Temporary Foreign Worker Program Primary Agriculture Review CFA Summary of TFWP Processing Issues & Proposed Solutions December 1st, 2017

Transcription

1 Temporary Foreign Worker Program Primary Agriculture Review CFA Summary of TFWP Processing Issues & Proposed Solutions December 1st, 2017 Scott Ross Director of Business Risk Management and Farm Policy Canadian Federation of Agriculture ext. 2324

2 ABOUT THE CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE: The CFA was formed in 1935 to answer the need for a unified voice to speak on behalf of Canadian farmers. It continues today as a farmer-funded, national umbrella organization representing the 10 provincial general farm organizations as well as 17 national commodity groups. Through its members, it represents over 200,000 Canadian farm families from coast to coast. The CFA's mission is to promote the interests of Canadian agriculture and agri- food producers, including farm families, through leadership at the national level and to ensure the continued development of a viable and vibrant agriculture and agri-food industry in Canada. CFA works to coordinate the efforts of agricultural producer organizations throughout Canada for the purpose of forming and promoting national agricultural policies to ensure Canadian agriculture remains profitable, competitive, and has the stability needed to innovate and adapt to meet changing domestic and international conditions. TABLE OF CONTENTS: A CANADIAN AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD WORKFORCE PROGRAM... 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS... 2 TFWP PROCESSING ISSUES & PROPOSED SOLUTIONS... 3 A. TFWP PAPERWORK PROCESSING... 4 CFA Recommendations:... 5 B. OTHER TFWP PROCESSING ISSUES... 6 CFA Recommendations:... 7 C. RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT CFA s 2017 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING... 8 CFA Recommendations:... 8 D. RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT CFA s 2016 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING... 9 CFA Recommendations: E. BROADER LABOUR ISSUES CFA Recommendations: APPENDIX A Agriculture Stream Processing Issues in Alberta APPENDIX B Agriculture Stream Housing Issues APPENDIX C - Employer Example of Process Issues APPENDIX D - CAHRC Comparison of LMI Methodologies APPENDIX E - Inconsistencies and Arbitrary Decision-Making Examples from the Mushroom Sector

3 A CANADIAN AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD WORKFORCE PROGRAM The CFA has worked closely with the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council to advance implementation of the Canadian Agriculture and Agri-food Workforce Action Plan, currently supported by 86 agricultural industry associations, laying out a roadmap to address the chronic, critical labour shortages confronting Canadian agriculture. While this roadmap extends beyond the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) to address this multi-faceted labour constraint, one of the key recommendations that CFA believes is needed is the introduction of a dedicated Agriculture and Agri-food Workforce Program to recognize the high labour demand in the sector and the subsequent critical labour shortage. Removing obstacles in obtaining the international skills and talent the sector requires, is critical for the agri-food sector to meet the ambitious export growth targets established in Budget However, in addition to this over-arching recommendation, a number of specific issues have arisen with regard to the TFWP and relevant immigration policies. The following section lays out these concerns and identifies solutions to see them addressed to the benefit of both agricultural employers and Service Canada. Summary of Recommendations: 1) Clarify the location of processing locations for LMIAs across Canada. 2) Create an notification subscription self-service providing regular updates to stakeholders on changes in processing, program requirements, policy changes, and upcoming consultations. 3) Review the LMIA and work permit application process with employers to improve speed and efficiency. 4) Establish a Centre of Specialization, distinct from the Simcoe office, catering to LMIA processing for the agriculture stream and other, non-sawp, agriculture-related LMIAs. 5) Review housing requirements under the Agricultural Stream through a lens that acknowledges the role the TFWP provides as a pathway to permanent residency for agricultural employers. 6) Publish any policies regarding applicability of NOC descriptions to LMIA approvals, to promote compliance and reduce administrative burdens for all involved. 7) Establish an online LMIA tracking system allowing employers to review their application status. 8) Review the LMIA process for the Agriculture Stream in all provinces to expedite processing and remove additional delays. 9) Work in collaboration with industry and other key stakeholders to develop a Trusted Employer and Integrity Partnership that would expedite processing while contributing to improved program integrity. 10) Ensure employers do not have to reapply for already approved placements. 11) Accept all interested agricultural commodities on to the National Commodities List, granting immediate access to grains & oilseed and maple products 12) Establish a dedicated Agricultural Workforce Program governed by a clear definition of primary agricultural work, such as is outlined currently in the Immigration and Refugee Protections Regulation. 13) Provide clear information to employers on labour market considerations that determine LMIA approval. 14) Publish and review policies guiding labour shortage calculations and interpretation by Service Canada officials, to ensure consistent treatment and transparency regarding acceptance/rejection of LMIAs. 15) Establish an interdepartmental advisory council, bringing together ESDC, IRCC, AAFC, and relevant stakeholders, to address cross-departmental linkages and develop a Rural Immigration Strategy. 2

4 TFWP PROCESSING ISSUES & PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Communicating LMIA Process Changes: Establishing a Centre of Specialization for the Agricultural Stream and Primary Processing Centralized processing for Agricultural Stream and Food Processing LMIAs and work permits would be ideal, by improving efficiency for the Federal Government and ensuring that processing is done in a timely and predictable manner for these high growth, high demand sectors. Centres of Specialization have been created for live-in caregivers and other sectors, and Agriculture and Food are asking for the same sectoral consideration. The Simcoe, Ontario office which primary processes Seasonal Agriculture Worker Program LMIAs does so in a timely manner for farmers this should be the model for all Agricultural Stream LMIAs to follow, as well. End-to-end processing of Agricultural Stream LMIAs and work permits generally takes over six months, as demonstrated in this diagram, which was delivered as a joint webinar to farmers by Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada October Ongoing processing TFWP paperwork processing issues for Alberta are listed in Appendix A. And Appendix C is an example of issues that a sheep producer has encountered, hence her farm is looking for expedited processing as she was needing supplementary shepherds with unique skill to assist for lambing season. Primary processors such as meat processors also continue to have processing issues: 2 LMIA applications were turned down for rural abattoirs in January

5 A. TFWP PAPERWORK PROCESSING: OVERVIEW OF FEEDBACK PROVIDED BY FARMERS Based on input from the Labour Task Force, including feedback from farmers and processors using the TFWP, CFA s understanding is that the processing sites for agriculture-related LMIAs have evolved over time. Industry groups current understanding is that LMIAs for agriculture (Seasonal Agriculture Worker Program, low skill, high skill and agriculture stream) are being processed as follows. Western Canada: 1. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and BC applications are sent to Vancouver. 2. Alberta applications are sent to Edmonton (SK can also send to Edmonton, if capacity at Vancouver is stretched) Meanwhile, LMIAs to be used for Permanent Residence in the Federal skilled Trades Class (Farm Supervisors & specialized life stock workers) as well as Federal Skilled Worker Class are submitted in New Brunswick: Appendix A includes a list of some of the specific processing complaints employers continue to note arising due to uncommunicated changes in program requirements, changing staff at regional offices and inconsistencies that arise due to a lack of communication as rules are revised and changed. Ontario: Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program LMIAs are processed in Simcoe, Ontario as well as Ontario Agricultural Stream LMIAs. In early 2017, farmers reported that resources were being reduced for the Simcoe office, which processes around 35,000 SAWP LMIAs a year with a staff of around eight people. Any decrease in staff resources at the Simcoe office, or additional responsibilities pertaining to LMIAs from other sectors, would lead to additional delays and exacerbate existing concerns with the timeliness of processing in many instances, limiting the capacity overall, as well as for triaging priority LMIAs. Regarding the Simcoe, Ontario office, the CFA would recommend that the full Simcoe office staff cohort be maintained and that the Simcoe office not be used for further Agricultural Stream and food processing LMIAs. The efficient processing of SAWP LMIAs needs to continue and not be overburdened by Agricultural Stream processing of paperwork. Quebec: The processing of LMIAs for Quebec producers includes the Quebec Immigration Ministry (MIDI). As of early 2017, the assessment process took an average of 3 to 4 weeks. For SAWP, LMIAs were approved for a specific number of workers not including the names of the workers. For the Agricultural Stream, problems were identified with regard to the submission of visa requests in the country of origin. Processing of documentation for the SAWP has been much more efficient due to the years of cooperation amongst the countries and Canada. In general, visas for Mexican workers are obtainable in two weeks. However, Quebec farmers usage of the Agricultural Stream has been increasing in recent years for a number of reasons, including increased demand for Guatemalan workers with the skills that Quebec farmers are seeking who do not have access to SAWP. In many instances, farmers also need workers for more than the seasonal time period that SAWP allows, in addition to increasing usage on non-seasonal farm operations such as in the dairy sector. 4

6 CFA RECOMMENDATIONS: TFWP PAPERWORK PROCESSING 1) Information on the locations at which LMIAs are processed be made readily available on the ESDC website and disseminated to key agricultural stakeholders. CFA, CAHRC, and partner organizations are keen to work with ESDC in developing and disseminating materials to clearly convey this information to employers. 2) An notification subscription self-service be developed by ESDC and Service Canada, similar to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ( which provides regular updates to interested stakeholders on any changes in processing, program requirements, policy changes, and upcoming consultations. This provides a simple means of communication that contributes directly to improved compliance and program understanding. 3) That ESDC consult with industry and all relevant stakeholders as part of a comprehensive review of the LMIA and work permit/visa application process, with a view to increasing fairness and efficiency. 4) A distinct Centre of Specialization catering to LMIA processing for the Agricultural Stream and primary processors that are non-sawp users could bring together all relevant Service Canada and IRCC officials required to process LMIAs and associated work permits. 5) CFA recommends that the scheduled review of housing requirements under the TFWP recognize the important role that the program provides as a potential pathway to permanent residency for agricultural employers. (See Appendix B for a list of housing-related processing challenges) 5

7 B. OTHER TFWP PROCESSING: OVERVIEW OF FEEDBACK PROVIDED BY FARMERS Clarifying how NOCs relate to LMIA Approvals A consistent point of concern from CFA members is the applicability of NOC code requirements to LMIA approvals. In some instances, employers have noted that NOC code descriptions for specific positions have been identified as maximum job requirements for a given position, resulting in the rejection of applications for exceeding the job description identified in the NOCs. This policy is not stated anywhere publicly. If there is a policy basis for rejecting LMIA applications because they exceed or do not specifically align with NOC descriptions for that position, any policies regarding applicability of NOC descriptions to LMIA approvals should be made publicly available. This would help employers proactively ensure compliance and reduce administrative burdens for all involved. An example of how NOCs can result in inaccuracies and undue denials when Service Canada officials lack knowledge of the sector is briefly laid out in the fourth bullet of Appendix E. Online Tracking of LMIA Applications Employers continue to raise concerns with the lack of a consistently functional, online LMIA tracking system that would allow them to not only understand the state of progress on their applications, but also would improve accuracy of applications and timelines. Currently, many LMIA applications are faxed in and CFA continues to hear examples where faxes cut off sections of pages or dates were read incorrectly due to legibility issues. If these applications were dealt with through a central, online portal, these legibility concerns would be addressed, with subsequent reductions in overall administrative requirements and timelines associated with the approval process. CFA strongly supports the planned introduction of an online portal for LMIA applications. Improving Visa Processing for the Agriculture Stream Employers continue to note major efficiency challenges regarding the processing of visa requests in the country of workers origin, particularly for the Agriculture stream. SAWP workers seem to have a faster track, based on many years of cooperation amongst the countries and Canada. As noted above, visas for Mexican workers are often obtained in two weeks. In Quebec, for the Agriculture Stream, one of the most important differences noted in comparison to SAWP is that employers need to supply the names of the workers that will be part of the LMIA request. This request generally delays the application process from 1 to 4 weeks. Employers are advocating for a change that would see approval of unnamed LMIAs for the Agriculture stream. Currently, if workers withdraw or cannot come to work in Quebec once the LMIA has been approved, employers must go back to Service Canada and IRCC/MIDI to change the name before the visa is issued (this adds another 5-10 days). Regarding the visa application, the workers need to obtain a medical exam and send the visa application to Immigration Canada. Once the visa application is accepted, the passport needs to be sent with a prepaid return envelope. This process takes an average of two weeks as well. In the end, this results in a considerable additional processing delay. 6

8 CFA RECOMMENDATIONS: OTHER TFWP PROCESSING 6) Any policies regarding applicability of NOC descriptions to LMIA approvals be made publicly available to employers, to promote compliance and reduce administrative burdens for all involved. 7) Timely roll-out of a functional, online LMIA tracking system that would allow employers to review the status of their applications. 8) Review the LMIA process for the Agriculture Stream in all provinces to expedite processing and remove additional delays that often place considerable pressure on employers trying to ensure they have a sufficient workforce for what can be very acute harvest seasons. 7

9 C. RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE S 2017 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING: Establishing a Class of Trusted Employers CFA delegates approved the following resolution, entitled Expedited Application Process : BE IT RESOLVED that an expedited process be considered, a trusted employer class, for farms that have a specified history of good standing with the SAWP program. This request is based on the fact that many agricultural employers have been accessing workers through the TFWP for more than 3 decades with a clear, demonstrated history that Canadians are unwilling to fill those positions. Service Canada experiences a significant burden processing applications that, for decades, have been for the same jobs at the same employers, with the same requirements. Those farms have a proven history with the use and application of the SAWP and the Agriculture Stream of the TFWP on their farms. The current process, by which employers must undertake a full application for these positions each year, is extremely onerous. By expediting a subset of trusted employer applications, the process could be significantly more cost and time efficient for all involved. The CFA recommends a collaborative approach, bringing ESDC, Service Canada, and other key stakeholders together to develop a model that would expedite processing while contributing to improved program integrity and reduced administrative burden for all parties involved. Private-public partnerships, working with industry and other 3 rd parties, should be considered. Reducing Application Requirements for Already Approved LMIAs At the same annual general meeting, CFA delegates also approved the following resolution, entitled Approval of a Placement : BE IT RESOLVED that if a placement is approved by Service Canada but a worker is unable to complete the service, the employer will not need to reapply for the approved placement. This resolution is to address situations whereby Service Canada approves a placement for a foreign worker but for unforeseeable reasons the worker cannot complete the service. This work still needs to be completed, but in order to assign another worker to this approved placement, employers must re-apply and go through the entire process again. This process usually results in the replacement worker being unavailable at the time where they are needed. This results in undue burden on employers and Service Canada officials. CFA RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 2017 AGM: 9) ESDC and Service Canada work in collaboration with industry and other key stakeholders to develop a Trusted Employer and Integrity Partnership that would expedite processing while contributing to improved program integrity and reduced administrative burden for all parties involved. Private-public partnerships, working with industry and other 3 rd parties, should be considered. 10) ESDC work with industry partners to develop a means of ensuring that if a placement is approved by Service Canada, but a worker is unable to complete the service, the employer will not need to reapply for the approved placement 8

10 D. RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE S 2016 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING: Access to the National Commodity List CFA s members continue to raise concerns with the limited scope of the National Commodities List, which governs access to both the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program and the Agricultural Stream of the TFWP. Many agricultural commodities continue to be excluded from this list, requiring them to apply through the lowwage stream of the TFWP. The NCL adds unnecessary complexity to the process that producers face when determining how to apply for international workers and also limits many producers from accessing the full range of tools intended for the industry. Specific examples of such omissions that have been brought to CFA s attention include the grains and oilseeds sector and producers of maple products. The NCL causes further complications with regard to cattle feedlots, as the production of many feed products, such as growing/harvesting silage crops, is not considered to relate to production of a commodity on the NCL. This demonstrates a lack of understanding as to the nature of feedlot operations, where the harvesting, mixing and general work involving feed is inherent to working on a feedlot. This interpretation of the NCL has seen a number of LMIAs refused, with employers asked to submit separate LMIAs for jobs that would otherwise be conducted by a single employee as part of the daily course of production on a feedlot operation. Adopting a Clear Definition of Primary Agricultural Work Recognizing that CFA and its members suggest no changes be made to the SAWP, CFA does advocate that ESDC review whether the National Commodities List should be the basis for determining access to any future dedicated Agricultural Workforce Program. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protections Regulations, section 315.2, primary agriculture is defined as work that is performed within the boundaries of a farm, nursery or greenhouse and involves: the operation of agricultural machinery; the boarding, care, breeding, sanitation or other handling of animals, other than fish, for the purpose of obtaining animal products for market, or activities relating to the collection, handling and assessment of those products; or the planting, care, harvesting or preparation of crops, trees, sod or other plants for market. Excluded activities include: the activities of agronomists or agricultural economists; landscape architecture; the preparation of vegetable fibres for textile use; activities related to commercial hunting and trapping; or veterinary activities. Access to the National Commodities List is currently provided through an opaque process, and this definition would appear to provide adequate boundaries to the definition of what is and is not considered primary agricultural work. 9

11 CFA RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 2016 AGM: 11) ESDC hold immediate, open consultations with the agriculture industry and accept all interested agricultural commodities on to the National Commodities List, with immediate access granted to grains & oilseed and maple product producers 12) Moving forward, access to any dedicated Agricultural Workforce Program, which would exist alongside the SAWP, be governed by a clear definition of primary agricultural work, such as is outlined currently in the Immigration and Refugee Protections Regulation. 10

12 E. BROADER LABOUR ISSUES Inaccurate and Inconsistent Labour Shortage Determinations Research conducted by the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council (CAHRC) shows a critical gap between the demand for workers and the supply of available workers. This gap has doubled in the last 10 years to approximately 60,000 workers. By 2025, the labour gap is expected to grow to 114,000 workers. The current job vacancy rate for agriculture is 7 per cent, resulting in $1.5 billion in lost sales each year and continues to constrain operations across Canada from meeting current market demand and future growth potential. However, ESDC labour market calculations continue to dramatically under-represent this shortage. CAHRC has raised this issue to ESDC officials, noting significant assumption issues that arise from reliance on the Labour Force Survey which does not capture the full breadth of TFWs involved in seasonal industries like agriculture (see Appendix D). While we are pleased to hear that these omissions are under consideration by ESDC official, this illustrates the need for clear communication as to the policies informing labour shortage determinations. Agriculture and agri-food employers continue to note inconsistencies and a lack of clear policy governing the identification of regional labour shortages on the part of regional Service Canada staff. Employers have sought information on the policies that determine labour shortages, but no specific policy guidance has been provided. To illustrate how these inconsistencies and a broader lack of transparency in decision-making result in uncertainty and frustration amongst employers when trying to fill urgent and critical labour needs, a number of examples were provided by Mushrooms Canada, a member of CFA. These examples from the Mushroom sector are briefly outlined in Appendix E. Pathways to Permanent Residency for Agriculture and Agri-food Employers The 2017 change in valuation for job offers under the Express Entry program, from 600 points to 50 points, leaves both primary agriculture and agri-food employers unable to conceivably achieve sufficient points for any position. The CFA and the entire agriculture industry commends the government s decision to remove the cumulative duration limit (the 4-in, 4-out rule ) as a step towards facilitating improved retention of workers and transition to permanent residency for year-round employment. However, the subsequent change in Express Entry valuations prevents employers from capitalizing on this new environment unless their provincial nominee program prioritizes agricultural labourers, supervisors, and technicians, amongst other positions. Based on a review of Provincial Nominees Programs conducted by CFA and CAHRC in 2015/16, the majority of provinces do not even permit applications from positions unless they fall within NOC 0, A or B classifications, which preclude these positions. As a result, experienced agricultural workers have extremely limited pathways to permanent residency despite possessing unique, high demand skill sets. While some opportunities have since arisen for lower-skilled NOCs, such as in this August s changes to the Ontario Immigration Nominee Program, further program criteria relating to formal education and language proficiency (reading and writing in particular) present further barriers that prevent farm workers from finding true pathways to permanent residency. A prime example of this barrier are that skilled agricultural workers cannot get permanent residency in in British Columbia s Fraser Valley, a key hub of Canadian agricultural production with high demand for agricultural workers. BC s PNP provides only 2 points for job offers in the Fraser Valley whereas many other regions of the province provide 10 points. 11

13 CFA has been pleased to hear that efforts are underway to address these long-standing concerns with pathways to permanent residency, but these will not address the fundamental disconnect that exists between labour demand and immigration policy so long as: agricultural work is deemed to be low-skilled, devalued as human capital in Canada s economic immigration policy, and job offers and arranged employment in high-demand industries are not adequately valued. The Atlantic Growth Strategy illustrates a key interest in promoting increased attraction and retention of immigrants to rural communities across Canada that are struggling to maintain their population base and the labour supply needed to maintain key local industries. CFA RECOMMENDATIONS: BROADER LABOUR ISSUES 13) CFA, CAHRC, and other industry partners are keen to work with ESDC to assist in developing and disseminating materials that would inform employers as to the labour market considerations made when determining whether to reject or approve LMIAs. This would promote compliance and reduce the need for any additional communications that creates additional administrative burden and potentially costly delays. 14) Review how labour shortages are calculated and how this information is recognized by Service Canada officials, in order to ensure consistent treatment and transparency regarding acceptance/rejection of LMIAs. 15) CFA strongly recommends that an interdepartmental advisory council be developed, bringing together ESDC, IRCC, AAFC, immigration settlement agencies, key stakeholders from the agriculture and food sector and representatives from rural communities across Canada. This advisory council s mandate would be to draw upon existing labour market information to assess Canada s rural labour market, immigration policies and associated infrastructure to develop a Rural Immigration Strategy that would lay out a long-term roadmap to address the aforementioned issues, with clear, measurable targets for success. The existing Atlantic Growth Strategy provides a useful template from which this council could draw upon to begin their work: 12

14 APPENDIX A: AGRICULTURAL STREAM PROCESSING ISSUES IN ALBERTA A number of issues are increasing in frequency, arising out of Alberta where employers noted that a small group handling LMIA processing out of the Edmonton office where there are new Service Canada officers that are treating applications inconsistently. Examples where treatment has differed across representatives include: 1. New officials in the office are not accepting advertising unless a newspaper receipt is provided. This suggests a requirement for paid advertising, without providing a clear explanation or specific program requirement. 2. Employers are rejected for advertising for multiple positions in the same advertisement. They are asked to re-advertise and reapply. 3. Employer interviews are requiring employers to recite every single answer already provided on their completed applications. Despite having this information in front of them, Service Canada officials have indicated having to hear all the information first hand. 4. Ongoing concerns exist with language requirements and inconsistency. For example, an employer didn t indicate the need for English, because that employer spoke both Spanish and English. They are still awaiting a decision, but clarity on this front would benefit all parties. 5. Service Canada officials indicate that individual positions are mis-advertised and that wages aren t set appropriately (i.e. apiary technician is actually a foreperson position). They are then being asked to readvertise and reapply, despite established history of hiring for these positions under the program. 13

15 APPENDIX B: AGRICULTURAL STREAM HOUSING ISSUES Housing in particular is a source of a significant number of processing issues. 1. The Agriculture Stream continues to be limited to a maximum weekly housing deduction of $30, which relates to the costs associated with bunk-style housing for seasonal workers. There is a difference between the needs of seasonal workers housing and workers who work in permanent occupations who live through the Canadian winter. However, Agricultural Stream housing requirements do not recognize this distinction. Due to the Ministerial Mandate change, where ESDC is now tasked with supporting the Pathway to Permanency for workers in permanent occupations, the costs of housing for full-time permanent farm workers who stay over the Canadian winter should be taken into greater consideration and should be shared by employees that are seeking to immigrate and/or reside on a year-long basis. Full-time, permanent employees should be allowed to contribute to their own cost of housing. More research is needed with Agricultural Stream users and workers to better understand these issues, and this issue should be reviewed from the perspective of the employer and the worker, accounting for the style of housing that employers are providing and workers are seeking. Approaches utilized under other streams of the TFWP should inform the Agricultural Stream housing requirements for workers in permanent, full-time occupations. 2. Workers that work in multiple provinces i.e. beekeepers that provide pollination services to farmers in more than one province and custom harvesters (i.e. AB to BC, BC to AB) need to have any alternative housing inspected in advance. Employers often use one of several hotels, and wish to have them inspected closer to travel, but Service Canada denies this and suggests they can submit an affidavit that they won't take their workers out of province if they want to receive approval of their LMIAs. These employers can show a history of reputable hotels, with no more than 2 individuals per room. Given that they could end up using one of several hotels and inspections in BC cost $500 per establishment, this is an unreasonable burden. 3. The timing of housing inspection requirements is also problematic on a number of fronts: a) Farmers purchase or lease houses and apartments for workers to participate in the inspection process required to apply for Temporary Foreign Workers. However, if the LMIA and/or the work permit for a worker is not approved, the employer is stuck paying a mortgage or lease on a house for a worker that is not forthcoming. In order to avoid undue costs are taken on, housing inspections should be required upon approval of the LMIA and work permit but before these workers actually move in. This would ensure compliance while ensuring employers are not taking on the often-substantial costs associated with providing housing for workers that will not be arriving. b) Health inspectors occasionally use different forms for housing inspections, not those provided by Service Canada. Employers are asked to reapply only once appropriate forms are used. This was not previously an issue. c) Returning employers are being rejected if the health inspector did not specify the number of persons that accommodations can provide for. Service Canada is demanding information in 24 hours or employers will have to reapply from scratch. 14

16 APPENDIX C: EMPLOYER EXAMPLE OF PROCESS DELAYS Eadie Steele and her husband operate Shepherd s Choice, one of the nation s largest producers of sheep breeding stock and meat lambs and have been using the temporary foreign worker program for more than ten years to fill the chronic shortage of knowledgeable sheep farm labour. On June 3, 2016, they received a positive LMIA for three workers from the U.K through the Ag Stream of the Temporary Foreign Workers Program. Eadie started the process early because the foreign workers, who were working on their farm in 2016, were leaving Canada in December 2016 because their work visas would expire. Over the summer of 2016, seven qualified workers from the U.K. were offered the job and they subsequently changed their mind for various reasons, but also because obtaining their work visa takes too long - in some cases, many months. Workers found employment in their home country and were unavailable to travel to Canada. Finally, three workers were confirmed in October and November. It wasn t until January of 2017 that the Steele s learned that one worker had his work visa application declined by Immigration Canada due to a 7 year old drunk driving charge. Another worker sent in his work visa application after the LMIA expired (December 6 th ) therefore his application was also denied by Immigration Canada. A third worker on the named LMIA has not responded to phone calls or messages. This left the Steele s without any employees and they had to start the LMIA application process again. A request for urgent processing was submitted with the application because the 2,500 ewe flock begins the busy lambing season in April and May and over 5,000 lambs were expected. In January and February 2017, Eadie placed numerous advertisements for experienced, Canadian sheep workers to work on their farm. The response was, once again, very poor. People respond who have no farm experience; no sheep work experience, or have no driver s license which is required for the job. Eadie has asked numerous sheep industry contacts if they knew of anyone at all with experience who is looking for employment. After fulfilling all of the LMIA requirements, and two requests to Service Canada for urgent processing, another unnamed LMIA was finally approved on March 4 th. Despite the requests for urgency, Service Canada personnel have repeatedly stalled the process. 1. Eadie had to create her own forms for submitting the names of new employees because the proper forms were never sent with the unnamed LMIA. 2. Regardless of requests to have information from the Service Canada office faxed to the Steele s, three times, the named LMIA has been received by Canada Post, effectively delaying the process by a week each time. No explanation has been given as to why information is mailed and not faxed. 3. The Simcoe office program officer asked for a listing of ALL of the Steele s rental properties even though this information has not been needed in the past 10 years of applications. 4. The same Service Canada officer cautioned Eadie that her employees from the U.K. would be asked to take English tests at the Canadian Border because she had listed English language as a requirement of the job. She also cautioned Eadie that her employees would have to prove that they had the qualifications of the job to 15

17 Border Services. But she was unable to tell Eadie what documentation that Border Services needed from her employees to prove their qualifications. 5. That same officer then incorrectly advised Eadie that she needed to submit a separate LMIA application for each country where she might possibly find qualified applicants such as New Zealand and Australia. The next program officer to process the New Zealand and Australia LMIA applications informed Eadie that this was incorrect information and that only extra contracts for each country needed to be on file. This incorrect information from the first officer once again delayed the process of searching for employees in New Zealand and Australia. 6. To date, the initial Service Canada office has never returned a single phone message left by the Steele s with any sort of explanation for her actions. When the Steele s left a message for them, asking why the named LMIA was mailed and not faxed, they added insult to injury by faxing the named LMIA that had already been received by mail. 7. The second Program Officer, that had clarified the process regarding Australian/New Zealand LMIA applications, informed Eadie that she could have asked for an extension of the June 2016 LMIA back in January. Again, this information was provided 4 months AFTER it was required. 8. Eadie tried to contact the Service Canada Simcoe office to register a complaint regarding the delays and inconsistent information provided by the two program officers. However, the phone number listed for the Simcoe office does not receive incoming calls. How can any applicant get correct information or file an appeal if the office doesn t receive incoming calls? Frequent attempts to reach immigration officials to provide information on current work visa applications have been fruitless. When Service Canada is contacted, they have referred queries to IRCC. However, IRCC does not respond to questions from employers. They have called their MP s office for assistance, however IRCC does not respond to calls placed by their MP s office. The combination of delays and incorrect information from both Service Canada and Immigration Canada has put the Steele s in a very difficult situation. They are currently working 14 to 15 hour days and struggle to complete the work of 5 people, because Immigration Canada has not yet approved work visas. Even though they have a two year waiting list for their breeding stock, they are considering exiting the industry because they can t find competent Canadian employees, and the Temporary Foreign Worker program is neither reliable nor timely. The Canadian Lamb market is chronically undersupplied (this can be verified by Jennifer MacTavish, General Manager of the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency) and the Steele s should have an expanding operation to meet the demand. However, due to the severe shortage of qualified employees, the Steele s are unable to make sound business plans more than two years in advance. 16

18 APPENDIX D: CAHRC COMPARISON OF LMI METHODOLOGIES ESDC: Canadian Occupational Projection System (COPS) CAHRC: Agriculture & Agri-food Supply & Demand Model (AgriLMI) Current Situation Model LFS/Census + Vacancies=AgriWorkforce LFS/Census + TFWs + Vacancies=AgriWorkforce Data Sources & Assumptions Labour Force Survey (LFS): includes TFWs (#s vary) and quantifies AgriWorkforce. LFS data averaged over the year. Census of Population (Census) Labour Force Survey (LFS): includes insignificant # of TFWs and quantifies domestic workforce only. Use seasonal high workforce numbers (August). Census of Population (Census) Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs) CAHRC Employer Survey: vacancies Findings: Past 10 Years AgriWorkforce has decreased by 0.5% per year AgriWorkforce has increased by 0.1% per year Future Projection Model Current Labour Demand (LFS + Unfilled Vacancies) x Labour Growth/yr= Forecast Labour Demand Current Labour Demand (LFS + Foreign + Unfilled Vacancies) x Labour Growth/yr= Forecast Labour Demand Assumptions Labour Growth/yr=Industry Growth minus Productivity Growth Labour Growth/yr=Industry Growth minus Productivity Growth Assumes 2.1%/yr Industry Growth for whole industry Assumes different Industry Growth rates by commodity ranging from 4.2%/yr for aquaculture to 0.3%/yr for dairy (validated by industry) Assumes Productivity Growth for whole industry Assumes different Productivity Growth rates by commodity (validated by industry) Findings: 10 Year Projection AgriWorkforce will continue to decrease by 0.5% per year AgriWorkforce to increase by 0.5% per year LFS (Statistics Canada) Census (Statistics Canada) NOTE: CAHRC s definition of the agricultural workforce includes aquaculture and support services to crop and livestock production. AAFC s definition does not. NOTE: The Centre for Spatial Economics (Ernie Stokes) prepares LMI supply/demand models. Occupations rather than industries are the basis of CS4E s models. Many provincial governments have worked with CS4E to develop supply/demand models for their provinces. They do not include temporary foreign workers in their analysis. Thus their models generally do not indicate that shortages in agricultural occupations exist. 17

19 APPENDIX E: INCONSISTENCIES AND ARBITRARY DECISION-MAKING EXAMPLES FROM THE MUSHROOM SECTOR The following outlines some of the experiences that members of the Canadian Mushroom Growers Association (CMGA) have had when attempting to access the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. CMGA hopes that by sharing the experiences of its members, it may assist policy makers in finding meaningful solutions and improvements for this essential program. CMGA recognizes that there is a significant labour shortage within Canadian agriculture and this shortage is expected to grow. Members of CMGA rely on the TFWP to help meet the mushroom consumption demands of consumers. 1) Arbitrary Denials One farm went through the process of advertising for a position, a requirement under the LMIA process and once the TFWP application was reviewed by a Case Officer, the position was denied. Reasons for this denial were communicated by the Case Worker as the stated salary would attract a Canadian. Although the process to advertise to Canadian workers was followed by the grower and a Canadian candidate was not found, this subjective denial was upheld. 2) Altering/Reduction of Request Another farm has reported that upon completing the process of the LMIA for the 7 on-farm positions that were required, the Case Officer reviewed the TFWP application and decided the farm only required 5 workers. This judgement has negatively affected the ability of this farm to reach its full growing potential. The farm had followed the required process and demonstrated that Canadians didn t apply for the positions. According to the farm, All avenues for increasing the labour force with Canadian workers have been exhausted and we continue to have vacancies. 3) Specialized Industry A large farm operation has also experienced a unique issue when needing to attract a highly skilled, senior executive level position. There are only a small number of mushroom farms in Canada and the operation competes with the few mushroom farms that are in this country. A Temporary Foreign Worker Application was submitted to recruit an individual with the knowledge, experience and expertise to fulfill this position. Although the application is still undergoing review, the government must acknowledge the unique nature of some ag industries and the size and scale of the operations. When an industry is so small (50 businesses nationally) with so few positions (5,500 employed nationally), we must allow the businesses to operate accordingly. 4) Misclassified Worker NOC Codes When applying for a general labourer position at a mushroom substrate facility, the worker s assigned NOC Code classified them as a chemical engineer. This demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge of the industry and requirements of a farm. The position would not use chemicals or require the knowledge of chemicals, mushroom farms are historically considered organic or certified organic. 5) Lack of Agricultural Knowledge Frequently, mushroom farms are asked to provide acreage of their farming operations when navigating the TFWP application process. Mushroom farms are not measured in acres as mushrooms are grown indoors on 6-8 levels of vertically stacked trays or beds. A better understanding of this sector s practices by TFWP representatives will help them to better address mushroom growing labour needs, in turn helping to build a stronger agri-food industry in Canada. 18