House of Commons Hansard #225 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was scientists.

Topics

Canadian Human Rights ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canadian Human Rights ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #645

Canadian Human Rights ActPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from March 18 consideration of the motion.

Homes Not Connected to a Sanitation SystemPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 400.

The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:

Vote #646

Homes Not Connected to a Sanitation SystemPrivate Members' Business

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion defeated.

I wish to inform the House that because of the delay there will be no private members' business today.

The order is therefore deferred to a future sitting.

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

Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, on November 22, I asked the Minister of National Revenue, Prince Edward Island's representative at the cabinet table, to explain the reasons her department decided that it is in the best interests of Canadians to have the document centre located in Borden-Carleton privatized.

The concern I raised is that privatizing the record centre, ending the relationship with the Government of Canada, which has direct control over these critical, important and private documents, could, in fact, create a problem in terms of security.

The termination of the Borden-Carleton centre with the Government of Canada is part of the government's attack on front-line services that are critical to Canadians, an attack that has most severely targeted Atlantic Canada as a region, and an attack by the government that is felt in every province and in a growing number of Atlantic communities.

What the minister from P.E.I. has done is ensure that more than 70 positions will be eliminated or replaced somewhere with minimum wage jobs by workers with no affiliation with the Government of Canada.

The submissions made to CRA by Canadians often consist of documents of a highly sensitive and personal nature. Most importantly, they could be medical records. When I asked the minister to explain her actions, which will risk sensitive documents, including medical records, the minister declared that “we do not keep medical records”.

Actually, Canadians must submit documents on a regular basis for tax and benefits purposes. CRA files, in fact, do contain medical records. The minister was wrong. The minister confirmed that the purpose of the privatization of the Borden-Carleton facility was to do records management at a lower cost.

How low will the Conservative government go? Is it willing to privatize to a facility paying minimum wage? Is the minister from P.E.I. willing to allow the private sector to move records off Prince Edward Island, away from the island, with the loss of those jobs as well? Does the minister not realize that paying decent wages and benefits lessens the risk to the security of the system? Citizens' records are important. To put records at risk is just not sensible.

On February 2, 2013, in response to a letter I sent to the Minister of National Revenue, the minister stated that her officials had consulted the Privacy Commissioner and Justice Canada with respect to the control of these sensitive documents.

What is interesting is that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has acknowledged that on December 12 it would be making a decision. However, according to the Union of Taxation Employees, which had called for an investigation by the Privacy Commissioner, that investigation, as of today, has not been concluded.

The question remains: Why has the government taken this action to privatize or close this facility? Why did the minister not give us the proper information on what the Privacy Commissioner is really doing and where that investigation is at?

Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo B.C.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we will be able to put the member for Malpeque's mind at ease in terms of a response to his question. Of course, our top priority is the economy, which includes meeting the needs of Canadians while making sure that tax dollars are spent wisely. Re-engineering the way we manage paper records to a records management service provider will ensure the privacy and security of taxpayers' records and will do so at a lower cost to Canadians.

Also let me clarify that the benefit programs directorate within the Canada Revenue Agency does not keep medical records. Certainly as a former medical health care practitioner, there is a significant difference. We do have documents that contain limited information related to an applicant's eligibility determination for the disability tax credit. Let me assure the hon. member that the privacy and security of taxpayer information is always our foremost consideration when it comes to making business decisions.

Our decision to find a records management service provider involved a thorough risk assessment with due consideration paid to all aspects of physical, personal and technological security. I can assure the member that privacy risks have been properly assessed and due diligence was done, including extensive consultation with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

Currently, CRA is in the process of finding a records management service provider through a competitive process. The RFP has clearly identified and addressed privacy-related requirements including placing priority on keeping sensitive taxpayer information under government control and within Canadian borders. Consequently, the contractual documents require that all records processing, storage, transportation and destruction must take place in Canada.

The successful bidder's facilities will be state-of-the-art, with remotely monitored alarm systems, digital closed-circuit TV systems, infrared motion detection systems and other technical safeguards such as fire detection and suppression and biometric access controls to protect the privacy and security of taxpayer information.

Using a records management service provider gives the agency access to ongoing technology, and process improvements will eliminate processing steps and will reduce total costs to the CRA, while ensuring the security, privacy and safety of the records.

Private sector innovation and expertise offer the agency economies of scale and storage costs that are directly proportional to the storage and service used. Moving to using a records management service provider will provide the CRA with ongoing annual savings beyond 2015, while ensuring the safety, privacy and security of our records.

Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I just had to shake my head. Wow. Is that not great? All this technology. The government would be happy if it could just get rid of people because that is what it is basically doing. It is getting rid of the people who are doing the jobs and who are receiving reasonable incomes. The Conservatives are, regardless of what the parliamentary secretary says, risking sensitive information. Has the member never seen the information that goes on Canada pension disability applications? That is very sensitive medical information in many cases.

The answer is quite simple. The government has not answered my question to date. Why is the minister from P.E.I. moving jobs off Prince Edward Island and trying to move government paid workers to lower minimum wage jobs? It just makes no sense in terms of our economy on the island and it makes no sense to Canadian taxpayers who deserve decent services and decent wages for the taxes they pay the government.

Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, records management storage providers are currently being used by other government departments to store sensitive documents. Other jurisdictions, including the U.K., the Australian tax office and the provinces of Ontario and Alberta, have also found a managed service model to be an efficient and effective solution to improved paper records management.

The U.K. government procurement office recently announced it had completed a procurement that establishes an agreement to provide government-wide standardized practices and pricing for records management document storage and services delivered by four vendors.

By using a records management service provider, the Canada Revenue Agency will continue to provide taxpayers and benefit recipients with the high standard of service and security they expect and deserve, while doing so at the lowest possible cost for all Canadians and, most importantly, protecting the integrity of the Canadian tax system.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, in early December last year, I was trying to get the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to understand that the changes made to employment insurance and the appeal mechanisms she wants to introduce beginning this April violate the rights of unemployed workers. I was not satisfied with the answer I received, so I would like to revisit the issue here this evening.

The structure of the new the social security tribunal, commonly known as the SST, is unacceptable. The Conservatives have systematically reduced access to programs, and they are now doing the same thing with appeal mechanisms. Furthermore, instead of creating a more efficient system, they are only adding to processing times.

I am here to repeat my question: why discourage unemployed workers from appealing, if not to deter them from applying for the benefits to which they are entitled, or to force them to move and accept a lower wage?

There are many negative aspects to the changes made to the appeal mechanism. At present, when someone's EI claim is denied, they can appeal the decision directly before a tribunal—known as the board of referees—that is made up of three people. It normally consists of a chair and two assessors.

Beginning in April, with the elimination of the board of referees and the tripartite system, hearings are not guaranteed and a single member of the new social security tribunal will make the decision.

We also now know that the Conservatives save well-paying jobs for their cronies or even former candidates who were defeated. In Quebec, of all the appointments made so far, none of the new members of the social security tribunal is a former labour representative.

The appeal system has also been consolidated and centralized, reducing the number of members from 700 to 850 part-time and 39 full-time members to review some 27,000 cases annually across the country. How can there not be new wait times? The numbers speak for themselves, and it is absolutely disgusting.

Also, in the new first-level appeal system, claimants will have the right to appeal within 30 days of the decision, in writing please. They may also face a summary rejection on a paper review or at a hearing in x number of days. It may also be possible to extend the appeal period for special reasons, but within a maximum of one year. A review of the decision will be possible in the event of new information but, once again, within a maximum of one year.

At the second level, the system will go from 32 judges hearing about 2,300 cases a year, to 13 judges for all of Canada. It will be possible to appeal with permission only within 30 days. We believe that this new system will abandon the unemployed and cut them off from the employment insurance system. They will have less access to it, and our families will suffer more and more.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Conservative

Kellie Leitch ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians have the right to fair and impartial decisions with their social security appeals, and we are not about changing that.

Right now four different tribunals hear cases with respect to employment insurance, the Canadian pension plan and old age security. In three of the four current tribunals, each case is heard by a three-member panel chosen from among over 1,200 part-time members. These members hear appeals, on average, two days per month. This is inefficient, as we can tell.

A great deal of complex logistics and administrative support is required to keep these part-time members engaged and fully informed. Support staff must train these members and keep them informed of current appeal and other legal decisions that may affect cases put before tribunal members.

In addition, under the current system files are generated manually, resulting in a lot of cumbersome paperwork.

Panel members must hear cases in person, and that means that there are significant administrative and travel expenses.

The new social security tribunal would be made up of 70 members, all working full time, appointed by order in council. In place of panels, cases would be dealt with by one member. These members would be dedicated solely to hearing and deciding on appeals.

Having full-time members would allow the social security tribunal's support staff to concentrate on what they should doing, that is, the appeal process itself. This would enable members to hear and render decisions more effectively. It would also significantly reduce the work that is involved in appointing, training and briefing them.

With respect to fairness, one of the hallmarks of the current process is the independent relationships members have with the department and their impartiality. This independence would be preserved in the social security tribunal, and the importance of objectivity and neutrality would continue to be emphasized. The expertise of decision-makers would not be affected.

The new social security tribunal would provide two levels of appeal. The first, the general division, would have two sections for appeals, one for employment insurance and the other for CPP and OAS. The second level, the appeal division, would hear all appeals from the general division. Both divisions would be dedicated to providing fair and impartial reviews of government decisions. Members would be assigned to one section, based upon their particular experience.

As for the appeals themselves, we are going to see quite a few changes.

First, case files would be generated electronically, eliminating heavy paperwork. Instead of appearing in person, appellants could apply to have their cases taken by phone or video conference whenever possible.

Canadians have told us that they want less bureaucracy. They want us to cut red tape. That is exactly what we would be doing in the establishment of the new social security tribunal.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder who this will benefit. It certainly will not benefit unemployed workers, who used to have the right to be heard. With the new social security tribunal, they can make their case in writing. If the tribunal decides to uphold the decision, it can do so without providing any new information to the person making the appeal. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour talked about impartiality. Let me talk about partiality. She mentioned 70 members. How many of these $120,000-a-year members will be appointed by this government?

Furthermore, we know very well that there are proposed cuts in this area, quotas of $485,000. The unemployed workers will suffer the consequences.

I will repeat my question for the parliamentary secretary. Why is this government so bent on punishing unemployed workers, treating them like criminals and putting their fate in the hands of failed Conservative candidates?

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, in deciding and planning to replace four tribunals with one, we have paid careful attention to guaranteeing that safeguards would be in place to maintain the integrity of the system.

We cannot hide the fact that the old system, with four tribunals, each with its own staff and processes, was costly and inefficient.

The social security tribunal is a common sense approach that would make it easier for appellants to have their cases heard and to do so at a significantly lower cost to Canadians. By streamlining the appeals process, we would get a process that is not only fair and impartial but more efficient and less costly.

The individual experience of decision-makers for a particular section would be maintained. All members deciding EI cases would be selected in consultation with employers and employee representatives to the EI commission.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, my intervention today follows up on the question I asked on December 4 last year about the many changes made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

I would like to point out that the reform of the Navigable Waters Protection Act was never announced during the election campaign or in the Conservative government's mammoth budgets. It was a real surprise, especially since the government did not announce it during the election campaign.

Unfortunately, when I asked the Minister of Transport my question, he did not respond in any way to the concerns of Canadians about the changes to this legislation.

However, my question was quite clear, simple and inspired by comments from Canadians. I travelled around the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable and the Chaudière River area to find out if the public knew about this reform. They told me that they did not know that Lac Mégantic, Rivière Chaudière, or even Rivière Saint-François, in my riding, would no longer have environmental protection.

Following my visit, people came to see me. They could not believe that their Conservative MP did not stand up for their river or lake. Even after I got back to my riding, I received a number of calls from people who wanted to thank me and to tell me that they were angry about this situation. These are a few examples of people in the community who were not aware of this reform. They were shocked and angry.

When it comes to protecting navigable waters, I highly doubt that the legendary slogan that the Conservatives used to appeal to Canadians—“Our region in power”—can be applied. Instead, our slogan—“Our region abandoned by the Conservatives”—seems more fitting. The comments my colleague made earlier about employment insurance shows that this is true. The same thing is happening here.

In this respect, we are wondering why the Conservatives allowed the President of the Treasury Board to protect the lakes of the rich and famous in his riding and abandon the rest of Canadians. That is the question.

I examined the whole situation carefully and there is no reasonable explanation. It is important to mention that, when asked a question in the House, my NDP colleague clearly showed that the website regarding the Navigable Waters Protection Act mentioned the word “environment” dozens of times. As soon as she mentioned this in the House—the next day, I believe—the website was completely changed with every instance of the word “environment” removed. This may have been a coincidence, but I think that it was arranged by the Conservative Party.

People are upset that the government is abandoning environmental protection. They do not understand why certain lakes and rivers are protected while others, such as Rivière Saint-François, Lac Mégantic, and Rivière Chaudière, are not. That is my question.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, all of the waterways mentioned by the hon. member are protected. Environmental laws will continue to apply to all of our country's waterways, as he said.

The changes made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act are not environmental in nature because this is not an environmental law. This law is not environmental and it never has been; therefore, the amendments will have no impact on the environment.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act exists to reconcile conflicting interests in the case of ships and bridges, for example. It allows Canadians to have access to these waters for transportation and construction. That is the main reason this law was created.

Currently, the law applies to waters where navigation is questionable. Our public servants are obliged to work on projects that have nothing to do with navigation. In order to eliminate this waste and keep our economy working as it should, we changed the law to focus on navigable waters.

Happily, all of the laws protecting the environment continue to apply just as they always have. For example, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act and the laws on wildlife habitat will continue to apply. All of those laws will continue to protect the waterways that the member mentioned in his speech.

The reality is that the laws on navigation will apply only to those waters that have navigation. It would seem to me that would make sense. When there is a small stream that is not capable of carrying any large-scale navigation and a farmer wants to build a small footbridge over it, I do not think it is necessary for the national transportation department to come out and make sure that a shipping vessel will not be interrupted by that footbridge. When the people at Wabamun Lake in Alberta want to build small recreational docks so their kids can fish off them, or God forbid, jump in the lake, I do not think it is necessary to have federal bureaucrats ensuring that shipping tankers will not be interrupted. We know that is not necessary.

Navigation laws will now focus on navigation.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, before getting back to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, I want to point out that my hon. colleague was saying that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the fish habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act could apply. However, these two pieces of legislation were targeted in Bills C-38 and C-45. They were amended and the protections were reduced. In fact, the government is attacking environmental protection. Why is there a double standard in the Navigable Waters Protection Act?

If my hon. colleague is saying that we do not need to protect the environment, then why is it that the Treasury Board is protecting the lakes in one riding in particular? This supposedly does not protect the environment. However, those lakes are protected when tens of thousands of other lakes and rivers in Canada are not.

The question needs to be asked. Why this injustice? Why is it that the Treasury Board is protecting lakes in one riding full of rich and famous people? What are we doing for all the other Canadian lakes?

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain it again.

Let us once again go back to the example of Wabamun Lake in Alberta. If people want to build recreational docks on that lake, they are not interrupting shipping or navigation, so we do not need bureaucrats from Ottawa or a federal department to ensure that navigation is not interrupted. Rather, if someone were trying to build something of an environmentally damaging nature on that same lake, then federal legislation protecting the environment would continue to apply. That is because the changes we are bringing to the Navigable Waters Protection Act have literally nothing to do with the environment. The environmental legislation, which is adequate and copious, will continue to be in place to protect our environment.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

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

(The House adjourned at 7:51 p.m.)