Human Resources Committee on May 9th, 2013

[Alexis Conrad]

The question is first of all, if it does come back, will it come back in exactly the same form as it was before. I can't speak to that now.

I can finish the other part of your question. I think it's important to note that we do compliance reviews on both the applications that come through the regular labour market opinion process and through the accelerated process, and we're not seeing any difference in terms of problems with employers who applied through the accelerated process. It's important to state that, but it's also important to state that the LMO process was not program wide. It was focused particularly on the high skilled, and the employers who could participate in it had to be in good standing with the program, had to—

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Yes, but you don't suspend a program that is working well. So we have good reason to worry about it being brought back. How will it be changed? How will those changes actually be kept in check? I don't think that increasing the minister's power is a solution for what is happening on the front lines. If the problems on the front lines are not identified, the minister will not be able to do much, even with additional powers. Why are there no annual reports indicating why permits and opinions are suspended or revoked? The media are doing that work, but it would be better to include this information in an annual mechanism. It should not be the minister playing the bad guy one day if he happens to find out from the media that someone is abusing the system.

[Frank Vermaeten]

As we pointed out, there are consultations that have been going on, and are going on, so certainly a proposal like that, to look at providing more information publicly, is one avenue that would be considered under a review.

I will say that a part of the answer lies in ensuring that employers understand how the program works, including the questions we ask, when you look at the initial screening. We've already started to take steps on that.

These steps would account for the regular stream, but it's also clearly going to be part of any type of stream. For example, the question that we're asking about whether the job is for outsourcing would be asked regardless of the stream, and the transition plans would be asked regardless of the stream—

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

So no annual report is in sight right now.

I have very little time left, about 30 seconds only.

The French and English requirements are now an absolute priority. It is not enough to be happy that this requirement is now part of the regulations. The real question is why the previous situation was allowed. How were we able to work with tenders that had Mandarin as a first requirement in the mines for a number of months and years? What happened?

[Frank Vermaeten]

The program is an evolving program. It has been around a long time. It was established, I think, in the early 1970s.

The program evolves, the labour market changes, and the government looks at the program and how it's—

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Canada's language laws are not recent. The program is attractive, but the language laws were not passed three years ago. They were there when you looked into the problem. I can't see how this could happen.

[Frank Vermaeten]

I think the changes they've made over time, this one included, respond to issues that have been identified. There are issues out there. This will ensure that we get a higher percentage of individuals who are able to speak in either official language or both.

As I said, it's evolving. I think the government took action to address this problem. I think these are fairly firm measures to deal with that issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

You have about three-quarters of a minute, if you want to use it, Mr. Lapointe.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Yes, I would like to, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

There are fees in the works, but my understanding is that no amount has been determined and no time period has been defined. Do you know what the impact will be? I am putting myself in the shoes of entrepreneurs. Not all of them abuse the system. Most of them are extremely efficient and honest. They play a major role. We are talking about fees, but we don't know when they will come into force or how much they will be. Once again, I have to wear my hat as the representative of small- and medium-sized businesses.

A program with fees is always more difficult for a small business that needs one or two employees than it is for a large employer who suddenly needs 20 employees or so in one department. Often, the large employer will have a human resources department that can handle all that.

Do we know what impact something like that would have on a small business compared to a big business? We talk about fees, but do we know the amount? Will people know in advance or will they all of a sudden hear about fees that appeared overnight when they make their request?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

We'll conclude with your response to that.

[Frank Vermaeten]

As I said, the government is consulting employers on this issue. That is certainly something that has been said numerous times, that small and medium enterprises are very concerned about all costs, including this one. They're concerned on a wide range.

As far as our role as policy analysts is concerned, we take that into consideration. We're going to be looking at a wide range of issues, including the costs, the impacts it will have on employers, and how it should be structured. There are a number of ways you could structure it. You could charge for a labour market opinion regardless of how many workers you're requesting, or it could be done per worker. There are different ways to structure it to take into account the needs of small and medium enterprises.

Certainly these are factors that are going to be looked at in looking at this user fee structure.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, but I think Canadians will need more clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Monsieur Lapointe.

Does anyone else want to add a comment?

Thank you gentlemen for taking the extra time—

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Chair, in regard to the question I posed 45 minutes ago, is there an answer?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

What was the question you posed 45 minutes ago?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

What was their budget in 2010 and what is it now?

I gave them the numbers; I just want a concurrence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Did you indicate that you would try to get those figures to us?

[Frank Vermaeten]

We don't have them. We didn't bring them with us, but we can certainly provide them to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I think we said we would, so Mr. Cuzner, you'll get those.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Holy smokes. When we're looking at a 20% reduction, when we're trying to identify a problem, with something as elementary as that, I would think the officials would know what the budget was in 2010—

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Mr. Cuzner, we are talking about the clauses of the legislation and any suggestions for amendment or change, not the operation of programs or budgets. We allowed that to go on with some latitude, and of course, when they're able to get those figures they will provide them.

Until then, we thank you very much for appearing.

We'll suspend for a few moments because we have some committee business to deal with.

We'll give you an opportunity to leave while we ask members to stay, because there are a couple of things we want to deal with.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

If we could get the members back to the table, I'd like to remind them of a couple of things.

I'm not sure if Mr. Cuzner is able to hear me.

When we get back on Tuesday after the break week, we will have witnesses, and you can give your suggestions to the clerk, for that meeting. We'll try to arrange that in either one or two panels, depending on how that comes. We'll probably break about 15 minutes early to talk about what we might send to the finance chair.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Chair, may we go in camera for committee business, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

All right. I'll finish my remark and then we'll do that.

If you forward those to the clerk, we'll do what we can to try to accommodate you.

Now we will go into committee business, and there's a request to go in camera. Is that acceptable, or do you want a roll call?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

We always vote on that.