OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 081 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 6, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 081 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 081 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 081 (Version officielle) 147 081 06 05 2014 2014/05/06 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Auditor General of Canada The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the spring 2014 report of the Auditor General of Canada, with an addendum on environmental petitions from July 1 to December 31, 2013. [ Translation ] Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)( g ), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Committees of the House Status of Women Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to its study of the main estimates 2014-15.

[ English ] Petitions Proportional Representation Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from constituents in Kingston and the Islands who have asked the House of Commons to undertake public consultations regarding proportional representation, in order to amend the Canada Elections Act.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from thousands of Canadians who want the government to take measures to stop the global practice of shark finning, and to ensure the responsible conservation management of sharks. The petitioners call on the government to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fins to Canada.

Agriculture Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents and people from Prince Edward Island. The petitioners state that they, the undersigned citizens of Canada, recognize the inherent rights of farmers. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to refrain from making any change to the Seeds Act or to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act through Bill C-18 ,

an act to amend certain acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, that would further restrict farmers' rights or add to farmers' costs. Further, they call upon Parliament to enshrine in the legislation the inalienable rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds. The Speaker : I just remind the hon. member that it is the practice of the House not to read the actual petition, but just to provide a brief

summary. The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

Consumer Protection Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first petition is from members of my community in Parkdale—High Park who are concerned about unfair extra fees and getting ripped off as consumers. They are calling on the government to take measures to make life more affordable for average Canadians.

Science and Technology Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by people more broadly from the Toronto area. They are calling on the government to end its muzzling of scientists and to reverse the cuts to research programs at Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Library and Archives Canada, the National Research Council, Statistics Canada, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; and to cancel the closures of the National Council of Welfare and the First Nations Statistical Institute.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first petition is from residents of Abbotsford, Surrey, and Langley. They are all calling upon this House of Commons to ensure that the so-called northern gateway project does not proceed in the face of the significant risks to the British Columbia coastline.

International Trade Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of primarily my own riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, North Saanich, Victoria, Salt Spring Island. The petitioners are calling on the government to reject the Canada-China investment treaty and to call upon the Privy Council to refuse to ratify a treaty that poses such a significant threat to Canada.

Criminal Code Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from the appropriate number of Prince Edward Islanders, under Standing Order 36. They believe there is a gap in the Criminal Code of Canada, under which there is no separate offence of torture by a non-state actor. The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to include torture committed by non-state actors, private individuals, and organizations as a specific and distinct criminal offence.

Consumer Protection Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today, signed by constituents in and around my riding of Beaches—East York. The first petition refers to record levels of household debt, the scourge of payday lenders, and so on. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to take significant and concrete steps to make life more affordable for cash-strapped Canadian families.

Canada Post Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition refers to Canada Post's plans to stop door-to-door mail delivery. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reject that plan to cut mail services and increase prices, and instead to explore other options for modernizing our postal delivery system.

Rouge National Park Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition today on behalf of residents all across the greater Toronto area with respect to the Rouge national park. As we know, the current Rouge Park is home to the endangered Carolinian forest, mixed woodland, and plain life zones of Canada, which is home to one-third of the endangered species in Canada and the ancestral home of the Mississauga Huron-Wendat and Seneca First Nations that includes their sacred burial and village sites.

The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to protect the irreplaceable 100 square kilometres of public land assembly within a healthy and sustainable Rouge national park and to ensure that Rouge national park strengthens and implements the ecological vision, policies, and integrity of the approved Rouge Park plans and other plans that have already been approved for the area, including consultation with the community and local advocacy groups that are active in the community.

(1010) [ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a few petitions on two topics. The first topic is postal services in rural areas. The petitioners are demanding that post offices remain public and that they not be privatized. They do not want to see more cuts to hours of service. They are also prepared to express their dissatisfaction. I assume that there will be many people in attendance on the weekend.

VIA Rail Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I also want to present some petitions regarding VIA Rail service in eastern Canada. VIA Rail has experienced a lot of cuts lately, and service could be cut fully on July 1, when CN will abandon the line between Bathurst and Miramichi. This could have an effect on all VIA Rail service east of Quebec City. I hope that the government is listening.

[ English ] Aboriginal Affairs Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to table a petition on behalf of Canadians who are calling for greater attention and a sense of urgency to be paid to the tragic fate of aboriginal women and girls who have been murdered or gone missing and whose cases remain unsolved. Indeed, the RCMP commissioner has recently confirmed 1,186 cases of police-recorded incidents of missing and murdered aboriginal women. I join with all concerned Canadians in calling for the establishment of a non-partisan national inquiry to examine this national tragedy.

[ Translation ] Blood and Organ Donation Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions in the House on the same topic. Canadians, and especially Ontarians, are concerned about our country's rules regarding blood and organ donation. They think that a person's sexual preferences or the fact that they have a same-sex partner should not prevent them from donating an organ if something were to happen to them. I agree with these petitioners that this situation is unconstitutional and does not comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[ English ] Experimental Lakes Area Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I continue to receive hundreds of petitions from people from across Canada who are concerned about the Experimental Lakes Area, which is absolutely indispensable as a bastion of science, ecosystem, and fisheries research. They ask that funding to the ELA continue even though the ownership has been transferred.

Pensions Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today I am putting forward what is a fairly common petition that quite a few residents of Winnipeg North have signed. This is with regard to the old age security program and the Prime Minister making the decision to increase the age of retirement eligibility from 65 to 67. They are asking the Prime Minister and the government to consider allowing people to continue to have the option of retiring at age 65 and not have to wait until they are 67.

They are also asking that the Government of Canada reinforce the three solid senior pensionable incomes, the OAS, the GIS, and the CPP. It is with pleasure that I table this petition today. It is, indeed, quite a popular petition in Winnipeg North.

Blood and Organ Donation Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a large group of Canadians calling upon the Government of Canada to review thoroughly and change the policy on blood and organ donation in Canada. The bottom line is that they ask that the Government of Canada return the right of any healthy Canadian to give the gift of blood, bone marrow, and organs to those in need no matter the race, religion, or sexual preference of a person. The right to give blood or donate organs is universal in any healthy man or woman.

The Speaker : I would just remind the hon. member from Malpeque that it is customary to present all the petitions that a member may have at the same time.

(1015) Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 323, 324, 328, 331, 332, 333, 334, 336, and 337 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ]

Question No. 323--

Hon. Gerry Byrne :

With regard to the recognition of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band under the Indian Act, and the administration of the enrollment of applicants in the Founding Members list: (

a) how many applications for enrollment in the Band were received by the Enrollment Clerks and by the Enrollment Committee, broken down by month from December 2008 to November 2012; (

b) how many applications were accepted for membership by the Enrollment Committee, broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013; (

c) broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013, (

i) how many applications were rejected for membership by the Enrollment Committee, and of these, (ii) how many were appealed by the applicant to the Appeals Master, (iii) how many were overturned by the Appeals Master, (iv) how many were confirmed by the Appeals Master; (

d) how many applications that were approved by the Enrollment Committee were appealed by Canada to the Appeals Master, broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013; (

e) how many of the applications were rejected by Canada under the provisions of 4.2.16 of the 2008 Qalipu Mi’kmaq Recognition Agreement, broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013; (

f) broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013, (

i) how many of the applications who were rejected by Canada, under the provisions of 4.2.16 of the 2008 Qalipu Mi’kmaq Recognition Agreement concerning Canadian Aboriginal Ancestry, were appealed to the Appeals Master, (ii) how many of these rejections were overturned by the Appeals Master, (iii) how many were confirmed by the Appeals Master; (

g) how many internal or external audits or reviews were conducted by the government that included matters of the enrollment process between December 2008 and March 2014, (

i) what is the government’s document reference number for each of these audits or reviews, (ii) when were these audits or reviews completed; (

h) on what date did the government first make contact with the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band or the Federation of Newfoundland Indians to register or express concerns about the enrollment process; (

i) what are the total expenses paid to, or on behalf of, Mr. Fred Caron in relation to his work on Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band enrollment process and other issues from December 2008 to March 2014, broken down by (

i) professional fees, (ii) travel and related disbursements, (iii) support services, (iv) other expenses; (

j) how many applicants were informed that their applications were deemed invalid by reason of failure to provide a long form birth certificate as part of the applicants' application package, broken down by month from December 2008 to March 2014; and (

k) how many applications were deemed invalid by reason of the applicant’s failure to sign the application in all required locations of the membership application form, broken down by month from December 2008 to March 2014?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 324--

Hon. Gerry Byrne :

With regard to the administration of all government departments, crown corporations and agencies as well as other entities within federal jurisdiction that offer goods or services to parliamentarians, to parliamentarians' staff, to the spouses or dependents of parliamentarians, or more generally to the offices of parliamentarians, hereafter referred to as “eligible parliamentary persons”, at either no cost or at a reduced cost compared to the rate normally charged to a member of the general public who might seek the provision of the same or a similar good or service from the government: without consideration or inclusion of any occasional discounts or promotions for fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013, and not including those goods or services provided directly to any eligible parliamentary persons under the normal rules of the administration of the House of Commons, the Senate or by the Library of Parliament, (

a) which federal entities provided goods or services to those eligible parliamentary persons at either no cost or at a reduced cost; (

b) what is each respective good or service thus provided, and what is the rationale for offering such no-cost goods or services or discounts to eligible parliamentary persons; (

c) broken down by each such individual product or service, what is the cost to each federal entity, as measured in revenue that would otherwise not have been lost, of providing such goods or services to eligible parliamentary persons, calculated for each fiscal year and using the undiscounted rate that would be normally charged to members of the general public as the comparative basis for such a calculation; (

d) what was the net financial position of each federal crown corporation or operating agency providing such goods or services before the provision of federal subsidies are considered in each fiscal year?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 328--

Hon. John McKay :

With regard to any contracting paid for by the budgets of each Minister's Office since May 1, 2011, what are the details of all contracts over $500 including (

i) the name of the supplier, vendor or individual who received the contract, (ii) the date on which the contract was entered into, (iii) the date the contract terminated, (iv) a brief description of the good or service provided, (

v) the amount of payment initially agreed upon for the contract, (vi) the final amount paid for the contract?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 331--

Mr. Paul Dewar :

With regard to the purchase, sale and renovation of diplomatic properties by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development: (

a) how many properties have been purchased in each of the last ten fiscal years; (

b) how many properties have been sold in each of the last ten fiscal years; (

c) what were the locations and prices of all properties valued over $250 000 purchased in each of the last ten fiscal years; (

d) what were the locations and prices of all properties valued over $250 000 sold in each of the last ten fiscal years; (

e) are property purchases or sales above a certain value subject to ministerial approval, and if so, what is the threshold; (

f) for each of the properties in (

c) and ( d ), what were (

i) their respective cost at the time of purchase, (ii) the year in which they were purchased; (

g) what proportion of properties are rented by the government and what is the average value of all rented properties; (

h) what proportion of properties are owned by the government and what is the average value of all owned properties; and (

i) how much has been spent on property renovations in each of the last ten years?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 332--

Mr. Scott Simms :

With regard to Elections Canada, what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and Elections Canada since January 23, 2006, broken down by (

i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (

v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 333--

Hon. Irwin Cotler :

With regard to the government’s consultations about prostitution-related offences: (

a) what goals have been established for the consultations; (

b) what goals have been established for the online consultation; (

c) whose input did the government seek through online consultation; (

d) which individuals wrote the discussion paper for the online consultation; (

e) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences participated in the development of the discussion paper in ( d ); (

f) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences reviewed the discussion paper in ( d ); (

g) which individuals with legal expertise participated in the development of the discussion paper in ( d ); (

h) which individuals with legal expertise reviewed the discussion paper in ( d ); (

i) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics participated in the development of the discussion paper in ( d ); (

j) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics reviewed the discussion paper in ( d ); (

k) which individuals developed the online consultation questions; (

l) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences participated in the development of the online consultation questions; (

m) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences reviewed the online consultation questions; (

n) which individuals with legal expertise participated in the development of the online consultation questions; (

o) which individuals with legal expertise reviewed the online consultation questions; (

p) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics participated in the development of the online consultation questions; (

q) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics reviewed the online consultation questions; (

r) how many responses did the government receive through the online form; (

s) how many responses were sent directly to consultations.prostitution@justice.gc.ca; (

t) how many responses were sent directly to consultation-prostitution@justice.gc.ca; (

u) what was or will be done with responses sent to consultations.prostitution@justice.gc.ca that are written in whole or in

part in a language other than English; (

v) what was or will be done with responses sent to consultation-prostitution@justice.gc.ca that are written in whole or in

part in a language other than French; (

w) why are answers in the online form limited to 500 words; (

x) what is the limit to the length of submissions sent directly to consultations.prostitution@justice.gc.ca or consultation-prostitution@justice.gc.ca; (

y) in what ways did the government make Canadians aware of the online consultation process; (

z) how much money was allocated to advertise the online consultation process; ( aa ) how much money was spent to advertise the online consultation process; ( bb ) where did each advertisement of the online consultation process appear; ( cc ) when did each advertisement in ( bb ) appear; ( dd ) who has read the responses to the online consultation; ( ee ) who will read the responses to the online consultation; ( ff ) will each response to the online consultation have been read by one or more employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ); ( gg ) which employees of the DOJ have read or will read the responses to the online consultation; ( hh ) will any responses to the online consultation have been seen in whole or in part by individuals not in the employ of the DOJ; ( ii ) which individuals not in the employ of the DOJ have seen or will see responses to the online consultation, in whole or in part; ( jj ) will each response to the online consultation have been read by one or more individuals in the office of the Minister of Justice; ( kk ) which individuals in the office of the Minister of Justice have read or will read responses to the online consultation; ( ll ) has the Minister of Justice read any of the responses to the online consultation; ( mm ) will the Minister of Justice read any of the responses to the online consultation; ( nn ) what proportion of the responses to the online consultation does the Minister of Justice intend to read; ( oo ) will submissions sent directly to consultations.prostitution@justice.gc.ca or consultation-prostitution@justice.gc.ca be read in their entirety, regardless of length; ( pp ) by what means are submissions assessed; ( qq ) by what process or processes are responses to the online consultation reviewed; ( rr ) who has assessed or will assess the responses to the online consultation; ( ss ) what metrics have been or will be applied with respect to the online consultation as a whole; ( tt ) broken down by question for the online consultation, what scoring or metrics have been developed with respect to assessing responses; ( uu ) have responses to the online consultation been screened, evaluated, reviewed or monitored by computer in any way; ( vv ) will responses to the online consultation be screened, evaluated, reviewed or monitored by computer in any way; ( ww ) what keywords or standards have been or will be used in computer screening, evaluation, review, or monitoring of responses to the online consultation; ( xx ) what scoring mechanisms or criteria have been or will be applied with respect to the screening, evaluation, review or monitoring of responses to the online consultation; ( yy ) how is the value of responses to the online consultation determined; ( zz ) by whom or by what is the value of responses to the online consultation determined; ( aaa ) what processes or guidelines have been established for determining the value of responses to the online consultations; ( bbb ) how is the relevance of responses to the online consultation determined; ( ccc ) by whom or by what is the relevance of responses to the online consultation determined; ( ddd ) what processes or guidelines have been established for determining the relevance of responses to the online consultations; ( eee ) how is the probative value of responses to the online consultation determined; ( fff ) by whom or by what is the probative value of responses to the online consultation determined; ( ggg ) what processes or guidelines have been established for determining the probative value of responses to the online consultations; ( hhh ) how is the legal validity of suggestions received through the online consultation process be assessed; ( iii ) how are responses to the online consultation evaluated for factual accuracy; ( jjj ) have any responses to the online consultation been discarded or ignored; ( kkk ) will any responses to the online consultation be discarded or ignored; ( lll ) based on what criteria are responses to the online consultation discarded or ignored; ( mmm ) are responses to the online form considered if not all of the questions are answered; ( nnn ) what processes, metrics, or other criteria are used to determine whether a response to the online consultation constitutes spam; ( ooo ) what process exists to verify the identity of an individual or group that has responded to the online consultation; ( ppp ) what process or measures exist to determine whether an individual or group that responds to the online consultation is Canadian; ( qqq ) in what way does the government consider responses to the online consultation by individuals or groups that are not Canadian; ( rrr ) by what date does the government intend to have reviewed all of the responses to the online consultation; ( sss ) will all of the responses to the online consultation be made available to the public in their entirety; ( ttt ) who determines whether certain responses or parts of responses to the online consultation will not be made available to the public; ( uuu ) based on what criteria are the determinations in ( ttt ) made; ( vvv ) how will the responses to the online consultation be made available to the public; ( www ) when will the responses to the online consultation be made available to the public; ( xxx ) since 2006, apart from this year’s online consultations on the DOJ website, with what groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments has the government consulted; ( yyy ) when did each of the consultations in ( xxx ) occur; ( zzz ) through what medium did each of the consultations in ( xxx ) occur; ( aaaa ) who within the government carried out each of the consultations in ( xxx ); ( bbbb ) apart from online consultations on the DOJ website, with what groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments does the government intend to consult before introducing new legislation in response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bedford v.

Attorney General of Canada; ( cccc ) when will the government carry out the consultations in ( bbbb ); ( dddd ) through what medium will the government carry out each of the consultations in ( bbbb ); ( eeee ) who within the government will carry out the consultations in (bbbb); ( ffff ) based on what criteria does the government select the groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments with which it consults; ( gggg ) since the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Bedford v.

Attorney General of Canada, which groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments have asked to be consulted by the government; ( hhhh ) with which groups, government agencies, individuals or other governments in (gggg) has the government agreed to consult; ( iiii ) with which groups, government agencies, individuals or other governments in (gggg) has the government declined to consult; ( jjjj ) what studies has the government ordered; ( kkkk ) what studies does the government intend to order; ( llll ) what studies has the government consulted; ( mmmm ) what studies does the government intend to consult; ( nnnn ) based on what criteria does the government determine whether to conduct online public consultations on a given subject; ( oooo ) does the government have the capacity to record the individual IP address of each user who visits the online consultation page; ( pppp ) has the government stored the IP address of each submission through the online consultation, and, if so (

i) for what purpose, (ii) how long will such data be stored, (iii) who will have access to it, (iv) what privacy protections are in place, (

v) how was the decision to track such data made, by whom, on what date, and with what authority; ( qqqq ) have any submissions been rejected on the basis of IP address; ( rrrr ) for what reasons were the submissions in ( qqqq ) rejected; ( ssss ) were multiple submissions received from any IP addresses; ( tttt ) is each submissions from a single IP address considered individually; ( uuuu ) what efforts did the government make, if any, to assist sex workers in participating in or completing the online consultation; ( vvvv ) is the government aware of any groups that assisted sex workers in participating in the online consultation; ( wwww ) in what way, if any, are submissions from groups considered differently than submissions from individuals; ( xxxx ) does the government have the capacity to track the number of individuals who visited the online consultation page each day; ( yyyy ) with respect to the online consultation page, (

i) how many visits did the page receive during each day of the survey period, (ii) how many visits did the English version of the page receive during each day of the survey period, (iii) how many visits did the French version of the page receive during each day of the survey period, (iv) how many submissions were submitted on each of those days, (

v) how does the government account for any fluctuation in visitation or participation rates; ( zzzz ) with respect to in-person consultations, (

i) in which cities have such consultations occurred, (ii) on what dates did such consultations occur, (iii) in which cities will such consultations occur, (iv) on what dates will such consultations occur; ( aaaaa ) with respect to the consultations in ( zzzz ), broken down by city and date, (

i) which groups and individuals were invited, (ii) which groups and individuals attended; ( bbbbb ) how are groups selected for participation in in-person consultations; ( ccccc ) for each consultation in ( zzzz ), who attended from the DOJ and on behalf of the Minister of Justice; ( ddddd ) what was the format of each in-person consultation; ( eeeee ) what specific questions were given to participants to discuss, if any; ( fffff ) how much time was allotted for each in-person consultation; ( ggggg ) given the number of individuals and groups at each consultation, approximately how much time did each group have to speak (

i) to each question, (ii) in total; ( hhhhh ) with respect to answers or submissions at in-person consultations, (

i) how were they recorded, (ii) by whom, (iii) will they be made publicly available in their entirety; ( iiiii ) what weight are comments from the in-person consultations given relative to responses from the online consultation; ( jjjjj ) how was the period of time for the online consultation determined; ( kkkkk ) on what basis was the length of time for the online consultation determined to be adequate; ( lllll ) how long does the government estimate that it will take to compile and analyze the results of (

i) in-person consultations, (ii) the online consultation, (iii) the totality of its consultative efforts on this file; ( mmmmm ) will the government produce a final report on its consultative efforts; ( nnnnn ) when does the government expect that the report in ( mmmmm ) will be made publicly available; ( ooooo ) what will be included in the report in ( mmmmm ); ( ppppp ) by when will a bill be introduced in the House of Commons or Senate reflecting the result of consultations; ( qqqqq ) in what ways will the consultations influence the government’s policy-making in this regard; ( rrrrr ) has any percent or measure been set as a threshold beyond which a particular approach, enjoying plurality favour by those consulted, will automatically be reflected in the government’s legislative response to Bedford v.

Attorney General of Canada; ( sssss ) under what circumstances would the government’s approach differ from that recommended by the plurality of consultation participants; ( ttttt ) what measures are in place to ensure that the government’s legislative approach is reflective of the consultation results; ( uuuuu ) what is the total cost of consultations thus far, and what is the breakdown of this figure; ( vvvvv ) what is the projected total cost of consultations, and what is the breakdown of this figure; and ( wwwww ) what alternatives to online and in-person consultations were considered and why were these found inadequate?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 334--

Hon. Irwin Cotler :

With regard to bijuralism and harmonization: (

a) what measures are in place to ensure legislative bijuralism across all departments; (

b) since the adoption of the “Policy on Legislative Bijuralism”, how has the Department of Justice (

i) ensured that all legal counsel in the Department are made aware of the requirements of legislative bijuralism in order for them to be able to take it into account when advising client departments on legislative reforms, (ii) enhanced the capacity of the Legislative Services Branch to draft bijural legislative texts, (iii) undertook, in drafting both versions of every bill and proposed regulation that touches on provincial or territorial private law, to take care to reflect the terminology, concepts, notions and institutions of both of Canada’s private law systems; (

c) since the adoption of the “Policy for Applying the Civil Code of Quebec to Federal Government Activities”, what measures are in place to ensure (

i) changes to Quebec’s Civil Code are known and monitored by the government, (ii) assessment of federal legislation relative to changes to Quebec’s Civil Code, (iii) federal legislation is introduced to reflect, where necessary, changes to the Civil Code of Quebec; (

d) with respect to the “Index of Bijuralism and Harmonization Caselaw” found online and indicating its most recent update was June 12, 2012, (

i) how often is this page updated, (ii) given that some cases thereupon are from 2013, when was this page last updated, (iii) whose responsibility is it to update this page, (iv) what cases are currently being monitored for potential addition to this page; (

e) with respect to cases involving bijuralism and harmonization, (

i) in what ways are these made known to the Department, (ii) whose responsibility it is to monitor these cases, (iii), what role does the Federal government play in these cases if a party, (iv) what role does the government play if not a party, (

v) who makes the determination and as to when the government should intervene if not a party and how is this decision made; (

f) with respect to Bijurilex, whose website at http://www.bijurilex.gc.ca/ appeared not to function as of March 17, 2014, (

i) is this website still available, (ii) if not, when was it taken off-line and why, (iii) where can its former contents be found; (

g) what resources exist to provide information about the implications and challenges of bijuralism as it relates to legislation; (

h) with respect to the bijuralism publication of the Department entitled “THE LINK”, (

i) how often is it published, (ii) when is it next expected, (iii) what causes it to be published, (iv) who prepares it, (

v) how is it disseminated and to whom; (

i) what specialized consultative services are offered to the government with regard to bijuralism issues; (

j) when were the most recent services in (

i) sought and provided, and at what cost; (

k) what studies have been undertaken within the last five years regarding (

i) the relationship between federal law and the law of the provinces and territories, (ii) between the common law and civil law legal traditions, (iii) between these legal traditions and Aboriginal law; (

l) what studies are presently being undertaken regarding (

i) the relationship between federal law and the law of the provinces and territories, (ii) between the common law and civil law legal traditions, (iii) between these legal traditions and Aboriginal law; (

m) what training courses on bijuralism and comparative law have been developed for Justice Canada’s legislative drafters, (

i) how often are they offered, (ii) how many participate, (iii) are they open to individuals from other departments; (

n) what bijural drafting notes and course material for training on bijuralism have been developed in the past five years and by what means are these accessible (

i) within the Department of Justice, (ii) across the government, (iii) to the legal community, (iv) to the public; (

o) what issues and challenges of legislative bijuralism has the government most recently identified and how does it seek to address these; (

p) what issues and challenges of harmonization has the government most recently identified and how does it seek to address these; (

q) what is the content of the departmental policy on the application of Quebec civil law to the government; (

r) what was the mandate and role of the Civil Code

Section upon its creation and how did the role and mandate change over time; (

s) in what ways does the government review any situation in which legal rights are in issue or proceeding under Quebec civil law which concerns the government; (

t) in what ways has the government ensured inclusion of Quebec civil law in the curriculum of the Departmental continuing education programs; (

u) with respect to the Department’s recognition that “si le bijuridisme vise d’abord le respect et la prise en compte du droit civil et de la common law dans le contexte fédéral, notamment en matière de rédaction et d’interprétation des textes législatifs fédéraux, il n’exclut aucunement le respect et l’intégration d’autres règles propres au droit fédéral, la prise en compte d’autres sources, notamment en matière de droit international, ni le respect d’autres cultures juridiques, plus particulièrement les cultures autochtones” (

i) what other rules has the government found to apply to it, (ii) what sources of law has the government recognized other than civil, common, aboriginal, and international law, (iii) what other cultures has the government sought to respect in this regard and how; (

v) with which international law sources has the government sought to harmonize its laws and how so; (

w) with what aboriginal law sources has the government sought to harmonize its laws and how so; (

x) how may the Bijural Terminology Records Research Index be accessed and how often is it updated; (

y) of what cases is the government currently aware where the matter at issue is one of bijuralism or harmonization; (

z) what statutes would benefit from modification to respect best practices with respect to bijuralism and harmonization; ( aa ) what statutes have been identified as having bijuralism issues and how have they been so identified; ( bb ) what statutes require amendment to conform with the solutions proposed in the Bijural Terminology Records Research Index; ( cc ) is a new Federal Law--Civil Law Harmonization Act being prepared; ( dd ) what efforts have been made to identify whether a new Federal Law--Civil Law Harmonization Act is necessary and what determines its necessity; ( ee ) how is proposed legislation vetted or otherwise checked to ensure conformity with bijuralism and harmonization best practices; ( ff ) in what ways are existing statutes checked to ensure conformity with bijuralism and harmonization best practices; ( gg ) what prompts the introduction of legislation to address an issue of bijuralism / harmonization; ( hh ) in what Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT)) meetings have bijuralism issues been raised and in what context; ( ii ) in what FPT meetings have harmonization issues been raised and in what context; ( jj ) in what ways is Quebec’s new Code of Civil Procedure being analysed by the government, (

i) by whom, (ii) with what mandate, (iii) with what purpose; ( kk ) does Quebec’s new Code of Civil Procedure--fully coming into force in 2015--suggest any need for legislative response on the part of the Government of Canada to ensure federal law harmonization with civil law practice in Quebec; ( ll ) does the review of government legislation under the Department of Justice Act include in any way the review of legislation for any issues of bijuralism and, if so, how and to what extent; ( mm ) does the review of government legislation under the Department of Justice Act include in any way the review of legislation for any issues of harmonization and, if so how, how and to what extent; ( nn ) to what extent and in what ways are regulations reviewed to ensure conformity with bijuralism best practices; ( oo ) to what extent has cabinet been informed of the importance of bijuralism, by what means and on what dates; ( pp ) is bijuralism assessed in any way when filling vacancies at the Department of Justice and, if so, how; ( qq ) what grants and other programs exist to promote bijuralism (

i) within the Department of Justice, (ii) across government, (iii) within the legal community, (iv) at law schools, (

v) to the broader public; ( rr ) what involvements and engagements are being undertaken with respect to bijuralism internationally; ( ss ) in what ways and forums has Canada shared its bijuralism expertise and experience with other countries; ( tt ) does a review of legislation for harmonization issues include any consideration of provincial implementation cost; ( uu ) in what ways are coming into force provisions used, if any, to assist with harmonization; ( vv ) is there any federal legislation that has not been reviewed for bijuralism or harmonization issues in any way and, if so, how and why is this so; ( ww ) are private member’s bills reviewed for issues of bijuralism and harmonization and, if so (

i) by whom, (ii) in what context, (iii) with what mandate, (iv) to what extent, (

v) reporting to whom, (vi) with what work product, (vii) at what point or points in the Parliamentary process, (vii) with what consequence if an issue is spotted; ( xx ) with respect to the gap between publications dated 2006 and prior and the most recent publication in 2013 on the “Bijuralism and Harmonization” webpage at http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/harmonization/index.html, (

i) why does this gap exist, (ii) were any reports or studies conducted during this time, (iii) if so, were they published and if not, why not, (iv) what materials are being presently prepared or research that may be published on this page; ( yy ) in what ways does the Department seek to promote contact between the civil law and common law traditions; and ( zz ) with respect to Canada’s four legal audiences (anglophone common law lawyers, francophone common law lawyers, anglophone Quebec civilian lawyers and francophone Quebec civilian lawyers), in what ways does the department ensure it has the means and resources adequate to address the unique concerns of each with respect to bijuralism and harmonization, and what issues and challenges have been identified?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 336--

Mr. David McGuinty :

With regard to the value and condition of real property held by the government and with respect to any and all built structures, including but not limited to, offices, military bases, armouries, laboratories, canals, depots, residences, garages, communication towers, storage facilities, lighthouses, bridges, hospitals, wharves, weather stations, warehouses, data centres, prisons, border crossings, etc., what are, for each department listed in

Schedule I of the Financial Administration Act, and for Parks Canada, Revenue Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Canada Border Services Agency, the following: (

a) the number and current value of all built structures; (

b) the number and percentage of the facilities referenced in ( a ), with building condition reports conducted in the past five years; (

c) the number of building condition reports and the number of facilities they reference, by Treasury Board category (good, fair, poor, critical, unknown); (

d) the list of, and addresses for, all facilities in “poor” or “critical” condition; (

e) the annual departmental expenditures for real property repair and maintenance for fiscal years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; (

f) the annual budgets for real property repair and maintenance for fiscal years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016; and (

g) estimates of costs to bring all facilities/built structures in each department’s inventory, to “good” condition within 5 years?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 337--

Ms. Niki Ashton :

With regard to women in Crown Corporations: (

a) what is the total number of women currently serving as the head of a crown corporation appointed through a governor in council appointment, broken down by organization; (

b) for each of the last five years, what is the total number of women appointed as the head of a crown corporation though a governor in council appointment, broken down by organization; (

c) for each crown corporation, what is the total number of positions on the senior management team and how many of those positions are currently staffed by women; (

d) what is the total number of women currently serving as the chairperson of the Board of Directors appointed through a governor in council appointment, broken down by organization; (

e) for each of the last five years, what is the total number of governor in council appointments for chairperson and how many of those positions were filled by women; (

f) for each crown corporation, what is the total current number of positions on the board of directors and how many of those positions are currently staffed by women; (

g) for each of the last five years, how many vacancies on the board of directors were filled through governor in council appointments and how many vacancies were filled by women; (

h) what is the total percentage of women currently serving on crown corporations appointed though governor in council appointments; and (

i) what is the total percentage of women appointed through governor in council appointment for each year of the last five years?

(Return tabled)

[ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Business of Supply [ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition motion—Temporary Foreign Workers Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) moved: Motion That the House recognize that the current Temporary Foreign Worker Program is broken, and call on the government to implement measures to significantly reduce the intake of Temporary Foreign Workers over time and return the program back to its original purpose, which should include: (

a) an immediate and full review of the program by the Auditor General; (

b) the disclosure of Labour Market Opinion applications and approvals for Temporary Foreign Workers; (

c) a tightening of the Labour Market Opinion approval process to ensure that only businesses with legitimate needs are able to access the program; and (

d) the implementation of stronger rules requiring that employers applying to the program demonstrate unequivocally that they exhausted all avenues to fill job vacancies with Canadian workers, particularly young Canadians. He said: Mr.

Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the leader of the Liberal Party, the hon. member for Papineau . [ English ] I liken the government's management of the temporary foreign worker program to a reckless driver because, starting in 2006, it continuously had the accelerator on the floor and mushroomed the number of temporary foreign workers to the point where they went from about 100,000 to 215,000, using methods I will describe briefly; and it did this deliberately.

Conservatives deliberately put the accelerator to the floor and mushroomed the number of temporary foreign workers, and then a crisis broke out and it became apparent there were abuses, so they slammed on the brakes. That is why we have this moratorium. That is why we are debating this issue today. Had the Conservatives driven more prudently, had they managed the numbers responsibly, we would not be where we are today. We would have no need for the moratorium because we would not have had this explosion of numbers and this proliferation of abuses.

What one can say is this is an example of a grossly incompetently managed program. We are not content simply to say that. We also have a detailed plan we are proposing, which would allow the Conservatives to fix this mess they created. I would like to spend a bit of time talking about how the Conservatives continuously loosened the rules on every front, which allowed this explosion to occur in the first place.

It is true that when the crisis broke, when they slammed on the brakes, they had begun to tighten the rules and go back in part to where they started from; but the explosion of numbers occurred as a consequence of loosening rules in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. It is only more recently that they have acknowledged the loosening was wrong and are starting to retrace their steps. What did the Conservatives do?

First of all, they reduced the length of time for advertising from three weeks to one week in the case of 170 occupations; and instead of forcing companies to advertise in various local papers, which people actually read, they said that the companies had to only advertise on some government website, which nobody reads. Therefore, effectively they said employers do not have to advertise, because any advertising that was done was on a medium that nobody reads.

Second, they increased the length of time the temporary foreign workers could work in the country, first from one year to two years and then more recently, in 2013, from two years to four years. There are supposed to be temporary foreign workers filling needs that employers temporarily cannot satisfy. Now instead of being here one year, it is four years. The Conservatives reduced the time for certain sectors, 33 in all, for labour market opinions from five months to five days. How comprehensive was this review of the labour market situation if they could get it in five days?

In budget 2007, the Conservatives injected an additional $50 million to speed up the labour market opinion process, this at a time when processing times for regular permanent immigrants were skyrocketing. Instead of addressing with some extra cash the problems for permanent immigrants, they allowed that to fester, and processing times soared. Instead, they injected $50 million to speed up the process for temporary immigrants. Then there was the Auditor General's report in 2009.

The Auditor General made a number of points: one, the insufficient quality of decisions based on labour market opinions; two, the genuineness of job offers was not verified; and three, there were concerns about the integrity of the program and the protection of temporary foreign workers.

(1020) That was in 2009 and the Conservatives did nothing. We only have to look at stories we heard in the last few days about the exploitation of temporary foreign workers to understand that back in 2009 they ought to have paid attention to those recommendations, particularly the third one regarding the treatment of temporary foreign workers. I believe I have said enough to make the point that they loosened the rules in every conceivable way, to the point where there were effectively no rules.

Now that the crisis has hit, they are making a virtue of tightening the rules, but they are tightening from the point of no rules and moving gradually back to where they started from. At this point, given this explosion of temporary foreign workers, one can say that the horse has already left the barn. As if this direct evidence is not enough, another form of proof that this was deliberate is offered by quotes from the minister of the day. The minister of the day in 2007 said, “We've expanded the temporary foreign workers program significantly and very deliberately...”. Her words were “very deliberately”.

They did not do it by mistake; they did it very deliberately through loosening every rule in the book. The current employment minister appears to be onside, because the CEO of McDonald's credited him with understanding how important this is “from a business...perspective”. There we have it, a mushrooming of the numbers under a deliberate Conservative policy to loosen every rule. What are the consequences? As we all know, this has had a negative effect on Canadians seeking work. No less an authority than the C.D.

Howe Institute, which I think even the Conservatives would agree is not populated by socialist hordes, has argued that the unemployment rate in western Canada particularly is higher as a consequence of this program. It is clear as well that there has been wage suppression. If there are all these huge job shortages, would one not expect to see some upward pressure on wages? Wages have been stagnant and that is partly because, rather than actively seek out Canadians, companies have been able simply to automatically import temporary foreign workers.

As I mentioned earlier, there is this issue of the exploitation of temporary foreign workers, of which we have seen a lot of evidence. Perhaps the most fundamental point is that the Conservatives are in the process of changing the nature of immigration. We have a chart, which we released yesterday, showing the evolution of intake of permanent residents and temporary foreign workers since 2005. The permanent residents are relatively flat; they go up and down but are relatively flat at around 250,000 a year.

The temporary foreign workers are on a strong upward trend, starting at 100,000 and going to 215,000 in 2012, I think. If we project those trends forward, then we get a situation where the number of temporary foreign workers will exceed the number of permanent residents.

This is fundamental because for decades—at least since Pierre Trudeau, and we could say from the beginning because all of us, except perhaps aboriginal people, were immigrants at some point through ourselves or our parents and grandparents—we have built this country on the basis of immigrants who come here permanently with their families and become full-fledged Canadians citizens in every sense of the term. The Conservatives are in the process of changing the system to one in which, rather than permanent immigrants, we have guest workers who come and then leave. This is fundamentally contrary to Canadian values.

(1025) Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his impassioned speech on the temporary foreign worker program, which was introduced in a very limited way; then the program was expanded in 2002 under my colleague's government. Of course that has led to the floodgates being opened under the Conservative government. Now we are hearing in the media of the abuse, and the issue has become one that is galvanizing those living in Canada right now. My question for my colleague across the way is this.

What data should be used to determine the number of temporary foreign workers who are admitted into the country? What kind of data needs to be used to determine that number? Hon. John McCallum : Mr. Speaker, we know that NDP members are frightened of the Liberals, which is why they try to blame Liberals for every conceivable bad situation that might occur. May I remind the hon. member that, yes, the Liberals— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The hon. member for Newton—North Delta is rising on a question of privilege. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr.

Speaker, we are in Parliament, and this is a parliamentary debate. I am not here to be called a young woman in this room. I am here as a parliamentarian, thanks very much. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : I must admit I did not hear the exact wording. I go back to the hon. member for Markham—Unionville to reference and continue with his answer. Hon. John McCallum : Mr. Speaker, you can check the record, or someone can check the record. I never used that term. However, my point is that the NDP loves to blame the Liberals for everything.

May I remind the hon. member that, yes, the Liberals introduced the low-skilled program as a pilot project, and when the Liberals left office, there were fewer than 4,000 people. The Conservatives then made it permanent, and the numbers mushroomed to the point where there are now over 20,000 people. Therefore, this problem is a Conservative mess. It is 100% a Conservative mess and not the mess of any other party in this country. Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the record on a couple of things.

The member for Markham—Unionville talked about the fact that Conservatives have extended the period of temporary foreign workers to fill labour market shortages in the workplace. The member says that is a bad thing to do in all cases. In fact, the member was actually quoted as saying we should be allowing more temporary foreign workers and international students to become permanent residents. That would expand and extend temporary foreign workers in this country even more so. I find it a little odd. Certainly that is no longer temporary.

In the opposition motion, the member also talks about requiring a review by the Auditor General. In fact, that did take place in 2009, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada actually agreed with all of those recommendations and have implemented three-quarters of them despite being opposed by opposition members on all those things. My question for the member is this. Was the program much better when the Liberals were in power and they used it to bring in 600 strippers to fill labour market shortages in this country?

(1030) Hon. John McCallum : Mr. Speaker, had the government responded properly to the Auditor General in 2009, we would not be standing here having this debate today as we would have no crisis. Obviously the Conservatives' response was inadequate. Perhaps the hon. member should come and join the Liberal Party because she enunciated Liberal policy. Of course we want more temporary foreign workers to have pathways to permanent residence. That is the whole point of Canadian immigration. It should be made up with permanent residents who make their home here.

Rather than having guest workers exclusively, we want to provide more of them with pathways to permanent residence. I congratulate the member for her enlightened view on that topic. [ Translation ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on a topic that is of great concern to many Canadians: the almost complete failure of the temporary foreign worker program. The program was a good idea in the beginning. It was supposed to help employers hire staff on a very limited basis when they were unable to find Canadian workers to fill positions.

For foreign nationals, it created economic opportunities that were unavailable in their countries. [ English ] Under the current government's mismanagement, these promises have not only been broken; they have left employers demonized and uncertain, temporary foreign workers vulnerable, and Canadians alarmed, angry, and suspicious. This is in a country that used to pride itself on its progressive immigration policies. The government all but gave up on building pathways to citizenship as it clamoured to make sure that drive-throughs could stay open 24/7. The numbers are telling.

Between 2005 and 2012, the number of short-term foreign workers in Canada more than doubled. In 2012, we admitted nearly as many temporary foreign workers as we did permanent residents. At that rate, by next year, temporary worker entries will outnumber immigrant arrivals. [ Translation ] That is not how a country is built or how an economy is managed.

That did not stop the Conservatives from continuing to mismanage the program and defend their mismanagement, despite the repeated warnings from the Liberal Party and Canadians across the country who were concerned about the impact of this program, which was spinning out of control. [ English ] At best, the program was always only a limited, Band-Aid solution.

At its worst, and sadly, with every passing day we hear more and more of these worst-case scenarios, the program drives down wages and displaces Canadian workers, even in regions already facing high unemployment, while exploiting vulnerable people from abroad. In many communities in southwestern Ontario, there is a disturbing connection between unemployment and program expansion. In Windsor, the number of unemployed workers has grown by 40%, while the number of foreign workers in the city is up 86%. In London, unemployment is up 27%, while the number of foreign workers has nearly doubled.

It was one year ago that Liberals first proposed a motion to conduct a full parliamentary investigation into the program. At that time, every single Conservative member stood and voted against the motion, saying that no review was necessary. That denial persisted until as recently as two weeks ago, when on the day before the government suspended the food services' access to the program, the jobs minister actually called program abuse rare. As news report after news report reveals, abuse is not rare. In fact, it is far too common.

Today we are proposing five ways to review and restructure the program and bring such abuse to an end. First, the temporary foreign worker program needs to be scaled back dramatically and refocused on its original purpose: to fill jobs on a limited basis when no Canadian workers can be found. Second, Canada needs to recommit itself to welcoming more permanent immigrants and providing them with legitimate and lasting paths to citizenship. Third, we must introduce real transparency and accountability in the program, beginning with a full review of the program by the Auditor General.

We must tighten the foreign worker approvals process and disclose applications and approvals more thoroughly. (1035) [ Translation ] Fourth, we must ensure that the employers who have access to the program have done everything they can to fill those jobs with Canadian workers, particularly young Canadian workers, who have an unemployment rate nearly twice as high as the national average. People who receive employment insurance benefits are required to show proof that they are looking for work. It seems to me that it is only logical that the same thing be required of employers who are looking for workers.

Finally, the government needs to tighten the labour market opinion approval process to ensure that only companies with legitimate needs have access to the program. [ English ] The time for denials and distraction has long passed. The government is in a tough spot, but it is one entirely of its own making. Canadians deserve to know why it took a series of high-profile abuses before the government recognized that its management of the program was deeply flawed. Why is it that so many Canadians were displaced from jobs they needed and loved, with no apparent recourse but to call the media?

Why was the government so quick to reassure industry that it “gets it”, while the grievances of temporary foreign workers continued to be ignored? In the end, this is a basic issue of fairness, fairness for Canadians who need work and fairness for the vulnerable people who come to Canada in search of a real opportunity to succeed. Through the program, the government has let down both Canadians and those who hope to someday become Canadians. We can do better than this. We must do better than this. Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the leader of the Liberal Party claimed that it was the government that demonized the employers, hard-working employers, employers in my riding. I have been defending the integrity of those employers through this entire debate. Unfortunately, the leader of the Liberal Party then went on to demonize people who work in my riding, hard-working people who are creating jobs and who require temporary foreign workers to fill positions. He said that our government claims that abuse is rare. Then he went on to say that abuse is all too common.

In fact, it is the Liberal leader who is demonizing hard-working employers. He went on to say that temporary foreign workers are displacing too many Canadians. My question for the Liberal leader is this: How many Canadian jobs have been displaced by temporary foreign workers? Mr. Justin Trudeau : Mr. Speaker, first of all, when the government jobs minister is himself being contradicted by the actions of the government, which has had to put a sudden moratorium on a entire sector, we can see that there are too many problems with abuse. Second, C.D.

Howe has talked about up to 4% of Canadian workers being displaced by this process. The issue becomes one of understanding southwestern Ontario, particularly in places like Sarnia, Hamilton, Windsor, and London. When the manufacturing business is losing so many jobs, why are foreign workers arriving to work in the manufacturing industry? I suggest that the government do its homework.

(1040) Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in January, my colleague in the Liberal Party mentioned that the program was broken to only a certain degree. Today, of course, we have heard him say that it is a near total failure. We are hearing too many contradictory messages. We have heard the leader of the official party saying that the program was only a Band-Aid solution, which contrasts with what the member for Kings—Hants has said, which is that it creates value-added jobs. What does the Liberal Party really believe? Mr. Justin Trudeau : Mr.

Speaker, in the early seventies, the program was brought in as a way of drawing in highly skilled temporary workers to fill jobs that were not available to be filled by Canadians. There was a very specific, targeted way in sectors in terms of doing it. The examples that come to mind are advanced researchers applying to universities, which were drawing them in, but also certain industries, including caregiving and fruit picking, where there was a real need to fill jobs with people when Canadians were not able or willing to do that work. It was a limited program that was a success for close to 30 years.

In 2002, the Liberal Party brought in a pilot program for low-wage workers to try it out. About 2,000 people came in through that year. However, the Conservative government subsequently doubled the length of time those temporary, low-skilled workers were allowed to stay and has increased massively the deployment of that particular aspect of the program, which has led to the abuses we are discussing today. Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Peace River talked about demonizing.

The inconsistencies and the different messages we are hearing from the government are causing concern in the minds of the Canadian public. We heard the former Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development that the government has taken the shackles off, is opening it up, and will allow employers to pay 15% less. Then the minister stood the other day and said that all they have done since 2002 is tighten it up. Does my colleague from Papineau agree that it is the inconsistencies-- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. The hon. member for Papineau has the floor. Mr. Justin Trudeau : Mr.

Speaker, this is yet another example of the government's complete failure to manage a program, to deliver the kinds of things, with vision and perspective, to help Canadians that Canadians deserve from a responsible government. It has completely mismanaged this program, which yes, has a limited and positive impact on the economy when handled correctly.

However, the Conservatives have opened the path to abuses and to the irresponsible pushing aside of Canadians who are seeing wages decrease at the same time as we are exploiting foreign nationals who want a chance to work and would very much like an opportunity to become Canadian, because that is what Canada used to be all about. Mr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member for Papineau mentioned the economy and immigration, because this government has the best record on the economy, an economy that is absolutely unparalleled.

When it comes to immigration, nobody has opened more pathways to immigration than this government. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on the Liberal motion on the temporary foreign worker program. I will be splitting my time with the member for Huron—Bruce . Frankly, I am surprised that the Liberals chose this motion for debate today, because their position on the temporary foreign worker program is confusing, to say the least. Let me try to lay out some of the Liberal views on this program.

On the one hand, the member for Markham—Unionville has said, “We”, meaning the Liberals, of course, “have always said that it is a good program”. On the other hand, the member for Winnipeg North , just last week in the House, said that literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Canadians, have been displaced. Which is it? Is this a good program or a program that has displaced hundreds of thousands of Canadians? The Liberals do have a talent for exaggeration. The member for Markham—Unionville commented that the NDP likes to blame them for many things. There is so much to blame them for.

Next they criticize the government for the swift action taken to place an immediate moratorium on the food services sector's access to the program when serious allegations were raised in the industry. I cannot understand why the Liberals have an objection to swift, decisive action and leadership. Why is it suddenly not good enough now? Last week they supported an NDP motion to place a complete moratorium on the entire low-skills stream of the temporary foreign worker program, which would have impacted seasonal, agricultural, and many other streams.

What is so strange about this is that the member for Kings—Hants himself is on the record as saying “that reducing access to temporary foreign workers could actually threaten Canadian jobs...”, and that “Temporary foreign workers are an important part of the production chain and the value chain.” Which is it? The Liberals cannot decide. The Liberals claim that this program is “hurting the middle class”. It seems as though as soon as all the academics and experts dispel their myth that the middle class is being squeezed here, they turn and blame temporary foreign workers.

If policy was a chair, they would all be sitting on the floor. The confusion from the opposition continues. After they alleged that this program displaces hundreds of thousands of Canadians, they went on to say that they are fine with this program, so long as these temporary foreign workers become permanent residents. Let me quote the member for Markham—Unionville : “allow more temporary foreign workers and international students to become permanent residents”.

It seems to me that the Liberals want to take the “temporary” out of the temporary foreign worker program and do not care if Canadians are displaced in the process. The hypocrisy continues. The Liberals in their motion are asking for stronger rules for employers on looking for Canadians. In fact, let me read off the list of stronger rules the Liberals have voted against. One is the authority to conduct on-site inspections to make sure employers are meeting the conditions of the program. An hon. member: They voted against that? Mr. Ted Opitz: They did, Mr. Speaker.

The Liberals also voted against introducing legislative authority to impose significant financial penalties on employers who break the rules, having the ability to ban non-compliant employers from the program for two years and to immediately add their names to a public blacklist, and 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. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

They voted against requiring employers to pay temporary foreign workers at the prevailing wage by removing the existing wage flexibility, adding questions to LMO 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 hard-working taxpayers are no longer subsidizing these costs. The Liberals do not care about taxpayers.

The Liberals voted against making English and French the only languages that can be used as a job requirement when hiring through the temporary foreign worker process and against suspending the accelerated labour market opinion process. After all of this, Liberal MPs continue to ask the Minister of Employment to have denied labour market opinions approved and to have more temporary foreign workers in their ridings.

(1045) I guess that this should not be a surprise, because the only constant position the Liberals have on this issue is hypocrisy, or it may be simply that they are just very confused. Let me recap what we have heard from the Liberals. First, this is a good program, but it displaces hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Second, the Liberals criticize our government's action to place a moratorium in the food services sector but vote with the NDP members, whom they criticize, to shut down the entire low-skill stream.

Third, the Liberals say that reducing access to temporary foreign workers threatens Canadian jobs, but then they argue that the program is hurting the middle class. Fourth, the Liberals say that they are okay with the program so long as the temporary foreign workers who come in can become Canadian citizens. Fifth, the Liberals want the minister to overturn negative LMOs by independent public servants so that they can have more temporary foreign workers in their ridings. Lastly, the Liberals ask for stronger rules, yet vote against every single one of the stronger rules that this government has put forward.

I really would like them to decide. It is quite clear that the only party with a plan to fix this program is our Conservative government. Under the leadership of this government and this Prime Minister , Canadians know that they will always be first in line for available jobs. That is why our government is committed to looking at even more reforms to the temporary foreign worker program to ensure that employers make great efforts to recruit and train Canadians and that the program is only used as a last and a limited resort when Canadians are not available.

Canadians can count on our government to fix this program. That is why we will be, and I will be, opposing this motion. As a correction, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Peace River instead. I am now ready for questions.

(1050) Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I was fascinated by the comment from my colleague across the way that the government has done more to open up immigration than any other government. I do not know which planet he has been living on, but he has certainly not been paying too much attention to what his government has been doing. I have seen more doors being shut than at any other time during our history.

Specifically going back to the temporary foreign worker program, what does my colleague have to say to Canadians and to permanent residents living in Alberta and British Columbia, where unemployment has increased, especially among youth, by up to 4% owing to the increase in the number of temporary foreign workers in the lower-stream class? By the way, these are not made-up numbers; these are numbers released by the C.D. Howe Institute after having researched this issue for a lengthy period. What does my colleague have to say to those living in Canada who have lost jobs? Mr. Ted Opitz : Mr.

Speaker, the member is living in an NDP haze. She is not living in the same great country I live in, because when I travel the world, I listen to people from places other than Canada dreaming of becoming a Canadian citizen and dreaming of having the system of laws and governance that we have. I take great heart and great pride in being a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. The member herself, like many of her party, stands up and feigns outrage when there are allegations that Canadian workers in the oil sands, for example, are replaced by foreign workers.

However, if the NDP had its way, it would shut down those same oil sands and throw all of those Canadians out of work. How does the NDP square itself with its own hypocrisy? How do those members look at themselves in the morning? I really do not know. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member across the way needs a bit of a reality check.

When he talks about the government having a plan to fix the program, he needs to understand that it is the Conservative government, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration , and the Minister of Employment and Social Development who broke the program. The program was working well before the Conservative government took office. Therefore, the problem that they are trying to fix is a problem that they created. The Liberal Party has always been supportive of an effective temporary foreign worker program.

Liberals have always been supportive of trying to enhance the ways individuals can immigrate to Canada, after which both Canadian society and the immigrants themselves would benefit. Will the member at the very least acknowledge the reality that there are in excess of 300,000 foreign workers in Canada today and that when the Conservatives took office, it was well under 200,000, closer to what I believe was 160,000? The government needs to take responsibility. The Prime Minister needs to say the government messed up, and that is the reason a moratorium is necessary and why the program needs to be fixed.

Will he admit that the program is broken and that it is broken because of mismanagement over the last few years?

(1055) Mr. Ted Opitz : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a delightful chap, but he is given to flights of fancy. This government is accountable and responsible. It has created one of the strongest, best nations in the world and certainly within the G7, and I have tremendous confidence, faith, and pride in what we have done as a government to build up Canada, build pathways to immigration, and build the program. The minister himself has acted very swiftly and decisively on a problem that was identified. That is the right thing to do. We were accountable and responsible to do that.

We have stepped up and we are doing that. Does the Liberal member himself believe that it was appropriate for his own leader to lobby the government to approve a temporary foreign worker for his father's favourite Montreal restaurant? Mr. Speaker, I ask you. Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Liberals are speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this program. It seems to be a usual practice of members of the Liberal Party, but it seems in the extreme in this circumstance.

It is interesting that the Liberals have spent the better part of the day talking about the necessity for a permanent stream, or the ability for temporary foreign workers to move from a temporary status into a permanent status. It is interesting that the Liberals introduced this program some 30 years ago with no mechanism for individuals who came as temporary foreign workers to Canada to have any opportunity for a permanent stay.

The changes that our government has undertaken over the last number of years have in fact provided a way for those temporary foreign workers who demonstrate that they have contributed to the Canadian economy and have a skill set that is necessary for the Canadian economy to remain here in Canada and become permanent residents and then citizens of Canada. As a matter of fact, I would like to correct the record. When the opposition members say that there is no avenue for temporary foreign workers or people in a temporary state to become permanent residents and citizens of Canada, that is false.

The programs in place today allow for over 62,000 people who are working here temporarily to become permanent residents and citizens of Canada this year alone. This is because we understand that temporary foreign workers do come here to Canada, that many of them contribute, and that employers would like them to stay in the economy, depending on their contribution to Canada. It is important that the opposition members acknowledge the facts with regard to this debate, because until now the facts have not risen to the top. The Liberals claim that under their provision of this program, it worked perfectly.

Unfortunately, they had no permanent stream. That is something that this government has changed, allowing for over 62,000 people in a temporary status to become citizens this year. It is important that we also reflect on what the Liberals did during their time with this program. We all recall Strippergate. I know that there are members on the Liberal benches right now who remember it well. Under Strippergate, the criteria that the Liberals put forward in terms of their program allowed for strippers to be brought into Canada.

Those was the employees with special skills that the Liberals had designated as the prime skill set needed in Canada. Our government does not believe that. Our government members believe that the type of skills needed in Canada are ones that actually contribute to the well-being of our local communities. I can tell members that in the community of Grande Prairie, the community of the Peace Country, we have many employers who use temporary foreign workers, but let us talk about the types of work that they do. We are talking about work in the service sector. We are talking about work in the oil and gas sector.

We are talking about work in engineering, in all kinds of construction jobs, and a whole host of others. Nobody is coming to Peace Country on the temporary foreign program as a stripper, as they did under the Liberal program. What has happened in this debate is unfortunate.

There are places like my riding in the Peace Country where unemployment is at the lowest point we have seen in history, where employers have followed the rules, where they have not been subjecting temporary foreign workers to abuse, and where they have not been taking jobs away from Canadians by hiring temporary foreign workers, yet what we have seen day in and day out is members from the Liberal Party, specifically the leader of the Liberal Party, criticizing people who are employers in northern Alberta, both in Fort McMurray and Grande Prairie, who have worked diligently to try to hire Canadians but have been unable to hire qualified Canadians to fill the job vacancies.

In some cases, they have not found any Canadians who will fill the jobs under any circumstances. As a matter of fact, this is the circumstance for the local McDonald's restaurants. Currently there are four restaurants in the city of Grande Prairie. The average number of employees needed for just one of those McDonald's restaurants would be 150. In the case of Grande Prairie, there are only 150 employees doing all of the work for the four restaurants. Currently, there are job vacancies for over 300 people in the McDonald's restaurants alone.

These restaurants are paying far more than minimum wage and they are paying far in excess of the prevailing wage rate for our region.

(1100) If Canadians want a job in that particular industry, the requirement from the local management at McDonald's is that when they walk in to ask for a job or a job application, they are immediately given a uniform. There is no question, they will hired on the spot. Therefore, there are circumstances in places like the Peace country where these conditions have prevailed. They have required temporary foreign workers to fill some of the job vacancies.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party and the NDP have vilified the employers again and again, hard-working employers that play by the rules and contribute to our communities. They give generously, pay their taxes and do all the things we would expect them to do, as well as accommodate temporary foreign workers in a way that Canadians would be proud. Unfortunately the NDP and the Liberal Party specifically have targeted these employers and have vilified them as some kind of monsters. They are not monsters. They are people who are working hard, playing by the rules and contributing.

There are cases where abuses have been noted by the media. The minister has aggressively gone after those people who have broken the rules. Under the Liberal Party, there was no mechanism to blacklist employers if they were engaged in abuse. We know that because all kinds of shenanigans happened under the Liberals when the program was in existence.

If employers were found to have abused the system, they could be blacklisted for two years and would be unable to get temporary foreign workers if they broke the rules, if they abused a temporary foreign worker or if they took a job from a Canadian and gave it to a temporary foreign worker. The government takes abuse very seriously. We believe it is reprehensible and it cannot be tolerated. That is why the minister has undertaken to put in safeguards to ensure abuses do not take place.

However, if they do, because the world is not perfect, there are now penalties that were not in existence under the Liberal government when the Liberals claimed the program was running perfectly. During their time, they were bringing in a different type of worker. Specifically, they were bringing in strippers. Our government takes abuse seriously. We believe strongly that if temporary foreign workers have a skill set and will contribute to our economy, our country and our communities, there should be a pathway toward citizenship.

That is why this year our government is allowing up to 62,000 people in temporary status to become permanent residents and then subsequently to become citizens of Canada. We strongly belive that the mistakes of the Liberal Party of the past can be corrected, and have been corrected. We now have all kinds of things that are far better than what the Liberal Party had when it was in office.

The pathway to citizenship, the accountability mechanism, the accountability for employers that break the rules and whole host of other things ensure that those people who are involved in abuse of the program are held accountable for their actions. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that the Liberals have been speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. I would like to quote a couple of Liberals who believed the temporary foreign worker was important. In May 2012 the member for Kings—Hants said, “Temporary foreign workers are an important part of the production chain and the value chain”.

He also said on May 29, “The government has been promoting this idea that a temporary foreign worker takes a job from a Canadian, but what I'm being told is that in fact it creates a job for a Canadian at a different level”. The member for Cape Breton—Canso said in October 2012, “Temporary foreign workers are an important part of our economy” and “some of the best workers are temporary foreign workers”. It seems that the Liberals have been speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. They can be reassured that we have corrected their past mistakes.

Those employers that are abusing temporary foreign workers and the program are being held accountable.

(1105) Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be thrilled to defend his program. However, in January 2012, Alberta employers had 1,261 temporary worker positions. Meanwhile, 350 people made claims on EI for exactly the same positions. Furthermore, 2,200 general farm workers made EI claims that same month, while 1,500 temporary foreign workers were placed. In Prince Edward Island, there were 294 claims for EI. Meanwhile, for exactly the same positions, there were 60 temporary foreign workers.

Does the hon. member understand that this program is out of control, that it was at one point a small program necessary to meet specific employment needs? The program has ballooned to the point where there are about to be more temporary foreign workers than there are actual immigrants to this country. Mr. Chris Warkentin : Mr. Speaker, I reject the stat that the Liberal member claims in terms of the temporary foreign workers outstripping the number of permanent residents. In fact, we have already demonstrated that— Hon. John McKay : They are your own stats. Mr. Chris Warkentin : Mr.

Speaker, the member is yelling that it is a government stat. In fact, it is a fabricated stat that the Liberal Party has come up with because we know that the current 62,000 temporary foreign workers have a pathway toward becoming permanent residents. I would like members of the Liberal Party just once to demonstrate what number they believe is in excess of what it should be. They keep claiming that the program is not running well or that there should be fewer temporary workers. I would like to know this.

How many employers do the Liberals believe have abused the program and have taken Canadian jobs away by using the temporary foreign worker program? [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Peace River for his speech. It is clear that there is a problem. Employment and Social Development Canada seems to be looking for ways to change the rules on the fly. However, we need to be addressing the root of the problem.

By dismantling Statistics Canada, the Conservatives completely dismantled the system that provided an accurate picture of the economic and employment situation right across the country. That is why they are still fumbling and trying to fix the problem. There is obviously a very real problem here. Does my colleague agree that it is time the government stopped playing games with the temporary foreign worker program and asked the Auditor General to conduct a full review? [ English ] Mr. Chris Warkentin : Mr.

Speaker, the Auditor General, as the member knows, has the opportunity to review whatever program the Auditor General desires. In fact, the Auditor General did review the program and made some recommendations, of which the government implemented the vast majority, so that has happened. The NDP and the Liberals claim there are cases of abuse, and I have no question there have been some. A very small number of employers have abused the program. Therefore, I would recommend that if there are cases of abuse, those people should be held fully accountable for their actions.

In fact, it is not the Auditor General who will hold those employers accountable. It will be CBSA, Immigration Canada or in some cases the RCMP that will hold them accountable for their abuses. I would recommend that if opposition members know of individual employers that have broken the rules, that have committed fraud, that have employed temporary foreign workers rather than Canadians, they report those to the appropriate authorities. The mechanisms are in place today to hold those employers accountable.

(1110) Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion by my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville . It is a lengthy motion, so I will not read it out. However, I am really pleased we are debating this in the House. There is no doubt that over the last number of months, Canadians right across the country, those who live in Canada as permanent residents and Canadian citizens, are really becoming very disturbed by how broken the temporary foreign worker program really is. At this time, it behooves us not to blame the workers who come to our country.

They only come because we have a government that grants them permission to enter the country. It is a government that should be basing the LMOs on real needs not made up needs, according to Kijiji and other such crazy information gathering. We have to get away from the rhetoric that the temporary foreign workers are coming to our country to steal our jobs. They apply for jobs that are advertised. Often, they are the victims of unscrupulous agents and consultants and end up having to pay huge sums of money. They are coming to our country in good faith as workers. They do not steal our jobs.

We bring them here and, as evidence has shown over the last number of weeks, when they are here, not all of them but many of them, are exposed to horrendous abuse. It is abuse that goes as far as threats to their lives, removal from the country and not getting the wages they should. I am very proud to be a Canadian. Canadians I talk to across the country are very disturbed, as am I, when we hear of the kind of abuse happening. We are a nation that has been built by immigrants, except for the aboriginal people who were already here.

Most of us in the House, and across Canada, are either first generation or descendants of immigrants who came here to build our amazing country. Therefore, it is very disturbing for Canadians to know that, first under the Liberal government and now under the Conservative government, there is a different notion of how we look at immigration and our workforce. It is a marked disrespect for the Canadian workforce and Canadians when the government has allowed this program to get out of control, as it has. For the last three years, I have been raising concerns about the program.

It is not just one stream, but we are hearing concerns from nearly all the streams of what is wrong with this pathway to work in Canada. It is not a pathway to citizenship. I heard my colleague say that some do get their citizenship, but when we look at the number of people who come here and the number who are converted into citizenship, the number is quite small. When we criticize the program and ask for it to be fixed, we hear lots of comments that the NDP is opposed to it, for example, that it wants to shut down the oil sands and put employers out of business.

At no time have the New Democrats taken a position that the program needs to be shut down totally. However, we do say that the program is so broken throughout that it needs an independent review so we can fix it and make it work. Yes, we did ask for a moratorium on the low-skilled category because the rationale for temporary foreign workers did not hold true. The stories and the numbers out there were just horrendous.

(1115) At the end of the day, we always have to go back to what the government does, which is blaming other people. Instead of answering the questions and dealing with a broken program, it wants to deflect and gets into this blaming and pointing fingers. Nobody in the opposition, not one MP, has the authority to issue an LMO to get a worker here under any of the categories, let alone the low-skilled categories. There is only one group of people, one government, the Conservative Canadian government, and it rests with the portfolio of the Minister of Employment and Social Development .

Only that department can issue an LMO. I am hearing that due diligence is done, but I want to know what kind of due diligence was done when hundreds of LMOs were given to McDonald's in Victoria, which has high double-digit youth unemployment. What kind of an oversight is that when retail jobs once again are getting LMOs? This feigning of surprise every time we hear of this by the minister is wearing a bit thin.

I say that it is time for the government to stand in the House to say it has a broken system, has failed in its oversight and needs to fix this program, and that in order to restore the confidence of Canadians in this program, it will have an independent review. It needs to have that moratorium for the whole low-skilled category. There is one simple reason for that, which is that the abuse and the overindulgence of LMOs is not just limited to the fast food industry. We have also heard of retail workers. The government has said that as soon as it finds out there is abuse it is quick to act.

Therefore, when a prominent national broadcaster broadcasts a teleconference call from the CEO of McDonald's, suddenly we get three employers being put on the blacklist. Once again, another story broke a couple of days ago and we are now finding out that the employer was hiring people in retail across this country to work in malls. The workers were very brave. They went to CBS and the RCMP. They were getting threats against their life. They were being forced to live in a place with the supervisor. They came and reported that their apartment was trashed.

Despite all of that, it is only when this came up in the media again that the employer is now on the blacklist but was not on it earlier. Surely, we cannot say that our enforcement strategy is, “Let's find out what the media does and when we're caught we'll say, 'Oh, my goodness, we didn't know this was happening. We're now going to punish that employer'.” Let us be clear. At no time will we vilify employers who are playing by the rules the government has made. However, we will vilify and blame employers who are abusing the employees once they are here.

We cannot blame the employers totally for the LMOs because that is in the hands of the government. If they are getting them wrongfully, it is also in the hands of the government to investigate, punish, and make sure that things happen. I know wonderful employers. I have been to their workplaces. I have seen that in some categories there is a need. However, I can say that when the program has come into the kind of disrepute that it has right now, there is no saving it without an independent review. I will be moving an amendment a bit later, but right now I will read out what the amendment will be.

I will take a moment to move it before I finish speaking.

(1120) I will be making an amendment to the motion moved by my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for the imposition of an immediate moratorium on the stream for lower-skills occupations, which includes fast food services and restaurant jobs. I know my colleagues across the way are not going to have a problem with that because they just voted for it the other night. Really, it is to make sure that there is a constructive review of that program and, until that happens, that moratorium remains in place. We have got to get to the stage when we have to start being proactive.

We need to review and revise this program so that LMOs are issued not only when employers have satisfied the conditions but the government has data that it can rely on. Only the other day, the Kijiji data was removed from the government's website and now we are suddenly finding out that the labour crisis is not as the government has talked about for the last few years. What we need is data. I know my colleagues across the way have an allergy to data, science, and informed opinion, but the numbers cannot be made up for labour market opinions by grabbing them from the air. We need sound data.

Data was collected, by the way, by Statistics Canada that has gathered dust because the government did not think analyzing that data was a priority. This is a government that does not like to make decisions based on fact. I really appreciated the minister admitting yesterday that there is no overall labour or skills shortage. I had the privilege of being at Cloverdale Kwantlen university campus on Friday. It was truly amazing. The room was packed as far as I could see of young people living in Canada, who are in the trades program, welding and other courses.

They are worried because they have friends who are qualified welders and cannot get jobs. They are aware of the fact that they have finished their prerequisites and some of them cannot get placements. For them, it is horrendous to realize that while they are busy investing in their career paths, the doorway is being shut to them, and they see a very bleak future. I met a wonderful young man who had a Bachelor of Science degree and really wanted to go into the science field, but seeing no jobs there, then chose to go into welding. Now he has a question to ask of us, which is this.

Why is it, with skilled tradespeople right here in Canada, the doors seem to be wide open to temporary foreign workers? As members know, New Democrats have asked for a moratorium on the lower-skilled category, but I want to make it clear that does not include seasonal agricultural workers, because that is a separate stream that has a completely separate application form and code, nor does it include the live-in caregivers program, though we want to include them in the independent audit because we are hearing of all kinds of abuses and difficulties that live-in caregivers are experiencing once they are here.

We need to address the whole program, not just components of it. These young men and women went to the microphone and made passionate pleas. They do not have anything against the temporary foreign workers who come here because they realize that they are coming here to make a living, but they are questioning the wisdom of our legislature in this country right now of the current government as it gives away the jobs that they should have. We have heard stories from Alberta and B.C. We are hearing stories from coast to coast to coast, not only from the low-skilled stream but from other categories as well.

Sometimes I wince when I hear the term “low-skilled stream”, but that is the category in this program. It does not show any disrespect for the work done by people who work in these categories.

(1125) I have seen innumerable young people living in Canada who tell me “Mrs. Sims, we would love to be able to work at McDonald's. We would love to be able to work.” There was a time when we saw that as prime training grounds. I remember, as a high school counsellor, saying that to students who said they were going to work at McDonald's. I would say it is a great training ground. It did not matter whether they were going to go into the medical or engineer field or any other job, it was a starting place. Now many young people are telling me that those doors are shut to them.

I am hearing from young people and not just young people. C.D. Howe, not a think tank I often agree with, recently produced some research. This is a think tank that normally supports the government. It has said that in Alberta and B.C. 4% unemployment could be attributed to the increase in the numbers for the lower-skilled category. That alone should force my colleagues across the way to stop and do some serious thinking about this. It is time to stop pointing fingers. We are willing to sit down with the government and look for a way forward. We do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

What we do want is something that works for Canada and works for everyone who lives here. There are new Canadians who worked very hard, and some of them had to wait a very long time to get into Canada. Now they are here, whether they came through the refugee stream or through family reunification. The government has turned that stream into a lottery system and has basically shut the door on family reunification. Despite that, people have come to this country with hopes and dreams. They are often the people who would be going into these entry-level jobs.

What they are now telling me, what they are telling us coast to coast to coast, is they do not have access to those entry-level jobs. This is a very serious situation. What we are going to do is support this motion, but at this stage I am moving an amendment. I move that the motion be amended by adding the following: “and the imposition of an immediate moratorium on the stream for lower-skilled occupations, which include fast food, service, and restaurant jobs.” The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Markham—Unionville if he consents to the amendment being moved.

(1130) Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Liberals have presented today what we think is a thoughtful motion on which we are seeking debate. No, we will not accept that amendment. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : There is no consent; therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time. Questions and comments. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, I have not finished my speech. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : When the motion is moved, that is the end of the speech. The hon. Minister of Employment and Social Development . Hon.

Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I must admit to being confused by the position of my friends in the New Democratic Party. The member has yet again just pressed for a broader moratorium on the low-skilled stream of the temporary foreign worker program, and yet last Friday, she was holding a press conference with her provincial colleague in British Columbia, Mable Elmore, MLA, during which time they called for a lifting of the moratorium on the temporary foreign worker program for the food services sector.

She was at a press conference last week with her provincial counterpart saying that we should lift the moratorium we have put on the food services sector, and here she is in the House of Commons saying that we should broaden the moratorium. Could the member explain the confusion? Second, I am confused about her position on immigration. The member claims she wants higher numbers for family reunification, refugees and now she wants to give permanent residency to all temporary foreign workers.

I think it is a responsibility of the NDP to tell us what the implications are for all of that with respect to the annual number for the admission of permanent residents. The NDP members say they want at least 1% of the population, 360,000, which would be a massive increase in immigration levels. How much higher do they want to go than 360,000, as permanent residents per year? Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, I want to correct my hon. colleague across the way. I was at that press conference, not being hosted by us, but hosted by our provincial counterparts.

I made it very clear why we strongly support a moratorium. At no time did anybody hear from me about a lifting of the moratorium. I want to get back to the amendment I moved today. I really want to make it very clear that what we are asking for is a moratorium on all low-skilled occupations for the simple reason that the program is so badly broken and we are hearing from so many Canadians and workers of the abuse that is taking place. I also assure the minister across the way that we have never, at any time, advocated a total open door policy.

We shared that with him a number of times on these categories, but we stand by the claim we are making that the government has turned family reunification into a lottery system where only 5,000 Canadians can apply. Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I think between the member for Newton—North Delta and me, we have put forward probably six motions, between the House and the committee, to undertake a review of this program. This is not a new problem. The alarm bells have been ringing for quite some time. My colleague and I have tried to get this before the government to get it fixed.

That is what the whole purpose was. I want to ask her this specifically, because the government tries to muddy the waters when it responds to questions particularly from New Democrats when it says that the NDP writes more letters than anybody else in support of temporary foreign workers. It has been said in this House, and I contend, that this is an important program. It is not a bad program, but one that has been badly managed.

Does she not agree with me that if this program continued to hold the confidence of the Canadian people, if it were better managed, there would be fewer letters being addressed to the minister from the NDP? Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a hard-working member of Parliament, and I have got to know him really well, and I really appreciate his thoughtful intervention.

When I discuss the issue with him, I am always very clear about where he stands, but I get confused when I hear from the rest of his caucus or the leader who at one time says that the program is doing fine and then that it is totally broken. We also have the same caucus, the third party, stand in this House and support our motion and amendment, a call for a moratorium. We only voted on that a short time ago, yet we have had the mover of the motion today not willing to add that to the motion we have before us. At the end of the day, the LMOs are given out by government.

The process is established by government, and MPs do their casework. (1135) [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to second the motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Newton—North Delta . I am very disappointed to see that the Liberals are refusing to support a very reasonable motion. I would also add that there are problems with the minister's outrageous remarks. His doom-and-gloom tone is completely uncalled for, especially given that he is mainly responsible for the current issues with the program.

I would like to hear my colleague from Newton—North Delta speak about unskilled workers. Perhaps she could talk about those who do janitorial work in schools and hospitals and so on. That is another sector that could be cause for concern. There may be serious problems for Canadians who want to do work that is equally honourable but more specialized. [ English ] Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, in the stream of temporary foreign workers that is the low-skilled occupation stream, we have seen a growth of 698% since 2006. That is huge.

In the same category, when we are looking at Canadians' unemployment, we see that unemployment for Canadians has increased there. I am not just talking anecdotal data here. I am actually referring to the research done at Simon Fraser University by the C.D. Howe Institute. Once again, the C.D. Howe Institute pointed out how the increase in the temporary foreign worker program has actually added, in this category, up to 4% to the unemployment rate. I have to also say that it is not just in the fast-food industry, which the minister just pulled out because of all the big news stories.

We have now heard it is in retail and other areas as well; so it is time for a moratorium and an independent audit. Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I was heartened to hear the member for Newton—North Delta say that where a real need exists, and not a made-up need, we need to have the program operative, and that we should not vilify employers who are not abusing the system. In my riding I had some correspondence with a person who said he needs my help because he has lost all hope. His restaurant is located in Kenosee, the southeast corner of the province.

Not enough cooks meant his service suffered and he spends much of his time on the line cooking; so he is at work 12 to 16 hours a day, seven days a week, to keep the doors from closing. Another person writes that a town like Moosomin has a great economy, but it makes it extremely hard to attract staff to his industry. He is also looking at not developing or moving ahead with future locations because of what this will do to his staffing. I want this member to make a comment. In southeast Saskatchewan, we have the lowest unemployment rate, at times, in all of the country of Canada.

In the southeast part of the province, at times we have the lowest unemployment rate in Saskatchewan, with the highest employment participation rate. Would the member agree with me that the program should be continued, particularly in regard to those statistics, which are not unscientific, but are exact and precise?

(1140) Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for a very specific and thought-out question. First, let me say that if we look at the purpose for the temporary foreign worker program, we see it is for where there is an acute skill set shortage. In the meantime, we were supposed to be growing those skill sets at home. However, when we look at some categories, I would say that, if we have that legitimate shortage, we should do what Canada has always done historically, and that shortage is addressed if it is long-term.

We are not talking about temporary, one or two months or even a two-year shortage. If it is a long-term shortage, then surely we should be looking at it through the immigration lens. Remember that if they are good enough to work here, they are good enough to live here. Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is like déjà vu all over again; we are back talking about the temporary foreign worker program. As I mentioned in my

preamble to the question for the member for Newton—North Delta , this has been an issue that the opposition parties have brought forward on at least six different occasions, through motions in the House and through motions at the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Skills Development.

It is seen as a program that is important to the economy of this country and has served us very well over many years, but in recent years with the changes that have been made, independent of any kind of study or full reflection for those impacted, the shackles have been taken off and we see there have been outcomes that have had considerable negative impact and have reflected poorly on the program. Right now in the minds of many Canadians, there is a great deal of concern around the program, and I think that is legitimate.

The purpose of our opposition day motion is to have the government move to regain some of that credibility, that confidence in this program, so that the program will better serve Canadian business operators, Canadian workers, and those who want to come to this country for work opportunities and citizenship opportunities. That is the essence of the motion today. The abuses have been well articulated.

When we look at the HD Mining issue, the Royal Bank blowup from two years ago, and more recently what took place when two women who had worked in a restaurant in Weyburn, Saskatchewan, for 25 or 28 years—Sandy Nelson and Shauna Jennison-Yung—and been replaced by workers who had come in through the temporary foreign worker program, I do not think any Canadians would see that as being right. We also hear anecdotal evidence that some employers are being subtle with their abuse of the program.

They are saying they cannot get workers, but they have Canadian workers who they assign reduced numbers of hours, or the most inconvenient hours. We respect employers' right to manage their workforce as they see fit, but when those types of things are happening with scheduling and split shifts, they are chasing those Canadian workers out of the business and the workforce and creating this need to bring in temporary foreign workers. We believe that an open audit, getting the true picture of what is going on with the program, would benefit all Canadians.

We think it would certainly benefit Canadian workers and Canadian businesses. We get mixed messages. In response to a question last week, the minister said it was 2002 when the Liberals came out with the low-skill stream for the temporary foreign worker program and all the Conservatives have done since is put in additional restraints and restrictions. He was half right on that.

It was 2002 and the Liberals did bring that in, but I have a problem with what he said about the additional restraints and restrictions, the checks and balances, especially in light of the fact that the minister's predecessor, the current Minister of Public Works and Government Services , was boastful about what she did for the temporary foreign worker program in accelerating the LMOs and in providing an opportunity for employers to pay 15% less to temporary foreign workers. She was very proud of those.

(1145) The numbers skyrocketed. As my colleague for Markham—Unionville said, they mushroomed, so there is a different take on it. What would have motivated the current government to allow this, what would have driven it to take the shackles off this program, is something that I am sure the member for Vancouver Centre , who I am splitting my time with, will probably add this to her speech as well. What has driven the unshackling of the temporary foreign worker program has been the misinformation within the labour market, the misunderstanding of where we are in the labour market.

We heard the Prime Minister say two years ago that the skills gap that we have in this country is at a crisis and that Canadians should be seized with this gap. Well, we know that the Conservatives have sort of stepped back from that position. Now they are saying that, yes, there are sectors and parts of the country experiencing skills shortages. We understand that, but we also know that Donald Drummond, TD, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have all p