Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2014

Motions in Amendment

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have young children who range from 2 years old to 17 years old, so I understand some of the concerns that the member opposite has, particularly around protecting our youth.

However, it seems that the NDP continue on different tracks, and it is quite confusing to this side. We have the member for Sherbrooke who said, “Do not change the Criminal Code. That will not do it. We will get the best results if we give the authorities more funding to deal with these kinds of things”.

Then we have the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour saying, “If my private members' bill were passed, it would put provisions in the Criminal Code, and then everything would be fine”.

Then we hear from other members who say, “We can put it in the Criminal Code, but whatever you do, do not give the authorities the ability to go to a judge and lawfully be able to ask for information so that we can not just charge someone with an offence under the Criminal Code but we can actually get a conviction”.

I think the NDP continues to put out different messages. Would the member please enlighten us as to the reason they continue to not support provisions in the Criminal Code, and the investigative tools that are required to successfully convict?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board for his question. The message is very clear: in this Parliament, government bills are introduced and they are sent to committee to be studied for a very good reason. It is to ensure that we review a bill once more to ensure that there are no problems, that an in-depth study is conducted and that amendments are made if necessary.

The official opposition always has a clear message. We study bills carefully and we propose amendments. We regret that the government rejects completely reasonable amendments that would improve a bill.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, and I thank her for her comments.The government has often taken an approach with respect to legislation such as this in focusing on the punitive or investigatory aspects of its legislation. However, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard I thought raised a particularly important point, which is to focus on the preventive or protective aspects of this legislation.

What would the hon. member suggest should be included to make the bill more palatable?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the fact that he recognizes that some bills are designed to punish rather than to prevent. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I have to say that some of the provisions and amendments we suggested would have made the bill easier to stomach, if I can put it that way. Let us be frank: It is not just the official opposition that is saying so. Witnesses appeared before the committee to study this bill and they gave their expert opinion. They are members of civil society and have studied the issue. They are experts and they also agree with the amendments we proposed to make this bill much more acceptable.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last night in Halifax I was with some friends, a group of women, some feminists. We were getting together to talk about different issues. I said that I was speaking to a bill tomorrow and asked if any of them had any feedback or perspectives they thought were missing in this debate. Everyone knew instantly what bill I was talking about.

Rehtaeh Parsons' story has touched us all in Nova Scotia. It has left an indelible mark on all of us as Nova Scotians to know that this woman died by suicide as a result of images about her spread over the Internet. It has also ignited a really good and healthy debate in Nova Scotia. Everyone has taken part in this conversation, and we are trying to find solutions. The province put together a cyberbullying task force to think about what steps the province can take to prevent this tragedy from happening again. The debate has been lively, solemn, and very real. People have taken this burden seriously and have said that this is something we need to figure out as a community.

I was at this gathering of friends last night, and I told them I had to speak to this bill. One of the women I was with said, “The problem you will have tomorrow with this speech is that the Conservatives are not actually interested in issues. They are just interested in advancing their own agenda, and if they happen to find a situation or a case that helps them advance that agenda, they will use that opportunity to their advantage”. I really believe that this is what is happening here.

There are many reasons why I care about this issue. I care because Rehtaeh Parsons was a member of my community, because she was raped, because she was humiliated, and because she felt that the only option for her, the only way to end that humiliation, was suicide.

I care about this bill as a woman and as a public figure who understands the hurtful and humiliating power of the Internet. I care about this bill as a feminist. I care about this bill as a legislator, because Rehtaeh Parsons is not the only victim. I want to ensure that we have legislation in place to prevent cyberbullying. I want to send a message to Canadians that the distribution of private images without consent will not be tolerated. There are a lot of reasons to care about this bill.

I know that I speak for all of my NDP colleagues when I say that we must better protect people of all ages from the distribution of private images without consent. That is without any controversy. We were all proud to support our colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, when he tabled his bill. He worked to present a balanced and sensible proposal to deal with this issue. He proposed Bill C-540, a bill that would make it an offence to produce or distribute intimate images of individuals without their consent. We stand in solidarity with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. Rehtaeh Parsons' parents are his constituents. He made a commitment to them to figure out how we could change the law to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again.

However, as my friend said last night, the Conservatives do not have an interest in this issue. They have an interest in advancing an agenda, because Bill C-13, the bill we have before us, goes well beyond what we need to do to change legislation to prevent cyberbullying. The scope of this bill is much larger than my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour's proposal.

Members will remember when the former public safety minister, Vic Toews, stood up in this House and said that we were with them or with the child pornographers. That was in February 2012. It was a pivotal moment for me in my experience as a member of Parliament, because the response from the community was swift and strong. Canadians said, “Not on our watch does a member get away with saying stuff like that”.

That was February 2012. It was when government introduced its hyperbolically named “protecting children from Internet predators act”. It was a bill that everyone rejected. We in the NDP rejected it, privacy advocates rejected it, and the public rejected it. The government was shamed into pulling this bill, never to be heard from again or so we thought.

Here we are and it is two years later, and finally the Conservatives have figured out a way. They have found their vehicle to get those changes brought in. This is their vehicle. This is their opportunity. They are taking two very tragic events, the deaths of Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons, and are using those events to advance their own agenda because, lo and behold, two years later we find the long-forgotten aspects of the Toews bill here in Bill C-13. Only this time it is under the auspices of cyberbullying.

What does targeting banks' financial data have to do with cyberbullying? What does making changes to the Terrorist Financing Act have to do with young people and the spread of images online without consent? If they are trying to prevent cyberbullying, why in the world do they need to change rules around telemarketing and the theft of communications services? It is a gross misuse of our privilege, the privilege we have as parliamentarians. It is dishonest and it is an abuse of the trust Canadians put in us when they cast their ballots.

If we were honest about our commitment to preventing cyberbullying, we would pass my NDP colleague's motion. If we were honest about our commitment to preventing bullying, we would have passed the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, to develop a national anti-bullying strategy. If we were honest about our commitment to preventing cyberbullying, we would have split this bill a long time ago.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Gatineau, who has worked incredibly hard on the bill, giving us advice as members of Parliament, doing the legal analysis, going to committee. She has tried at every turn to split the bill, because we agree with parts of it but not the rest.

It would be an incredible victory if we could say that this piece of legislation passed with unanimous consent, that there we were as parliamentarians, united in working to prevent cyberbullying. Instead, we have everything and the kitchen sink thrown into one bill, so of course the New Democrats have to say no. Of course we have to vote against it and that is going to be used for political partisan purposes. Thank goodness we cannot send ten percenters into other people's ridings anymore, because I know I would have one sent into my riding saying, “Do you realize that the member for Halifax voted against protecting your children?”

It is for partisan purposes. We should be splitting the bill. We have tried to split the bill. We also have tried to bring forward amendments. These are not crazy, complicated ideas for fixing the bill. They are simple and elegant. Some of these changes are not deal breakers; it is just changing a word. An example is raising the standard from “reasonable grounds to suspect” to “reasonable grounds to believe”. It is one simple word. We know what the solution is. Change that word from “suspect” to “believe” because there is a world of difference between those two concepts. I am suspicious all the time. Do I actually believe that things are happening? Probably not. It is a big legal difference. It is an elegant and simple solution. We proposed it after hearing from witnesses at committee, yet the proposition was voted down.

When my colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, introduced his bill in June 2013, this was, as I said, a commitment to his constituents, Glen Canning and Leah Parsons. The member did an interview with Tobi Cohen, a journalist here on Parliament Hill, on July 22, 2013. He said at that time that he does not care who gets credit as long as it gets done, and he hoped the government would introduce a piece of legislation, because as we know, the process of passing government legislation is much more swift. The member said, “I hope that they don’t try to wrap too many things into one piece of legislation”.

Maybe we should not be so cynical as to try and predict that this kind of thing is going to happen, but it is the modus operandi here these days. Perhaps I can address some of my other points when I answer questions.

I find this whole bill to be disappointing. I really wish we could have worked together on this.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised at some of the content of the speech by the member across the way. I would take issue with the fact that she claims the Conservatives do not care about these issues. Were we not to care about these issues, we would not put forward a bill that addresses the needs of not only the Parsons and the Todd families, but of police officers who care intimately about solving these kinds of crimes. They do not have the tools required.

It is obvious just by looking at the makeup of our parties that having 12 police officers sitting in a Conservative caucus and no police officers sitting in the NDP caucus that we have some experience in dealing with victims. We are going to continue to push forward for victims.

I am hopeful my colleague will correct the statements made about us not caring about these issues and caring only about an agenda. How on earth can she explain the fact that both of these poor young women's families have agreed 100% with this Conservative government's bill? Not only do those two families agree, but Glen Canning, who was also in committee, agrees 100% with this legislation.

I hope the member will withdraw those really senseless accusations of us not caring about the issues. These are serious and heartfelt.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know about my colleague's history as a police officer. We were both elected at the same time and we have a friendship across the aisle. I honour the work she has done as a police officer. She has taken some brave positions in the House based on her experience as a police officer, and I applaud her for those positions.

However, I cannot agree on this bill at all. We look at the fact that the Terrorist Financing Act would be changed. What in the world does that have to do with the Amanda Todd or the Rehtaeh Parsons situation? Absolutely nothing. Terrorist financing, telemarketing and the theft of telecommunication services are in the legislation. If the government could explain to me how this would protect a 17-year-old girl who is having pictures of her spread from cellphone to cellphone maybe I could get there, but the government cannot explain it.

I do not want to get into a war of words around what parents said this or that, but I will point out that Amanda Todd's mother has had some pretty profound issues with the privacy violations that are inherent in the legislation. I would not be so quick to say that the parents are universally in support of this on that point.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's reference to the size of the legislation.

She made reference to some of the work that one of her colleagues had done. My colleague, the Liberal Party health critic from Vancouver Centre, has done a lot of work with respect to cyberbullying. Technology has advanced and there have been all sorts of abuses.

Our constituents and Canadians from coast to coast to coast have told us that they want to see progressive legislation brought forward to protect the citizenry. There is a need for that.

Would the member not agree that many of the pieces of legislation that were brought forward received virtually unanimous support of all members of the House? It is somewhat disappointing that the goodwill that was there for many of the private members' bills or motions seems to have been lost in the development of this legislation.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague's statement about the impact on goodwill. There are only so many times we can go in with our hats and say that we will work together on something and then have the door slammed in our face or have it twisted around somehow. At some point, we stop being willing to work across party lines. I hope we are not there yet, but we are getting there in some ways.

My colleague did bring up a good point about laws needing to be changed. He is absolutely right. They are not modern enough. They are not keeping up with the times.

It is interesting that we are having this debate today when a young man in Halifax just pled guilty to the distribution of child porn images in what the media has called a very famous child porn case. The media cannot identify what that case is, but we all know what it is. It is the case we are talking about today. The media cannot identify the victim because of the publication ban. The parents of this victim have said that it is better for the public good, that it is better for the public to know. They waived the rights of their deceased child because it is for the public good, that it is good that the public know who we are talking about.

There are moments when the laws do not make sense. We in this place listen to people. We hear whether our laws are making sense or not and hopefully we try to make some sense of them. Sometimes that means changing them.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Halifax's speech. It is very difficult to say it more eloquently than she has, particularly with her knowledge from the Halifax area of the impact that the tragedy of the Rehtaeh Parsons case had, not only on the family, but also on the whole community, in terms of it developing an understanding of how serious this is and can be.

She also has knowledge of the consequences, not only for individuals who go so far as to be induced to commit suicide, but also the thousands of others who are affected by bullying but not affected to that extent. However, they are still affected in their lives, in their self-esteem, and in their ability to carry on an ordinary life. This is particularly when we talk about cyberbullying.

For the most part, research shows that the ones who are most affected by cyberbullying are young people, particularly young women between the ages of 12 and 14. However, it can affect people at any age. This is a very vulnerable group when it comes to attacks on self-esteem and the kinds of bullying that take place online.

In its most common form, we are talking about cyberbullying as threatening or hostile emails. That affects about three quarters of victims. Hateful comments affect about half of all victims. The research considers 12- to 14-year olds to be most at risk, and girls are affected more than boys.

When we talk about this event, we are talking about vulnerable young women for the most part, and the serious damage to their mental health and well-being. It has negative effects on social and emotional levels, and schooling. It provokes feelings of despair and isolation, depression, and suicidal tendencies. An interesting research result is that victims and bullies are nearly two times more likely to commit suicide.

There are extreme cases. Amanda Todd is one of them. The perpetrator has not yet come to trial, as far as I know, but he was an Internet predator. He committed what appears to be a serious and intentional criminal act. However, if we look at the bullies being twice as likely to commit suicide, we are clearly talking about people with problems of their own who are engaged in this behaviour.

It tells me that this issue has to be dealt with as a criminal matter, because it is one. It is the causing of intentional suffering using the means of the Internet. It also has to be dealt with as a problem that needs another aspect to it, in terms of prevention. We need to deal with it as a criminal matter. The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour brought that forward very quickly. However, we also have to have some strategy for trying to educate, prevent, and to help people understand what they are doing and how much harm it can cause.

We did have both of those reactions from this side of the House, and in a very timely manner. The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour brought forth something that was mocked. It was perhaps not mocked, but it was a small bill that dealt squarely and head-on with the problem. It identified the problem and asked all hon. members to bring this forward and deal with it. That was a year and a half ago.

When it wants to adopt a private member's bill that meets political needs, the government will adopt it. It will bring it forward and make sure it is fast-tracked. It could have done the same thing with the bill by the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, but it did not. If the government had said it did not work or if it did not like the wording, it could easily have been changed. There is a lot of expertise in the Department of Justice.

We have an omnibus bill now. We have our usual “throw in the kitchen sink” bill. The Conservatives will call it one thing—it is called “protecting Canadians from online crime”—but it is really about all kinds of other things. There are all kinds of other things thrown in there about protecting Internet providers or theft of communication services and all sorts of other stuff. It has nothing to do with the issue that we are dealing with.

Instead of taking it, going forward and doing the right thing for once, the government decided to use it, as my colleague from Halifax said, to have another go at this failed bill brought forward by the former minister of public safety who shocked Canadians with his statement and his approach and had to have the bill withdrawn. The elements of that bill are still here, in terms of how they are dealing with the so-called “lawful access” provisions, and I will get to that a little later.

However, I am more interested in the failure of the government to take seriously the plight of victims of cyberbullying and deal with it swiftly and uncontroversially, because it could have been done. That is what the victims, the families, the school teachers and community leaders across the country wanted to see happen. They did not get that from the current government because it has this other agenda, this other way of dealing with things that tries to push forward something along with something that is good and put in all the other things that were failed policies in the past and do not meet the tests of compliance with the general law, do not meet the standards that have been there for many years when it comes to privacy and other events, and obtaining of warrants when it is invading people's policy, listening in on their private conversations, and getting access to their data, which is based upon a warrant.

We have, sadly, a failure to do that.

Then, when the opportunity came to support a motion brought by another colleague of ours on this side calling for a national anti-bullying strategy, what did the government do? It said, “No, we're not going to do that. We're not going to support that.” That would have provided some of the other preventive educational opportunities to support the schools, which are trying to solve some of the problems among the schoolchildren, to help communities deal with this, and perhaps even to help provide education to police officers and police departments. They do not all have all the answers, either, frankly.

While we are glad for the contribution that any member of the House has made in their private life prior to coming here, we do know that a lot of work needs to be done to ensure that police departments across the country have the tools to be able to work with us. That comes by having some legislation in place, not so swiftly as to not be considered, but to take it and say this is something that we have identified as a problem, it is a shock to so many Canadians that this would go on, and let us try to ensure that the problem is solved as quickly as possible.

That brings me to the other part. As I have two minutes to deal with it, I will not repeat all of the things—I cannot obviously—that my colleague, the member for Gatineau, has so ably represented in her argument in the House and her work before the committee in identifying, along with the experts, the failings of the bill, when it comes to invasion of people's privacy, the use of standards such as reasonable suspicion instead of reasonable and probable grounds to believe as a standard for obtaining a warrant. That is something that experts pointed out, that my colleague from Gatineau pointed out. She has done a wonderful job in presenting numerous and reasonable amendments to that part of the bill, all of which were rejected by the other side.

I do not think Canadians are surprised anymore when they hear that bills go to a committee of reasonable responsible people, experts come and give their opinions as to what needs to be done to make it acceptable, those amendments are put forward and not a single one, not one reasonable amendment that would fix the bill, was adopted. However, we are used to that, and I think Canadians are used to the fact that the current government has its own ideas about things and is not prepared to listen to anyone else. It wants to ensure that it has things its own way.

That is what is wrong with the bill. We would have loved to be able to be here and have a non-contentious bill that would solve the problem and hopefully save some lives. This is a matter of life and death.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have reached the end of the period permitted for government orders for the day. The hon. member for St. John's East will have five minutes remaining for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Employment

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House yet again to raise serious concerns about the temporary foreign worker program on behalf of people in Alberta.

On April 1, the Minister of Employment and Social Development responded to my question in the House that no Canadian workers in the oil sands had lost their jobs to temporary foreign workers, and that if so, all were immediately rehired.

As I was informed by the ironworkers, this was patently untrue. On April 28, I wrote to the minister seeking more detailed information on the action by his department in the matter of the layoff of 65 Canadian ironworkers at the Imperial Oil Kearl project site.

As is evident from the information provided to the minister by the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers local 720, Canadian workers were in fact replaced by less qualified temporary foreign workers, a violation of the law, and while some of the Canadian workers did eventually find other employment, many did not. One such person was an aboriginal apprentice.

Regardless, the layoffs were illegal.

Three hundred Canadian workers reportedly were displaced as well at the Husky Energy Sunrise project under similar circumstances. The obvious question is, what enforcement action has been taken?

Five months have passed, and the minister has not had the courtesy to even reply to my letter. The displacement of available highly qualified Canadian workers by temporary foreign workers continues to be a recurring problem not just in the oil sands but across Alberta. Both the previous accelerated temporary worker program and the pilot project for Alberta, later extended, removed any obligation for a labour market analysis or proof of labour shortage.

Recent reports, including reports by the C.D. Howe Institute and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, raise serious problems regarding the reliability of labour shortage data. These incidents suggest problems also exist for skilled worker employment data. This is being verified by the number of complaints I continue to receive from Canadian skilled tradespeople who are unable to get a job, let alone an interview.

Serious questions are also being raised about the certification process for temporary foreign workers for skilled trades, compared with the process for Canadian workers who have invested time and money in gaining their professional tickets.

Here are the questions that I wish to put today to the House.

Which specifically designated federal officers are mandated to inspect and enforce the temporary foreign worker program?

More specifically, which federal officers are mandated to inspect and enforce the temporary foreign worker program for the oil sands, and in what numbers?

Third, who is being held accountable and liable for compliance with the temporary foreign worker legislation? Is it the labour brokers, the operators, or the owners?

At what juncture are temporary foreign employment brokers paid for temporary foreign workers when they bring them into Canada?

What new measures, beyond increased penalties, is the government taking to ensure better government oversight to identify, track, and respond to violations and to prevent abuses?

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

Mr. Speaker, our message to employers has been clear and unequivocal; Canadians must always be first in line for any available job.

Our comprehensive and balanced reforms restore the temporary foreign worker program to its original purpose, as a short-term last resort for employers when there are no qualified Canadians to fill available jobs. This comprehensive overhaul of the program will significantly reduce the number of temporary foreign workers in Canada, it will improve labour market information and correct labour market distortions caused by the previous program. It will also strengthen enforcement and penalties for employers who attempt to break the rules.

Let me list the reforms that the Minister of Employment announced just this past June. Employers must now also attest that they are aware of the rule that Canadians cannot be laid off or have their hours reduced at a work site that employs temporary foreign workers. Employers with 10 or more employees applying for a new LMIA are subject to a cap of 10% on the proportion of their workforce that can consist of low-wage temporary foreign workers. Applications for the lowest wage, lowest skill, entry-level occupations in the food services, accommodation and retail trade sectors will be barred from the temporary foreign worker program in areas of high unemployment, those areas with greater than 6% unemployment.

LMIAs for low-wage temporary foreign workers will be reduced from a two-year standard duration to a one-year period, making the program truly temporary. Annex agreements with provinces and territories can no longer be used for employers to avoid labour market screening. Employers who are seeking to hire high-wage temporary foreign workers will now be required to submit transition plans that show how they will be hiring more Canadians in the future to fill their available positions.

More and better labour market information will be available for stronger screening. A new enhanced job matching service will allow Canadians to apply directly through the Canada job bank for jobs that match their skills and experience, and provide information to program officers who are reviewing an employer's LMIA application on how many qualified Canadians have applied for specific jobs.

There will be stronger enforcement and tougher penalties for employers who break the rules. There is a massive increase in the number and scope of inspections, so that one in four businesses employing temporary foreign workers will now be inspected by the temporary foreign worker program each and every year. There will be an increase in the number of program requirements that inspectors can review when they review these applications from three to 21. We are improving and expanding the temporary foreign worker tip line, and creating a new complaints line to better detect when employers have violated this system.

Expanding the ability to publicly blacklist employers who have been suspended and are under investigation, as well as those who have had an LMIA revoked and are banned from using the program have been put in place. Additional funding for the Canada Border Services Agency to allow for an increase in the number of criminal investigations are also in place. Improving information-sharing among departments and agencies involved in the oversight of the temporary foreign worker program, including provincial and territorial governments, has been established, and we are introducing significant monetary fines for those who violate the system of up to $100,000.

Those are some of the recent changes we have made to make sure we enshrine the principle that Canadians must always be hired for any available job, a sign of real action made by this minister last June.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed yet again. None of my questions have been answered. All we hear are generalities.

I would put again to the parliamentary secretary, and on to the minister I hope, where is the overhaul of the skilled worker program? By and large, all the reforms that were made were to the lesser skilled program. We are still waiting.

As the member is likely aware, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers have now entered the fray and joined forces with the ironworkers and other workers, including welders, who are deeply upset with the way the temporary foreign worker program is being applied to their areas of work. The boilermakers have put forward ideas for reform. They would like to replace the international broker companies with the unions actually running the temporary foreign worker program to make sure Canadian workers are not displaced.

I look forward to hearing a response to what they are saying to the boilermakers.

I would like to also put a final request to the parliamentary secretary to pass on to the minister. Would he be willing to table in the House what enforcement actions have been taken against the owners, operators and brokers in the oil sands regarding the violations of the temporary foreign worker program?

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

Mr. Speaker, those questions are coming from a member that, if she had her way, would shut down the oil sands and eliminate all those jobs that Canadians would be performing.

While we have made a comprehensive and balanced overhaul of the program, the Liberals and NDP have been incoherent about where they stand, while inundating our government with requests for temporary foreign workers in their own ridings. They are voting in favour of an expansive moratorium on the program, while demanding changes to the program. They have voted against all of the previous reforms to tighten the access to the temporary foreign workers program and all of our previous efforts to crack down on employers who abuse this program.

These reforms will require that employers make greater efforts to recruit and train Canadians for available jobs. These initiatives, like the Canada job grant, will ensure that the program is only used to provide temporary help where clear and acute labour shortages exist and Canadians are not available for the job.

I encourage the member opposite that if she is aware of abuses to call the tip line: 1-800-367-5693 or email [email protected].

Any employer who misuses this program will be publicly named and shamed on our blacklist, be banned from the program and face other consequences.

Public Works and Government Services

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to come back to an important question that affects the region I represent and that is so important to the people of Quebec City. The question was not adequately answered when I asked it last spring.

Before the summer break, I asked the government what had become of the construction of the Quebec City covered ice rink. We learned that construction was being delayed, even though the funding for this new infrastructure had already been committed.

What is more, we all know that the minister responsible for that file at the time promised that one-third of the construction cost would be covered by the federal government.

In my question, I also pointed out that she had promised that the old building Canada fund would be used to carry out the project. However, when I rose in the House we learned that the money may no longer be available.

Since then, weeks have gone by and the idea of a covered ice rink may seem far away, especially after the warmth and sunny days of summer. Unfortunately, I did not get a satisfactory response from the government. That is why I am asking the question again today.

I am not sure if it was because of the noise in the House that day or a problem with the translation, but when I asked a question about the ice oval, the government's response was about the Davie shipyard and the awarding of shipbuilding contracts.

Therefore, I would like to give my colleague opposite another opportunity to update the people of Quebec City about the status of the project.

Based on what was reported in the media last spring, it seems clear that other levels of government were responsible for the temporary freeze on the project.

We learned that the project would be temporarily delayed because of the budget situation and that time was needed to update the necessary studies. However, the federal government publicly committed to contribute financially to this project last winter.

Even though the project is on ice—pardon the pun—could we have, here in the House, a formal commitment from the federal government that the funding earmarked for this important project will still be available when it is time for it to be built? Can the government commit to delivering the money that it promised?

I would like to remind my colleague that this bill is important for the development of sports infrastructure in the region because the ice rink will be located in a city known for its winter activities. The ice oval will also enable certain sports and their federations, such as Quebec's speedskating federation, to use world-class infrastructure to help our athletes develop. This national training centre would serve all of eastern Canada.

Has the federal government set aside the promised $32.5 million for this project?

I hope that my comments will not fall on deaf ears and that my colleague understands just how much people from Quebec City are counting on original projects that will allow the city and its athletes to gain international exposure. I hope that the government's commitment is serious and that the funds will still be available when construction of this long-awaited project begins.

Quebec City is a winter city, and it must have appropriate facilities for young athletes who want to participate in such sports as speedskating without having to move to another part of the country to train and pursue their dreams.

Having said that, I understand the budgetary situation in which we are currently living. Nevertheless, I remain convinced of the potential economic benefits of this project.

The government promised to provide one-third of the budget. It must keep its promise when the time comes to do so.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to refresh my colleague's memory on the ice oval project in Quebec City.

As always, we look to the provinces, territories, and municipalities to prioritize infrastructure projects that are important in their respective regions. The former government in Quebec prioritized this project in its budget, and it is still a priority for the current Quebec government.

There was money available for Quebec under the 2007 building Canada fund. The hon. Minister of Infrastructure, on February 27, 2014, confirmed that we as a federal government have also prioritized this project under the 2007 building Canada fund. The money has been set aside, so when Quebec City is ready to move forward, we will be there to support it.

I would also like to point out to my colleague opposite that recreational and sports infrastructure is still an eligible category under the largest component of the new building Canada plan, the gas tax fund. The gas tax fund and the GST rebate represent close to 70% of all the new funding in the new building Canada plan.

I would also like to remind my colleague that it is this Conservative government that made the gas tax fund permanent. Unfortunately, the NDP voted against that. It is also this Conservative government that doubled the gas tax fund, from $1 billion to $2 billion. Again, unfortunately, the NDP voted against that.

It is this Conservative government that indexed the gas tax fund going forward, which will add close to $2 billion to the gas tax fund over the next 10 years. Once again, true to form, the opposition across the aisle voted against it. In fact, the NDP has voted against almost all of our measures to increase infrastructure funding to provinces, territories and municipalities. However, thanks to our Conservative government, provinces, territories, and municipalities can now rely on predictable sources of funding for their infrastructures priorities and, as I mentioned, this includes the ice oval in Quebec City.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my father-in-law is 97 years old and he has always kept his promises. I extend my warmest greetings to him. He is probably watching at home right now.

The Minister of Infrastructure and member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean committed $32.5 million. The program ends in 2014, and we want to ensure that the money will still be available in 2015 and 2016 when the Government of Quebec needs it for the ice oval.

The minister said, “Quebec can take the money that is still available, and this is a priority for us.” He guaranteed that the $32.5 million would still be available after March 31, 2014, regardless of whether there was a change in government as a result of a future provincial election, which obviously took place. He said, “The money will be there. We worked with both governments over the years.”

I hope that like my father-in-law, the minister will keep his promises.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I will certainly be crystal clear. This project is a priority for Quebec City. We know that. It was a priority for the former government in Quebec, and it is still a priority of the current government in Quebec.

On February 27, 2014, the hon. Minister of Infrastructure confirmed that as a federal government we have also prioritized the ice oval project under the 2007 building Canada fund. Recreational and sports infrastructure are still eligible categories, as I explained earlier, under the largest component of the new building Canada plan, the gas tax fund. Combined with the GST rebate under the plan, this represents close to 70% of the new funding.

We have delivered the largest and the longest infrastructure plan in Canadian history. We will continue, as a federal government, to work very closely with our municipal and provincial partners, and we will continue with these important investments, renewing infrastructure across the country, creating jobs, and enhancing the quality of life for Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:49 p.m.)