THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 9, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 11:31 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 Patricia Bovey (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning. My name is Patricia Bovey. I am a senator from Manitoba and I am the deputy chair of this committee. I will now ask my colleagues around the table to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Greenwood: Good morning. My name is Margo Greenwood, and I’m from the province of British Columbia.
Senator Osler: Good morning. Senator Osler representing Manitoba.
Senator Kutcher: Good morning. Stan Kutcher from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Good morning. I’m Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Good morning. My name is Pat Duncan. I’m the senator from the Yukon.
Senator Bernard: I’m Wanda Thomas Bernard from Nova Scotia.
The Deputy Chair: Today, our committee continues its study on Canada’s temporary and migrant labour force. It’s my very great pleasure to welcome our first panel. Sara Asalya, Executive Director of Newcomer Women’s Services Toronto is with us in person. By video conference, we have Anna Triandafyllidou, Professor and Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration at Toronto Metropolitan University. I want to thank you both for being with us today, and I would like to welcome those watching these proceedings by video conference.
As we begin with the opening statements, I’m going to remind our two witnesses that you each have five minutes for your statements. We’re pretty strict about the five minutes. I’ll put my hand up at that point. That will allow everybody to have opportunities to ask questions later on.
Ms. Asalya, the floor is yours to begin.
Sara Asalya, Executive Director, Newcomer Women’s Services Toronto: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, senators, for inviting me to be part of this panel today. I would like to start my remarks by positioning myself as a settler on this land, as an immigrant, as a mother and as someone who has been involved in the immigrant community and space for over a decade advocating for better policies and support services, particularly for migrant women.
I’m here today representing Newcomer Women’s Services Toronto. We are a multi-service, not-for-profit agency operating in two Toronto locations and have been providing essential services and support programs for migrant women with different migration statuses for over 40 years.
My presentation today will be focused on migrant and temporary workers who are women and their experiences while working towards regularizing their status, accessing support services and settling in Canada. In particular, I’ll focus on labour market experiences for these women in key sectors, including accommodation, food services, tourism and the care economy.
Migrant women make up a significant portion of the temporary and migrant labour force. These women oftentimes face unique challenges and barriers due to their gender, immigration status and employment situation. According to data from Statistics Canada, women represent a significant portion of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program in Canada, particularly in industries such as caregiving, food service and hospitality. I will be providing high-level statistics — some numbers to shed light on the experiences of these women.
In 2019, according to an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, study, women accounted for almost 51% of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program in Canada. A study by the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women found that female migrant workers in Canada are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, including sexual harassment, wage theft and unsafe working conditions. These risks may be heightened for workers who have limited English language skills and abilities, a limited social network and limited knowledge of their legal rights in Canada.
When it comes in particular to the caregiving sector, we know this sector is occupied mainly by migrant women and that 97% of temporary foreign workers employed in the care economy under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program are women.
When it comes to food service and hospitality, according to a 2019 report by the Canadian government, we know that up to 45% of jobs in that sector are occupied by migrant women.
We know that there have been a lot of recent efforts by the Government of Canada to really improve the experiences of migrant women and improve the protection measures and mechanisms for them. However, despite these recent and welcomed efforts by the Canadian government, recent research and studies — including a study I recently conducted focusing on migrant women’s vulnerability in Toronto — indicate that these women continue to experience exploitation, discrimination and vulnerability in the workplace, and they continue to face multiple barriers and challenges to accessing basic support services.
I conducted a total of 16 interviews with migrant women who identify as racialized women. The study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and it was part of a larger international research initiative investigating international protection systems and measures for migrants and refugees. Countries from Europe, North America and South Africa all participated in the study.
The study aimed to understand, first of all, the migrant woman’s immigration experiences, including vulnerabilities, special needs and the protection mechanisms available to them. Second, the study looked at the nature of the challenges they have faced during their immigration, settlements and status regularization process, including their encounters and interactions with Canadian policies and agents as well as non-governmental organizations. Finally, the study tried to understand how the intersections of race, gender and legal status, as well as the migration-status regulation context, created multiple forms of discrimination and vulnerabilities experienced by migrant women.
What was interesting from some of the high-level findings was that all 16 participants confirmed that they were not aware of their legal rights in Canada. All 16 participants confirmed —
The Deputy Chair: I’m afraid your time is just about up. Can you conclude very quickly?
Ms. Asalya: Absolutely. The main finding from the study is that the majority of these women experienced discrimination, racism and exploitation at the hands of employers in the workplace. They were not aware of their legal rights in Canada. They struggled to access basic support services, including mental health, health care, settlement and housing. They also identified the need for immigration officers to really have a more culture-sensitive approach when they process their applications to regularize their status.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. There’s lots of really useful information there.
It’s now my pleasure to welcome Dr. Triandafyllidou. May I invite you to give us your five minutes?
Anna Triandafyllidou, Professor and Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration, Toronto Metropolitan University: Dear senators, thank you for having me here. It’s an honour to connect with you from Toronto, which is on the Dish With One Spoon Territory. Also, note that I am a settler in this land; I came to Canada in 2019.
I would like to focus specifically on temporary migrant workers and the tourism industry. I want to start by asking what we know. We know this is a labour-intensive industry. It’s often a first-time job for young people, and it’s also a huge employer for skill-discounted newcomers. The conditions in the industry are poor. I can elaborate later in the question session on what I mean.
We’ve noticed that, even before the pandemic, there has been a significant increase in temporary labour migration generally and in different categories. We don’t know exactly where people are going because they come through the International Mobility Program.
We also know that the pandemic caused an upheaval in the tourism sector. The sector has bounced back very quickly after the pandemic, almost surprisingly quickly, and the shortages in the sector have been exacerbated.
I want to focus on the different kinds of shortages we have because there are different occupations in the industry. There are different recruitment channels for the different types of jobs. We have elementary jobs, like kitchen helpers and waiters and assistant waiters. Those are generally recruited through informal channels, word-of-mouth networks and co-ethnic networks. Oftentimes, these are people present in Canada with an international student permit or a postgraduate work permit.
Then we have skilled trades, like chefs and cooks and managers. Skilled tradespeople are often invited to come from abroad. We know recently that there were 22,000 people who came over the last four years for this kind of job. Of course, the question arises whether we have this talent here in Canada already or whether we need to bring this talent.
In these two types of jobs, skilled trades and managers, we generally have more formal recruitment channels.
Why does all this matter? It matters because we have here permanent shortages of labour being filled with temporary labour, and this, from both labour market and migration perspectives, is wrong.
What are the problems? Some of the problems we’ve already heard about, and they’re very important. Another problem arises for international students and particularly college students. We know that college students pay very high fees, and they are making up for cuts to public funding of colleges. From qualitative and quantitative research, we know that, generally, people come here having it in mind to stay, so it’s more than an education pathway. It’s an immigration pathway. We also know that they face acute bottlenecks because there is no cap to the people we bring as temporary migrants, but there is a cap to those we welcome as permanent residents.
Why does this also matter? It’s because this imbalance disincentivizes employers from improving conditions. The conditions that I mentioned before include no overtime pay for many people, no stability, no benefits and no predictability of shifts. For women migrants, that poses particular challenges. Very little job training is offered, and there is no career progression.
What do we need to do about it? Two things — we need to create pressure for employers to improve conditions, and we also need to better balance our temporary and permanent migration systems. I’ll stop there and look forward to your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you both for your remarks.
Senators will have five minutes for questions and answers. I will ask you to stick to that timing.
Before asking questions, I remind members in the room, please, to refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. That will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact on committee staff in the room.
Colleagues, I’m going to approach the questions and answers like I did yesterday. I already have a list with all your names, and we will go through that list. You can focus on what you’re hearing rather than trying to get us to see your hand. If I come to you and you don’t have any questions, please free to cede your time. With time permitting, we will proceed to a second round of questions.
Senator Osler, lead us off with the first question, please.
Senator Osler: Thank you to both of the witnesses for your testimony today. We have heard that temporary foreign workers, particularly racialized women, continue to be vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and discrimination. Do you think the current regulatory amendments and protections incorporate an intersectional and equity lens? If yes, please share how they are sufficient; if no, could you please provide your recommendations to this committee? The question is open to both witnesses, if you would like to answer. Perhaps we’ll start with Ms. Asalya.
Ms. Asalya: Thank you very much. It’s a great question. As I mentioned, we welcomed the recent efforts of the Canadian government focusing on implementing a more gendered and intersectional lens when it comes to migration policies, especially in addressing the unique needs of migrant women and their vulnerabilities. Our recent study is showing that this trend of women still being vulnerable and exposed to exploitation in the workplace tells us that the policy is still at the policy level, but it’s not implemented on the ground.
In terms of recommendations, it would be very helpful to have an accountability framework when it comes to employers being compliant with different employment law regulations. These women — and the study has mentioned that — are being paid less than minimum wage. They are being forced by their employers to work in unsafe conditions. I wonder if there are any monitoring or protection measures being implemented by the government to hold employers accountable and to make sure that these women will not be in positions to be vulnerable and exposed to exploitation and/or discrimination.
Senator Osler: Thank you very much.
Ms. Triandafyllidou: I agree with Ms. Asalya. The changes are in the right direction, but there’s more to be done. We know that, in the labour market, unfortunately, economic pressure is what often matters to employers.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I wanted to ask you something, just to find out a bit more. What is happening on the ground for workers? You were talking about women who, despite the fact that there are safeguards in place, are not aware of the safeguards or options available to them and who continue to experience great vulnerability and abuse.
A number of earlier witnesses spoke about permits and the nature of the relationship itself, and that was covered at length. What I’m interested in, and what has received less attention, is whether there is some support on the ground, support that is culturally appropriate, of course, either at the community level or by sector.
I’m trying to get a sense of it. When you come in as a worker, you may not know anyone, and you find yourself in a certain environment. Obviously, these workers are not made aware of any recourse they have. Can we do more on that front?
Ms. Triandafyllidou: Thank you very much, senator. We must distinguish between people with permanent status and those with temporary status. An immigrant with temporary status does not have access to settlement agencies that provide support. That’s the issue: there is no support. Of course, there are community organizations that try not to differentiate, but we also know that settlement agencies are obliged to do so because their funding depends on it.
That is a problem. As I said in my remarks, we know that temporary immigration has increased significantly in recent years. In November, we discussed the fact that Canada accepted almost half a million new permanent residents, but we didn’t talk about the fact that, in 2022, Canada took in almost 1.2 million temporary immigrants, half of whom were foreign students and half of whom had temporary work permits.
Secondly, as Ms. Asalya explained, there is an issue related to awareness of rights; temporary immigrants do not know their rights and do not know where to turn. On the ground, schools provide an opportunity, because, if you’re sending your kids to school, there’s contact with the school, and schools have very good relationships with the settlement agencies and often don’t make a formal distinction.
It’s also about my personal experience of settling in Toronto, with Toronto’s French-language public schools. When I arrived, I was not a permanent resident; I was a temporary resident. There is a major challenge for settlement agencies, because, given the number of temporary immigrants, the capacity to serve them is lacking. That’s where there are great vulnerabilities. I’ll stop there.
[English]
Ms. Asalya: I did want to agree with Ms. Triandafyllidou in terms of legal status really determines what these migrant women can and cannot access. Our organization is a settlement organization, so we are the front line on the ground delivering those services. It is usually the organization that is the first point of contact for any newcomers or migrants to Toronto; however, based on the level of funding, whether municipal, provincial or federal, it will determine who we can offer the service to or not.
In terms of your question around offering culturally sensitive and trauma-informed approaches to these women, absolutely. However, the non-profit sector, the settlement sector, is at overcapacity with lack of funding or funding at status quo. We have seen a record number of migrant women accessing our services, especially with women disclosing their experiences with gender-based violence, and it takes them a great deal of building trust with the workers to disclose those experiences. We’re seeing a lot of people accessing the services, especially during the pandemic, and we’re trying our best. What I would advocate for is a more sustainable funding model that really helps more collaboration and all actors involved in the settlement experience of newcomers to come together to provide better support services.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Bernard: My question really picks up on this. First of all, thank you to both witnesses for your testimony this morning. You both alluded to the working conditions. I think the terms used were “poor conditions,” “unsafe conditions.” This morning we’re focusing specifically on the hospitality sector, and I would appreciate it if you could both tell us a bit more about those working conditions and also if there are specific industries in the hospitality sector that have been more problematic than others.
Ms. Asalya: I think with the hospitality sector in particular, and during the pandemic, what we’ve heard from some of the migrant women who access our services is it’s not only the poor working conditions. This is one issue. It’s also the fact that they are women and they are racialized. It was brought to our attention the intersection of race, gender and legal status combined together really put these women in a much more vulnerable position, especially in the workplace. They are facing discrimination based on legal status, based on the fact that they cannot speak about their rights, they cannot report any abuse happening in the workplace, but it’s also based on their race and their gender.
One of the women I interviewed, for example, is a Black migrant woman who said she was working in a home care setting. She said the other workers were not assigned cases with COVID, but she was, and she couldn’t say no to it, but nobody else was assigned these cases. It’s not only in the hospitality or in the care economy, it’s across all industries, but they’re more vulnerable to these sectors because the conditions of the job — there is no protection, there are no benefits, they are not long term, they are not permanent. They are precarious jobs by nature. The hospitality sector and the care economy are precarious jobs that no one in Canada wants to do. Therefore, we bring these migrant women, and that’s why we see the majority of these sectors are occupied by temporary migrant workers.
Ms. Triandafyllidou: I think that the care economy is slightly different from the hospitality sector, and I would like to focus on the hospitality sector because of the focus of this session.
As I said, it’s a low entry threshold and high-turnover labour market sector with low wages and high stress, mental and physical. Certainly, it is a gendered experience as well, and it is an intersectional experience. I would agree there is some parallel there, where the less-well-paid jobs in what is called the backroom, in the kitchens, are generally taken up by racialized people. Language ability plays a role. Obviously, in the backroom, jobs are taken by people with less language abilities. What we see is there is a very high turnover. You are hired today, and you can be laid off the day after, unless you work full-time in the sector, which is not the case for the majority of the workers in the sector, in the elementary jobs. Unless you work full-time, you don’t get overtime pay. You can work a shift of 12 or 14 hours, and if your total hours in the week are under 36.25 in Ontario, you don’t get overtime pay. Your shift can change any time, and there are no benefits, and there is no stability. There is no job dignity, and certainly the intersectional disadvantage is pronounced.
As I said, I think it is important to distinguish between people with temporary status and permanent status. This is not to say that people with permanent status have it easy. They don’t. At least they have their socio-economic rights. People who have insecure status are particularly vulnerable, and I think this needs to be considered.
On the other hand, we can see, for instance, the sector is a refuge of employment for many people whose skills — and I think that’s particularly the case for women — and previous studies and professional experience is not recognized. The question, of course, can be whether this sector can be a passage for young people during their studies who work in the sector and then move on to a skilled job in their sector of studies, or whether it can be a stepping stone for newcomers where you improve your language skills and learn some transferable skills like customer service and sales. How do we do that? I have in mind a pioneering project that is implemented that is trying to transfer people from the retail and the restaurant industry to digital advances in agriculture. So they are taking the sales skills of the people in the communication area, the customer service skills, and giving them the tech training. So I think that is another area that we need to look at.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you to our witnesses. I’d like to again follow up, focusing on the hospitality sector. There were discussions about risk of abuse, sexual, physical and economic. I have three questions.
Can you give us an idea of the magnitude of the problem? What proportion of people are affected in what different kinds of ways? Second, when abuse occurs, what existing recourse or remedies do people have to actually deal with this issue, and how effective are they? Third, of what is available now and is helpful, what are the things that need to be scaled up and made more accessible, and what is not currently being done, what should be done, and how best should that be done?
Ms. Asalya: Thank you. I will try my best to answer and address all much your questions.
In terms of the magnitude of the problem of temporary migrant workers who are women experiencing physical abuse in the workplace — or sexual or verbal abuse and discrimination — I believe the problem is quite big. We know in the research that this problem has been documented well enough for so many years, and yet our recent study that was conducted in March 2022 confirmed the very same fact. We also know that from working on the ground, hearing the voices, experiences and stories directly from these women.
So we have made progress, but we need to continue exploring ways to really protect these women. Implementing some protection measures would help.
In terms of abuse occurring, what remedy is there? I know the Canadian government on their website has a lot of information on how to report abuse happening in the workplace, especially for migrant workers. The information is there; the question is really how these migrant workers and women can access the information. It is not easy or accessible. Sometimes they have language barriers. Also, it is the job of the employer to educate these women and create some accountability framework that establishes that if something happens in the workplace, this is how to report it.
But oftentimes, these women are scared to report it because they get fired from the workplace and then they get deported. So there is no safe space, protection or a fancy pathway for them to be able to disclose their experiences. That’s something the Government of Canada, the workplaces, employers and other advocacy groups need to work together to think of safe ways of reporting abuse that happens to these migrant women.
Are the current measures effective? I don’t think so. We see these women disclosing their experiences to us and to their counsellors, but they go nowhere. When they disclose them to us, they say, “Please, please don’t tell the employer,” because they are scared of losing their jobs.
I hope that addresses some of your questions.
In terms of recommendations of what can be done, I want to reiterate the fact that we need to have some kind of accountability framework and some protection measures. Also, the Government of Canada can really do some audits on these workplaces on a regular basis to see if they are compliant with different employment laws and regulations to protect these women. Of course, having a system in place where these women can report their abuse without worrying about any repercussions of losing the job or being deported is essential.
Ms. Triandafyllidou: I would like to add a couple of things.
The proportion of people suffering abuse cannot be known because it is a hidden phenomenon by its nature. It is a little bit like criminality; we know that people are committing crimes — police apprehend them, but we don’t know the full size of the phenomenon. As we heard, we have, unfortunately, very good reasons to believe it is relatively widespread.
I want to again emphasize, first of all, the importance of knowing one’s rights. Not everyone knows their rights, and they don’t know who to talk to. Trust relations, whether in the immediate family or social circle or through an organization, are very important to overcome language barriers. As we know, sometimes terminology can be difficult, even for people who are fluent in the language.
Second, temporary migrant workers, if they are recruited for the job, they come with a closed work permit. If you complain and lose your job, then you have to leave. So the stakes are very high.
We know international students recently were allowed, in specific sectors, to work for over 20 hours per week, which is full-time, and many people thought that was a bad thing. Unfortunately, I personally believe it was a good thing, because we know this was happening and people were vulnerable. If you were working above or beyond what was allowed by your permit, then you were completely at the mercy of the employer who could then report you in to the authorities. Then, of course, the employer was not complying with the rules — but the sanction for the international student who was not complying with the rules was being trapped in cancellation of their permit and the loss of their status.
So the problem in these —
The Deputy Chair: Let me interrupt. At the moment, we are beyond our five minutes on this. Maybe we can come back on the second round to carry on.
Senator McPhedran: My first question is to Dr. Triandafyllidou.
We’ve heard from previous witnesses about changes to our systems. We are hearing good practical points from both of you this morning — and thank you for being with us.
As we have asked previous witnesses, my question is this: Is there another country that’s doing this better? Is there something we should be looking at in another jurisdiction? Thus far, no one has provided us with such information, but do you know of any programs internationally that provide some of the regulatory and structural stability and safety for workers that we are discussing here today?
Ms. Triandafyllidou: Thank you for your question. It is a big question.
Your question is if other countries are doing better in transitioning temporary migrants to permanent residency or for recruiting for the hospitality industry?
Senator McPhedran: With the goal that we’re discussing here, which is greater safety and stability for workers, yes.
Ms. Triandafyllidou: I can say that I think it is valid for both temporary migrant workers and permanent migrants who are newcomers that there should not be a complaint mechanism, because people won’t use it. There should be monitoring of the employers and there should be a mechanism to perform check-ins with the workers without the employers knowing. It could be a hotline where people can complain.
The monitoring should be in play. It should not be digital; it should be in person. It should be unannounced. We have some very good lessons from the agricultural sector. It should be unannounced, and there should be clear sanctions for an employer that is not complying. There should be training for both the employers and the employees as to what your responsibilities are when you hire someone, particularly someone with temporary status. There should be some training.
I will agree with Ms. Asalya on this: It should not just be links sending you to things. It could be a virtual training where you follow a video on what to do.
Countries that do this better — it is a big question.
Senator McPhedran: So then there is no other country? This is something that we have to do? It has to be Canadian-made?
Ms. Triandafyllidou: I would like to say that the glass is half-full, not half-empty in Canada. I think we are doing well but we have to do better.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Ms. Asalya, my question to you is also prompted because we are here the day after International Women’s Day. It is about wanting to look at, as we are, the migrant workforce individuals but also the structure. I know there is no magic wand, but for the kind of report we are looking at, what are the top two priorities that we really have to make sure we look at closely and address in our report?
Ms. Asalya: I think there are two things. Given the International Women’s Day conversation and the focus on migrant women who identify as women, there is a need to take a gendered and intersectional approach in developing policies and implementing them on the ground.
One of the things that can be done, following what Ms. Triandafyllidou mentioned, is that a hotline is a terrific idea, but why not have someone who is a social worker, paid by the government, to be in the workplace where these migrants can access counselling and support services, and if there is a complaint, then it goes through this confidential process? Because it is not only about complaints and if and when something happens; they need something larger than this. We need to take into consideration the holistic migrant and settlement experience. The economic barrier is one of them, but there are also social, cultural and language barriers. The other one is protection mechanisms for them.
Senator Duncan: I would like to express my thanks to the witnesses for their appearance today, and I will cede my time to my colleagues. Thank you.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you to both of you for being here. I’m grateful to hear this discussion.
I’ve heard a lot of recommendations around accountability — in particular, monitoring and auditing of the workplace. I think those are really important, and I hope I’ve got them.
I’m thinking about the last comment around social workers in the workplace — in the health system, we often call those “navigators” — who help us to navigate our way through various systems. There might be a lesson from that place that we could take.
My question is around awareness — awareness of rights and awareness of available services. I am curious because I don’t know the process, so forgive me if this is a naive question.
Prior to coming to Canada, how aware are people of what their rights are and what services are available once they are here? How can we better prepare women and families to come to a place that’s unfamiliar to them? Once they are here and all these things are happening to them, it’s sort of remedial. How can we be proactive in terms of that awareness and availability?
Ms. Asalya: Thank you. It’s a great question.
Recently, Canada started the pre-arrival programs. To my knowledge, these programs are for those who are coming to Canada through a more stabilized permanent residency pathway, and less for temporary migrant workers. I’m not aware that there is anything for temporary migrant workers prior to their arrival to educate them on their rights and so on. It would be terrific if we could duplicate the pre-arrival that currently exists in some capacity. I don’t think the pre-arrival program is in all organizations, but that’s something we could consider.
In terms of after they come to Canada, the issue is that before, during and after their stay in Canada, they continue to be unaware of their rights. That’s problematic, in my opinion. I liked when you mentioned the system navigator. It is perhaps a better role for somebody to assist these individuals, but our systems function in silos. There is no coordination or collaboration among health, legal, settlement and employment. Everyone has their own policies and they are governed by different jurisdictions. Some fall under federal and some under provincial. In the middle, these migrant workers are lost.
So a system navigator, a system where they can access all these resources, a one-stop shop whereby it is a safe pathway for them would be even better if we implement accountability measures as part of that system such that, if there is abuse happening, this is how to report it. As Ms. Triandafyllidou mentioned, it takes a great deal of time to build trust with your counsellor. We spend the time to build the trust and to assist them with employment, and then they leave the organization and go somewhere else to find legal. That all takes time and effort and taxes their mental and physical capacity. It ends up being a long, lonely and frustrating journey for these migrants.
Ms. Triandafyllidou: I would like to add that pre-arrival services are available, but most people don’t know about them. Information has to come from a trustworthy source. We know that most people we trust are our family or friends rather than some organization that we don’t know. This is something we can build on. We know that several settlement organizations are working on this. In my team, we are working on an innovative service delivery approach that would utilize more social media and digital technology.
Having said that, I understand that social workers or navigators can be in hospitals and large employers. But if the employer is a small restaurant — and a small restaurant can have 50 or 60 people working there — how do we do that? I don’t think we would have the capacity to do that. That’s a question that we need to think about.
Senator Osler: This is an open question for both witnesses. This committee has heard testimony that the use of employers’ specific work permits increases the vulnerability of foreign workers for exploitation by employers. Several witnesses have called for work permits to be open.
This committee would appreciate your thoughts on open work permits and/or open work permits with a defined pathway to permanent residency. Would they improve protections for temporary foreign workers, particularly vulnerable women?
Ms. Triandafyllidou: Absolutely, open work permits are crucial. We know this from studies in many different countries. Unless your employer is a university, as in my case, a closed work permit is a bad thing.
Open work permits are important transitions. As I said in my introductory statement, this is a big issue right now in Canada. There is no silver bullet or simple solution. We need to work on many fronts. We need to work on rebalancing the international education pathway. We need to rebalance the temporary and the permanent. We appreciate the challenges of employers in terms of skills and labour shortages, but we need to work on all these fronts to get our system balanced again. We are in a very unbalanced situation. We know that not all employers are unscrupulous or exploitative, but some are.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Asalya, do you have anything to add?
Ms. Asalya: No, I think she summed it up really well.
Senator Petitclerc: I, too, will ask a basic question. I am trying to get a sense of someone who is a temporary migrant woman. They have this opportunity, so they come to Canada. They arrive at the airport. Is the entry point not the place where we could provide some information and support? I’m sorry; this is very basic, but how does it happen? Someone lands here. Are they on their own? Are they in a group? Are they going to their employer right away, and then you have the imbalance of power? When they land, are they in touch with one resource, with the appropriate language and culture? I’m wondering where we fail.
Ms. Asalya: I was going to pass it to Ms. Triandafyllidou for the temporary one, but I can speak generally for anybody who is coming to Canada, and especially about the experiences of the 16 migrant women whom I have interviewed.
They land, and at the airport they give them a lovely package of so much information, pamphlets, brochures and flyers. Then you are on your own. You have to figure out how to exit the airport, how to find a bus stop, and where to find shelter. They navigate the process on their own.
I’m not sure with temporary workers if there are arrangements with employers for a pick-up and providing early support. Maybe Ms. Triandafyllidou has more to say on that.
Ms. Triandafyllidou: When someone is a temporary worker, they don’t get any support because there is no idea that there should be any support. Unfortunately, in that arm, IRCC’s approach is a little outdated. You come for a definite period of time to do a specific job and then you leave, but we know this is not what is happening.
It is up to the employer, of course, to provide supports. Some employers do and others don’t. Sometimes the supports come too late. From the nearly half-million people who were welcomed in Canada as permanent residents — and I want to specify that it is not that they came to Canada; they were welcomed as permanent residents. They were not physical entries, they were technical entries. Many have already spent several years in the country. They are settled in the country and they don’t need that support any more.
Senator Bernard: I want to follow up on the question I was asking in the first round. As you were both sharing examples of working conditions, my mind went to the fact that these are human rights violations. I know Canadian citizens and permanent residents have a difficult time going through a human rights complaint process because it can take years, for example.
Could you speak to whether or not these workers would have access to human rights legislation, and also if there are some recommendations around preventing this kind of abuse in workplaces? That is for either of our witnesses.
Ms. Asalya: First and foremost is for employers to remember that these are human beings before employees. I think Ms. Triandafyllidou mentioned earlier in her remarks that employers and workplaces care about outcomes and productivity. You are here to deliver something and it is less about the well-being of the employee. Unfortunately, we see this a lot in workplaces, not only in the case of temporary workers. And employers need to do a better job in terms of finding that balance, where employees can feel safe and productive, but also protection measures. In any Canadian workplace setting, this is still an issue where employees can feel safe and can report abuse if it happens.
In terms of whether migrant workers have channels or ways to report human rights complaints, I would assume there must be something in the system that would allow them to go through this process. Even if that is the case — I’m not 100% sure — and if that really exists, which would be wonderful, I would doubt that migrant workers would go through that. Really, in the first place, they wouldn’t even file a complaint of abuse in the workplace, let alone going through a human rights complaint process. There is a lot of fear around losing the job, deportation. It’s difficult for them.
We could do a little bit of education and awareness in the workplaces offering this kind of information, and pathways or channels where these immigrants can go and file such complaints when and if things happen, but I’m not sure if migrant workers themselves would be receptive to the idea without fearing the repercussions of filing a complaint of this nature.
Senator Kutcher: I will actually switch my question based on some of the discussion that just happened.
When I went to medical school, one of the things that our school did, which was unique at the time, was to provide every student with a mentor. This was in the early 1970s. If you had a problem, you went to your mentor. That doesn’t seem like such a big thing to do.
It does strike me that Canada does not welcome temporary foreign workers. We leave it to the employer to do something. We hope they do it. We have no idea if they do it. We take vulnerable people, who often have no contacts in this country, and put them contactless, without a lifeline.
You may not have a chance to answer this now but you could send us a note about it. Are there simple things that we could do? Senator Petitclerc put her finger on something. You come into the country and you have to find your own way to the exit of the airport. Are there simple things that we could do that would provide a cushion and be preventive and that would assist people? That’s what I’m asking you. We won’t have time now because our honourable chair will cut us off. But if you could write something down and send it to us, we would really appreciate that.
The Deputy Chair: Dr. Triandafyllidou, would you like to carry on?
Ms. Triandafyllidou: That’s a very good point. Again, I want to make the distinction between temporary and permanent arrivals. Again, we know that many of the permanent arrivals actually have been temporary before. We know for permanent arrivals, there are settlement services. Although there is no one to take your hand at the airport, there is a lot of support.
The information so far is given as a list of links. There could be something a little better — for instance, a short video telling you where to go, what to do or something like an app that could tell you in your neighbourhood, here are the people, here are the organizations, so with that we could improve.
With regard to the temporary migrant workers, this is different. I like very much the idea of the mentor. I mean, we have mentors in the university. I don’t know that anyone has implemented that. I wonder, for instance, in the hospitality industry, when we actually know that more than half of the people working there are young, and probably two thirds have temporary status or they are newcomers and skills-discounted, who would mentor whom? That’s a problem. But I will look into this and I will come back to you.
The Deputy Chair: Perfect. Ms. Asalya, do you have a quick response?
Ms. Asalya: Yes. I will quote one of the participants and a very lovely and interesting finding from that research study. She told me that migrants learn from the stories of other migrants. When I asked them how and where you find information, they said they don’t trust Google. They don’t trust social media and websites. They learn from one another. Again, how much is this information really trusted? But they mentor each other, and one who gets into permanent residency will really help the other with their application. That’s a beautiful idea of giving back to the community, but also building their own community and building that sense of belonging and resilience.
Senator Kutcher: Why can’t we provide resources for that?
Ms. Asalya: Where there is a will, there is a way, always, I think. I am confident that it could happen.
The Deputy Chair: We want to thank you both very much for the depth and breadth of information you have given us. It has been really helpful for this study. On behalf of all of us, I appreciate your time. Please do feel free to send us any further thoughts that you may have. I know the discussions are curtailed. It is just the nature of how Senate committees work. Please feel free to be in touch with the clerk with any other information and I guarantee she will send it to all of us.
We will turn now to our second panel. Colleagues, it’s my pleasure to welcome our witnesses. Thank you both for being with us. We have Beth Potter, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, and Olivier Bourbeau, Vice President, Federal & Québec Affairs, Restaurants Canada.
Thank you both for being with us today. I will ask you each to make your opening remarks. The custom of the Senate is to time witness testimony. We have only five minutes for each of you, and then we’ll move on to questions.
Ms. Potter, we can begin with you, and I will put my hand up at the five-minute mark.
[Translation]
Beth Potter, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tourism Industry Association of Canada: Madam Deputy Chair, members of the committee, I would like to thank you for inviting me here today. My name is Beth Potter. I am the president and CEO of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada. My remarks will be in English today, but I can try to answer your questions in French, if you wish.
[English]
Before my remarks, I acknowledge that I am joining you today from Winnipeg, from the ancestral territories of the Anishinaabeg, Cree, Dakota, Dene, Métis and Oji-Cree Nations.
The Tourism Industry Association of Canada, known as TIAC, is the national advocate for tourism in Canada. On behalf of the thousands of tourism businesses, we promote policies, programs and other initiatives that foster the sector’s growth.
Tourism matters. It enables socio-economic development, job creation and poverty reduction. This drives prosperity and provides unique opportunities to women, minorities and young people. The benefits spread far beyond direct GDP impact and employment. The indirect gains extend through the entire travel ecosystem and supply chains to other sectors.
The shortage of labour in virtually all tourism sectors has long been identified as a substantial barrier to industry growth. While the dearth in supply of workers predates the pandemic, COVID vastly compounded the problem. Today, our businesses have considerably bigger challenges attracting and retaining the necessary workforce to fully run their operations.
As you know, our sector was effectively shut down for two years. This caused considerable damage to the industry, the depths of which are only now coming to light as travel demand resumes. Though many think our sector has recovered, COVID left our sector with deep scars. We lost a lot of our workforce, took on crippling levels of debt and investment has stopped. We opened later than our competitors, and we declined in international standing.
In Budget 2022, the government committed to a tourism growth strategy to rebuild the sector and plot a course for growth, investment and stability. This strategy will be critical to our recovery as no other sector suffered the same degree of loss and destabilization.
As part of the government’s tourism growth strategy consultation, TIAC consulted with business operators across Canada to develop four key pillars needed to get tourism back on track. One of these four pillars relates to the need to attract and retain a sustainable workforce.
Our industry is aligned in our belief that a meaningful strategy must, among many other things, rebuild the industry’s workforce. The most recent estimate suggests the sector will still have some 250,000 vacant positions in the summer of 2023.
Among our recommendations were the need to launch targeted recruitment campaigns and a specific Indigenous workforce strategy. We also recommended increasing the number of high school programs, modernizing post-secondary programs, launching comprehensive national tourism job-ready bridging programs, as well as investing in skills and development training.
As measures we believe could be actioned in the short term, we recommended prioritizing tourism and creating efficiencies with the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, adjusting policies within existing federal and provincial immigration streams to increase the number of workers assigned to tourism and increasing opportunities for international students.
Longer term, we recommend working towards creating a dedicated tourism and hospitality immigration stream with a pathway to permanent residency, as well as for governments to invest in affordable housing in close proximity to major destinations.
With that background, I now turn my focus specifically to the topic of the committee’s study, which is Canada’s temporary and migrant labour force.
As I have stated, the rebuilding of our industry largely hinges on our ability to attract and retain an adequate supply of workers across the skills spectrum. I point out that immigrants represent a significant proportion of Canada’s tourism workforce. Landed immigrants accounted for about 29% of tourism workers in 2022. This is up from 26% in 2016 and 23% in 2011. The immigrant working population within the accommodation and food and beverage services industry, more specifically, are even higher at just over 31%. Thousands of businesses in our sector across Canada rely on immigrants to be able to fill positions such as chefs, restaurant and food service managers, food service supervisors, accommodation service managers, cooks and bakers.
TIAC has a number of specific recommendations on immigration and temporary workforce streams that we would be happy to share more detail, on including the following: increase the number of low-skilled international workers; improve and streamline the process for entry of workers to Canada; reduce application costs and processing times; streamline pathways to permanent residency; expand pathways for temporary foreign workers; remove LMIA, or Labour Market Impact Assessment, posting requirements and expensive per-applicant processing fees to enable employers to be able to self-administer this program without reliance on agencies; introduce a more predictable and stable cycle of change to immigration legislation to provide employers with more predictability and confidence to invest; and, finally, reduce provincial and municipal variations across Canada to create a more consistent, nationwide approach to immigration which is easier for employers to comply with.
With that, I’ll conclude my remarks. Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Potter, thank you very much. I know that list will be very important to us. Please, send that to us, and more may come out in questions.
Mr. Bourbeau, you have the floor.
Olivier Bourbeau, Vice President, Federal & Québec Affairs, Restaurants Canada: Thank you. We share many recommendations, and I’ll take the relay on that in a minute.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, thank you very much for giving Restaurants Canada the opportunity to appear before you today.
[English]
Restaurants and the many small- and medium-sized businesses that make up the Canadian food services sector form a critical pillar of our culture, economy, labour market and local communities. Prior to the pandemic, Canada’s food service sector was a $95-billion industry, directly employing 1.2 million people and serving 22 million customers across the country every day. We launch careers, invest in training and are the fourth-largest employer in Canada.
While we see customers coming back to our restaurants and sales slowly returning to pre-COVID levels, profitability is simply not at the rendezvous. Not a lot of people know, but even prior to the pandemic, restaurants operated on razor-thin margins. Indeed, pre-COVID, an average restaurant made a pre-tax profit margin between 4% and 5%. Now, that margin is only between 2% and 3%.
Moreover, due to labour shortages, we operate at 80% capacity. Therefore, if you see a lineup in front of a restaurant, it’s not because we are full. That’s because we don’t have enough people to serve you.
Do the math. Our restaurants are barely surviving. At 80% capacity and a margin of just 2% to 3%, it just does not work.
The labour shortage is definitely the biggest threat to keeping our businesses open. With this, it is our responsibility to ensure we work alongside all levels of government to find solutions to this issue to prevent the loss of more Canadian restaurants.
With Canada’s domestic labour availability becoming a challenge, our nation’s approach to immigration policy has been an integral part of keeping our industry afloat, which is why we are presenting to you our key recommendations on three fields: domestic labour; immigration; and, more specifically, international workers or temporary foreign workers, if you will.
In terms of domestic labour availability, we recommend that the federal government take a multipronged approach to solving this challenge: provide funding to employers to cover training of untrained workers; enhance programs that allow for work while receiving EI benefits or provincial social assistance; expand supports for vulnerable workers to enable them to work in the food-service sector; and explore ways to allow older workers to return to the workforce part-time more easily and flexibly without impacting their pension arrangements.
Our recommendations in terms of immigration are to increase the number of lower-skilled international workers, as Ms. Potter said; improve and streamline the process for entry of workers to Canada, and I’m in total alignment with that one; please reduce application processing times and the cost of applications; facilitate and expedite the entry of immigrants’ families; introduce a more predictable and stable cycle of change to immigration legislation and, more specifically, to temporary foreign workers.
Three further points: Please implement the trusted employers program. The National Occupation Classification, or NOC, list should be remodeled to provide us more flexibility. Instead of bringing people in for specific positions, categorize them and create a dedicated food service stream.
The food service industry lost more than 5,000 restaurants last year, and more than 13,000 since the beginning of COVID. Half of the restaurants today are still at risk of closing because they are barely breaking even or are losing money. The government’s support is more critical than ever to ensure our industry can realistically relaunch and continue to employ more than 1.2 million Canadians. Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to thank you both. You have given us lots of fodder for moving forward with questions. Colleagues and witnesses, I remind you that we have five minutes per senator for question and answer.
Senator Osler: Thank you to both witnesses. This committee has heard testimony that the use of employer-specific work permits increases vulnerability of foreign workers to exploitation by the employers. Several witnesses have called for work permits to be open. I have two questions.
First, what is your industry’s position on the use of open and sectoral work permits for temporary foreign workers? Second, how would implementing open or sectoral work permits impact the staffing for both the tourism and hospitality sectors?
Ms. Potter: First, opening work permits could be a helpful way forward for our employers to continue to build their teams. We are an industry that is very people focused. We have heard, as have others, the stories of people who have been misused by agencies and third-party companies that have brought foreign workers into the country. That is not the nature of our industry. We are, as I said, a people-first industry. The people that work for us are the face of and the first line of interaction with guests coming into Canada. I would suggest that we do look after our workers, whether they be Canadian or new to Canada.
Mr. Bourbeau: When we choose someone to come to work in our industry, there is a cost related to it, but there are time and resources. We make sure that that person will be the right one to join our industry. For us, the closed permit is not a barrier, but we bring the solution of the NOC list. That is, we would like to see the NOC list become wider so that instead of bringing someone that’s going to be a sous chef, we would like to have three categories: kitchen, admin and service. Therefore, if we bring someone for the kitchen, we will train that person and have the flexibility to promote that person. We want to make sure that these people continue to work in our industry with us.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My question is for Mr. Bourbeau, but of course, both witnesses are welcome to answer it. Thank you for being here, first of all.
As I understand it — and I think you just said this, Mr. Bourbeau — we have these closed permits and we’ve been hearing from the beginning of this study that they create an imbalance in the power dynamic. One witness raised the interesting idea that, if working conditions, respect for rights and dignity of work were strengthened, valued and regulated, closed permits might be less of a perceived need. I don’t know whether that’s clear, but I wonder whether you have any thoughts on that.
Mr. Bourbeau: I have a host of things to say, and thank you for the question. You’re right. First of all, it is absolutely necessary that these people be welcomed, that they be taken care of and that they be respected. By the way, the reason we recommend that the government implement a trusted employer model is to make sure that the best employers are part of it.
However, I do want to present the other side of the coin. We’re here to tell you the real story, because you need to know. It takes a lot of time and money to get someone here, and we’d like to train them and retain them. In our industry, unfortunately for us, we can’t offer the same pay as other industries. What could happen for us in a labour shortage as great as the one we are currently experiencing, is that, because of open permits, people, rather than wanting to develop in our industry, look around and realize they can earn a dollar an hour more somewhere else, so we lose them. We’re not able to recreate those careers.
Almost half of Canadian restaurant owners are people who came here as immigrants. When it comes to our industry, we are very privileged in Canada, because we can eat food from any culture. That’s not the case elsewhere. In a week, a person can eat in any type of restaurant. That’s a strength for us, and we want that to continue.
[English]
Ms. Potter: I would support what Mr. Bourbeau was saying about equating new Canadians and people who want to come to Canada and lining them up not necessarily with some predetermined skill levels, but with the jobs that are available in Canada right now. As I said earlier, this summer alone we’re going to have a job vacancy of 230,000 positions. That number is only going to grow as our industry builds back from the pandemic. By the time we get to 2030, we’re looking to hire an additional 1 million people working in our industry. Where and how are we going to find those individuals? Really, it’s new Canadians who want to come and build their new lives in Canada. They want to do it with employers that share their same values and they want to do it in a way that allows them as many opportunities as possible for both themselves and their families.
Senator Bernard: Thank you to both our witnesses. At our meetings on February 15 and 16, our committee heard that some sectors are excluded from certain labour laws and regulations and Canadian immigration law, creating the conditions for employers as a rule to exploit migrants.
How would you compare the rights of temporary foreign workers with other workers in the hospitality sector? Can you tell us how these rights are exercised and protected from your perspectives?
Ms. Potter: If I may jump in here, temporary foreign workers are treated with the same respect, professionalism and compassion as domestic workers. In our industry, we provide the same level and quality of training, the support services and benefits to our temporary foreign workers as we do to our domestic workers. That is because, as I said before, we are a people industry and we want to make sure that our people feel a sense of ownership and pride in the work that they are doing so that they are delivering an outstanding experience to our guests, whether that guest is a Canadian who is travelling domestically or an international guest coming into Canada.
I would suggest that there isn’t any difference in how our employers treat temporary foreign workers over domestic workers.
Mr. Bourbeau: I’m totally in line with you, Ms. Potter. I would add to that actually this is why we support the trusted employers program that we are working on with the government because if in certain industries there is a bad apple, well, we should take that person and say that they do not respect people and they should not be able to continue to have immigrants working here because we want to continue to demonstrate that our hospitality industry is proud of its diversity.
Senator Bernard: I respectfully want to come back to this whole question because we’ve certainly heard testimony from other witnesses that there are very grave concerns about working conditions of temporary foreign workers in this sector. In fact, one might argue that some of the conditions that have been described to us based on research that has been done with temporary foreign workers in the sector would be violations of human rights. Are you saying that everyone is treated that way? As you give this testimony that the temporary foreign workers are treated the same as all workers, would it be your testimony that all workers are working in very challenging working conditions that some witnesses have told us border on abuse and discrimination, particularly for racialized people?
Ms. Potter: I would suggest that we would not agree with your statement. I can’t stand here today and say that I have visited every tourism operator in the country, although I’m certainly doing my best to get out and visit them all. The companies, the employers that we work with that are members, the ones that are with us on trade missions when we’re selling Canada to the world, the folks that make up the bulk of our industry, those are good employers. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, we have heard stories. As Olivier said, there is the occasional bad apple, but as an industry we’re holding them to account. We’re saying to those employers that they have to change their ways. What we’re trying to do is build better, build forward for the betterment of the majority of business owners that do treat their people in accordance with good ethics and respecting individuals, respecting their rights and being a responsible employer.
Senator Kutcher: I’m trying to get my head around this trusted employer program. I’m aware that about 10 months ago there was discussion about it. I don’t know how far it has gone. I know in Australia the Standard Business Sponsorship and in Britain the British points system tried to do some of this. I don’t know that they were spectacularly successful. I would like to know what your organizations are doing now in working with the Canadian government on a trusted employer program. It has been about 10 months now.
The other thing, however, in areas of your own jurisdiction in both your organizations, I would like to know what your organizations are doing specifically to educate employers about the rights of temporary foreign workers and whether your organizations actually have an accreditation process that employers and businesses need to apply to so that they can be accredited by your own organizations. Ms. Potter, I loved it when you said, “people first.” That’s a great phrase. Do you have an accreditation program so that employers can actually be certified as people-first employers?
Ms. Potter: We don’t. We at this point are not an accrediting body, but we do work very closely with the government departments that look at these types of things. ESDC — Employment and Social Development Canada — is one of the departments we work very closely with especially on the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and we also work closely with Tourism HR Canada. That organization is actually funded quite extensively by the federal government to provide that kind of training for employers across Canada. They’re a partner of ours. I sit on their board of directors. We are very supportive of the work that they do in not only promoting excellent training opportunities for employers, but for employees as well.
Mr. Bourbeau: Restaurants Canada, just so you know, represents from the big chains to the independent restaurants. We all understand that the independent restaurants do not have the same resources. Therefore, Restaurants Canada staff is there to support them during the process, but also to make sure that every time a temporary foreign worker arrives, the employer takes the time to make sure that person is comfortable and knows exactly what is going to happen next. Something that we see more and more is the chains of restaurants helping independent ones sometimes.
Senator Kutcher: Do you have educational programs that your members can take and that you do have accreditation programs?
Mr. Bourbeau: We do not have an accreditation program. We did have training in terms of the process that we are working on updating as we speak.
Senator Duncan: Thank you to the witnesses. My question will be quite direct which might allow for a little bit more time.
I represent the Yukon and tourism is a vital part of our economy. We also, to the best of my knowledge, have a foreign worker program that is quite well utilized and works in conjunction with the territorial government and the tourism industry, of course.
I’m wondering if the witnesses could provide examples from across the country of the use of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the provincial-territorial intersection with the federal government in this program. The reason I’m asking this is we’ve heard talk of situations where temporary foreign workers are not advised of their rights and responsibilities. One of those provincial areas of jurisdiction is the Workers’ Compensation Board, so the right and responsibility to report an injury and what is afforded to you is something that the province should be working with employers on and working with the temporary foreign workers.
I know how this works at home, in the Yukon. I think it would be useful if you could provide to the committee, in terms of their recommendations, what the best practices are across the country in terms of the administration of the temporary foreign workers program and how the province works with the federal government, the program and the workers to ensure that there is an excellent experience all around and that the opportunities are afforded to everyone.
Is that question clear to the witnesses and to my committee colleagues?
Ms. Potter: When it comes to the provincial and territorial nominee programs, one of the things we have suggested is that government can increase immigration targets in key regions and sectors by working directly with the provinces and territories to expand the in-demand skill streams in their provincial nominee programs. This would help to reduce duplication on work permits for those applications.
We also see adjusting policies within existing federal and provincial streams. For example, for international students, there are various programs that are already in place and there has been a temporary lifting on the number of hours that students can work and the fact that they could work with multiple employers. This would allow students to gain multiple experiences in the working environment here in Canada and to have exposure to different employers and different types of work within our industry. It would also give dependants the right to work and allow subsidies.
There is an eligibility for all occupations, and we would like to see an increased allocation prioritization for tourism workers. This would allow us to continue to provide autonomy to those provinces in terms of their selection criteria.
Senator Duncan: I appreciate that you are outlining the best practices in terms of the program itself and how it could be improved, but I’m more interested, in terms of this committee, in the experience of workers and what supports are offered to these workers in each province and territory and what the best practices are there.
I appreciate your answer. It’s very important to the committee. I would ask that it be submitted in writing. I’m also looking to see what the best practices are for those workers in each province and territory.
The Deputy Chair: Witnesses, if you could, please submit a response to Senator Duncan’s question in writing, which can be shared with the whole committee. As I said to the prior panel, I can assure you that the clerk circulates the material that is received. The written submissions are very much part of our discussion as we come forward with our report.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you to both of the witnesses for being here. I want to follow up on some of the previous comments.
I would like to learn more about the trusted employers program. I like this notion of certification of people-first employers. I think that’s really important. I see a strong linkage between certification of people-first employers and trusted employers. Thinking about those concepts, what would be the attributes of a trusted employer?
Mr. Bourbeau: It will definitely be based on many criteria to implement best practices. For instance, some food service chains will go through the process for temporary foreign workers more often than independent restaurants. They have a dedicated team in HR for that. They have training and practices already in place. I don’t want to say they are used to it, but every year they go through this with a new group and they improve their process. But they need to go through the process with the government from the start, every single year, every single time, instead of being stamped that they already follow best practices and, moreover, they improve. So in terms of time and resources, they should be able to skip the beginning of the process, which takes a lot of time.
Ms. Potter: I will share with you that our friends at Tourism HR Canada do have a number of resources for tourism business operators who are bringing in temporary foreign workers and new Canadians at large. It looks at the criteria and the context in which the employee is being brought in, right down to language barriers. They have quite a compendium that looks at best practices for all employees and employers. This is a good resource for employer practices that is available to any tourism business operator in any part of the country.
Senator Greenwood: If we have that information and if we have the attributes of trusted employers, the logical next step would be to ask how these are monitored. If you have a trusted employers program — let’s hope everybody is on the list — I guess the next step is monitoring. Is that an internal monitoring of the organization or group?
Ms. Potter: There are two ways of looking at it. When we talk about a trusted employer program, this is one that would be implemented by the folks at ESDC, as they own the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. This would be under parameters that they set up, saying that this is an employer that has been through the program before, they have passed all of the requirements we have put in place, the residual outcome of previous employees has been very good, et cetera. It would alleviate some of the administrative burden on the employer because they are known as a trusted employer. It would be up to ESDC to monitor that.
When it comes to general information, like the compendium I just referred to, those are self-assessment tools at this point in time. Certainly, if an accreditation is being offered by one of the organizations, like Tourism HR Canada, then it is up to them to monitor that accreditation. Other than that, it would be self-assessed.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Potter, would you be able to share those self-assessment tools?
Ms. Potter: Absolutely, we can.
The Deputy Chair: That would be very helpful to us as we move forward.
Senator Bernard: Thank you, colleagues, for allowing me this time to pick up this conversation.
Witnesses, as I listen to you and hear your perspectives from the industry, I feel there is a real disconnect between what you are seeing and experiencing in the industries and what we’re hearing from temporary foreign workers with their lived experiences, both in terms of what we’ve heard from previous witnesses but also what we see in the literature. One of the things we are seeing in the literature is people talking about those violations of human rights and very poor working conditions.
What do you think might account for the disconnect that we’re seeing?
Second, if I were a temporary foreign worker working in one of your industries, who might I put a complaint to within your industries if I were experiencing poor working conditions, discrimination or racism in the workplace?
Mr. Bourbeau: First things first, when you referred to a certain disconnect, it is indeed something that we also read in the papers or heard about. But, in our industry, if we were to know that a restaurant or chain does not comply, does not treat an employee well — any employee — they would not be a member of Restaurants Canada.
We are so pleased and proud to have people come work with us, and the diversity in our industry is the biggest strength that we have. It is just fantastic. We treat everyone the same way, even if it is a temporary foreign worker who is here only for a couple of years. We want that person to bloom. We want that person to be a part of our team.
To the second question about whom they can present a complaint to, there are processes with governments. You can hear by my accent that I live in Quebec, obviously. Here, there are processes. They have contact info and one-stop-shop places they can contact to make a complaint, and people will contact the business owner and take the relay on it, just as for any other worker.
Ms. Potter: I will support what Mr. Bourbeau has said. A study was done around the perceptions of working in the tourism industry. I am happy to share that with the committee. We hear these blanket statements that tourism jobs are temporary, only seasonal, low paying or entry level. We have studies that show that, in fact, we’re moving away from that, whereas before, the number of seasonal jobs and, therefore, as others have called it, the unreliability of the job or the security that’s attached to the job is less predictable. The number of seasonal jobs is shrinking, and the number of full-time jobs is expanding. We can share that data and information with you.
If there is an employer who becomes known for bad practices, we would be in front of them offering our support in order to make changes to those practices. This is a reputational issue. We are the billboard to say to the world that Canada is a great place. We demonstrate that through the people who work for us and the experiences that they deliver to people visiting Canada.
It’s a huge reputational issue, and it’s not something that we take lightly. That’s why labour, whether we’re talking about attracting new labour to our industry or retaining existing labour, is the top issue in all of our conversations when we’re together with our stakeholders.
Senator Bernard: I have a follow-up question to the two witnesses. Thank you for the responses. I appreciate them.
Have you had complaints of this nature that have come to either of your organizations? If so, is any of that on the public record? And if so, would we be able to get access to those reports?
Ms. Potter: In my short time at TIAC, I’ve not had that kind of complaint, but when I was at the Tourism Industry Association of Ontario a number of years ago, we did have a challenging situation with one of the resort communities who had used a third-party labour provider. When we looked at the situation, the resort took very seriously the responsibility of treating those employees well. It was once the employee had left the resort property and was being housed by this third-party company that was where the problems were.
It led to a very big discussion about how to ensure, when using third-party companies to provide labour, that you are working with people who follow good practices and treat the employees they are representing humanely, with dignity and respect. That was a number of years ago, but it is an example that comes to my mind.
Mr. Bourbeau: In my time at Restaurants Canada, I did not witness any situations like that. I want to reiterate that we try to help the independent owners because they are not resourced like chains or medium-sized businesses. Therefore, we spend time with them, sometimes even one-on-one, accompanying them through the process and making sure that the person who arrives will be part of the entire team. We don’t want them to be seen as, “Oh, you are only here for a year or two.” No, you are part of a family.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, Senator Bernard, because you reminded me of a question along the same lines. I will direct it to Mr. Bourbeau.
Let me first say that I know they exist and I know restaurant owners who are fantastic and practise their craft respectfully, so we realize that. That said, we’ve heard many stories about vulnerability, abuse and imbalanced power relationships.
To build on what Senator Bernard said, I think your challenge and the industry’s challenge — and we’ve heard this a lot — is that employees, workers, don’t know their rights, so they’re not aware of the rights they have. When they are, they very rarely file a complaint, specifically because of the balance of power, and because they’re afraid.
Here’s my question: How can you determine what’s going on in the industry, knowing that these workers won’t lodge complaints? The restaurant owners who may be behaving inappropriately will not report it themselves. How are you able to ascertain what is going on in the workplace? How are you able to be proactive?
Mr. Bourbeau: That’s a very good question. There are a number of us on the ground. We meet with many people, not just members and owners, but also employees. Employees talk to each other about it.
You talk about power dynamics, but earlier I mentioned the NOC list. I raise this because, when someone comes here — take the kitchen, for example — and we hire that person to do prep work, and they turn out to be a gem, we want to train them as a sous-chef or even a chef. After that, it’s wonderful for that person, because it opens the door to permanent residency; it provides them with tools.
Unfortunately, when a person comes here and is stuck in a low-level job, that may be a situation in which someone feels limited. However, in this case, they are limited, sadly, because of the way things work. We can’t train them and we don’t have the flexibility to develop their potential.
Employees talk to each other a lot. In this industry, we’re really like family. Foreign workers won’t be shy and will ask their fellow workers questions. Their co-workers will be able to help them.
In all my time with Restaurants Canada, I have not seen any instances of problematic restaurant owners.
[English]
Ms. Potter: As organizations that are member-based, we tend to spend a lot of time making sure that our members have access to the appropriate materials. Whether it is access to training or access to communication tools, we are making that information available to employers.
The other part of it is, when you walk into a staff area within one of our tourism businesses or hospitality businesses, you are going to see the appropriate health and safety documentation and posters in the staff areas. You will see that the occupational health and safety handbook, for example, is available. You will see the material made available by the provinces and territories front and centre and right in front of the employees. That information is something that our employers have the responsibility to provide. That is certainly the case. You will see it. I’ve been in many back hallways of tourism businesses, and I see it all the time.
As for staff feeling comfortable to come forward, that’s certainly something that is encouraged. That is why larger companies have great resources, like human resource departments. Smaller companies don’t have that, so often the owner is the operator, the manager, the HR person and the finance person, and it is up to that individual to make sure that their team is feeling supported. That’s their role and responsibility. That’s what we work very hard to support as an organization.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you both.
Senator Greenwood: You talked about self-assessment and you talked about criteria for best practices for trusted employees. Do you see self-assessment or self-monitoring that as a tool that will support employers and therefore support better environments, if you will, for employees? Is that something that your organizations or the groups that you belong to — perhaps they are already doing that and I missed it here. Or would you see that as something that you could implement that would be of support for everybody?
Ms. Potter: I will say there are self-assessment programs for different aspects of businesses already in place, and our organization doesn’t have any of them, but as I said before, we work very closely with Tourism HR Canada. I think that those are important tools.
Often, especially for those independent operators, the small- and medium-sized business owners, they are so busy running their businesses that we try to make it as easy for them as possible by providing them with checklists of things they need to be doing and access to the tools and information that they need to make sure they are providing everything they are supposed to be providing to their employees.
This is something that TIAC undertakes. I know Restaurants Canada and the Hotel Association of Canada undertake it. We all work very closely because we are all in the same suite of sectors that make up the tourism and hospitality industry.
Mr. Bourbeau: I think Ms. Potter summarized that pretty well. I may just remind you that, as I said earlier, we at Restaurants Canada had training with a long, super-detailed document for the small businesses, more specifically to support independent people. We are reviewing that as we speak because it evolves. To your point, we will work to add best practices. Notably, at the end of the document, once the temporary foreign worker arrives here, that is when we do that training. Definitely, we will add a couple of points there. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Colleagues and witnesses, I want to thank you all very much. Sadly, we’ve come to the end of our time. It has been a very interesting, worthwhile and helpful discussion. To both our witnesses, thank you for your assistance with this study that we’ve undertaken. I thank all of the staff who helped these last couple of days while I’ve had the honour of standing in temporarily as your chair. Thank you all very much.
(The committee adjourned.)