Debates of Nov. 6th, 2018

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind the hon. members that I did not deny anything. I would like them to speak through the Speaker. I will let the parliamentary secretary answer that question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm is there because in 2019, we expect to see an election. I am actually fairly excited about it. When I look at the commitments that this government made in the last federal election, I look at the next election in a very excited way. I believe that Canadians as a whole will be very pleased with the many different accomplishments that we have been able to achieve over the last three years.

However, there is so much more to come. The member made reference to pensions. We can talk. I made reference to the guaranteed income supplement. The government increased it for the poorest seniors across Canada. I have talked about that. We have decreased the age from 67 to 65, so that in the future when seniors hit 65, they will be able to retire. That means a lot to a lot of seniors.

Most importantly, we also had negotiations and discussions with different provinces to increase the CPP, which means there is going to be more money in the pockets of seniors when they retire. That is something Stephen Harper could not get done, or refused to get done. We were able to bring everyone together to do that.

Is there more work to do? Absolutely, and that is one of the reasons why in 2019 we are going to go to Canadians and say, “Here is what we have been able to accomplish in a relatively short span, and we can do so much more with a new mandate.” I am hopeful that we will get that new mandate.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with the show of enthusiasm, I know the members of the opposition are saddened that it is me before them. I am truly saddened that the hon. member from Kawartha has applauded that, but it is true.

The enthusiasm that the hon. member for Winnipeg North brings to this place is inspiring. I think one of my favourite stories of the hon. member is when he stood before the House with one word written on a piece of paper and said, “Mr. Speaker, I have in my left hand a 20-minute speech”, and, as always, made good on his promise with one word written on the piece of paper. It would be lovely to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North go on and on, but we will have to wait until the next debate, I am sure. I am certain he will have a question for us as well.

I am pleased today to rise on the budget implementation act. The first item I would like to discuss is the issue of a price on pollution.

Global climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity. It is a grave threat. Members of the opposition, members of the Conservative Party, both here in Ottawa and across the country, seek to deny that. We, as a civilization, are facing this great threat and they believe nothing should be done. They offer no plan. They offer no solution. They merely criticize. The plan that has come forward, a plan that has been supported, for example, by Stephen Harper's former budget chief, by Preston Manning, and by many other Conservatives as a plan that will work, as a plan that will allow market forces to move forward and reduce emissions, is rejected out of sheer politics.

Global climate change should not be an issue about a Liberal idea versus a Conservative idea; this is a threat facing all of us. It would be interesting to see, as we are coming up on Remembrance Day, these same individuals, in 1939, say, “There is this grave threat across the ocean, but we should not go. Here is this grave threat facing humanity and we should not do anything about it. The cost is too high.”

The interesting thing is this. We hear from the hon. members that they think this is a joke. People are dying.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

You're comparing World War II to a carbon tax? You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

People are dying and the hon. member is asking--

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members that the rules are that when one person is speaking we let that person speak, we do not interrupt, we do not shout or we try not to.

The hon. member for St. Catharines.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are heckling that they do not believe people are dying. They are seeing these super storms, these wildfires that are out of control. They can see the environmental phenomenon happening and that our climate is changing in front of us, and they are still heckling. They do not believe in this. It is climate change denial, and it is unbelievable.

Again, this was a group of people who in 1939 said that we should not do anything and that the cost was too high. However, we are facing a greater threat to humanity now. The potential catastrophe is even greater. Science has said so.

However, the Conservatives are scoffing because, again, they deny the science. They do not accept it. They pretend on occasion. They go before the media and say that climate change is real and they will vote every once in a while to fool Canadians, but there is no plan. They do not support a price on pollution. They do not support any plan. They do not have a plan. Their only plan is to make pollution free.

We all know pollution is bad. All of our constituents want clean air and clean water, and I think I can say that for all 338 of us. However, the Conservatives do not have a plan, and that is shameful.

We are the first generation to see the impacts of climate change and we are the last generation that can to do something about it. I have a young son who is two and a half years old and a young daughter who is four months old. It is unbelievable to hear the laughter from the other side about this. However, going forward, I do not want to be looking at my children when the situation is far worse and having them ask me why I did not do anything. It is time to stand up.

I tweeted an article out today, which is from a few months ago. The CEO of Suncor, Canada's largest oil company, supports a price on carbon. He calls on climate change deniers, like the members heckling me at this moment, trying to shout me down, to be brave, to stand up and have a plan. Again, the Conservatives refuse to do that.

Again, the heckling is fascinating. We are talking about a catastrophe that we can see with our own eyes. My riding has gone from floods to drought to floods again. My constituents know. They can see that the weather is different, that the climate is changing. We see the forest fires, flooding and hurricanes that have been stronger than ever before. Ocean temperatures are rising. However, all the Conservatives have is heckles. All they have is scoff and scorn. It is shocking, but they continue this to this day.

An interesting new argument has developed, which is that Canada only produces 1.6% of total emissions so we should not do anything. We should abandon any form of leadership on the subject, because it is 1.6%. Even though Canadians are only about 0.5% of the global population, we are contributing to this problem.

I will go back to another example, back to World War II. During D-Day, Canadians played a fundamental role. However, these are the same individuals who would say that this is an important situation, but we are too small a country to take part. We do not need to take Juno Beach. It is not something that we should do. It is the same argument from the Conservative Party on this case. However, we are presented right now with a great opportunity, not only to do right but to benefit our economy.

I had an opportunity, kind of out of the blue, to meet a couple of hours ago with a local company from Niagara, Walker Environmental. Walker Environmental is a waste management company in Niagara. We might ask what it possibly could do. It is doing some incredible work to divert waste from landfills into amazing new opportunities, for example, with railway ties. Millions of railway ties are sitting around in landfills across the country. The company has a plan to put it into the coking process to not only reduce that waste, but also to reduce the amount of GHGs in the steel process.

It has a plan and it is doing it right. Its plan is to take landfill waste and send it down to the local GM plant to reduce greenhouse gases and to make that GM plant one of the most environmentally sustainable in the entire GM chain. This is just one company that is a local example. It is creating jobs. As the minister has talked about, this is a trillion dollar opportunity ahead of us with the green economy.

The Conservatives are taking their marching orders from Doug Ford. When Patrick Brown was in charge, they were supportive of a price on carbon pollution. Now that Doug Ford is calling the shots, they are against it. It is shameful that we Ontarians are abandoning the green economy. We need to look forward, not only for ourselves but for our children.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not appreciate my colleague's comments, somehow equating what happened in World War II to what is going on now with the carbon tax. It is absolutely unbelievable and one of the most incredible arguments I have ever heard in the House.

My colleague talked about his riding having floods and droughts. However, that has been happening for hundreds of years. I take great offence at the suggestion that we are all climate change deniers. I absolutely believe that we have to address climate change.

I grew up in High River, Alberta. We have flooded dozens of times over the last 150 years. In fact, we had one of the worst floods in 1998 and, again, a horrible one in 2013.

My question for my colleague would be this. I want to go back to my constituents and tell them that the Liberals are telling me they have to pay this much of a carbon tax and that they will never have to worry about flooding again. How much does that carbon tax have to be?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is shocking. The Conservatives are willing to ignore the science. The member on one hand says that he supports the science, but he is against any action. The Conservative Party plan is fundamentally a denial of climate change.

The member started his comments in shock that I would compare this to the Second World War. This is potentially greater in terms of the loss of life that could happen by the end of this century. I am sorry the Conservative Party cannot plan beyond four years, but this is a crisis that needs action.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from St. Catharines for coming back to this topic when he had any number of topics to choose from in these 800 pages. I appreciate that. I think this is an important topic. I find it worrisome that our Conservative colleagues seem determined to deny the facts and reject the solutions. This is rather sad.

I have a question. With all due respect to our veterans, I think he was right to reference a war effort. Our enemy now is even greater than our greatest adversaries in the world wars. This absolutely calls for a war effort.

My question is the same as the one I asked the minister during the debate on global warming. In light of the Conservatives' denial, are you prepared to have the House appoint a super minister to combat global warming?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that he must address his comments to the Chair and not directly to members.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have a Minister of Environment and Climate Change who has been appointed to handle this war effort and to start to galvanize Canadians behind this. Again, all our constituents want clean air and clean water.

I hope, at the end of the day, the Conservatives, who claim they believe climate change is an issue, will actually seek to do something about it and support a plan to combat climate change.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague compared the fight against climate change to World War II. It is a good thing his party was not in power then, because its solution would have simply been a Nazi tax. Our quarrel is not with fighting climate change. Our quarrel is with the silly way in which the government approaches the response.

Under Stephen Harper, emissions went down. However, the Liberal government wants to give a holiday to the biggest emitters while imposing a carbon tax on everyday consumers and businesses.

How does the government justify a totally unequal approach that gives a holiday to the larger emitters and puts all the pressure on the little guy? That is the important question about the Liberal plan, which is not a plan at all.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is singing from the Conservative choir book. He denies climate change, he denies any action upon it, and it is shameful.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-86, budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2.

As we have heard a few times already, this is a mammoth bill, an 851-page omnibus bill. We have to wonder when this is going to stop. Under the Conservatives we became accustomed to 400-page bills and now the Liberals are introducing an 800-page omnibus bill. It never ends. This is just wrong.

If you combine the two budget implementation bills, they total 1,400 pages. It is just wrong. As MPs who represent our constituents, how can we do our jobs properly and diligently?

That said, the bill does contain a few good points. The government is finally going to move forward on pay equity.

However, it is once again telling women that they will have to wait another four years before they actually get pay equity. This matter is extremely important to the NDP. I personally have presented several petitions on behalf of the people of greater Drummond, who are absolutely beside themselves when I tell them that pay equity does not yet exist at the federal level. They cannot believe it.

This is still a reality. It is a regrettable and preposterous state of affairs. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is still making women in our great country wait for equity. There is no doubt that we must act quickly on this file.

What else is in this bill?

I will talk about what we do not like in this bill.

There is something extremely important that the people of greater Drummond and Canada have been waiting for. For three years they have been waiting for the budget implementation bill to finally amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. It is still not part of the budget. We have long been calling for measures to protect workers whose companies go bankrupt.

What does this legislation do? They go to the trouble of reopening the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, they protect commercial licence holders and corporations, but they do not protect workers. That is very bad news. We have been advocating for that for a long time. We have long been calling for action on this file. We are really disappointed.

Another thing we have long been calling for is EI sickness benefits. After three years, the Liberal government could have finally implemented EI reform that is worthy of its name. It certainly had the opportunity to do so.

Those notorious EI sickness benefits last just 15 weeks. It is mind-boggling. This policy is from 1971.

Since 1971, recipients have had just 15 weeks to recover. No one thought more time would be needed. Even though no one seems to have noticed, in 50 years, nothing has improved. The government needs to take action.

I want to acknowledge Marie-Hélène Dubé, who has been working very hard to make the public and also the Liberals and members of Parliament aware of this issue. She created the “15 weeks is not enough” campaign.

In 2009, she started a national petition calling on the government to extend EI sickness benefits beyond 15 weeks. She has collected 600,000 signatures so far, which is significant. This is a topic of concern to the people of Quebec and Canada. Marie-Hélène Dubé battled cancer three times in five years. She has had her share of problems. She experienced stress as a result of her illness. She had to deal with all of that on top of being a single mother.

She said:

The majority of people do not have insurance coverage. [Some people have private insurance, but that is not the case for everyone.] Women are often the most vulnerable. They sometimes earn less. And if they are single parents and have responsibilities, they can slip into poverty and never recover.

It makes no sense. The Liberal government needs to wake up. I have been receiving letters about this from the people of the greater Drummond area, such as Ms. Parent. Our EI system has not been reformed in many years. Ms. Parent told me that she underwent surgery on a cancerous brain tumour. She has to travel to Trois-Rivières for radiation treatment and chemotherapy. She has to say in a room that costs $30 a day. She says that she does not have much money. In addition to her treatment expenses, she has a house to pay for. It is impossible for her to recover from brain cancer in 15 weeks.

Could the Liberal government show some empathy and listen to Ms. Parent? Fifteen weeks is not enough to heal. That is why we must listen to people like Ms. Parent and increase benefits.

That is just one example, but I have others. It is shocking. I do not understand why this situation has not yet been resolved. Another constituent, Cynthia from Drummondville, said that, in 2016, her life was turned completely upside down. After a difficult pregnancy, she was diagnosed with spinal cord cancer. She had no choice but to claim EI sickness benefits, and 15 weeks later, she was left without any income. She was in physical therapy to relearn how to walk at the time.

That makes no sense. When will the government do something to help Cynthia from Drummondville get more sickness benefits? Fifteen weeks is not enough time to recover. More sickness benefits are needed.

These are just a few examples that show that the government could have done a lot more in this budget to achieve pay equity and defend workers. How is it that retirement pensions are not protected in the event of bankruptcy? Those contributions are paid by workers. They are the ones who made annual contributions toward their retirement. They forgo some of their wages so that their company will also contribute. Then, if the company goes bankrupt, they are told that they are last on the list. They may get little or none of their retirement savings back. That does not make any sense.

Getting back to the 15 weeks to recover, I can name other organizations, such as the Regroupement de défense des droits sociaux de Drummond, an advocacy group whose director, Joan Salvail, does excellent work defending people with employment insurance and income security issues. She says that nobody really understands employment insurance rules until they need EI. The fact is that 15 weeks of sickness benefits is nowhere near enough. The benefits people get are just a fraction of their usual pay, and those benefits run out before people have recovered. For many, it is the beginning of a long period of financial hardship.

What will the Liberal government do to address the needs Joan Salvail identified? It makes no sense. Fifteen weeks to recover is not enough.

The Liberal government took office almost three and a half years ago. Why has it not yet come up with solutions for this file? I do not understand. An 800-page omnibus bill with no solutions. Unbelievable. This 800-page bill does not even fix simple problems such as upping the number of sickness benefit weeks. We want those 15 weeks to go up to at least 50 weeks. Most serious illnesses take at least 50 weeks, nearly a year, to recover from. Let us hope the government will listen to Canadians and the people of Drummond and fix this problem before the election.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague speak about a number of different programs, and in particular the employment benefits Canadians have. There seems to be continual critique from the opposition parties, whether it is the NDP or the Conservatives. The NDP members say we are not doing enough, and that we need to do more and spend more. The Conservatives are saying we are spending too much.

I am wondering if the member can explain to me how the NDP would have been able to spend everything its members are proposing and that they criticize this side of the House for not spending, while at the same time balancing the budget, which they promised to do at no cost?

They continue to heckle me, but hopefully somebody will listen to what I have said and answer that question.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to reply to my colleague. The EI program is independent. It is an independent fund. The government must not dip into it, as the Liberals did and the Conservatives continued to do after them. That money belongs to the workers, to those who saved it.

I would like to refer to Ms. Sabourin from Saint-Félix-de-Kingsey. She said she is at the end of her rope. She has had bladder cancer for two years and is forced to work because her 15 weeks have run out. Of course, she is talking about her 15 weeks of sickness benefits. She has been waiting for eight weeks to find out whether she can convert her unemployment to regular benefits. She currently has no income.

What are the Liberals going to do for Ms. Sabourin? What is happening right now is just wrong.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Drummond and I had a lot of really good debates back and forth in the environment committee, and I have the utmost respect for him. I was wondering if he could address the reality that the Liberals are now in a credit card economy.

The Liberals have been insulting the NDP all day, saying that its members just want to spend more and more money. However, the reality is that in the last election, the NDP had a costed platform and would not have gone into huge debt. The small, $10-billion debt the Liberals said they were going to run has now expanded immensely, over three or four times every year, and there is no plan to get it back to budget.

Could he please explain why Canadians really cannot trust the Liberals when it has anything to do with numbers, and what he thinks they should be doing in order to fund the proper programs he is respectfully bringing forward?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We had a lot of fun respectfully disagreeing with one another at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

He is right about one thing. The Liberal government could have taken actions that would not have cost anything. For instance, it could have fixed the fact that the EI program gives workers only 15 weeks to recover. It could have increased that period, which would not have cost anything. Another thing it could have done is amend bankruptcy legislation to ensure that workers get their pensions. Protecting workers when a company declares bankruptcy would not have cost anything. The government has not taken any of these actions, which are vital to improving the lives of Canadians. I deplore the Liberal government's complete inaction on those two issues, when it would not have cost the public purse anything.

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

Madam Speaker, in regard to the last federal election, it is good to observe that the then NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair, said that an NDP government would have a balanced budget at all costs. Does the member personally have any regrets? Does he believe the NDP regrets making that statement, or would he say he stands by it today?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is a shame that there is nothing in this budget to protect workers' pensions. There is nothing to protect the mothers I named earlier who have just 15 weeks to recover. What would it take to extend the benefits? We have been calling for this for a long time. When are you going to do this? That is what the people of Drummond want to know.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member that he must address the chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Avalon.

I want to remind the member that he only has a couple of minutes to speak before time is up.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support the budget implementation act, and specifically, the legislation establishing the college of patent agents and trademark agents. This is an important element of the government's IP strategy, a strategy that, taken as a whole, will ensure that Canada's intellectual property regime is modern and robust and supports Canadian innovation in the 21st century.

Patent and trademark agents are a key component of the innovation ecosystem, as they help inventors secure exclusive IP rights. Given the rising importance of IP in the innovation economy and the central role of patent and trademark agents, it is time to have a professional oversight body responsible for maintaining the high standards expected of trusted advisers. As a bonus, this would address long-standing gaps in the current framework for regulatory oversight, which lacks clarity and transparency and is without a binding code of professional conduct.

Given the importance of the profession, good safeguards here will ensure that agents do the jobs they do well and that they have the trust of their clients, and Canadians more broadly. While there is no evidence suggesting a large problem with agent conduct, the need for modernization is imperative, now that communications with IP agents are protected by statutory privilege in the same way as solicitor-client advice. This is an extraordinary right that requires ethical guidelines to prevent its abuse.

The college of patent agents and trademark agents act would establish an independent regulator, specifically a college, for the professional oversight of IP agents, in the public interest. The college would administer a licensing system to ensure that only qualified professionals were authorized to provide agent services.

As an independent regulator, it would also be responsible for enforcing a code of professional conduct to ensure that IP agents continued to deliver high-quality advice. The college would also be responsible for implementing requirements for continuing professional development to ensure that agents stayed informed about the ever-evolving IP landscape. Ultimately, these measures would raise the bar for IP professional services in Canada.

The college would have an investigations committee to receive complaints and would conduct investigations into whether a licensee committed professional misconduct or was incompetent. A separate discipline committee would have the authority to impose disciplinary measures if it decided that a licensee had committed professional misconduct or was found to be incompetent.

Finally, this act would create new offences of claiming to be a patent agent or trademark agent and of the unauthorized representation of another person before the patent office or the office of the registrar of trademarks. These offences are intended to serve an important consumer protection function to ensure that innovators receive representation from a qualified, licensed agent.

I would like to speak about the important features that have been built into the legislation to ensure that regulation is undertaken with the public interest as the priority. Careful consideration was given to ensuring that the legislation would support the public interest in a competitive marketplace of well-qualified and professional IP agents.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:53 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.