, that our farm had made massive investments in equipment and everything was set up to go, ensuring that the farm expansion was 100 per cent happening.
They were applying through an LMIA in order to expand their farm operation and were told that wasn’t a reason to go through the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. It’s meant to sustain growth — to keep you stagnant some might say — not for expanding your operations. We find that upsetting. It eats into our competitiveness.
We also know LMIAs are being held up by audits. The government has invested significantly in conducting unannounced and random audits of people who are using the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and sometimes there are delays in the LMIAs. We recommend, as an interim measure, seeing these LMIAs not held up except in cases where a worker is in danger with a serious abuse or other potential issue. Although that is the current policy, we find the LMIAs are being held up during these audits for various reasons.
The other issue is housing. When we bring a temporary foreign worker to Canada it’s often viewed as being a cheaper way of bringing in labour. That is certainly not the case. From the cost of travel to what we’re able to recoup for the housing we provide year-round — 365 days worth of employment for picking mushrooms. Right now we are only allowed $30 a week in order to house that individual, which proves a bit of a challenge. When we talk about trying to bring these individuals, these workers, through a pathway for permanent residency when we are only recouping $30 a week for housing and then trying to have them find a residence within Canada when they have become a permanent resident, it is a hurdle for them to take over that cost.
That brings me to my last point. We are looking for pathways for permanent residence for these low-skill workers. Right now, we have about 700 to 800 workers we could see access that pathway, but for various reasons, either language needs, high school requirements or various other issues as to why they are not able to become a permanent resident or not having a provincial nomination program. We are struggling trying to find an avenue for these individuals who have a job, and we have a proven vacancy, a proven need for our industry to have these individuals stay in Canada, and for a lot of the cases they do want to stay here. There is really no avenue for them to stay. We would like to see that revised and have these people whom we value, or we should be valuing in this country and certainly in our industry, who bring skill and a great opportunity to help us succeed in the agricultural industry, and specifically in the mushroom industry. To have them here and fill those jobs would be a great thing for us.
I have hopefully covered everything I wanted to. It’s a lot to cover, but these are the major points we have from our mushroom industry.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
Baerbel Langner, Legal Counsel-Immigration, Past Chair, Canadian Bar Association, National Immigration Section, HyLife: Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. We really appreciate the opportunity to join you this morning and provide some feedback with respect to how the value-added food sector can be more competitive.
I’m the immigration legal counsel for a company called Hylife, a farm to fork pork producer based in Manitoba, with a head office in La Broquerie, Manitoba, a processing plant in Neepawa, Manitoba, and barns across Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Canada. I’m also a member of the Agriculture and Agri-food Labour Task Force made up of agricultural labour industry members appointed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s value chain round-tables.
HyLife presented to the HUMA Standing Committee in 2016, which led to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program report in September 2016. Some of you may have had a chance to look at the recommendations under that report, a number of which remain to still be considered and hopefully implemented.
I’m going to comment today on some current and upcoming reports, and letters of support related to proposed changes to the TFW program. I will provide a glimpse into the growth of HyLife, as an example of a meat processor, to show how the availability of TFWs that work both at our plant and in our barns, all on a path to permanent residency. Those folks make a huge difference in terms of helping meet the export targets our government is looking for.
One of the biggest concerns for the meat industry and HyLife is the availability of a steady, reliable and consistent workforce. Without the folks, we can’t produce the meat that is going to be exported. It’s pretty simple.
I understand you have heard from representatives from CAHRC on Tuesday, October 2 detailing their work in assessing labour shortages, which hamper growth, and in assessing the needs of the industry to allow for growth per se. I would like to echo their comments: there are great expectations for the growth of this industry as documented by the Conference Board of Canada, the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, the Economic Strategy - Agri-Food Table and within provincial and federal budgets. Our federal government specifically expects to increase export targets for agri-food by $19 billion in the next 10 years. A workforce is needed to accomplish that.
I believe some of these stats may have been provided. If not we can provide the summary for ease of reference. I have stats about meat processing jobs in Canada, compiled by the Canadian Meat Council in May 2018.
Meat processing is Canada’s largest food and beverage manufacturing employer with 64,500 workers in 2015, including rural and urban jobs in every province in Canada. Red meat consumption exports supported 288,000 jobs in Canada in 2016 generating $6 billion in annual revenues. Our members hire Canadians first, advertising and promoting jobs to minority groups and underrepresented workers.
For every four Canadians employed, there is one international worker. The Canadian Meat Council members have identified more than 1,700 current job vacancies in rural meat packing. This accounts for a 7.3 per cent employment shortage. Under the existing TFW program, producers cannot adequately meet current market demand. In 10 years, the Canadian Meat Council forecasts a labour shortage of 56,000 workers in meat processing alone.
A recent study completed by the Conference Board of Canada shows that for each $100 million in additional exports, industry creates 1,161 new jobs. If the current TFW policies remain in place, Canadian meat exports will be unable to grow to meet new market demands.
In terms of a microcosm, Stephanie Cruickshanks, an industry development specialist in the Province of Manitoba’s agricultural department, has provided a letter dated October 2, 2018. It has been provided for your reference. I’m not sure if it has been distributed. I’ll quickly quote a few of her comments:
Neepawa has seen a population growth within the community. This is almost entirely as a result of newcomers to Canada employed at HyLife. As the data sets indicate, the population within the Neepawa and surrounding area has an extremely low unemployment rate. This can be seen as an advantage to a community, however, low unemployment is identified as a barrier for industrial growth.
As of November 1, 2016, the National Household Survey identifies a labour force participation rate in Neepawa of 85.3 per cent. This labour force participation rate is extremely high within a population group, meaning the population is basically fully employed, and new employees need to be brought in from other jurisdictions to allow for industrial growth.
She also notes that immigration of skilled labour and entrepreneurs is part of Manitoba’s economic action plan for growth.
I believe CAHRC has provided a report to the committee that was just released by the Agri-food Economic Strategy Table. Page 19 recommends an immigration pilot:
For year-round, permanent labour capacity needs, several federal programming options are available to high-skilled workers seeking permanent residence. Fewer options exist for medium- and lower-skilled workers. We recommend implementing a national food production and processing immigration pilot that offers improved pathways to permanent resident status for year-round workers at all skill levels needed in the sector.
This report also references a trust or employer model, which is mentioned at page 18 of the report, to streamline processing for employers who have demonstrated integrity and a proven record of trustworthiness.
Now let me tell you about the HyLife story. HyLife started as family-owned farms, three Vielfaure brothers — Paul, Denis and Claude — and a friend, Don Janzen, joined resources to fulfill a common vision: create the most efficient integrated operating structure for the production of hogs. Their joint venture was founded in 1994 in their hometown of La Broquerie, Manitoba and grew from 10 to 500 employees by 2007. They purchased the Neepawa pork processing plant in 2008, which processed 300 hogs per year and employed 300 people. Neepawa is a small town about two hours from Winnipeg with — at the time — a population of 3,500. Since 2008, HyLife has invested over $200 million towards an integrated pork production and processing strategy. The plant now processes 1.95 million hogs with 1,300 jobs in Neepawa. Quite the growth. Farm to fork, we have 2,000 employees in our primary sites.
We invite all of you, should you make it to Manitoba in the near future, to visit us for a tour of the plant and Neepawa. It’s a bustling growing town in rural Manitoba, revitalized by the influx of workers via the TFW program and the Manitoba PNP. Kudos to both programs and to the Saskatchewan Nominee Program, which we work with regarding swine technicians for barns in Saskatchewan. The availability, historically, of TFWs and on a path to permanency as a result of our Manitoba PNP have been instrumental in HyLife’s growth.
In August 2017, the Manitoba government announced a major addition and a new child-care centre at Neepawa Area Collegiate as school enrolment has increased by 33 per cent over the last 10 years and further growth is anticipated. I’m not sure we can say that for many parts of rural Canada. This is a real success story as recognized by the province of Manitoba.
HyLife food celebrated the 100,000-square-foot expansion of its hog-processing plant in Neepawa in April 2018. It’s an expansion that, among other things, encompasses a new cut floor. This expansion was driven by growing demand for Canadian pork in Japan and China.
HyLife is now one of Canada’s leading pork producers and processors. Our facility in Neepawa produces commercial production into high-end pork products, including specialty cuts sold to more than 20 countries around the globe including Mexico, Japan, China and South Korea. HyLife has also opened its own restaurant, the HyLife Pork Table in Tokyo to serve as a marketing tool to expand HyLife sales in Japan. We also extend an invite to you to visit the HyLife Pork Table on your international travels.
The growth of HyLife was only possible by the ongoing extensive recruitment efforts throughout Canada and through the opportunity to bring workers from overseas on a path to permanency when domestic recruitment to supplement the workforce available in Neepawa area was not sufficient.
As I mentioned, there were 3,500 residents in Neepawa when HyLife purchased the plant in 2008. Currently, we have many workers who arrived as TFWs and have transitioned to permanent resident status and some to citizenship. These people continue to make Neepawa and surrounding area their home. We have workers at various stages of the immigration process as the Manitoba PNP works closely with employers such as HyLife to fill employment needs.
HyLife has the support of their union, as do a number of other processors across Canada. This is an important point.
Jeff Traeger, President of UFCW Local 832, provided a letter dated April 18, 2018, which has also been provided to you. The letter was sent to Ministers Hussen, Hajdu and MacAulay. It sets out that the union supports the role of TFWs at HyLife Foods. The union fully supports removal of the cap for primary processing. It supports returning to a two-year LMIA work permit. It supports PNPs that work or, as an addition, a federal pilot to fill the needs of meat processing vacancies.
Mr. Traeger also notes that HyLife Foods has many examples of long-term butchers, TFWs and those who have been able to emigrate and become lasting employees. He notes meat processing plants use the TFWs to fill job vacancies when Canadian workers do not respond to advertising and other vigorous recruitment efforts. He notes HyLife reaches out to under-represented groups, including First Nations, women, youth and new immigrants through settlement agencies.
HyLife has been recognized with a number of awards over the years, most particularly the Employer Award for Newcomer Employment in 2017, presented by Minister Hussen.
In terms of wages in the meat industry, it should be noted jobs are permanent, year-round and in a stable work environment with competitive wages and full benefits in a lot of the cases.
Let’s reflect briefly on life pre- and post June 2014 —
The Chair: Could I get you to wrap it up?
Ms. Langner: Yes. I’m just in the final comments.
Pre June 2014, labour market opinions. Robust assessment whether a need for TFW existed. Two-year LMO work permits. A path to PR via the Manitoba PNP. Post 2014, LMO rebranded as an LMIA. A cap to be phased in low-wage workers over three years. Thirty, 20, 10 per cent. Frozen in 2016 at 20 per cent.
As we advised the HUMA committee, the calculation of the cap is difficult, cumbersome and does not lead to a workforce of 10 or 20 per cent, whatever the magic number might be. It leads to a representation of workers on the floor of a lot less. I can spend an hour talking about that.
The conclusion we are seeking as an industry is a federal agri-food immigration pilot for meat processing so butchers have an immigration option and a path to permanent residency in all provinces. In addition, we recommend removal of the TFW cap for primary processing, as it inhibits growth. We recommend a return to the two-year LMIA work permits to allow for processing of applications toward permanent residency. Finally, a trusted employer designation leading to faster processing of LMIAs, as recommended in the HUMA report and the other report I referenced earlier in my presentation.
In conclusion, I would like to specifically note there have been comments from the department of immigration that a pilot project is under consideration, and from ESDC that the one- to two-year work permit recommendation and changes to the cap are also under consideration. We look forward to the government moving forward in that regard and appreciate the willingness by the government and departments for the ongoing dialogue. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. The presentations took a lot longer than initially envisaged. We’re down to 10 of us to ask questions with about 25 minutes remaining. That means we are down to one question in the first round. Sorry, folks. That’s the clock. I will put people on the list for a second round in case, by some miracle, we get there.
We’ll start with the deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: My question has two parts and is for Mr. Koeslag.
You pointed out two major problems in your industry: harvesting and delivering the product. It is quite obvious that your industry is in high demand, and that it is very important to harvest at the right time, or else the season is spoiled. The same thing is at stake with delivery because the two are interrelated. The product has to be picked at a specific time so that it arrives at the right time and is safe for consumption.
You are saying that you have a 25 per cent labour shortage, that is, 75 per cent of your workforce is Canadian and 25 per cent is floating and consists of foreign workers. It goes without saying that given the type of product you grow, it takes far too long to get the foreign workers. It is somewhat like strawberries. In February, you don’t need workers, but in June you do.
Do you think that there is another way to bring in these workers, without being subject to the requirements and protracted decisions of the departments concerned?
[English]
Mr. Koeslag: Similar to my colleague from the meat industry, beneficial to us would be a trusted employer program, like a NEXUS card for our industry. With an industry where there’s a recognized vacancy, there is a process these farmers have undertaken for a number of years, even decades. They can provide the information, get through the audits and are familiar with the process for the housing requirements. We feel the majority, if not all, of our members could get through a trusted employer program that would expedite the process for getting in workers.
Senator R. Black: Thanks very much. This will be for all three of you, but it can be short.
We’ve heard in the past and also today the foreign worker program is government managed and looked after by a number of ministries. Can you specifically tell us where the bottlenecks are? Is it one department or one place? Just very quickly fill us in on the bottlenecks.
Mr. Koeslag: It depends where you’re looking. When we talk about permanent residency, that’s an issue with immigration. That would be one bottleneck. When we’re talking about trying to find improvements for expediting the LMIA process, sometimes you’re dealing with Service Canada or with the ESDC not communicating enough. A bottleneck can be held even between those two departments.
There are a variety of different locations. Maybe the bottlenecks are between the departments. We have been trying to advocate having joint meetings between these different groups to try to work out quicker resolutions without having to go to each one individually.
Ms. Langner: I would concur with those comments. We need to find better ways of communicating. When there are so many departments involved in this process, the only solution is better communication. The trusted employer option is one that could expedite the LMIA process.
Ms. Taylor: In terms of the feedback I hear from my growers. They’ve had concerns with the Service Canada aspect of the process insofar as one representative will ask for one item and the next representative asks why they’re sending that item. It’s not entirely clear what information is required. I would also add clarity would be a big benefit to ensure that it’s very set out what growers need to submit during the process.
Senator Mercer: I’ll try to wrap my questions into one. It seems to me the Temporary Foreign Worker Program is a necessity for us to meet the challenge. The government has made a challenge today of the agricultural sector, as you know, to increase production and our exports in agriculture. They can’t give you the challenge without helping to give you the tools to do it. I think that’s an underscore thing. Maybe when we get to our report, we can talk about it. It seems to me you can’t have both; you can’t say to the sector to please increase production, but also, by the way, the government’s not going to help speed up the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which was damaged tremendously by fast-food outlets using it to their advantage.
You told us you had $100 million worth of mushrooms unharvested or wasted in a year. How do you take that $100 million? Is it pounds or tonnes?
Mr. Koeslag: One hundred million dollars’ worth.
Senator Mercer: How do you break that down into jobs? Guess what? The one thing every politician understands either here or in the House of Commons is jobs for the people they represent. The dollars are very impressive. How many jobs are going unfilled? How many people are not working? How many people are not paying taxes? How many people are not sending their kids to school? That’s what they understand. Can you break that down into those numbers?
Mr. Koeslag: That’s a good question. When it comes to agriculture it seems there’s a variety of different ways to measure units. Maybe with this continued conversation there is too. I think as of right now, we have about 700 to 800 people who wanted to be on a pathway to permanent residency. If we could double that amount, that’s what we would be able to find for filling our gap in the vacancy rate. If we say it is about 800 jobs or positions that would be needed, I think that would be a fairly accurate assumption. I can go back and triple check that.
Senator Oh: I want to say you are doing a great job for our export market. For the meat market, you were able to sell in Korea, Japan and China for high premiums and pay good wages to locals here.
We heard loud and clear you have a problem. You need help with the labour shortage. Have you spoken about this to the minister responsible for the whole issue? I see there’s a lot of red tape, too many departments handling one file. That’s a problem. Have you recommended to the minister how to resolve this problem?
Ms. Langner: Yes. I’ve been with HyLife for three and a half years. Over the course of the past three and a half years, we have had many meetings with our colleagues, with the ministers and their department and policy folks. We have reiterated the need for clarity, transparency and a process that works more efficiently.
Most recently, we had a meeting in June of 2018 on the Hill with all three relevant ministers — Minister Hussen, Hajdu and MacAulay — and they were kind enough to take time. We reiterated similar to what you’re hearing today, which led to the recognition to further investigate this pilot project to supplement the workforce.
What we need to recognize is our folks are on a path to permanency. These are not temporary foreign workers. The name of the program that administers that piece of it is rather misleading because the folks we bring stay. They come, they stay and become permanent residents. That’s something I think we need to take ownership of.
Mr. Koeslag: There has been an effort to have joint meetings take place. I have to commend the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council for organizing a joint session with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at the beginning of May, I believe. The conversations always seem to be that everybody understands our issues and concerns for the program and they hear us. Right now, it feels as though it makes sense to everybody I talk to. We’re just waiting for the action, to see the results from either the HUMA report from a couple of years ago, to the consultations that took place last summer or just the conversations we’ve had with various politicians. Everybody agrees and sees what we’re pointing out. Let’s see some action; let’s have some activity.
Senator Oh: We hope something will happen. Thank you.
Senator Doyle: Thank you for your presentations. I’m wondering about Indigenous workers. I’m on the Aboriginal Peoples Committee. Somebody at the committee recently said Indigenous farm workers are under-represented in the farm industry and farm work, that there are cultural problems that keep them from being well represented in the industry. I would imagine foreign workers have cultural problems as well.
What is the difference in the two groups? Do you have a pretty good contingent of Indigenous people working in your operations? Are they looking to work in your operations? I know in Manitoba there wouldn’t be as much of a problem because you have a high Indigenous population. Do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Taylor: I think part of it is geographical. Any job listings we have are absolutely equal opportunity. Those opportunities, to be taken advantage of, are out there. Greenhouse production tends to be fairly localized. For us, the Kingsville-Leamington area is where the majority of our farms are located. We have interacted with the Caldwell First Nation in that region. We haven’t had a lot of feedback. They’re going through some changes as well. Hopefully that will settle and we’ll see more engagement.
Ms. Langner: We can talk about this in more detail if you’re interested: we have been working closely with Sandy Bay First Nation, which is over an hour from Neepawa. A meat-cutting school was created with support of the government in the past year and a half. For a one-year period, four cohorts of 16 went through, and HyLife, Sandy Bay and government representatives worked closely to provide opportunities for those folks.
Mr. Koeslag: I think the only thing I would comment on — I don’t have anything specific about Aboriginals — would be to highlight the fact when temporary foreign workers with a different cultural background, or even English as a second language, move to these rural areas, we think they aren’t often supported. However, with the farms we’ve been observing or working with, there are examples and cases where they’re providing assistance for getting people to language training services or the other appointments they need. They’re trying to integrate them into the community. When we talk about new Canadians coming into Canada, they’re often sent to an urban area where they have these immigration services that are provided through government means.
When they come to the rural areas, these farmers are taking care of them, helping them access that and integrate. I don’t want that to be ignored. That should be a huge positive for the industry that they are willing to do that. They have taken that on themselves over the last number of years or decades.
Ms. Langner: Same for the meat industry.
Ms. Taylor: We also recognize that transportation to rural locations is a big concern. For us in Leamington, Windsor is the next largest centre. There is a population there we could be accessing in terms of building a bigger workforce. Transportation out to the rural community is quite problematic. That is something we’re trying to work with our community partners to overcome.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Taylor and Mr. Koeslag. Will the new agreement that is replacing NAFTA have a positive or negative impact on our export capacity?
[English]
Mr. Koeslag: Certainly, we’re very concerned about not having an agreement. As of right now, I think everything seems to be status quo as it was previously. We’re essentially happy to see that move forward.
Certainly, if there was any kind of barrier with mushrooms entering the United States, having 40 per cent of our product we currently export stay in Canada would have been an awful situation to deal with. We’re happy that as far as we can see in our industry that it’s status quo.
Ms. Taylor: I would echo that sentiment. As far as we’re aware at this point, we expect things to continue as they have in the past.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: With your permission, Madam Chair, I would like to continue with Ms. Taylor.
Canada imports many goods from Mexico and the United States. We see this in our grocery stores. You grow your product in greenhouses and export it. Do your producers export products that we import? If that is the case, why is it more profitable for them to export their products?
[English]
Ms. Taylor: As I mentioned, we currently export about 70 per cent of what we grow to the U.S. That’s primarily in our most productive season. During the spring, summer and fall we are producing in the greenhouse. At that time we are exporting and meeting our local market needs. At that time we would not be importing products from the U.S. and Mexico, unless there was some sort of catastrophic issue.
Senator Woo: Thank you. I totally agree with the importance of temporary foreign workers and the need to improve the program, as you’ve suggested. I understand the role of having sufficient workers, including low-end workers, on a temporary basis, transitioning to a permanent basis to either support the output of your industries or to increase output.
I want to try and understand the relationship between temporary foreign workers and value-added production. How does the Temporary Foreign Worker Program support investment in value-added production, innovation and greater productivity in your industries? This is the object of our study, value-added production.
Mr. Koeslag: Our industry is majority fresh, a fresh mushroom industry. We do all the packing and have it essentially ready for the grocery store on the farm location. Whether you consider that to be a value-added process on the farm is yet to be seen.
We have a lot of innovative practices including looking at vitamin D and trying to increase it. All of this supports the greater ability to look at those innovative practices, as opposed to trying to maintain our existing production levels by not having the workforce necessary to meet that. To say temporary foreign workers don’t necessarily add to the value-added production, it’s all part of the grand scheme of how the industry is able to operate. If you can’t fill the backorder, you can’t do the front and the innovative things too.
Ms. Langner: Yes, I agree with those comments. In terms of our plant, we have something called fresh-chilled pork, very high-end cuts going into Japan, which is a huge benefit in terms of sales. Although when you think of HyLife, for example, we are not producing bacon and sandwich meat, that sort of thing. The products are now being produced by what we consider high-skilled temporary foreign workers. Just come for a tour and see the precision cuts they’re making. Our customers are very discerning overseas. Those cuts have to be to very specific specifications to provide a product that’s really almost ready for the table.
I can tell you with our expansion, we’ve invested in the latest in automation from across the world. At the end of the day, you still need people.
Ms. Taylor: The only thing I would add is primary production is a key part of the value chain. Without primary production being facilitated, of which the temporary foreign workers are a key component to facilitating the process, you can’t then move on to the value-added components of the value chain.
Senator Gagné: Welcome. I’m from Manitoba and I started my career in La Broquerie. I know the Vielfaure family very well. They’re respected community leaders. I’d like to mention they are leaders in their community. They’re interested that all workers are integrated into the community, if I describe the family well. That is how I see them. You’re working for a great company.
We were talking about labour shortage. We’re looking at the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The labour shortage is a global issue and it’s not going to go away. It’s going to get worse. How do we tackle this problem? It’s multifaceted. It’s a huge challenge for our country and for the sector, the agriculture and agri-food sector. How do we plan around this? How do we get to have a very comprehensive, multi-faceted response to this issue? I’d like your thoughts on that.
Ms. Langner: There are no easy answers. I think the first thing we need to accept is with our declining workforce coming up — and many studies point to that — we are going to have to embrace immigration. I know in prior presentations the issue has come up: We have unemployed people across Canada. That’s true, we do. This industry and my colleagues, we look for Canadians first. However, I think there also has to be an acceptance that our children are unfortunately not striving for those positions; that’s just a reality. We do everything we can to support introduction to jobs in the schools, et cetera. At the end of the day I think we have to embrace the fact we do need immigrants coming to this country.
Just as Canada has been settled for many decades before this, we need folks to go to rural parts of Canada. If we can embrace that idea and look at Neepawa as an example of a successful integration of newcomers, with a booming rural town and surrounding community, then we can approach it from that facet, keeping in mind always Canadians first, of course, but embracing the fact we need those temporary foreign workers who should have a path to permanency. We don’t want to bring them over and send them back. As you’ve noted, HyLife has worked hard on that integration piece. I think embracing immigration, looking for ways to ensure retention in the communities by having the employers and the community embrace those folks is going to lead to long-term positive outcomes. We’re always going to need immigration.
Mr. Koeslag: I’m not sure if Canada or every province has recognized there is an agriculture labour shortage. From my understanding, Manitoba is the only one that has embraced that mentality. Even with that sense, that Manitoba has done it, I believe their provincial nomination programs have already been altered or been more beneficial for the ag community than any other province.
If Canada were to recognize there is an agricultural worker labour shortage and they developed programs that would try and address that, I think there could be some improvements. Every one of our growers realizes that technology and the investment in technology they’ve had over the last while is something they’re going to have on their bottom line for years to come. Robotics is currently being worked on in a variety of different locations, both in Canada and the Netherlands. Certainly the investment, every time the growers are building or expanding, it is trying to find efficiencies for labour because they do realize that is an issue when it comes to production.
Ms. Taylor: To circle back to how you framed the question, it is a multifaceted approach. I think we need to recognize there is a lack of awareness and a stigma around agricultural jobs. We need to put some efforts and initiatives towards increasing the knowledge base of what modern agriculture jobs are, because with increasing automation, those jobs are getting more and more technical. They’re basically engineering jobs. People need to be aware of those career paths.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for being here. This is quite interesting. I’m trying to make links in my head. I’m thinking about this untapped group of foreigners asking for asylum and coming through Quebec, coming to Ontario because there’s not enough room in Quebec. Have you thought about this link? Many of them probably come from rural regions and could have some kind of knowledge of agriculture? Is it possible or is it just too complicated because they’re bogged down in cities trying to get their papers done?
Mr. Koeslag: I’m glad you asked the question, actually, because we have a current situation — and I don’t want to name too many names — but yes, we have certainly considered refugees and people who have entered in Canada as being a possible workforce. There are complications when it comes to being able to work when you enter Canada.
As of right now, I think the last calculation I heard is these individuals are able to work I think to a maximum of three days a month before they start losing their social services and benefits through the Government of Canada, which are important to them. There have been approaches by Mushrooms Canada, as well as our members, to try and address the concern that we need to make sure these individuals who have a tragic or other issue as the reason for entering into Canada are not losing those services and are still able to work. They are enthusiastic to be here in some situations, and enthusiastic to work. If they are not being allowed to do that, I think we’re creating a situation that can be problematic in the future.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Do they lose health benefits or just —
Mr. Koeslag: I think it’s language training and other housing benefits, and those types of things. I can get you more information. There are cases where we have reached out and tried to bring these individuals to work on the farm locations but there has not been the authorization through either Immigration and Citizenship or ESDC, whoever is in charge to allow that to happen.
We’re ready today to have those workers. Sometimes it’s a situation where we created the environment that’s specific for them but it hasn’t been allowed or authorized to an extent to be effective.
The Chair: Thank you. I would like to thank the panel. This has been very interesting. We could have gone on longer. We’ve heard a lot of good insights. Good questions, senators, thank you.
We now have our second panel in front of us. It is a large panel and there is a large number of us here to ask questions. We have to be snappy about this because we will have an in-camera session shortly before 10 o’clock.
We have with us Steven West, Director, Sector Policy, Temporary Foreign Worker Program, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada. Also with us is Natasha Kim, Director General, Immigration Branch, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. We are also joined by Helene Panagakos, Director, Temporary Resident Program Division, Immigration Program Guidance, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. And from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Tom Rosser, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch; and Marco Valicenti, Director General, Sector Development and Analysis Directorate, Market and Industry Services Branch.
Thank you for accepting our invitation to be here. It’s great to have you. We’re going to start out with a presentation by Mr. Steven West.
Steven West, Director, Sector Policy, Temporary Foreign Worker Program, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.
The agricultural sector, including both primary agriculture and value-added operations, provides a significant value to the country as a whole as well as to communities and families across Canada. The Temporary Foreign Worker Program works to support employers, including in the agricultural sector, in meeting labour needs when Canadians and permanent residents are not available, while also protecting the rights of temporary foreign workers.
[Translation]
The program takes the issue of worker protection seriously. In Budget 2018, not only did the government fund a robust compliance regime to protect vulnerable foreign workers, but it also committed to increasing unannounced inspections of employers using the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, and provided funding for a new pilot Migrant Worker Support Network for workers facing mistreatment or abuse.
[English]
On the issue of employers’ labour needs, the program has consulted extensively with food processors this year, including the meat and seafood processing sectors and with primary agriculture stakeholders.
In 2016, the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, HUMA, reviewed the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The report tabled on September 19, 2016, included several recommendations to improve the program, including to the primary agriculture stream.
In response, the path forward plan for the Temporary Foreign Worker Program was announced in 2017, with plans to explore issues such as the root cause for the labour shortage in primary agriculture, the use of the national commodities list and related wage methodology, wage deductions for housing for foreign and agricultural workers, and housing standards across the country.
Employment and Social Development Canada is collaborating with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to lead a review of primary agriculture in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The review includes a labour market study, a study on housing standards for temporary foreign workers in agriculture and a series of cross-Canada stakeholder consultations on modernizing the primary agriculture stream.
The consultation process has involved 21 in-person and teleconference sessions across Canada with employers, workers and other stakeholders, complemented by the receipt of over 55 written submissions and over 100 responses to an online survey. Program officials are now reviewing the research and stakeholder input and are developing recommendations to the Minister of Employment, Workforce, Development and Labour. The program will continue to work closely with stakeholders as the review moves forward.
While some of the changes following the completion of the primary agriculture review will take time, the Temporary Foreign Worker Program has taken action to immediately address many of the key irritants identified by the industry as well as stakeholders during the consultations. First, the agricultural industry highlighted the importance of improved communication and collaboration with government officials. In response, on May 3, 2018, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour Rodger Cuzner co-chaired a round table on the Temporary Foreign Worker Program with the Canadian Federation of Labour President Ron Bonnett. That event was attended by industry representatives and federal officials.
Coming out of the round table, a permanent working group with membership from industry and federal departments was established to look at program policies, operational matters and opportunities to improve communications. Bimonthly meetings began in July 2018, with the most recent meeting on September 20, 2018.
Second, several policy and operational initiatives have been announced and implemented in direct response to stakeholder concerns. These include a review of service standards; an initiative to monitor the quality of program decisions; inspections focused on areas with the highest risk of non-compliance among employers; a streamlined process for replacement and transfer workers; a pilot Migrant Worker Support Network in British Columbia, which is to be announced in British Columbia today; and greater flexibility on housing inspections starting in 2019.
I am confident the primary agriculture review and these other important initiatives that have already been announced and implemented put us on a good path forward toward responding to the 2016 HUMA report on the program. Most important, providing a much-improved primary agriculture stream that better meets the needs of employers, workers and all stakeholders.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. Ms. Kim, please go ahead.
Natasha Kim, Director General, Immigration Branch, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable senators, for the opportunity to discuss how immigration programs support Canadian communities and businesses, including those in the value-added food sector.
[Translation]
At IRCC, we manage both temporary and permanent immigration programs. With respect to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, IRCC has a shared responsibility with Employment and Social Development Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency that includes work permit and visa processing.
[English]
We also administer the International Mobility Program that’s solely within the purview of IRCC and facilitates the entry of temporary foreign workers to advance Canada’s broader economic and cultural national interests. For example, researchers, specialized knowledge workers or those coming under international, reciprocal and youth exchange agreements would come under this program. It may include workers in the agricultural or food processing sectors as well.
In 2017, the department launched the Global Skills Strategy, which offers expedited work permit processing to foreign workers in many high-skilled and management occupations, regardless of the industry or sector. This measure supports employers and their need to access qualified global talent when they need it.
Regarding permanent immigration programs, IRCC is responsible for establishing and delivering the immigration levels plan that sets out the annual permanent resident admissions that aim to balance the government’s priorities in economic immigration as well as those related to support refugee resettlement and family reunification.
Regarding economic immigration, we have our federal high-skilled programs that facilitate the entry of managers, executives, professionals, trades and technicians. I would like to focus on two programs in the context of today’s study. Those two programs are good examples of collaborative approaches the department has undertaken to address labour market need for the sector.
First, the long-standing Provincial Nominee Program recognizes provinces and territories are well positioned to determine their specific labour market needs. This enables them to recruit permanent residents. In fact, many jurisdictions have developed streams targeting workers in lower-skilled occupations, including agriculture, many of which are previous temporary foreign workers.
The second program is the Atlantic Immigration Pilot. It was developed in concert with the four Atlantic provinces and implemented in March 2017. We have worked to build strong partnerships between the business community and settlement service providers in order to fill labour gaps and, more important, ensure that newcomers are retained in these jobs and communities.
[Translation]
In closing, I would like to reiterate that IRCC is fully committed to working with partners, stakeholders and employers to address regional labour shortages. Various immigration measures are in place so that employers have the human resources they need to grow their businesses and support overall economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians. Thank you.
Tom Rosser, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. I know we are short on time, so I will be brief.
Recruiting workers, especially in rural areas, has been a longstanding challenge for the agricultural sector. With the unemployment rate the lowest it has ever been in a generation, this problem has become a priority. At their conference held in Vancouver last July, the federal, provincial and territorial Ministers of Agriculture identified labour as their top priority and instructed their officials to work together to find solutions.
[English]
Madam Chair, you heard some discussion this morning of the recommendations of the Agriculture and Agri-food Economic Strategy Table that published its final report recently and made a number of recommendations related to labour and skills. I would highlight the solutions can be divided — and rightly the table did so — into short-term issues and longer-term issues.
They made a number of recommendations related to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program as part of the short term but recognize in the longer term other solutions are required.
In particular, it is the continued automation of the industry, so that the industry can produce a given level of output with fewer workers, but higher-skilled higher-wage jobs. Through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, which I’m sure most of the community members are aware of, we have a number of programs that can assist the industry in that automation process to move towards a higher-skilled workforce.
The committee also heard this morning about reaching out to under-represented groups, of getting young people excited about careers in the agri-food sector. I think that is part of the longer-term solution.
The committee heard this morning about a number of consultative processes related to the temporary foreign workers problem and skill shortages in general. That involves officials, but you’ve also heard how Ministers Hajdu, Hussen and MacAulay have been engaged with stakeholders trying to find solutions. There has been references to the sessions sponsored the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in May, which Minister MacAulay participated in, and also a session organized by the Canadian Meat Council and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union looking at the particular challenges of the meat industry. The committee has heard about that this morning.
At that session, ministers heard about this not just being a question of temporary foreign workers; it’s about pathways to permanent residency. It’s about year-round work and successfully integrating newcomers to the country, into rural communities, and through the Provincial Nominee Program that has been discussed. It isn’t just the federal government but also the provinces that have an important role to play in the process.
In the interests of time, Madam Chair, I will conclude my remarks there. My colleague and I will be happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: I would like to thank the panel. We have had three presentations. They have been concise and to the point. I attended the May 3 session that the minister was at, and Rodger Cuzner and others. That was a very good session.
Senator R. Black: Thanks very much for your presentations. We have heard this morning and in previous testimony about the bottlenecks of the many programs, communication issues, non-clarity requirements, different requests by different people in the same departments, significant time to fill out forms, et cetera, among others. Then your meeting held in the spring to identify or overcome some of those issues. Is there a time frame for those changes to be seen by stakeholders and reviewed by staff again to see that you are making a difference?
Again we heard this morning there are still issues. It is only six months. But is there a time frame to get stuff done?
Mr. West: Thank you for the question. We have spent quite a bit of time over the last year and a half speaking with stakeholders about their experience and getting recommendations on a way forward with the program.
We are concluding that work across a number of fronts. We have engaged the meat processing sector in a series of round-table sessions and follow up engagements, as well as looking at all the available research information on that sector. We have also engaged the fish and seafood processing sector extensively since 2016 on their experience with the program, as well as the extensive work we have done with the primary agriculture sector through the review of primary agriculture and the TFW program.
With all that work now wrapping up, it’s our task and it falls to my team and to others in the TFW program, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and IRCC to review the information. Our commitment to my minister is to make recommendations on a number of fronts this fall.
We are implementing for the 2019 season, mostly for the benefit of primary agriculture producers, a number of small but important improvements to the way we deliver the program to that sector. We’ll be making more extensive recommendations starting this fall with an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on those preliminary recommendations over the winter, and looking for implementation in 2019 of things in the program that are more substantial in terms of change.
Senator R. Black: Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you to the panel for very thorough, good information.
I asked a question earlier about whether they have met a minister. Now I listen to you. Since a lot of temporary workers have been back for many years, every year they come back, is there any way to simplify by giving them a super visa? Because this is the same thing happening every year. If you have to go through the application and all this, then that’s too much paperwork, too much red tape going on between all the departments. Could it be easier with a super visa or something for five years at a time?
Mr. West: From an ESDC perspective, one of the things we have heard from employers is the notion of a trusted employer model. That’s something we are looking at as part of the analysis we’re undertaking. We have, at this point, no commitment towards something that would facilitate access to the program in that way for employers. From an ESDC perspective, that’s a potential response through the LMIA process to facilitate processing and make the process for workers who come to Canada year after year, primarily through the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program, a little more fluid in terms of employer application and the issuance of the labour market impact assessment.
Mr. Rosser: My colleagues talked about the processes for looking at policy changes to the program. There is an education and communications element to this. The better that people understand the process, the program, how it works and what is required and expected, the fewer hiccups along the way. There are a number of processes under way involving each of the departments to work with stakeholders to make sure the program and its requirements are as well understood as possible. There was a committee created out of the CFA event in May that has been quite successful. I understand the committee heard recently from the CAHRC, who we also were in active dialogue about that outreach and education component, which is part of the solution.
Ms. Kim: In terms of the work permit side of the processing for IRCC, it tends to track with the LMIA duration is because the LMIA is based on the position whereas the work permit is attached to the person. When it comes to those who often return year after year, that’s primarily the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program. IRCC works collaboratively with our offices abroad and those countries that are involved in the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program to make sure that process is as smooth as we can make it.
Senator Gagné: Mr. Rosser, what are the hiccups along the way?
Mr. Rosser: My colleagues from IRCC and ESDC may be closer to the specifics. There were changes made to the program and its administration at the start of this calendar year that caused some confusion. There was some misinformation in the sector.
There are in some provinces, Quebec being an example, organizations that will help employers complete the application process. There are different models in different places. Based on dialogue with stakeholders, one of the conclusions we have reached is it may not be the entirety of the solution. But the better employers understand the process and how it works, particularly if changes are made to the process, this can result in confusion that can lead to delay. We experienced some of that earlier this year and we’re working with our partners in the industry to find solutions to make sure the program and its requirements are as well understood as possible by employers and employees.
Senator Gagné: Ms. Kim, you mentioned something in your presentation. I have the copy in French.
[Translation]
It states, and I quote:
. . . the Department launched the Global Skills Strategy whichoffers expedited work permit processing to foreign workers in many high-skilled and management occupations regardless of the industry.
My understanding is that there is an expedited process for high-skilled workers. What happens to low-skilled workers? Is there a relatively quick process for bringing them to Canada?
[English]
Ms. Kim: Thank you for the question. I will refer to my colleague for the more general service standards of work permits. The Global Skills Startegy was something launched last year in particular for high-skill talent. There has been talk this morning about innovation and the need to look at automation or other ways to complement labour shortages as a solution. Using our immigration program to bring in that temporary high-skilled talent quickly is really what the Global Skills Strategy is about.
Helene Panagakos, Director, Temporary Resident Program Division, Immigration Program Guidance, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you, senator. The service standards, insofar as work permits issued by IRCC, for new work permits are two months. For extensions of work permits are four months.
For the new work permits, we are at about 90 per cent within the service standard for new work permits issued in that two-month service standard timeline. For the extensions, approximately 97 per cent within that four-month service standard.
Senator Gagné: What is the difference between the accelerated program and the other program? How many months? What is the comparison?
Ms. Panagakos: I’m speaking generally. I don’t have the breakdown. We can get you that information, if you would like, in terms of how it differs. Overall, for work permits issued, those are the service standards and how well we’ve scored.
Ms. Kim: Under the Global Skills Strategy, the commitment is a 14 day processing for those work permits. To complement that the global talent stream administered by ESDC has certain occupations that are facilitated in terms of the LMIA process.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator Woo: Thank you. If you were here for the previous session, I will sound like a broken record, but I am going to pick up on Ms. Kim’s comment on the higher skill end of labour shortages. There’s a lot of focus on the low-skill workers. I fully appreciate and support the industry’s concern about meeting those vacancies, but it’s obvious that simply meeting those vacancies can result in sustained and maybe increased output with no increase in productivity and innovation. I’m interested in the thinking of the various departments in how we may drive innovation and increase productivity, perhaps through the Global Skills Strategy.
Maybe the specific question to you, Ms. Kim, is the uptake of that program from our agriculture colleagues. Are they only interested in the low end, or are they also interested in higher-skilled workers who can drive innovation and productivity? From Mr. Rosser, some reflections on the balance between providing ample, relatively low-wage labour for industry and driving labour-saving investments in the industry that really has to be the future of agriculture in Canada.
Ms. Kim: I can begin. Unfortunately, I don’t have the breakdown in terms of how much the agriculture sector has used the Global Skills Strategy. To be honest, I’m not sure we necessarily would have that data because it’s not based on sectors, it’s based on occupations.
For the Global Skills Stategy, for our express entry programs, when we look at occupations like computer engineers, most sectors would require that kind of high-skilled talent if they’re looking at innovation or just maintaining a modern business. That’s something that both the Global Skills Strategy focuses on a temporary basis, but we also have our express entry programs for high-skilled talent for permanent economic immigration. I say high-skilled in terms of the National Occupational Classification. We’ve heard today there are other skills that can be taken into account, but when we talk about high-skilled, we really mean executives, managers, professionals like IT workers and skilled trades.
Mr. Rosser: I thank the member for the question and concur wholeheartedly. When we look to the longer term, there’s no question that increased productivity in the sector, reducing the need for lower-skilled, more physically demanding labour and transitioning to a higher-skilled occupations is definitely part of the solution. We see evidence of that happening in both primary agriculture and in the food processing sector.
Going back to the earliest days after Confederation, we’ve seen a steady increase in productivity in the sector. That needs to be accelerated. There are a number of potentially transformational technologies in the agri-food industry. Block chain technology, harnessing big data through precision agriculture, artificial intelligence and others that could dramatically accelerate productivity growth in the sector. I don’t know if my colleague has anything to add.
Marco Valicenti, Director General, Sector Development and Analysis Directorate, Market and Industry Services Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: I think there was a reference earlier about the agri-food economic strategy table. There was a reason why the table of business leaders looked not just at the short-term elements they would support in modernizing the TFW program, but also looking at the long-term needs. My colleague Mr. Rosser mentioned a couple of these technologies.
If you’re implementing these new technologies there is a new skill set required that the educational system has to support. That’s something that has to be looked at over a long-term period and hence the reason we’re engaging with CAHRC, looking at those skill sets. We have the CAP programming, the Canadian Agricultural Partnership program, that has innovation programming to look at those productivity gains and how technology can reduce the labour shortage, at least in the longer term, because it is impacting productivity and profits. We see that in both the farm gate and food processing. Those are areas we are looking at, not just in the short term but also in the long term.
Senator Woo: I would like to ask a clarifying question of Ms. Kim. Did I hear you say it’s not possible to get data on the uptake of the global skills program from sectors, say agriculture and agri-food? Could we try to get that data?
Ms. Kim: We can look to see what we can obtain. It’s based on sector but we might be able to —
Ms. Panagakos: We can certainly look into that. It will be very preliminary as the program is very new.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: We met many producers who came to testify. I am putting myself in their shoes. I can tell you that it is not easy to hire foreign workers. That is what they told us. Your programs are complicated and there is a lot of paperwork. It is difficult for them to digest it all.
One thing did surprise me. They told me that each time a file is opened it costs $1,000. I don’t know where that money goes. Perhaps it is a hidden tax. You must understand that these people are producers. There is time constraint when growing their products. I don’t believe you need a human resources degree to grow and pick mushrooms or strawberries. Simplified programs are needed.
I understand that you have goodwill, but I can guarantee that these people are at their wit’s end. They often find it difficult to hire the same employees. We hear a lot about roundtables, working groups and programs, but these people find all that very complicated. You must find a simplified formula. I would like to know where that $1,000 goes. Do you know? I don’t think the paper costs $1,000.
Mr. West: The fees were established in 2013 and increased to $1,000 in 2014. Yes, it was a restriction on the program. Now, one of the things we are doing is reviewing the fee and aligning it with service delivery. We are also reviewing performance of the program to find other ways to make it easier to access the program, if necessary.
[English]
That’s one of our commitments under the series of reviews that we’re doing.
Looking at the fee and service delivery and find alignments that are more sensible for the program. Hopefully we can move to something where employers see value as well as allowing the program to achieve our objectives more effectively.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: And that costs $1,000?
Mr. West: The methodology used to establish the fees was to cover the cost of delivering the program.
[English]
Employers in primary agriculture are not covered by the fee. Primary agriculture employers don’t pay the $1,000 per worker requested fee. We therefore have a fee intended to cover the cost of the majority of the delivery of the program for roughly 40 per cent of the temporary foreign workers that arrive under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The fee applies to only 40 per cent or thereabouts of the temporary foreign workers that arrive every year. The fee was intended to cover the majority of the operational cost of the program.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Is the fee tax deductible?
Mr. West: Unfortunately, I am not a tax expert, but I don’t think so.
Senator Dagenais: That’s unfortunate. Is there a way to simplify it? During the summer I visited two farms and talked to foreign workers. They told me that things had somewhat changed because the people who worked over an eight month period, beyond the two years, could no longer renew their contract. The farmer told me, “That is a shame, because I trained this worker, he has experience, he is a good worker, but now he cannot return, he cannot work more than two years, and he has to go back to his country.” Has this problem been solved? I find that rather ridiculous because the employee wants to come back, is trained, has experience, and the employer no longer has to take the time to show him how to do the work. Has that been resolved?
Mr. West: I will let my colleague Ms. Kim talk about previous measures that governed the time that a temporary foreign worker can remain in the country.
[English]
Ms. Kim: There was a cumulative duration rule that was in place, but removed in 2016. That rule required that someone could only stay for four years in a row on consecutive work permits. It was repealed in 2016. I don’t know if perhaps what they were referring to was the length of the work permit, but those work permits would be renewable.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: This worker came to work for eight months, then went home, then came back, and so forth. At some point he could not return. Based on what you said, that was resolved in the 2016 report.
Mr. West: Under the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program, most of them come for the season. It is the nature of their work that makes them seasonal workers.
[English]
Once the crops are finished, they’re intended to return to the Caribbean and Mexico, the countries from which employers primarily source workers for that program. Workers do return every year. Our understanding from our interaction with workers is they maintain a strong association with their home country and desire to return. They appreciate the opportunity to return to Canada year after year and, in the case of some workers, decade after decade for seasonal work.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: What I am hearing from your testimony this morning is that when we draft our report, we can mention that you have committed to simplifying the process for bringing in foreign workers. I am not saying that we are going to put in the report that the $1,000 is tax deductible. That might be a good idea that would encourage producers to hire more workers given the current shortage. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Doyle: I have a short question. Does government have a cap on the number of temporary foreign workers allowed in each year, or is it driven by demand? What determines the numbers that the government will accept each year? Is there a cap?
Mr. West: The Temporary Foreign Worker Program is employer demand driven. We don’t impose quotas or limits on the number of temporary foreign workers globally that can enter under the program. However, there is a cap on low-wage workers that we implemented in 2014. This limits on a work-site-by-work-site basis the number of temporary foreign workers an employer can hire under the program.
The cap was initially implemented in 2014 at 30 per cent, with an intention for it to decline to 20 per cent the year following and 10 per cent the year after that. It is a cap of 10 per cent currently for new employers to the program or employers who did not use temporary foreign workers prior to 2014.
The cap is currently set at a maximum of 20 per cent for employers who did employ workers under the program prior to 2014 and also accounts for levels. It’s a bit of a complex mechanism we have in place. It is intended to ensure there is controlled growth of the use of temporary foreign workers in low-wage occupations.
Senator Doyle: Shouldn’t it be a fairly easy thing to address the problem the mushroom grower had in trying to get his crop in because he can’t access enough workers? What do you do for him?
Mr. West: An important clarification on the cap for low-wage workers is it is not applicable to primary agricultural producers. Employers under the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program in the agricultural stream are not subject to the cap on low-wage workers. For the purposes of the agriculture and agri-food industry, it does apply to agri-food and food processing employers. One of the things we heard through engagement with the industry is a concern over limitations to access to temporary foreign workers. It’s something we’re taking into consideration in our recommendations.
Senator Doyle: Do you determine where the workers will come from? Is there any involvement you have on that?
Mr. West: Through the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program we work closely with Mexico and 11 Caribbean countries that have a role in recruiting within their own countries and vetting the workers who come to Canada. It’s up to employers to undertake their own recruitment broadly in the program. Even within the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program, they work closely with the countries of their choice in terms of the workers that they source.
Senator Doyle: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Good morning. I cannot help but point out that there is nevertheless a great deal of frustration. As a former Quebec public servant I am now examining these issues, which are the shared responsibility of the provinces and the federal government. The shortage of workers in agriculture and other sectors is magnified by how slow the process is. I am referring to the system and not the individuals. All this makes these shortages much more dire.
I am going to ask you the same question about refugees I asked previous witnesses. You are going to tell me that it is a little simplistic, but there are a lot of refugees arriving in Canada. The situation is somewhat difficult because of public opinion, which is rather negative with respect to the mass entry of these refugees. Why not simplify the process for those who want to and can enter as part of this agricultural labour force while waiting for a decision on their status? It now takes nine months, a year, a year and a half.
Mr. West: I am going to let my colleagues from IRCC answer the question about refugees.
As for the process, in the case of our program, we work closely with the Province of Quebec for program delivery. We have good relations with our colleagues in the Government of Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: But it is a long process.
Mr. West: I agree, it is long. That is one of the challenges we constantly face with respect to the division of responsibilities between the two governments for program delivery. I can only say that we are working closely with the Government of Quebec to improve the processes and that we share information about upcoming changes and improvements to the processes before they are implemented to ensure that they align well with their own processes.
Ms. Kim: I will start with an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec concerning immigration. Under this agreement, the Government of Quebec has a great deal of autonomy concerning the selection of economic immigrants. On the refugee issue, those chosen outside Canada arrive as permanent residents and are allowed to work just like any other Canadian.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am thinking about those we’re hearing a lot about, the groups.
Ms. Kim: Yes, they have access to an open work permit. They can access the labour market.
[English]
Until their claim is heard, they are able to access that work permit. If they’re found to be refugees, they will be able to stay in Canada as refugees and as permanent residents. If they’re not, they would be removed.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: If I can interject, we were told that a refugee cannot work more than three days a month before losing a language class and all kinds of benefits. Maybe you were there when —
Ms. Kim: Yes. I wouldn’t be able to speak to what provincial or territorial governments put in terms of conditions on access to provincial social programs. In terms of federal programs, we provide access to that open work permit. People can enter the labour market and reduce their reliance on social assistance.
The Chair: Thank you. That’s great. I think we’ve gone through our list of questioners. To have a five-person panel and be finished in ample time is very nice. It doesn’t happen often. Thank you, senators, for cooperating — nice, concise questions.
We’ll give our guests a moment to depart, and then we will continue in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)