Alupa Clarke

[National Defence, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that is the main point: it is not the right equipment.

The Super Hornets will be operational for about 12 years, at most, and will cost Canadian taxpayers over $300 million per plane. Worse still, there are no significant industrial benefits on the horizon for Canadian workers or businesses. The Minister of Public Services and Procurement has a duty to manage taxpayers' money prudently, while also supporting Canadian industries.

How far is the minister willing to go to promote the Liberal Party's political interests rather than the interests of all Canadians in this great federation?

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada must absolutely be independent.

In passing, when we were in government, Canadian agencies and all crown corporations had the privilege of having a government that absolutely respected their independence. We see quite the opposite with this government.

For example, I participated in the study on the future of Canada Post. Government members issued an extremely intrusive report in which they brazenly told the crown corporation what it was to do instead of telling it to carry out its mandate and provide proper service to all Canadians.

The independence of our crown corporations and government agencies is very important. I will repeat that, ultimately, the former chief statistician was not pleased with the government. That may be a sign that the current government does not respect Statistic Canada's independence.

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, all surveys are very important to our democratic society. They provide basic information, real objective data that enable members of society, such as academics, political parties, and departments, to design public policy that meets Canadians' needs.

I myself have always been proud to respond to Statistics Canada surveys. I think they are essential to our democracy.

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when I saw my colleague here today, I knew he would be the first to ask a question.

The bill states right there in black and white that its purpose is to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada and give the chief statistician more tools with which to exercise that independence. We should, however, look at the Liberal Party's record on this issue so far. Its chief statistician resigned last summer, and its bill does not address Mr. Smith's concerns.

Mr. Smith would appear to be in a better position than the government to ascertain what Statistics Canada needs. The government's response to the needs he expressed is inadequate. I would like the government to explain how its bill will address the chief statistician's concerns.

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to speak this morning. I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond Centre.

Like the members who have already spoken today, I want to talk about Bill C-36, which is meant to strengthen Statistics Canada's independence. Together, we will look at whether this bill can achieve that official objective because it might also have unofficial objectives.

I think it would be useful to explain to our constituents, including the wonderful people of Beauport—Limoilou, that Statistics Canada was created in 1971 because the federal government has a duty to collect and compile statistics on Canada and its people. Its duty is right there in the law that sets out the federal government's responsibilities. Statistics are therefore under federal jurisdiction. Even provincial statistics are within the agency's purview.

Statistics Canada has been serving Canadians for 40 years. It has produced many studies that I am sure have formed the basis for many of Canada's public policies. Those studies have led to positive outcomes for all Canadians.

In our Liberal democracy, data are extremely important. I used data when I was studying political science, and I use them now in my day-to-day work.

Statistics Canada seeks to produce statistics on the country's populations, resources, economy, society, and culture. Statistics Canada is currently conducting over 300 studies, which will provide us with objective information that will help us make informed decisions while ensuring that the source of that information, the everyday lives of our fellow Canadians, is kept confidential.

I use these data in my capacity as an MP and so do my employees. The data are also used by businesses, universities, and scientists. They are used by the parties to determine their political platforms so that, when a party wins the election and takes office, it can develop informed public policies.

What does Bill C-36 do exactly? After reading the bill, my understanding is that it makes changes to four key areas.

First, the chief statistician would be appointed for a fixed term of five years, renewable for good behaviour and removable only for cause by the Governor in Council. That seems commendable. Although it is not the bill's intention, the chief statistician would nonetheless be authorized to choose where the statistical data would be stored. We think that could be problematic since the government gave the new Canadian statistics advisory council its name and so it obviously expects that council to advise the chief statistician.

Second, the bill provides for the creation of a new Canadian statistics advisory council made up of 10 members. It would replace the National Statistics Council, which currently has 13 members. I will come back to this later since it seems that this change will negatively impact provincial and territorial representation.

Third, under the bill, the consent of Canadians will no longer be required to transfer their census information to Library and Archives Canada.

Fourth, the bill will remove the penalty of imprisonment for Canadians who fail to fill out the census forms, a change that we strongly support.

I would like to say that one of our Conservative colleagues in the previous Parliament, Mr. Preston, had brought forward a bill to repeal the penalty of imprisonment for all surveys. Unfortunately, the bill did not receive royal assent before the writ was dropped.

Obviously, we support this aspect of the bill given that we wanted to make this change.

I will now speak to our position on this bill. We want to debate it in the House and vote to send it to committee for more in-depth study in order to make some amendments. In particular, we find that it is very important to amend the provisions of the bill that would change the National Statistics Council to the Canadians Statistics Advisory Council, a body with 10 members instead of 13.

We believe that this new advisory council would give the Liberals another opportunity to appoint their cronies. We have another concern. Since the council will provide advice about relevance, the surveys could be biased towards the Liberals and even friends of the council.

We find it hard to understand why the government must establish a new council rather than just revising the mandate of the current National Statistics Council, which currently has 13 members representing the 10 provinces and three territories.

Much like we did during the debate on the selection of the next Supreme Court of Canada justice, we voiced our grave concerns regarding the importance of ensuring strong representation from all regions of Canada on the Supreme Court.

Because the council is going to have only 10 members instead of 13, we find ourselves debating the issue through the lens of defending the federation. Obviously, the representation of three jurisdictions in Canada will have to be cut from the council. Does this mean that three of the 10 provinces will no longer be represented on the new council, or have the Liberals decided that the three Canadian territories, that is, Nunavut, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories, will no longer be represented? In either case, whether representation on the council is taken away from three provinces or the three territories, we think it is appalling.

As I said earlier, the mission of Canada's statistics agency is to provide information to Canadians, particularly for the development of sound public policies with objectives based on reliable hard facts. At present, the council that is supposed to support the work of the chief statistician so that he can effectively run the agency will not have the support of people who understand the realities of the provinces and territories.

Furthermore, the bill does nothing to address the concerns raised by Mr. Smith, the former chief statistician. He resigned last summer after voicing his concerns, which are being ignored. When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on November 16, 2016, Mr. Smith shared his three main concerns with us. This first was this:

...Shared Services Canada represented a major and unacceptable intrusion on the independence of Statistics Canada.

His second concern was as follows:

...the arrangement with Shared Services Canada imposed on Statistics Canada was inconsistent with the confidentiality guarantees given by the Statistics Act to persons and organizations providing information to Statistics Canada for statistical purposes.

His third concern was:

...dependence on Shared Services Canada was hobbling Statistics Canada in its day-to-day operations, reducing effectiveness, increasing costs, and creating unacceptable levels of risk to the delivery of Statistics Canada's programs.

The former chief statistician says he was not satisfied with the government's response to his concerns. I get the impression that this new bill does not fare much better.

For all these reasons, we hope that during review in committee, the government will accept our key amendments.

[Port of Québec, February 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his answer.

I understand that this is the first phase and that the government needs to conduct an assessment. That being said, when the member mentioned that the federal government has approved 57 infrastructure projects in Quebec, I could not help but notice that there does not seem to be anything for Quebec City.

What about the third link? The Liberal minister for the region, who says that he is not the minister for the region, has not said anything about it. No solution has been proposed regarding the Quebec Bridge, nor have we heard anything about the bus rapid transit system, a key project of the Quebec City mayor.

I understand the importance of government procedures, but regardless of what steps the government needs to take in relation to Beauport 2020, I would like to know whether the $60-million envelope is still there. That is what port authorities, the Government of Quebec, the mayor of Quebec City, and my constituents want to know.

[Port of Québec, February 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor this evening. I am glad to have the opportunity to address my colleague from Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs for the first time.

This evening, I would like to talk about the Port of Québec, an extremely important port and the oldest one in Canada. It is more than four centuries old and part of Quebec City's very foundation.

The Port of Québec has reached a turning point. If it does not look to the future, focus on development, and expand its operations, then, sadly, it will soon die.

Three projects are under way. Beauport 2020 is of utmost importance. L'Anse au Foulon is an extension of Samuel-De Champlain Boulevard. During the election campaign, there was a promise to invest $12 million in it. The Louise Basin is another Port of Québec site with plans for development.

During its first year in power, the Liberal government did not have much to say about those projects. It was silent on the subject of l'Anse au Foulon, the Louise Basin, and Beauport 2020. There was nothing about Beauport 2020 in the throne speech or in the budget, and not much talk about it in general other than brief mentions by the Minister of Transport during his infrequent stops in Quebec City.

Beauport 2020 is vital to helping the Port of Québec remain competitive internationally and in North America. This project is also important to maintaining 8,000 direct and indirect jobs in the greater Quebec City area. Among other things, Beauport 2020 includes plans to double the area of the port's wharves. It is important because investments tied to this project will make it possible to complete significant repairs to the port facilities so that the Port of Québec can remain competitive in North America.

The environmental assessment is well under way. We are currently at the public hearing stage. Social licence will not be a problem, I am quite sure, because the port authorities are doing a good job. There has been constant dialogue between the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Port of Québec. The agency has given the green light for public hearings to begin. By July 1, Canada Day, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change should receive a positive report from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. I am confident that she will receive a positive report for this project. The Government of Quebec and municipal authorities all support this project. The Liberal Government of Canada has also said that it supports the project. However, it has been very tight-lipped about it for the past year.

My question is very simple. One month before the election, the Conservative government confirmed that there was a $60 million envelope for the Port of Québec's Beauport 2020 project. The Minister of Transport repeatedly stated that he would honour the previous Conservative government's commitment in due course. My question is for the parliamentary secretary. Is this $60 million envelope, which was allocated by the Conservative government, still available? Is this amount still on the books? Other than saying that the government supports the Beauport 2020 project, can the government tell us whether this envelope exists and is still available today?

[Public Services and Procurement, February 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Phoenix pay system fiasco has reached a new low.

Over 150 desperate public servants have turned to the Access to Information Act in order to find out the details of their pay file. The minister is bragging about being proactive and taking quick action on this file. I do not believe that to be the case, however. In fact, thousands of families have been hung out to dry, without knowing what happens next.

After all this, does the minister seriously expect us to believe that public servants still have faith in her leadership?

[Public Services and Procurement, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable. My colleague is talking about new transparency measures, but we know what happened this morning. We learned from a journalist that 150 employees who are currently having problems with the Phoenix pay system have turned to the Access to Information Act to find out what is happening with their pay, when it will be resolved, and what errors have been made. They had to turn to the Access to Information Act. I do not know what these new measures are, but they are obviously not working.

I would like to come back to what I was saying earlier. The real problem here is the minister's lack of accountability. It very much seems like she is not managing her department. First, she approved the activation of the Phoenix pay system in February when three reports, including the Gartner report, indicated that the system was not ready—

[Public Services and Procurement, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take part in this evening's proceedings. I want to begin by congratulating the member for Gatineau on his new role. I look forward to working with him on the many issues related to the Department of Public Services and Procurement.

First of all, I would like to talk about the fiasco that is the Phoenix pay system for those watching us. It began in February 2016 when the Liberal government decided to approve the implementation of a new pay system, that is a new computer system meant to ensure that all public servants receive their pay properly on a given date, in other words every two weeks.

It was a huge change, especially considering the more than 300,000 public servants in the system, and the fact that the previous pay system had been in place for over 40 years. Thus, it was considered a huge change, one that had been planned by the previous Conservative government. In 2016, we were not there to assess its effectiveness and operational readiness.

Last February, the government, through the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, gave the go-ahead to implement the system. A month later, government workers began to notice major problems. Some of them were not getting paid, which is pretty serious. Some of them were not getting their employment benefits, such as maternity leave or a pay raise following a promotion. Others were not getting the correct pay. Some were getting too much, which made no sense to them, and others too little. As the months passed, the situation got worse and worse. The problem ballooned from a few thousand public servants having trouble with their pay to tens of thousands of cases. By July 5, 2016, there were 80,000 cases.

At that point, after three months of pressure from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and budget forecasts by the opposition parties, both Conservative and NDP, the government acknowledged the situation and said it would take action. The minister held a press conference on July 5. She stated that there was a backlog of 80,000 cases of people with the kinds of pay problems I mentioned. She said that the backlog would be cleared by October 30. It is now February 2017, five months later, and there is still a 13,500-case backlog.

The problem is not the government's process. The problem is the lack of accountability. The minister says she was not made aware of the Gartner report that was submitted to her department in February which said that the Phoenix pay system was not ready to be implemented. The minister says she did not see that report, but approved the system anyway.

Accordingly, the deputy minister did not respect the minister's responsibility and worse, if the minister did indeed see the report, which is my personal opinion, then she went ahead knowing that the system was not ready to be implemented.