The last set of amendments in this division all relate to the temporary foreign worker program. I'm the director of integrity with HRSDC in the temporary foreign worker program. The amendments relate to section 4 and section 32 of IRPA and they all relate to compliance.
However, this is also a DRAP, the deficit reduction action plan proposal, and it's designed to produce $4.5 million of savings every year once it gets rolling. Those savings would all be from HRSDC. The temporary foreign worker program is a jointly managed program between CIC and HRSDC, but all the savings that have been planned would be in HRSD. They would be achieved by a reduction in upfront processing times for those employers using the foreign temporary worker program who have a clean compliance record, and that would be balanced off with strong compliance, both random and risk-based compliance activities, and compliance reviews, after temporary foreign workers actually arrive. So it would help us ease the bottleneck and increase speed of service.
All of that, the savings and the administrative changes, all happen basically with policy. The proposal in division 54 for legislative change activates all the compliance. So you don't see the speed on the service side of things, all you see is the compliance.
The changes are specifically in section 4 to add a provision that gives the minister of HRSDC powers and duties. “Powers and duties” in this case means decision-making, and it effectively would allow HRSDC to make decisions in relation to determinations of compliance or non-compliance by employers using the program.
The other changes are all in section 32, and it would add three new powers there: first, to set up requirements, conditions that can be imposed on employers; second, to give HRSDC and CIC the power to make inspections to verify compliance with those conditions; and third, it would provide the power to set up consequences for those employers who are not compliant with the requirements set out by the act.
The requirements would be set out very clearly for employers and detailed for them in letters when they get their labour market opinion, which facilitates them getting a work permit for their workers. The requirements would all be set out transparently for them. With respect to inspections, there would be, indeed, quite new authorities there for both compelling document production, as well as site visits in those rare cases where there was evidence that suggested that it would be warranted.
The consequences that are planned at this point involve a multi-year ban. That's the main consequence, as well as publication on a shared departmental website of the names of employers who are non-compliant, as well as the possibility of allowing temporary foreign workers who are in a bad situation the opportunity to move. If there's non-compliance by their employer and it puts them at risk of some kind, there would be provision to allow them to move.
That probably sums up my comments for the opening.