Debates of March 29th, 2018

Public Services and Procurement

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday that as early as summer 2015, IBM was advising the government that Phoenix was not ready to go. For those keeping score, that means departmental reviews, public sector unions, and the principal private contractor itself were saying that Phoenix was not ready to go.

Now, the Liberal Party has a rich history of going back on its commitments. I am thinking of electoral reform and I am thinking of its promise on CEO stock option loopholes.

Why is it that the one time the Liberals could have used their great power of doubling back on their commitments to help Canadians, they passed up the opportunity?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, IBM's testimony to the Senate committee last night confirmed that the Harper Conservatives botched this program from the start. They de-scoped the project and ignored the advice of their contractors.

The development of the request for proposal and award of contract for Phoenix was done by the previous government. We continue to work with IBM and will hold it to account to fulfill its obligations. To date, our government has invested $645 million to stabilize the pay system.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind members that it was the Liberal government that implemented the Phoenix pay system. Public servants and the unions told the Liberals to delay its implementation, and yesterday we learned that IBM had advised the government to delay the system's implementation because it was just not ready. When employees, public servants, unions, and even the company that designed and built the system say do not go ahead, the government must listen.

Why, in spite of this, did the government decide to gamble with the wages of thousands of workers?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, before the Senate committee, the IBM witnesses confirmed that Harper's Conservative government botched the program from the beginning. They reduced the scope of the project and did not take into account the advice of their supplier. The previous government developed the request for proposal and awarded the contract for the Phoenix pay system.

We are continuing to work with IBM, and we will hold it accountable to ensure it complies with its obligations.

Ethics

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, ethics problems are all too common with the Liberals. This time, the problem with with the member for Brampton East, who was hired by a construction company after becoming a member of Parliament. It just so happens that the owner of this company was invited on the Prime Minister's disastrous trip to India. It is impossible to know who invited the man in question, since the member and the Prime Minister's Office are pointing the finger at each other.

Who is telling the truth? Why all the mystery?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear on the facts. The member has consulted the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on this relationship and will keep following its advice.

As common practice, the member invited a diverse group of more than 30 stakeholders to participate in events around the India trip. In this case, people who were interested in attending could fill out a form online through the Canada-India Business Council, which the individual in question also did.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest Code demands that all members uphold their public duties with honesty and fulfill to the highest standard so as to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest. The member's conduct goes well beyond apparent conflict. This is a blatantly formalized case of a cash for access retainer.

Was the member's boss invited on the India trip to seek business in India or was he invited to hang with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Infrastructure , and the Minister of Innovation to get an inside track on contracts in Canada?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, and I shall repeat again, the member has consulted the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on this relationship, and will continue following its advice.

However, I remind the member that the individual in question also received an invitation through the Canada-India Business Council, which I think we can all agree does important work.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has abandoned even a half-hearted acknowledgement of members and ministers' ethical obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act and Code.

Again, there was a question asked and not answered yesterday. Will the Prime Minister and will the Liberal government, disgraced by a spectrum of ethical lapses and violations, do the right thing and clean up the mess themselves or are they leaving it, once again, to the Ethics Commissioner?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the member has consulted the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on this relationship and will continue working with the office and following its advice, as I would encourage all members to do.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest Code is very clear. MPs are not to use their position to further their own private interests or those of another person, or entity, yet the member for Brampton East did just that. He ensured one of his private sector employers, the president of a large construction company, gained access to the Prime Minister as well as to key Liberal cabinet ministers. Obviously, both stand to profit as a result.

Does the Prime Minister believe that the Conflict of Interest Code is wrong or does he just think the Liberals are above it?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we be clear on the facts. The member has consulted the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on this relationship, and will keep following its advice.

As is common practice, the member invited a diverse group of more than 30 stakeholders to participate in events around the India trip. In this case, people who were interested in attending could fill out a form online through the Canada-India Business Council, which the individual in question also did.

Infrastructure

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary budget officer just released a new report on phase 1 of the Liberals' infrastructure plan. The report confirms what we already knew, and we are not really surprised. The Liberals are incapable of keeping their promises. Half of the millions of dollars earmarked have not yet been allocated to projects. I did say half. Municipalities have been waiting too long for that money. They believed the Liberal promises.

On their behalf, I am once again asking the government where its plan is.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country are enjoying the benefits of the more than 3,400 projects approved under Infrastructure Canada's phase 1 programs. The previous government spent a decade doing nothing, but now these projects are modernizing public transit and water pipes and building healthier communities. Over $4 billion in federal funding has been approved for these projects, and the money will flow as soon as our partners submit their applications.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after quietly announcing the end of the current caregiver program, the minister was forced to change course by stating he would engage in consultations about the future of the program.

At committee, IRCC officials committed to providing details of the consultation process to members. To date, no information has been provided even though multiple consultations have already taken place.

My direct request to attend the consultation with caregivers in Ottawa was denied. We were told that it was not a consultation meeting. Why did the minister's staff mislead my office and why the secrecy?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the services that caregivers give to Canadian families. In fact, we have recognized the importance of reuniting caregivers with their own families. That is why we invested more money and more resources to make sure we would bring down the processing time for caregivers, from five years under the previous government to under 12 months under our government. We are moving very quickly to also eliminate the existing cases under the live-in caregiver programs.

The two existing programs are also working well. We are conducting an assessment to make them even better. Let me be very clear. We will always maintain pathways to permanent residency for caregivers.

Science and Research

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear from the scientists in my region that after a decade of questions from their international counterparts about why the Conservative government was opposed to science, Canada is once again being viewed as a leader in science around the world and many of their international counterparts want to work in Canada.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary for Science tell the House what our government is doing to capitalize on our renewed scientific reputation to recruit the top international talent?

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Science]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can be proud that the world is once again looking to Canada as a leader in science. Top scientists and researchers from around the world want to come to Canada. Last week—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure all members would be interested to know the response from the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Science, and so I will allow her to start again with her response and we will then go on to the next question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can be proud that the world is once again looking to Canada as a leader in science. Top scientists and researchers from around the world want to come to Canada.

Last week, the Conservatives voted against investing to recruit the best and the brightest. We know that science and research help improve the lives of Canadians. Therefore, the member for Don Valley North and the Liberal caucus voted for that funding. This morning, we were proud to announce the Canada 150 research chairs. We look forward to their exciting new breakthroughs.

Taxation

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this week the government introduced a massive carbon tax on Canadians. Government official John Moffet called the tax, “a foundational element of the government's climate change plan.” However, last week, when the minister was repeatedly asked how much this foundational tax would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, she could not answer and neither could her deputy.

If the carbon tax is so important, how is it that the minister cannot even tell Canadians what impact such a tax would have on carbon emissions?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, the pricing of carbon pollution is a key part of any serious plan to address climate change. Pricing pollution is a market mechanism that will reduce emissions and will drive innovation in the country.

We believe that provinces and territories are best placed to design pricing systems that work for them, as long as it meets the national standard. The design of the system will affect the amount of emissions reductions that are achieved. We will be, as we have said very publicly, reviewing all provincial and territorial systems later this year.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Again, there is no answer, Mr. Speaker, so let us talk about science.

How is it that a government that claims to be based on science and evidence, does not have the foggiest clue of how harmful such a carbon tax would be to Canadians? Has the minister not done her homework? Does she not know how much emissions will go down under her carbon tax? Does she not know the devastating impact such a tax will have on our economy and the millions of jobs that hang in the balance? Do struggling Canadians not deserve to know if these massive new taxes will have any impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to Canada?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that addressing climate change is an important issue and any thoughtful approach and plan include the pricing of carbon pollution.

Four out of five Canadians live in jurisdictions that have shown the leadership to put into place carbon pricing systems. We are working actively with the provinces and territories which have primary responsibility for implementing these systems. We will continue to do that because addressing climate change is something that we know is an important challenge which the Conservatives did not address in their 10 years in government.