Debates of May 6th, 2014

Report Stage Amendments

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I am rising to say that I personally support the intervention and that we could reserve the right to speak a little further to this tomorrow in greater detail. Allow me to simply say that I believe the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has a point. The motion of Tuesday, October 29, 2013, is very specific in its wording. It says:

During the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.

Now it may be the case that the committee was shut down from debate after 5:00 p.m. on Thursday. That affected all of us: the NDP and the Liberals in opposition and if there had been any, Conservative members who wanted to debate and move further amendments. We simply were voting on amendments. That was already a problematic process, but in the specific situation of members who are not represented on the committee, what goes on at committee is intended to be a full substitute for their right to come to the House and present amendments.

As such, I think that clause has to be read in their favour, to mean that even after a cut-off such as occurred at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, they and they alone have the right to make brief representations for one-minute periods in order to make sure their amendments are at least considered to that extent. If that did not happen, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that you should kindly give consideration to the request from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to be allowed to table those amendments that occurred after 5:00 p.m. for the reasons that she gave.

Given the kind of bargain, although bargain is the wrong word, after your ruling and then what happened at the various committees, I think the motions in each committee have to be read as much as possible in favour of the rights of the members whose rights are affected because they do not have regular membership on the committees. Reading clause (c) where it says “an opportunity to make brief representations” in favour of the members who otherwise will not be able to fully present amendments would be in order.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the point of order that has been raised.

I want to go back to the very start where the hon. member misapprehends the basis that existed previously, and still continues to exist, for the making of amendments at report stage.

The right to make an amendment at report stage exists using the test of whether it possible to make that amendment at committee. It is only possible to propose such an amendment if it were not possible to do so at committee. That is the test. For independent members, because they were not members of the committee, that was what gave them the right to make any amendment whatsoever at report stage previously, and that was what led us into these voteathons. It was not because there was some rule somewhere that said independent members had rights over and above those of all other members of the House. That was never the case. It was because of the application of the test of whether the amendment could be made at committee.

After a series of rulings and voteathons, Mr. Speaker, you essentially provided to the House, through your rulings, a road map on which committees have since acted to empower independent members to propose such amendments at committee itself. Committees do not have to, but they have in many cases chosen to create that ability in independent members to allow them to make amendments at committee, and that is the situation in which we are commencing.

It should be understood that this is not some right that independent members have that was taken away through a fake process. That is rather insulting to the realities of what occurred here. What occurred here is the application of the rules of the House and the positive encouragement of the Speaker for how those rules could facilitate the full participation of members.

In terms of the particular context of the proceedings at procedure and House affairs committee on Bill C-23, the member is making a request for rights at that committee that no other member of the House has, no other member of the committee would have, no other member of a political party that does not sit on the committee would have. She is saying essentially that she should have a right over and above all of them.

Many members made amendments. They spoke to those amendments at committee, the committee dealt with them, and the clause-by-clause consideration, as I understood it, went on over days. Not at one time in the committee in order to meet its deadlines and manage the bill to achieve the deadlines it had set for itself, did it set up a process wherein the committee would then proceed finally to votes on any remaining not considered clauses at that 5 p.m. deadline.

Before that deadline, I understand the member spoke to dozens of amendments that she had proposed. She was not denied an opportunity to do that at committee. She was afforded an opportunity to speak to literally dozens of amendments she had proposed, so were other members. However, when the period of time ran out, it applied equally to all members, members of the government who were proposing amendments, members of the opposition who were proposing amendments, members of any other political party who were proposing amendments, and to herself. She was treated on an equal basis, the same basis, fairly, as every other member.

What you are being asked to do, Mr. Speaker, is not defend the rights of the minority, but rather impose extra rights over top of those enjoyed by all other members of this place in favour of just that member or of independent members of the House to give them magical powers that nobody else should have. That, of course, is not the intent. That is not the role of the Speaker. That is not the effect of these rules. I put it to you that this is not something that you should accept in this case.

There is not an argument for treating and giving special additional rights. The approach as it has evolved and the process in which it has evolved has shown great wisdom in an iterative process. Obviously, you did not accede in some of my requests previously as to how this matter should be dealt with, Mr. Speaker, and we accepted those rulings and took the good advice and came up with a process that achieved those balanced objectives.

Now we are hearing a request to upset that balance, to say that everyone else, members of the government, members of the official opposition, by virtue of being members of a party will have to adhere to these rules that are established at a committee and that she, as an independent, member should have additional rights to speak to debate over and above those that everyone else has. That is simply not the case.

The fact is that there are many members in the House who do not sit on the committee and do not get to speak at all. Therefore, she already sits in a privileged position compared with them and now she seeks an even more privileged position with regard to the proceedings of the committee over and above every other member of the House. I simply do not think that is appropriate.

The committee is master of its own process, and it did that. She acknowledged herself that the chair did so in a very fair and even-handed manner, and that is how it should be seen. It should be respected. That is why I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you should not accept the proposition that has been put forward in the point of order by the member.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few moments to say that I support the views of the Green Party leader.

I understood your decision when you made it, Mr. Speaker. Things got bogged down at report stage because all members from unrecognized parties could present amendments, which could lead to us spending several evenings voting. To avoid that, we were given permission to present them in committee. If the committee eliminates them because it runs out of time, that contradicts your intention to foster democracy in the House.

In closing, I would like to emphasize that the best way to proceed, Mr. Speaker, would be for you to ask all political parties to think about this, to take their cue from provincial legislation, which allows for the full participation of independent members and unrecognized parties. For example, in Quebec's National Assembly, Option nationale, Mr. Aussant's party, had just one member, but he received a proportional research budget, just like all the other parties. The member also had permission to sit on the committee of his choice.

The same applied to Québec solidaire, which had only two members. They had a research budget and the right to sit on committees. I myself have been here for 30 years. I would have chosen a committee, and I think I should have had the same right to speak and the same rights as other members of the committee. I am not saying all committees, but in my chosen committee.

I think that independents and unrecognized parties should have that chance, should have the right to do it. We are seeing an ever-increasing number of political parties. In the years to come, there may be several political parties in the House. Someday, we will have to come to a consensus like that to ensure that this House remains the country's stronghold of democracy.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I see two more members rising to speak to the point. I want to tell the House that I seem to have a good grasp of the arguments on both sides. I will hear them, but I hope they have something further to add and not just merely repeat the points that have been made.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat sympathetic to what the Green Party leader has put in the form of a point of order today and the concerns she raises.

Having said that, it is really important we recognize that the reason this is an issue today is because of time allocation and the restrictions that were placed on all the committee members. The government House leader seems to be of the opinion that it is okay for the Green Party because it applies to all the parties in committee. That does not make it right. For example, the Liberal Party, through its critic, introduced 56 amendments, of which only 34 were commented on before the time restrictions kicked in, meaning that a good number of the Liberal amendments were not addressed.

I am very sympathetic with the importance of being able to comment and ask questions on amendments. However, the government House leader in particular and the government as a whole need to recognize this. When time restrictions are placed on committees so there is a drop-dead time and when five o'clock comes around all questions are put, we do a disservice in the terms of the principle of democracy at the committee level by not allowing for debate and questions and answers. What the member from the Green Party is trying to achieve is something that can be applied to Liberal amendments, New Democratic amendments, and so forth. The government needs to rethink its position with regard to that time restriction.

We would like to reserve the right for follow-up on this very important issue.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. As my colleague and hon. member for Toronto—Danforth just said, we also want the opportunity to come back to these issues.

I would like to respond briefly to the comment made by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to the effect that the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands wanted to expand her rights beyond those of other members in the House.

Mr. Speaker, you are well aware that independent members do not have the right to be on committees, unless by unanimous consent. They are not given the opportunity to question witnesses, unless the committee allows them to do so. This is a category of presence and rights that is lesser than that of members from recognized parties.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Conservatives tried to make their sales pitch by saying that if they made amendments to bills, they would have an opportunity to make representations in support of those amendments. Once again, the government created the problem. A number of bills have been rejected by the Supreme Court. Moreover, you have questioned the procedure involved in some other bills. Therein lies the problem.

The government tried to make its sales pitch and put a process in place. However, the process is not being followed. This is an important issue that you have ruled on, Mr. Speaker. As others have mentioned, we might be coming back to these issues shortly.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I thank hon. members for their contributions. I would just remind those members who have reserved the right to come back to this point of order that the bill is now out of committee. Therefore, if they do wish to speak to it before the bill is called, they would be wise to act as soon as possible. Of course, I will come back to the House at that time.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Temporary Foreign Workers

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has four minutes remaining to conclude his remarks.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of temporary foreign workers, as we have seen today and for a number of days, is very important. We have been trying to get the government to understand that we need to get the Auditor General of Canada engaged on the issue. We believe that at the end of the day, we will have an improved program. This program has done wonders for Canada's economy over the years, prior to the government's mismanagement of the file.

If I were to highlight some of the differences, the most significant one would probably be the sheer number. Prior to taking office, the government had an estimated 140,000 or 150,000 temporary foreign workers coming into Canada. Today there are well over 300,000. In fact, last year, when I was the critic for immigration, I reported that there were 338,000 temporary foreign workers. The problem we have today was created by the Conservative government. It created the crisis. As opposed to trying to pass on the blame to someone else, it should first and foremost take responsibility for its mistakes and then try to overcome those mistakes by putting in a process that would ultimately allow us to get the program back on the right track.

A good example of that today was when the leader of the Liberal Party posed a question, and the minister and the government responded with answers that did not make any sense. The government wants to continue to spin the propaganda wheel to try to give the impression that it has been very effective in managing this program. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that the government has, in fact, mismanaged the program.

It was interesting that the former minister of immigration, in addressing the issue, made the statement that the government is forcing employers to advertise much longer, as if it is trying to get tougher on employers.

Back on December 8, 2006, the former minister responsible for human resources stated:

For occupations found on these lists, employers will not be required to undertake lengthy or comprehensive advertising efforts before being eligible to apply to hire a foreign worker. Employers will still be required to first advertise for Canadian workers to ensure that Canadians and permanent residents are given the opportunity to apply for available positions. However—

This is what is important.

—employers will only need to advertise on the Job Bank, Canada's national job website for at least seven days....

The point is that the government has made modifications to the program. The government has relaxed the rules, and that is the primary reason we find ourselves in the situation we are today. It is a crisis situation. It is the actions that have been taken by the current government that have led us to this particular point.

The Liberal Party's motion is to address the issues in a tangible fashion. We are requesting the support of the government in recognizing that the Auditor General of Canada has a role and should have a role in ensuring that we restore public confidence in the program. We in the Liberal Party have recognized the valuable potential of the program and would like to see it continue, but managed so that Canadians as a whole will benefit both from a societal and economic point of view.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the hon. member across the way.

First, the finance critic for the Liberal Party said in 2012 that reducing access to temporary foreign workers could actually threaten Canadian jobs and that if we lower the number of temporary foreign workers, we would threaten Canadian jobs. There are also several Liberal members of Parliament who continually ask the Minister of Employment and Social Development to approve temporary foreign workers in their ridings, including the member across the way. Liberals want to lessen the number of temporary foreign workers across the country, it seems, except when it takes place in their ridings, because they constantly ask the minister to approve LMOs or overturn LMOs that have been rejected by public servants in their professional activities so that they can have temporary foreign workers in their ridings.

Which way do the Liberals want it? Do they want to lower the number of temporary foreign workers even in their own ridings? What exactly is the member asking the government to do?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that question is somewhat lacking in truth and completeness.

When one makes reference to the finance critic for the Liberal Party, one should recognize the reality that there are certain industries, such as our agricultural industry, that are dependent on temporary foreign workers. It is a positive thing for Canada and our economy. Members should not twist the facts to try to distort the reality.

I was one of those individuals who wrote a letter, because there was capital infrastructure that needed to be set up in Winnipeg that originated in China , and the people who took apart the machinery wanted to come to Canada to set it up and train so that Canadians would have jobs here. That is positive. That would add value to Canada's economy and provide opportunities for Canadians. That is the type of thing we are supposed to be doing.

That is the issue with the government with respect to the temporary foreign worker program. It is distorting the truth as opposed to recognizing that it messed up. It is its mismanagement that led to the crisis we are talking about here.

The reality is that there is a good, solid reason to have a temporary foreign worker program. If we had unanimous support for Canada's Auditor General to look into the program, we would find that to be the case. We would have a sounder program if we could get the Auditor General involved in coming up with recommendations on how we could improve the program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of toing and froing today by my colleagues in the Liberal Party. In January, the leader of the Liberal Party said that the temporary foreign worker program is getting out of control to a certain degree. Today we heard him say that it is totally mismanaged. I want to know what it is the Liberals really believe and whether the Liberals will put their partisan games aside and work with us on this important issue.

Last Wednesday the Liberals voted for our amendment. Today they refuse to accept that same amendment to a motion that is lacking real teeth. That is my question. When will the member put the partisan games aside?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member should realize that we voted in favour of their motion last week. It failed. It did not pass. The reason it did not pass is that the Conservatives have a majority and they made the decision to vote against the motion.

I believe that the motion we have today has a great deal of merit, and I would love to see it pass. We have brought forward motions in the past and had them passed in the House with unanimous support. The most recent one was on proactive disclosure. The NDP had to be dragged kicking and screaming to comply with proactive disclosure, but we were successful in doing that through an opposition day motion.

We are hoping that the government will see the difference between our motion and the motion that failed last week and get it passed. That is what we want. It cannot blame us for trying to get the issue resolved in a more positive way.

Having said that, I will again challenge the government. It does not seem to object if the Auditor General wants to be engaged with the issue. Why would it not go a little bit further, as the Liberal Party has done, with, I believe, the support of the New Democrats, and acknowledge that there is value in unanimously supporting this motion and guaranteeing the involvement of the Auditor General?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate my colleague on his wonderful speech.

Earlier he referred to the provincial nominee program. It is an item we had looked at when I was on the immigration committee during the Liberal years. It was a huge success. We do not have that program in Quebec, but I know that in the province he comes from, Manitoba, it was a huge success. I would like to hear some comments from my colleague.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to draw a comparison between a Liberal government and a Conservative government on immigration, all one needs to do is look at the provincial nominee program. That program was instituted when Jean Chrétien was the prime minister.

It was a phenomenal program, one of the most successful immigration programs tied to the economy in the last 25 or 30 years.

We can use Manitoba as an example. The number of temporary foreign workers going into the province of Manitoba has been relatively stagnant. The reason is that Manitoba has been very successful in using the nominee program to allow workers to come to the province, not just as temporary workers but as immigrants.

Families have been able to take advantage of that program in a positive way. It is a win-win for everyone. The provincial nominee program, a creation of the 1990s, is one of the programs that is growing, if not the program that is growing the most, in the immigration department. It is a way for a worker to ultimately land.

Let us contrast that with what the Conservatives are doing. In essence, they are saying, “Here is a temporary worker permit. Come to Canada, put in your time, work, and then go.” It is a different way of dealing with what is a very important issue here in Canada.

I would suggest to the government that it look at ways it can allow a pathway for individuals to land through immigration programs that will assist our economy.

When the government and the former minister of immigration hit the delete button, for example, it caused a great deal of concern from coast to coast to coast. That was for the worker experience program.

The government has not done well on the immigration file. I would challenge it to look at it in a more fair fashion that will ultimately see good quality jobs being filled by Canadians, first and foremost, and where we have gaps, by temporary foreign workers.

If we do it right, the people who will benefit the most will be Canada's middle class and in fact all communities. That is if we can get it done right. We want to see the Auditor General of Canada—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration.

Before I get into the substance of the Liberals' opposition day motion, I want to speak on the strong action taken by the Minister of Employment and Social Development on this issue. We have been concerned that the number of workers coming through the low-skilled pilot system, created by the Liberals, has increased significantly. For that reason, for over a year, our government has been engaged in a thorough policy review of this program to ensure it functions as it was intended. We need to ensure the program functions only as a last and limited resort for employers when Canadians are unavailable to fill these jobs.

In pursuit of that goal, we have announced a number of important reforms over the past year. Let me detail some of these reforms.

We now have the authority to conduct on-site inspections of employers to ensure they are meeting the conditions of the program. We have before Parliament right now a bill that would give us the authority to impose significant financial penalties for employers who break the rules. We have the authority to ban employers who break the rules from accessing the program for two years and the authority to add their names to a public blacklist. Employers who legitimately rely on temporary foreign workers due to a lack of qualified Canadian applications are required to have a transition plan to transition to a 100% Canadian workforce. We ended wage flexibility to ensure that the temporary foreign workers are paid in Canada at the prevailing wage. We added questions to the labour market opinion application form to ensure that the program is not used to facilitate outsourcing of Canadian jobs. We introduced a $275 per position fee for employers, to ensure they are covering the cost of administering this program, not leaving the burden to Canadian taxpayers. The fee acts as a disincentive by imposing costs on employers to hire foreign nationals on work permits. We ensure that English or French are the only languages that can be used as a job requirement when hiring through the temporary foreign worker process. We also suspended the accelerated labour market opinion process. These reforms are just the start of our thorough policy review to ensure the program will operate as it was intended.

In recent weeks, there is no doubt that there has been a lot of concern and many allegations made about the temporary foreign worker program. On April 3, 2014, the minister became aware of very serious allegations that a McDonald's franchise owner in Victoria, British Columbia, broke the rules of the temporary foreign worker program. The minister immediately ordered his officials to begin an urgent investigation to determine the facts in this case. Within 24 hours of becoming aware of these allegations, inspectors from the department did an on-site inspection of the location in Victoria, and the minister suspended all labour market opinions and work permits in process for the franchise, pending the outcome of the investigation. The franchisee was then placed, along with two other employers, on a public blacklist, shaming them for all to see.

Despite this swift and unprecedented action, there remain serious concerns regarding the use of temporary foreign workers in the food services sector. That is why the minister has announced an immediate moratorium on the food services sector's access to the temporary foreign worker program. Accordingly, ESDC will not process any new or pending LMO applications related to the food services sector. In addition, any unfilled positions tied to a previously approved LMO will be suspended. This moratorium will remain in effect until the completion of the ongoing policy review of the temporary foreign worker program.

I know this moratorium is going to hit employers hard, especially those employers in tight labour markets in western Canada, so let me explain the rationale behind the decision. In recent weeks we learned of a number of allegations of abuse of the temporary foreign worker program. Some of these cases were reported in the media, and some were not, as they were received through Service Canada's confidential tip line.

What is clear from these allegations is that there is a particularly concentrated level of allegations within the food services sector. Our government is planning on announcing further reforms to the temporary foreign worker program in the future. What has become clear to us, given the number and concentration of allegations, was a need to put a pause on this sector's access to the program immediately and to have that pause stay until such time as our review is complete and further reforms are announced.

This moratorium must also serve as a stark wake-up call to employers, not just employers in this sector but employers in all sectors of our economy. When our government says that the temporary foreign worker program must only be used as a last and limited resort, when Canadians are not available, we mean what we say.

We expect employers to obey not just the letter of the law but also the spirit of the law. Employers need to convince us that they are not advertising job opportunities for the purpose of checking a box in their LMO application. They should be advertising to try to encourage Canadians to apply for the jobs they have available. Employers also need to do more to make jobs attractive to Canadians, including increasing wage rates and improving working conditions.

As the minister has said many times, we are distressed that wage rates have barely kept pace with inflation since the global downturn. This is not indicative of a tight labour market like the ones we are experiencing in many regions of Canada. We were also disappointed that Canadian employers invest less in training than virtually any other developed country. These are points that the minister has been making to employers for a long time. With this moratorium, we are putting employers on notice that we expect them to do better.

In conclusion, our government is firmly committed to ensuring that Canadians have the skills in demand today and into the future and that they are always going to get the first crack at available jobs within Canada. As we demonstrated last week, we will not hesitate to act if we believe this is being compromised.

Unlike members opposite, the government will take a thoughtful, fact-based approach to the temporary foreign worker program. We will conclude our policy review of the program and make the reforms necessary to ensure that it operates in the best interests of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep saying that they want to take measures to prevent abuse, yet they have made cuts to Employment and Social Development Canada's budget. They have cut jobs, thereby reducing staff. I fail to see how the employees who are left can do even more work since there is an increasing number of temporary foreign workers.

Does the government intend to send out a document and ask employers to self-regulate? If so, I have to say that it will not work.

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact, as I mentioned during my remarks, one of the changes we have made to better police this program is that we now have the ability to have on-site inspectors go into employers' workplaces unannounced to ensure that they are following the rules and procedures within the temporary foreign worker program.

This is an ability we did not have before, so now for the first time, we can have inspectors go on-site and make sure employers are keeping up their end of the bargain: one, they are treating temporary foreign workers properly and not abusing them; and two, they gave all Canadians first crack at those jobs when they were available.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago, my colleague the member for Cape Breton—Canso raised the issue in the form of an opposition day motion. I must say he is a very hard-working member of the House of Commons. When he brought this issue to the House on behalf of the Liberal Party, he argued that the government needed to take action. Had the government taken action when we raised the issue in a very formal way, in the form of a motion to the House, the government chose not to take action for whatever reasons. That was not the first time we have heard about issues within the program.

When does the member believe the government actually came to the realization that there was a problem that required the government to take action? We on the opposition benches have been talking about it for quite a while.

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

Of course, Mr. Speaker, as long is there has been a temporary foreign worker program and as long as we have had the low-skill stream in that program, which was started by the Liberal Party, there have been accusations of abuse from time to time.

We started this review almost a year ago. We have continuously brought forward changes to try to tighten up the program, to make sure it reflects the values Canadians support, which are that we can have a temporary foreign worker program but we first must ensure that all Canadians have access to available jobs before an employer has the ability to bring in a temporary foreign worker. As I just mentioned, one of those steps was, of course, allowing on-site inspectors to investigate this. We have extended the period of time that employers have to advertise. We want to make sure employers do a robust search for Canadian employees.

On top of that, this is indicative of a larger problem within the labour market, that we need to have employers have more engagement in training.

Canada has the lowest amount of participation by employers in training employees. We need employers to engage and invest in this. This is why we brought forward, as part of the 2013 budget, the Canada job grant. This will leverage private sector investment, use that in conjunction with the public sector investment in the literally billions of dollars we currently transfer to the provinces—the $500 million program we transferred in the former labour market agreements, now the Canada job fund—to encourage employers to participate actively on the training side and make sure that, when employees are trained, they will have a job waiting for them at the other end.

We have been working on this for years now, and we will continue to ensure that, when jobs are available, Canadians have first crack at those jobs; but we are also taking steps to make sure that employers are now engaged, to make sure there are training methods in place, so workers will be trained to take these jobs when they come up.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the topic of the temporary foreign worker program. I know this topic has been of great public concern in recent weeks. Because of this, I think it is especially important that we try to put the topic into perspective.

I will begin by reminding my hon. colleagues that the temporary foreign worker program, which certainly plays a role in serving Canada's economy, our country's employers, and the Canadian labour force, is not a new program. Indeed, it has been in existence for more than four decades. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind my hon. members that it was a Liberal government that expanded the temporary foreign worker program for low-skilled workers in 2002. It was the Liberal Party members who voted time and time again against our changes to reform the program and who constantly lobby the government to bring in more temporary foreign workers.

The temporary foreign worker program serves a very important purpose by helping address skill labour shortages across Canada, which we all know exist. However, it is our responsibility to ensure that this program is protected from abuse and that we take action against anyone who is found to bend the rules.

I would like to describe how our government is doing just that, but before I do, in the interest of context, I will describe the economic role played by the temporary foreign worker program.

In every region of the country and throughout many different industrial sectors, Canadian employers are grappling with challenges that have roots in a number of long-term trends, namely Canada's aging population, our growing economy, and acute labour market shortages in a number of our industrial sectors. Of course, all of these trends are interrelated. With a growing percentage of Canadians hitting retirement age at the same time as the economy is expanding, it stands to reason that some sectors of the economy would subsequently experience skills shortages. When employers use the temporary foreign worker program as intended, it can help this challenge of labour market shortages. That is why the program was created back in the early 1970s and why it continues to exist today. The program is designed to support economic growth in Canada by allowing for the hiring of foreign workers on a temporary basis to fill short-term labour needs.

In the fall, I had the opportunity to travel to Newfoundland to speak at the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council. I heard from industry leaders and employers that they genuinely require temporary foreign workers to fill various labour needs in the region. They conveyed that while Canadians always come first, there are short-term labour needs that could not be filled by Canadian workers. These employers use the program honestly and sincerely.

Do not get me wrong, when employers abuse the program, that can certainly do damage. However, that does not mean that the program at its core does not fill much-needed and real labour market needs. When a global company headquartered in Canada needs to bring some of their workers here for a short period of time, it may be through the use of the temporary foreign worker program. When a major piece of new high-tech equipment is purchased from the United States and the business that bought it needs to bring in an expert to train its employees, it may use the temporary foreign worker program.

The temporary foreign worker program responds uniquely to offers of employment from Canadian employers, and they know well that they should only use it as a last resort when it is impossible to fill positions with Canadian workers. We will not tolerate any other use of the program. The rules are very clear.

In no way is the program designed to take jobs away from Canadians. The government is obliged to ensure that the program is not abused in this way, and the government has been proactive in fulfilling this obligation.

A comprehensive review of all aspects of the program has been under way for some time now, well before any recent media reports about specific allegations of abuse. Our government embarked upon this review to ensure that the temporary foreign worker program is still meeting its intended purpose of addressing acute labour shortages and that whenever possible, Canadians get first crack at available jobs.

The opposition is once again misleading the public by not mentioning the specific changes we have made to improve the program. Canadians should also be aware of the many reforms that the government has made to the program in recent years.

I see the member opposite laughing; this is not a laughing matter.

In 2012, the government announced its intention to better align the temporary foreign worker program with labour market needs and to ensure that businesses look to the domestic labour force before accessing the program.

Last year, the government announced further changes to strengthen and improve the program. These changes are to ensure that temporary foreign workers are relied upon only when Canadians genuinely cannot fill the job, require employers to increase their recruitment efforts to hire Canadians before they will be eligible to apply for temporary foreign workers, and help employers who legitimately need to make use of temporary foreign workers to formulate plans to transition to the Canadian workforce over time.

At the end of 2013, improvements to the temporary foreign worker program took effect that enhanced the government's ability to ensure employers are using the program as intended. That increased protection for foreign workers as well. These included: imposing conditions on employers who hire temporary foreign workers to demonstrate they are paying proper wages, and providing safe and healthy working conditions; giving government officials the authority to conduct on-site inspections to make sure employers meet the conditions of the program; introducing legislative authority to impose significant penalties on employers who break the rules; and facilitating the banning of non-compliant employers from the program for two years and adding their names to a public blacklist.

I could go on with the many positive changes our government has made in the past few years but I do not want to use all of my time. I do want to highlight the quick action that we saw our government take when the Minister of Employment and Social Development put in place a moratorium on the food services sector's access to the temporary foreign worker program pending the government's ongoing policy review of the program.

This was a definitive response on the minister's part to serious allegations of abuse in this particular sector. The minister's actions demonstrated our government's vigilance against such abuse and its determination to ensure that employers always make an effort to hire Canadians first before making use of the temporary foreign worker program.

All of the actions I have described thus far clearly demonstrate our government's determination that the temporary foreign worker program complements and does not undercut the recruitment of unemployed skilled Canadians or permanent residents into the workforce.

I hope that my contribution today to this debate has served to assure all hon. members of the House that the government is very eager to make sure that the temporary foreign worker program serves Canadians well, that it complements the domestic job market, that it is not abused or misused in order to deny jobs to qualified Canadians, and that any potential changes to the program will help it best meet labour market demands.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking a great deal about the temporary foreign worker program. I would like my colleague to talk about the important changes that we have made in terms of ensuring that the program is used diligently and what happens to employers if they do not follow the rules.

This program is for employers who cannot find a Canadian who is able to fill a job. I would like to hear more from my colleague as to how we deal with an employer who abuses the system.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have made reforms to the temporary foreign worker program to ensure that Canadians are first in line for available jobs.

Unfortunately, members of the opposition voted against all of our measures to strengthen the program, particularly the members from the NDP, I might add.

These measures include: the authority to conduct on-line inspections to make sure employers are meeting the conditions of the program; introducing legislative authority to impose significant financial penalties for employers who break the rules, and that may include jail time; the ability to ban non-compliant employers from the program for two years, and immediately add their names to a public blacklist; requiring employers who legitimately rely on temporary foreign workers, due to a lack of qualified Canadian applicants, to have a plan to transition to a Canadian workforce over time; requiring employers to pay temporary foreign workers at the prevailing wage by removing existing wage flexibility; adding questions to employer labour market opinion applications to ensure that the temporary foreign worker program is not used to facilitate the outsourcing of Canadian jobs; introducing fees for employers for LMO processing and increasing the fees for work permits, so that hardworking taxpayers are no longer subsidizing these costs; making English and French the only languages that can be used as a job requirement when hiring through the temporary foreign worker program, and this is a must; and suspending the accelerated labour market opinion process.