There are fundamental moral questions about the temporary foreign worker program, and I think Canadians need to look to those as well. We need to ensure that capital, our respect for natural resources, and our use of human beings is never stateless, without place and without respect for Canada as the country it should be.

I ask my friend if he does not agree that we need to look at some fundamentals with respect to how we treat human labour, whether from Canada or from overseas.

Jasbir Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. We need to ensure, once those temporary foreign workers are here, that they are not abused by the employers and are not subjected to wages that are lower than the minimum wages we have in Canada. As the NDP pointed out, employers were happy paying 15% less to the temporary foreign workers.

We need to ensure that this program is not only functional but is credible and clean. We need to ensure that we provide protection for those workers to ensure that they are able to get the same protections Canadian workers would get.

The post Opposition Motion — Temporary Foreign Worker Program appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Does my colleague from Surrey North not agree that it would have been preferable if we had a more independent safety officer in this regime, as he indicated this in his remarks? He could perhaps expand on this point. That issue, to me, is the weakness of the bill we have in front of us.

Jasbir Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, of course we have been calling for that measure. It is important to have independent regulators for health and safety hazard issues. We have actually been advocating for that. In fact, one of the key recommendations from the Wells inquiry was to establish an independent regulator to oversee health and safety. Again, we had offered an amendment to the bill that called for a review after five years.

We would think the government would look at some of the facts and figures, and that is why I brought up Kijiji earlier on. However, unfortunately, the current government does not look at facts and figures.

The post Offshore Health and Safety Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I am very disappointed by this bill, as I know all members on the opposition benches are. We want to see devolution for the Northwest Territories and the rights and the process that have gone on for some years.

In response to the question asked of my colleague from Surrey North by the parliamentary secretary, of course they had eight years to bring forth the part that we all agree on. What we do not understand is why it is being shoved down the throats of first nations in the Northwest Territories: the Tlicho, the Sahtu, and the Gwich’in. Why on earth would the government take apart these regional boards? They have worked well.

My question for my hon. colleague is what is it that the Conservatives cannot understand about the numerous Supreme Court decisions that explain clearly that first nations have constitutionally enshrined rights that require the federal government not only to touch base, but also to engage in specific detailed constitutional consultations? What about the Supreme Court decisions in Delgamuukw, and Haida? What is it about them that the Conservative Party cannot understand?

Jasbir Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, my colleague asks why the Conservatives do not respect the decisions made by the Supreme Court. It is not only that they do not respect these decisions, which we saw in the House during the last Parliament where they were making laws that constitutional experts said were unconstitutional, but also the very stakeholders the legislation would affect.

I agree with the member on the changes we do agree with. We agree with the devolution of powers to the Northwest Territories, but the Conservatives bring a poison pill in the changes to the boards under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act without any consultation, or at least without hearing from the people on the ground in the Northwest Territories whether they want these changes or not.

The Conservatives fail to see the very changes they are proposing and how these are going to affect the ability of the local people to make their own decisions.

The post Northwest Territories Devolution Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

My question is on the member’s last point, on finding omnibus budget bills. In the last number of years the Conservatives have done two omnibus bills per budget. In 2012-2013 we had a spring omnibus budget bill, C-38, and then a fall omnibus budget bill, C-45, then Bill C-60 and now Bill C-4. Each of these monstrous bills has included many aspects that had nothing at all to do with the budget, but were mere expedients for pushing things through the House that much faster.

I wonder if the hon. member knows what the official opposition would do? Could we have House rules to restrict when omnibus bills are legitimate? How would the official opposition deal with this problem?

Jasbir Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, not only is the bill humongous—it is 300 pages with changes being made to 70 laws—but on top of that, the government is trying to ram it through. It is not giving opportunity to every member in the House to speak about it.

One of the phrases I learned from the Conservatives is “time allocation”. I want to explain that to Canadians. Basically, it is shutting down the debate. It is not giving the opportunity for every member in the House to speak to the bill. Not only that, but this bill will only go to one committee. That committee may not have the expertise for all of the 70-odd bills that are addressed in this omnibus bill.

If the government is going to bring forward legislation, it needs to make sure it addresses areas that are important, not a hodgepodge of different areas in one bill that it tries to ram through. Canadians expect more.

The post Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 appeared first on Elizabeth May.