Debates of Oct. 17th, 2018

Pension Benefits Standards Act

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join my colleagues in discussing private member's Bill C-405.

My hon. colleague mentioned Professor Jacob Ziegel at the University of Toronto. I would like to mention another one of his colleagues, having attended a number of his consumer and corporate law workshops over the years. My first law job was working on a pension task force in the Province of Ontario for Professor Martin Friedland, a colleague of Jake Ziegel. In that context, I got to know a lot about pensions and to know Cliff Pilkey very well. Here I would note that in addition to his prowess on pensions, he could also play a pretty mean game of pool.

We recognize as a government that there are difficulties with insolvencies and we are committed to getting feedback from pensioners, workers, companies, and lenders in order to move forward with a whole-of-government evidence-based approach to enhancing retirement security for all Canadians.

To put it briefly, the problem with a number of these ideas is that they attack one little point in a complex equilibrium, when in a defined pension plan a benefit is being promised in the future based on actuarial assumptions now. Therefore, there are a number of different challenges there, and merely focusing on one little part of the picture will not necessarily lead to a just or equitable result.

Bill C-405 would amend federal legislation dealing with pensions and insolvency. Other members will be addressing pension matters, and therefore I will instead focus on issues regarding insolvency and corporate restructuring.

Bill C-405 amends the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the CCAA, in order to prohibit approval by the courts of key employee retention plans, known as KERPs, which give incentives to some employees and directors so they will continue to work for an insolvent company, unless certain conditions are met, including: the employee retained must be vital to the company and the employee must have received an offer from a competitor. There will be a ceiling on any incentive offered.

Additionally, for companies with underfunded pensions, in order for a KERP to be approved by the courts, the bill would require that an agreement be reached by the company and the plan administrator to pay the unpaid pension contributions, which correspond to the normal payments that the company must regularly make to the pension fund.

The CCAA is an important marketplace law that supports the Canadian economy in a number of ways. The CCAA promotes the restructuring of financially distressed businesses over their liquidation where possible. This is a preferable outcome. While insolvency is an unfortunate fact in modern economies, a successful company restructuring can help minimize the negative impacts on the many affected parties, preserve company value, maintain jobs and supplier relationships, and allow companies to continue funding pensions and benefits. Therefore, in most cases, keeping the company viable over the long term is the best result for everyone, including pensioners.

Indeed, the CCAA has worked well, helping to prevent the failure of important companies, such as Air Canada, AbitibiBowater, and Stelco, which continue to operate and provide good jobs.

Where a viable restructuring plan is not possible, the CCAA provides a framework to maximize the value of company assets for equitable distribution to creditors and the preservation of jobs and business value in a timely, efficient and impartial manner, using a process that is transparent and predictable.

To address the issue of KERPs, it is useful to outline exactly how the CCAA works. This legislation allows companies in financial difficulty with debt of more than $5 million to negotiate a restructuring agreement with creditors by means of a process that has been tested, is well thought out, is set out in legislation and is part of established practices.

Procedurally, the courts oversee any restructuring carried out in accordance with the CCAA. This gives the courts considerable flexibility in dealing with particular cases and in taking action to facilitate negotiations and preserve the value of a company. All of this is vital to ensuring that the process is fair and is in the best interests of the public.

The CCAA provides for a stay of proceedings to prevent creditors from taking legal action and to allow the company to continue operating, paying its employees and providing services. In many cases, the company covers the legal fees for pensioners and other vulnerable groups to ensure that they are able to participate meaningfully in the negotiations.

Under the CCAA, creditors and the company may agree on a restructuring plan, but this plan must be voted on by creditors and then approved by the courts. As a result, we must look at the possibility of changing how KERPs are handled in the event of insolvency. We must remember that the CCAA does not expressly authorize the approval of KERPs.

The courts have inherent jurisdiction over case management and therefore have authority over the creation of KERPs. The courts have developed tests to determine whether a KERP would help make a restructuring successful.

The bill would reduce judicial discretion over the approval of key employee retention plans, which raises a number of problems.

First, given their precarious financial position, some companies might have a hard time retaining the necessary key employees to guide them in the process. A KERP could prevent a company from losing its employees and increase the chances of achieving a successful restructuring.

Second, when approving offers to employees, the courts look at whether the knowledge and skills of the retained employees are easily replaceable, whether the KERP has been approved by the court-appointed comptroller and whether key employees consider other options in the absence of a KERP.

When weighing these factors, the court will seek to strike a fair balance between competing interests and the creation of conditions conducive to a successful restructuring. It is preferable that this flexibility remain in the hands of the courts to ensure that it is used judiciously.

Third, we must also keep in mind the complexity of corporate restructuring. Indeed, no two cases are exactly alike. A great strength of the CCAA is its flexibility to allow parties to make a deal that suits their circumstances and interests. This flexibility is properly circumscribed by court supervision and the exercise of judicial discretion to balance competing interests in the proceeding. We must therefore consider whether restricting the flexibility of courts to act would support the important goal of promoting restructuring where possible.

Fourth, as described, the CCAA already provides a court-supervised process through which creditors may protect their interests during the proceedings. Creditors and other stakeholders, including employees and pensioners, may make representations to the court as to whether a KERP is appropriate in the circumstances.

Finally, while the bill links KERP approval to the payment of unremitted pension contributions, I note that the CCAA already provides an effective super-priority for these payments before a restructuring plan can be approved, which means they would be paid ahead of payments to key employees.

In sum, these proposed changes reduce the flexibility of courts based on particular situations and facts. These current flexibilities help to achieve the best outcome for the company and pensioners and they might conflict with important policy objectives.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the private member's bill, Bill C-405, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, pension plans, sponsored by the member for Oshawa. I want to thank the hon. member for acknowledging the bankruptcy and pension benefits act needs to be changed. However, this is the only thanks I will be giving him on this issue.

Over the last 10 years, we have seen an increased focus in the province with Canada's inadequate bankruptcy and insolvency laws. The cases of Nortel, Wabush Mines, Stelco and, most recently, Sears have brought into national focus the fact that workers at large companies that go bankrupt are offered very little protection from investors and banks. Sometimes international hedge fund operators make out like bandits.

As a solution to this problem to fix Canada's inadequate bankruptcy and insolvency laws, the measures outlined in the bill are in complete opposition to NDP proposals, policies, initiatives and values. The bill helps to make clear that the approach favoured by the Conservatives and ironically by the Liberal government is to protect the interests of large business and their investors, while throwing Canadian workers under the bus.

There are presently four private members' bills in Parliament that address the legislative crisis and present solutions for fixing those problems. Three are in favour of increasing protection for workers and retirees in the Canadian public. The bill stands alone as it focuses on protecting and increasing the advantages enjoyed by big business, the financial sector and well-off company executives.

Chris Roberts, policy director for the Canadian Labour Congress, sums it up neatly when he says, “Right now a number of private member bills in the House and Senate are trying to honour the pension promises made to workers and retirees. Bill C-405 is not one of these. This bill would make it easier for employers to walk away from their obligation, with the consent of only a minority of beneficiaries. This legislation goes in precisely the wrong direction.”

Many Canadian companies use our inadequate bankruptcy laws to effectively gain concessions from their employees and escape responsibility for often huge pension deficits they themselves have created. Workers are then left with the threat of reduced pension and health care benefits.

The bill would make it easier for employers to manipulate laws by allowing those with existing defined benefit pension plans to convert those plans to target benefit or defined contribution plans, which would transfer all the risk onto the employees. Employers would let off the hook and allowed to walk away from their responsibility to provide secure retirement benefits to their employees.

Workplace pensions are deferred wages that employees agree to put aside until their retirement. This is critical to understand. Allowing companies to walk away with these funds is theft, pure and simple. The measures in the bill are in stark opposition to the approach proposed by the NDP to fix Canada's flawed bankruptcy and insolvency laws that would actually protect the pensions and benefits of Canadian workers and retirees.

My bill, Bill C-384, Liberal Senator Art Eggleton's bill, Bill S-253, and the Bloc's bill, Bill C-372 present solutions that would actually protect the pension funds of Canadian workers and retirees when a large Canadian company goes bankrupt. Chief among the proposals presented in the two bills are measures to heighten the priority of paying back deficits to workers' pension funds to the same level as secured creditors. Currently those payments are only considered at the same level as unsecured creditors who often only receive pennies on the dollar for any monies they are owed.

One the most offensive things that happens during the bankruptcy proceedings is that executives give themselves huge bonuses. The very people who ran the company into the ground get big rewards and it is done because the law allows it to happen.

Nortel executives got over $200 million in bonuses. Sears executives got $9.2 million. Stelco executives got $1.2 5 million. When I tell that to people at the town halls I have been doing when I go across the country, people ask me if I am kidding them. I have to tell them that I am not, that this really happens because the law allows it to happen.

Canadians know this is not right and they are demanding that the laws be changed. Remember that this all happens while workers and retirees get their benefits cut off, employees lose vacation, severance and termination pay, and small suppliers get stiffed on money they are owed.

The proposals in this bill dealing with executive compensation would do nothing to prevent the excessive rewards handed out during bankruptcy proceedings. The many executives who are paid largely through stock options and bonuses would not be affected by the new rules laid out in this bill. Executive bonuses during bankruptcy proceedings should be outlawed, pure and simple. Why should executives get bonuses to begin with when workers are, at the same time, being asked to make concessions? This is so obvious to the majority of working Canadians and it is time that we change the laws to make this happen.

It is also time for the government to get serious about changing the laws it knows are hurting workers and retirees and are threatening the retirement security of Canadian seniors. This is not a new issue. The problem has been happening for decades. The Liberal Party even went so far as to pass a resolution at its last policy convention calling on its own government to provide pension security.

In 2009, at the height of the Nortel mess, the leader of the Liberal Party stood outside this building and told workers that he would do everything he could to make sure this kind of problem did not happen again, and during the 2015 election campaign, the current Prime Minister came to my city of Hamilton and told workers that he would use every tool in the tool box to change the laws and fix the problem. The Liberals did not tell the truth. They did not live up to their promises.

The disconnect between the government and the needs of Canadian workers is hard to understand. The innovation minister tells workers that he cares, but does nothing; the seniors minister tells Canadians she wants to come up with the right solution, but then refuses to consult anyone; and the Prime Minister has a “let them eat cake” moment and tells the Sears pensioners, who are losing 30% of their pensions, that they can rely on the CPP and El. They should be ashamed of themselves and the Conservatives should be embarrassed and ashamed to offer legislation that would further threaten the well-being of Canadian workers and retirees.

We were elected to the House to protect Canadians, not to allow their pensions to be stolen because of inadequate legislation. It is in our interest to prioritize the interests of Canadians when it comes to these bankruptcy proceedings to ensure that the company pays, not the pensioner and not the Canadian taxpayer. This bill would not do that, which is why the NDP cannot support Bill C-405.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, imagine someone who has worked for 30 some years and has contributed to their workplace pension from every paycheque during that time. Obviously, that plan would be their plan for their golden years. It is a pension that would help pay for some of their expenses and perhaps even give them a chance to enjoy a vacation or a few luxuries they perhaps did not have when they were a little younger. What happens if a year or two before retirement their company goes bankrupt? What happens when their company can no longer pay out the pension the person has been counting on for decades? Well, pensioners in Canada have seen this happen before. We saw it with Nortel, and recently with Sears. Those are two examples that come to mind.

The issue of pension shortfalls has certainly shaken Canadians' confidence in the sustainability of defined benefit pension plans. We cannot blame them. This is a nightmare that is facing many of these workers, and it is a long one. They probably have a lot of sleepless nights and spend a lot of time worrying how it will all work out in the end. They are not sure. They are wondering if it will force them to look at shelving their retirement plans and maybe returning to work for a long period of time, well past what they had anticipated. They may be thinking they should have perhaps saved a little more money for their retirement, but they thought they had this pension plan to rely upon. They wonder what they are going to do now. They wonder what happened to all the money they had invested into the pension plan. Those are the kinds of questions going though their heads.

That is why I am pleased to stand here today in support of my colleague, the member for Durham and his bill, Bill C-405. It addresses these concerns in a balanced sort of way.

I want to clear up some of the misconceptions we just heard regarding the legislation, because the bill would really aim to create peace of mind through flexibility, by making underfunded pension plans more nimble so that more benefits for pensioners could be recovered in these kinds of situations, in a balanced way.

The bill would also improve accountability and transparency by creating a more robust requirement for government agencies to report to Parliament and Canadians. Companies facing bankruptcy would also be prevented from exploiting loopholes or abusing certain rules that would allow for payouts to executives while the pensions are underfunded. Therefore, there is a delicate balance that needs to be achieved between addressing the concerns of sustainability of defined benefit pensions and not adversely affecting other creditors, the bottom lines of companies, etc. Both of those are important, and I believe that Bill C-405 seeks to address those issues in a balanced way.

It goes without saying that the best way to ensure the health of pensions and ensure retirement security for Canadian workers would be to keep companies in business. That is the ideal. It means we have to make sure we create a competitive field for companies to succeed. It means always looking at ways to lower taxes, which is obviously the opposite of what we have seen from the Liberal government, whether payroll taxes, carbon taxes, removal of tax credits, or going after small business owners by branding them as tax cheats and trying to gain more revenue out of them that way.

All of these things are the opposite of what we should be seeking to do as a government. It should be trying to make the opportunities easier for our job creators by lowering taxes and ensuring we are not putting up unnecessary roadblocks and barriers to their success. It certainly means not bringing in a job-killing carbon tax that would hurt Canadians' chances of getting a job, or the ability of businesses to compete and grow and therefore create more jobs.

However, I do not want to get too far down the line of the failures of the Liberal government, because we could talk for hours about that, so I will just move back a little more toward this unfortunate reality.

Despite the efforts made to ensure that we are creating a level playing field and giving opportunities to businesses to be competitive and to able to succeed and to create opportunities and jobs, sometimes companies will fail. Hard-working, loyal employees can be left in the dark in those situations. They can be unsure about the future of their pensions.

This bill would amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act of 1985 to authorize the administrator of a pension plan to amend an underfunded pension plan in certain situations, and to provide for the tabling of an annual report on the solvency of pension plans. Again, that is the transparency we are talking about.

The bill would also amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to add limitations on orders made to cover certain costs. Now, members might be asking how the bill would do that. Let me try to provide some answers.

The bill would add flexibility to the refinancing, replacement or amendment of terminated pension plans with unfunded liabilities, so that administrators can obtain the highest payments possible. That flexibility obviously would give them the ability to try to make sure that the best possible arrangement can be worked out.

It would also limit the degree to which large bonuses and pensions could be given to executives while pensions for regular workers go underfunded. We have all seen the headlines, like the Global News story from July 2017 that “Sears managers, executives get $9.2M in bonuses while thousands laid off”.

Obviously we have seen headlines like that, and it frustrates and angers anyone who sees them, other than maybe those people who were getting the bonuses, but that is a pretty small number of Canadians. We need to be focused on the workers, the people who are hearing about being laid off. It certainly is not fair to them. It is something that needs to be addressed; there is no doubt about that.

Previous arrangements with super priority, I do not think are an option. These arrangements create issues in the credit and bond markets that can lead to more insolvency, which obviously does not help anyone.

This week is Small Business Week when we think about small businesses. Many times, some of those other creditors can be small businesses. Because they are small, sometimes when they are dealing with a large company, it can be their only, or one of their only, customers. When small business owners are not able to get paid for the services or goods they are providing those businesses, it could drive some of those small businesses out of work. That means their families and employees would lose out. We have to be conscious of that as well. We need a plan that creates security and transparency for Canadians.

Another example in this area was Wabush Mines, which shut down in 2014. Their workers saw their pensions slashed by 21% to 25%, because their plan was not fully funded. Then the health benefits for 2,400 retirees were cut as well. Some of those workers saw cuts of more than $1,000 a month to their pensions. They worked hard for their benefits, and they were left with a lot less than they had planned for. In this case, there was no priority for pensions during the restructuring proceeding, and the pensions were underfunded. Proceedings took place and the pensions ended up being wound up after liquidation. That process meant that the fixed rate annuity then only paid the pensioners a small fraction of the total amount they had originally agreed to. Obviously, that is something we want to try to address.

That is what this bill does. It would provide greater flexibility for the administrator in situations like that to manage the funds of an underfunded pension at its windup. That would really help. It is something that could have been done already if this bill had been in place. They could have purchased a variable annuity or could have created a group plan that would utilize economies of scale and help pool the risk. Both of those options would have produced higher returns for those pensioners over time. That is what they would have ended up with under this bill.

We can look at other cases, such as Nortel, Sears, Target and others. People were caught by surprise that the pensions were underfunded. The transparency and accountability that Bill C-405 would help in that regard. At the very least, there would obviously be greater transparency and accountability, but there would also be the flexibility and nimbleness needed to address these issues.

I certainly hope all members of the House will choose to support a bill that would be able to address those issues for workers in a balanced kind of way so we can give the nimbleness and flexibility needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and share some thoughts and opinions on what is before the House.

This afternoon, we are debating Bill C-405. It is somewhat interesting to note that the legislation is coming from an individual who I would classify as a fairly influential member of the official opposition. For a number of years, I sat on the opposition benches and the member sat on the government benches both as a backbencher and in cabinet.

Back then I did get the chance to talk about pensions on a number of occasions. I would have thought the member, who has proposed this legislation, would have had a bit more clout back then to have brought forward some of the changes he has proposed today. This issue is not new. It has been around for many years.

I sympathize with workers who find themselves in the difficult position of possibly facing bankruptcy, or a realignment of companies, or trying to manage their financial affairs. This will have a profound impact on them and their pensions.

I listened to my NDP friend who I thought was a little unfair in his criticism toward the government. He tried to give a false impression to Canadians. Our government has been very progressive with respect to dealing with pension-related issues and maybe that is a good way for me to start off tonight.

The Prime Minister went to Hamilton and to many different locations to talk about pension issues. I have also talked about this. We realize just how important pensions are to Canadians.

A number of years ago, when I was a MLA, I was walking along a picket line with some of my brothers within the union movement in Manitoba. I want to refer to the private sector in particular. I was shocked that people would work for decades and receive very little pension. What came to mind was the need for a national government to take the issues of pension and pension security seriously.

Canadians are dependent on the private sector to continue to cultivate and grow the economy with incentives at times from government, and it has seen relative success over the last couple of years.

When I came to Ottawa in 2010, this was an important issue for me. In my years in opposition I would try to hold the government of the day accountable for some of its decisions and lack of action on this important file. The Harper government did not step up at all. Let me give a few examples.

Many of us who were around at the time will recall when former prime minister Stephen Harper was somewhere in Europe and announced that his government would increase the age of retirement to 67 from 65. He was not even in the country. I suspect I might have been the first member in the House of Commons to talk about that, even though it was not substantiated.

We have a Prime Minister who made a commitment when he was the leader of the third party inside the chamber that the Liberals would fix that issue, because the Conservatives, in making that decision, were putting the livelihoods of many thousands of seniors at great risk as they started to edge toward retirement. Therefore, one of the first actions we took as a government was to reduce the age from 67 to 65 for OAS recipients, and that applied to everyone.

However, not wanting to settle for just that, there were a number of other initiatives that were taken. How many times have I had the good fortune to be able to stand inside this House in the last couple of years and talk about this government, led by our Prime Minister, and our approach to the guaranteed income supplement? Imagine the poorest of our seniors in every region of the country getting a substantial increase because of that policy change.

Then we talked about Sears and the many other employees, the hardships and anxiety that had been caused, and those who are in the workforce today who want to ensure they have pensionable monies going forward. Our government will do what it can with respect to companies like Sears. We are very sympathetic to that.

I truly believe that where there is progress to be made we will make that progress. A good demonstration of that is the CPP. For years we had a federal government that closed its eyes to it, and when we—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain is rising on a point of order.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are here to talk about Bill C-405 with respect to pension theft. What the hon. member is doing over there is talking about anything except that. I am wondering if he could get back on track, never mind about all the stuff the Liberals had done before, and talk about what they are going to do today.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I will remind hon. members that I have listened to a number of speeches in the House and members often bring in stories or take a roundabout way of getting to a point. Therefore, I will leave it with the hon. parliamentary secretary. I am sure he will bring it back to where it belongs. He has about a minute and a half left, so I will let him wrap things up.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the member did not stand up when we were talking about a price on pollution.

This is absolutely relevant. The workers from Sears, and others, are going to have protection going forward with respect to the CPP and what the government is doing on that particular file. We have negotiated an agreement with the different provinces and stakeholders so that workers in every region of our country will have more when it comes time for retirement.

With respect to the issue relating specifically to the legislation, we have had a parliamentary secretary address the specifics of it. We have indicated we have a government that is very sensitive to it and is following the file. It is not one department but a number of departments that are engaged with it.

We recognize that the legislation was brought forward in a private member's piece and it will ultimately come to a vote. I understand the New Democrats are going to be voting against the legislation because they have some preferred legislation that they would like to see.

At the end of the day we need to look at the bigger picture. I believe that we have a government that has demonstrated very clearly that it is concerned about pensions. I gave several examples of that. That caring attitude will continue even when it comes to the issues that have been raised today with respect to businesses restructuring and bankruptcy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

Government Spending

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I am honoured to participate in the adjournment debate. I know that close to 2.2 million people are tuning in tonight.

Before the G7 summit began, I asked questions about what was going to happen, because the people of Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix were calling me for information. The G7 summit took place, and we could say that Charlevoix will go down in history for two reasons: the security and the photos.

First, security was so tight that some of our businesses are still having trouble staying afloat. Second, the summit resulted in some great photos. Obviously, we all know that the Prime Minister loves posing for photos. Honestly, it put Charlevoix on the map.

Some businesses in my riding did manage to benefit from the G7 summit. In particular, I am thinking of Manoir Charlevoix and Bistro Chez Truchon, which hosted the Prime Minister's family and his royal guests.

Baie-Saint-Paul is located about 30 minutes from La Malbaie. Security was so tight that tourists could not visit Charlevoix.

Restaurant owners were upset because their revenue was way down. The acts of vandalism everyone expected never happened, but even so, a number of Quebec City businesses experienced major financial losses during the G7 summit. The authorities expected demonstrations, so streets downtown and in Baie-Saint-Paul were deserted.

Business owners in Baie-Saint-Paul are now looking for compensation, and they are threatening to sue Ottawa. I told them they could not do it alone and should get together to tally their losses. I will always stand by the people of Charlevoix. I congratulate those who struck gold at the G7 summit, but I also speak on behalf of those who got nothing, so I will fight for them.

What is the status of compensation for the G7 summit?

[Matt DeCourcey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House what a tremendous success the G7 summit in Charlevoix was. During the summit, we were able to see just how proud the people of Charlevoix were to welcome representatives from around the world and show them how beautiful their region is and how it is a source of Canadian pride.

Our government actively communicated with local representatives before this global event. In May, the Prime Minister went to Charlevoix to meet with the community and local leaders.

I would also like to add that this summit generated economic spinoffs for the region that will continue to be felt long after this world event. For example, the investments we made in local infrastructure will directly benefit the community. We invested $15 million in modernizing the cellular network. That was a very important legacy of the G7 summit. In that regard, I would like to quote the reeve of the Charlevoix-Est RCM and mayor of Saint-Siméon, Sylvain Tremblay, who said, and I quote:

We would likely not have seen investments like that for decades, and that is no exaggeration. This is a very important legacy. We expected investments to be made, but this means that we have entered the 21st century with the same tools as everyone else.

My colleague expressed her concerns about compensation for local businesses. I would like to immediately reassure her: the compensation policies for local businesses affected are the same ones that were in effect under the Harper Conservatives in 2010. We have a program to compensate commercial businesses, non-profits and individuals affected by extraordinary security measures, which was the case during this summit. We received the applications and we are currently evaluating them.

With regard to compensation, my colleague seems to have a short memory. In 2012, two years after the 2010 G8 summit, the Harper government was still processing $11 million in claims for compensation. It was even said at the time that big companies were paid before small ones.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite.

The G7 obviously generated significant economic spinoffs. There were legacy projects, but they do not work. They spent $18 million on towers, but Saint-Urbain still has no cellular network. It does not work. The mayor and reeve, Ms. Claudette Simard, expressed her disappointment concerning the solution provided by the G7.

The member spoke about 2012, but with all due respect, I was not here. However, the G7 was held in my riding, and I was there even though I was not invited. I went to see it with my own eyes. There were some success stories, but there are still—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Matt DeCourcey]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it bears repeating that the compensation policies for affected local businesses are the same as the ones in place under Mr. Harper's Conservative government when it hosted the G8 in 2010. When they organized the G8 summit in 2010, the Conservatives were still analyzing more than $11 million worth of compensation claims. Thus, we do not need to take any lessons from them.

The G7 summit was a major event that greatly benefited the region and Canada as a whole. The residents of Charlevoix and all Canadians should be proud.

Natural Resources

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Liberal government talks a big game on combatting climate change, but is incapable of following through with the actions required to achieve results. Canada pretended to be a world leader during the Paris Agreement negotiations by pushing to limit global temperature increases to 1.5° instead of 2°. Instead of living up to our end of the deal, we then just adopted Harper's emissions targets and, even then, we are not on track to achieve that.

Just two days ago, the House of Commons had an emergency debate on climate change, because we are heading toward catastrophic irreversible environmental damage. Look at all the signs: unprecedented forest fires, record flooding, increases in radical weather patterns, acidification of oceans and melting ice caps. Whether it is the Auditor General of Canada or the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, when the so-called Liberal plan is measured up, it comes up short again and again. When pressed on it, the Liberals just blame the Conservatives. Surely, the government knows that blaming the Conservatives for its lack of leadership just does not cut it anymore. The time to take real and significant action is now.

The IPCC report was clear. To meet our goals under the Paris Agreement, we need to lower our emissions to 325 million tonnes by 2030. According to the government's own performance report, we will only get down to 500 million tonnes. We are not even close. We are not close because, despite all the lofty rhetoric and the overused talking points about the economy and the environment going hand in hand, the government is still operating on Harper's goalposts. The Liberals approved the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion under Harper's process, and we are told by the Federal Court of Appeal that the National Energy Board's review failed to include the increase in tanker traffic and its negative impact for endangered killer whales.

The Auditor General also confirmed in May that the current Liberal government, despite its campaign promise to do so, has no intention of abolishing fossil fuel subsidies. In fact, not only will the subsidies continue, but the Liberal government has taken things even further, purchasing a 65-year-old leaky pipeline for $4.5 billion. Just weeks after I asked in question period about finally following through on its promise to end these subsidies, the government agreed to pay Kinder Morgan's two senior executives an additional $1.5 million just to stay in their jobs, as part of the deal. According to the company's documents, one of the executives, Ian Anderson, was paid nearly $2.9 million last year in salary, stock awards and other compensation, and that was only from June through to December 2017.

I can safely say, on behalf of taxpayers from coast to coast, that governments should not be using public funds to pad the bank accounts of ultra-wealthy executives, especially not fossil fuel industry executives, when we are facing the stark realities outlined in the IPCC report. When will the government end the corporate payouts and subsidies to big polluters? When will the government follow through on its promise to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry?

[Paul Lefebvre, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Vancouver East feels very passionate about this topic and she has tried to articulate her concerns very well.

However, our government is equally passionate about our vision for Canada, a vision that includes our commitment with our G20 partners to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. It is also a vision that includes investing in economic prosperity, enhancing environmental performance and advancing indigenous partnerships.

The Trans Mountain expansion project has the potential to create thousands of good, middle-class jobs, including many jobs for indigenous peoples; open new markets for Canada's resources; and ensure a fair global price for our Canadian oil. Right now, Canadian oil is being sold at a $50 per barrel discount on the market, which is something the NDP appears to be satisfied to see continue.

The TMX investment will strengthen our economy and generate billions of dollars in new revenues for all government levels. This is why our government approved the project, and that is why we ultimately chose to purchase Trans Mountain's existing assets.

The member opposite forgets that millions of hard-working Canadians invest in the country's stock market every day, either directly or through their mutual funds and RRSPs. Canadians are shareholders in Canadian assets also.

The member also forgets that the Trans Mountain pipeline is an asset, and a sound investment generating hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenues. However, as the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Natural Resources have said, our goal is not to be the long-term owner of a pipeline. We expect to sell our stake at the appropriate time.

In the meantime, we remain committed to doing the hard work necessary to move forward the right way, by following the guidance provided in the Federal Court of Appeal's decision. That is why the Minister of Natural Resources has instructed the National Energy Board to reconsider its recommendation and to take into account the environmental impacts of marine shipping related to this project. That is why we have relaunched our government's phase III consultations with indigenous groups affected by the project, and doing so with the help of former Supreme Court Justice, the Hon. Frank Iacobucci, who will provide the best possible external advice and perspective in support of a meaningful consultation process. All of this is in accordance with the direction provided by the Federal Court of Appeal.

As the Prime Minister said in his original response to the member opposite, “We are committed to growing the economy and protecting the environment at the same time.”

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot understand that we cannot suck and blow at the same time. We cannot spend billions of dollars propping up the fossil fuel industry while claiming to be a leader in combatting climate change.

We at the NDP understand that the environment and the economy can work together. However, that means investing in just transitions for energy workers toward a future in sustainable energy. It is not continuing to subsidize fossil fuel industries. It is not buying leaky pipelines so that fat-cat shareholders keep getting their dividend cheques. It is investing in Canadian workers and Canadian entrepreneurs to develop, implement and obtain careers in green energy initiatives that will allow us to meet and exceed our emission reduction targets. Why is this so difficult for the Liberal government to understand?

By the way, the Liberals cannot say they have meaningful consultation with the indigenous community when they have already made the decision.

[Paul Lefebvre]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member opposite to read the whole decision on TMX and not just the parts that she agrees with.

The member's comments remind me of something the Prime Minister said the last time she raised this issue. It is worth repeating here, because I think it illustrates how wide the gulf is in this House. The Prime Minister said that “The NDP and Conservatives still think there is a choice to be made”, between the economy and the environment.

They are wrong. They are making a false choice. Economic growth and environmental protection are not competing interests. They are equal components of a single engine that will drive Canada's innovation and prosperity for generations to come.

Foreign Affairs

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago, Saudi Arabia was elected to the UN women's rights commission. We thought that was inappropriate.

On this side of the House, we have been clear in speaking about Canadian and universal values on the world stage. It was part of an engaged and principled Conservative foreign policy, yet the government has in so many ways backed away from that, admiring China's basic dictatorship, being slow to respond to crises around the world, failing to recognize genocide of Yazidis and Christians at the hands of Daesh, being slow to respond to the Rohingya genocide. In so many different areas we have seen a lack of willingness of the government to confront issues of fundamental human rights around the world.

At that time, I had challenged the Minister of Foreign Affairs to acknowledge the absurdity of Saudi Arabia being on the UN women's rights commission. I posed this question to the minister multiple times. She pointed out that Canada was not involved in the selection process, but she would not acknowledge that the problem associated with that likely was the need for some institutional reform at the United Nations that recognized there were certain actors that were just not appropriate for being in the leadership role on certain kinds of issues. The minister refused to recognize that reality for reasons that are hard to understand.

Fast forward to where we find ourselves today. There are many issues around the human rights record of Saudi Arabia that raise grave concerns. We have raised in question period issues about what appears very likely the killing of a journalist in a Saudi consulate in Turkey. Also the nature of the prosecution of the war in Yemen. We have raised and spoken about the terrible humanitarian crisis in Yemen. We should not forget the role that Iran is playing fomenting problems, but also absolutely the terrible impact on civilians as a result of the way in which that war is being prosecuted.

On this side of the House, we have been always willing to raise and confront issues of fundamental human rights, whether that involves Iran, Saudi Arabia, China or the government of Burma. However, the Liberal government has been very slow and often unresponsive.

I will ask again the question that I asked a year and a half ago and again earlier this week. The minister in response to a serious question from my colleague about the current crisis with respect to Saudi Arabia, thought it was a good moment to be partisan and accused us of being slow to the party. We asked this question a year and a half ago about Saudi human rights record and the minister repeatedly refused to answer.

Again, will the government acknowledge that it does not make sense for the government of Saudi Arabia to be in a leadership role at the UN with respect to the issue of women's rights? It would be great to hear from the Liberals a recognition that it does not make sense or if they think it does make sense, it would be worthwhile knowing that as well.

I look forward, hopefully this time, to the parliamentary secretary actually answering the question, recognizing that reality with respect to the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia.

[Matt DeCourcey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear that under our government, the promotion and protection of human rights, which certainly include women's rights, is a fundamental and foundational part of our foreign policy. We advocate for the rights of women across all conversations around the world, and that includes in our conversations with Saudi Arabia.

I am glad to hear the member opposite, his party's junior critic, on this file agreeing with us in principle that human rights and women's rights are important to advocate for. It was not too long ago that his party was opposing that principle and, quite frankly, we are still unclear about his party's position as it relates to support for the human rights of women around the world.

His party's senior critic, the member for Durham, said that my party has advocated too much for women's rights in Saudi Arabia, saying that we have caused a “disconnect” by doing so. I can talk about another senior voice within the Conservative Party and his views on our advocacy of women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Maybe the member opposite can clarify whether John Baird's words to the effect that our advocacy and defence of women's rights is “giving Canada a bad reputation” is still the policy of the Conservative Party of Canada.

On this side of the House, we do not just believe in defending human rights but in defending the human rights of any and all individuals, especially when it is difficult to do so, and we do not believe that gives Canada a bad reputation. Quite frankly, we believe doing so shines a light on Canada as a beacon in the world, and the world knows that Canada will be there to defend the human rights of all vulnerable people and women.

There is a certain irony in the position taken by the member today. On one hand, he wants a public condemnation of the past membership of a UN body; on the other hand, it is his party that argues that we should not use public comments as “a substitute for proper diplomacy”. Again, that is a direct quote from his party's senior critic for foreign affairs.

Our government will continue to call on the Government of Saudi Arabia to ensure the full protection of human rights, including women's rights, as well as respect for peaceful expressions of dissent and to ensure fairness in judicial proceedings. We will never hesitate to promote these values and we believe that dialogue is critical when we engage in international diplomacy. While Canada was not a member of the UN Economic and Social Council until recently and therefore had no influence over who was elected to its membership in 2017, we will use this forum to spur action by other countries on women's rights.

Of course, the Commission on the Status of Women's diverse membership sometimes presents challenges. Not all governments are willing to move as quickly and progressively on the protection and promotion of women's rights as Canada is, but if its membership were composed solely of countries already taking a strong view on the protection of human rights, its ability to make change would be much less significant.

Let me reiterate that we are committed to the full protection of all human rights, including vulnerable populations around the world, and in Saudi Arabia we are committed to the protection of the human rights of women.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was quite a striking display from the member across the way. Let us be very clear that Conservatives believe in standing up for human rights. I do not think that needs to be said. I think that is quite obvious. The problem that the member seems to have is that he does not like it when we criticize the Liberals' horrendously ineffective way of advancing these principles when they talk about it.

What my colleague from Durham said, and was quite right to say, is that tweeting about an issue is not a replacement for actually doing the hard, sustained work of advancing human rights and raising it in bilateral conversations with other governments, instead of talking and tweeting about it without having done that work first. It is not a question of whether one should make public statements, but a question of whether that is the only thing one should do.

The problem with the government on human rights is that it continually wants to look like it is doing things, but when it comes to actually doing the hard work and the heavy lifting, it has cancelled programs to deal with the advancement of human rights. We see it again from the member and his—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Matt DeCourcey]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue the hard diplomatic work of standing up for human rights around the world in each and every forum we have the opportunity to do so. It is far too easy for the Conservatives to stand up and grandstand on issues, to cherry-pick issues and have their critics, their leading voices within the party, outside the chamber saying that when we stand up and defend human rights and women's rights, we are giving Canada “a bad reputation”.

On this side of the floor, Canadians can expect a principled and firm stand in defence of human rights, the rights of LGBTQ2 communities around the world, the rights of vulnerable refugees when they find hardship and, certainly and strikingly, the rights of women and girls in Saudi Arabia and everywhere around the world.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:42 p.m.)