HUMA Committee Report

Dissenting Opinion from the Official Opposition

As Members of the Official Opposition, we would like to thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee and those who submitted briefs as part of the study on the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) Program.

The previous government undertook a major reform of this program in 2014. We believe that every reform needs to be evaluated after the fact, and this program is no exception.

We fully endorse the principles of review, evaluation and efficiency outlined in the main report. However, we believe the study on the impacts of the TFW Program was rushed. Furthermore, we regret that the Committee was expected to adopt a report in so little time. An impressive number of witnesses were heard by the Committee in a very short time. Those who appeared before the Committee had very little time to speak, and some did not have the opportunity to speak at all. In short, we believe that we did not have enough time to adequately question the witnesses to gain an in-depth understanding of the matter at hand.

In our opinion, the Committee must undertake another study on the TFW Program to give interested stakeholders more time to appear and to give us, as members of the Committee, the information we need to make decisions in the best interests of Canadians.

Caregivers

The Committee adopted a recommendation calling on Employment and Social Development Canada to take immediate steps to extend work permits for caregivers in the low-wage stream from one to two years.

We believe that the TFW Program should treat caregiver positions differently. The work these caregivers do—either with children, elderly people or people with disabilities—is essential, and is not comparable to other positions filled by temporary foreign workers. The presence of a caregiver means that vulnerable people can stay at home longer, rather than being cared for in a health care facility. We need to recognize the assistance these foreign workers provide to our fellow Canadians. In addition, their presence results in significant cost savings for the Canadian health care system. As Ms. Donalda Madsen cautioned, “If families lose their ability to hire caregivers, […] the burden will fall on institutions such as local extended care hospitals and community living agencies.”[1]

In many cases, the $1,000 fee for a labour market impact assessment (LMIA) becomes a heavy financial burden on families.

The original intent for introducing the $1,000 fee for LMIAs was to improve the process and to improve application processing times. Now, two years after this measure was implemented, based on the mixed results observed, we believe that the federal government should consider reducing these fees, primarily for families hiring caregivers.

In the case of caregivers, we also are of the opinion that work permits should have been increased from one year to four years. A number of witnesses confirmed that these workers become like family to those they are caring for, in addition to being trained to meet the specific needs of vulnerable people. We believe the federal government should show compassion in this area and reduce the administrative and financial burden for those who hire caregivers.

Impact of a “trusted employer” program

The Committee adopted a recommendation calling on Employment and Social Development Canada to implement a “trusted employer” program to reduce LMIA processing times for employers who have demonstrated trustworthiness in their use of the TWFP.

We are inclined to support the implementation of this type of program because it could reduce red tape and improve program efficiency. However, as this program was inspired by ones already in place in Australia, Ireland and the United Kingdom[2], we believe the Committee should have taken the time to study the advantages and disadvantages, and to see how Canada would benefit from such a program.

Foreign worker cap

The Committee adopted a recommendation calling on the Government of Canada to ensure that the percentage of temporary foreign workers a business could employ at a given time be set at a minimum of 20%, and that it further review sector and geographic  considerations.

We agree with the part of the recommendation that states that the federal government should take into account the geographic and sectoral situation when establishing the percentage of foreign workers that can be employed at a given business, because this consideration would better meet the needs of various industries.

However, we are concerned that no maximum limit was set to prevent misuse. We believe that recruiting Canadian workers should be the top priority. Without a maximum limit on the percentage of foreign workers allowed, we are concerned that foreign workers may be hired to fill positions that Canadian workers could have filled, and that businesses will grow to depend on using foreign workers.

In addition, the wording of the recommendation implies that employers could hire foreign workers to fill up to 100% of their positions. This example clearly illustrates why we cannot support the recommendation as written.

Rapid access to permanent residency

The Committee adopted two resolutions about permanent residency for temporary foreign workers. The Committee recommended that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada review the current pathways to permanent residency for all temporary foreign workers, and that it allocate adequate resources to allow for the timely processing of permanent residency applications for those migrant workers that are hired under the TFW Program.

The Committee also recommended that the Government of Canada eliminate the TFW Program’s four-year rule and facilitate the transition to permanent residency for these workers, many of whom have already integrated into Canadian society.

We believe these recommendations will lead to temporary foreign workers gaining rapid access to permanent residency, which would penalize people who follow the traditional process to apply for permanent residency. The timelines for becoming a permanent resident in Canada are much longer than those for becoming a temporary foreign worker. We are concerned that this new pathway would be subject to abuse, as many people would choose to become temporary foreign workers rather than applying for permanent residency the traditional way. We also believe that wait times may be affected by these new measures, which would make both programs less efficient.

We recommend that the federal government evaluate the costs and consequences of the two programs before offering TFW Program participants accelerated access to permanent residency.

Tourism industry

In the context of the study on the TFW Program, we believe it is important to take the specific needs of the tourism industry into account.

In our opinion, the federal government must consider implementing a hiring program for temporary foreign workers in the tourism industry similar to the current hiring program in the agricultural industry. These two industries share characteristics: their need is seasonal and they are often located in remote regions. For these reasons, we believe the tourism industry would benefit from having the same advantages as the agricultural industry.

International Mobility Program

We would like to highlight the importance of the International Mobility Program, as it is a key part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. We recommend that the government maintain this program, given its importance to our relationship with countries with whom we have reciprocal agreements, and that the program be extended to meet the employment needs in the tourism industry, the agricultural processing industry, and other industries facing the same challenges, as well as employment needs in regions where there are not enough Canadian workers.

In addition, we believe that an important part of this program—the International Experience Canada – Travel and Work In Canada component—must be reopened to candidates in eligible countries, possibly through a specialized tourism stream,[3] to hire people ready to accept a job in the low-skilled workers category,[4] as outlined by the Tourism Industry Association of Canada in a brief it submitted to the Committee.

Agricultural sector

A number of agricultural stakeholders shared their concerns about the labour shortages in their industry. We believe the federal government should study the possibility of granting the agricultural sector an LMIA exception, similar to the exception granted to the television and film industry. This would help solve the problem at hand and would accelerate the hiring process for temporary foreign workers.

Conclusion

We believe that the Committee rushed this study, and that many of the recommendations adopted by the Committee should have been considered more in depth. In addition, we are concerned about how certain witnesses had very little time before the Committee. In fact, some witnesses contacted Committee members to complain that they had taken time off work to appear before the Committee, and then they were not even given the opportunity to speak. We are not calling into question the good faith of the Committee members, but we do hope that this experience will serve as a lesson and that this situation will not happen again.

We strongly encourage the government to take into account the thoughts, concerns and recommendations expressed herein.