Introduction

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (the Committee) decided on 1 February 2021[1] to study the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) and the use of Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIAs). The study included the administrative costs and processing timelines associated with LMIAs, and the ability of the immigration pilot projects to address labour shortages. It examined the eligibility criteria for permanent residence and impacts on caregivers under the two pilot projects Home Child Care Provider Pilot and Home Support Worker Pilot. It also considered the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the prevalence of labour shortages throughout the country, paying particular attention to municipalities and rural communities, and the 1991 Canada–Quebec Accord Relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens[2] (Canada–Quebec Accord).

Between 10 March 2021 and 5 May 2021, the Committee heard from 58 witnesses, including the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and departmental officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and Statistics Canada. The Committee also received several written submissions.[3]

On 20 October 2020, moreover, the Committee agreed that witness testimony from its study of the impact of COVID-19 on the immigration system would be included in future studies, such as this one.[4]

Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of the current labour shortages in Canada, especially since the pandemic, and a snapshot of Canada’s agri-food industry. It also explains how Canada’s immigration system is designed to bring people to Canada to sustain the country’s economic growth. Chapter 2 describes the TFWP and LMIAs, and addresses witness testimony about how to improve them. Chapter 3 reviews the Provincial Nominee Program and current immigration pilot projects that aim to address specific labour shortages throughout the country. Taking into consideration the Canada–Quebec Accord, the final chapter looks at key issues in Quebec.

Chapter 1: Overview of Labour Market Challenges

During its study, the Committee heard about several labour market challenges across a range of Canadian economic sectors. Overall, Canada’s labour market challenges stem from demographic pressures,[5] job quality,[6] labour mobility barriers,[7] skills gaps and mismatches,[8] low re-employment rates and low automation rates.[9] In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has further disrupted the labour market.[10] All these challenges have led to unmet labour demand or labour shortages, which vary across provinces, occupations and levels of education.[11]

When seeking to understand labour supply and labour demand for workers, the unemployment rate is one indicator. It is also important to consider job vacancies. As explained by Statistics Canada, the excess labour supply (unemployed persons) in conjunction with unmet labour demand (job vacancies) provide a better indication of how easily and efficiently workers find jobs, and whether the skills employers are looking for differ from the ones available in the labour market.[12] We understand the labour market by looking at both the availability of unfilled jobs—the number of job vacancies or the job vacancy rate—and unemployment. While vacancies and unemployment are associated with normal turnover in the labour force, there are situations where workers lack the skills to meet the job requirements or live too far from regions where jobs are available. This leads to labour shortages. Marcel Groleau, General President, Union des producteurs agricoles, explained this phenomenon to the Committee:

The unemployment rate in Quebec is currently 6.4%, the lowest in the country. Agricultural production is growing annually by 8.7%. In regions like Chaudière‑Appalaches, a farming area in central Quebec, the unemployment rate is close to 4%. The labour shortage is expected to last for at least the next decade. It is no surprise that the number of temporary foreign workers in Quebec is increasing 10% annually [to meet the labour demand].[13]

Providing overall context to the Committee about labour shortages, Josée Bégin, Director General, Labour Market, Education and Socio-Economic Well-Being, Statistics Canada, explained that the job vacancy rate in the fall of 2020 was about the same as before the pandemic. Since October 2020, she noted that there were above-average job vacancy rates

both in sectors where employment has been less affected by COVID-19, such as health care and social assistance and professional, scientific and technical services, and in sectors that have been more affected, such as administrative and support services, and accommodation and food services. The agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting sector, which employs a high number of temporary foreign workers, posted the highest job vacancy rate in October with 5.7%, but it fell by half the following month to 2.8%. In December, the job vacancy rate in this sector was 4.2%.[14]

In comparison, the overall national job vacancy rate was 3% in December 2020. Figure 1, below, provides an overview of the job vacancy rates for each province during each quarter of 2019 and 2020. Overall, the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2020 shows half a percentage point increase in the job vacancy rate from the rate in the fourth quarter of 2019. Statistics Canada noted this increase in job vacancies in several provinces, “with more than three-quarters (79.3%) of the total increase coming from Quebec and Ontario.”[15]

Figure 1: Job Vacancy Rate in Canada, 2019 and 2020

Note:      The job vacancy rate is the number of job vacancies expressed as a percentage of labour demand—that is, all occupied and vacant jobs. Data for the second and third quarters of 2020 are unavailable because some Statistics Canada operations were temporarily suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Source:  Figure created by the authors using data from Statistics Canada, Job vacancies, payroll employees, job vacancy rate, and average offered hourly wage by province and territory, quarterly, unadjusted for seasonality, Table 14-10-0325-01.

Statistics Canada also noted that, “[i]n the fourth quarter of 2020, there were 2.9 unemployed people per job vacancy, up from 2.1 in one year earlier. This was the highest ratio for a fourth quarter since 2016, when it was 3.2.”[16] As mentioned above, “a high unemployment-to-job vacancy ratio can indicate a potential skill mismatch.”[17]

During this study, many witnesses highlighted this misalignment between the competences of unemployed individuals and those required by employers.[18] The Committee particularly noted difficulties for the agri-food sector. This sector, like others, heavily relies on immigration, which we will examine below, to meet its labour needs.

Snapshot: Labour Shortage in the Agri-Food Sector

The agri-food industry is vast: it covers every aspect of food production, delivery and sale. It includes growers, farmers, producers, suppliers, transporters and retailers. One of the industry's major characteristics is that it is directly connected to primary agriculture, which is highly labour intensive.

According to Canadian Meat Council and Mushrooms Canada, the agri-food industry creates one in eight jobs in Canada, and contributes “$111 billion per year to the economy, [which is] over 6% of Canada’s GDP [gross domestic product].”[19] To hire individuals for the 2.3 million jobs in the industry,

employers participate in ongoing advertising, recruitment fairs, increased recruitment, training, and retention practices including language training, more robust advertising in core business geographics, and integrated work with community/social service providers, augmented referral incentives, augmented student incentives and more. In spite of this increased recruitment, the challenges related to labour, skills, and talent on the farm and in meat processing remain critical.[20]

Casey Vander Ploeg, Vice-President, National Cattle Feeders' Association, shared similar efforts with the Committee:

Despite Herculean efforts, agriculture simply cannot attract enough domestic labour to fill these rural jobs, and because there is no stream within the immigration system to secure agriculture workers, we rely on the temporary foreign worker program. It’s the only gateway for our sector to secure foreign labour.[21]

He also commented that Canada’s immigration program is not addressing the “chronic shortage of labour [that] is the single largest challenge facing Canadian agriculture.”[22] Elizabeth Connery, Chair, Labour Committee, Canadian Horticultural Council, provided a concrete example of the difficulty of attracting local labour in agriculture: her farm has hired seasonal agricultural workers since the 1980s. For that reason, she believes that the TFWP is a key element to sustain the agri-food workforce. In her experience, immigrants who come to Canada as permanent residents do not settle in rural areas, because of the lack of services and support systems.[23]

Overall, in 2018, there were 16,500 on-farm vacancies despite 60,000 foreign workers entering Canada. By 2029, it is estimated that Canada’s agricultural sector will have 123,000 vacancies.[24] Chris van den Heuvel, Second Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, told the Committee that “these labour constraints require a holistic agri-food labour and automation strategy.”[25]

Olymel, a food processing company in Quebec, informed the Committee that its facilities’ mechanization and automation levels are optimal, but still cannot meet its labour needs. The company currently has over “600 immigrant newcomers (mainly asylum seekers) among [its] employees” as well as “nearly 610 temporary employees from the TFWP and expect[s] another 600 in the coming year.”[26] And even these foreign workers do not meet all of its labour needs: it currently has a 27% rate of vacant positions in its facilities, representing more than 3,700 positions.[27] Aliments Asta Inc., a family business in Quebec, shared a similar story: the TFWP is not enough to address its labour shortages due to regular turnover of employees and retirements.[28]

As one witness put it, it is important to support entrepreneurs and industries “who have worked very hard over the last few years to increase their capacity to go after global markets and to make sure they are equipped to find a specific person with a skill set they’re looking for.”[29] While IRCC recognizes immigration as an important pillar for Canada’s economic growth,[30] another witness asked the Committee to balance this support by also properly investing in domestic labour sources.[31] Overall, for several witnesses, Canada should not become too reliant on a “temporary, precarious and vulnerable workforce”[32] because it would mean less stability and security for some of Canada’s most crucial sectors, like agri-food.[33] This lack of stability and workers is also insufficient to fully promote the welfare of farm animals, which require regular and sometimes intensive care.[34]

Meeting Labour Needs Through Immigration

Canada’s immigration policy has largely been driven by the need for population growth and economic development. Paul Davidson, President of Universities Canada, underscored that Canada has done well historically with its immigration policy, but warned the Committee that we should not take it for granted, and be mindful that the international competition for welcoming immigration is increasing.[35] Looking forward, the Hon. Marco Mendicino, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, told the Committee that “[p]rograms must be created to support all workers who want to come to Canada and contribute to our economy and to our social fabric.”[36] For the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, IRCC must ensure that immigrants can integrate into the labour market and the department must set newcomers up for success from the outset.[37]

With its aging population and low birth rate, Canada’s overall population growth is projected to come exclusively from immigration by 2030.[38] Already, in 2018 and 2019, most of “the employment growth was attributable to immigrants.”[39] Due to the pandemic and travel restrictions, however, immigration levels fell sharply in 2020.

To achieve its immigration targets, in consultation with provinces and territories, IRCC implements various programs and policies that target both permanent and temporary immigration. This section describes Canada’s immigration program, with a focus on several specific programs that enable Canada to meet labour needs across the country.

Permanent Immigration Streams

Permanent immigration can be broken down into the following classes: Economic Class, Family Class, Protected Persons, Refugees, and Humanitarian and Compassionate. Permanent residents are also admitted through pilot programs,[40] which will be further detailed in Chapter 3, and are designed to meet specific requirements, such as regional labour needs.

The Economic Class represents more than half of the permanent immigration streams. Its main purpose is “to permit Canada to pursue the maximum social, cultural and economic benefits of immigration,” as articulated in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[41] Under this class, most immigrants arrive through Express Entry, which “is an application management system for the Federal Skilled Workers Program, the Federal Skilled Trades Program, the Canadian Experience Class and a portion of the Provincial Nominee Program.”[42] There are also the federal business programs as well as the Quebec skilled workers and business programs.

Of note, the Canadian Experience Class (CEC) is for skilled foreign workers or foreign graduates who have at least one year of skilled work experience in Canada. One witness specifically commented on the importance of this program to Canada’s economy. Manprit Aujla‑Grewal, Immigration Consultant, Canadian Immigration Connections, explained that individuals with Canadian study and work experience, combined with good language skills, can integrate into the Canadian labour market more successfully than those that do not possess this experience and these skills.[43] However, she said that the requirements under the CEC and Express Entry are too difficult to attain “even for a graduate of a three-year program in Canada … with one year of skilled work experience in Canada and with good English.”[44] She criticized this program, but also the overall immigration system, as too restricted—designed only for individuals with national occupation classifications (NOC) that are considered “high-skilled.” She recommended that IRCC welcome and integrate all individuals with Canadian work experience and good language skills, regardless of their NOC codes. For the CEC, she specifically recommended that the applicant evaluation be changed back to its pre-2012 iteration of either passing or failing, based on the program’s requirements, instead of the current point system.[45] Kamaljit Lehal, Barrister and Solicitor, Lehal Law, noted that IRCC lowered the points required for the CEC at the beginning of 2021, but informed the Committee that ad hoc, last-minute, announcements and initiatives, such as the lower points draw for the CEC, are not always beneficial to clients who are in the process of applying and may suddenly have to change midstream in order to meet new program requirements.[46]

Temporary Immigration Streams

Canada’s immigration program also provides for the temporary entry of foreign nationals under the authority of a valid permit (e.g., a work permit, study permit, Minister’s permit, etc.). Foreign nationals must demonstrate that they meet all applicable requirements under IRPA, including that they will leave Canada voluntarily at the end of their authorized stay.[47] Such temporary residents include foreign workers and international students.

Refugee claimants who wish to work while their claim is being processed may also apply for a work permit. One witness highlighted to Committee members that Canada’s labour needs can be met by further welcoming refugee claimants or asylum seekers in the labour market. They can access work permits and, if their refugee claim is accepted, can become permanent residents and, potentially, long-term employees.[48]

The majority of foreign workers arrive under the TFWP, which aims to help fill genuine labour needs as a last and limited resort when qualified Canadians or permanent residents are not available. Other temporary work permit programs include those affiliated with trade agreements and reciprocal exchanges that are part of the International Mobility Program. There is also the International Experience Canada program, which allows young foreign nationals to travel and work in Canada. The goal of these last two programs is to provide competitive advantages to Canada and reciprocal benefits to Canadians, rather than to specifically meet given labour demands.

The other major group of temporary residents in Canada are international students who are either on a study permit and enrolled in a designated learning institutions, or on an open work permit to gain valuable Canadian work experience through the Post‑Graduation Work Permit Program (PGWPP). The PGWPP helps foreign graduates to qualify for permanent residence in Canada through the CEC. One witness specifically addressed the importance of the PGWPP to tackle their industry’s labour shortage. The Canadian Casino Gaming College, a registered private career college, requested that IRCC grant it access to the PGWPP. To respond to the shortage of 5,000 skilled casino employees post-COVID-19, the College would like to recruit international students, train them as future employees and place them in casinos across Canada.[49]

Ultimately, the minister underlined that the temporary immigration streams make Canada’s overall immigration program more flexible in addressing labour shortages and in achieving Canada’s economic priorities.[50] However, two witnesses sharply criticized the increased use of temporary foreign workers to meet the needs of specific sectors or industries of Canada’s economy.[51] Both provided some historical perspective. When the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program—the first stream under the TWFP—was established in 1966, there were 256 temporary foreign workers in Canada.[52] As of 2000, there were 60,000 temporary work permits in Canada, and today there are over 400,000. As such, according to data from the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, one in 23 people in Canada are currently non-permanent residents.[53] These individuals have limited labour rights, protections and access to services. They are in vulnerable positions and the COVID-19 pandemic only exacerbates those realities,[54] especially for essential and front-line workers. Chapter 2 further unpacks these vulnerabilities.

Chapter 2: Temporary Foreign Worker Program

The Temporary Foreign Worker Program is jointly managed by ESDC and IRCC.[55] Before June 2014, it included all temporary work permit streams. Today, the name refers only to those temporary work permit programs that aim to fill particular vacancies and skill shortages, rather than to streams that promote Canada’s “broad economic, cultural and social interests.”[56] These latter streams now fall under the International Mobility Program. According to the 2014 reforms, migration streams in the TFWP must fill genuine labour needs, and only when qualified Canadians or permanent residents are not available.[57] With the exception of positions under the Global Talent Stream, TFWP positions require ESDC to conduct a labour market test or “Labour Market Impact Assessment,”[58] and to issue a positive result. Service Canada issues the LMIAs on behalf of ESDC.

Today, the TFWP offers five temporary work permit categories, known as the high-wage stream,[59] the low-wage stream,[60] the Agricultural Stream,[61] the Caregiver stream,[62] and the Global Talent Stream.[63] As explained below, each stream addresses different needs and operates according to distinct rules.

The high-wage stream addresses positions with wages at or above the provincial or territorial median hourly wage,[64] whereas the low-wage stream is for positions with wages below that median hourly wage.[65] Only 10% of a workforce can be made up of temporary foreign workers working in a low-wage position at a given location, or 20%, if the employees were hired before 20 June 2014.[66] This 10% cap has been temporarily increased to 20% during the COVID-19 pandemic.[67]

Employers hiring agriculture workers can use either the general Agricultural Stream or apply through the specialized Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program, which is only is for seasonal positions that usually last at most eight months and is restricted to workers from Mexico and the Caribbean countries.[68]

Since June 2019, with the start of the Home Child Care Provider Pilot and the Home Support Worker Pilot programs, addressed in Chapter 3, employers hiring caregivers cannot hire temporary foreign workers under the Caregiver stream.[69]

Employers hiring under the Global Talent Stream—which was designed for expedited processing to help employers obtain highly skilled or specialized talent more quickly—must submit a Labour Market Benefits Plan (LMBP). Unlike the more detailed LMIA, the LMBP only requires that employers demonstrate their “commitment to activities that will have lasting, positive impacts on the Canadian labour market.”[70] Stephen Cryne, President and CEO, Canadian Employee Relocation Council, argues in his letter to the Committee that although it takes two weeks for ESDC to assess the LMBP, the entire process from creating an LMBP to seeing a work permit issued takes 12–14 weeks.[71]

Labour Market Impact Assessments

ESDC will issue a positive LMIA if an assessment indicates that hiring a temporary foreign worker will have a positive or neutral impact on the Canadian labour market. ESDC evaluates the following to issue a successful LMIA:

• a) whether the employment of the foreign national will or is likely to result in direct job creation or job retention for Canadian citizens or permanent residents;
• b) whether the employment of the foreign national will or is likely to result in the development or transfer of skills and knowledge for the benefit of Canadian citizens or permanent residents;
• c) whether the employment of the foreign national is likely to fill a labour shortage;
• d) whether the wages offered to the foreign national are consistent with the prevailing wage rate for the occupation and whether the working conditions meet generally accepted Canadian standards;
• e) whether the employer will hire or train Canadian citizens or permanent residents or has made, or has agreed to make, reasonable efforts to do so;
• f) whether the employment of the foreign national is likely to adversely affect the settlement of any labour dispute in progress or the employment of any person involved in the dispute; and
• g) whether the employer has fulfilled or has made reasonable efforts to fulfill any commitments made in previous assessments.[72]

While ESDC will conduct an LMIA for TFWP streams, three exceptions exist. The first is the Global Talent Stream, which, as explained above, instead requires an LMBP. The second exception is for applications to positions in certain sectors and regions of low-wage employment. More specifically, ESDC will not process an LMIA application for a position when all of the following conditions are true. The position is:

• a) in a region defined by Statistics Canada as having an annual unemployment rate over 6%;
• b) identified under the North American Industry Classification System as Accommodations and Food Service or Retail Trade; and
• c) categorized under certain NOC codes, including 6541 (security guards and related security service occupations), 6611 (cashiers) and 6622 (store shelf stockers, clerks and order fillers).[73]

Supporting Documentation and Fees

Along with their LMIA application form, employers must submit supporting documentation to prove they have met or attempted to meet these LMIAs conditions and must pay fees to cover the cost of the LMIA.

Most simply, employers who use the TFWP must submit to Service Canada proof of recruitment efforts to hire Canadians and permanent residents. ESDC may issue a negative LMIA if—among other reasons—the employer was not able to demonstrate sufficient efforts to recruit, hire or train Canadians or permanent residents for the position.[74] For employers looking to fill low- and high-wage positions, recruitment requirements include advertising for a given period of time on the Government of Canada’s Job Bank and using recruitment methods that are targeted to an audience with the appropriate education, professional experience and skill level required for the occupation. In the case of positions in the low-wage and Agricultural streams, employers must also, as an ESDC official explained to the Committee, engage in “targeted efforts to reach out to underrepresented groups who may be underemployed in the labour market,” such as Indigenous persons, vulnerable youth, newcomers to Canada and persons with disabilities.[75]

If hiring a temporary foreign worker through the high-wage stream, an employer must also develop a transition plan describing the activities it will undertake to recruit, retain and train Canadians and permanent residents in order to reduce its reliance on the TFWP. If the employer applies for an LMIA for the same work location and position in the future, the employer will have to report on the results of the commitments made in the previous plan. There are certain exceptions to the transition plan requirement, including for applications for high-wage workers hired in caregiving or primary agricultural occupations.[76]

Finally, all employers must pay $1,000 for each temporary foreign worker position requested to cover the cost of processing their LMIA application. Once again, this condition is subject to certain exceptions. For example, families and individuals seeking to hire a foreign caregiver to provide home care for someone requiring assistance with medical needs are exempt from paying the application processing fee. Exemptions also exist for certain occupations related to primary agriculture. The processing fee will not be refunded in case of a withdrawn or cancelled application or if the LMIA is negative. Furthermore, employers or third-party representatives are prohibited from recovering the processing fee from temporary foreign workers.[77] In Quebec, the cost for a review of an LMIA by the Ministère de l’Immigration, Francisation et Intégration Québec (MIFI) is $199.[78]

While most witnesses supported the TFWP and LMIA processes, witnesses argued that it could frustrate employers and employment, and place employees in vulnerable positions. While the interests of employers and employees are often related, this report will first address evaluations about processes that most directly affect employers, and then treats concerns about the TFWP and LMIA processes from the perspective of workers.

Issues from the Employer Perspective

Most fundamentally, employers who depend on low-wage labour argued that the TFWP is at once vital to the survival and growth of their business, and ill-suited to their constant need to fill temporary or permanent positions. Many employers indicated their great preference for Canadian and permanent resident labour, and their extensive efforts to find Canadians and permanent residents to fill their positions.[79] Nonetheless, they explained that they must continually turn to the TFWP, because no other labour is available. As Stéphanie Poitras, Executive Director of Aliments Asta Inc., a pork slaughter and processing company, put it, “it’s very expensive to get immigrants to work here. So it’s not the first option … but they are the ones who have saved us so far.”[80] While the numbers, duration, processing times and transition plans associated with the TFWP are designed for businesses that will move on from using temporary foreign labour—and hire Canadians or permanent residents that may become available—employers must use the TFWP to meet continual or seasonal labour needs. The structure of the program no longer fits the current reality. As Mr. Groleau put it, “what was justified then isn’t justified now.”[81]

Caps and Insufficient Eligibility

The mismatch between program design and labour reality is most clear in the case of the ongoing need for given numbers of low-wage temporary foreign workers to fill permanent full-time jobs—numbers that the TFWP was not designed to fill. As Marie‑France Mackinnon, Vice-President, Public Affairs and Communications at the Canadian Meat Council, explained the labour needs of meat processors and packers, “[o]ur jobs are full time, permanent and mostly all unionized, yet we a have program that is called ‘temporary.’”[82] At the same time, as numerous witnesses pointed out, businesses cannot fill permanent vacancies for low-wage work with the federal Express Entry or provincial nomination programs, because these intakes award so few points to low-wage labour experience and skills, and have high education requirements.[83] Companies are left trying to meet with short-term solutions the often significant labour needs for permanent positions that we saw in Chapter 1 of this report. Witnesses testified that the 10% cap on low-wage temporary foreign workers often leaves employers with not enough temporary spaces to fill these positions.[84] As Ms. Mackinnon put it, “[f]or the plants that are at 20% job vacancy, with the cap at 10%, you can see how the math just doesn’t add up.”[85] During the 2014 reforms, the Government of Canada brought in the 10% cap to “end the growing practice of employers building their business model on access to the TFWP.”[86] Today, shortages of labour for permanent, low-wage positions remain. Witnesses argued that the TFWP is a necessary but insufficient means to fill these shortages.

Employers who perpetually need seasonal labour are similarly hampered by TFWP rules that assume greater access to domestic labour than is usually available. Witnesses representing seasonal industries argued that employers continually need temporary foreign workers, because—as for other employers—they regularly cannot find enough domestic workers, even in regions of relatively high unemployment.[87] As Living Water Resorts described its seasonal dependence on the TFWP, “without Temporary Foreign Workers, we cannot maintain our guest rooms and keep the hotels clean.”[88] With some exceptions—notably, general farm workers, nursery and greenhouse workers, and harvesting labourers—seasonal employers are limited by the 10% (or 20%) cap. Employers in the Accommodation and Food Services and Retail Trade sectors, in a region defined by Statistics Canada as having an annual unemployment rate over 6%, are also disqualified from submitting LMIAs for the TFWP. As Living Water Resorts highlighted in its brief, the Government of Canada currently considers that this 6% level of unemployment exists in all regions of Canada, because of the effect of COVID-19.[89] The Committee heard that this policy effectively cuts off a regular and irreplaceable source of hotel, retail and restaurant labour. Indeed, Living Water Resorts argued that it decreases employment opportunities for domestic workers—contrary to one of the goals the LMIA—because it dampens business growth and increases overall unemployment.[90]

In order to open up an ongoing source of reliable permanent full-time labour, and not rely on the TFWP, several witnesses recommended a direct immigration pathway to permanent residence for essential low-wage workers.[91] Some witnesses pointed out that a direct pathway to permanent residence would make the TFWP more attractive to workers.[92] Others expressed concerns that the freedom of permanent residents to move from jobs and change provinces would disincentivize workers from staying in permanent positions in rural Canada,[93] while some argued that incentives would be necessary to entice permanent workers to stay in rural areas.[94] Several witnesses specified that the pathway to permanent residence should be gradual, after several years in the TFWP.[95] One witness argued that the pathway to permanent residency should come through “the expansion of the federal and provincial nominee programs” to recognize low-wage labour and experience.[96]

In order to create a reliable source of seasonal labour, two witnesses suggested creating a permanent resident stream for seasonal workers whereby, as one witness put it, workers “could go home and come back while still on the same permit.”[97] Living Water Resorts argued that—given the time pressure of the approaching summer restaurant, retail and accommodation season—the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion should alter Ministerial Instructions to exempt Accommodation and Food Services applications from the 6% unemployment cut-off in the “specific local regions experiencing difficulties hiring entry-level positions,” such as “Collingwood, the Blue Mountains, Niagara … etc.”[98] Finally, several witness argued for increasing the opportunity to hire foreign workers by exempting professions related to primary agriculture, such as food processing labourers and industrial butchers,[99] increasing the cap of temporary foreign workers in low-wage positions to 20%,[100] increasing the cap to 30% and calculating it over the whole business,[101] or increasing it to 50%.[102]

To increase the reliable supply of low-wage foreign workers positions, the Committee recommends:

Exempting Select Tourist Regions from the Six Percent Unemployment Limit

Recommendation 1

That the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion explore altering the Ministerial Instruction Refusal to process a Labour Market Impact Assessment to exempt, from the 6% unemployment cut-off to Labour Market Impact Assessments, Accommodation and Food Services applications in local regions experiencing difficulties hiring entry-level positions.

Increasing the Maximum Percentage of Temporary Foreign Workers

Recommendation 2

That Employment and Social Development Canada consider increasing the maximum number of temporary foreign workers allowed in low-wage positions to at least 20% of the company’s workforce in a single location.

Administration Costs and Processing Delays

The need for ongoing applications through the TFWP also creates high amounts of administration, complex applications and long processing timelines. To continually fill seasonal and full-time positions every eight months or every year—or even every two years, under temporary COVID-19 pandemic rules—requires continually filing TFWP applications, LMIAs, work permit applications, advertising, housing inspections, quarantine hotels and, in the case of Quebec, Québec Acceptance Certificates. As Olymel writes about the company’s application burden, “as part of this process, we have had to file 110 Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) applications and 1,558 Québec Acceptance Certificates (QAC). The overall exercise represented a tremendous workload for Olymel.”[103] Other witnesses testified to similarly large administrative burdens.[104] As Daniel Vielfaure, Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Groupe Bonduelle, Chief Executive Officer of Bonduelle Americas, and Co-Chair of Food and Beverage Canada, put it, “the temporary foreign worker program seems designed to make their employment in Canada as difficult as possible. Even in normal years the TFW program is overly complex.”[105] While several witnesses noted that processing times for LMIAs are decreasing,[106] overall processing times remain high and administration is complex—delay and complexity that witnesses testified is largely increasing during the COVID-19 pandemic period.[107]

Many witnesses complained that administrative burdens for the TFWP are especially onerous because the applications are continual and repetitive—applications often for the same positions and same workers.[108] As Mr. Vander Ploeg put it, “the processing times, delays, rejected applications and having to resubmit are all part of this frustrating administrivia that employers have to deal with.”[109] Once again, the onerous conditions and administration of the TFWP do not reflect the constant need for temporary foreign workers as a largely continual or reoccurring labour force.

Several witnesses argued, in different ways, that ESDC should implement a “trusted employer” program. This would give certain employers—ones with track records of hiring temporary foreign workers according to the rules—the right to a streamlined process when they apply for the same positions and workers. Some witnesses suggested that ESDC should use as a model the “designated employers” certification within the Atlantic Immigration Pilot program—a certification that exempts employers in good standing from the LMIA process.[110] Other witnesses suggested allowing employers with good records to have their LMIAs expedited[111] or simplified.[112] A final group of witnesses argued that ESDC should develop a program similar to the NEXUS program that allows pre-screened travelers expedited processing when entering the United States and Canada. In this version of the trusted employer program, “the procedure could therefore be streamlined for employers in order to facilitate the transfer of an employee to another company and the return of the same workers, year after year.”[113]

To reduce the administrative burden on employers who continually rely on the TFWP to bring in the same workers or class of workers many years in a row, the Committee recommends:

Creating a Trusted Employer Designation

Recommendation 3

That Employment and Social Development Canada create a Trusted Employer designation that would allow employers with good records with similar applications to submit simplified Labour Market Impact Assessments for expedited processing.

The Committee also heard that TFWP processing could be simplified and accelerated for applications outside of the multi-year scope of a Trusted Employer Program. Jolayne Farn, the Human Resources Manager at Van Raay Paskal Farm Ltd. and representative for the National Cattle Feeders’ Association, argued that ESDC should streamline the four similar LMIAs that are required for the four agricultural TFWP streams.[114] Two witnesses suggested that ESDC alter the requirement to advertise two weeks prior to submitting an LMIA because many companies who use the program to fill permanent positions are advertising all the time.[115] Other witnesses suggested simplifying the LMIA and making it more affordable by allowing employers to submit batches or banks of LMIAs if they are all for the same type of position,[116] and to be charged for multiple applicants by the number of LMIAs, rather than by the number of workers covered by the LMIAs.[117] Two witnesses also argued that the LMIA application can be shortened, because it does not add any information strictly necessary for making a decision, and simply asks the employer to confirm that existing rules will be followed, or asks for information already given in attached documentation.[118] The Union des producteurs agricoles outlined, in its written brief, approximately 24 questions that the organization argues can be removed.[119]

Other witnesses recommended that the employers be able to easily extend LMIAs and supporting documents. Two witnesses argued for the systematic renewal of LMIAs and work permits.[120] As Stéphanie Jeanne Bouchard, Immigration Development Officer at the Centre local de développement de la région de Rivière-du-Loup, put it, “a facilitated extension system for LMIAs and work permits should be proposed, especially when it comes to steps to submit a second, third, even a fourth LMIA application, so that the company can renew a foreign worker's authorization to remain in their current position.”[121] Similarly, the Olymel written brief recommended that the “federal government implement a new LMIA exemption or modify an existing exemption to allow temporary foreign workers in [the food processing and distributing] sector to obtain an employer-specific work permit with a job offer … after 18 months of work experience.”[122] Several witness argued that work permits should last two or three years, or longer, rather than only one.[123]

In light of this testimony, the Committee recommends:

Increasing the Duration of Work Permits

Recommendation 4

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada consider increasing the duration of work permits and visas.

Finally, the Committee heard that work permits should be more flexible and be able to apply more broadly. Olivier Bourbeau, Vice-President, Federal and Quebec, of Restaurants Canada, recommended that “if an employer and an employee agree to change the employee’s duties, it would have to be accepted” by the government.[124] Other witnesses suggested either that ESDC should create a sector-specific work permit, or that it should create a multi-employer work permit[125] to attract workers and increase employer flexibility to share labour between different employers.

Communication and Transparency

Given the complexity of the LMIA process, the Committee also heard of the need for improvements in communication between agencies, clients, workers and relevant third parties, and for greater transparency in the application system. In his submission to the Committee, Jacobus Kriek’s first recommendation is for ESDC to publish all LMIA directives to allow employers to understand the rules.[126] The Canadian Federation of Agriculture highlighted, in its written brief, “confusing and overlapping inspections [of TFW housing] related to the program, particularly during the pandemic.”[127] This overlap can confuse employers and delay applications. The organization recommended “increased information sharing between Service Canada, IRCC, [and] between orders of government to simplify inspections & processing efforts.”[128] Other witnesses recommended that Service Canada officials familiar with a given industry and region review applications[129] or conduct audits.[130] Ms. Farn described issues in relation to Service Canada’s misunderstanding of their application: “Our job descriptions are not understood, and neither are rural locations and addresses. The resulting delays and denied applications are, again, at the employers expense.”[131] Finally, Canadian Meat Council and Mushrooms Canada recommended, in their written brief, that ESDC apply a 30-day benchmark to agriculture and agri-food TFWP extensions if the workers are already in Canada.[132]

Having heard that greater Service Canada officer expertise in given sectors and regions is beneficial to accurate and efficient application processing and audits, the Committee recommends:

Providing Knowledgeable Service Canada Officers for Labour Market Impact Assessments and Audits

Recommendation 5

That Service Canada train and deploy Service Canada officers with increased knowledge of the sectors and regions that they serve.

Co-ordinating to Ensure Adequate Inspections of Working Conditions for Temporary Foreign Workers

Recommendation 6

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada coordinate with different levels of government to ensure an adequate inspection process of workplaces and working conditions for temporary foreign workers.

Issues from the Employee Perspective

While the TFWP creates advantages for both employer and employee in securing temporary positions in Canada, the conditions of temporary work in Canada also place migrant workers in vulnerable positions—positions sometimes exploited by employers, consultants and recruitment agents.

The vulnerability of temporary foreign workers is most clear in relation to their dependence on the employer to which their work permit and LMIA are connected. Witnesses highlighted that the work permit that gives the temporary foreign worker access to a job also makes avoiding poor treatment or overwork difficult, because the permit is employer-specific or “closed.” Workers cannot simply move to another employer instead. Similarly, they cannot exercise control over their workloads by finding additional work at other businesses later in the season.[133] At the same time, they often find returning home early to be prohibitively expensive. They are more prone to stay—and more easily taken advantage of—because they have few other options.[134] Syed Hussan, Executive Director of Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, explained the power imbalance by asking questions from employee and employer perspectives:

If you were in a low-wage job and you could be fired, made homeless because you live in employer-provided housing, couldn’t immediately move to another job because your permit bars you from doing so, and if you could not return in the future to the country where you worked because employers have control over who gets invited back, would you speak up about your exploitation?

Now think about it inversely. If you were an employer and you knew all this, would you take shortcuts, push your workers harder, and in the worst cases carry out wholesale exploitation and discrimination?[135]

While many responsible employers exist, temporary foreign workers are vulnerable to exploitation by employers because the workers are so dependent on them.

At the same time, temporary foreign workers lack strong mechanisms to complain and exercise their rights under the LMIA process. As Mr. Hussan put it:

There is no legislation that governs enforcement and no court or legal process to turn to for workers to denounce violations of their rights. Neither is there any meaningful mechanism for ESDC to ensure that workers receive reparations for violations of their rights. All that exists is a tip line, but by law, ESDC is barred from sharing the fact of inspections, and even results of inspections, with the workers who make the complaint.[136]

Employers complained of confused, overlapping and expensive housing and workplace inspections. At the same time, Mr. Hussan, speaking from an employee perspective, argued that these inspections are ineffective: “Most inspections are preannounced, and rarely do they result in increased employer compliance, never mind better worker protections.”[137] While several employer witnesses reported that their workers were unionized,[138] such unions do not exist in all sectors in which temporary foreign workers work.

Temporary foreign workers may also be vulnerable to exploitative consultants and recruitment agents. As Derek Johnstone of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada described the power of corrupt recruitment firms:

[W]e have people coming from places like Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico … paying upwards of $10,000 for the opportunity to pick tomatoes in Canada. They get that money from loan‑sharks. They get the money from organized crime. They get it where they can, because the fact is it is a life-changing opportunity for folks … which creates a very vulnerable and precarious population.[139]

Similarly, as Ms. Lehal explained, temporary foreign workers are sometimes scammed by consultants and employers in Canada into paying unneeded fees:

On a regular basis my office receives phone calls from foreign workers who have been charged illegal and extravagant fees to obtain an LMIA. We hear recurrent stories of foreign nationals who have paid tens of thousands of dollars, averaging around $40‑50,000.00 upwards to an employer and/or consultant.[140]

Once again, temporary foreign workers have little recourse, because, Ms. Lehal argued, the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council, which regulates consultants, has weak enforcement capabilities. Indeed, many foreign workers are “reluctant … to report the matter for fear of being deporting from Canada or fear for their own lives and safety.”[141] This is often the vulnerability of temporary foreign workers: they fear complaining because they could fall outside the legitimate system and become undocumented. If they do leave an employer for reasons of abuse or exploitation, they can become undocumented workers, who are vulnerable to deportation on the one hand, and who lack work and medical protections on the other—a problem that is especially acute under COVID-19 conditions.[142]

The result of this multi-level vulnerability is that temporary foreign workers are sometimes exploited by employers. As Mr. Johnstone put it, “[t]here are many responsible employers in the system, but we know from 30 years of doing this that all you have to do is pick up … your mainstream publication to read about all the irresponsible employers.”[143] Similarly, The Neighbourhood Organization, in its written brief, detailed abuse of caregivers—abuse that has gotten worse under COVID‑19 lockdowns:

There continue to be many abusive and inconsiderate employers who force these workers to work long hours without compensation. Some employers do not allow migrant caregivers to leave the residence, not even for a walking exercise that will reduce their stress level, and many caregivers simply have no time for themselves. Because of their precarious status, caregivers cannot advocate for better working conditions.[144]

The Committee thus heard that temporary foreign workers may be exploited in Canada under the LMIA, because they lack the status and protections to challenge abuse by employers, consultants and recruitment agents.

In different ways, witnesses argued that ESDC and IRCC should address this vulnerability by extending benefits and status to foreign workers in the TFWP. Many witnesses that addressed exploitation called for granting temporary foreign workers immediate landed status on arrival, and “regularizing” the status of those already in Canada to that of permanent resident.[145] Witnesses argued that permanent residents have stronger protections, because they have mobility rights and may leave abusive employers. As such, foreign workers would no longer fear deportation if using official channels to come forward about abuse. Regularization as permanent residents would also give foreign workers access to health care and vaccines, especially if the workers are presently undocumented. Overall, numerous witnesses called for the regularization of individuals in Canada with precarious immigration status or who are out-of-status.[146]

Other witnesses argued for more selective and gradual changes: offering more accessible pathways to permanent residence over time,[147] creating a database of legitimate employers and employees to cut out consultants and recruitment agents,[148] and setting up ongoing consultations between government, employers and unions to improve employee retention and working conditions.[149] On the health care side, witnesses recommended creating an expedited open work permit for temporary foreign workers injured on the job (and unable to convince a new employer to pay for a new LMIA),[150] and providing “free access to health care regardless of valid health card,” including access to COVID-19 testing.[151] Finally, witnesses recommended giving temporary foreign workers access to open, sectoral or regional work permits,[152] which would give them greater ability to change employers and control their workloads.[153]

Considering both the employer’s need for reliable labour and attracting temporary foreign workers, and the vulnerability of temporary foreign workers to exploitation, the Committee recommends:

Preventing Abuse by Offering More Accessible Pathways to Permanent Residence

Recommendation 7

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada issue ministerial instructions to create a broadly accessible pathway to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers, asylum seekers and out-of-status workers.

Creating Sectoral and Regional Work Permits

Recommendation 8

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada consider the creation of sectoral and/or regional work permits.

Reviewing Out-of-Status Construction Workers Policy to Expand Best Practices

Recommendation 9

That the Government of Canada undertake a review of the temporary public policy for out-of-status construction workers in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) that provided permanent residence to out-of-status construction workers in order to learn best practices to expand the program to include other sectors of work such as caregivers.

Chapter 3: Other Immigration Programs

This chapter describes programs and initiatives for workers with skill sets and education that are not targeted by the main categories of the economic immigration programs: the Provincial Nomination Program (PNP) and different pilot programs.

Provincial Nominee Program

The Committee heard that, traditionally, employers with year-round work opportunities, such as greenhouses, supported a worker in their application to transition from temporary foreign worker status to permanent residence under the PNP.[154] As IRCC describes this program, each province or territory may select and nominate individuals for permanent residence based on their labour market needs, with programs categorized in different streams with varying requirements. The PNP is for workers who:

• have the skills, education and work experience to contribute to the economy of a specific province or territory;
• want to live in that province; and
• want to become permanent residents of Canada.[155]

While applications are usually paper-based, applicants may use the Express Entry online intake system that awards points for a provincial nomination letter. The federal government is responsible for assessing the admissibility of each nominated individual. This involves medical, criminal and security screening. The federal government also ensures that PNPs comply with IRPA and immigration policy.[156]

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce told the Committee that it supported the continued devolution of the immigration selection process to local levels, using the PNP and other pilots.[157] Mr. Johnstone said that the “key to a better way forward is the expansion of the federal and [PNP] programs.”[158]

Some barriers to using the PNP were identified by witnesses, such as education and language requirements. Ms. MacKinnon told the Committee that the PNP was focused on university education, and does not recognize important skills such as meat cutting skills.[159] Janet Krayden, Workforce Expert for the Canadian Mushroom Grower’s Association, added that both language and education criteria are increasing in all provincial nominee programs, and that “[the provinces] keep saying they’re following what the federal government is telling them. … They are language benchmarking to level 4.”[160] Mr. Johnstone told the Committee that in Manitoba the UFCW Local 832 had offered language training in the meat sector while working with the provincial government on PNPs: “We worked hand in hand with employers to make sure that migrants had the skills they needed over time to fully integrate into their communities.”[161] He questioned how realistic requiring a migrant worker to pass a level 4 English exam was.[162]

Pilot Programs

Specific demands for labour programs led IRCC to launch pilot programs, using the authority of issuing ministerial instructions to attain “economic goals.”[163] A regional program was developed for the Atlantic provinces. When the Live-in Caregiver Program ended in 2014, two pilot programs were created to address the needs in that sector. IRCC more recently created the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot and the Agri-Food Pilot programs.

Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program

The Atlantic Immigration Pilot program is employer-driven and aims to facilitate hiring foreign workers and international graduates who want to work and live in one of Canada’s Atlantic Provinces.[164] The provinces are responsible for approving employers. The employer’s application includes not only showing their labour needs but how the worker will be welcomed and provided with settlement services with an aim to attract and retain this worker; there is no LMIA. Applicants must have a job offer from a designated employer under the pilot program, and their spouses can have open work permits.

In October 2020, IRCC published its evaluation of the Atlantic Immigration Pilot program. Overall, the program helps “employers in Atlantic Canada fill labour market needs, particularly in technical occupations and skilled trades (NOC B) and intermediate level occupations (NOC C).”[165]

The Committee heard that this program was appreciated by employers.[166] The Atlantic Region Association of Immigrant Serving Agencies called it a success that “can be measured by the fact it will become a permanent stream in 2022.”[167] The Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council commented that this pilot could be expanded to other provinces.[168] Lauren van den Berg, Executive Vice-President, Government Relations of Restaurants Canada told the Committee that it should be a model for other programs:

The Atlantic immigration pilot program was a phenomenal success by almost any metric. Our operators in the region were positively thrilled about it—about the outcome, about the relative ease with which they were able to access that enthusiastic skilled labour, and about the enthusiasm with which they often stayed on, as long as they could, to work those permanent pathways. We’ve been asking for a good long time for similar programs.[169]

Home Child Care Provider Pilot and Home Support Worker Pilot Programs

The Home Child Care Provider Pilot and the Home Support Worker Pilot programs were launched in June 2019 for a five-year period. They are the fifth iteration of this specific immigration stream, which offers temporary foreign workers a path to permanent residence. They replace the Live-in Caregiver Program, which ended in November 2014; the Caring for People with High Medical Needs Program and the Caring for Children Program, which both ended in June 2019; and the transition program, named Interim Pathway for Caregivers, which ran from June to October 2019. Employers who wish to hire a caregiver are exempt of paying the LMIA fee in two situations: (1) when providing home care for family members requiring assistance with medical needs; and (2) when the family has a gross annual income of $150,000 or less, and is seeking to hire a foreign caregiver to provide childcare in their home to a child under 13 years of age.[170]

The Home Child Care Provider Pilot and the Home Support Worker Pilot programs are for qualified caregivers (NOC C) and their family members to come to Canada with the goal of becoming permanent residents. IRCC evaluates the eligibility for permanent residence before the applicants arrive. Those who meet the requirements, including one year of post-secondary education and English at a level 5, are given a sectoral work permit that is not tied to a specific employer. They must acquire 24 months of work experience to be eligible for permanent residence. Dependent children and spouses can also apply for an open work permit or study permit to accompany these workers.[171]

Witnesses that spoke about the concerns related to caregivers highlighted that the problems encountered by caregivers before the 2019 changes continue today: caregivers do not have permanent residence and it is the precariousness of their position that makes them vulnerable.[172] Furthermore, the new language levels and the increased education requirements are barriers to permanent residence.[173] In its written brief, The Neighbourhood Organization quoted an article from the Toronto Star that indicated that very few applications under the new 2019 programs have been accepted.[174] This article was also mentioned by Faye Arellano, Law Clerk and Community Advocate-Volunteer, when she was providing observations about not knowing any successful applicants under the new programs.[175]

The caregivers who were not able to transition and obtain permanent residence with the new programs are working with work permits that need to be renewed and with employers that often need LMIAs. They also continue to be separated from their families. One witness suggested that an amnesty program should be created for caregivers who have lost their status.[176]

During the Committee’s study, IRCC launched a processing plan to:

• finalize permanent residence applications for up to 6,000 caregivers who have completed their in-Canada work experience and their immediate family members, by 31 December 2021;
• make at least 1,500 first-stage decisions on applications for the Home Child Care Provider and Home Support Worker pilots by 30 June 2021 (prioritization of these decisions will allow more caregiver work permits to be issued for those who have valid job offers to work for families in Canada);
• increase the digitization of caregiver applications; and
• ensure applicants receive acknowledgement of receipt letters by 31 May 2021.[177]

A new public policy was issued 3 May 2021 so that IRCC can process applications in 2021 that were received in 2020.[178]

Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot

The Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot is a community-driven program for skilled foreign workers and international students who want to work and live in one of 11 participating communities.[179] The program was announced in the middle of June 2019, and started in December 2020.[180]

During its study on the effect of COVID-19 on the immigration system, the Committee heard that a large part of the rural labour pool in some sectors is comprised of international students.[181] Meredith Armstrong, Acting Director, Economic Development, City of Greater Sudbury, explained that this pilot was one tool to address the city’s labour market needs. She said it was not the fastest way, but certainly a new way, to engage with employers and candidates who do not necessarily fit in the Express Entry program.[182] Ms. Armstrong also told the Committee that the City of Greater Sudbury had managed expectations from the start, indicating they would draw candidates from foreign nationals already in the community. She hoped there would be continued funding and support for the program.[183]

Leah Nord, from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said that labour market integration was “among the most important considerations as this sets up immigrants for success.” She described the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot as “really innovative and interesting” because “a business community, either a chamber or a EcDev, had to lead that application.”[184]

To ensure the Rural and Northern Immigration Program’s success, the Committee recommends:

Providing Continued Support to Rural and Northern Communities

Recommendation 10

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada ensure continued funding and support to communities that are participating in the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot.

Agri-Food Pilot

The Agri-Food Pilot (AFP) is an industry-specific program for foreign workers, particularly in meat processing and mushroom production. To participate in the pilot, applicants must have “12 months of full-time, non-seasonal Canadian work experience in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, in an eligible occupation in processing meat products, raising livestock, or growing mushrooms or greenhouse crops.”[185] Employers help workers transition to permanent residence. The AFP started 15 May 2020 and will run until 14 May 2023: “A total of 2,750 applications will be accepted annually throughout the pilot, which applies primarily to people who are already in Canada.”[186] In addition, there is a maximum number of complete applications processed for each eligible occupation.

The Committee heard that the introduction of the pilot was well received, although there are various challenges with the program.[187] One of these challenges is the education criteria, which requires a high school diploma or more. Ms. Krayden informed the Committee that an entry-level mushroom harvester required six months on-the-job training, training that was not recognized by IRCC.[188] She suggested that valuable on‑the‑job training replace the education criteria in the AFP.[189]

Other suggestions addressed issues with agriculture and butcher work permit renewals that have been exacerbated due to COVID-19: witnesses argued that IRCC should be completing these within 30 days. Further, for IRCC to have a way to search for these 17,000 farm and food workers, a new field for a NOC code should be added to the immigration form that is used to extend work permits.[190]

Another suggestion is for the AFP to follow the model of the PNP. Just as provinces issue a provincial nominee letter, IRCC should provide a letter to a candidate that is accepted into the AFP so that the employer can stop counting this individual within the cap imposed by the TFWP.[191]

Cyr Couturier, Chair of the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council, said that the AFP should become permanent.[192]

The Committee heard how the sector specific pilot was of interest, although the education and language requirements were difficult to meet. To ensure the success of the AFP, the Committee recommends:

Accepting On-The-Job Training as Equivalent Education for the Agri-Food Pilot

Recommendation 11

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada recognize on-the-job training provided by meat processors and mushroom growers over a sufficient time period as equivalent to the education requirement needed to qualify for the Agri-Food Pilot.

New Pathways to Permanent Residence for 2021

On 14 April 2021, Minister Mendicino announced three new streams for the year 2021 that would allow temporary residents to apply for permanent residence.[193] IRCC started accepting applications on 6 May 2021, and these streams will remain open until 5 November 2021, or until they have reached their limit. The three streams and their respective quotas are:

• 20,000 applications for temporary workers in health care;
• 30,000 applications for temporary workers in other selected essential occupations; and
• 40,000 applications for international students who graduated from a Canadian institution.[194]

The 40 health-related occupations are listed in Annex A and the 95 occupations of essential workers are in Annex B of the Temporary public policy to facilitate the granting of permanent residence for foreign nationals in Canada, outside of Quebec, with recent Canadian work experience in essential occupations.[195]

IRCC published a notice regarding official language requirements for the pathways: international graduates must have a level 5, and other workers must have a level 4. Tests that are less than two years old are also considered valid.[196]

The Committee heard a range of observations regarding these new pathways. Andrew Carvajal, Lawyer and Partner at Desloges Law group, said that “[o]n April 14, the government made one of the most exciting announcements I remember as an immigration lawyer.”[197] However, he told the Committee that there was very little information or time to prepare applications, which led to “a frenzy of people booking English tests and medical exams and ordering police certificates, not knowing if they will be required or not.”[198] Ms. Lehal described the reaction of her clients: “There is a real panic.”[199] Mr. Vander Ploeg said that “[o]ne of the issues with the 90,000 that was announced was that it came out of the blue. It surprised everybody, and now there’s a mad scramble to take advantage of it.”[200] For Mr. Johnstone, allowing 30,000 low-skilled migrants to apply for permanent residence was “a good first step. We need those significant numbers annually.”[201]

Several witnesses highlighted that the little notice, high language levels and need for testing would actually leave out the low-skilled and semi-skilled foreign workers that these pathways target.[202] Vilma Pagaduan, Advocate for Caregivers and Settlement Workers, suggested that an exclusive pathway should be made for caregivers in Canada, while Ms. Lehal highlighted that undocumented workers were left out.[203] In his submission to the Committee, Basil Omeje argued that many health care sector and essential workers are excluded from these pathways because their refugee claims are ineligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board.[204]

Furthermore, the Committee learned that applicants could not use third parties to submit applications.[205] Ms. Farn told the Committee that workers were concerned about the up‑front $1,000 fee that would not be reimbursed if the application failed, the fact that they had no support, and the fact that they had to submit everything at once.[206]

The Committee heard that, although welcomed, the sudden announcement of the new pathways caught many unprepared. For workers who must submit the application on their own, the fee is a substantial one. The Committee recommends:

Giving More Advance Notice and Details of Requirements when Launching New Programs

Recommendation 12

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, in planning future execution of innovative programs, consider providing advance notice and more fulsome details of the requirements.

Reimbursing Part of the Fee if the Low-Wage Permanent Resident Application Is Unsuccessful

Recommendation 13

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, in recognition of the often-difficult financial situation of low-wage foreign workers, reimburse a portion of the application fee if the permanent resident application is unsuccessful.

Chapter 4: Economic Programs in Quebec

Immigration is a shared jurisdiction in the Canadian constitution. Canada has established an agreement with Quebec, allowing the province to select its economic immigrants (i.e. permanent residents) based on its own programs and goals.[207] Throughout its study, the Committee heard testimony specific to Quebec employers who turn to the TFWP. This chapter presents key issues discussed.

Labour Shortages and Unemployment

The Committee heard that labour shortages were at an all-time record high, with 148,000 vacant positions in Quebec.[208] Charles Milliard, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, stated that “the lack of manpower will slow down the development of many regions in Quebec.”[209] Ms. Poitras, of Aliments Asta Inc., told the Committee that “[f]ood policy and food sovereignty are often talked about in Quebec. However, … we will not be able to achieve this as long as we have no workers on site.”[210]

Some witnesses testified that unemployment was incredibly low in some regions, lower than the provincial average of 6.4%.[211] Several witnesses testified that a high unemployment rate does not mean that the region has the workers to meet the demand.[212] They argued that using the unemployment rate of a region to refuse to process an LMIA, as ESDC does, is problematic.

Temporary Foreign Worker Program as a Gateway to Permanent Residence

The delays in obtaining permanent residence in Quebec, estimated to be four times longer than for the rest of Canada,[213] have led many workers to seek temporary employment as a first step to immigrating to the province.[214] They then apply for permanent residence through the Programme de l’expérience québécoise that requires two years’ work experience. Mr. Bourbeau of Restaurants Canada suggested that there be a fast-track renewal process for LMIA and work permits so that an applicant can qualify for permanent selection by Quebec.[215] Isabelle Leblond, Corporate Director, Human Resources, of Olymel L.P., suggested that work permits issued under the TFWP be for a period of three years to allow for the processing of the permanent resident application.[216]

The eligibility criteria for selection as a permanent resident in Quebec were described to the Committee as being very difficult to achieve.[217] The language level of French required, a score of seven out of eight, is a barrier to permanent residence.[218] Alain Brebion, Reception and Integration Officer, Corporation de développement économique de la MRC de Montmagny, added that even native French speakers have failed the language test.[219] Nevertheless, he stated that language in Quebec is more than a communication tool:

[I]t must be understood that, unlike other Canadian provinces, the concern is not only that candidates be able to communicate at work and elsewhere, but also that they be able to integrate into Quebec society, identify with and be accepted by the population. The language problem is very complex.[220]

Alignment of Federal and Provincial Programs

Mr. Milliard highlighted the duplication of administrative requirements, with both the provincial and the federal government involved in the TFWP at the application stage.[221] Mr. Groleau of the UPA suggested that there be an agreement regarding audits so that only one government is responsible for them.[222]

IRCC launched the new pathways for temporary foreign workers outside of Quebec at the beginning of the Committee’s study. However, Ms. Leblond highlighted to the Committee that the pilots and the new pathways are not available to the workers in Quebec.[223] One witness stated that there are quality long-term jobs for low-skilled works in Quebec,[224] and another worded it this way: “the practice of bringing in only people with very high levels of academic achievement is hard to square with the labour requirements in Quebec.”[225]

Édith Laplante, Director, Human Resources at Aliments Asta Inc, made two suggestions regarding pilot programs and immigration programs generally. The first was that the federal government engage in discussions with the Quebec government to better coordinate pilot programs.[226] For the second, she said: “in Quebec, we feel that better alignment between federal and provincial programs is absolutely necessary.”[227]

Conclusion

The Committee recognizes the value of Canada’s current economic programs but recommends improvements to several programs so that foreign nationals can continue to come to Canada and build better lives for themselves and a stronger, more prosperous Canadian society. The Committee would like to end its report by thanking all witnesses who took part in this study and in its previous study in the fall. Your time and valuable input are greatly appreciated.