Debates of April 16th, 2013

Opposition Motion--Temporary Foreign Worker Program

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to support a motion that should receive the support of all members of the House.

I must say I am a little discouraged by comments coming from both the New Democrats and the Conservatives. Hopefully after listening, they might readjust their thinking on the issue.

The parliamentary secretary put forward a question about the bigger picture of Canada and whether we want to see Canada do well. Let there be no doubt that the Liberal Party has demonstrated over years of governance that immigration, as a policy, plays a very important role in Canada's future economic prosperity, not to mention the potential goal of enhancing the social fabric in which we all live.

I want to draw a comparison between a Liberal government and a Conservative government. The numbers are very telling: 338,000. This is a number I have repeated three or four times today. Is it really necessary for Canada to have 338,000 temporary foreign workers? I would argue that the answer is no, that there is no need for Canada to have 338,000 temporary foreign workers.

What we need to do is develop immigration programs that will be effective, that will work. Let me give a specific example. I would argue that one of the most successful immigration programs in the last 15 years was the provincial nominee program. It was an economic program for all provinces that allowed them to identify anyone in the world they would like to come to Canada and fill an economic need.

Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien signed it off, and former Premier Gary Filmon from Manitoba came to the table relatively quickly. Manitoba saw a good thing at the time, back in 1998, and it signed up very quickly. Not only did we sign up, we made a commitment to grow with that program, because Manitoba saw the benefits of economic immigrants coming to our province. Because of that particular program, the nominee program, our immigration numbers skyrocketed. They went from an average of 3,500 or 4,000 to 12,000 to 14,000.

We can take a look at the economic benefits that the province of Manitoba has generated over the years of this hugely successful program and compare it to the temporary worker program. I have.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration says to show him some facts. Let me give him some facts: in 2008 Manitoba had 5,294 individuals on temporary work permits, and today it has 5,572. It has actually gone down or been consistent. Why has it been consistent? It is because we have taken advantage of a great national program called the nominee program.

Now we see other provinces trying to duplicate what Jean Chrétien and Gary Filmon came to an agreement on back in the late nineties and trying to take advantage of that economic program. Today Manitoba's fear is that Ottawa will not give us the certificates we require to continue to have the success we have had in the past.

That is why I say it is time for the government to look at this resolution. We need to go to different communities, listen to what the stakeholders are saying and hear what not only the government but the business communities or the labour unions in Manitoba have to say about it. It has been a huge success.

We did not need to dramatically increase the number of temporary foreign workers; we were able to provide individuals who were prepared to come to work in Manitoba the opportunity to immigrate to Manitoba. That provided economic prosperity to our province. It played a critical role in family reunification and enhanced the multicultural fabric of our communities.

It is the same principle, and it is not just Manitoba. Other provinces are acting on the nominee program. More than ever before, the demand for certificates continues to grow.

The government's response to that growth: no. Sure, the government has increased it over the years, but it has to realize that the drive for the growth of the program has to come from the provinces.

When Jean Chrétien and the minister of immigration created the program, we anticipated that it would grow, and we were right. The government refuses to recognize the valuable contributions that the program could continue to make to all provinces in Canada. If we had acted on that, the need to have 338,000 foreign temporary workers in Canada today would not be there.

Through the decades we have recognized the role of immigration in our country. Pierre Trudeau brought in the live-in caregiver program. We have the temporary program we are talking about today, which was brought in through the Liberal administration. I just made reference to the nominee program. These are all programs that make a difference and allow us to meet the needs of our labour force while at the same time contributing in other ways.

What about the policy of the government? This minister has been a disaster. The minister of immigration has not done a good job, contrary to what he might like to say.

The government says that the Liberals created a huge backlog in the waiting list. Should I remind the minister of immigration that he created the largest bulk in the shortest time period in the skilled worker class when he introduced MI1? I believe it was well over 150,000 in just a few months.

What was the minister's solution with respect to the 500,000 skilled workers who were hoping to immigrate to Canada at some point and had been waiting for years? It was to hit the delete button and to continue to issue more temporary work permits.

We recognize that temporary work permits do have a role to play in Canada. That is why we support the program's coming into being and its expansion, but we do not support the use of the program to the degree that it could hurt the Canadian economy. We have to offer people living in Canada, Canadians and permanent residents, the first opportunity to gain employment. The way to do that is to put into place a process that allows that to take place.

If employers at McDonald's wanted to hire foreign workers, they would typically go to the human resources office and say that they have been trying hard to hire someone in Canada but have been unsuccessful, and they would request an LMO. The answer should be “no”, because before asking for one, they have to demonstrate that they have met certain criteria, such as advertisements, in attempting to fill those jobs at the restaurant. If, among other things, they were able to demonstrate that they have advertised and no one showed up to fill those jobs, then they would be issued an LMO, which would then give them the authority to go abroad and have someone brought into Canada.

Many would argue that in terms of the skill set for McDonald's restaurants, there are many hundreds, if not thousands, of students or individuals aged 55 and over who are looking for that type of part-time job. It would be tough to convince my constituents that McDonald's really requires temporary foreign workers.

Staying with the restaurant industry, what about a specialty cook? I remember years ago the efforts I had to go through to assist a restaurant to acquire a foreign worker. The restaurant is somewhat unique, because the cooks have to know how to make Indo-Canadian sweets. They have to know how to cook cuisine that is quite foreign to 99% of the population. It can be very difficult to acquire a specialty cook in certain situations. How the economy is performing will often have an impact. There could be a restaurant where there is a justified need, and if the restaurant does not get the cook, it ends up closing down.

That is just one industry. We have industries from coast to coast to coast that need to have temporary foreign workers. That is why the Liberal Party supports the program. Take a look at our agriculture industry. You can talk about the Atlantic region and the fishing industry, strawberries and other industries and go west all the way to B.C. There is a huge demand. If we did not have access to temporary foreign workers, those jobs would go unfilled, and many of those jobs would then be lost forever. Those jobs contribute to our GDP. If we do not value those jobs, our lifestyle today will go down, because we are not talking about two, three or four jobs, we are talking about tens of thousands of jobs.

When the Liberal Party was in government, we had 160,000 of those jobs, but we balanced that with other programs that allowed for immigration, such as the provincial nominee program, which allowed provinces to get into the picture. I was shocked yesterday when I heard the leader of the official opposition stand up in his angry way and say that 340,000 of those foreign workers are taking 40% of the 900,000 jobs that were created. That is wrong. The Leader of the Opposition needs to get more research done on this issue. This is too important. I would assume that the critic for immigration will talk to him and explain the valuable role this program plays for all Canadians. Not only is there a benefit for the foreign worker coming to Canada, but there is equal or greater benefit for Canada.

That is why today we are trying to appeal to all sides of the House to recognize that the best thing we can do to improve the program is to not come to the table with too many predetermined ideas. I can have an open mind and come to the table and go to the province of Manitoba and find out why its need for temporary workers has not increased at all. Yet the province has done exceptionally well economically. Compared to other provinces, it has always been in the top three in terms of low levels of unemployment.

Immigration has played a critical role in that, but so has the temporary foreign worker program. That has been constant. Even when the Liberal Party was in government during times of the highest economic prosperity, we never exceeded 160,000, from what I understand. We believed in a balanced approach. We want Canadians who are unemployed to get first crack at filling these jobs.

We also recognize how important it is to our economy and to our social fabric that we do not lose jobs because we cannot get those jobs filled. That is the reason we have the temporary workers. They continue to contribute in a tangible way.

That is why what we are suggesting is not that much to ask for. It is a pretty straightforward motion. I will be very disappointed and quite surprised if the New Democrats do not vote for the opposition day motion. I will wait and see. Hopefully I am misinterpreting what is being said. I will be disappointed, not surprised but disappointed, if the Conservative government does not recognize the importance of this program.

The Conservatives talk about the economic action plan. Every time one of them stands up and says the word, he or she gets a gold star. The economic action plan is not going to resolve this problem. The economic action plan is a dud. At the end of the day, the only thing that plan is doing is generating a lot of jobs in the advertising industry as the government spends millions of dollars to continuously advertise something that is going to have a negative impact. This is only one component of it.

If the government wants to approach immigration and labour in a holistic fashion, why would it oppose having committee meetings where we could talk about some of these programs? Whether it is the Pierre Trudeau live-in caregiver program, which needs to have some modifications, or the Jean Chrétien provincial nominee program, or even some changes we made to the temporary foreign worker program when we were government, we need to recognize that changes have to be made periodically to improve programs.

I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration what he envisions in terms of numbers. Today we have 338,000. Where would he like to see that number in five years? Is he happy with that number? Is there another way to change the formula so that Canada benefits?

I am going to suggest that there are many ways we could improve the system so that all Canadians and permanent residents would benefit, not only today but for generations to come.

We can talk about the expanded skilled worker program. If people are good enough to work in Canada for an extended period of time, why are we not allowing them, under certain criteria, to land in Canada? What about those industries that are in constant need? How do we ensure that those industries are going to be there providing continual economic benefit for our country?

I thank the House for the opportunity to say a few words.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member tends to get onto all sorts of different issues and gets sidetracked. On this issue, I am afraid that there were a couple of times when I think he lost most members in the House of Commons, because he was no longer talking about the issue of temporary foreign workers.

I want to be clear on this issue of temporary foreign workers. I have detailed a number of Liberal members who made it clear to the minister that they wanted temporary foreign worker approvals in their ridings. We know that a number of NDP members spoke to the minister about temporary foreign worker applications. We understand that sometimes there are job openings in Canada and there are no Canadians to fill them. That is the intent of the temporary foreign worker program.

What I have been trying to get across to the Liberal Party is that the reason this was in the news last week was because of an egregious example of a company that sought to take advantage of a program, the intent of which is to help the Canadian economy, assist Canadian business and grow the overall economy. This egregious example of a company taking advantage of the system should not happen, and the government has indicated that it is going to address it.

The member is on the record as having gone to the minister to seek temporary foreign workers in his riding. Why did he not mention that in his comments and speak to the fact that he agrees that the temporary foreign worker program is a good one?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the member can share with me the letter he is referring to.

He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, and his lack of knowledge on the issue concerns me. He does not necessarily understand that it is not about RBC. That is an example. If that is the only reason he thinks we are debating this today, he needs to go to the PMO and get some better speaking notes. The issue is real and needs to be addressed. He makes a case as to why he should be voting for this motion. We need the Conservatives to understand that the program needs to be fixed. It is not just RBC. He needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

I can provide a copy of some notes that might give him a better understanding of the problems within the program. I challenge him to think about what this program is all about and how Canada benefits from it. If he believes that the program is good, he should support this resolution.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find the previous discussion a little disingenuous. The temporary foreign worker program in Canada grew significantly under the Liberals and then doubled under the Conservatives' watch.

When I hear some of the impassioned speeches, I have to ask why Canadians should believe the Liberals are any different from the Conservatives in managing this particular file. Do the Liberals support ending the practice of allowing temporary foreign workers to be paid 15% less than Canadian citizens and permanent residents?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes.

Let me say that the member really does not appreciate history. She made reference to 160,000 under the Liberal administration. Under the last Liberal administration, the economy was doing exceptionally well. The program we are talking about was a Liberal Party creation. Virtually every progressive piece of immigration policy the House of Commons has seen originated with the Liberal Party.

We do not have to take a second seat to the New Democrats. I have witnessed New Democrat after New Democrat take shots at the Liberal Party. All you need to do is reflect on your angry leader of the official opposition and some of the statements he made yesterday and some of the other statements made by New Democrats. You are not that much better than the Conservatives in terms of immigration policy. Does—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The time has expired. Also, I have been in the chair for just under an hour and this is the fifth time I have reminded members to address their comments to the Chair rather than their colleagues. This is not a shrug. I want to serve notice to members that the next time this happens in this chamber I will immediately interrupt that person and move on to the next speaker.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beauséjour.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues will agree that my colleague from Winnipeg North has done a terrific job as the spokesperson for our party with respect to citizenship and immigration issues.

The member's speech highlighted a number of concerns that our party has with respect to the temporary foreign worker program. However, my question for my colleague is very simple. Does he agree with me that there is considerable merit in having a well run, balanced temporary foreign worker program? For example, in my constituency in the seafood processing sector, many businesses depend on temporary foreign workers who come and live in small rural coastal communities in Atlantic Canada. They contribute a lot to the communities themselves and a great deal to the businesses in which they work.

It is important to have a labour market opinion that is an accurate reflection of the labour market and companies need to be prevented from abusing this program. However, does the member agree with me that done properly, particularly in rural and remote communities and some sectors like tourism and seafood processing, there is a real role for a temporary foreign worker program in assisting these businesses?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the key words there are “done properly”. A program for temporary foreign workers, done properly, can make a difference and have a real impact on Canada's economy in a very strong and positive way.

The member makes reference to an industry in Atlantic Canada which is of critical importance. It drives many benefits for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The products and produce that come from the seafood industry in Atlantic Canada are well known. Those temporary foreign workers provide a valuable service and that principle can be applied throughout the country.

If the program is administered properly, we will find great economic opportunities for Canada. We all benefit when that happens. However, we have to ensure that the program is administered properly so we do not have a situation where there are unemployed Canadians who have the ability to fill jobs but are denied those jobs because an employer wants to have a foreign worker. There needs to be a balance.

The program is great, it is wonderful and we need to protect its integrity, but it has to be administered properly.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Toronto over half the population was born outside of the city and they are listening to this debate with great concern. It is important to underline that in this debate when we are tackling the issues we do so with the principles of justice and fairness for all workers in Canada first and foremost. It is very important that we underline that fact.

In Toronto about one-third of the temporary foreign workers are being deployed. This defies mathematics. For example, between 2000 and 2005 we brought in about 45,000 immigrant workers who were professional engineers. They need these jobs.

Therefore, the system is broken. Could my colleague speak to those issues? There are egregious mistakes in this program.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a good point in the sense that we need to recognize there are provincial laws and regulations, labour codes and so forth. All of those provincial laws do apply to foreign workers. Nowhere in Canada should there be anyone receiving less than the provincial minimum wage or have to work outside of normal hours without getting that time and a half and so forth.

We have to ensure that there are some basic standards. It would be nice, if we see this resolution pass, that a number of other important factors would also brought to the table. We have to ensure we protect the rights of the worker at the same time as we continue to have this dialogue on this very important issue.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga—Streetsville today.

I am pleased to be here to speak to the motion on temporary foreign workers.

First, let me echo the comments of my colleagues that we are concerned about some of the recent matters highlighted in the media as of late. It is unequivocally unacceptable for Canadian companies to be laying off Canadians to replace them with foreign workers. I think that is something with which all members of the House would agree. As the minister has made clear in her statement on this matter, HRSDC officials are reviewing the matter.

In budget 2013, we committed as a government to make several changes to strengthen the temporary foreign worker program. Canadians must always have the first crack at any available job. We have been consistent on that position with the program.

Our government's focus from day one of this mandate has been on jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Connecting Canadians with available jobs has been our mission. Through the expanded job alerts program, unprecedented funding for work sharing and skills training during the recession and targeting supports for older workers through the targeted initiative for older workers, our government has consistently put Canadians first.

Among the largest industrialized countries in the world, such as the U.S., Germany and Japan, Canada has the strongest record of growth and job creation throughout this economic recovery. Since the depth of the global economic recession, the Canadian economy has created over 900,000 net new jobs. Overwhelmingly, these are full-time, well-paying jobs in the private sector. We are doing well, but we cannot afford to become complacent.

The global economy remains fragile and the United States, our largest trading partner, continues to struggle with massive debt and modest economic growth.

Canadians may legitimately ask how, in a country with 7% unemployment, there could be a shortage of qualified applicants in any job. Yet, skills and labour shortages are a reality and they are affecting the ability of Canadian businesses to grow and compete. We have a mismatch on our hands between the skills that workers have and what employers need to hire to keep their businesses running smoothly and successfully.

The Prime Minister, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters and many others have called it one of the most difficult challenges Canada faces today.

Here are some more sobering statistics. When all professions are considered, it is estimated that by 2016 there will be 1.5 million skilled job vacancies in Canada. By 2021, that number will increase to 2.6 million skilled job vacancies. If we cannot find ways to fill our skills and labour gaps, we will lose ground significantly and all Canadians will suffer.

As someone from the Maritimes, I am all too familiar with those facts. In the Maritimes we now have the shipbuilding contracts coming to Halifax. We have the lower Muskrat Falls hydro project almost under way. There are going to be unprecedented opportunities for the skilled trades in my region. However, there will not be enough workers in the region to support this demand that will be there over the next decades. We need to invest now in training our workforce so people across the region can take advantage of this economic opportunity.

Our government is working hard to make this happen. We have made skills and training a central pillar of economic action plan 2013. With 18 years as a professional educator, it is the first budget in my memory that has education as its centrepiece. We are ramping up our efforts to give Canadians better labour market information so they can be better prepared for the jobs that are out there. We are encouraging employers to tap into demographic groups that they may have overlooked before, such as young people, aboriginal people, people with disabilities and workers over 55. We want as many Canadians as possible working.

Recent news stories about the use of the temporary foreign workers program have once again led to confusion and concern among Canadians. These stories have revived the persistent myth that our government's temporary foreign worker program is designed to undercut Canadian workers by giving employers access to cheap foreign labour.

There is a lot at stake here, so I want to tackle the myth of cheap labour head on.

The temporary foreign worker program has never been intended to save money for businesses by allowing them to ignore qualified Canadian applicants for jobs in favour of foreigners who would work for less money. The program has always been about filling vacancies where there are no qualified Canadian applicants. This is the most basic principle of the program. That is why we are reviewing and reforming the program to make it work better to ensure that Canadians always have first opportunity at available jobs.

As we have said many times, employers are required to do everything reasonable to find Canadian candidates for their job openings. Only when they cannot find a qualified Canadian are they allowed to hire from outside the country.

When companies are able to get foreign workers, it actually benefits Canadian workers, because when businesses expand, there is a ripple effect and more jobs are created.

The moment temporary foreign workers arrive in Canada, they have the same rights on the job as Canadians, including the right to be paid a fair wage. It is unfortunate that there is so much information out there, with big unions telling Canadians that temporary foreign workers are paid less than Canadians. Every employer must pay a temporary foreign worker the same wage it is paying its Canadian workers for doing the same job in the same location.

As I have said before, our government is aware of the concerns Canadians have with the temporary foreign worker program. The review we have undertaken would address these concerns.

Budget 2013 announced several initiatives we are pursuing in the coming months. We will require employers to increase the intensity of their efforts to hire Canadians before we judge them eligible to get temporary foreign workers imported into the country. We will, for example, expect them to advertise over a longer period, to a wider audience, when they have jobs available.

We will help employers which currently rely on temporary foreign workers to plan for transition to an all-Canadian workforce. We are proposing to introduce a fee for employers requesting temporary foreign workers so the Canadian taxpayer will not have to pay for these processing costs.

Our government will never stray from our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians. We are going to do what it takes to ensure Canadians always have first opportunity at any available job. However, we do not need several more months of talking on the subject.

Budget 2013 has laid out concrete proposals for fixing the program. For that reason, I am asking the opposition to quit playing politics and work with us on positive solutions.

Therefore, I will not be voting for the motion. I urge all members of the House to join me in standing up for real action by voting against the motion.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I can only shake my head at the contradictions in those remarks. If anyone should understand some of the mistakes that have been made in recent times, through leaving everything up to the bureaucrats at HRSDC, that member should. He has to be experienced in terms of the problems that we are having with the EI changes that were not thought out and without having hearings by anybody. As a result, we have a disaster now for the seasonal industries and seasonal workers in his region and in my particular region.

In terms of some of the recommendations coming forward he said that there would be longer periods of time taken. How is that going to affect the agricultural workers? The agricultural businesses that depend upon these temporary workers are already complaining to me that the time frame has been tightened up too much, that they cannot regain the workers who have been on their farms for quite a number of years.

The recommendations can be put forward, but what is wrong with a committee actually going out to find out the facts and the Government of Canada allowing members of Parliament to do their job?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque talks about contradictions in one statement or another. One of his colleagues, referring to the temporary foreign workers program, said that temporary foreign workers were an important part of our economy and some of the best workers are temporary foreign workers. Then the same member said at a later date that the temporary foreign worker program had been consistently abused as a vehicle to replace Canadian workers with foreign workers.

If anyone is making contradictory statements, it is not the members of our party. It is the members of my opposition colleague's party.

As far as bringing in agricultural workers, in my riding we have a huge agricultural base and many farmers are using temporary foreign workers. There are no changes that we will make to make lives more difficult for those farmers. What we really need is to ensure we have the skills training and the job training necessary so Canadians who can fulfill those jobs.

I envisage a time in Canada where we do not need the foreign worker program because we will have more Canadians trained for the skills and jobs that are available.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to underline the point that when we tackle this issue we do so with the principles of justice and fairness in mind for all workers in Canada: Canadian citizens, permanent residents and temporary foreign workers. That is the NDP's position. It is a position of social justice and fairness for all those who live in Canada.

What we need to underline in this debate is how the temporary foreign worker program feeds into the downward spiral of wages in this country. I have listened to members opposite talk about this program and how fantastic it is, but we have to think about what is going on in the city of Toronto with about one-third of the temporary foreign workers, upwards of 100,000 temporary foreign workers. The government says there are no skilled workers to do these jobs. Between 2004 and 2008 about 45,000 highly skilled, internationally educated engineers immigrated to Toronto. The government is telling us that there is a skills shortage in the city of Toronto. The Conservatives should take a cab in Toronto and talk to the doctors and the engineers and the scientists there.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to know what is going on in the cabs in Toronto, being from a rural part of Atlantic Canada. My region needs the foreign worker program to support many businesses. Businesses have had to shut down because they cannot find available employees. We need to have a program that steps in and fills that gap. However, what we really need is to support education, training and the development of skills so that Canadians can fill available jobs. It works as a combination of our immigration system, our education system and our post-secondary education system to make sure that Canadians are trained for available jobs, whether they be in the agricultural industry or in the skilled trades in downtown cities like Toronto.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government's priority is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. That is why Canadians elected a strong, stable, Conservative majority government. Canadians understood that the economic leadership of the Prime Minister was key to navigating the difficult economic times we faced.

That trust paid off, and we have seen the creation of more than 900,000 net new jobs. Most are full-time jobs in the private sector, with over two-thirds being in high wage industries. This reflects the strength of Canada's economy amidst global economic uncertainty.

As good as these results are, however, our focus is still on getting Canadians back to work. While there are currently thousands of jobs across Canada going unfilled, there are still too many Canadians looking for work. We are confronted with mismatches in some regions between the existing skills of the local labour force and the skills that are required by employers for new jobs. This is leading to shortages in some occupations that are key to our competitiveness and continued economic growth.

As a member of the human resources committee, I have heard many employer and employee groups appear before the committee to discuss how we can address this growing skills gap. I have also heard this from employers and employees in the great riding of Mississauga—Streetsville.

Our committee has travelled across Canada to gather testimony. We focused on apprentices, persons with disabilities and those in rural and remote parts of the country. In every one of these studies, in every corner of the country, we have heard of the growing skills mismatch and how this is a pressing issue facing our economy.

Canada's economic action plan 2013 details the government's strategy to connect Canadians with these jobs. Through our EAP, we will equip Canadians with the skills and training they need to be hired in these quality, well-paying jobs.

We announced, as an example, the creation of the Canada jobs grant, which could provide $15,000 or more per person. This grant would shift the planning and delivery of training from government to job creators. This would directly connect Canadians who are unemployed or those looking to advance within their workplace with a job that is currently going unfilled.

We would create opportunities for apprentices by making it easier for them to get the experience they need to get to journeyperson status. We would also provide funding for 5,000 more internships for those who have recently graduated from college or university, and we would provide unprecedented support to groups that have faced barriers in the past to full labour market participation, including persons with disabilities, youth, aboriginal peoples and newcomers, so that they too can find meaningful work.

I mention these examples because I believe there is a misperception as to the intentions of the government when it comes to this program. Our government is doing everything in its power to ensure Canadians have the first crack at available jobs. We are investing in the skills of Canadians in unprecedented ways to ensure they have the qualifications to find better-paying employment.

Employers need to prove there are no Canadians available to fill a job before they can turn to foreign workers through the temporary foreign worker program. In areas of absolute and acute labour shortages, the temporary foreign worker program exists to help businesses get short-term workers to grow their businesses.

I know the opposition members appreciate the need for this program. How do I know that? At least eight NDP MPs lobbied for more TFWs in their ridings, and at least five Liberal MPs have done the same.

While we can all agree that temporary foreign workers should not displace Canadian workers, it is a little hypocritical to have the opposition members across the way vilify a program in public when in private they are demanding more from it.

On one hand, the member for Cape Breton—Canso—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member used this in his remarks, and it was tried earlier, listing eight NDP members and four Liberal members who have written letters on this issue.

Where does that information come from? Is it the spy machine of the Conservatives? There is no place for those kinds of tactics in here.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The matter raised by the member for Malpeque is a matter of debate as opposed to a point of order.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for a member who has been here a long time, one would think he would know the difference between a point of privilege and a point of order.

The member for Cape Breton—Canso was quoted as saying:

Temporary foreign workers are an important part of our economy....

...some of the best workers are temporary foreign workers.

On the other hand, the exact same member said:

...the temporary foreign worker program has been consistently abused as a vehicle to replace Canadian workers with foreign workers.

Which is it? Are TFWs an important part of our economy and some of the best workers, or is the program abused and a vehicle to replace Canadian workers with foreign workers?

Those of us on this side of the House believe that Canadians must always have the first opportunity at available jobs. It has never been the intent of the program to exist as an alternative to hiring Canadians.

Budget 2013 committed the government to fixing some of the problems that are in the program. We have committed to doing such things as increasing recruiting efforts, as well as the length and reach of advertising. We will also work with employers, when there are no qualified Canadians, to develop a plan to transition Canadian workers over time. We will restrict the language requirements for temporary foreign workers to official languages only.

Let me be clear. Hiring temporary foreign workers does not mean creating a pool of second-class labour. Employers cannot exploit or neglect their temporary foreign workers. They have to follow the rules, provide a safe work environment and ensure their well-being.

If not, they will find themselves banned from the temporary foreign worker program. These workers have the same rights and protections as all Canadian workers under applicable federal and provincial employment standards and laws. Foreign workers are registered with the workers compensation board, and they also receive private or public health care coverage, as any Canadian would receive.

A further reflection of our commitment to fairness and equity in the program is the fact that foreign workers must be paid the same wage as Canadian workers for doing the same work they do for an employer. Let me be clear on this point, as union leadership and opposition MPs have been intentionally misleading on it. Temporary foreign workers cannot be paid less than a Canadian. Employers must provide documentation to demonstrate that the wage being paid to a temporary foreign worker is exactly the same as that being paid to Canadian employees doing the same work in that region for the employer.

In conclusion, let me say that the government's focus is on helping Canadians find meaningful work. We are investing in Canadians so they can find better-paying jobs today. However, there are parts of the country where employers cannot find the labour or skills they need to grow their businesses.

I will not be supporting this motion today. The government is at it; our hard-working Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development is on the file. We will be bringing forward changes to strengthen the program and make sure the program works for the workers, for the employers and for all Canadians.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as former immigration minister, I was very pleased to contribute to the program. Some groups that come to mind are farmers and meat packers, particularly in Manitoba.

The government is spouting nonsense.

The motion raises the awareness that there is a situation. We do not want, like the NDP, to give the impression that we want to kill the program. We like the program. We invented it. However, I have a serious question. Did the member just say that all the temporary foreign workers will have to speak one of the two official languages? When we have those meat packers and people from Mexico and I remember our government signed an agreement with Guatemala, does it mean that if they do not speak English or French they cannot work? They are coming here for a temporary timeframe. I would like to understand what the member meant by that.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for people who want to work in Canada to be able to effectively communicate in one of Canada's official languages at an appropriate level. That level may not be the full English or French language skills that most Canadians would have, but it has to be at a certain level.

As a government, we are more concerned about practices which do need to be cleaned up, where it has been indicated that an individual must speak a third language, which is not one of Canada's official languages, in order to be hired to do a job. That practice will end.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that the member continues to focus on the eight letters written by NDP members. He does not seem to understand one thing, however. It is not that we do not want foreign workers; we do not want a repeat of what happened with pilots, for example.

I am talking about the Sunwing pilots, some of whom live in my riding. They are laid off during the so-called off-season. Then, the company hires foreign pilots and pays them less. The company saves money and gives discounts to customers who want to travel south during the off-season. In the end, the company comes out ahead. It is incredibly dishonest.

We want to see improvements to the program, but it is not true that these people are making the same amount of money. I do not know how else to put it. And basing arguments on letters written by members, without understanding the context in which they were written, is obvious intellectual dishonesty.

I think that, first, the member should apologize for using this argument. Second, I would ask him to explain why a company such as Sunwing behaves the way it does, laying off Canadians and then turning around and hiring foreign workers, on the pretext that it is the off-season.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be confusing programs and may have examples outside of the issue we are dealing with today, which is temporary foreign workers. He may be talking about some other type of program. I am not familiar with what he is referring to.

However, what we have committed to do in economic action plan 2013 is to take a strong, serious look at the temporary foreign worker program, make sure it is living up to its original intent of what it is designed to do and how it is designed to work, and make sure that there are not any loopholes or any other areas that would not ensure that both the workers and employers were playing by the rules.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville, it certainly is the case that in the British Columbia example of Chinese foreign workers who were brought in for the mine, they did not speak English or French.

My question relates to agriculture. I asked a farmer in my riding if he was using the temporary foreign worker program and he said, “No, I hire all local kids.” I said that I keep hearing that local kids will not work on farms. He said, “They will if you pay them a decent wage.”

I think the issue is how we price the work that is being done and I would like to ask my friend from Mississauga—Streetsville if we should not be willing to pay Canadian workers enough to live in Canada.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the farmer from the member's riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands. I think that is spectacular. I have also met with employers in my riding who are having difficulty under the temporary foreign worker program getting labour market opinions approved because they are not offering the appropriate wages and are actually being denied because they are not offering the right wage levels that are commensurate with Canadian wages. My answer to those employers is they have to follow the rules. If the rules are to pay a Canadian decent wage to a temporary foreign worker just like they pay a Canadian worker, that is what the rule should be.