Fin Donnelly

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments, but I ask him to encourage his government to work with the Namgis First Nation and its company Kuterra on a transition plan to modernize this industry to safe, land-based, closed containment. Speaking of that, it is very time sensitive that Canada move on this.

I want to point out a few very important facts. Several commercial-scale Atlantic salmon land-based, closed containment projects are already underway around the world. The U.S.A. has six facilities in development that will produce more than 200,000 tonnes of land-based farmed salmon. Other countries that are also following this lead are Norway, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, South Africa, Switzerland, China, and France. Here in Canada we have three companies, Kuterra, CanAqua, and Sustainable Blue, and they—

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow up on a question I asked the minister on November 8, 2017. At that time, it was day 76 of the occupation of two open net salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago. I asked the minister if he would meet with B.C. and first nations governments to discuss moving these farms off the wild salmon migration route, yes or no. The minister replied, “The simple answer is yes.” Today is day 208, and they are still waiting. They have no other choice but to take the government to court.

The 'Namgis First Nation is in court this week, seeking a judicial review of Fisheries and Oceans Canada policy that does not mandate testing for the blood virus, piscine reovirus, or PRV, before the scheduled transfer of Atlantic salmon smolts to Marine Harvest's open net salmon farm in 'Namgis territory. The first nation is also seeking an injunction to prevent the minister from issuing a licence permitting the transfer of those smolts.

Despite the first nations' repeated attempts to engage the minister on this crucial issue and despite what the minister says, he has not consulted with them.

Even with their constitutionally protected rights and the government's promise to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, Canada has not consulted nor sought 'Namgis consent to the unlawful transfer of disease-infested salmon into its territory.

Chief Don Svanvik states:

We have made every attempt to engage Canada in good faith on their PRV policy and the transfer of Atlantic salmon into our territory, but it refused to consult with us...Namgis has no other option to protect wild salmon, our title and rights and ultimately who we are as a people but to ask the Court to intervene to prevent the serious, irreversible harm being visited upon us by Canada and Marine Harvest.

As the parliamentary secretary knows, I asked the minister about this at committee this morning. The minister said that he had the opportunity to meet with 'Namgis leadership in previous visits to B.C. and that senior officials were in regular contact. He said that the assertion that they did not or had not consulted with 'Namgis was not representative. However, a press release from the 'Namgis states:

Marine Harvest is preparing to restock their Swanson Island fish farm approximately 16 km east of Alert Bay (‘Namgis territory) with Atlantic salmon despite ‘Namgis’ strenuous objection and lack of consent....the Minister has not consulted with ‘Namgis and has not even replied to any of the multiple letters ‘Namgis has sent to the Minister over the last three months.

Is this what first nations can expect from the government when it comes to consultation?

Will the government accept the 'Namgis' assertion that they have not been consulted and call them instead of forcing them into court?

The parliamentary secretary is from British Columbia. He is fully aware of the following. When it comes to RAS, recirculating aquatic systems, the train is leaving the station and B.C. is not on it; Canada is not on it. Canada has no strategy for modernizing salmon aquaculture. Land-based closed containment aquaculture represents an opportunity for Canada, B.C. in particular, to play a leading role in an emerging market.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Wild Fish Conservancy released lab results showing 100% of escaped salmon tested were infected with the highly contagious virus, PRV. The Liberal rhetoric about strong regulations and environmental protection for salmon mean nothing. The burden of proof that PRV does not cause harm to wild salmon does not rest on the fish. The minister needs to act.

When will the minister get these disease-ridden farms off the wild salmon migration route and on land?

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on the NDP motion regarding the Phoenix pay system, or as it is known by many public civil servants, the Phoenix nightmare.

It has been two long years, and through it all, public servants have been unwavering. They have kept showing up for work, despite the fact that they have not been getting paid correctly, and they have continued to deliver outstanding service to Canadians. They deserve to be paid accurately and on time. When they are not at work, they are spending hours and hours of their time trying to fix their pay problems.

In September, I met with a constituent in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam who is an employee of the federal government. She returned to work on December 12, 2017, after one year of maternity leave and three months of leave without pay. She contacted my office because she was experiencing “significant anxiety and stress regarding my pay issues”.

Following are some of the highlights of her email:

I have two young children ages 1 and 3, who are in full time daycare at a cost of two thousand dollars a month. I pay for a large mortgage and strata fees on a townhouse. I returned to work at 80% capacity (4 days a week) in order to balance my duties at home, and therefore have a 20% reduction in pay, which is my choice, but necessary to care for my children. In order to return to work, I needed to purchase snow tires for my vehicle at a cost of $1,200 to ensure my children are safe in my vehicle. I also pay daily parking fees to be at work. Therefore I have considerable monthly expenses, and every dollar missing from my pay cheque causes me stress and anxiety. How can I be expected to perform my job well, and serve the needs of Canadians when I cannot be paid properly and on time?

I met with her, and as I am sure one can understand, this experience has been extremely frustrating for a busy mother trying to achieve a work-life balance. She completed the mandatory Phoenix pay centre training, which took her two hours. In the end, it resolved nothing. She called the pay centre numerous times, filed many tickets, and still there was zero resolution.

Here are some of the issues she has been having with her pay. There were erroneous union dues deducted while she was on maternity leave, totalling $180 in 2016 and 2017, and an overpayment of union dues in 2018. She was not paid for work on December 12 and December 13. Merry Christmas, indeed. There have been deductions for benefits over multiple pay periods which were incorrect and total almost $400, when they should be less than $100. On top of those issues, she is trying to buy back her pensionable service for when she was on maternity leave, but the pension centre has informed her that the pay centre miscalculated her pension buy-back amount.

As her MP, I am baffled as to why no one has met with her to review these issues and why they cannot be resolved. My office has intervened and written on her behalf, but we still have no resolution.

I have another constituent, who works at Service Canada, and was issued an incorrect T4 for 2016. She was told to use the incorrect T4 to do her taxes, which she did. As a result, she received a refund in excess of $18,000, which she knows she is not entitled to. Now it is 2018, and not only is she waiting for her 2017 T4, but she is still waiting for her correct T4 for 2016. I am sure that if it was the other way around and she owed $18,000 in taxes, her issues would be resolved by now.

What a shame. All that public servants are asking for is a payroll system that will pay them accurately and on time every time. Is it really too much to ask?

I received a letter which sets out another example:

I am a resident of Coquitlam and a federal government employee. I have been experiencing ongoing issues with my pay since last July. I have diligently followed all of the required protocols to resolve these problems with the pay center and Trusted Source to no avail and it was recommended to me that I contact my Member of Parliament. I am writing to you to seek your assistance in having my pay problems resolved and to express my frustration with the pay problems that I have experienced since Phoenix was implemented. I'm writing this also on behalf of my colleagues who are also experiencing pay issues, including not getting paid at all.

Not getting paid at all: that is unacceptable. Imagine how quickly Phoenix would be fixed if MPs and senators were not getting paid at all. This has been going on for two long years.

Public servants deserve to be paid correctly and to be paid on time. Instead, they have had to push Treasury Board to compensate workers for penalties, interest charges, and other fees incurred due to Phoenix pay problems. They have had to hire tax professionals to help them with tax problems. They have had to apply for priority payments to try to alleviate financial hardship from not being paid. They have had to take the government to court and to the labour board, all to get their paycheques. It is ridiculous, and it is as bad as it sounds.

How did we get here? This was not some random accident. The governments have known since 2011 that implementing the Phoenix pay system would be a mistake. They were told by the union representing federal public servants that it would not work. However, the previous Conservative government decided to merge the pay and benefits services of all federal departments into one centralized service, located in Miramichi, New Brunswick, anyway.

The Liberal government then hit the start button and rolled out this disastrous program. Despite repeated warnings that problems were occurring and a request from the union to slow down the rollout and transfer of new files, they just kept going full steam ahead. Requests from the union were ignored, and public service workers are paying the price.

Phoenix was supposed to cost $310 million to implement, and the Conservatives claimed it would save taxpayers $70 million a year. According to the Auditor General, it is going to take years and more than half a billion dollars to fix. That is just an estimate. In the meantime, workers and their families are suffering.

I want to finish by adding that many employees are now refusing promotions or parental leave for fear of losing their salaries completely. What kind of workforce have we created when there is this kind of issue, where there is this kind of prolific fear of advancing or looking to a promotion or going on parental leave? Sure, this is not everyone; this is a number of people. However, this is out there. I am hearing about it. I am sure every member in the House is also hearing from constituents in their ridings, public service workers who are just doing their jobs and want to get decent pay, on time, and what they deserve.

I urge all members of the House to do the right thing and vote in favour of the motion.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, if we listen to what my hon. colleague is saying, we would not think there is a problem at all with the Phoenix pay system.

I just have a simple question for the member. What would she say to the over 190,000 public sector workers who have had an issue with the Phoenix system?

[Fisheries Act, February 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, one think that will be strengthened in the Fisheries Act is the focus on the inshore fishery, the owner-operator principle. We support that element of the legislation.

My hon. colleague talked about the importance of protecting habitat and biological diversity. However, one of the shortcomings of the bill is that there is no protection for environmental flows, which is about the quality and quantity of the water in rivers and that habitat which is so vital to the protection and flourishing of the fishery. Could my hon. colleague comment on the importance of protecting environmental flows and securing that water for fish?

[Fisheries Act, February 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments and agree with a lot of what he said. However, I do want to focus specifically on a large issue that is affecting the west coast in British Columbia. That is the Kinder Morgan pipeline. The project was approved under the current act and the old NEB process. My colleague talked about the importance of science-based decisions. If this project goes ahead, one of the issues is with the product that is going to be shipped. We do not know if dilbit sinks or floats, but it is likely to sink. There is no technology on our coast that is readily available to clean that up. As well, how would we go forward with a world-class oil spill response?

The minister and the government have talked about the oceans protection plan, but there is no technology known to clean up that product. How can we have a science-based approach, and then this glaring scientific gap in cleaning up this product that the government wants to move off our coast?

[Fisheries Act, February 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. member for her excellent speech and for her passion for representing her riding, an important part of the coast and coastal communities.

She talked about how important the Fisheries Act is to her area, to the coastal communities, and how important it is to get it right. She also spoke about local knowledge and traditional knowledge and the importance of including traditional knowledge. That is being reflected in the bill, which is a good first step, but in fact it is a small step.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about the importance of going the next step, which is talking about co-governance, co-management, and actually looking at UNDRIP and recognizing what it is all about when talking to first nations and the importance of the fishery to first nations, and their knowledge.

[Fisheries Act, February 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Abbotsford painted quite a picture of the reason for the 2012 changes. He talked about farmers' drainage ditches being the reason for the gutting of the Fisheries Act in 2012. I remember it quite differently. My understanding of the real reason behind the changes was to do with then prime minister Harper's concern about the Fisheries Act causing a problem for the oil agenda he had, which was to get those pipelines to tidewater.

What did the Conservatives do? They went after a specific section of the act, which was about habitat protection, and removed it completely. They switched the focus of the act to serious harm to certain fish, commercial fish, making it practically impossible to prove that any project would have an impact on fish or fisheries. In fact, that caused the absolute opposite of what he was hoping for, which was certainty for business and industry. It started to cause uncertainty.

Six hundred scientists spoke out. Two former Conservative fisheries ministers, John Fraser and Tom Siddon, spoke out. What would my colleague say to John Fraser and Tom Siddon about their concerns about the changes in 2012?

[Fisheries Act, February 13th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about the economic impact to the fishery. He also spoke about the importance of protecting a way of life that he described. As members know, Canada's fisheries industry employs more than 72,000 Canadians and exports more than $6-billion worth of seafood a year, which the member touched on. One critical thing that this act does is to rebuild fish stocks. It sets in motion the importance of ensuring that rebuilding fish stocks is included in the Fisheries Act.

We know what is critical is that there be strong regulations, with timelines and targets, that ensure these rebuilding plans will be taken seriously by the department. Will my colleague commit to ensuring that these strong regulations will follow, with timelines and targets, with these rebuilding plans?