Debates of May 22nd, 2018

Net Neutrality

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 23, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

Public Services and Procurement

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe I am rising yet again in the House to talk about the Phoenix pay system fiasco. I especially cannot believe that the government does not see this as a priority or grasp the importance of taking action. Far from being resolved, the situation is only getting worse.

The federal government recently admitted that the Miramichi pay centre still has a backlog of more than 600,000 cases. Only 5,000 of the 600,000 cases have been resolved. That is unacceptable. However, for two and a half years now, the Prime Minister and his government have repeatedly claimed they are doing everything they can to make sure every federal public servant receives the wages they are owed. Somehow I doubt it. Of course, the government is going to respond that budget 2018 includes funding for modernizing Phoenix and for replacing this pay system in the distant future. The NDP, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and the Public Service Alliance of Canada have been calling for Phoenix to be replaced for the past two and a half years.

Some say the February announcement about Phoenix was the government's attempt to improve its image. I did not say that. That is according to economist Jean-Pierre Aubry, who viewed the announcement as the government's attempt to make itself look good. He said it was a PR strategy. People affected by Phoenix do not need an image-boosting campaign though. What they need is their paycheque.

Each so-called file is a person, a real person like the rest of us. To help the House understand how serious this is, I would like to share some stories gathered by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and my riding office. Quebec City resident Toufic talked about going three months without a paycheque and said it was a huge emotional burden to bear. Vanessa from Nanaimo said she did not get paid for three months. If not for her family's second income, she would have lost her house. Meera from Ottawa said that, because she was not getting paid, her manager personally loaned her money to buy a bus pass so she could get to work. Daniel from Shawinigan said that one of his colleagues, a father of four, nearly lost his house because he was not getting paid.

Alexandre from Saint-Hyacinthe said that his pay grade had not been adjusted since September 2014. He was supposed to be at pay grade seven as of September 27, 2016, but he is still being paid at pay grade five. His pay has not been adjusted whatsoever nor has he received any retroactive pay. He says it is very frustrating, financially speaking. He has to get his French drain repaired at home and he is going to have to refinance his house for more than he planned. He wonders why the government is not making Phoenix a priority. Chantal from Gatineau, which should interest my colleague, owes $18,000 and is struggling to pay the bills. Mr. Massé, a carpenter at National Defence for the past 16 years, from Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, said that because of Phoenix, he is unable to help his 21-year-old son who has a very rare form of cancer. For weeks now, as thousands of public servants have done before him, he has been calling on the Liberal government to help and to settle the Phoenix issue once and for all.

How can the parliamentary secretary remain indifferent to what Daniel, Chantal, Mr. Massé, Toufic, Vanessa, Meera, and Alexandre are going through? I ask him: how can he remain indifferent to all these people? I am outraged that for months now the government has not been paying our federal public servants for the exceptional services they provide to the public.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to explain what this government has done to stabilize the Phoenix pay system.

I am holding more meetings with the representatives of public service unions, our partners, at all levels. As the member for Gatineau, I obviously represent many public servants, including some who have had very serious problems because of the Phoenix pay system.

I believe that I have risen to the challenge, not only in terms of the action we have taken, but also with respect to my understanding of the issue. Unfortunately, we inherited this problem. Mr. Harper and his government took a big gamble. They bet that they could save money by overhauling the government's entire pay system and opting for this new technology.

What I am pleased to tell my colleagues is that we are making progress. We are being very cautious; we are not claiming victory and we will not let up until every public servant receives every dollar and cent they are entitled to.

That said, there has been some very encouraging news. We opened the new pay centre in Miramichi two weeks ago, and we hired even more public servants than planned. The pay centre now has almost as many Government of Canada employees as it did before Mr. Harper let experienced pay advisors go. We have a whole new pay centre.

Furthermore, on Friday, I opened a new call centre in Gatineau, and now, for the first time, public servants will be able to call and get updates on their pay file. This is a huge step forward for our customers—in other words, our employees. I even listened in on some calls.

I am also very happy to tell my colleagues about the pay pods that are trained and have experience in specific departments. Four departments participated and huge progress was made on their wait lists. This month, another 12 departments will have access to pay pods. We hope to see the same result as we did in the four departments that participated in the pilot project. Nine pays later, the wait list has gone down, although not as much as we would like.

We are overcoming the challenges left to us by Mr. Harper and his colleagues, but we are up to the task. We will invest in the necessary technology and human resources. We will fix and stabilize the Phoenix pay system.

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

Madam Speaker, I have learned that accountability means doing what needs to be done rather than laying blame.

Like Alexandre from Saint-Hyacinthe, I am wondering why public servants still do not feel as though the government is making Phoenix a priority. Alexandre, Daniel, Chantal, Mr. Massé, Toufic, Vanessa, Meera, and the 60,000 public servants affected are wondering when the government is going to fix this fiasco once and for all. The parliamentary secretary may be pleased, but public servants do not feel reassured by this supposed progress. Not enough clear progress has been made on this file to reassure all the public servants who are not getting paid.

It is vital that employees be paid for the work that they do. I do not sense any outrage in the answers I am hearing. I do not sense any urgent need to resolve this situation. I do not sense the same outrage that I sense when I read about people's experiences. I look forward to hearing something more than this meagre progress in nine weeks. We must continue to feel outraged in order to bring about the desired changes.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague. I do not need to read a speech to know what to say. Public servants are my neighbours. They are the people in my community. I meet with them and talk to them every day.

I never claimed victory. I just gave an update on the progress that we are making thanks to the investments that my colleague seems to be calling for. We have fully responded to the demands of our public service union partners. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars, hired thousands of employees, and put every effort into resolving this problem. If she does not sense the government's dedication and determination on this file, perhaps we should write something down for her to read. However, I can tell her, and I have been speaking without any notes since the beginning of this debate, that we are very determined and that we are going to ensure that every public servant in Canada gets every penny they are owed.

Rail Transportation

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always happy to come to the House of Commons for discussion, even for a late show, especially when we are talking about an extremely important and stimulating project that will lead to significant socio-economic progress in Drummond and throughout the Quebec-Montreal corridor or even the Quebec-Windsor corridor.

In this regard, on February 2, I rose in the House of Commons to speak about the high-frequency train project. Several players in the field and several members, such as my colleagues from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Trois-Rivières, are working very hard in this regard. There really is a consensus about having a high-frequency train. It would have two segments. There would be the north shore segment, which would include Quebec City, Trois-Rivières and Montreal, and the south shore segment, which would include Lévis, Drummondville, Saint-Hyacinthe and eventually Montreal.

This project is extremely important for the greater Drummond area. It would allow socio-economic development, as I mentioned. All local and regional actors are working very hard to make this project a reality. Unfortunately, we are still waiting, and we are a little tired of feasibility studies. It is time we started doing some work on the ground.

We were expecting more in the federal budget, which allocated just $8 million over three years to study the feasibility of a high-frequency train. This is preventing the project from moving forward, which is unfortunate. It is not as if all the appropriate studies have not already been done. We are disappointed. The government must provide stable, predictable, annual funding to fulfill its mandate. We urgently need a good project like the high-frequency rail project.

The only good news we have now is that the outdated fleets of cars and locomotives will be replaced. This is a $1.5 billion project, but we have some concerns. The member for Trois-Rivières is doing an excellent job as transport critic. He sent a letter urging the federal minister to include a local content clause in the international request for proposals and to ensure that Canadian taxpayers' money be used to create jobs in this country. We hope to hear back from the government soon. I do not understand why we have not yet received a response.

As I said, everyone in Drummond agrees that this great project would help the region retain young people and could also help grow the workforce. There is a labour shortage in Drummond. The project would improve labour mobility.

I want to congratulate stakeholders like the mayor of Drummondville; the outgoing president of the Drummond chamber of commerce and industry, Nicolas Martel; the new president, Linda Desrochers; the outgoing CEO, Nathalie Benoît; and the new CEO, Yves Chabot, who, with my assistance, are working on advancing this wonderful project. It is very important. As I said, we need this project to keep young people in the region and to deal with the labour shortage.

My question is this. When will we know whether the request for proposals will have a Canadian content clause?

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I more than welcome the opportunity to highlight the importance that our government places on maintaining and developing a safe, efficient and reliable transportation system for travellers. Meeting the needs of travellers is at the heart of the strategic plan for the future of transportation in Canada, and our government is working hard to ensure that everyone has better choices and better services when they travel.

We recognize the importance of rail in meeting the transportation needs of Canadians. That is why we have provided funding to support an in-depth evaluation of VIA's proposal for high-frequency rail service along the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.

The proposed service, which would operate on dedicated tracks, has many potential benefits, including economic and environmental. In economic terms, there would be a more efficient link between workers, customers and businesses, as well as a reduction in road traffic, which would promote regional development.

From an environmental perspective, the rail service would provide a better low-emission alternative to car travel. This proposal also promises more convenient and reliable service for travellers by increasing the frequency of service and improving on-time performance. Furthermore, improved services in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor could reduce the ongoing need for government subsidies, delivering better value for money for taxpayers.

It is clear that this proposal has the potential to be transformative for many Canadians, especially those in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. At the same time, it is highly technical in nature and requires rigorous analysis to assess whether it, or an alternative, would be the best approach to enhancing the travel experience of Canadians in this corridor. After all, this is a multibillion dollar project that would affect millions of Canadians.

I am sure the hon. member would agree that Canadians expect us to do our due diligence to ensure that this option is the right fit for Canada.

Our government is developing the best approach to deliver an efficient and effective rail transportation system for Canadians. Our government is on track to complete this assessment, and we look forward to presenting the results of this work to Canadians in the coming months.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that my hon. colleague did not answer my question. It was so simple. Will there be Canadian content or not? Will there be a Canadian content clause in the international request for proposals for replacing the railcars and the locomotives? It is extremely important to know that. This is about Canadians' money. At the very least we have to be able to ensure that jobs are created here in Canada. I did not get an answer to that.

My colleague mentioned that we will move forward quickly, in a few months. The government has allocated $8 million for the next three years to conduct studies. I would not call that moving quickly. They are still in the process of conducting feasibility studies, but we certainly know where this is going. Via Rail told us where to go. It is their project and they have already analyzed every possibility. Let us move forward with a high-frequency train, something that everyone agrees on.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians expect a travel system that is safe, efficient and reliable for all travellers. Our government understands that intercity passenger rail services are important to the communities involved. That is why we are conducting an in-depth assessment of Via Rail’s high-frequency rail proposal to ensure that it is the right fit for Canadians.

It is clear that Via’s proposal has many potential benefits, be they economic, social or environmental. However, Canadians expect us to undertake the necessary due diligence to ensure that we make the right decisions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that their phones should not be on while they are in the House.

The hon. member for Lakeland is not present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given. Accordingly, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn, and the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering all votes under Department of Finance in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019.

I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.

[For continuation of proceedings, see part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from part A]

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Department of Finance in the main estimates, Mrs. Carol Hughes in the chair)

Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2018-19

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Tonight's debate is a general one on the votes under Department of Finance. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportion rotation.

Each member will be allocated 15 minutes at a time, which may be used for both debate or for posing questions. Members wishing to use this time to make a speech have a maximum of 10 minutes, which leaves at least 5 minutes for questions to the minister.

When a member is recognized, he or she should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used, in other words, how much time will be spent on the speech and how much time will be used for questions and answers. Members should also note that they will need the unanimous consent of the committee to split their time with another member. When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the Chair will expect that the minister's response will reflect approximately the time taken by the question, as that time counts toward the time allocated to the party.

I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language, and behaviour.

We will now begin tonight's session.

The House in committee of the whole, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Department of Finance in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019.

The hon. member for Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Chair, I will be using the duration of my time for questioning and I will start with part II in the main estimates, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, an office that regulates about 1,200 pensions across the country.

The finance minister introduced a pension bill while owning about $20 million of shares in a pension company. The minister is now under an Ethics Commissioner investigation for that alleged conflict. Has the finance minister spoken to the Ethics Commissioner and been questioned as a result of that investigation?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Madam Chair, yes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Chair, if the Ethics Commissioner finds the finance minister is guilty of a conflict of interest, would he resign from cabinet?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, we take the review with the parliamentary officials very seriously. I have worked with the commissioner to ensure I have no conflicts of interest and I am confident that allows me to comport myself in my job as appropriate.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Chair, many would think inappropriate for a minister to own a pension company while simultaneously introducing pension legislation, but the Ethics Commissioner will decide.

These estimates provide for finance officials to administer a future carbon tax. The government has said that the carbon tax is not for the purpose of raising revenue, but rather for the purpose of raising prices. We can assume that this means the government believes gas prices as they currently are, absent this carbon tax, are too low. If the finance minister believes gas prices are too low, presumably he knows what they are.

What is the gas price for a litre of regular gasoline in the city of Ottawa today, minister?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I understand that the current price of a litre of gasoline in Ottawa is $1.22.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Chair, prices do fluctuate, so the minister may or may not have his facts right. As of the most recent check, I have them at $1.31, which is not an insignificant difference.

That said, what would the price be today if the minister's full carbon tax were implemented in the present?