Agreed.
House of Commons Hansard #387 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was inmates.
House of Commons Hansard #387 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was inmates.
Business of the HousePrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Business of the HousePrivate Members' Business
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.
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 Anishinabe 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 LiberalParliamentary 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.
Bills of Exchange ActPrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker 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.
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 LiberalParliamentary 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—
Public Services and ProcurementAdjournment Proceedings
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—
Public Services and ProcurementAdjournment Proceedings
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 LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
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.
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that his responses do not apply in this case, because the money the Liberals are giving back to Canadians is money they have already taken from Canadians. They are simply giving back a portion of that.
I have yet to see anything that indicates that this type of program, which is supposedly revenue-neutral for Canadians, could possibly be that, because we know what it costs for government to do anything. We are not seeing the costs involved for the administration of this type of program by the government. Almost without fault, things tend to balloon even larger. There are also no comments from the government about the additional GST that is going to be charged to Canadians on top of what they are paying.
What I am responding to here, on behalf of my constituents, is that they are already doing all the things that make a difference for the country and do not require a carbon tax to do that.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is an opportunity, in the one minute I have, to just state that when we were trying to develop a plan to help fight climate change while having a minimal impact on the Canadian economy, we actually looked at the advice of experts.
The Nobel Prize winner in economics this past year was actually awarded the prize for the development of this kind of plan. It is actually going to put a price on pollution that might make life more expensive for polluters but will make life more affordable for Canadian families. It is going to help protect competitiveness.
I note, in particular, that the member had some questions about the cost of administration. There is not going to be a single penny that comes out of this price. It is actually going to be taken from the province in which the pollution is generated. Folks from Saskatchewan are actually going to receive more money than other provinces, specifically because there is more pollution coming out of those provinces.
The plan is actually quite simple. We are putting a price on pollution and returning that money to businesses and families in the member's province.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 2018, days after advocates from across Canada visited Ottawa for Housing on the Hill Day, I took the opportunity to highlight some of the struggles facing front-line organizations hoping to access the national housing strategy's co-investment fund.
I asked the hon. minister if he would be willing to get down to work to alleviate the excessive administrative burdens placed on groups with limited resources who are forced to fill out lengthy and onerous applications, with almost 200 questions, to even have a chance at accessing the co-investment fund.
However, that is clearly not the only issue with this fund. This program also has a five-unit minimum, which excludes some smaller viable projects, many of which could be built in smaller towns and rural communities.
The online system for applying to this fund is onerous and difficult to navigate. The help from the government for applicants is lacking. Applicants have cited incidents of government staff being unable to answer basic questions, and even worse, giving out the wrong information. One applicant stated there was a feeling of learning the process alongside the government staff who were administering the program.
Making funding dependent upon the participation of local or provincial governments makes sense, but waiting for guaranteed commitments from those partners often prevents projects from being submitted in a timely manner. We have a crisis and we need housing now.
Last November, at the one-year anniversary of the release of the national housing strategy, Canadians were provided with an update on achievements to date. The announcement seemed to imply a reporting back on the achievements of the national housing strategy, but in fact included all activity on housing since 2016, investments prior to the launch of the national housing strategy.
The actual progress on the initiatives announced in the national housing strategy, to lots of fanfare, speeches, news releases and media headlines, is much more limited. If we are to truly evaluate the success of the first-ever national housing strategy, the government must live up to its rhetoric on transparency and accountability. Canadians and parliamentarians deserve good information that is accurate and presented in a way that would allow us to actually evaluate the strategy. More facts than fanfare would be appreciated.
The government promised real change, but the rollout of the national housing strategy does not seem to be based in reality. Sadly, the government has been very slow to roll out new investment and to implement the programs touted in the strategy. The words are there but the action on the ground to make a difference and truly roll out the dollars is not.
Every year, 235,000 people experience some form of homelessness in Canada, and almost three million Canadians spend more than 30% of their income on housing. In the face of these shocking numbers, the glacial pace of implementation of the national housing initiative is frustrating for many stakeholders, and more significantly, for the many households in deep need and those on the streets and in emergency shelters all across the country.
Did the minister or a representative sit down and listen to those that know, like the non-profit housing providers, and allow the flexibility they asked for? Did the government then make the necessary changes so that all communities could get down to work and address the housing and homelessness crisis in this country? A yes or no answer with details would be greatly appreciated.
Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families
Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. We sit down with housing providers every day of every week and learn from them what challenges they may encounter in accessing funds through the national housing strategy. The good news is, because of the continual intake process and the continual granting process of this program, as we learn and hear from housing providers from coast to coast to coast, from rural communities, big cities, indigenous communities, remote communities and coastal communities, we are adapting the program to build the system as they build housing.
The results speak for themselves. The members of the party opposite often say that no money is coming until after the election. The reality is that we have already spent more than $5.7 billion, most of that new money, on the housing system. It was a down payment to get us moving toward the national housing strategy. Now that we are in the midst of the national housing strategy, there is more than $40 billion forecast over the next 10 years to build housing. The result is that it now exceeds 15,000, since we were given the updated numbers. However, 15,000 new units have been approved or are under construction and close to 150,000 units have been repaired.
The member from British Columbia who said that repairs do not matter is just fundamentally wrong. In the city that I represent, when we took office, we were losing housing faster than we were building it because repair dollars were not being invested. Repair dollars are as essential to the housing system as construction dollars are. In fact, I was in Burnaby just last week, where we announced a total rebuild of a co-op housing program that took the old plumbing out, replaced it with new plumbing, cleaned it of black mould and then replastered the insides of buildings and made them more airtight and therefore more energy efficient. That was one of the co-investment projects that was funded in British Columbia.
We are committed to a number of things. We are committed to building. We are committed to repairing. We are also committed to subsidizing housing. One of the things that the party opposite fails to understand, and its promise shows this when it makes numbers that are global in nature in the same way that Doug Ford in Ontario delivers slogans about housing, is that when the members just say they are going to build a lot of housing, if they are not also simultaneously talking about repairing it, and at the same time subsidizing it and at the same time providing subsidies for housing, they are not actually building a housing system. They are just building housing. If they just build housing and they do not subsidize it into affordability and do not support the people inside it to make sure they can be self-sufficient and they do not program maintenance and operating dollars into the program, they build housing but they do not support people living in housing.
Therefore, our program has been very progressively and properly funded to do all of those things: to support dollars for construction, to support dollars for repair, to support dollars for subsidies and to support dollars for the support of people. The new dollars are flowing as we speak.
I was in Burnaby to announce co-op programs. There were four of them. I was not in Barrie because the weather did not let me, but Barrie, Ontario, has been granted money. There are three projects in Woodstock. We just announced a project in Toronto last week. There are three programs that we announced in Saskatchewan just a month ago. More is being announced day by day. The system is growing.
The party opposite is right to focus on this as a critical issue for Canada. Good housing programs do not just house people who need the supports. They also create economies in the communities where these projects are presented and they also create platforms for the success of other government interventions around child poverty, veterans, making sure we fight climate change, and making sure that immigrants and refugees are settled properly in this country.
The national housing strategy is real. It is housing real people with real dollars now. The successes are just as real. We listen and change the program to make sure that everybody who applies gets help.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is really not for Canadians nor for the opposition to pat the government on the back for what I feel are half-measures. A government committed to a rights-based approach would not have as its goal a 50% reduction in chronic shelter users. This goal falls well short of what Canadians expected from the current Liberal government.
The national housing strategy must be more than announcements about previous investments. It must deliver the results and the promises made to Canadians by the current government. The government must move up federal funding, and next month's budget is an opportunity to show Canadians the government is serious about the housing crisis.
A safe, affordable place to call home is a fundamental human right. Therefore, I add this to my comments today. When will our laws reflect what was promised, and protect vulnerable Canadians? When will the current Liberal government match its talk with action and the dollars needed to truly launch a national housing strategy of consequence?
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
Mr. Speaker, the right to housing moves forward, and I can assure the member opposite we will have legislation before this House rises.
However, as the member calls for us to match talk with action, I would ask her why she ran for a party that did not even match the talk it talked. The party opposite promised to spend an extra $10 million a year on homelessness across the country, and in its new housing policy it does not even mention the word “homeless”. In fact, it offers tax breaks to millionaires in Vancouver as opposed to helping people on the street.
Additionally, when the party opposite talks about spending dollars, its platform, the platform on which she sought a seat in this House, promised zero dollars for new housing in the second, third and fourth year of an NDP government if it had won the last election. The only thing worse than moving slowly on housing would be for it to match its promise, its rhetoric and its commitment to housing.
This government has not only delivered new dollars, more dollars than the NDP promised, but we have delivered them to real people in real housing need right now as we speak. I am proud of that.
HousingAdjournment Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8:13 p.m.)