Linda Duncan

[Business of Supply, May 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the last part of the question. I fully agree that we need to have in place stronger provisions to ensure that temporary foreign workers are not being abused. It was quite some time ago that a number of us raised those issues in the House. I have organized meetings with local churches and local business people who are deeply concerned about the abuses that they are finding of temporary foreign workers.

On the matter of whether the government has stepped up to ensure that there are no more abuses, I wish that I could speak to that but we are still waiting for the reply from the hon. minister. Frankly, at this point in time, I have no idea if there is going to be better enforcement. The problem is they are not going to be able to scrutinize the LMOs for the oil sands because there are not any.

[Business of Supply, May 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it would be more appropriate to say it in reverse. I and my colleagues are pleased that the Liberal Party has come on board in endorsing our previous call for a review of this program by Canada's Auditor General. However, additionally, it is incumbent upon that review that there also be close scrutiny of the efficacy of the surveillance and enforcement aspects of that program.

[Business of Supply, May 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I share with my colleagues the delight that the third party in the House is sharing our concern about the way the temporary foreign worker program is being handled and is coming forward with a motion that very closely resembles the one we debated, and we appreciated that they supported, a week back.

I would like to point out that, regrettably, the motion is missing a couple of critical factors that I have been raising in the House over the last month. I am pleased that the Liberal motion calls for, of course, the “immediate and full review of the program by the Auditor General”, which the NDP has already called for.

The motion speaks about the need for the “disclosure of Labour Market Opinion applications and approvals” and “a tightening of the Labour Market Opinion”, but what is of concern, particularly to the workers in my province of Alberta, is the fact that the government has actually exempted the need for an LMO at all for the oil sands sector and a lot of other sectors. I think that is what is causing the greatest problem for that sector.

Second, in addition to the fact that we need to have a return of the requirement to state whether or not there has been an effort to even find Canadian workers, and whether there is a shortage of workers, there is still a complete absence of surveillance and enforcement in many sectors in Alberta.

We are awaiting, the ironworkers and I, a reply to the letter that we sent to the minister. We are looking forward to a reply forthwith.

As I have shared with the minister and with this place, the displacement of available, highly qualified Canadian workers with temporary foreign workers has been reported to be a recurring problem in the oil sands sector. I would advise that since I raised these issues, I am receiving letter after letter and phone call after phone call from other skilled Canadian workers who are fully qualified and who are also being displaced by temporary workers. I will deal with that shortly.

First of all, I want to reiterate the problems that have been brought to my attention and that I have shared with this place, raised by Canadian ironworkers. As I previously shared, 65 Canadian ironworkers were laid off by Imperial Oil at their Kearl project and were replaced by temporary foreign workers.

Second, prior to that, approximately 300 Canadian ironworkers were laid off by Husky at their Sunrise oil sands project in northern Alberta.

Clearly we have a pattern here. It is important to point out that it was not just the case that Canadian qualified ironworkers were potentially available to be hired. In both of those cases, not only were they qualified, willing, and able, they were on the job site, working and under contract to deliver the services to those two respective companies.

If that is not reprehensible enough, included within those layoffs were aboriginal apprentices, who were then replaced by lesser qualified individuals who were temporary foreign workers. That is of deep concern. We hear, time after time, the government of the day stating its strong support for getting our aboriginal peoples educated and into the trades, giving them opportunities to earn a decent income so that they can care for their families. Here we have an example where a young first nations gentleman took the time to get educated and get the trade and was in the course of being apprenticed, and was laid off. He has informed me directly that it took him a while to find another job. He has managed to find another job. This is completely reprehensible.

In a second instance, I was contacted by a female single-parent ironworker who was also laid off. She and many women have been encouraged to go back to school and become qualified in a trade to gain well-paying employment to provide for their families. This is precisely what she did, and then she was laid off surreptitiously and replaced by a temporary foreign worker.

I have been working closely with the ironworkers to try to find out for them what the problem is that is persisting in the oil sands sector, and what the minister is going to do to intervene to make sure this does not happen again, and to make sure that enforcement action is taken against the employers who appear to have violated the rules.

Regrettably, there has still been no response from the minister. I attempted to get a reply today, and he deflected the question.

What the minister has told us today is that last year he created a specific program integrity division in Service Canada. For those of us who might have worked in the enforcement world we usually simply call those an inspectorate. They are basically understood to be specifically trained and qualified personnel. They are trained to go out and collect evidence, ask questions, approach witnesses, and then take appropriate enforcement action based on the circumstances. Usually there is a prescribed enforcement compliance strategy, which to be credible would be developed in consultation with workers, potentially unions, non-union workers, and employers.

I keep persisting in asking this question and thus far we are not hearing if that has occurred. We are not sure exactly who is in this program integrity division. However, the obvious question is, have any of these program integrity workers been deployed to the oil sands? Have they been specifically deployed to look into these instances of alleged abuses of the temporary foreign worker program? We are still waiting for a response and the ironworkers regularly contact me and, as I understand, contact the minister's office to find out if their concerns are being addressed.

I would like to reiterate, very clearly, that the Canadian ironworkers hold no grudge against temporary foreign workers. They understand that people in other countries are desperate for work and want to look after their own families. They have no objection whatsoever for those workers coming to Canada. They, like us, would prefer they come to Canada through the usual immigration route, bring their families, have the opportunity to upgrade their standards, and potentially join the unions even. Even if they do come as temporary foreign workers, the unions do not begrudge them whatsoever and they are happy to work with them, so long as the employers do not try to displace them in their duly qualified work, or pay these workers less, which will bring down the salary rate.

A number of questions were put to the minister and I want to share with this place the questions we are asking the minister to respond to. How is it that Imperial Oil and Husky were allowed to replace qualified, willing, and available Canadian ironworkers with temporary foreign workers? That is a simple question.

Second, are federal officers specifically mandated to inspect and enforce the temporary foreign worker program on oil sands operations? That is another very straightforward question.

Third, more specifically, which federal officers and what numbers are mandated to inspect and enforce this program in the oil sands, in particular because of the fact that in Alberta there is a “pilot” program, which has been further extended in time to allow oil sands operations to bring on board temporary foreign workers without the need for an LMO? There is absolutely no obligation on the employers to even show cause that there is a need to bring in temporary foreign workers, that there is a shortage of skilled workers. That is a very critical issue.

If federal officers are posted in the oil sands, why did they not identify these egregious abuses of the temporary foreign worker program? In both instances, these abuses of the displacement of Canadian skilled workers with temporary foreign workers were identified by the Canadian workers themselves. Even today, we noted that the minister said he is pleased that even his own colleagues have brought to his attention some cases that need to be investigated. We need clarity. Is this an actual surveillance and enforcement program run by the government, or is it simply the government sitting back and waiting to see if someone is brave enough to file a complaint and hope that there is going to be some kind of response?

An additional concern that we have raised is what is the role being played by these labour brokers, or headhunters? What is the situation where these brokers are bringing in both Canadian workers and temporary foreign workers, in this situation, where a broker has displaced Canadian workers with temporary foreign workers? It is very important that these issues be addressed so that we can make sure that we have a steady supply of qualified Canadians.

In closing, I would just like again to share that I am hearing case after case. I am now hearing from pipefitters, boilermakers, concrete workers, and more ironworkers who are being laid off and displaced by temporary foreign workers. It is time to have a thorough review of the program. However, I would add to that, very strongly, it is not an excuse for the government to sit back and not deploy an effective surveillance and enforcement program.

[Employment, May 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the low-skilled program that is a problem. The minister has yet to reply to my letter to him on the series of layoffs of Canadian ironworkers and their replacement by temporary foreign worker at the oil sands operations.

Concerns remain about a lack of government surveillance and enforcement of the program. Based on calls from other skilled workers, including pipefitters, boilermakers, and concrete workers, it is clear these are not just isolated cases of abuse. Will the minister finally deliver the requested independent audit of the program and step up his surveillance?

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the member's very cogent comments on topics involving legal issues.

The member is speaking to plain view evidence. From my engagement in environmental enforcement, I know that reasonable cause is needed to seek a warrant, or it can be plain view evidence. In this case, is it because they simply do not have reasonable cause,that they they are circumventing and trying to get the information they could not even get a warrant for?

I wonder if the member could speak to the contradiction that is going on in what the government is doing. It has denied repeated requests by the commissioner of elections to seek information in the investigation of election fraud and has refused to give powers to the commissioner of elections, yet it is extending this power to persons who are not even police officers and in some cases, I understand, are not even regulatory officers.

Perhaps the member would like to speak to the contradiction that is going on in the government.

[Petitions, May 5th, 2014]

The second petition is from residents of High River, Calgary, Oshawa, Mississauga and Winnipeg. They are calling on the government to enable all healthy Canadians to be qualified to donate blood, bone marrow, and organs, and to not discriminate on reasons of sexual preference.

[Petitions, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today I have two sets of petitions to table.

The first petition is from Canadians supporting Bill C-356, which provides for a call for a national strategy on addressing dementia in consultation with the provinces and territories. It calls for the creation of a standing round table and for greater investment to address Alzheimer's and dementia.

[Access to Information Act, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reiterate what has been said by my colleagues, but unfortunately, it is necessary, to try to communicate across the way how the government has let Canadians down on what it has promised for so long. Many of my colleagues have read back what the Conservatives promised in 2006, and it continues to espouse that it is the government that believes in open, transparent and participatory government. However, bill after bill shows that it is going in exactly the opposite direction.

It is really important at the outset to read out what the Conservative government promised were when it ran on a platform of open, transparent and participatory government. In fact, at that time it was commended by Duff Conacher from Democracy Watch as having the best accountability package, and therefore Canadians should consider supporting the Conservatives.

What did the Conservatives promise? They promised: first, they would give the information commissioner the power to order the release of information; second, expand the coverage of the act to all crown corporations, officers of Parliament, foundations and organizations that spend taxpayer money or perform public functions; third, subject the exclusion of cabinet confidences to review by the information commissioner; fourth, oblige public officials to create the records necessary to document their actions and decisions; fifth, provide a general public interest override for all exemptions so that the public interest would be put before the secrecy of the government; and finally, ensure that all exemptions from the disclosure of government information would be justified only on the basis of the harm or injury that would result from disclosure, not blanket exemption rules.

Here we are. How long has the government been in power? How many elections has it gone through continuing to promise to have an open, transparent government? What are the exact measures it has failed to bring forward in its accountability legislation? It is exactly those measures.

It is absolutely reprehensible that it is up to the official opposition to table the very measures the government has promised. Therefore, it is very logical, and Canadians out there can very logically presume, that we will have the full support of the government of the day to this excellent bill, Bill C-567 tabled by my colleague. He has tabled exactly the measures that the government long ago promised and that are necessary to ensure we have an open democratic government.

Why would we want to have open disclosure of information to the public? There are a good number of reasons. How about, simply, we have fact-based law-making? How about, when the government is actually delivering on its constitutional duty to consult, consider, and accommodate first nations interests, does it not seem normal and reasonable that it would be necessary for both sides to have access to the same information so they can proceed in a constructive way based on the same facts and information?

The government is actually bragging that it has received 27% more requests for access to information, as if that should mean it is an open, transparent government. It is quite the opposite. It is absolutely reprehensible that there has had to be a 27% increase in the public having to go through the complicated process of a formal access to information request. While the law requires a 30-day response to that information, people have to wait much longer. Why is that critical? Because decisions are made every day by the government that impact Canadians, whether it is health, the environment, drinking water or equal access to education. They need that information to ensure their rights are being considered and looked after.

What are the main provisions Bill C-567 is bringing forward? One of the most important provisions, and as a person who used to draft legislation I fully concur with the proposal, is the first amendment to clarify the purpose of the law and to expand it to make government institutions fully accountable to the public to make good record-keeping necessary by government institutions and that it be fully accessible to the public. Very clearly, that is exactly what an access to information act should provide for. I commend my colleague for coming forward with that proposed amendment, which is very straightforward.

Why is that necessary? Because we have lost track of the times where people have sought access to information and have been denied. Those of us who were in the previous session of Parliament recall when the government absolutely refused to disclose information on the Afghan detainees and were up against the wall. Canadians should have the right to information about the way the government is conducting itself, not only in our country but overseas. It is very important to the reputation of our nation.

The second proposal the member has recommended goes to the application of the law and that the duty to disclose the right of access should take precedence over other laws. The way the law is written right now is it is an exception. The proposal in this private member's bill says that we would still have reasonable exceptions to that, including national security and under the Privacy Act.

The third provision the member is proposing is on record keeping. That is just common sense. How is the public going to gain access to information if the government does not actually record its decisions? We have seen circumstances arise in which the government simply says that there is no record or a record has not been kept because so much of the information has been exchanged by tweet, email or text. This provision is very sensible and would require the documenting of decisions, actions, advice, recommendations, and deliberations.

Why would that be important? We can think of a good number of critical decisions before the country right now, for example, the approval of pipelines to the west coast. Even though departments are mandated by legislation to give ministers the powers to make decisions, those decisions are increasingly concentrated in the cabinet. Why is that significant? Because the legislation right now excludes decisions by the cabinet and the PCO. The recommendation in the legislation is that there should be more open access, in fact a lessening of the exclusions and exemptions, and that cabinet confidences should not necessarily be automatically excluded. I am advised that Canada is the only commonwealth nation that actually provides for cabinet exclusion.

There is also a recommendation to add a public interest criterion. That seems to be common sense. Obviously, when the government is measuring whether it should be holding information in confidence, if it would be in the public interest rising above all other interests, then that information absolutely should be released.

Duff Conacher with Democracy Watch has called this law, rather than the Access to Information Act, “The Guide to Keeping Information Secret”. That may sound like a rather humorous description of the act, but when we see example after example of the struggles that Canadians go through to simply gain access to information, it is probably an apt description.

Suzanne Legault, who is the Information Commissioner, has actually called for substantial reforms to the legislation. Because the government has not taken action, it is incumbent upon all members of the House to take a serious look at this bill. It contains the kinds of measures that she has been recommending. They are the kinds of measures that a good number of legal experts have been recommending. They exactly parallel the amendments that the government promised to make in 2006, and has still not done so.

I would like to close by simply speaking to an area that I am deeply concerned about and have had the opportunity to work in for a number of decades, and that is the area of the protection of the environment. Nowhere is it more important to have access to information than the protection of the environment: access to timely science; access to deliberations by the government, whether it is a regulated a toxin or whether it will make a decision to protect a river; and on its goes.

It is important to keep in mind that the government often forgets or ignores undertakings that it has previously made. The government is committed to the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, in which it has an obligation to promote transparency and public participation in environmental decision making. It actually has an obligation under article 4 of the agreement to publish in advance any such measure it proposes to adopt and provide interested persons and parties reasonable opportunity to comment. There is obviously not much point in commenting unless people can see the details of what the government is considering.

[Petitions, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my final petition is from Albertans who are calling on the government to reject Bill C-23 and bring forward a bill that includes genuinely empowering Elections Canada to address fraud and to investigate robocalls.

[Petitions, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Albertans calling on the government not to amend the Seeds Act or the Plant Breeders' Rights Act to further restrict farmers' rights and instead to enshrine the farmers' right to save, reuse, select, exchange, or sell seeds.