Debates of Nov. 6th, 2017

Environment

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, we have been studying the issue since 2016 and want to make sure that we have the right answers to give waterway users.

Our government is committed to maintaining a safe and sustainable transportation system that preserves the public's right to navigate while promoting economic development. The review of the Navigation Protection Act is part of a larger strategy to review the legislation and processes that apply to development projects.

Canadians have shared their views with us regarding the aspects of navigation protection that are important to them. We are taking a transparent approach to implementing these propositions with a view to restoring lost protections, establishing partnerships with indigenous people and preserving the public's right to navigate our waterways, just as we had promised in our platform.

National Defence

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address a question I raised originally on June 5.

First. this is the beginning of Veterans Week and I want to take the time to thank all our veterans for their sacrifice and for their service during wartime and times of peace. They are the ones who have given us our rights and our liberties. They are the ones who have protected our democracy and have ensured that Canada is peaceful and prosperous.

I want to thank the current members of the Canadian Armed Forces because they are the ones who are protecting us today. They are standing on the wall, they are in the air, and they are on the sea, ensuring we are safe each and every day, 24/7. Often, they are not just defending our sovereignty, but they are also out there as part of coalitions, working with our allies. They are right now fighting ISIS during Operation Impact in Iraq and Syria. Also many of our people are involved in NATO's Operation Reassurance, 450 troops serving right now in Latvia in the enhanced forward position. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces are in Ukraine in Operation Unifier. Of course, there are many other missions around the world, including UN peacekeeping missions and other operations in which Canadians are serving.

Finally, I want to thank the military families for standing by their loved ones who have served and who are currently serving. They are the force multiplier that make it possible for us to have a Canadian Armed Forces.

On June 5, in question period, I asked questions about the replacement of our CF-18s. As I have said in this place, the Liberals have turned our fighter jet replacement program into a circus.

Going back in time, first it was the Prime Minister's ill-advised campaign promise not to buy the F-35. To then live up to that campaign promise, the government had to dream up an imaginary capability gap and change the numbers on planes required, which had not been used in the past or based on any proper research by the Defence Research and Development Canada. The Liberals then said they would sole source 18 Super Hornets from Boeing. Then, of course, Boeing and Bombardier got into a fight over a trade deal with the C Series, and the government decided it would not buy the Super Hornets. Now the Liberals are talking about buying used legacy Hornets, the F-18s, similar planes we bought in Canada and are in Australia. They said that they were going to use those planes.

The Australians are not in the position yet to provide those planes to Canada. The auditor general in Australia has said that its planes have major issues, including corrosion, limitations on flying manoeuvres, and are higher than that of the U.S. to having fatigue. All of this presents significant risks for the F-18 fleet in Australia. Canada is now looking at buying this plane.

As I have said before, the only way we can fix this is to get to an open competition right now. Let us get the best plane for the Royal Canadian Air Force. Let us ensure we get the best plane for our aerospace industry and its workers. Let us ensure we get the best plane in the interests of Canadian taxpayers.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We both want to make sure that the men and women in our armed forces are properly equipped. What he and I do not agree on is how to reach that goal.

On November 22, 2016, our government announced its plan for replacing Canada's CF-18 fighters jets. Pursuant to the mandate our government has been given, we will undertake an open and transparent competition to permanently replace the CF-18. This competition will be launched during the current term and we will ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the equipment they need for many years to come.

However, in the meantime, Canada must remain a dependable ally. Through NORAD, we have established a strong and important defence relationship with our closest ally and number one commercial partner, the United States. Canada is also an important member of NATO and, as such, we need to always be ready to make a significant contribution to alliance missions. Our commitments to NORAD and NATO are cornerstones of Canada's defence policy. These are missions in which Canada must be successful.

To that end, we have decided to consider acquiring an interim fleet to complement the existing CF-18s until the permanent replacement fleet is fully in place. We are actively looking at the possibility of acquiring 18 Super Hornet fighters or surplus F-18 fighters and parts from Australia. No decision has been made yet. Once we have all the information, the various options will be reviewed to determine whether they meet our requirements and are acceptable for Canada in terms of capability, cost, schedule, and economic value.

Beyond allowing Canada to meet its NORAD and NATO commitments, the interim fleet will mitigate the risks associated with our dependence on our current CF-18 fleet and with any delay in the competition for the acquisition of the permanent replacement fleet. An open and transparent competition can take time.

What is more, we want to make sure that the industry can fully take part in the process. Our government will keep its word and undertake, as promised, an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18. We are determined to get the best value for taxpayers, to create good jobs and to bring economic benefits for Canadians.

We also want to make sure that Canada remains a dependable ally and that our armed forces have all the equipment they need to accomplish the missions we ask of them.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has said that we will have an open and fair competition, that it is a promise the government has made. We are two years into the Liberal mandate and it has not bought one fighter jet yet. It has not made a decision on which fighter jets to buy. If it really wants to deal with the so-called capability gap, the quickest way it can fix it right now is to get on with the competition. There is no reason why we are sitting around talking about this when all the interim purchases it was going to get, whether the Super Hornet from Boeing or the older rusted out F-18s from Australia, is going to work.

Therefore, let us get on with the competition and ensure we get the best plane for taxpayers, the best plane for our pilots, the best plane that will work with our industry, and ensure we meet the requirements and our responsibilities with NORAD and NATO.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will undertake an open and transparent competition for the acquisition of a permanent fleet.

In the meantime, we want to ensure the safety of Canada and North America by working with the United States and NORAD and we want to meet our commitments. That is why we want to acquire an interim fleet that will allow the government to meet all its commitments around the world while taking into account the cost, the capability we need and the schedule. Most importantly, we want to do business with companies that are friends of Canada and are not hostile to our aerospace market, as some have been.

Public Services and Procurement

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House today, the 150th anniversary of the first-ever sitting of our federal Parliament. For most of those 150 years, the Government of Canada had no great difficulty paying its employees.

The Phoenix payroll system is a huge embarrassment not only in terms of the Government of Canada's history, but also in comparison to other countries and to provincial and municipal governments that have no great difficulty paying their employees correctly and on time.

A lot has already been said in this place about the problems with Phoenix, so I do not want to focus on repeating those stories this evening. What I would like to do is put forward three concrete solutions to the Phoenix boondoggle, and I would be very interested in hearing the government's responses to these proposals.

The first solution is to develop and make use of the expertise that exists within our federal public service. A big part of the problem with Phoenix was the notion of contracting out quite complex federal government payrolls. I fear the other chamber of Parliament, the Senate, is going even further down the road of contracting out by trying to find an alternative supplier for its payroll system. Certainly, I understand the Senate's frustration with Phoenix, but yet more contracting out is not the way to go. We need to rebuild a publicly administered system, and that includes better utilizing a lot of the competence that already exists. For example, at Shared Service Canada, there are a huge number of employees with a lot of expertise in PeopleSoft, which is essentially the Phoenix program. Yet these workers have not been directed to focus on solving the Phoenix problem. They are doing other things. Let us recognize the urgency of the problem and make use of employees in the federal public service who already have expertise that is quite relevant to solving that problem.

The second solution to the Phoenix boondoggle I would like to present is empowering managers in departments and agencies to write cheques to employees whom they know are not being paid. Every employee's first paycheque is a paper cheque, because it is recognized that it takes time to incorporate people into an automated system, so the Government of Canada obviously has the capacity to write cheques. Managers know how much their employees should be getting paid. If someone is not getting paid, rather than allowing them to miss mortgage payments and lose their home, why are we not empowering managers to simply cut them a cheque?

The third solution is creating a hotline for our MP offices so our staff are able to contact the Phoenix pay centre and help constituents who come to us with these pay problems.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I thank once again my friend from Regina—Lewvan for his very constructive arguments throughout this debate. I commend him for that.

Specifically on the member's suggestions, first, in terms of rebuilding capacity in IT in the public service, that is a recommendation the government accepts. We continue to build on that capacity. I do not want to cite a number as authoritative, but we have enlisted in the area of 25 to 30 computer science specialists in the effort to bring technical and technological enhancements to Phoenix. Indeed, we are working on making sure that this capacity continues to maintain and improve the Phoenix pay system inside of the public service.

Second, on managers writing cheques, we have a system, as the member may know, of emergency pay advances. It is a very simple process, and again, I do not want to speak authoritatively because heaven knows there are always exceptions, but anyone who is not receiving a paycheque has ready access to these emergency pay advances. Managers in departments and HR folks can make sure they get those resources.

Third, the hotline is something we have struggled with. I invite the member and all members to forward particularly troublesome or nettlesome cases to my attention. There is a triage system, and we have to make sure, obviously, that the worst cases go first, which is what we are endeavouring to do. I would offer to the member, as I would offer to any member of this House, that we would verify anything identified by him or any other MP as a nettlesome case.

I want to reflect on a few things with respect to Phoenix. Of course, this government has an ardent desire to make sure that we get to the end of the problems associated with the Phoenix pay system, which is what we are working on every day. It is what I wake up very motivated to do on any given day. We are getting to the bottom of these issues. We have invested significant resources and are doing significant work in rebuilding that capacity, which was so drastically torn away from the HR and pay communities in the Government of Canada by the previous government when it sacked 700 public servants, the very people required to do an IT transformation of the scope and scale of Phoenix.

There is no shortage of cynicism on the part of public servants when they see the other place, the Senate, and the hon. member identified this issue, populated by senators appointed by Mr. Harper, whom the leader of the opposition is refusing to call to order and say that public servants are seeing them as trying to get away from the problems they helped create, and that it is unacceptable to him. It is unacceptable to us as well. We work hard with departments in trying to solve their problems, and the Senate should stick with the program.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary seems to suggest that the emergency pay system is simple and working properly, which is clearly not the case. We have instances of federal public servants losing their homes, because they cannot make mortgage payments. One of the fundamental problems is that emergency pay is essentially a loan that the employee has to pay back. In fact, what we should be doing is writing cheques and crediting them against the pay that employees are owed rather than expecting them to return the money later on.

On the whole issue of a hotline for MPs' offices, I think it is a very important point. Constituents come to our constituency offices expecting service, and if they need help with immigration or EI, there is usually a number our staff can call to help resolve the problem. There is no such number for the Phoenix pay system, which is something I proposed eight months ago and would like to see.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the member and this House that these problems are a major preoccupation of the government. We continue to work away at implementing these collective agreements that the previous government did not negotiate. We were having to negotiate agreements with our public servants, agreements that were on the verge of expiry because the previous government let all agreements not only expire, but to go well past their deadlines. We are now implementing those, which is, of course, added to the very large volume of work engendered by the Phoenix pay system.

We are getting on top of it. We are very confident that once these collective agreements are implemented, we will then be able to make continuous improvement in the system, which I know the member is seeking. They are certainly improvements that I am very motivated to secure.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

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 7:26 p.m.)