Debates of Feb. 25th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it, you would find the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as 6:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Canada Post

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to discuss the question I asked in the House on February 28 regarding Canada Post.

Over the past year, many community mailboxes have been installed. In many cities and municipalities, mail delivery was completely halted, and we have seen these boxes imposed on communities everywhere, without any consultation. The cities and citizens were not given an opportunity to have their say.

During the election campaign, this was a very popular issue. The government promised to restore home mail delivery and return the service to the people. However, the government is now backing down from its commitment and has imposed a moratorium. Everyone is wondering what is going to happen. Again today, staff at my constituency office in Jonquière had a visit from someone with reduced mobility who is having difficulty accessing his community mailbox, in light of today's harsh weather conditions. We are having freezing rain.

These situations are unacceptable. In 2016, there is no reason why we could not provide home mail delivery service to Canadians. Canada Post is a profitable public service and we must make it accessible to everyone. We are the only G7 country that does not provide home mail delivery service to its citizens. That is unacceptable.

There are many ways to make mail service profitable. For example, Canada Post could introduce postal banking to generate additional revenue. It could also promote same-day delivery in order to increase revenue. There is no reason why we could not provide home mail delivery to Canadians.

The public has raised a number of concerns, for example about safety. The community mailboxes were installed any which way and without consultation. In some places it is even dangerous because the boxes are on hillsides. No thought was given to people with reduced mobility or our young families, for whom it is difficult to get the mail.

It is also a matter of service. The government was talking about declaring a moratorium and holding consultations. However, what will the consultation strategy be? That is what I want to ask the minister this evening.

I think that considering how to consult Canadians is a big issue. Will they be consulted randomly, or will the government go directly to municipalities and cities to hear from mayors and residents?

How do people with reduced mobility live without home delivery? They already have a hard time getting around to do their errands and pick up their medications, and now they are being forced to go pick up their mail. They could get mail delivered to their homes, as was the case before. In fact, the letter carriers were a comforting presence to these individuals.

This is a big concern for me because the government is going back on its promise. I want to know how the consultations will be held and whether they will be held directly in municipalities, with groups across Canada, including mayors.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue this evening in the debate on the future of Canada Post. I am inspired by the enthusiasm and the engagement of Canadians on this subject.

During the election, we committed to end the further installation of community mailboxes that began under the previous government. We also committed to conducting a review of Canada Post to ensure that it provided high quality service at a reasonable price to Canadians no matter where they lived. This is what we are doing.

One week after the election Canada Post announced it was suspending the conversion to community mailboxes pending the review.

Now, about that review. We made a clear promise to review Canada Post to ensure that it provides the high-quality service that Canadians expect at a reasonable price.

According to the mandate letter that the Prime Minister wrote to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, details of the review are being finalized. However there are three things I can say about it tonight.

First, this review will gather together all the pertinent facts around Canada Post in line with our government's commitment to evidence-based decision making.

Second, these facts will be shared with Canadians, because our government has set a higher bar for openness and transparency.

Third, through this review, the opinions and views of stakeholders, groups, everyday Canadians right across the country will be sought. This is in line with our government's commitment to consult widely and to pursue goals collaboratively. In other words, Canadians will have a say in the future of their postal service. Their concerns will be heard through what will be a thorough evidence-based process.

I hope all parliamentarians will encourage and be part of this national dialogue. I look forward to working with my colleague on this important subject.

Canadians have valued Canada Post highly for a long time. From a practical standpoint, this organization helps us connect with each other across our vast country. The government believes that, if we want to have a useful discussion on the future of Canada Post, Canadians should, as consumers, have a better understanding of the services offered by Canada Post, of the pressures the corporation is facing, and of its financial reality.

The review will ensure that Canadians have access to information about Canada Post. The corporation will also have a chance to participate in an informed discussion. Canadians and the government will make decisions about the future of Canada Post together.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Consulting the public directly is perfect. What worries me, however, is jobs. With the installation of community mailboxes and the new technology that has been brought in, I am worried about people's jobs.

Can my colleague reassure me that there will be no job cuts at Canada Post?

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's plan to convert door-to-door delivery has been suspended since last fall pending the outcome of a review of the corporation.

This government is committed to an open, transparent, evidence-based review that will cover all aspects of Canada Post and will allow all Canadians to have a say in the choices that are made concerning Canada Post.

The review will help ensure that Canada Post is providing the high-quality services that Canadians expect, at a reasonable price.

Taxation

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise this evening to discuss my question of December 9 regarding the Prime Minister's use of taxpayers dollars for two nannies to care for his three children. Before I begin, I would like to thank my wonderful colleagues for sitting with me tonight, and for all their support and encouragement.

At the outset, I do understand the Prime Minister's needs for child care and I do not want to negate that fact. However, throughout the 2015 election, he campaigned against the universal child care benefits and said that he would donate any monies received through the universal child care benefit to charity.

He stated numerous times, both in this chamber and during the recent election, that the child care benefit should not go to rich families like his. Then immediately after the election, without consultation with Canadians or Parliament, he backpedalled, and decided instead that a rich family like his should indeed have child care paid for by Canadians.

I understand that the Prime Minister has a special budget to pay for these types of household expenses, and I do respect that. However, throughout 2015, he constantly carried on about the universal child care benefit and how wealthy families should not receive it, and then moments after the purse strings were handed over to him, he doled out the money for nannies.

In fact, many Canadians contacted me after my question to support these concerns. One comment in particular specifically asked that I never stop fighting this outrageous spending with no regard for Canadians who could not afford to pay for this spending.

As a member of the official opposition, I will continue to hold the government to account for the spending and misspending of taxpayer dollars. I will continue to work on behalf of my constituents and all Canadians to ensure the government is held accountable.

As members of Parliament, we must not waste taxpayers money. Just because a benefit is available to an MP or in this case to the Prime Minister does not mean we should take advantage of tax dollars and spend Canadian taxpayers hard-earned money.

Even when running my own household, I know that a few extra dollars here and there should not just be spent for the sake of spending. It should be money spent well, not just spent, as we see in this situation.

The Prime Minister's lack of accountability is more apparent each and every day. Whether it was his campaign promise that deficits would be no more than $10 billion per year for three years, which we now hear may be over $30 billion for next fiscal year alone; or that he would balance the budget by 2019; or that the debt-to-GDP ratio would go down every year; or that the promised refugee resettlement plan that has now ballooned to 50,000, the Prime Minister is clearly unable to keep his promises.

How can Canadians trust the government and the Prime Minister to manage the country when the Liberals have proven that they will say and promise one thing and then do the complete opposite.

As elected officials, we must respect taxpayer dollars. Promising and campaigning on one thing then doing another is not respecting taxpayers or their dollars.

As my colleague, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot asked earlier this week in the House, why is the Liberal plan to spend, spend, spend?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House this evening to respond to my colleague's question. The Prime Minister and his wife have three young children. As such, the needs of his family are very different from those of the former prime minister's family. The roles of the staff who support the Prime Minister and his family have been altered to better suit the family's needs and priorities. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that the changes to the staffing structure will not result in an increase to the household budget.

As a mother of three myself, I am proud to be a member of this government. We have committed to helping Canadian families who need it most. In the upcoming budget, the Minister of Finance will introduce the Canada child benefit, which would put more money into the pockets of nine out of ten families and help them raise their children. It would also help lift more than 300,000 children out of poverty. Unlike the previous government's unfair policies, which favoured higher-income families, the Canada child benefit is larger, monthly, tax-free, and tied to income, so it would provide the greatest support to low-income families and single-parent households.

I also want to stress that ensuring all families have access to affordable and quality child care is a priority of this government. In case the member opposite is unaware, I would like to inform her about the meeting that the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development had earlier this month with his provincial counterparts to move forward on this important issue. This government understands the need to work with our provincial and territorial partners to design a framework for child care that meets the needs of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In the absence of past federal leadership, the provinces have been required to move forward with crafting their own child care programs. I am proud to say that they now have a partner with this government.

Like the Prime Minister, I am a parent and understand all too well the pressures of raising children while juggling a busy career. I hope my colleague across the aisle can agree that we can and must do more to support modern Canadian families. I invite her to join us in this important work.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I totally respect where this member is coming from. I am the mother of five children, so I too understand the balance we need to have, as not only a mother but a family member, to ensure that everybody has this.

My point, though, is that the actions of the Prime Minister were extremely hypocritical. If this is someone who I entrust to running this country, I need to believe his words. I believe that the Prime Minister's words were empty at the time that he was criticizing the previous government and our universal child care benefit.

As I indicated earlier, it is not just about the funds being there. It is about the Canadian taxpayers who are funding this, and it is about money being used wisely and respecting Canadian tax dollars. That is one thing I have a concern with. If this were something that all Canadians had, I would fully respect it. However, my biggest issue, as I said, is the Prime Minister's lack of respect for the universal child care benefit that he constantly criticized. Yet, when the opportunity came for him to dole out money for himself, he was able to do so. I respect the need for child care, especially for hard-working families, and I respect the Prime Minister. However, at the same time this is not due action.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the changes in the structure of the Prime Minister's household staff reflect the needs of his young family. The Prime Minister values the Canadian taxpayer. As such, the changes will not result in an increase to his household budget.

As I said before, I am proud of the work that our government is undertaking to better support Canadian families. The Canada child benefit will give more money to nine out of ten families and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. We are also working in partnership with our provinces and territories to address the critical issue of providing high-quality affordable child care.

As a parent herself, I am sure the member opposite agrees that it is our responsibility as elected officials to do all that we can to support Canadian families. I would repeat my invitation for her to join us in this work by supporting the Canada child benefit.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Comox MCTS is the third busiest marine traffic centre in Canada, handling an average of 900 marine accidents and emergencies per year, behind only Victoria and Halifax's.

When the government talks about consolidation of the Coast Guard, do not be fooled. It is talking about cuts, cuts to people's livelihood, cuts to safety, and cuts to service that would impact smaller communities across the beautiful riding of North Island—Powell River and the B.C. coastline.

When such a drastic change is made, I would assume that the homework is done, that a plan is made, stakeholders are consulted, and personnel changes are taken into account, and the risks are assessed.

I want to take a minute to talk about the associated risks and the necessity of risk assessments in this case. Prince Rupert and Victoria, the two projected remaining MCTS centres, both lie in tsunami hazard zones. The Comox station is in a safe zone and during an earthquake would not face an evacuation due to a tsunami. The Liberal plan would leave the two communication stations to be evacuated during a major earthquake, potentially leaving the entire B.C. coast without any Coast Guard communications coverage.

Risk assessments are generally a simple calculation of two components: the magnitude of the potential loss and the probability that the loss will occur.

The coast of British Columbia is on the ring of fire. Earthquakes happen frequently up and down the coast. Being prepared for the potential of a large earthquake and the resulting likelihood of a tsunami is part of our makeup. British Columbians know the probability of a tsunami.

Within this context, I want to make sure that the government is doing its homework. The Comox MCTS base should be staffed for the emergencies inherent in a seismic event. When the Conservatives decided not to do a risk assessment, common sense went flying out the window and the voters voted them out.

Will the government make sure that a risk assessment is done before the closure? Will it protect communications coverage in B.C. in case of a seismic event?

I am proud to have met the members of the Coast Guard; I know the excellent work they do day and night.

I also wonder if the government has assessed the reality that the radio sites are limited on the screen. This means that the radio coverage cannot be expanded to watch all the sites. We have heard that the staff have been trained and have the appropriate resources. However, when the Tofino centre was closed, only two of those three positions were moved to Prince Rupert. This is simply about logistics. If there are not eyes, if there are not enough screens, and the screens do not hold all the images, how are we safe? How are our ocean and coast line protected? The new government had a chance to review the Conservative decisions, consult with people, and make decisions in that context.

The British Columbia coast offers some of the most breathtaking scenery in this country. I love my riding. The coast line that I represent is full of many islands and remote coastal communities, which are populated. Often, for the small and remote communities, the communication station is their only connection, as there are not phone lines or cellphone access in that area. Local knowledge is key when faced with these challenges.

People on the coast want to see strong safety and emergency measures in place. The specifics of living in this part of the country expose us to some hazards, but we know we can count on the Coast Guard to be there. Our very lives depend on it.

I represent people in these communities. We have grown up with a very proud sense of local knowledge. This cannot be lost. The local Comox MCTS amassed an understanding of our region, observed and understands local weather.

How can the minister claim that this is not a big loss for our region?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, the top priority of our Canadian Coast Guard is the safety of mariners, recreational boaters, and fishers.

The Canadian Coast Guard marine communications and traffic services centres monitor for distress calls and safety calls and broadcast maritime safety information such as weather and navigational warnings. They also provide information and advice to regulate vessel traffic movement, and take the appropriate action to ensure the safe and efficient movement of vessels.

The modernization and consolidation of our marine communications and traffic services centres has brought our Coast Guard communication control equipment into the 21st century alongside other developed nations.

The Government of Canada invested in the Coast Guard's infrastructure to take advantage of today's technology in order to deliver marine communications and traffic services at strategic locations across the country.

Navigational and communications technologies have changed a lot over the past decade. Even though the control equipment at the marine traffic centres was still working, it had become outdated.

The services provided by the centres are now more reliable thanks to the new technology that replaced the 1980s technology, which had become too difficult to maintain.

These investments help optimize resources while ensuring offshore safety.

Although there are fewer centres, coverage remains exactly the same, but is now supported by the 21st century communication control equipment. At present, we have successfully consolidated nine of 10 marine communications and traffic services centres.

The centres do not need to be physically located near the coast, since officers at these centres collect information through radio and radar rather than line of sight.

The consolidation efforts and the marine communications and traffic services operations are moving along as planned, and officers at the centres are more effective. Marine communications and traffic services officers are certified professionals with a high level of training. Before they begin monitoring, officers go through a rigorous six-month training course at the Canadian Coast Guard College and study different geographic areas of responsibility. They then receive intensive training on the ground and must demonstrate their professional expertise, skills, and knowledge before moving on to active service.

The Canadian Coast Guard increased staffing levels at many of the modernized centres, which are all staffed by professionals who provide rescue services to mariners 24 hours a day.

I would like to thank the professionals for the incredible and difficult jobs they do each and every day.

We are also pleased that the committee will carry out a study of the marine services centres.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to have already made up his mind on the imminent closure of the Comox MCTS. Why does he not just level with the House?

Last week, the fisheries committee approved a study on this issue. Why are the minister, his staff, and the Coast Guard not interested to find out the different implications of the closure? Clearly they do not want to do their homework. Why can they not wait for the findings of the committee before deciding on the future action for this vital centre?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, once again, our marine communications and traffic services centres have been modernized with 21st-century equipment, which is more reliable and helps officers provide vital safety services more efficiently.

This new technology is essential for the highly skilled and professional team of the centres and provides them with the tools that they need to continue delivering essential services to mariners.

I visited some of these centres with the minister a few weeks ago. I was very impressed by our visits and the competent staff at these centres. They showed us that the new technology is important to them and works well. I believe that the centres, as they currently exist, benefit from this new technology, which will be very helpful for mariners, boaters, and the people who use the waterways daily.

[The Deputy 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 6:45 p.m.)