Debates of Feb. 26th, 2019

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when the parliamentary secretary reached out to me late last week about the possibility of changing my opportunity for Private Members' Business tonight with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, I was extremely honoured. This opportunity to fast-track this private member's bill so that it can go before the Senate to have September 30 as the day to recognize truth and reconciliation with indigenous peoples is very important. We want to get this done before the House rises for the summer so that this year will be the first year it is commemorated.

I want to thank the member, but I also want to ask her about something. She raised some very interesting points about the actions required by the federal government to ensure the day is meaningful. If she could elaborate a little on the specific types of events she would like to see federal workers engaged in so they can participate in the truth and reconciliation process, I would love to hear specific examples.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the date of September 30 is very significant to the survivors of residential schools, as well as to boarding school and day school survivors.

The meaning of reconciliation is that of coming together and healing. Now is the time as we move forward. We reach out to the kids in schools across Canada, from public and provincially run schools to reserves across Canada and the territories. This is the time for the federal government to lead the way on what it means to build better relationships, to follow through with its commitments and to work really hard at continuing to improve relationships and the lives of first nations, Métis and Inuit people.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words and the hard work of my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

As she knows, there are some concerns that we have expressed on our side. It is not to say that we do not appreciate, value and honour the need for this holiday, but around that date we also have Labour Day, the day of national reconciliation and Thanksgiving as statutory holidays, all within a period of six weeks, which requires some very practical considerations, so I would ask why she did not consider a substitution. We cannot keep adding holidays. Perhaps there will come a time when we will look at the existing holidays to determine if they are as relevant or important as what is happening here.

I put that forward to her in a more practical sense in terms of what might have been something that would have been helpful.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a rich history when it comes to first nations, Métis and Inuit, but history has not been kind to indigenous people from coast to coast to coast. There is enough evidence that first nations, Métis and Inuit people across Canada have been harmed over and over again.

With the truth and reconciliation work that was done, I hear about elders, young people and families across Canada wanting to heal and move on. We honour the past. That is what was laid out in truth and reconciliation, and I want to hear from elders across Canada. It is a very important time in our Canadian history to truly honour first nations, Métis and Inuit people, and we as Canadians and the Canadian government in the House of Commons in this area must start demonstrating that.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-369, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code, national day for truth and reconciliation. This was introduced by the member representing Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

This bill proposes to amend the relevant legislation in order to establish a paid non-working holiday for all employees under federal jurisdiction. The goal of the bill is to create a statutory holiday that would become a day for truth and reconciliation in order that all Canadians might have some time to reflect on the history and the legacy of Indian residential schools and the deep wounds that have been created in our past and that persist today.

Renewing the relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis is a priority for Canada and all Canadians. As members know, the Prime Minister has said that there is no relationship more important to this great nation than the one with indigenous peoples. I am confident that we can chart a path to a better, more inclusive future that acknowledges our past and looks forward to building a stronger Canada that we can all reside in together, in a manner that is not only conducive but inclusive to all Canadians.

The work that was done by Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission has provided us with a way forward to address indigenous issues in a Canadian society. The commission's final report sets aside a series of 94 calls to action that address a number of important issues, including call to action 80, which states:

We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to establish, as a statutory holiday, a National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to honour Survivors, their families, and communities, and ensure that public commemoration of the history and legacy of residential schools remains a vital component of the reconciliation process.

The government remains committed to implementing the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as partners in reconciliation and, most important, resurgence.

While it is easy to support the commission's recommendations in principle, the more difficult work comes in taking concrete action, but we are intent on walking the path toward reconciliation together.

Over the past three months, the Standing Commission on Canadian Heritage heard from survivors, leaders of national indigenous organizations and other key stakeholders during the review of the bill. Survivors shared very moving and difficult testimony regarding the history and impact of Indian residential schools. There was also discussion of the importance of giving Canadians opportunities to move together on the journey of reconciliation. It is extremely important that we move together, nation to nation, shoulder to shoulder.

Education, reflection and remembrance are essential components of the reconciliation process. Creating a national day for truth and reconciliation on September 30 will set aside a special day for commemoration and for honouring those whose lives were affected by residential schools. As well, it would also create a space for all Canadians to have important conversations about the dark chapters in our history and to acknowledge that reconciliation is a process that we all do together. As well, it would acknowledge the harm done to first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

With just over half of Canadians familiar with residential schools and their lasting impacts, a national day for truth and reconciliation would, in my opinion, improve Canadians' understanding of this legacy of loss.

I applaud the initiative put forward in the bill by the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. I would also like to recognize the work of those in the community and throughout this great nation who have taken steps to rebuild relationships and further reconciliation. I applaud those who at the grassroots level have shared their stories and helped teach us about our past.

We should all be moved by people like Phyllis (Jack) Webstad and the story of her orange shirt. Her story is remarkable but it is not unique. On her first day of school, Phyllis arrived proudly dressed in her new orange shirt. They made her change out of her clothes. Her orange shirt was taken from her and she never saw it again. That orange shirt is now a symbol of the stripping away of culture, of freedom and of self-esteem that was experienced by indigenous children over generations.

During its mandate, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission engaged extensively with the community. It was guided by principles that ensured broad representation. The commission was advised by a committee of Indian residential school survivors and it travelled to all parts of this great nation to hear from thousands of indigenous peoples who were affected by residential schools, to document their experiences and also to gather ideas that would help to move the reconciliation process. The 94 calls to action are a result of this process.

There have been over the past months a number of petitions expressing support for the creation of a day highlighting reconciliation. We hope that the bill will be a first step toward establishing a holiday that encourages all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, to take time to reflect on our journey of reconciliation with indigenous peoples, to gather together to honour survivors of residential schools, their families and their communities, and to encourage public commemoration and promotion of the shared values of inclusion and of mutual respect.

Let us make sure that the spirit of reconciliation is part of nation building and our national values. In this way, I believe we can aspire to an outcome that is aligned with the commitment to renew the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples, based on recognition, based on rights, based on respect and based on co-operation.

It is obvious that for too long, first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples have had to fight for rights and recognition. We know that we must make this recognition the basis for all relations with indigenous peoples. The bill represents an ideal way to commemorate and recognize their experience. I am therefore pleased to contribute to today's debate and to call upon the House to support the bill. This support is a part of the work that helps us build a Canada that includes every one of us.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the deferred recorded division on motion M-194, standing in the name of the member for Sault Ste. Marie, and motion M-206, standing in the name of the member for Newmarket—Aurora, currently scheduled on Wednesday, February 27, 2019, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business, be deferred anew to immediately after the time provided for Oral Questions of that day.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-369, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation), be read the third time and passed.

Bills of Exchange Act

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to rise for debate at second reading and again tonight at third reading. This is the bill to amend the Bills of Exchange Act and the Interpretation Act.

I want to congratulate my colleague for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for this important bill before us. I also want to acknowledge the very important words that have been said today. such as “a path forward” and the “need for reconciliation in Canada”.

I will start by commenting on what the bill would do.

Many people are not aware that federally regulated workers represent approximately 900,000 workers in Canada. What we are talking about in this bill is about 6% of the work force. I think people wonder if this will impact schools and other areas. We can only regulate federally regulated workers, so we are only talking about them. It is about 900,000 workers. Approximately one-third of them are public servants across Canada, which is about 6% of the total work force. These people work for Crown corporations, banks, marines, ports and railways, as well as employees of telephone companies and others. Those are the people we are talking about with respect to this statutory holiday.

I did ask a question of my colleague. I truly wish the committee had dealt with the one issue that perhaps is my biggest concern about the bill. They have moved the date to September. We have Labour Day. We then will have this day of reconciliation and then a short time late will be Thanksgiving.

Over the years we keep adding days to our statutory holidays, both federally and provincially, but we never look at the statutory holidays in existence to determine which ones may not make sense anymore. It is important for us as Canadians to honour, recognize and provide support for the survivors of this very dark chapter in our history. Maybe we need to look at something like Thanksgiving and determine whether it still makes sense or the many other holidays we have.

I would have been more comfortable and pleased to support the bill had there been discussion about it being an exchange, that we would create a new statutory holiday but we would perhaps look at taking away one of the existing statutory holidays.

People might think it is not a big deal, but the substitution concept is important. There is an impact with a statutory holiday. RCMP officers will get paid time and a half. We know our federal public payroll for a day is in the $195 million range. It will not be a dollar-for-dollar exchange. There will be an impact in the people who have to work overtime and in productivity. There will be a financial impact due to this bill. This is why we thought substitution would have been a much better option. We have an impact and we have many priorities.

I just want to reflect on some of the work we have been doing at committees, both at the heritage committee and at the indigenous committee.

The indigenous languages bill is before committee right now, where we are hearing how important language is going to be to the youth for their sense of connection to the culture.

We know it is important. Witnesses have consistently said that this legislation is important, but funding needs to be attached to it to get the job done.

I see the indigenous languages bill and the funding that is appropriately attached to it as something that will have more of an impact on the children and communities than someone in the banking industry honouring, hopefully, the day the way it should be honoured. We only need to look at Labour Day and the degree to which people participate for the reason we have Labour Day.

Remembrance Day across this country is not a statutory holiday, and I would suggest that people participate in veterans day in a very robust way. We do not need to have a statutory holiday to get to the meaning of what we are trying to accomplish.

The government has a deficit that is much larger than what it committed to. It is going to be $19 billion, which is much higher than what it told Canadians it would be. The Liberals do not seem to ever think about how to best spend money to make a real difference.

The indigenous languages bill is incredibly important. Education is incredibly important.

In January, the Liberals promised to table a bill on child welfare. It is going to be March pretty soon, and I do not know where that bill is. It will be an important bill, though, and hopefully they have done it right. It too is going to need resources attached to it so that we can actually accomplish what we need to accomplish.

I wish this were a substitution holiday and that we could perhaps remove an existing holiday and substitute this one, because then I could wholeheartedly support the bill. We could find no analysis in terms of understanding the implications of the bill. If I am going to spend significant dollars, I would much prefer to spend those dollars in communities, knowing that they will make a real difference for the children in those communities.

I recognize the many calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I talked about the languages. I talked about child welfare and how we are not moving forward. I think some of the calls to action are higher priorities and are more important to move forward on quickly. We know that some of the languages are dying as we speak.

The government has to make decisions. It needs to look at the calls to action and decide how to best approach them. The Liberals never really had a good plan. They just said that they were going to support them all, that they were going to implement them all, but they have never tabled a plan in terms of priorities and how we should move forward in partnership with first nation communities and the implications of each one. I have not seen that work done.

For the reasons I have articulated, it is with great regret that I will not be able to support this legislation.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by acknowledging that the land on which we are gathered today to speak to the important bill introduced by colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is part of the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

I think it is especially important to point that out because, from a reconciliation perspective, I want every elected member of the House to remember that historical fact during this evening's debate.

Call to action 80 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada states:

We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to establish, as a statutory holiday, a National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to honour Survivors, their families, and communities, and ensure that public commemoration of the history and legacy of residential schools remains a vital component of the reconciliation process.

It is in this context that my colleague introduced her bill to make National Indigenous Peoples Day a statutory holiday in Canada. As everyone is well aware, there are currently no federal statutory holidays dedicated to indigenous peoples. National Indigenous Peoples Day does exist and has been celebrated on June 21 since 1996, but it is not recognized as a statutory holiday under the Canada Labour Code.

Bill C-369 calls on the federal Parliament to show some leadership and set an example for the provincial and territorial governments that have not yet created this statutory holiday, in response to the call to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Reconciliation is not an indigenous issue, it is a Canadian issue. To achieve true reconciliation, we may be called upon to re-examine all aspects of Canadian society.

That is why the commission is calling on all levels of government in Canada to take concerted action and measures across the entire country and in all communities in the interest of reconciliation with first nations, Métis and Inuit.

To achieve that goal, merely recognizing the existence of these peoples is not enough. We must also recognize their history, their rights, their cultures and their languages.

By passing Bill C-369, the House of Commons would be sending a clear message about its intention to create space for reconciliation.

Once established, this national holiday would serve as a reminder to us all of what it really means to have a treaty-based nation-to-nation relationship. It would be an expression of respect for the historic and cultural importance of first nations, Métis and Inuit.

The people we wish to recognize by creating this statutory holiday are the first inhabitants of this continent, who arrived when the glaciers disappeared from these lands.

When the first French settlers arrived, indigenous people helped them survive by showing them how to adapt to the environment and the harsh climate, which was unfamiliar to the first Europeans to set foot in North America.

Of course, the bill would not tackle all the socio-economic problems faced by indigenous people, which my party raises all the time in the House.

In passing, I would like to mention the atrocious and intolerable living conditions found in too many indigenous communities throughout the territory that we now call Canada. The federal government continues to drag its feet. We need a targeted housing strategy for indigenous people.

Naturally, the creation of a holiday must be accompanied by significant action to improve living conditions for indigenous peoples in Canada. However, dedicating a holiday to indigenous peoples would provide a time and space for reflection on our colonial history and its lasting effects on the rights of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples across Canada.

For example, this holiday could become an opportunity to organize events to commemorate and raise awareness about victims of residential schools and Canada's colonial system, the effects of which still weigh heavily on indigenous peoples today.

My colleague's bill is not a new idea. In 1982, the National Indian Brotherhood, now known as the Assembly of First Nations, launched a campaign to have National Aboriginal Day recognized as a national holiday.

It was not until 1996 that June 21 was proclaimed National Aboriginal Day by then governor general Roméo LeBlanc.

This date was chosen after consultations with indigenous peoples and statements of support from numerous groups, some of which wanted the summer solstice to become National Aboriginal Day.

When my colleague originally introduced this bill, she also asked that National Aboriginal Day, June 21, be designated a federal statutory holiday.

At the time, the national day for truth and reconciliation was not clearly defined. Since 2016, Orange Shirt Day has become the appropriate day to commemorate the legacy of residential schools and honour their survivors. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which was in charge of studying Bill C-369, consulted first nations, Inuit and Métis, and they all agreed that September 30 should be considered the day of commemoration. The bill was amended to designate that date as the national day for truth and reconciliation.

As I said earlier, other governments in Canada have responded to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 80 by making National Indigenous Peoples Day a statutory holiday. It is a statutory holiday in the Northwest Territories and has been a holiday in Yukon since May 2017.

In June 2017, my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River introduced the bill we are debating today to get the federal government on board. In September 2017, provincial NDP MPP Michael Mantha introduced a bill in the Ontario legislature entitled An Act to proclaim Indigenous Day and make it a holiday.

The federal government has stated many times that its most important relationship is its relationship with indigenous peoples. The government also committed to responding to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action in a spirit of reconciliation and healing. Elected officials in other governments get it. This bill gives the government another opportunity to move from words to action.

Inspired by the commission's call to action 80, this bill would give hope to indigenous peoples by fostering awareness of the consequences of residential schools and paying tribute to residential school survivors and victims of foster family abuse, as well as their families and their communities.

In addition, a statutory holiday would give Canadians an opportunity to better understand and acknowledge our shared history, which is a crucial component of reconciliation. This bill gives the federal government, as well as the House of Commons, a chance to participate in the reconciliation process by designating a day to reflect on our dark colonial past and to pay tribute to the contributions, heritage, and diverse cultures and languages of indigenous peoples.

Long before the environment became a topical issue, indigenous people respected the environment and took a sustainable management approach. They developed democratic political and social systems. They understood the importance of forging alliances, and their diplomatic structure played an important role in the early days of settlement. We also have a lot to learn from their customs, including sharing and showing profound respect for elders. Many prominent indigenous figures and indigenous-led projects have helped give them a voice and earn recognition for indigenous contributions, heritage and cultures.

Kondiaronk, also known as Sastaretsi, sacrificed his life to help put an end to devastating wars by signing the Great Peace of Montreal in 1701. In Quebec, Wapikoni Mobile helps young people and gives them a voice. That is how Anishnabe rapper Samian found fame. Cindy Blackstock advocates on behalf of indigenous children who have been abandoned by the Canadian government. Melissa Mollen Dupuis, an Innu from the North Shore who co-founded the Quebec chapter of the Idle No More movement, advocates for environmental protection and for access to education, health care and adequate housing.

New Democrats are not the only ones who support the creation of a statutory holiday to recognize indigenous peoples. The Assembly of First Nations has been calling for this for years. Bobby Cameron, the chief of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, has supported this measure since 2017. Robert Bertrand, the national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, has also publicly expressed support.

I would like to conclude my speech by reading an excerpt from the farewell message of our friend Paul Dewar, who was taken from us too soon. At Paul's celebration of life, indigenous leader Claudette Commanda talked about how Paul had been given an eagle feather, which represents honesty, integrity and authenticity, and she thanked him for what he had done for her people.

Paul said:

Ottawa, don’t stop now. Let’s show our strength together. Let’s embrace the vision of Algonquin elder William Commanda for an authentic and organic future, rooted in the wisdom of the Indigenous people upon whose land we reside.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise on this very important piece of legislation, which I believe has widespread support that goes far beyond this chamber.

When we talk about indigenous peoples in Canada, there is no doubt that there is no relationship that is more important than that between Canada and indigenous peoples. In fact, we often hear the Prime Minister and others in the House talk about that very special relationship. A big part of that is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, in which there were a series of 94 recommendations. In fact, one of the documents I keep at hand is those 94 recommendations.

What we are talking about today is a recommendation that was a call to action from the report. I would like to read into the record exactly what call to action 80 is calling on the government, or members of Parliament, to act on. It says:

We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to establish, as a statutory holiday, a National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to honour Survivors, their families, and communities, and ensure that public commemoration of the history and legacy of residential schools remains a vital component of the reconciliation process.

This is something that has been discussed a great deal in the House on a number of different fronts. Today we are talking about the importance of call to action 80, dealing with recognizing a national holiday, which would be September 30 of every year. That is something I believe we see support for from both sides. I can appreciate the Conservative Party is not necessarily onside with it for whatever reason, but it is fair to say that all members recognize the importance of having a designation.

I would like to think that when we talk about reconciliation and the importance of remembering and appreciating what actually took place during the residential school era, it is taken seriously at all different levels. I would like to think, for example, that our schools have a role to play in this. I would like to think, as has been pointed out, even provincial entities have a role to play in this. What we are seeing today is that the House of Commons, because it is not just the Government of Canada but members of Parliament on all sides of the House, is recognizing the importance of that particular call to action. That speaks volumes about the amount of goodwill.

When the previous speaker was concluding her remarks, we could see the emotion and the importance of this very issue. Over the last number of years we have seen some really wonderful debates. At times they can be very emotional debates that take place, and some of the more emotional debates that I have witnessed, sitting in the chamber, happen when we talk about reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada.

This is not the first time we have been addressing the truth and reconciliation report and the many different calls to action. Just a couple of weeks ago in the chamber, we were talking about calls to action 13 and 14. It was yet another piece of legislation that was introduced, this one by a cabinet minister of the government, in essence dealing with language and culture, ensuring that the language of indigenous peoples will be around for generations to come.

During that debate, there was widespread support for the legislation, again because of reconciliation. The Prime Minister indicated, and I believe all of us would agree, that reconciliation is not the responsibility of any one individual. We all have a role to play. That is why I was encouraged today during private members' hour. A member from the Liberal caucus forfeited his spot in order to allow for the legislation to be debated today. It sends a very important message, which is that when it comes to reconciliation, we are prepared to put the politics of partisanship to the side in order to ensure the right thing is done.

I applaud my colleague in the Liberal caucus for offering his position and I applaud the member from the New Democratic Party for bringing forward an important piece of legislation. By working together, we are seeing a greater likelihood of this call to action being addressed. Equally, when other legislation or budgetary measures are brought forward that deal with the calls to action for truth and reconciliation, we see support that bridges more than just one political party.

I represent Winnipeg North and can say that, with an indigenous population somewhere in the neighbourhood of 18% to 20% in my riding, this is a very important issue. Much of the damage that was caused by residential schools people can witness first-hand by walking around the north end of Winnipeg and talking to some of the people, as I have, as to just how severe the impact of residential schools has been. When we see actions by the government to try to tackle these important issues, it is important to me personally and as the representative of Winnipeg North to ensure that we try to advance these very important pieces of legislation.

We know, for example, the government has legislation dealing with child welfare and child welfare is a very serious issue that has to be dealt with. Whether it is the Prime Minister, ministers or the Liberal caucus, or I suspect members from the NDP and the Conservative Party, they recognize that the status quo needs to change. When we bring forward the child welfare legislation, which is not that far away, I anticipate there will be a healthy debate. Hopefully we will get the same sort of support for that legislation as we are seeing for the legislation brought forward by the member opposite. I believe that is what we will see, at least I hope that is what we will see, because it is important.

I started my comments by saying there is no relationship more important to Canada than the one with indigenous peoples. If we believe that to be true, I highly recommend the report by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, in particular, the fine work that Senator Sinclair did, and the 94 calls to action. Today we are talking about recommendation 80. There is still more to come and I look forward to the ongoing debate and discussion so that members not only in the chamber but well beyond, in all the regions of the country, will recognize just how important it is that we affirm that positive relationship.

[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.

Public Services and Procurement

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to follow-up on issues I raised earlier in question period. In particular, I would like to raise an issue that has to do with the Phoenix payroll system.

Simply put, thousands of civilian members of the RCMP have been told that the government is keen to transition them over to the Phoenix payroll system. Currently, they are paid on the payroll system of the RCMP, which has not had the problems that Phoenix has had. Those problems are legion. We know of cases in Elmwood—Transcona of federal public servants who have had their homes put in jeopardy and serious strain put on their families. Civilian members of the RCMP do not want to be put in that same boat and, I think quite reasonably, just want to wait until Phoenix is actually fixed before they are transitioned over.

At one time in the life of this Parliament, the former president of the Treasury Board made a commitment that civilian members of the RCMP would not be transitioned over to the Phoenix payroll system until it was fixed. In fact, a memo went out that said that initiative was indefinitely suspended. Unfortunately, sometime after that, another memo went out saying that it had simply been postponed and that in the spring of 2020, civilian members of the RCMP would be transitioned over.

This week, we heard that an internal government memo estimated that it may take up to 10 years to fix the Phoenix payroll system, and it will certainly take four or five years. For those who are not great at math, it means that the spring of 2020 will come long before the government itself estimates that Phoenix will be fixed. It is quite reasonable that civilian members of the RCMP want to wait until that is over.

Therefore, I am looking for some reassurance from the government today that it will wait until it has Phoenix right before it puts the pay of thousands of civilian members of the RCMP, who do great work on behalf of and for Canadians, in jeopardy. That is what I am here to ask. Would the government kindly wait until Phoenix is fixed to make this transition so they are not subjected to undue strain because of the payroll system?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, the late shows, as they are referred to here among us, generally follow on questions asked in question period, and the issues raised around the RCMP are not related to the question that generated this opportunity to have a follow-up question. I will ensure that the member opposite gets a response from the minister responsible. Those specifics, while not dealt with in the original question, have emerged subsequent to the conversations and deserve a clear response.

In relation to the Phoenix pay system, we know the ongoing problems have caused unacceptable hardships for hard-working and good people in the public service, including our families, in many cases. Our government has been taking action on this complicated file and we will continue to do so until all employees are paid accurately and fairly for the work they have done, every time. This is the minister's top priority.

I would like to also take this opportunity to update the House on the significant progress that has been made to stabilize the Phoenix system. Public Services and Procurement Canada is working with the Treasury Board Secretariat as they focus on options for the next generation of the human resources pay system.

The Auditor General's report states that this issue began because the scope and complexity of pay transformation was vastly underestimated. As well, system functionality, testing and training were de-scoped in order to save money. In other words, the previous government saved money on the backs of public servants. This is unconscionable. It did this to meet timelines and balance its budget, not to make sure people were paid properly. Indeed, the report confirms that what we have long maintained on this issue is true.

We have taken steps to immediately implement the Auditor General's recommendations by strengthening policy instruments, governance structures and project management approaches around government-wide information technology initiatives. We will improve training, become engaged earlier and analyze project trends and issues more deeply as we go forward.

ln addition, we have implemented measures to stabilize the pay system and reduce the backlog of late transactions and wait times for missing pay. These measures are well aligned with the recommendations made by the Auditor General. I want to briefly elaborate on these measures. Increased capacity and improved service are two of the key accomplishments. With the funding provided by budget 2018 of $431.4 million over six years to continue to address pay challenges, we have increased the number of employees at the pay centre and regional offices to more than 1,500 public servants. That is more than double the number of compensation advisers since Phoenix was launched.

ln addition, our government continues to roll out the pay pod delivery model. This is critically important. This new system allows us to group models together for compensation advisers and compensation assistants assigned to specific departments or agencies. These teams work cohesively to process current intake within the effective pay period, while also working through the backlog and addressing outstanding cases in an employee's file. This is in contrast to the previous approach of the last government, which was to address pay issues on a transaction-by-transaction basis.

Our model provides better service to employees in departments and agencies served by the pay centre and is starting to show positive results. Since January of 2018, the number of transactions waiting to be processed in departments and agencies served by pay pods have decreased by over 160,000 individual claims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that this exchange is a follow-up to a series of questions I asked in question period on October 26, 2018. The first was a general question about Phoenix. The supplementary that immediately followed that question went as follows:

It is why civilian members of the RCMP are upset that the government has reversed a previous commitment not to put them on the Phoenix payroll system until it is fixed and instead has created an arbitrary deadline of 2020....

Why are the Liberals risking doing material damage to the men and women of the RCMP when the payroll system is not ready to go and will they reverse the decision?

Therefore, I am very much on topic in my follow-up and in asking the parliamentary secretary to address the issue of RCMP civilian members who are going to be transitioned to Phoenix. This arbitrary deadline creates a lot of anxiety in their lives, particularly as they hear the stories of federal civil servants who have been going through a kind of hell when they are not being paid properly, are overpaid, are underpaid or are not paid at all.

If he is not prepared to answer the question today, could I get a commitment from him with a letter either deferring the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have been able to give a comprehensive response to the request if I had heard it, but unfortunately he was cut off.

What I can stress to the member opposite is that I will certainly try to get the information he asks for regarding the decision involving civilian members of the RCMP and make sure that he understands fully why the decisions that were made have been made.

Let me stress again that we are taking action so that all employees are paid accurately, on time, every time. The Auditor General has said that this is a complex problem with no quick fixes, and our government is taking action on many fronts to stabilize the Phoenix pay system. We are making steady progress and reducing the backlog and keeping it from growing while we eventually implement the new system.

There is a lot of work to be done. Thanks to our integrated approach and making sure that we work with the public service unions and their departments, agencies and employees, we continue to move forward on this file.

Let me add that all of us who deal with this issue on a day-by-day basis in our constituency offices are as committed as the member opposite to making sure that people who work get paid and that we do not balance budgets on the backs of employees by short—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

Carbon Pricing

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad for this opportunity to readdress the question I put to the Minister of Environment in the House, as the response failed to answer my question and actually gave credence to my concerns.

I will quote from my question and her response, as follows. I said:

Madam Speaker, Boombata Homes is an innovative company that will be hit hard by the Liberal carbon tax imposed on Saskatchewan businesses. It means that families working hard to afford a home will now face even higher prices. It also means that the Liberal affordable housing program will be more expensive.

Jason and Susan know what it will mean for their business, their subcontractors and their construction workers. ... Why do large corporations get exemptions from the government and they do not?

The hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change replied:

When I talk to small businesses, and I have talked to small businesses across the country, what do they want to do? They want to do right by the environment. They want to be more energy efficient, save money and lower their emissions.

I will give the example of VariForm. It is a steel manufacturer in Cambridge. What did it do? It reduced its emissions by 80% and saved a million dollars.

We are going to support small businesses to be more energy efficient so they can save money to reinvest in their businesses and create more jobs.

VariForm has much to be proud of. Its actions were motivated by the very things the minister mentioned: to grow the business while improving its impact on the environment.

However, it is important to note that the minister's example actually affirms the reality that a carbon tax is not necessary and is punitive toward small businesses, because VariForm took most of its actions to achieve this during the Harper government. VariForm was not then threatened with the punishment of a Liberal carbon tax. It seems to me that the VariForm people were rational actors. Since the objective of a business is to maximize profit, they took good environmental actions that added to their bottom line.

One very serious negative implication of the Liberal carbon tax is that SMEs that have taken steps to be more efficient and reduce their carbon footprint will still pay for the Liberal carbon tax with absolutely no recognition of their stewardship.

The Liberal carbon tax, combined with the oppressive regulation regime the Prime Minister is imposing on the resource sector, will undoubtedly increase input costs for businesses, including VariForm. In addition, as a steel manufacturer, it is no doubt being impacted by the steel and aluminum tariffs as well, which are crippling our Canadian steel manufacturing industries.

The funds brought into the Liberal coffers by the reciprocal tariffs are not being used to meet the needs of the manufacturers impacted by the tariffs, especially the small and medium-sized enterprises, as they may not meet the requirement of 200 employees to access the program, while large manufacturers again are literally exempt from paying the carbon tax.

These same SMEs were labelled as tax cheats for growing their passive income to cover emergencies, growth of their business and, heaven forbid, their own retirement once they had reached that point in life. Now their passive income is being eaten up trying to keep their business above water so that they can continue to employ their workers.

It appears that putting companies out of business and Canadians into the unemployment lines may be the Liberal solution to reducing greenhouse gases. The Liberal government continues to punish the very Canadians who take the risks, fuel our economy and respect the environment.

We need solutions that incentivize innovation and are a global answer to reducing greenhouse gases. As Conservatives, we believe Canadians will only continue to become more innovative through a sense of responsibility and incentives, such as what farmers and small businesses are doing in Saskatchewan.

It is Canada's leadership opportunity to the world to be an example of good stewardship while growing our economy through private entrepreneurs encouraged by sound science and motivation. The Liberal Prime Minister continues to fail to lead at home and on the world stage.

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Yorkton—Melville for her question, both in question period previously and again today.

I want to correct the record. I know the member has indicated on a number of occasions during her remarks that there is some kind of exemption for big business. That is patently false when we look at the facts. What we have established is an output-based pricing system that specifically applies a price on pollution for large emitters.

With respect to the constituents she referenced, like many Canadians, Jason and Susan run a successful business, and they want to know, quite fairly, how putting a price on pollution is going to affect their business.

On the issue of big emitters, the Province of Saskatchewan, I would note, is actually implementing an output-based pricing system for some of its large industry. The federal output-based pricing system will apply to the electricity and natural gas sectors to fill in the gaps.

Large industrial facilities typically emit significant amounts of greenhouse gas pollution and often face competition in jurisdictions that do not yet have a price on pollution. This system will have a price for industry that will help maintain competitiveness relative to international peers.

Under this kind of system, companies will have to pay for emissions over a sector performance standard. If they perform better than the standard, they will get a credit, and if they perform worse than the standard, they will have to pay based on the exact same price signal that applies across the entire economy. The result is that companies will have a continuous incentive to cut pollution and support clean innovation while minimizing the costs they pay.

This approach is recognized as an international best practice. Quebec and Alberta have variations of this kind of a system in effect today. B.C. is developing a similar one, and Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador are putting similar systems into effect. California and the EU have included these kinds of policies in their systems as well.

The federal government, and this is the good news for families, is going to return the majority of all direct proceeds collected in Saskatchewan directly to households, including those of Jason and Susan. A typical family of four in Saskatchewan, when they file their taxes, is actually going to receive a climate action incentive of $609. It is curious that the members of the opposition would like to take this money from their constituents.

The government will also use proceeds from the federal fuel charge to support small businesses like Boombata Homes. The government recognizes that small businesses are critically important to the Canadian economy. Providing direct support will help them take climate action and lower their energy costs while keeping them competitive. In Saskatchewan, the government estimates that about $300 million in proceeds will be available over the next five years for small businesses in that province.

Through Canada's climate action and clean growth plan, the government is providing additional financial support to help companies invest in actions that will increase their energy efficiency and reduce their exposure to carbon pricing. For example, since 2016, the Government of Canada has allocated over $336 million for investments in public transit projects in Saskatchewan, such as bus fleet renewals in Saskatoon and Moose Jaw.

Putting a price on pollution is simply a common-sense way to reduce our emissions, invest in a cleaner tomorrow for our kids and grandkids and help Canada compete in the emerging global low carbon economy.

I note in particular that everyone who has equity in this conversation, including the director of policy for former prime minister Stephen Harper, Doug Ford's chief budget adviser, The Economist magazine, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and virtually everyone who has taken a look at climate economics, says this is exactly the kind of thing we should be doing.

We are moving forward with a plan that is going to reduce emissions and make life more affordable for Canadians.