Debates of Dec. 1st, 2014

Motions in amendment

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. There has been a lot learned through InSite in Vancouver. If we were to canvas, we would find that there is no organization or any credible individuals coming forward and saying that it should be shut down, unless they are a part of the Conservative caucus here in Ottawa.

All of the evidence clearly shows that it has had a very positive and overwhelming impact. There is always room for some improvements, but at the end of the day, there has been a great deal learned from InSite. We would like to think that the government would be open to the types of things that it could learn from that so that we could continue to do what we can to address the whole issue of drug addiction and all of its repercussions

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the more I hear the Conservatives speak about this, the more I know they are hoisted on their own petard.

The parliamentary secretary got up earlier and said she had had the courage to visit InSite. I am very happy to hear that. I wonder if she took a picture and disseminated it to her constituents to explain just how positive InSite's work is. It has dramatically lowered HIV infection rates. It has dramatically lowered hepatitis C infection rates.

The Conservatives are trying to hide behind this notion of consultation, but they really are hoisted on their petard, because there were over 60 amendments moved by opposition parties. None passed. There were amendments by the Province of B.C., the chief public health officer of B.C., and the City of Vancouver. None passed. The Vancouver Police Department supports InSite. It goes on and on.

The only marginalized, completely ostracized group left that does not support moving forward on the safe injection sites is the federal Conservative caucus.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has hit it right on. That is the problem. Everyone outside of the House, and Liberals and the New Democrats within the House, recognize there is a great deal of value to what happens in Vancouver. We recognize that Bill C-2 is not healthy for us to pass.

We can only appeal to individuals like the parliamentary secretary who has visited the site to recognize the good that she saw, and maybe vote more independent of the Prime Minister's office.

The House resumed from November 27 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Survivors of Thalidomide

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion relating to the business of supply, as amended.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #290

Business of Supply

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

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

Labour

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me participate in this evening's adjournment proceedings.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to return to a question that I asked in the House on October 2 concerning protection for interns working in federally regulated businesses.

I have spoken with many organizations and young people in the past few years and months. Across the country, young workers are asking that the challenges they face be recognized. They cannot find paid work. They graduate but cannot support themselves because they cannot find full-time work in their field. They are carrying record debt, and their unemployment rate is double the national average.

They are also often exploited by employers who turn paid jobs into unpaid internships. Thus, young people are working for no pay. We have also seen the number of unpaid internships increase considerably in recent years. it is estimated that there are approximately 300,000 unpaid internships in Canada. That is a huge number.

In the meantime, the NDP is calling on the federal government to help these young workers find stable, paying jobs. In May 2013, the NDP member for Davenport introduced Bill C-542 to create an urban workers strategy and increase support for people with unstable jobs. My NDP colleague from Davenport called on the federal government to work with the provinces to challenge the use of unpaid internships and to protect these vulnerable unpaid interns.

Furthermore, the government would have to start collecting data now, through Statistics Canada, on the extensive use of training internships. Unfortunately, right now, there is no information on the number of unpaid internships in Canada. The figure that I mentioned—300,000—was just an estimate, and Statistics Canada does not have any information about this.

I remind members that the Conservative government made cuts to the long form census. We know that youth unemployment is a serious problem, but how can the federal government take action if we do not even have the facts and figures? It is a huge problem.

The NDP thinks that the federal government should commit to working with the provinces to create a national policy on unpaid internships.

When I asked that question in the House, the Conservative government did not give me an answer. The minister said that unpaid interns can file a complaint if ever they find that there have been issues of abuse during their internship. Unfortunately, the minister was mistaken.

Currently, there is no recourse for unpaid interns because they are not considered employees under the Canada Labour Code. That is a major loophole, and I am calling on my colleagues to support Bill C-636 so that we can protect unpaid interns.

Will the government finally put an end to this abuse and work with the NDP to extend rights and protections to interns?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles with regard to interns in federally regulated workplaces.

My hon. colleague is asserting that unpaid interns are being exploited and left unprotected, in violation of both federal and provincial labour codes.

Many internships are requirements of post-secondary educational programs which, as we know, are in the provincial and territorial jurisdiction. As such, real change can only be accomplished by working together with our provincial and territorial partners.

That is why the hon. Minister of Labour discussed ways to better protect young workers, including interns, at the meetings of the provincial, federal and territorial ministers responsible for labour. That was just this past September. This is not to say that we are unsympathetic with the goal of the member of the opposition, but the federal government cannot go it alone.

I can assure the House that the labour program is carefully examining the Canada Labour Code to ensure that individuals participating in internships in organizations under federal jurisdictions are safe and treated fairly. Our government is studying measures that could address the challenges faced by interns.

What protections exist for unpaid interns?

The Canada Labour Code states that employers must ensure that individuals are informed of and protected from health and safety hazards in the workplace. his includes interns.

While internships are not specifically addressed in the Canada Labour Code's employment standards, if an intern in a federally regulated workplace believes that he or she is entitled to benefits, he or she can file a complaint with the labour program and it will investigate. If labour officials determine that an employer-employee relationship exists, the individual's employment entitlements will be enforced and protected. This includes, among other things, hours of work, wages and vacation.

I share the member opposite's concern for the well-being of these hard-working young people. We can all agree that no one should experience harassment. Employers are responsible for providing a harassment-free environment and to take action when it occurs. Many workplaces have anti-harassment policies, grievance procedures and/or unions. Any intern who believes he or she is being harassed should seek help through appropriate mechanisms to address this. For example, the Canadian Human Rights Commission deals with complaints regarding discrimination and harassment.

We are focused on jobs and growth and the economy. We are relying on young Canadians to help fill critical skills and labour shortages in a number of sectors and regions. That is why we support a number of initiatives to help our young people learn and develop important skills to help them in their future career. This is why earlier this year the Standing Committee on Finance held a number of hearings focused on examining youth employment in Canada.

It is also why economic action plan 2014 is investing $40 million to support up to 3,000 paid internships in high-demand fields. In addition, the youth employment strategy has re-allocated $15 million annually to support up to 1,000 full-time paid internships for recent post-secondary graduates.

Our government will continue to support young Canadians, especially those who are preparing for and those who are currently part of the workforce.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I know that she has had to stay late tonight in order to answer my question, and I appreciate it.

She says that there is legislation that applies to interns. It is true that there are various provincial laws in this country that protect interns. However, there are no protections in place for interns who work in transportation, telecommunications and banks. We need to fill that gap and create legislation that will protect interns working in those three areas, which fall under federal jurisdiction.

The largest number of unpaid interns are working in telecommunications. A former intern, Jainna Patel, recently filed a complaint because she was doing the same work as paid employees, although she was not being paid herself.

That is why my bill, Bill C-620, is needed. It will protect interns, such as Jainna Patel, who have no recourse under federal law. What is more, unpaid internships penalize young people who do not necessarily come from well-off families and who cannot afford an unpaid internship.

Will the hon. member opposite support my bill, Bill C-620, so that we can protect unpaid interns who are working in areas under federal jurisdiction?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, youth employment issues matter to thousands of young Canadians looking to acquire experience and find a job in today's competitive job market.

Our government understands the importance of having opportunities for training in the workplace yet recognizes that internships can raise important concerns about labour standards and occupational health and safety protections, especially when they are unpaid. No one should feel unsafe at work, which is why the Canada Labour Code ensures that individuals are informed of and protected from workplace health and safety hazards.

An efficient labour market includes workers of different ages. We need our young people. That is why we are studying the issues faced by interns and young workers. The government will continue to stand by our hard-working young people as they work towards building meaningful careers.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 29, I asked the Minister of National Revenue a question about the Canada Revenue Agency, which acknowledged that its letters are so complicated and badly written that, in many cases, taxpayers do not know whether to write a cheque or wait for a refund. It is a mystery.

Ultimately, this mismanagement of communications leaves Canadians confused and paying penalties. We are asking the government to sort out the situation and fix it. A Canada Revenue Agency study confirmed that millions of the messages that bureaucrats send to taxpayers every year are poorly organized and incomprehensible. There is also an unjustifiably severe lack of professionalism, and communications are just too dense for people to understand. The Canada Revenue Agency is out of touch with the people, and by letting the situation persist, it is complicating matters. All of this gobbledygook comes at a price. Confused taxpayers are flooding the agency's call centres with requests for information over the phone, and they are sending the agency thousands of letters to ask for clarification. Dealing with those complaints is costly and takes up more and more resources. The Canada Revenue Agency needs to fix the problem and the penalties. This would not happen if communications were clear and well written, as they used to be. Sometimes government benefit cheques are cut off for no reason because people do not understand the agency's unintelligible letters.

One study also suggested that the agency needs a champion, a direction, really, so that it can overcome the problems caused by bureaucratic inertia.

In 2014, at a time when we understand the importance of confidentiality, privacy and the right to adequate communication that provides clear explanations, we simply cannot accept situations like some I have seen in my riding, for instance. Someone came to tell me that when he tried to file his federal tax return online, it could not be found. He was asked a while later to send the whole return again, as though it had been lost. What happened to his data? How was it processed? Does he need to worry or wonder whether it is there, dormant or hacked? Those are legitimate questions. Of course, someone also has to pay for that.

On that point, it is important to point out that the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada has said that a new wave of work force adjustments among officials who work on tax evasion and tax havens will reduce the government's ability to recover money owed.

Considering the costs related to so much inefficiency and the many scandals that came to light over a number of months, it is absolutely crucial that the government act and respond appropriately. I am convinced that the Conservatives across the aisle understand the point I am trying to make and understand that we need to stop this lack of professionalism. Indeed, it is not very Canadian. It makes no sense. It is absolutely crucial that we take action and correct the situation, which will also help our reputation around the world. Learning things like that will make us look good.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Quebec for her question.

I think the member said that the question was asked on October 29. I believe the minister answered very clearly and precisely on that day. However, if the hon. member did not understand the answer, I am happy to take more time and go into more detail in answering tonight.

Our government regularly seeks and receives feedback from businesses, individual taxpayers, and experts on our communications and how these can be simplified and clarified, as clarity is essential. We are taking action. As part of its commitment to continuous improvement, the CRA routinely conducts evaluations to assess the effectiveness of its programs and the performance of its services.

The most recent third-party evaluation was initiated by the agency as part of this ongoing effort, and it is a critical input to its focus on reducing red tape and supporting taxpayers in complying with their tax obligations and assessing the benefits to which they may be entitled. The recommendation from this evaluation will lead to changes and improvements for all taxpayers. In fact, the CRA has already taken action on the file.

On October 9, the minister announced that the CRA is taking advantage of red tape reduction consultations in all provinces and territories across the country to solicit feedback on correspondence sent by CRA and how communications with taxpayers can be improved. These consultations will seek the views of small businesses and tax service providers, whose feedback often reflects that of individual taxpayers. The minister has also requested that CRA further engage Canadians to solicit their opinion on how to improve its correspondence with them.

Just last month, the minister also announced that the CRA is launching a new e-services initiative to improve correspondence with Canadians through the expansion and improvement of our secure online mail services for individual taxpayers. Over the next 18 months, the most common letters and notices that CRA generates, constituting more than 60 million pieces of correspondence a year, will be available online to Canadians in simplified, easier-to-understand formats. This includes the launch in February 2015 of our manage online mail service, which will be available for individual Canadians to receive their notice of assessment. The online mail service will be significantly expanded over the subsequent 12 months to include other mail to Canadians, such as benefit notices and statements. It was on October 9 that the minister started this initiative and she will continue to take action on it.

In the meantime, the member said that she had an individual case in her riding. I would certainly suggest to her, if she has not done so already, to approach the minister on that individual case and ask for some clarity on it.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much understood the minister's response on October 29. She said that clarity was essential and she was right. Clarity is essential, but that also means there needs to be an investment in human and financial resources. The Conservatives keep making cuts, so of course things are not going so well. It costs money to achieve a certain level of quality.

If I may say so, with the Conservatives, we have access to two official languages in Canada: English and translated English. This creates problems with regard to clarity. This creates problems in translation. We end up with information and communications that are awkward and unintelligible in French. That is a problem that should be examined more closely.

Apparently, federal public servants working at the Canada Revenue Agency were recently informed that their bilingual positions would now be designated unilingual English. How am I being answered today? It is strictly in English. That is a problem. It is a reality and if we want clarity, then we have to be prepared to pay and provide the human and financial resources that are needed. Government services cannot be reduced to bare bones or the quality of communication will be affected.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, CRA is committed to improving its communications with taxpayers and has already taken steps that address the member's concern.

It should be noted that in a typical year, the CRA sends out approximately 129 million pieces of correspondence. The approach we are taking will make sure that the highest volume streams of correspondence are improved first.

We are committed to improving communications with Canadians. As I mentioned previously, internal program evaluations, audits, and reviews are an integral part of how CRA monitors and improves the management and delivery of its programs, and we have already taken action to improve communications. This includes improved plain language in CRA's tax forms and guides, internal training and tools for employees on the use of plain language, and, more recently, it has focused on providing simple to use online services, including online mail.

The Environment

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to revisit a question that I asked the hon. Minister of the Environment concerning a report issued by Germanwatch. This report indicates that, under the Conservatives, Canada has the worst record of all OECD countries when it comes to combatting climate change.

Some might say that this is not surprising in light of everything we have heard recently and all the fossil awards Canada has received at international climate change conferences. However, it is still disconcerting to again be admonished for not doing our job. There is an important explanation for that: we have not yet tackled what will become the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Canada—the oil and gas sector.

The purpose of the adjournment debate is to obtain answers that were not provided in question period. I am going to try to get those answers. I will put a few questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, who is here this evening. First, when will there be regulations for greenhouse gas emissions for the oil and gas sector?

Secondly, the Minister of the Environment recently made an announcement. She said that there would be a little help in that area, since it had been announced that the U.S. and China had made some firm and very important commitments to move forward on the fight against climate change. The Conservatives have long said that they would not do anything until the U.S. and China did something. That reasoning did not make any sense, but now that the U.S. and China have made these firm commitments, what did the Minister of the Environment do? She announced that another $300 million would be spent on the fight against climate change and some international assistance. My question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment is this: what does that $300 million mean? Is it the amount to be allocated every year, over 10 years, 50 years? We have seen some announcements regarding additional funding over the very long term. Over how many years will that $300 million be spread?

I have one last question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. I moved a motion at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development asking that the opposition parties may also be represented at international climate change conferences, such as the one in Lima that began today. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment support the motion that will finally once again give the opposition parties the right to attend climate change conferences? There is more than one vision of Canada, there are several. They should be represented in international debates.

Those are my main questions for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. I hope to get answers to all those questions.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to addressing the challenge of climate change and has followed through on that commitment with concrete action, both domestically and internationally.

Domestically, the government is implementing a sector-by-sector regulatory approach and has started by addressing emissions in two of the largest emitting sectors of the Canadian economy. These are the electricity sector and the transportation sector. With our government's coal-fired electricity regulations, Canada became the first major coal user to ban the construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generation units. The regulations also require the phase-out of existing coal-fired units without carbon capture. For example, in the first 21 years, the regulations are expected to result in a cumulative reduction of about 214 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. That is the equivalent of removing some 2.6 million personal vehicles per year from the road over this period.

In collaboration with the U.S., our government has developed regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new passenger automobiles and light trucks. With these regulations, it is projected that 2025 cars and trucks will produce about 50% less greenhouse gas emissions than 2008 vehicles. Our government has also developed regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new on-road heavy-duty vehicles. With these regulations, it is projected that 2018 heavy-duty vehicles will emit up to 23% less greenhouse gas emissions.

Internationally, Canada is playing a constructive role in the United Nations negotiations toward a fair and effective, new post-2020 climate change agreement. We have always said that for any international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all major economies and emitters must do their part.

As my colleague said, we are very encouraged to see the United States and China, accounting for 39% of global greenhouse gas emissions, taking action, as Canada only emits less than 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. We will continue to play our part by reducing emissions at home and working with our partners across the globe to establish an international agreement that includes all emitters.

Through our current chairmanship of the Arctic Council, and as a founding member and major finance contributor to an international organization on climate change and clean air, we are taking real action to address short-lived climate pollutants, such as black carbon and methane. Due to their short lifespan, reducing these types of pollutants can achieve more immediate climate benefits, particularly in the north.

Our approach is working. We have decreased emissions while growing the economy. For example, in 2012, greenhouse gas emissions were 5.1% lower than 2005 levels, while the economy grew by 10.6% during that same period. Our government will build on these actions by working in concert with the U.S., while continuing to collaborate with provinces to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sectors. This will ensure that Canadian companies remain competitive in the context of the highly integrated North American energy market.

More than 275,000 Canadians rely on the oil sands for jobs. That is why we will continue to take an approach that balances the needs of the environment and the economy. We are going to accomplish all of this without a job-killing carbon tax, which would raise the price of everything.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to debunk the Conservatives' two most popular myths, which my colleague repeated. I am sad that he did not answer any of my questions.

First, it is not true that the Conservatives have a good record on climate change. In fact, it is the provinces that have done all of the work—especially Quebec and Ontario, which will soon have a cap and a greenhouse gas emissions trading system, known as a carbon exchange. That is what the NDP endorses. The first myth is therefore debunked.

Second, it is not true that Canada emits only 2% of greenhouse gas emissions. No matter how you calculate it, Canada is one of the largest polluters per capita in the world. The OECD has said that we are the third-biggest polluter. There is nothing to be proud of there.

As for the oil sands, the Prime Minister said that we reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 40%. However, according to an article in La Presse, greenhouse gas emissions have actually increased by 500%. That is because the government calculated the total emissions instead of the intensity of the emissions. That is what should be done. We need to be honest here.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is working diligently to reach an agreement in Paris that is fair to Canada and includes all emitters and all economies.

Currently, Canada emits less than 2% of greenhouse gases globally. Canada also has one of the cleanest electricity systems in the world, with 79% of our electricity supply emitting no greenhouse gas emissions.

Our government has made significant investments to transition Canada to a clean energy economy and advance this country's climate change objectives. Since 2006, our government has invested over $10 billion in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, the development of clean energy technologies, and the production of cleaner energy and fuels.

As I said, we are doing that without a $21 billion job-killing carbon tax that would raise the price of everything.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is 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 7:27 p.m.)