THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 3, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to social affairs, science and technology generally.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome, colleagues, to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. My name is Ratna Omidvar, independent senator from Ontario and chair of this committee. I will ask my colleagues around the table to introduce themselves before we go on to our witnesses.
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey, senator from Manitoba.
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler, senator from Manitoba.
The Chair: Welcome, senator, to this committee. We hope you never leave.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, independent senator, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: We also welcome Clare Annett, who is our interim Library of Parliament analyst. Clare is our analyst while Laura Blackmore is on a bit of a much-needed rest.
Colleagues, our committee begins its study today on Canada’s temporary and migrant labour force. As we all know, this is a growing phenomenon. This committee has decided to understand its contours and context a little better so that we can make reasonable recommendations to the Government of Canada.
We have an outstanding panel joining us today: Kareem El‑Assal, Director of Policy, CanadaVisa.com; Naomi Alboim, Senior Policy Fellow, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration, Toronto Metropolitan University; and Jenna L. Hennebry, Co-founder, International Migration Research Centre, and Professor, Balsillie School of International Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University.
Thank you very much, witnesses, for joining us today. I now invite witnesses to provide opening remarks. I remind you that you have five minutes allocated for opening statements, and I tend to be quite firm about these five minutes. These five minutes are then followed by questions from our members.
Professor Alboim, we will start with you. The floor is yours.
Naomi Alboim, Senior Policy Fellow, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration, Toronto Metropolitan University, as an individual: Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable senators.
On Tuesday, the government announced that immigration levels will go up to 500,000 in 2025. This is important because immigration accounts for 90% of labour force growth in Canada.
My remarks today will focus on ways to achieve practical solutions to what I see as a systemic mismatch between federal immigration programs and evolving labour market needs. I will begin by briefly describing four interrelated policy issues; then, I will propose seven practical recommendations that can help to build resilience and flexibility into the Canadian immigration system.
The first issue is that Canada is becoming more and more dependent on temporary entrants to satisfy labour market needs. In 2021, Canada admitted more than twice as many temporary entrants as permanent ones. We are relying heavily on temporary workers for essential work in agri-food, health, caring, transportation and construction sectors. Labour market projections to 2028 indicate that one third of job openings per year will be in lower-skilled occupations in sectors such as hospitality, tourism and retail, which traditionally employ temporary workers to fulfill ongoing needs.
In the second quarter of this year, employers received approval to hire more than twice as many temporary foreign workers as in any year since at least 2017. This coincided with the government’s broadening of access to the temporary foreign worker low-wage stream. Economists argue that this new policy acts as a disincentive to raise wages, improve working conditions and invest in technology and training to boost productivity. It also puts more temporary workers at risk of exploitation.
The second issue is that Canada does not have an overall plan for the admission of temporary entrants or for their transition to permanent residence, despite the fact that more and more people are already living in Canada with temporary status when they become permanent.
The multi-year immigration plan deals only with permanent residents. There are no targets for workers who enter under the Temporary Foreign Worker or International Mobility programs or as international students. There are no targets or specific strategies for their transition to permanent residence. There are no programs or supports for them to successfully transition to permanent residence.
The third issue is that federal economic immigration programs for permanent residence do not respond to changing labour market and regional needs for essential and lower-skilled workers.
Eligibility for the Express Entry pool requires high human capital — language, education and work experience in managerial, professional and other skilled occupations. This excludes many essential lower-skilled occupations, where much of the labour demand now exists and will continue into the future. Yet many immigrants selected for their professional skills end up underemployed because of a lack of recognition of their qualifications.
The fourth issue is that the federal government has introduced a series of stopgap measures to better respond to labour market needs. However, this has added confusion and complexity to an already complex system: small, time-limited pilots for specific sectors and regions; one-time temporary public policies for out‑of-status construction workers and for refugee claimants who worked in the health sector during COVID; a time-limited program for temporary workers in essential occupations to transition to permanent residence; temporary provisions to broaden access and facilitate more hiring of low-wage temporary workers by employers; and a pilot to remove the 20-hour weekly limit for international students to work while studying.
Chair, I have finished that part. I now have recommendations, but I’m prepared to leave my recommendations to the discussion part if I’m already at time.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Alboim. We greatly appreciate that. We will get to your recommendations through our questions because we do want to hear them.
Mr. El-Assal, thank you for being here. Your five minutes, please.
Kareem El-Assal, Director of Policy, CanadaVisa.com, as an individual: I would like to start by saying that it seems that Professor Alboim and I have written the same presentation. I think you’ll see that my remarks complement hers.
Despite welcoming record levels of both permanent and temporary residents, Canada continues to struggle to address worker shortages in essential sectors of our economy.
One challenge is that our economic-class permanent residence programs are geared toward candidates who fall under National Occupational Classification — or NOC — skill types 0, A and B and are hence deemed by federal, provincial and territorial governments as being high-skilled immigrants. As the pandemic has emphasized, however, we have significant worker shortages in all sectors of the economy and in jobs that our governments label as lower skilled. These are jobs they define as falling under NOC skill types C and D.
To their credit, the two levels of government have created more lower-skilled immigration pathways in recent years.
However, they both continue to prioritize the selection of higher-skilled immigrants. Take the federal government, for example. If you look at the Immigration Levels Plan released on Tuesday, over 80% of the new economic class of immigrants who will be selected by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, will be higher-skilled candidates. In recent years, IRCC has launched pilots, such as for caregivers and the agri-food sector, but the cap for each pilot is just 2,750 new applications each year. We know as a matter of fact that those caps are way too low to address essential worker shortages.
Look at the agri-food sector. Although the sector accounts for some 60% of new Temporary Foreign Worker Program arrivals, IRCC has only allocated 1% of Canada’s total economic-class admissions to the agri-food pilot.
The math simply does not add up.
Here are some recommendations on how our immigration system can better address NOC’s C and D essential worker shortages.
First, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel on the definition of “essential workers.” At the start of the pandemic, Public Safety Canada categorized certain workers as essential in maintaining life, health and basic societal functioning. In addition, in May 2021, IRCC introduced a special public policy to enable up to 90,000 essential workers and international graduates to apply for permanent residence. The policy applied to 40 health care occupations and 95 jobs defined as essential by IRCC, including jobs in a variety of sectors, such as agri-food, transportation, retail and construction. These definitions, plus Statistics Canada’s labour force data and actual Temporary Foreign Worker Program data, are sufficient to help us narrow the scope on which NOC C- and D-type essential occupations we should target via our immigration programs.
Second, we should use an evidence-based approach to determine the number of essential workers we will offer permanent residence to via federal, provincial and territorial programs each year. This should be informed by economic analysis and labour force data to inform what the target would be, and this exercise should entail annual revisions based on conditions on the ground.
Third, the federal government can increase its Provincial Nominee Program allocations to the provinces and territories, with the caveat that they need to use the increased allocations toward NOC C- and D-type essential workers. That is something IRCC has already done with the provinces, albeit on a very small scale.
Fourth and last, IRCC ought to introduce a permanent federal essential worker program. The benefit of a new program is that it would create more PR pathways for candidates who are currently ineligible for Express Entry and other high-skilled pathways. The program could entail features such as a points system with weighting shaped by Statistics Canada longitudinal analysis and the human capital characteristics that best predict the economic outcomes of immigrants. IRCC can hold monthly draws with rolling admissions to give candidates a fair chance to enter. That would also allow IRCC to only invite the highest scorers.
Before wrapping up, I want us to remember that a previous challenge we had was that our immigration levels were half of what we were going to welcome by 2025. Previously, we didn’t have much room to manœuvre. Now we do. With Canada set to welcome 300,000 economic-class immigrants by 2025, we definitely have the flexibility to allocate more permanent residence spots toward lower-skilled essential workers. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. El-Assal.
Professor Hennebry, your comments, please.
Jenna L. Hennebry, Co-founder, International Migration Research Centre; Professor, Balsillie School of International Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University, as an individual: Thank you very much for the opportunity.
First, I’m going to start by saying three things that we absolutely need: We need direct pathways into permanent residency for temporary migrant workers already in the country, we need direct pathways into PR for those outside of the country and we need to end the use of closed work permits.
I’m going to talk about a couple of things I want to highlight around the trends as well. We have already heard from the other panellists that we’re seeing growth in the numbers. This is not a new thing; we have seen a growth in the numbers for over a decade. In fact, since 2013 temporary migrant entries have surpassed those of permanent residents. We also know that although we let in a record number of permanent immigrants in 2021, approaching the number of temporary migrants working in Canada, we’re still looking at a reality where — based on stock data as of December 31 of temporary migrants working in Canada in 2021 — we’re looking at over 550,000 if you are including the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program, or SAWP, workers, who didn’t count, who were in agriculture in the summer period.
So we’re looking at really large numbers.
We’re seeing employer demand driving this program. This is not new either. In fact, we’re seeing more opportunities for employer demand to drive that program. Both the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the International Mobility Program, or IMP, are driven largely by employers. We are also seeing a growth in the access to low-wage workers with the changes that were implemented recently in April, which have enabled a 20% growth in the low-wage stream of the temporary worker program.
In addition, we’re seeing seven industries — agriculture, food services and the care sector, for example — with up to 30% being temporary foreign workers.
We’re seeing employers shift production models, looking for more flexible and just-in-time labour solutions instead of investing in training and skills development, and changing workplace conditions and wages in order to attract and retain resident workers. The reality is that many temporary migrant workers, whether under the IMP, the Temporary Foreign Worker Program or international students with work permits, face heightened risks of human and labour rights violations as well as health risks — physical and mental due to family separations — and barriers to accessing health care. For example, access to sexual and reproductive health care for temporary migrant women is particularly challenging.
Risks are not even across categories. We have seen those that are in sectors of the economy who have fewer protections of collective bargaining rights. For example, agricultural and domestic care workers face heightened risks, labour rights protection challenges, access-to-justice challenges, and many are at risk of falling out of status because there is no pathway to be able to access additional employment or permanent residency.
It’s particularly problematic for those under closed or tied work permits. Those are more precarious situations with heightened vulnerability to abuse and exploitation, including trafficking. This is why the federal government implemented the open work permit for vulnerable workers, recognizing that the tied permits favour employers and can result in migrant workers in situations of vulnerability. That’s why the Canadian Council for Refugees, for example, has just launched a campaign against closed work permits.
This is also not news. We have seen numerous Auditor General reports and others. In fact, Senate proceedings have flagged issues with the Temporary Foreign Worker Program for decades. Most of these issues are also things that are contrary to international law and normative frameworks like CETA, to which Canada is a party.
In terms of service provision and access to services at a community-based level, it’s really challenging for communities to respond. We have seen this with Ukrainians, for example, who have been issued temporary work permits, not having the same level of access to services and settlement supports that PR and refugees have. So we have basically created a situation where more temporary migrants are coming into communities without the supports they need to be able to access services and protect their rights.
We are also attempting to do a two-step migration trajectory.
The Chair: We will perhaps probe on the two-step process during questions.
Ms. Hennebry: Sure. I’ll end there.
The Chair: We will now go to questions from senators.
Senators, please indicate if your question is to one, two or all of the witnesses. Senators will have four minutes for the question, and that includes the answer from the witnesses. Before asking questions, I would like to ask members to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
I’m going to exercise my prerogative as chair and give my four minutes to Professor Alboim to wrap up on her seven recommendations.
Ms. Alboim: Thank you so much. The first four recommendations that I have aim to strengthen Express Entry to better meet labour market needs.
Number one: Create pathways to permanent residence within Express Entry for lower-skilled applicants with experience in high-demand or essential occupations, whether in Canada or abroad. This could be done by broadening selection criteria to enter the Express Entry pool to include those working in high‑demand, lower-skilled occupations.
Number two: Use the new ministerial authority recently provided in Bill C-19 to allow draws from the Express Entry pool on the basis of essential or high-demand occupations and regions. This would be done in consultation with provinces, territories, employers, other government departments, labour market information providers and other stakeholders to determine the numbers, the categories to be drawn and frequency of draws in a transparent way.
Number three: Use these draws as much as possible for the initial entry as permanent residents from abroad, accompanied by family members and eligible for all supports and services.
And number four: Expedite Express Entry processing so employer demands can be met swiftly rather than employers needing to resort to hiring temporary entrants to meet their labour market needs quickly.
My remaining three very brief recommendations are in recognition of the fact that some workers will still arrive initially as temporary entrants.
Number five: Include targets for temporary workers, international students and refugee claimants in multi-year immigration levels plans so that planning can be done for services, infrastructure, monitoring, inspections and transition to permanent residence for those eligible.
Number six: Provide targeted settlement and language-training services and real labour protections to temporary entrants and their accompanying family members.
And finally, for those eligible under expanded Express Entry criteria, ensure transparent pathways to permanent residence. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Professor Alboim, and to all our witnesses. If you have your briefs in a document, we would welcome receiving them. If you happen to have them in both official languages, that makes our job a lot easier. Please send them to us.
We will now move to questions from my colleagues.
Senator Bovey: I would like to thank all the witnesses. You have given us a lot of information, and I have two questions.
Mr. El-Assal, I read your May 2018 report entitled Canada 2040: No Immigration Versus More Immigration, and I wonder if you can — in just a couple of minutes — tell us how the new goal of 500,000 immigrants coming to Canada might shift the conclusions you came to in that article. And tied with that, I would like to know your thoughts on whether we are competing with other countries in the OECD. I’m just back from the U.K., where a lack of skilled labour is significant as a result of Brexit, and I just wonder where we are in that global situation. Then I’ll have a question for Dr. Alboim.
Mr. El-Assal: The conclusions are similar following the announcement on Tuesday. What we argue in the 2018 report is that, as a response to Canada’s aging population and low birth rate, we will have to move immigration to a rate of about 1% per year.
Following Tuesday’s announcement, the government is actually going to surpass that rate more aggressively, and the rate is going to be 1.3% by 2025. We absolutely need higher levels of immigration, but I would submit to you, senator, that now the focus should shift to how we’re going to ensure we prepare these newcomers to settle and integrate as effectively as possible. I don’t think it’s a numbers issue anymore. We have met the quantitative benchmark. Now it’s more of a qualitative issue.
Can you remind me of your second question, please?
Senator Bovey: The international competition for immigrant workers that is certainly coming out of what’s going on with Brexit in the U.K.
Mr. El-Assal: Thank you for this question, senator. World Education Services, a non-profit organization in Canada, has conducted a number of surveys of prospective permanent residents to Canada throughout the pandemic. I believe they have conducted three surveys in total. And these prospective newcomers continue to indicate that they have their eyes set on Canada. Yes, it’s true that they do consider other options such as Australia and New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, but they are still keen on coming here.
Nonetheless, I would argue that we can’t rest on our laurels. We have to continue to identify ways of remaining competitive. We have to also acknowledge that the pandemic has somewhat eroded our competitive standing, and that’s demonstrated by the fact that our inventories, our backlogs have grown significantly and they continue to remain high.
We do have a great immigration system. We should be proud of it. It’s one of the best in the world. There is no doubt about that. But at the same time, we have to continue to identify ways of managing our immigration system as efficiently as possible so that we can bring in global talent as quickly as we can.
Senator Bovey: Thank you. Dr. Alboim, I was interested in your article “More must be done to help low-skilled workers get permanent residency,” but you also mentioned some people with professional training who aren’t getting the licences to work in Canada, and I guess those are primarily doctors and engineers. I wonder if you can just quickly let us know if you see that as a key barrier.
The Chair: This is a million-dollar question. Your time is up. We need a million hours, I think, and Professor Alboim would agree to answer that question, but we will get back to it if time allows.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. Maybe I will ask that topical question from Senator Bovey. Would Professor Alboim comment on the barriers to professional folks by the qualification issue?
Ms. Alboim: Thank you for the question. This is an issue that I personally and many others have been working on for decades now. There has been a little bit of progress in certain occupations, in some cases quite a lot of progress. In other cases, the progress has not been significant enough. There are many reasons for this.
What is quite disconcerting, however, is that even when the regulatory bodies who have the designated responsibility for assessing people’s credentials that they have achieved abroad, even when they find them to be equivalent to Canadian qualifications — or once some minor upgrading or bridging happens and they are deemed equivalent — these people are still finding it very difficult to find jobs. The issue still is, in some cases, among employers who do not trust the qualifications of people who have been educated abroad.
The COVID pandemic has created obviously a crisis in the health care field, but a real opportunity, and there have been some movements forward in this regard, particularly in the nursing profession and in some cases in the medical profession, to allow more people to practise their profession under supervision or with limited or temporary licences on the way to full recognition. So there has been some progress, not enough.
We still find even those with recognized credentials underemployed rather than able to use their full qualifications not only to their benefit but to the benefit of all of us.
Senator Patterson: Professor, you have given us seven very clear recommendations. You have probably thought this through, but what is the mechanism to create these new pathways and utilize the ministerial authority and the draws? Can that be done without legislative change? Is this something that can be done by our committee recommending changes to policies or perhaps regulations? These are urgent issues. I think we may wish to make recommendations for change.
Ms. Alboim: Yes, many of the recommendations that I am making can be done without legislative amendment.
One of the things about the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, is that it is framework legislation and allows for regulations and allows for ministerial instructions. Ministerial instructions can, in fact, make some significant changes, as we saw with Bill C-19, giving even more opportunity to the minister to make some changes.
The biggest change, I think, is to change the entry eligibility criteria to get into the Express Entry pool. Once people are in that pool, then ministerial instructions can draw the people with the skills that are being looked for, including the lower occupations. If Express Entry continues to be only for 0, A, B occupations — managerial, professional and skilled occupations — it will not be helpful.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Alboim. We must go on to Senator McPhedran.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to each of our witnesses. It is a pleasure to see you again, Professor Alboim. It has been a number of years. I have a question for all of you that takes us up above some of the more granular questions that have been raised here today.
I will situate my question in my personal experience that is shared by a number of other senators who have been working diligently to try to facilitate the access to Canada of Afghans who are scattered in numerous countries and who have made it partway through our process, but we’re not seeing them here yet.
Before I ask my question, I wish to say that I have been grateful and impressed by the dedication of many of the employees of IRCC. Nevertheless, I must ask this question: My tentative conclusion based on working on these kinds of cases for the past year, where we have, shall we say, immediate availability of these people to come to Canada, putting that in the context of the 500,000 target, which I think is an excellent step forward for our country overall, the capacity to process and deal with glitches that are inevitable in this kind of complex processing of human beings is daunting.
We are seeing significant delays. We are seeing significant risk factors increasing with time.
Could I ask you for key changes in both managerial policy and practical employment approaches within the Canadian agencies and departments that will actually have to make this happen? My question is quite specific around the internal mechanics of the departments that are charged with the responsibility to actually make these changes.
The Chair: Colleagues, you have less than 40 seconds to take on that question. I will throw it first to Professor Hennebry.
Ms. Hennebry: Forty seconds? I think what Professor Alboim has outlined is feasible. I think that it can be done not through IRPA but through the recommendations, and I think it can be done through policy change.
We get into a slippery slope when we start to try to finagle refugee processes into migration processes, so I would add a word of caution there and, instead, flag working with refugee resettlement processes to expand those numbers and those services that must be provided in order to be able to enable that kind of transition to move more quickly.
Mr. El-Assal: Perhaps Professor Alboim will be better placed to speak to this.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Alboim: If I can, senator, thank you for the question.
There is no question that the Afghan situation is very complex and rife with difficulties, but there are things that can be done that are not being done. That is to use alternative pathways.
We can bring in many Afghans as international students, for example. Universities are lining up with money wanting to support Afghan students to come to the country, but there is a rule that says that students have to be willing to go back home at the end of their student visa. You remove that, and universities could come forward to bring in many not only students but also people to teach at the university. We know that many Afghan women, students and lecturers, or example, are now displaced.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Alboim. I apologize, colleagues, but four minutes is fair to everyone.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you to our witnesses for being with us.
A set of integrated questions for anyone to answer. I will focus on health care essential workers meeting the needs of the aging population, specifically personal support and personal care workers. I want to mention that these are lower-skilled, not low‑skilled people. There is a big difference.
Do large commercial organizations such as Revera apply for these individuals to come? What about a family who has an elder who wishes to age in place? That is our biggest need in Canada, namely, aging in place. What are the pathways to certification? There is no licensure for personal service workers; there are certification programs. Do people who come in as personal care or personal support workers get assistance in getting their Canadian certification in this?
What are the pathways to permanent residence, including settlement services, for those who come in under this kind of approach?
The Chair: Who would like to take that question first?
Mr. El-Assal: I can start. Thank you, senator, for your question. This is a huge issue that needs to be rectified, sooner rather than later.
Our caregiver numbers in Canada have shrunk by more than half in terms of permanent residence landings over the last decade, even though our society has rapidly aged over the same period.
Unfortunately, at the moment, we only have two federal pilot programs in place with up to 2,750 spots each. Due to the significant need for these workers in our economy to support children and families, the caps for both programs are met as quickly as within 30 days. The programs open up each January and by the end of the month they are capped out, and candidates cannot apply.
Another major issue is that, historically, the Temporary Foreign Worker Program was available for Canadians to submit applications to bring in caregivers on a temporary basis. And because Canada welcomed a higher number of caregivers as permanent residents, many of these temporary foreign workers would transition through the IRCC-run program. As I just noted, that is no longer the case.
In addition to this, we have to remember that the Temporary Foreign Worker Program is very onerous. It is expensive. It is $1,000 per application. Approval rates are anyone’s guess. When families submit the application, they are taking a huge risk.
The last thing that I will note is the processing time is very long.
These are things that we have to rectify.
Senator Kutcher: I would pose the same question to the other guests. May I make an observation? Maybe in our report we should focus a bit of attention on this issue. It is one of the biggest health care issues that we have today.
The Chair: We will hear from caregivers in subsequent meetings.
Professor Hennebry?
Ms. Hennebry: The barriers to accessing permanent residency for this group remain high. As pointed out by my colleague, the number of spots in the existing pathways has diminished. For individuals, they are often trying to go through third-party recruiters to help them access personal support workers. Adding another dimension there, we have actually created greater potential for exploitation, abuse and misuse of the program in this context as well. More needs to be done to address that.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you to the witnesses. My question is for both of our witnesses and has to do with situations of exploitation.
I’m from Quebec, and this was documented during COVID, among other things, for certain seasonal agricultural workers. My question will be quite specific. I’ll use the example of housing. We often talk about the type of housing, dignified and clean housing, the number of people in that living space and poor conditions. I’m wondering how we can address that kind of situation. Does it require new regulations, obligations, standards, more inspections? What is being done to improve the situation? What would the solutions be?
I’d like an answer from both of you, if there’s time. I have no preference as to who goes first.
[English]
Mr. El-Assal: Thank you, senator, for your question. I want to note that there are strong regulations in place. There are fines and penalties that can be administered to such employers, one of which is that they are not able to continue to access the Temporary Foreign Worker Program if they are found to abuse it. That is one component.
The other component that Canada is looking to address more, but that obviously we can do a better job of as well, is educating the incoming foreign workers and offering them genuine protections.
A long-standing issue has been that, because their work permits are tied to the employer, workers are terrified. If they are to report them to the government, they will lose their job; and if they lose their job, they are no longer eligible to remain in Canada.
We have to use common sense and ensure they are protected on that front: that they can report and they can then switch employers, maybe within the sector or to other sectors. That gives them the opportunity to avoid these situations of exploitation or to get out of them.
Ms. Hennebry: While, on paper, we have mechanisms for regulation, they are largely voluntary compliance–based. They require a complaints-based system, for the most part, where workers themselves must be complaining, or advocates. It is very difficult for workers to do so because of the employer-employee power imbalance, which has been well documented.
While there have been some compliance mechanisms, such as the naming of employers who have not been compliant on housing when applying through the labour market impact assessment — or LMIA — process, those are small numbers. I just looked at the most recent data for 2022, and in the first quarter I think we are looking at one. Those numbers are very small. It is not necessarily working as a mechanism for regulatory compliance, around housing in particular. That is why the Temporary Foreign Worker Program has recently undergone a housing review.
There were submissions by numerous organizations, documenting that the system as it stands does not actually provide an avenue for workers to be able to have safe housing. It is highly variable. It changes from area to area. It is very challenging for workers to be able to access safe housing.
The specifics that were given in the housing standard that was recently released are insufficient to be able to improve housing across the board for migrant workers, particularly in agriculture.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My first question will be for Mr. El-Assal. When people talk about processing times and Express Entry, what is the difference between the express track and the so-called normal track for temporary workers?
[English]
Mr. El-Assal: The processing standard for Express Entry is six months or less. This is the fastest among all permanent residence economic-class programs. Typically, for all other programs, the processing time — the actual processing time, not the benchmark — is about 24 months or even longer.
With respect to temporary foreign workers, it depends upon the program under which one is applying, as well as their source country. For countries that submit a lot of applications to the Canadian government, the processing time tends to be longer. As an example, recent work permit applications from India have taken about one year or more.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you. I’m glad you brought up the subject of countries because that’s what my second question is about. It could be for you and Ms. Alboim.
I know there are agreements between Canada and certain countries — in the past, other witnesses have talked to us about this in other areas — with respect to temporary foreign workers, or TFWs. Is it a long list? Are there many countries that benefit from this agreement? I’ll have a follow-up question next, if possible.
[English]
Ms. Alboim: There are agreements, particularly around the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program. There are a number of countries — Dr. Hennebry will know the exact number — but basically Caribbean countries, Mexico and some Latin American countries are the countries that have agreements with Canada for the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program.
We have other trade agreements in which there are embedded some labour exchange agreements, such as the free trade agreement with the United States and with Europe. A number of trade agreements have a labour mobility provision within them, but those components are fairly small.
The International Mobility Program, or IMP, which allows temporary foreign workers to come to the country, provides opportunities for inter-country exchanges of workers — or not necessarily exchanges but just for people to come from those countries.
The IMP is one of the mechanisms to allow people to take advantage of these agreements.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Great, thank you. I’d like to ask a follow-up question. You mentioned the Caribbean, and I don’t think Haiti is one of them. However, there is a great need for French‑speaking workers in Quebec and across Canada; they’re also needed in official language minority communities.
In an article published a long time ago on the Radio-Canada website, it was noted that some workers who didn’t speak the language when they arrived in the workplace saw their efficiency diminished and that this made them vulnerable initially, since they were unable to communicate with their employer.
What do you think about that, especially for French-speaking workers?
[English]
The Chair: Senator Mégie, we will hold that really important question for the second round. We will all remember that question.
Senator Dasko: My question is for Professor Hennebry. You mentioned in a couple of words human trafficking.
I wonder if you could elaborate, as much as you can, as to what you might know about human trafficking in relationship to temporary foreign workers. Anything that you can tell us about the incidence of it, where it is happening, how it is happening, anything at all. Thank you.
Ms. Hennebry: Thank you, senator.
Human trafficking among international migrants in Canada typically happens through problems with the work permit provisions.
Often what is happening is when workers have completed a work permit, they may have no other option to extend their permit, to find other employment, and they find themselves without an opportunity to be able to apply for permanent residence because of skills and other human capital criteria that they do not qualify for. They will find themselves looking to third-party brokers and others to help them to be able to stay. That is where you have that vulnerability taking place. Often upon completion of a legal and status document of a work permit that has expired is when these cases happen.
In addition, we also often see it when people come in with legitimate work permits, or what they believe to be legitimate work permits, but they are working in jobs that are not what was specified to them. Coming in to work in entertainment, let’s say, and ending up working in private parties or in escort services and finding themselves without being able to get out of those situations because of the realities of what happens in trafficking. Often where they’ve been tricked. They are working in conditions they didn’t expect, they may have lost access to their documents in that process and are unaware of their rights and are often excluded.
It also happens in cases where forced labour is at work and more common as well because trafficking is much more difficult in terms of a legal definition. We have many accounts where we have been able to document when there have been temporary foreign workers who have experienced forced labour.
Again, those who are on any kind of named or tied work permits where a specific employer is named are even more vulnerable than others and face real difficulty in being able to access other employment. For example, all of those in the SAWP are in that scenario where they cannot easily move employers.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: We’ve had some very clear advice on improving the pathways to permanent residency. There was a motion in the House of Commons in May 2022 passed to expand economic immigration pathways for workers at all skill levels. I am aware that the government has released recently — I think it was in May of 2022 — the Strategy to Expand Transitions to Permanent Residency.
Professor Alboim, you said that we need to find a way to allow these class-C and -D workers to access the Express Entry. I wonder if you are familiar with the government strategy. Pillar 2 in its strategy says that it “aims to reform the Express Entry system, including by increasing flexibility in immigration selection tools . . . .”
That sounds a bit bureaucratic to me, but is the government listening to this kind of clear advice that we heard today on reforming Express Entry? Do you know?
Ms. Alboim: From my understanding, they are looking to use ministerial instructions to expand whom they can draw from the pool of Express Entry, but they are not talking yet about expanding who can get into the pool. So they are still talking about restricting the pool to 0, A, B categories. What I am suggesting is that if you’re not in the pool, you can’t be drawn no matter how flexible the drawing is done. I am suggesting that they expand who is eligible to enter the pool by expanding to those in C and D occupations, in high-demand occupations and essential occupations so that they can then be drawn by ministerial instruction out of the pool.
Senator Patterson: Got it, thank you.
Senator Bovey: I would like to come back to my earlier question regarding those people who have professional training in other countries and find they have to be retrained when they come to Canada. I am particularly concerned about the medical and engineering professions, as I asked earlier. Given our time, I wonder if Ms. Alboim could send some documentation on what these numbers are and what arrangements are happening with universities across Canada to try to fast-track that training so we can meet some of our medical and engineering needs. Thank you.
The Chair: I believe we have one minute left to get back to Senator Mégie’s question about francophone immigration, the question around Haiti. Would someone like to answer that?
Senator Mégie, can you very briefly recapitulate that?
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Why isn’t Haiti on the list of countries where TFWs are recruited?
You know that Quebec would need French-speaking workers because of the vulnerability created when the person doesn’t speak the language. Could you explain to me if there are any reasons why Haiti isn’t part of the agreement?
[English]
Ms. Alboim: I am not sure if Professor Hennebry wants to address that one.
I will kick it off and then pass it on to her.
Quebec is in a very fortunate position in the sense that it has its own immigration agreement and that Quebec can actually implement economic programs on its own, without necessarily having to negotiate through the federal government. I am not sure what agreements exist now in Quebec for Haiti, but it would seem to me that it would be possible for Quebec to put that into place.
Jenna, you may respond. I don’t know whether the SAWP participants have ever come from Haiti. They have never come from Haiti? So it would have to be something new but feasible if the Quebec government wanted to pursue this with the Government of Haiti. It is a government-to-government arrangement for SAWP.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
We have come to the end of this first hour of witness testimony.
Witnesses, thank you very much for your presence and for sharing your wisdom with us. We encourage you to send documents, submissions, briefs our way; they are always welcome.
Colleagues, we now welcome our second panel. By video conference, we have Fred Bergman, Senior Policy Analyst, Atlantic Provinces Economic Council; and Doug Ramsey, Professor and Acting Director, Rural Development Institute, Brandon University. At the moment, Mr. Ramsey is having a technical problem; we are hoping to onboard him as soon as we can. On the other hand, it gives us the luxury of focusing just on you, Mr. Bergman. What a privilege.
As is our practice, we will give you five minutes for your comments, followed by a round of questions from our senators. Mr. Bergman, the floor is yours.
Fred Bergman, Senior Policy Analyst, Atlantic Provinces Economic Council: Thank you for the opportunity to present to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Starting off with key points, an aging population and retirements are contributing to tighter labour market conditions in the Atlantic region. Over the last five years, the majority of the population growth in the Atlantic region was due to immigration and non-permanent residents. Immigration can help minimize the impact of aging demographics on the labour market.
In terms of labour market trends, an aging population and retirements are contributing to tighter labour market conditions in the Atlantic region. A tight labour market occurs when job vacancies increase while available workers become scarce. The region’s job vacancy rate was 5.3% in the second quarter of 2022, about one percentage point higher than the previous quarter. The Atlantic region unemployment rate declined from about 11.6% in 2001 to about 7.2% in September of this year. About 22% of the region’s 2.5 million people were aged 65 and over on July 1, 2022, almost double the 11.5% that seniors represented in 1990. Almost 19,000, or 1.5%, of the region’s labour force had retired in 2021.
There are not enough young workers to replace retirees. The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, better known as APEC, in its Looking Ahead research showed that there were only 7 new young workers looking for work for every 10 retiring in the region in 2020 as compared to about 20 younger workers for every 10 retirees in 1990.
APEC’s Looking Ahead research also shows that our labour force will shrink by about 130,000 by 2030 without more people moving to the region or a higher proportion of the existing population joining the job market.
APEC estimates that the region needs to retain an average of 13,000 to 16,000 immigrants per year to sustain economic growth. As the region only retained 75% of new immigrants, it will need to attract 18,000 to 22,000 immigrants per year to meet our future labour force needs.
In terms of demographic trends, over the last five years, the majority of population growth in the Atlantic region was due to immigration and non-permanent residents, including temporary residents in Canada on a work or study permit. Between the 2016 and 2021 census, immigration and non-permanent residents accounted for about 94% of the population growth within the Maritimes, while in Newfoundland and Labrador, they helped minimize population decline. The number of immigrants to Atlantic Canada is on track to reach well over 25,000 this year, smashing the previous record of 19,000 in 2021.
Attracting and retaining younger immigrants can slow the aging of the region’s population. APEC’s Looking Ahead research predicts that the proportion of seniors will rise from 22% to 28% by 2040. However, without in-migration, seniors would account for 31% of our region’s population in 2040.
I have a few recommendations.
We need to increase immigration not only to address labour shortages but to generate long-term positive changes in the economy. Streamlining immigration in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and addressing processing backlogs can help reduce labour shortages.
Addressing labour shortages requires a broad suite of policies, as highlighted in APEC’s research on finding talent. Employers should target underrepresented groups in the labour market when hiring. It is also important for organizations to have diversity, equity and inclusion policies in place.
Educational institutions need to enhance the quality of education by providing training in essential skills, including numeracy, communications, teamwork, digital, critical thinking and continuous learning. Issuing study and/or work permits to international students and post-secondary institutions can result in a modest reduction in labour shortages in some industries. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We were hoping that Professor Ramsey was onboarded successfully, but it seems we are still having a technical issue. We will carry on with questions to Mr. Bergman, and then we will return, if possible, to Professor Ramsey.
Senator Bovey: I would like to thank Dr. Bergman. I appreciate and understand the situation in the Atlantic region. The CBC article from October 26 this year underlines what your perspective was.
I’m intrigued with the need that you talk about for these immigrant workers for universities and education and training. Could you pick up on that, please, with regard to the temporary and migrant workers?
Mr. Bergman: Certainly. The Atlantic Immigration Program targets temporary foreign workers as well as international students as part of its three streams. Between 2017 and 2021, about 12,000 or more permanent residents came in under the Atlantic Immigration Program to the Atlantic region. It’s been an important program for the region. I think there was even a Statistics Canada daily release that referenced that program as a potential benchmark for addressing the aging demographics in Canada as well as promoting economic development in Canada.
Over the last year, we have seen about a 15.5% increase in international student enrolment in Atlantic universities. So it’s back on track. About 21,800 registered this fall as visa students who were full-time.
Senator Bovey: Thank you. In the hopes that we can have our Brandon University witness, I would like to save the rest of my time, please, to have a question with him.
The Chair: Sure. We’ll have to be mathematically courageous about this. You have three minutes left.
Senator Bovey: As a Manitoban, I would like to be able to address questions to him. Thank you.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Senator Patterson: Thank you, Dr. Bergman. It looks like the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has done some really good, timely research on the issues we’re studying, namely, why there is a labour crisis in the Atlantic region.
Would you be able to share this information that you have given us orally? Is there a report or a study that could be shared with our committee?
Mr. Bergman: We submitted a brief yesterday to the clerk of this committee. They have a two-page brief, which is basically my speaking notes from today. Beyond that, usually just members of APEC have access to our member publications. Some of the information that I might reference today is typically for APEC members only, but we could share documents with the Government of Canada if need be because some federal government agencies are members of APEC. We don’t have any current research ongoing on immigration or Temporary Foreign Worker Programs at this time, but we have done research in the past.
Senator Patterson: You said that the immigration levels are 13,000 to 16,000 per year, but they really should be higher to keep up with the labour demand because there is attrition; people leave. Could you explain why that happens?
Mr. Bergman: Basically, we monitor our retention rates for immigrants who come to the Atlantic region. The most present numbers show that the one-year retention rate of recent immigrants to the Atlantic region is about 75%. For every 100% who say that their intended destination is the Atlantic region, according to tax records — basically, that is how they track this — within a year, 25% leave for other parts of Canada or, maybe in the extreme, they go back to a different country.
However, the five-year retention rate for the Atlantic region as a whole is only about 49%. Certainly, immigrant settlement services are important to attract immigrants to the region, help them adjust to the culture and the language here, help them with finding a job, help them with finding housing, help them with finding child care and so on. Infrastructure is a real concern in the Atlantic region in terms of having access to affordable housing, access to child care. Of course, we’re moving towards $10-a-day child care through agreements with the federal government and with all the provincial governments in Canada. For the larger urban centres like Halifax, obviously transit is also an issue, so having access to transportation is also important.
The Chair: Thank you. Professor Ramsey, I believe you are back with us. Wonderful. Please, your five minutes.
Doug Ramsey, Professor and Acting Director, Rural Development Institute, Brandon University, as an individual: I’m very sorry for this. Thank you for the invitation and for the opportunity to speak to you today. I am the acting director, so I’m a bit of a placeholder. I’m going to talk about my experience in Manitoba as a professor and to some of the work that the Rural Development Institute, or RDI, has done. In the document I submitted there is a link to all of the research that RDI has conducted since the late 1990s that should inform this committee.
I’m going to talk about temporary foreign workers and the food-processing sector in Manitoba.
Much of the work in rural Canada is seasonal in nature, as we know. This makes building a career and/or making a life/living in some sectors difficult. Two important examples are agriculture and tourism. Both sectors have time sensitivity. There are crops with harvest times, animal operations that are 24-7-365 and tourism — everything right down to meeting guests needing services. With agriculture, farmers across many regions of Canada have relied on temporary foreign workers, farm labour programs, and one particular example relates to southern Ontario. Even the greenhouse sector, which is year-round, is dependent on foreign labourers. But even if it’s not seasonal, whether it’s year-round tourism or production agriculture, these two sectors are also well known to be low-paying labour sectors. Thus, it has become increasingly difficult for these two sectors to secure consistent, reliable workforces.
In the former tobacco belt of southern Ontario — I’m not really aware of the community, but in Brant, Norfolk, Oxford and Essex counties — farmers have long relied on temporary farm labour. Prior to seeking workers internationally, farmers recruited people from Quebec and Atlantic Canada. The song “Tillsonburg” by Stompin’ Tom Connors is a true story of his life and where he worked once.
Prior to this, even during the Great Depression, southern and southwestern Ontario were recipient areas for thousands of unemployed people willing to work for food and shelter. It has always been precarious labour.
Tobacco was unique, as each farm required a small number of people — 5 to 10, beyond family members — to work from planting in May until grading and packing in October and November. The former tobacco belt still has some tobacco, but over the past 20 years it has diversified into other crops. It’s common for foreign workers to move from one crop to the other, such as asparagus to fruits, tobacco, ginseng and apples.
The threat of losing this worker segment was an issue during the COVID pandemic and it made national news for quite some time. Beyond the economic and functionality issues this raised for Canadian farms, it really became an issue of food security for Canada.
With tourism in Manitoba, as elsewhere in Canada and indeed around the world, we see new migrants to Canada working in service sectors including hotels and restaurants. Russell, Manitoba, is a good example, with the Asessippi Ski Resort attracting people from Australia, and the hotel in Russell attracting people from the Philippines.
I will switch now to the food-processing sector. I moved to Manitoba in 1999, when my job started. That was the same time that Maple Leaf opened. It took quite a number of years before they could have a full, functioning two-shift workplace, which now employs 2,200 people. About 80% of the workforce at that plant now comes from outside Canada. The first international recruitment was Mexico as a pilot program. Since then, it’s been recruitment from Ukraine, Colombia, China, El Salvador and, more recently, Mauritius and Honduras.
Maple Leaf went from a 90% turnover rate in employees when they hired locally and regionally within Canada to a 90% retention rate. Quite simply, migrant labour to Canada has made Maple Leaf in Brandon operational. What has this meant for Brandon? It has grown from 40,000 to over 50,000 people.
Neepawa is another example in the pork sector with the HyLife pork processing plant that has undergone recent expansions. In my notes that I submitted, I gave you some data where Neepawa went from being a declining community to a stabilizing community to being one of the fastest-growing communities in Manitoba, going from 3,300 people in 2001 to almost 6,000 in 2021. In 2016, according to the census, 43% of the population was Filipino, and last year, 50% of the community was Filipino. Super important. You see the viability of the schools, businesses and the community that have resulted.
To summarize, there is a long publishing record. I have included the website that gives you the links to reports, research and presentations. I can say that RDI is in the process of hiring a new director, and one of the initiatives that I continued during my term as acting director was fostering dialogue with Westman Immigrant Services, where the federal government has a role. I would encourage this committee to reach out to Westman Immigrant Services for further information on how newcomers to Manitoba — southwestern Manitoba — have been vital. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Professor Ramsey.
Senator Bovey: I’m delighted you were able to reconnect with us, so thank you, Dr. Ramsey. I want to underline the very important work that I think RDI is doing, and I have been impressed with it for a number of years.
Perhaps you can dig a little deeper on Maple Leaf because I have been involved in some of the programs with immigrants in moving to western Manitoba to work with Maple Leaf. I was struck by your statistic that the change has been from 90% turnover to 90% retention. Perhaps you can talk about how that retention with immigrant workers has come about. Thanks.
Mr. Ramsey: A couple of things. In 1999, Maple Leaf began by recruiting locally. They had an agreement with the Métis Federation. Then they went to Ontario and Atlantic Canada, and that’s where they had a high turnover rate. It’s very difficult labour and it takes a certain kind of person. So shifting to an international labour force — first of all, when you came, originally you had to stay in that job. But people knew coming — you make that long move and you know what you are in for — whereas I think locally and regionally, people were just trying it as a job opportunity.
Having said that, the city and Maple Leaf did a number of things including daycare, changing bus services. Of course, Westman Immigrant Services has played a huge role in how people can fit into the community and be part of the community. I mean, I live three blocks away from a Mauritian restaurant. It’s just incredible, that change. I think that and coming as families are two important aspects. One of the failures, when I grew up near tobacco farms in Ontario, was that people would just hitchhike to the tobacco belt and work. If they didn’t like the job, they quit. Well, if you move from a different country with your family, you have made a pretty big commitment and you show up for work. Those are some of the things that have happened, but certainly Maple Leaf did some operational changes. The city did some functional and service changes. Westman Immigrant Services also played a role.
My last point: Once you have a number of people from a certain region, they have a community, and I think that’s really important. I think that’s why the Filipino community has been so successful in Winnipeg and in Russell and why we have the success in the Brandon area and certainly in Neepawa. It’s a welcoming community, and it has changed from a community where they thought schools and hospitals would close to one where everything is expanding. It has been fantastic to watch.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Professor Ramsey.
I want to ask you both a question that has been on my mind. There is an assumption by economists that if you raise the wages in hard-to-fill labour market sectors, then the labour market gap can be closed. I have no evidence to prove my point, but I think, Professor Ramsey, in a way you did. Is it foreseeable that if we raise wages, let’s say for the food-processing industry or the blueberry-picking industry, that these raised wages will result in Canadians who are unemployed moving into those jobs on a more permanent basis?
Mr. Bergman: Sure, I can comment first on that one. We have done some recent research on labour skills as part of our finding talent research, and I led the part that did accommodation and food services, but we also looked at the manufacturing sector, including advanced manufacturing and seafood processing. Generally, what we found in the lower-wage industries is that raising wages is not always the best option. It can be a bit more expensive in those particular industries. Sometimes they can’t afford it, i.e., if you raise wage costs, then that cuts into your profits, so maybe you have to increase prices but then you might have reduced sales. Some can afford to do it; some cannot.
The other thing is the wage should match the level of skill required, the level of educational credentials, the level of work experience and so on. The risk you run is that if you try to increase wages in one industry to address labour shortages there, then you put pressure on other industries and other employers to also raise wages. So you are actually kind of magnifying what we now have as an inflation issue in Canada, both price and wage inflation. In some industries that have high wages, it’s more appropriate to increase wages, but in low-wage industries, maybe not so much.
Mr. Ramsey: I agree with those points as well. I would just say it comes back for many of the sectors to the point about seasonality. So you can make $12 an hour or $40 an hour, but if you are only working 10 to 12 weeks a year, it’s still not going to be something that people will choose as a career. Having said that, I don’t know, at the student level maybe you might have some uptick in the agriculture sector, but I would doubt it.
The Chair: Professor Ramsey, did I hear you actually allude to what I would call “cluster settlement”? That when it’s a cluster from the same community, settlement becomes a little easier. You mentioned the Filipino community in Brandon as opposed to people from everywhere in the world, which adds another kind of richness. My observations from Manitoba and the Western experiences tell me that a cluster approach does help in securing permanence in the community. Would you agree with that conclusion?
Mr. Ramsey: Yes. I’m in Germany right now on a sabbatical and I just spent an hour this afternoon with people who speak English, and my German headache went away. So I think this is super important. I mean, you need neighbours and friends around you who have similar interests, and language is a big one, right?
The Chair: Thank you. I am out of time, being fair to everyone.
Senator Kutcher: My question is to Professor Bergman and it’s about post-secondary students. I can’t believe it’s been about a decade since the Ivany report focused on growth engine using universities and community colleges, particularly with international students, who are an ideal pool for permanent residency upon graduation. There are three parts to the question.
First, what are post-secondary students in the Atlantic region doing to put supports in place for international students to enhance their language skills, encourage their cultural adaptation and also to inform them about potential pathways to permanent residency, including assisting them in finding part-time work?
The second question is around reports of substantial delays in visas for international students coming to the Atlantic region over the past six months. I wonder if that problem has been corrected.
The third question is what proportion of international students coming to the Atlantic region actually stay as permanent residents compared to those who actually want to stay.
Mr. Bergman: I’m not sure if I know what percentage of the students in the Atlantic region stay. I would have to see if we could calculate that. Certainly, Statistics Canada put out a report on June 22 this year in The Daily called Immigration as a source of labour supply, and toward the end of that, they talk about transition to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers as well as students. So there is some discussion in there of those who tend to stay in Canada after they graduate. Certainly, it is an area that the Atlantic Immigration Program is benefiting from in terms of attracting students.
For universities, some are certainly helping them to find work. There were recent changes, as I recall, allowing students to work more than 20 hours a week off campus. Before that, it was a bit of a hindrance as to the number of hours that they were allowed to work while studying.
Obviously getting work experience in Canada can help on the pathway to permanent residency, so it is important for them to be able to work. And obviously their tuition is much higher as international students, so having that ability to earn income to help pay for their tuition is important as well while they are here.
Housing has been an issue in some of the universities. There were reports at the University of Prince Edward Island, the Université de Moncton; a new residence just opened up at Dalhousie University here in Halifax to try to address some of those issues.
I know Cape Breton University has done a great job in attracting international students and trying to help them find work, housing and so on. It has really driven up their enrolment in the last couple of years. Obviously, during the pandemic enrolment would have fallen. It certainly bounced back quite a bit. I am not aware of what they are doing specifically, though.
Senator Arnot: Thank you. I will be very concise.
This is a question for both Dr. Ramsey and Mr. Bergman. There is a lot of commonality in the issues that face the province of Manitoba and rural areas of Canada, speaking from Saskatchewan’s perspective, where I’m a senator.
This committee is undertaking a very important study, but it is highlighting long-standing, multi-faceted issues and numerous impediments to engaging immigrant workers as conditions warrant in the rural areas of Canada. I notice that the government of Saskatchewan has some frustration with some of these issues. They have moved recently in the Speech from the Throne to announce that they will create and administer their own immigration policies and programs. They seemed to indicate that is based on a flexibility and a nimbleness to be able to react to needs in the economy of the province of Saskatchewan.
I would like the witnesses to answer this question: Is that a viable approach, in your opinion?
Mr. Ramsey: The original recruitment to Maple Leaf took place under the Manitoba pilot program. The federal government allowed Manitoba to sort of take the reins to be able to fill the workforces that were required throughout rural Manitoba. There are a lot of opportunities there. I still think that the federal government has a strong role.
Personally, I would like to see the federation be — I do not know if “in charge” are the right words — but that there would be something almost like the Health Act where there are rules you have to follow but the provinces and territories have flexibility to meet their own needs. There are similarities, as you said. But every region of the country is different. They have different needs at different times. There should be flexibility built in.
Mr. Bergman: In terms of temporary foreign workers in the Atlantic region, those with what is called a positive LMIA made up about 3% of the workforce in 2021. I think in agriculture, forestry and fishing they made up about 7% of our employed workforce. Then in manufacturing they made up about 5%.
Certainly, temporary foreign workers are an important element, particularly in agriculture and agri-food in general, and agri-food would also include seafood processing, so attracting workers there is important.
I know that here in Nova Scotia within the last year they made changes for the accommodations and food services sector to bring in more temporary foreign workers under occupations like light-duty cleaners, food and beverage servers, cooks and chefs and so on.
Certainly, it is an important element of our workforce in those seasonal industries that Dr. Ramsey talked about. We are seeing difficulty here in the Atlantic region as well attracting workers into those particular sectors.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to our witnesses.
I want to observe that I was born and raised in Neepawa, Manitoba, and what I am hearing today is a very different town from the one that I grew up in.
My question is brief. The pilot program that you referenced that really was such a successful start to the growth and improvement in the town of Neepawa, both economically and socially — am I correct that Manitoba essentially cancelled that program, and that there is nothing similar currently operating in the province of Manitoba?
Mr. Ramsey: First of all, I will say it correctly: It was a Provincial Nominee Program. It was a pilot program. It needed the go-ahead of the federal government for it to be operational. So I’m not sure that Manitoba ended it. I think it was the federal government that ended it. I’m not sure which one.
Senator McPhedran: I think it was Manitoba that opted out. We can check that.
Mr. Ramsey: They did? I apologize.
Senator McPhedran: We can check that.
The Chair: We will do that. Senator McPhedran, a follow‑up?
Senator McPhedran: The question is the strategy.
The Chair: In the second round, perhaps we can come back to you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I’ll ask my question in French. I’d like an answer from each of the witnesses, and perhaps Mr. Bergman can start.
It’s a very broad question because it’s our first meeting in this study. What I’m hearing is that this is a fairly large and complex topic, with many different challenges, obstacles, angles and aspects to it. We’re starting this new study, and we’re still finalizing this work plan. I would just ask you what the priorities should be if we were to tackle two, three or four of them.
[English]
Mr. Bergman: Yes, certainly, senator, that is a great question.
I can tell you from the perspective in the Atlantic region, we are seeing immigration really make a difference. P.E.I. has led population growth in Canada for the last five years in a row, mainly due to an increase in immigration.
In the brief we submitted yesterday and that I presented today, we talked about how immigration can help address our aging population. We are seeing evidence of that in P.E.I. In P.E.I., the median age in 2016 was 43.9 years. In 2022, the median age in P.E.I. was 41.7 years. So the median age is actually starting to decline, and that is because, through immigration, you can actually bring in younger workers and people.
Of course, immigrants also age, as Canadians do. That is not a permanent solution.
Immigration is very important in that respect, as are temporary foreign workers. That report that I quoted earlier released by Statistics Canada on June 22 showed that Temporary Foreign Worker Program entrants increased sevenfold between 2000 and 2019. So a lot of employers in Canada are taking advantage of temporary foreign workers. It has really grown across the years. Even international students have grown sixteenfold between 2000 and 2019, as quoted in that same report. Those are national numbers, not specific to the Atlantic region.
As I pointed out in our brief, immigration and the Temporary Foreign Worker Program are key areas we need to focus on. Certainly, when you look to the title of the targets released earlier this week for immigration, it spoke about a plan to grow Canada’s economy. APEC would concur with that viewpoint.
In terms of processing backlogs, we do not have numbers for the international students — I know I was asked a question about that earlier — but I know about 40% of the Provincial Nominee Program is currently in backlog, nationally. Here in the Atlantic region, New Brunswick has come out a couple of times recently and said there are about 10,000 permanent residents —
The Chair: I will give Manitoba an opportunity to answer that important question.
Mr. Bergman: Yes, sure. Thank you.
The Chair: Professor Ramsey, on the topic of priorities.
Mr. Ramsey: Yes, priorities. I missed the very first part of the question, because I was trying to figure out the Zoom buttons, but through that response, I think I understand the main point.
First of all, there is a backlog for post-secondary education. Universities — I know even in Brandon — and in the college system, we’re seeing more international students coming into college. One priority would be to make it easier for students to come. I know in our graduate program, we had about eight people who could not make it in the fall because of the backlog.
I would just return to farming. It is also an issue of food security. Profitability for the farm sector has struggled for an awfully long time. So I would like to see a priority for agriculture so that farmers know in advance what they can expect, how many, who and from where they can bring in. I know that it is extremely important to farmers when they are at the kitchen table trying to figure out the next year.
The Chair: Thank you very much for those answers.
Senator Petitclerc, your time is over, so we are moving on to the next senator.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I’ll start with Mr. Bergman. Given that the labour crisis is affecting all parts of the economy and that there are already close to one million jobs available in Canada, what do you think about eliminating the market impact study, which already costs employers $1,000? Do you think that would be relevant or useful, or would it make it easier to hire TFWs?
[English]
Mr. Bergman: It is certainly an option. There are some exemptions now from the LMIA in specific situations. Like many changes to the immigration programs, or the Temporary Foreign Worker Program in this specific case, it is often best to try a pilot first to see how that exemption would work in practice and whether it makes a difference before you adopt it across the board. But anything that can be done to streamline the process and get temporary foreign workers, or TFWs, into the country more quickly makes a big difference.
Typically, for a lot of the streams, the process is often 14 months or longer. That is for some of the immigration programs; I cannot remember how long it takes for the processing of the TFWs. However, I know when we did our recent research on the accommodation and food services sectors, we did hear some concerns regarding the TFW program. Often, they were ineligible for it or, if they were, it took too long, or they would go through the process and then be unsuccessful at being able to bring people in under that program. So they spent months and months for nothing, which can be very frustrating.
The Chair: Professor Ramsey, do you have a response to that?
Mr. Ramsey: I will only add to that.
I agree with the point about having a pilot. We know there is a labour shortage, but we’re not sure how permanent that is. To make an across-the-board change — it sounds like I am contradicting myself with what I just said about farming, but I think that we need to be strategic and think this through. As I said, we do not know the length and degree of this labour shortage that we have right now, post-COVID, particularly in the services sector.
The Chair: Thank you. If I may, before we go to second round, I will ask a question — and, colleagues, there is time for a second round.
My question is to both of you. You have both spoken about labour market shortages, primarily in the agriculture and food processing industries. In some parts of Canada, primarily in Atlantic Canada, those jobs are seasonal, but they are not temporary jobs; they are permanent jobs that are seasonal. The same could be true for some of the jobs in Manitoba.
I am wondering whether it is time to start considering open work permits for that sector as opposed to work permits tied to an employer. There is not just one blueberry-picking farm in the Maritimes; there are many. There is not just one meat processing plant in Manitoba; there are many.
We have also heard about the difficulties that people experience when they are tied to a particular employer.
What about a sector-wide permit — let’s say regionally based — as opposed to a closed work permit? What is your response to that proposal?
Mr. Ramsey: I can go first and speak about agriculture, using southern Ontario as an example.
The idea sounds good, but the devil is in the details. Considering the regulations that a farmer has to go through — through health, water, housing — to make sure that they have a proper and safe environment for people to live and work in, I’m not sure farmers would be too happy knowing that people can just — pardon the pun — cherrypick where they want to be. They make an investment in their farm to bring people in, including the transportation to get them there and back.
It might work in some sectors, but I am not sure how farmers would take to that one. I would have to visit a coffee shop.
The Chair: Mr. Bergman?
Mr. Bergman: Yes. That is a great question, Madam Chair.
There are complex dynamics there. For one thing, who would apply, then, on behalf of the industry? Would industry associations apply for that?
I know when we did our research, we had even considered the option of employers pooling or sharing labour. Your point gets to that. But keep in mind that all industries are competitive. Whether it is farming, aquaculture, seafood processing or others, all of them are competing and trying to find labour. We spoke earlier about whether one option is just to increase wages to attract labour. If one does it, everyone does it. Are you then really more competitive, or are you just paying higher wages at that point?
It is something that you have to think long and hard about how you make the process work. If the industry associations are in favour of it, then maybe it is viable — and if they can go through the application process. But how will they pass on those costs? Is it through membership fees that they will recoup those costs to apply for TFWs? They will face some of those same processing backlogs that others might face, i.e., the employers.
The Chair: It is always in the details, as you rightly point out.
We will now go to a second round.
Senator Bovey: I would like to go back to the foreign students question, if I may. Earlier, Senator Mégie asked a question about students wanting to come to Canada from Afghanistan. The problem, obviously, was the fact that in the visas they have to indicate that they will go back to their country of origin.
Last night I was at an event where a similar situation came up with students from Ukraine at the University of Manitoba. Given what is going on in Ukraine right now, their bank accounts were frozen. They were worried that they would be kicked out because they could not pay their fees and they could not pay for housing. The university set up a special fund, which fortunately is allowing them to stay. If they could not stay, they would have had to go back to Ukraine.
I wonder if there should be something in the upcoming regulations that would deal with international students from parts of the world where there are international crises.
Dr. Ramsey, being in the academic world, perhaps you could start that answer for us.
Mr. Ramsey: This will just be from my personal experience as a professor at a university.
At Brandon, we have a World University Service of Canada, or WUSC, committee that brings in three or four students a year. It would be nice to see that expanded. We are seeing a lot of issues around the world. I am living it, watching the news every day here in Germany. It would be wonderful to see an approach that could bring in students who are seeking a new life through education in Canada, whether from Ukraine, Afghanistan or Iran. I think it is a great idea.
Senator Bovey: I wonder, Mr. Bergman, if you have thoughts about that question.
Mr. Bergman: We put out an Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, or APEC, report card in May of 2019. Even then, we were starting to see gains in the region’s population. I remember looking at the data. Some of it was due to the Syrian refugee crisis in 2017-2019. We saw an influx of Syrian refugees, and not just as international students, obviously; some became permanent residents. Here, in the barber shop in the bottom floor of our building, where I am sitting now, there is a Syrian refugee who started a business. Certainly, it makes a difference in that respect.
Obviously, the federal government has expedited some of the processing requirements for Ukrainian refugees because of the current conflict. I agree; you have to take advantage of these opportunities to fill labour shortages, but the more important reason we need to do this is obviously humanitarian.
Senator Patterson: Both of our witnesses in this panel have spoken about processing backlogs. We heard from a witness earlier this morning that the processing standard for Express Entry is six months, which surprised me. I just celebrated the end of an eight-year saga for one of my constituents to get permanent residence through Express Entry. Processing times are typically more like 24 months.
Is there a recommendation for tackling this issue? Is the vehicle to have processing standards built into the department’s guidelines? I would like to ask both of you whether you have a comment about how we deal with the processing backlog curse. Thank you.
Mr. Bergman: It is a tough question. Obviously, they already have targets. The reality is that even with targets, we have a backlog. That is partly the answer to your question — the reality we’re in right now.
As I said earlier, for the Provincial Nominee Program and Express Entry, there is about a 40% backlog. Basically, I think the processing backlog in New Brunswick for all permanent resident applications is around 10,000, and possibly a similar number in Nova Scotia as well. The backlog is very real and very extensive. At the same time, we know there will be a lot of immigrants to Atlantic Canada next year.
In my presentation I mentioned that we’re on track to reach about 25,000 permanent residents in Atlantic Canada this year. We’re probably going to hit 30,000 next year, and that is partly due to the backlog. They will get here eventually; it is just unfortunate that we cannot get them here sooner.
Mr. Ramsey: I would make the point that, again, how much of this comes out of the pandemic? There has always been a backlog. We know that in various things — whether it’s this or passports or health care — backlogs have taken place. I would not want to rewrite the whole thing knowing that part of it might solve itself over a short period of time.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Dr. Ramsey, you’ve talked about a pilot project and how successful it was. Are you satisfied that the pilot projects have found some lessons learned and then applied them properly to policy in Canada? I am thinking in particular of the acute situation of issues faced in rural Canada — rural Saskatchewan and Manitoba — with seasonal temporary workers.
Mr. Ramsey: The Provincial Nominee Program was very successful because it was targeted to the communities’ needs. I mentioned the hog processing sector, but you can also look to Winkler and Morden in southern Manitoba — also growing communities. They had both an agricultural need as well as a manufacturing need.
Again, it is bringing families, not workers on their own. When you bring in families and they are connected to the community — Winkler did a very good job of attracting people who they knew would be welcomed and be a part of the community from day one. Only a community, through its province, can do that kind of a job and have the success they’ve had in places like Winkler, Neepawa and Brandon.
The Chair: Professor Ramsey, you support bringing in temporary foreign workers to meet essential labour market shortages, but you support them more if they come in with their families so that they are more likely to stay and settle; am I clear in hearing you say that?
Mr. Ramsey: I am saying that if you bring in families, it will be more successful. That is the experience we’ve had in Manitoba. You can see this through all of the RDI research they have been doing. Again, I ask the committee to contact Westman Immigrant Services because they will tell you the story as well.
The Chair: Mr. Bergman, is that an experience you have observed in Atlantic Canada, that when temporary foreign workers come with their families and with some community support, they are more likely to succeed, stay and transit to permanency, and therefore into your population?
Mr. Bergman: I did pick up on your cluster question earlier as well. Going back 15 to 20 years, at that time, according to the Longitudinal Immigration Database that Statistics Canada maintains, about 84% to 85% of the immigrants went to three large urban centres in Canada: Montreal, Toronto and the Greater Vancouver area.
That percentage over time has dropped a bit. Even if you look at the latest June 22 report that I spoke about, as well as the October 26 release of the immigration data, the percentage of immigrants who go to those three urban centres is now lower. That is because we are slowly developing populations of visible minorities and immigrants in other areas of the country.
Certainly, if they bring their families, and you create a cluster and a sense of a community and attachment, that can help. At the same time, you have those large draws. We’re still going to have the large cities where there are more people who speak their language, respect their culture and whom they can relate to. Those are personal decisions.
The Chair: Yes. At some point this committee may be advised to look at the experience of Winnipeg and the Filipino community, but our time is up.
Colleagues, our meeting is adjourned. We will meet next on this study the week after our break. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)