Debates of May 27th, 2014

Justice

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister indeed knew that the Nadon appointment would be challenged, as he said here in the House on May 2, why did he put the Supreme Court in the unprecedented position of having to reject an appointment? It has never happened before in the history of Canada. Why put Judge Nadon—who, by the way, is by all accounts a good human being and a competent jurist, but is just not eligible—why put him through the humiliation? Is it not the case that the only reason he did that was he was trying to strongarm the Supreme Court into accepting his illegal nomination?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again the reality is that the NDP had no objection to the naming of Federal Court judges to the Supreme Court, including judges from Quebec, and no objection to the naming of Justice Nadon. The reason for that is because all parties understood, as all legal experts had long understood, that Federal Court judges were eligible. I confirmed that with various legal opinions. That is why we proceeded according to long-standing practice, and that was the appropriate course of action.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the justice critic has had time to say again and again, no one will ever be able to say that the NDP agreed to the appointment of Nadon. No one.

Will the Prime Minister at least admit that the process for appointing judges to the Supreme Court, which he himself put in place, is not working? Will he put in place a new, transparent, non-partisan appointment process, with open consultations, to avoid another fiasco like the one he created with Justice Nadon?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat again what the NDP actually said about Justice Nadon: a great judge and a brilliant legal mind. I guess one could interpret that as opposition but I tend to interpret that as support.

The position of the NDP is clear that the Supreme Court has set in place new and clear eligibility criteria. The government will act within that criteria.

Employment

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago when the employment minister announced the moratorium on the temporary foreign worker program he said that Canadian wages have “barely kept pace with inflation”. That is understandable since, as it turns out, the minister himself approved the entry of tens of thousands of foreign workers at minimum wage.

When will the government reverse its wage-suppressing policies and fix its broken program?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, one day the Liberals are calling for fewer temporary foreign workers and the next day they are calling for more temporary foreign workers, and I see similar changes on other positions.

In terms of how Canadians are doing, let me just note today the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who notes that this government has reduced taxes for Canadians by 12%, with the greatest benefits for low- and middle-income earners, and we are seeing an increase in—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Papineau.

Justice

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are fed up with the government's botched management of the Supreme Court appointment process. Even Mr. Couillard condemned the flawed process and called for appropriate consultations.

When and how will the Prime Minister fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court bench and address the fact that Quebec is still under-represented?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, the government consulted the former Quebec government about the appointment. We are now consulting with the current Quebec government. I gather that the Premier of Quebec has commented positively on the process.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after the Prime Minister's appointment of Justice Nadon was rejected, I asked the justice minister when the government would fill Quebec's vacancy on the Supreme Court. He replied that the government would “proceed post-haste”.

Over two full months have passed since that answer so I ask this specifically. Does the Prime Minister intend to fill the existing vacancy before this House rises for the summer?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again let me just correct the record also in terms of the Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party, according to a long-standing practice, did not object to the naming of Federal Court judges to the Supreme Court and certainly did not object specifically to the naming of Judge Nadon. On the contrary, the Liberal Party was quite supportive of that.

Obviously, we have a ruling and a different set of criteria now before us, so we are acting within that criteria. As the Minister of Justice has indicated, the government will be acting in the very near future.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, before appointing Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court, did the Prime Minister know that someone in his own office had asked Marc Nadon to resign from the Federal Court?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I received the opinion of a legal expert on the issue. It was not necessary. It was not my position. I appointed Mr. Nadon directly to the Supreme Court. Now the Supreme Court has provided a decision on the matter. That will change our criteria going forward.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, everyone heard that the question was: who in the Prime Minister's Office told Marc Nadon to resign from the Federal Court? We have also taken note of the fact that the Prime Minister has not answered.

Let us try another one.

Which PMO staffer asked Marc Nadon to resign and renew his licence with the Barreau du Québec? Who was it? We know that it came from the Prime Minister's Office.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister himself is the one who makes recommendations to the Governor General regarding Supreme Court appointments. I received an opinion on the process and acted on it.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, he refuses to answer either question. Everyone can take note.

Seven months ago, I proposed that the Prime Minister work with the NDP to quickly pass legislation to protect our children from cyberbullying. To our great disappointment, the Prime Minister rejected that offer. We are now seeing an attempt to include measures that threaten Canadians' privacy, under the guise of fighting cyberbullying.

I am calling on the Prime Minister to act in good faith and split the bill so that we can pass the measures to protect our children without delay.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot protect our children from cyberbullying unless the police have the necessary powers to deal with such cases. That is what Bill C-13 does, and that is why I encourage the NDP to support our children.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, a growing list of groups, including the Canadian Bar Association, have called on Conservatives to split the bill. Even the mother of Amanda Todd, who took her own life in a tragic case of cyberbullying, has called for this bill to be split, saying, “We should not have to sacrifice our children's privacy rights to make them safe...”.

Will the Prime Minister finally listen, agree to split this bill, and give our children the protection they deserve on all fronts?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP knows full well that we cannot protect people by mere declarations. We must also give the authorities the ability to actually investigate and prosecute offences under the law. That is what this bill does, and I note that it has the overwhelming support of not only victims and police, but of the Canadian population.

Employment

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been trying to brush off evidence that his department broke the rules. He claimed that only live-in caregivers and farm workers were approved to work at minimum wage, but there were also cooks, waiters, dry cleaners, fitness instructors, hairdressers, hotel clerks, janitors, cashiers, and event planners. Almost all of them were paid less than the prevailing wage, against the rules, and were being approved this year.

Instead of denial, can the minister actually explain to Canadians why he let his department break the rules?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, decisions on labour market opinions are made by highly trained, unfettered decision makers with delegated authority. Second, they did not break the rules. Third, the member is completely wrong as 98.67% of the cases to which she refers were in the seasonal agricultural worker program or the live-in caregiver program where they were paid at the appropriate wage at that time. Of the other 1.3% of cases, they were also paid at the established prevailing median wage rate, which happened, in those instances, to be at the minimum wage level.

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

Mr. Speaker, even chambers of commerce, like in Fort McMurray, Alberta, are unhappy with Conservative mismanagement of this program.

Last year, there were at least 250 documented complaints from temporary foreign workers about mistreatment. Do members know how many of them ended up on the famous employer blacklist? Not one. The minister finally blacklisted four companies last month, after bad headlines. Why have rules if we are not going to enforce them?

Will the minister finally call an independent audit review to fix the program?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, in fact last year we passed legislation, which the NDP voted against, to create the new, more effective blacklist, which is now being used, and to create the new enforcement and oversight division at Service Canada, which is leading to spot checks and audits and has given us the authorization to go on work sites, to look at the paperwork, and to penalize non-compliant employers.

The question I have for New Democrats is, why did they oppose those new powers? Why did they oppose the blacklist and why are they now opposing the budget implementation act, which would give us the authority to impose additional tough administrative and monetary penalties on non-compliant employers?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the temporary foreign worker program is so poorly managed by the Conservatives that some employers use it in order to abuse it.

Although the Conservative government received 250 complaints last year, only four employers were placed on the blacklist. There is reason to believe that the problem is even more serious, because only three provinces track complaints made by the workers.

When will the Minister of Employment finally admit that his temporary foreign worker program is a fiasco and needs to be completely overhauled?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, the program has been in existence for several decades. It is not my program.

That said, this government is making major reforms to combat abuses of the program. That is why we introduced amendments to the legislation that went into effect last December to give us the power to investigate employers. That is why additional powers are included in the budget implementation bill.

I urge the NDP to support that bill in order to give us the powers we need.