House of Commons Hansard #114 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rouge.

Topics

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

Public Services and ProcurementAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, the Phoenix payroll system began as a Conservative scheme to cut costs and cut corners by replacing complex federal government payrolls with off-the-shelf software from IBM. The Conservatives decided to operate this new system from Miramichi, New Brunswick for political reasons. The goal was to replace jobs lost due to the removal of the firearms centre even though experts on federal payrolls were not in Miramichi.

The Liberal government went ahead with implementing this ill-conceived scheme despite many warnings of problems. The government rushed ahead with phase 2 of Phoenix even after problems were uncovered with phase 1. The Liberal government removed the old payroll system that was functional without having established that the Phoenix system was working properly.

This summer, the government had to acknowledge that some 80,000 federal public employees had been paid incorrectly or not at all as a result of problems with the Phoenix pay system. Some of us wondered why the government did not start writing cheques. Of course the Government of Canada has the ability to issue cheques. Indeed, every federal employee's first payment comes in the form of a paper cheque.

However, the Liberals assured us that Phoenix would be sorted out by the end of October.

When the Minister of Public Services appeared before the government operations committee on September 19, I asked whether the government was on track to meet that deadline of October 31. The minister assured our committee that the government was on track to meet that deadline. October 31 has come and gone.

On November 16, just last week, the government acknowledged that there were still 18,000 unresolved Phoenix cases from that original backlog. That is nearly one-quarter of the backlog that has still not been fixed.

The government has presented no timeline to deal with those remaining cases in the backlog and it has presented no plan to address the fact that employees will have incorrect figures on their T4 income tax forms if these cases are not resolved by the end of the calendar year, which is now just a few weeks away.

In addition to this backlog, new problems with Phoenix are cropping up every day. The government has decided to say that it is just not meeting its service standard as opposed to admitting that it is in addition to the backlog.

Also, on September 19, the minister said that she would appear again before the government operations committee around October 31 to update us on the government's progress with resolving the Phoenix pay system. Three weeks later and the minister has still not appeared before our committee.

I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to provide us with some answers this evening.

Public Services and ProcurementAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Scarborough—Guildwood Ontario

Liberal

John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this issue is of some vexation to the minister. She finds it completely unacceptable, the way that this matter has rolled out.

Public Services and Procurement Canada is taking decisive action on a number of fronts to identify and solve the pay issues. In terms of staffing, four temporary pay units in Winnipeg, Gatineau, Montreal, and Shawinigan were set up and staffed to handle employee cases. The employees at these pay units as well as those in the Public Service Pay Centre in Miramichi are putting in long hours to see that their colleagues across the country receive the pay they have earned. The minister deeply appreciates their effort and personally visited Miramichi, most recently, just two weeks ago.

Actions have also been taken to make sure that public servants know how to use Phoenix. Employees across the Government of Canada have received additional training on how to submit their pay requests into Phoenix, and it is just a fact that planning for the implementation of Phoenix should have included more training in advance.

Online information tools, technical guides, and frequently asked questions are constantly updated, and the Phoenix system itself undergoes constant refinement based in part on feedback from human resources staff and other users. The goal is greater efficiency so that cases can be resolved more quickly. As a result of these efforts, and as employees become more accustomed to the system, we are seeing higher productivity.

It is true, as the hon. member suggested, that the department did not meet its October 31 deadline to eliminate the backlog of employee cases. The cases that remain are the those that are complex, requiring research to track down missing steps and manual input by compensation advisors. Many, if not most, of these cases existed before Phoenix was introduced, and dedicated effort is under way to resolve these cases as quickly as possible.

At the same time, the government has taken a number of measures to alleviate the pressures on employees who have experienced pay problems. For example, employees can request emergency salary advances through their own departments. A repayment process is being set up to ensure that those who have been overpaid as a result of pay issues can choose the repayment options that best suit their needs. For employees who have incurred out-of-pocket expenses as a result of missing pay, such as financial penalties for missed or late payments, Treasury Board has put in place a claims process and a form that can be found on the Canada.ca website.

Our goal is to reach a steady state where pay requests are processed consistently, with minimal errors, and in a reasonable time period. Many people have worked long hours to get us to this steady state. We are indebted to them, and we will get there.

Again, on behalf of the minister, these issues are unacceptable to the minister.

Public Services and ProcurementAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, the minister has not shown up at committee to address Phoenix, and now the parliamentary secretary for public services has not shown up to this evening's adjournment debate. I believe that an important part of showing leadership and taking ownership of the situation is actually being present, not hiding behind the deputy minister in public presentations, and not having another parliamentary secretary come forward during an adjournment debate.

What did we hear from the parliamentary secretary for national defence?

We heard about temporary pay centres, and we know the government is spending almost $50 million on those. We heard about compensation to employees who have missed bills as a result of not receiving the money they have earned. The government admits that it has no estimate as to how much that is going to cost.

Therefore, Phoenix remains a huge boondoggle. The government has not provided any sense of when it is going to be fixed or how much it is going to cost to fix it. I hope that the parliamentary secretary for national defence can provide some answers during his final minute.

Public Services and ProcurementAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I would remind the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan that, although we are in adjournment proceedings and there are no points of order and such, nonetheless we adopt the same general principles that we apply to other debates in this place, and we avoid references to the absence or presence of members. I did note that the member made a reference to a minister's presence before committee, which is not out of bounds, but certainly as it relates to the chamber here, yes, this is something to keep an eye on for the future.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Public Services and ProcurementAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am not going to make the hon. member very happy tonight.

The minister finds that there is no question that this is an unacceptable situation. Her priority remains to ensure that employees get paid in a timely fashion. She asked me to thank all of the employees who are working tirelessly to try to rectify the situation that is not of their own making. This is unacceptable and is also something on which a number of people are working on furiously, for which we are deeply grateful.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to get up again to address a question I raised after Remembrance Day, as I was not satisfied with the answer from the Minister of National Defence.

As members may recall, the Minister of National Defence, at Remembrance Day services in Vancouver, announced that Canada was going to be sending our troops on a UN mission that was going to go on for three years, and that was going to be all over the place, even though the chief of the defence staff at one point had said that there was going to be no African mission.

The minister has now said that there is not going to be just one mission but many missions in Africa and that we we are going to be there for three years. It is going to involve 600 troops and $450 million. Then, of course, the Minister of National Defence's press secretary had to retract the minister's statement, saying that he got a little bit ahead of himself about where the government is at.

This is a problem with the Liberal government on this file, and on many others. It is the lack of transparency. It is pushing out the idea of going on a UN mission, partially to garner a seat at the UN Security Council, and partially to say that it has carried through on one of its campaign promises, that of returning Canada's military to peacekeeping.

We know that the minister has great interest in Mali. He just returned from there in recent weeks. We know that this is one of the most dangerous missions in the world, and is definitely the most dangerous mission in Africa. Over 106 peacekeepers on the UN mission have already been killed. That is not even counting the French troops who are there. There are over 4,000 French troops on the ground and 13,000 peacekeepers. It is the biggest mess going on with numerous different jihadist terrorist groups pledging alliance to ISIS and al Qaeda. They are using blue helmets for target practice.

There is no question that we have the best troops in the world. They are well-trained; they are ready to go to war at the drop of a hat. They like to be deployed and they like to be in theatre. We believe that our armed forces, the brave men and women who serve this country, are more than adequately trained and equipped to do the job in the right mission.

Should they be fighting terrorism? Of course they should. Should they be helping stop the migrant flow, and helping in the migrant crisis that we are seeing from Syria and North Africa to Europe and elsewhere? Yes, they should. However, is the UN mission the right place to go?

If we are going to have this discussion, and if the government wants to be transparent, we need to have that debate in the House of Commons, so all parliamentarians have the opportunity to pronounce themselves. It has to be voted on before we put any of our troops in harm's way. We have already established the normal practice here, that before troops are deployed, we have a vote.

I have to point out, talking about missions in Africa and how dangerous they are, Anthony Banbury, former United Nations assistant secretary general for field support, said:

Our most grievous blunder is in Mali. In early 2013, the United Nations decided to send 10,000 soldiers and police officers to Mali in response to a terrorist takeover of parts of the north. Inexplicably, we sent a force that was unprepared for counterterrorism and explicitly told not to engage in it. More than 80 percent of the force’s resources are spent on logistics and self-protection. Already 56 people in the United Nations contingent have been killed, and more are certain to die. The United Nations in Mali is day by day marching deeper into its first quagmire.

We have had this type of experience before, in Rwanda, Somalia, and the UN mission in Bosnia. The only way we fixed Bosnia was to turn it into a NATO mission. Our suggestion to the government is that if it wants to put our troops on the ground to do counterterrorism and stop the migrant crisis in North Africa, it should be as part of a NATO contingent, not under the quagmire that exists in the United Nations.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Scarborough—Guildwood Ontario

Liberal

John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out at the outset that since no decision has been made, there is nothing to put in front of Parliament. If we have nothing to put in front of Parliament, there is nothing to debate. If there is nothing to put before Parliament and there is no debate, then no vote would follow from that. I encourage the hon. member to at least wait until the government, in the fullness of time, can make a decision, whether it is decided here or somewhere else.

I would also point out that the minister has travelled to Africa several times. He is a hands-on minister. He is checking out a variety of options and opportunities. He has travelled there with Madam Justice Arbour and retired Lieutenant-General Dallaire, two of Canada's foremost conflict resolution people. Of course, he takes their advice, along with a variety of other people's advice, in trying to assess what would be an appropriate role for Canada to take.

I would say to my hon. colleague that until the decision is made and the information is assembled, it is a little premature to talk about a parliamentary debate and vote.

Last weekend I had the great good fortune to be at the Halifax International Security Forum. Of course, there was a lot of discussion about a lot of issues. Members can imagine one of the issues that was first and foremost in many people's minds, but the one that is relevant to tonight's discussion was on Mosul or post-Mosul. I do not want to get ahead of ourselves. There is a long road to go before we are done with Mosul, but the question in the conversations was what will happen to the fighters who come out of Mosul. Not all of them will die or commit suicide or do something really crazy. They will kind of leak out. Some will go to Raqqa. Some might go to Syria. Some might well make some effort to destabilize Europe, but some will go into the Sinai to destabilize the Egyptian government. Some will go to Libya and from Libya, some will go into the Sahel region.

If we look at the potential conflict from a global level, we will realize that what we are doing in Mosul and the Middle East is as important as what we might be doing in African countries. It needs to be looked at, so to speak, as a web of conflict. In that respect, the Canadian military has an immense ability and very capable people who could contribute to conflict reduction, even in, as the hon. member suggests, areas that are inherently dangerous. However, at this point, I would respectfully suggest to the hon. member that his concern about transparency is entirely misplaced. No decision has been made, and until a decision is made, there is really nothing to debate or vote on.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, for not making a decision, there seems to be a lot of information coming from the government on what it thinks should happen. The decision is imminent. It knows where it is going and is not telling Canadians, not telling our troops, and definitely not telling parliamentarians what the goal is, what the plan is, and how it is in our national interest.

It all comes down to the fact that if we are going to be sending our troops to deal with dangerous jihadist organizations, as we are doing in Iraq, we should send them over with the right equipment, the right command and control, and the right rules of engagement. Even though the government likes to say that what we are doing in Mosul is non-combat, what we are seeing is that our troops are taking the offensive as they continue with the attack against ISIS.

If we are going to go into northern Africa, whether it is in Mali, the Sudan, the Central African Republic or the Republic of the Congo, we need to go in, first and foremost, with the ability and equipment to combat terrorism.

The difference between what is happening in Africa versus what we see right now in Iraq is that at least we have local government troops and the Kurdish peshmerga fighting alongside. That does not exist in Africa, and that is why it is so dangerous. There is no peace to keep. We cannot send our troops into a peacekeeping operation where they are putting their lives on the line for nobody, other than a photo op for the Prime Minister so he can get a seat at the UN Security Council.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a contradiction in terms to start peacekeeping operations in countries that are peaceful. This is not a Hawaiian vacation. By definition, if we are conducting peacekeeping operations, we are going into areas where there is no peace, so we will be specifying, under the appropriate rules of engagement and the appropriate chapter in the UN charter, what the rules of engagement will be. They will be appropriate and we will retain Canadian control over what our troops do.

As I said previously, the assessment is still being made and the information is still being gathered. We are taking the best advice possibly available to us prior to making a decision. If and when a decision is made, the rules of engagement will be appropriate. It will be likely a chapter 7 mission, our troops will be appropriately resourced, and hopefully we will contribute to the reduction of conflict in that area.

HousingAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, on September 30, 2016, several mayors and leaders in the housing sector, led by the mayor of Toronto, rallied together to sound the alarm on the social housing crisis facing our country. Despite the announcements the government made in the last budget, the fact is that much more is needed to preserve the existing social housing stock, which is aging and requires extensive renovations.

In Toronto alone, it is estimated that over $2.6 billion would be needed to fix the existing housing. Meanwhile, across the country, over 170,000 families are waiting for social housing. Canadian municipalities do not have sufficient financial resources to meet the demand and they are waiting for the federal government to make a much larger commitment. The equation is simple, however: the longer we wait, the more the situation deteriorates, which means more existing social housing units will have to be condemned and abandoned, while the wait lists will only get longer.

In addition, municipalities are concerned about what will become of federal funding associated with long-term operating agreements that are about to expire. It is important to note that, since 2006, 46,000 social housing units in Canada have been affected by the expiry of long-term agreements that allowed social housing operators to subsidize their low-income renters. By the end of 2017, nearly 100,000 more households will face uncertainty about their rent subsidy.

In his mandate letter to the minister, the Prime Minister clearly directed him to develop a strategy to re-establish the federal government's role in supporting affordable housing that includes providing support to municipalities to maintain rent-geared-to-income subsidies in co-ops. The Prime Minister probably forgot to mention that not-for-profit housing organizations and low-income housing organizations also offer similar rent subsidies. Let us assume that the minister was given a mandate to address this worrisome situation comprehensively.

The problem is that every time they answer our questions, they talk about agreements set to expire in the future, and they put off any final decision about it. In the meantime, agreements are still expiring, and there is no way to know what will happen to those that have already expired. All they tell us is that there is a budget to maintain rent subsidies for housing units administered by the CMHC.

This federal assistance is only temporary as it is being provided for two years. In addition, the budget does not cover housing administered by the provinces or, in certain cases, by municipalities, as is the case for low-income housing across the country. Therefore, this does not address the problem that mayors of major Canadian cities have raised.

“What We Heard”, the report on the consultations held to help shape a Canadian housing strategy, stated the following:

Canadians told us that social housing was an essential component to include in the NHS. Over 90% of respondents to the NHS online survey ranked social housing renewal and subsidized housing as “important” or “very important”...Social housing also featured strongly in Canadians’ written submissions, appearing in 37% of uploaded documents, and was also often mentioned in the focus group and roundtable discussions.

This means that social housing is vitally important for the majority of people concerned by the housing issue. This is also true for the NDP, as was noted in the brief it submitted during the consultation process. I even once again moved Motion M-53, to renew funding for social housing in Canada.

I am therefore asking the minister or the parliamentary secretary yet again: what does the minister plan to do to meet these demands and resolve the issue of funding for social housing in Canada once and for all?

HousingAdjournment Proceedings

November 24th, 2016 / 6:55 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Terry Duguid LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga for her passionate advocacy for affordable and social housing.

As I have noted in the past, ensuring that Canadians have access to housing that meets their needs and they can afford is a key priority for the government. The member will know that the social infrastructure investments in budget 2016 are an integral part of the government's strategy to create a more inclusive society and stronger and more sustainable development.

The budget included $3.4 billion over five years for social infrastructure, including affordable housing, early learning and child care, cultural and recreational infrastructure, and community health care on first nation reserves. Of this amount, $2.3 billion will be invested in housing.

Among other measures, we are doubling federal funding under the investment in affordable housing program, a collaborative initiative with the provinces and territories to build, renovate, and provide critical affordable housing across Canada. This investment is expected to benefit more than 100,000 Canadian households.

Budget 2016 also provides $574 million over two years to repair and improve the energy and water efficiency of existing social housing units. The hon. member has mentioned these. It is a measure that the member for Hochelaga has called for in the House and that we have delivered.

Significant new funding is also being provided to increase affordable housing for seniors, to improve housing and living conditions in northern Inuit and first nation communities, and to build and renovate shelters for the victims of family violence.

I am pleased to say that the bilateral agreements have been signed with nearly all provinces and territories to deliver these new housing investments under the framework of the investment in affordable housing program. Federal funding is already flowing to these communities, including my own province of Manitoba.

As for resolving the issue of expiring long-term social housing agreements, budget 2016 provides up to $30 million to renew existing subsidies for all federally administered social housing projects with operating agreements expiring in the next two years. For projects administered by the provinces and territories, the doubling of federal funding for the investment in affordable housing program provides a significant source of funding for provinces and territories to extend subsidies for these social housing units. These investments are a transitional measure to bridge the gap for the next two years until a new approach can be implemented under a national housing strategy.

Speaking of the national housing strategy, we have recently completed an extensive four-month consultation process on how we can improve housing outcomes for Canadians. We wanted to hear from a broad range of stakeholders, because we recognize that the Government of Canada had neither all the answers nor all the tools needed to address persistent housing problems.

We sought the advice and input of key national housing stakeholders. We have held round tables outside Ottawa on housing challenges in the north and for indigenous communities in urban and remote communities. To ensure that we heard the voices of vulnerable people, focus groups were held with those who have been homeless or living in subsidized housing, newcomers to Canada, and persons with disabilities, among others. CMHC is also working closely with Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada on parallel consultations for improving housing outcomes for our first nation communities.

On November 22, National Housing Day in Canada, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development released a report detailing what we heard during the consultations. I encourage the member for Hochelaga, and indeed all members, to read the report, which contains some great ideas on how the Government of Canada can work with other stakeholders to deliver the housing outcomes that Canadians deserve.

In the meantime, work is continuing on a national housing strategy, and we will keep the House informed as we move forward.

HousingAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, I read the report and I also met with representatives from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the FCM, this week.

In its submission for the consultations on a national housing strategy, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities recommends detailed, costed investments in housing over eight years. It calls for the protection of existing social housing, which means investing in the necessary renovations, and maintaining the subsidies for low-income households in order to mitigate the impact of the expiry of the long-term social housing operating agreements.

The FCM also recommends investing in building new social housing and in housing for indigenous peoples and in northern communities. It also proposes doubling to $350 million the investment in the homelessness partnering strategy.

Will the minister work with the municipalities, listen to the FCM, and invest the necessary funding to resolve the housing crisis and effectively fight homelessness in the next budget?

HousingAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Liberal

Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate that we have already taken steps to address concerns raised by the member. Indeed, I think all of us have been meeting with the FCM this week to hear about its concerns, and we are acting on them.

Once again, budget 2016 includes $2.3 billion in new investments over the next two years to address the most pressing housing needs in the short term. However, money is only a part of the solution. We need innovative new approaches to addressing persistent housing problems in communities across Canada, a point that the FCM has made loudly.

I would reiterate that we have consulted widely and we have listened. Housing is such an important component of our government's overall approach to strengthening the middle class, promoting inclusive growth for Canadians and helping to lift more people out of poverty.

HousingAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

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

(The House adjourned at 7:04 p.m.)