Erin Weir

[Public Services and Procurement, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House today, the 150th anniversary of the first-ever sitting of our federal Parliament. For most of those 150 years, the Government of Canada had no great difficulty paying its employees.

The Phoenix payroll system is a huge embarrassment not only in terms of the Government of Canada's history, but also in comparison to other countries and to provincial and municipal governments that have no great difficulty paying their employees correctly and on time.

A lot has already been said in this place about the problems with Phoenix, so I do not want to focus on repeating those stories this evening. What I would like to do is put forward three concrete solutions to the Phoenix boondoggle, and I would be very interested in hearing the government's responses to these proposals.

The first solution is to develop and make use of the expertise that exists within our federal public service. A big part of the problem with Phoenix was the notion of contracting out quite complex federal government payrolls. I fear the other chamber of Parliament, the Senate, is going even further down the road of contracting out by trying to find an alternative supplier for its payroll system. Certainly, I understand the Senate's frustration with Phoenix, but yet more contracting out is not the way to go. We need to rebuild a publicly administered system, and that includes better utilizing a lot of the competence that already exists. For example, at Shared Service Canada, there are a huge number of employees with a lot of expertise in PeopleSoft, which is essentially the Phoenix program. Yet these workers have not been directed to focus on solving the Phoenix problem. They are doing other things. Let us recognize the urgency of the problem and make use of employees in the federal public service who already have expertise that is quite relevant to solving that problem.

The second solution to the Phoenix boondoggle I would like to present is empowering managers in departments and agencies to write cheques to employees whom they know are not being paid. Every employee's first paycheque is a paper cheque, because it is recognized that it takes time to incorporate people into an automated system, so the Government of Canada obviously has the capacity to write cheques. Managers know how much their employees should be getting paid. If someone is not getting paid, rather than allowing them to miss mortgage payments and lose their home, why are we not empowering managers to simply cut them a cheque?

The third solution is creating a hotline for our MP offices so our staff are able to contact the Phoenix pay centre and help constituents who come to us with these pay problems.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North spoke about opposition members wanting to stick to a script. One script the Liberal government has stuck to almost slavishly over the past two years has been to talk about the middle class and those working hard to join it. I do not know if it is a little later in the evening or if the member across the way is ad libbing a little, but he really enriched the discourse with some new permutations of that phrase through the evening. He talked about those “aspiring” to join the middle class. It was very poetic and I did want to give credit where it was due.

The question I would like to ask my colleague is about the allocation of federal transit funding among the provinces. The government has chosen to allocate transit funding mostly according to existing transit ridership, as opposed to population. My home province of Saskatchewan comprises more than 3% of Canada's population, but we are getting only about 1.5% of federal transit funding because our current transit system does not have as large a ridership. I wonder if my fellow Prairie MP is advocating for a fair share of transit funding for our province.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Liberals have invested enormous sums in Phoenix, and this week was the one-year anniversary of the government's self-imposed deadline to fix it. However, more than half of public servants are still having pay problems. In fact, 265,000 pay transactions are past due. That is unacceptable. Also, because of the Phoenix delays, the Liberals will not meet deadlines to negotiate new collective agreements with our public servants.

When will the Liberals stop finding excuses and find a solution to the Phoenix boondoggle?

[Infrastructure, November 1st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, when I asked my question about federal funding for bus service a month ago, the parliamentary secretary responded by speaking in very general terms about federal infrastructure funding in Saskatchewan. Given a month to further study the issue, I am somewhat disappointed I am getting the same level of response this evening.

What I would like to get a clear answer on is, if the Government of Saskatchewan were to request funding from the public transit infrastructure fund to provide bus service between communities, is that something that the Government of Canada would provide?

I certainly take the point that it was the provincial government that decided to get rid of STC, and it is the provincial government that would have to define its priorities, but if the province were to request money for the purpose of intercity transport, would the Government of Canada provide it?

[Infrastructure, November 1st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, one month ago, I asked whether the Liberal government would make some of the public transit infrastructure fund available to restore needed bus service between Saskatchewan communities. The context for this question is that five months ago the provincial Sask Party government eliminated the Saskatchewan Transportation Company in hopes that private enterprise would fill the void, but there is still no bus service, even between Saskatchewan's largest cities, Regina and Saskatoon. This lack of bus service has caused many problems.

My original question highlighted the difficulty seniors were having getting to medical appointments. Just today the media reported on a message from Saskatchewan's deputy minister of health, which stated, “Do we co-ordinate medical taxis or other transportation with federal [government] that mitigates STC loss...?” It would be interesting to know how much the Government of Canada has had to spend on medical taxis in Saskatchewan since the closure of STC. Would that money not be better spent sustaining bus service?

This brings me to the public transit infrastructure fund. Of course, this fund is mostly about public transit in urban areas. However, when the Liberal government unveiled this program, it included a lot of language about meeting the unique infrastructure needs of rural and remote communities. This leads me to believe that some of this money should be available to support intercity bus service in Saskatchewan to connect our communities.

This year's budget provided $20 billion to the public transit infrastructure fund and allocated it between provinces according to a formula of 30% population and 70% existing transit ridership. Saskatchewan has more than 3% of Canada's population, but we have less than 1% of Canada's existing transit ridership. According to this formula, we receive only about 1.5% of federal transit funding, in other words only about half of our per capita share of the money. Most federal transfer programs to provinces are allocated on a purely per capita basis.

Therefore, the good news is that Saskatchewan will receive about $320 million from the public transit infrastructure fund. The bad news is that according to our population, we should be receiving more like $640 million. However, at the end of the day, both of those numbers vastly exceed the $85 million that the Sask Party says it will save by getting rid of the Saskatchewan Transportation Company.

Therefore, it should be possible for Saskatchewan to receive our fair share of the public transit infrastructure fund and to use a portion of that money to sustain and restore needed bus service between our communities.

[Public Services and Procurement, October 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate opted out of the Phoenix pay system to find another service provider, However, trying to fix the Phoenix boondoggle with even more contracting out is like the Prime Minister trying to fix his government's lack of vision by putting on fake glasses. The government will fail to meet collective bargaining deadlines because of Phoenix.

Rather than spooking our struggling senators and delaying collective bargaining with actual public servants, will the Liberal government rebuild a publicly administered payroll system for all federal employees?

[Excise Tax Act, October 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us identifies a real issue, but proposes the wrong policy response.

My colleague from Langley—Aldergrove is correct to point out that the GST will apply on top of carbon pricing, and he is correct to be concerned that this cost will have a disproportionate impact on lower-income Canadians. However, the proposal to remove GST from carbon pricing is impractical. A far better solution would be to use those additional GST revenues to finance a rebate targeted to lower-income Canadians to offset the impact of carbon pricing.

Why do I suggest that it is impractical to remove the GST from carbon pricing?

I would first point out that the GST already applies on top of provincial fuel taxes. For example, my home province of Saskatchewan has a provincial fuel tax of 15¢ a litre on gasoline. My neighbour province of Alberta charges a very similar tax on gasoline, but it is divided up between a 13¢ provincial fuel tax and a 4% provincial carbon tax. Essentially, what the bill proposes is that the GST would continue to apply to the fuel tax, but for some reason, it would not apply to the carbon tax.

I do not think we have heard an explanation from the member for Langley—Aldergrove as to why we should apply the GST to a tax that is labelled a “fuel tax”, but not apply it to a functionally-identical tax called a “carbon tax”. If the bill were adopted and passed into law, provincial governments could all exempt their fuel taxes from the GST simply by renaming them “carbon taxes”. I think that is clearly not the intention of the member for Langley—Aldergrove, but it is a consequence of the proposed bill.

Even if there were a solution to that issue of existing excise taxes versus carbon taxes, there is absolutely no way to remove the GST that would apply to price increases arising from a cap-and-trade system. Carbon pricing is being rolled out in different ways across the country. Some provinces have enacted carbon taxes, which the bill addresses, other provinces have decided to put a price on emissions through cap and trade, which the bill does not address.

Therefore, again, it is unclear why we would seek to remove the GST from a price increase that results from a carbon tax, while continuing to apply the GST to price increases that arise from cap and trade.

Therefore, I think it is clear that it is not really feasible or desirable to try to remove the GST just from this one type of carbon pricing.

A far better solution would be to recognize that the government will inevitably collect additional GST when consumer prices are increased by climate change policies and then to use that money to provide a rebate to lower-income Canadians to offset the cost of carbon pricing. This is a practical solution that is already in effect in other jurisdictions.

For example, the progressive government of Rachel Notley in Alberta has enacted a very generous rebate program along with the carbon tax. In fact, the rebate in Alberta is so generous that many lower and middle-income Albertans actually have more money in their pockets now than they did before the carbon tax was enacted. Therefore, if the goal of the Conservatives is to help lower-income Canadians and shield them from the burden of carbon pricing, the way to do that is to transfer money to them directly. The Alberta government has already shown us how to do that.

I would also note in this vein that our new federal leader, Jagmeet Singh, ran on a platform that would “ensure that carbon pricing is twinned with rebates to make it more affordable and fair for low and middle income Canadians.” The solution is already there, and it is a better solution than the one proposed in this bill.

I would like to put a few numbers on the type of rebate we are talking about, because the GST that the federal government will collect could fund a significant amount of assistance to lower-income Canadians. By the year 2022, the federal government will be requiring a carbon price of at least $50 a tonne. Canada's current emissions are about 700 megatonnes, so we are talking about $35 billion of carbon pricing. Apply the 5% GST to that carbon pricing, and we are talking about additional revenues of $1.75 billion. That is a significant amount of additional GST revenue that will inevitably be collected on top of carbon pricing, frankly with or without this bill. If we use that money to boost the existing GST credit, we could increase it by one-third. The federal government needs to take advantage of the fact that it has this additional GST coming in from carbon pricing, and increase the GST credit, which is already based on income and already very well targeted to lower-income Canadians.

Once again, to sum up, we have a bill before us today that identifies a real issue, the application of GST on top of carbon pricing, as well as the disproportionate effect that could have on lower-income Canadians. However, the bill proposes an impractical solution. It talks about trying to take the GST off carbon taxes when the GST already applies to excise tax on gasoline, which is in effect the same type of tax. We should not be basing GST policy on the name of the tax; we should base it on real economic factors.

Furthermore, the bill does not even pretend to be able to address the GST that is collected on top of a cap and trade system. A far better solution is to accept the reality that if consumer prices increase as a result of putting a price on emissions, the federal government will collect more GST as a result. That will put the Government of Canada in a position to fund a rebate to lower-income Canadians to ensure they are not adversely affected by carbon pricing.

I would speak in opposition to the bill before us, but very much in favour of using the GST revenues from carbon pricing to fund a progressive rebate that would help to ensure we can use carbon pricing to reduce emissions while, at the same time, boosting the fortunes of lower-income Canadians.

[Supreme Court Act, October 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this bill this evening. I believe that my colleagues from Drummond and Rimouski have already laid out a positive case for this legislation. I would like to use my speech to respond to some of what we have heard in opposition to the bill from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, as well as from the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.

The first argument we heard was that the Supreme Court is already bilingual, so there is no problem to solve here. In a similar vein, the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun pointed out that the Prime Minister has already promised to appoint bilingual judges to the Supreme Court. I fail to see these as arguments against the bill. In fact, I think they show that the bill is entirely realistic and achievable, and if the Prime Minister is promising to do this anyway, why not codify it in law? That is the question that I would put back.

It is currently the case that eight of the nine Supreme Court judges are functionally bilingual. New appointments are going to be bilingual. Why not put that into law? The member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun said that, rather than a requirement, it should be left as a primordial criterion. Maybe one needs to be a lawyer to understand the difference between a requirement and a primordial criterion. However, it sounds to me as if we all agree that this is something pretty essential for Supreme Court judges.

The second argument we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton is that there is not a single case that was definitively decided incorrectly, based on a problem with language. I think this is a very strange standard. For a case to get to the Supreme Court, it has to go through a couple of other courts first. The Supreme Court is not adjudicating cases based on the evidence. It is not as though a Supreme Court judge is going to miss a piece of evidence based on not understanding the language. Cases are appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada based on issues of legal interpretation.

It would be difficult to establish that any case before the Supreme Court was definitively decided incorrectly. At that level, it comes down to interpretation, and at that level of nuance, language can be quite important. Again, this notion of proving that a case was decided incorrectly because of language is the wrong standard for this debate.

The third argument we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton was the notion that this bill would reduce the pool of qualified candidates. I think the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun was trying to make the same point when he talked about how specialized certain Supreme Court justices need to be in particular areas of law.

Beyond stating the obvious point that we in the NDP view functionality in both official languages as a very important qualification, I also note that the bill proposes to hold appointees to a very reasonable standard of bilingualism. We are not saying that people appointed to the Supreme Court need to be able to translate Molière or need to be able to speak perfectly in French or in English. What we are saying is that they need to have a basic understanding of both official languages without interpretation. I believe that this is the standard that otherwise qualified candidates for Supreme Court appointments can achieve. I believe that this is a realistic thing to expect of people, and that it is not going to unduly reduce the number of qualified candidates.

The fourth argument we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton was that this bill would result in more errors because Supreme Court judges would be relying on their own imperfect understanding of the other official language, rather than relying on the excellent interpretation services already available at the Supreme Court. However, this bill is not talking about taking interpretation out of the Supreme Court. This bill is talking about adding to that excellent interpretation service a base level of knowledge of both official languages on the part of the judges themselves.

That leads to a more robust system. If someone with a base level understanding of the language is also listening to interpretation, they are going to understand it better and will be able to better detect possible problems with interpretation or translation. We have a better system when we have people with their own understanding of the language who also have access to excellent interpretation and translation services.

The fifth point we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton was about how we are going to test people, if we are going to administer some sort of language exam to people who are going to be appointed to the Supreme Court. I answer this question in two ways. First of all, yes, we do this all the time in the Government of Canada. Every year, we have thousands of public servants who take language exams to establish their proficiency in both official languages. There are certainly tests available that we already administer to determine whether someone can understand both official languages.

The other point I make is that this is a very technical question about what kind of testing we are going to use. If this is really the concern of the Conservatives with this bill, then the solution is to vote to send it to committee so that the committee can look at the different types of tests that might be available. That is not a reason to vote against the bill at this stage of deliberation.

The last argument we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton was that, of course, command of both official languages would be an important consideration, but that we should not make it an official requirement. That was also the fundamental argument we heard from the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun this evening, that it is a consideration, that it is part of the mix, that it is really important but should not be an ultimate requirement. In fact, I think the member went so far as to suggest that it is so important that de facto it is almost already a requirement, that it would be very difficult for a government to justify appointing a Supreme Court judge who is not bilingual.

I make the case that if it is already a kind of de facto requirement, that if as a practical matter one does need to be able to understand both official languages to become a Supreme Court justice, it would actually be better to make it an official requirement because that would send a clear signal to everyone in Canada's legal community that it is a requirement they need to meet to qualify for appointment to the Supreme Court. The worst case scenario would be for someone who is otherwise qualified to go forward in the appointment process thinking that it is not a requirement, only to not be appointed for all the reasons the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun articulated. It is better to just put the requirement out there explicitly in law so that people who aspire to serve on the Supreme Court know this is something they will need to learn, a skill they will need to develop. If as a practical matter it basically already is a requirement, it is better just to have it be an explicit requirement for people, rather than allow for possible confusion about whether candidates for the Supreme Court actually need to be able to function in both official languages.

To sum up, bilingualism is clearly a fundamental cornerstone of our country. We expect federal institutions to be bilingual. That does not necessarily mean that every single person who works in those institutions needs to be bilingual, but we certainly would expect the top people, such as Supreme Court judges, to have a basic understanding of both official languages.

The court already is bilingual. The Prime Minister has already promised to appoint bilingual judges. That shows the feasibility of this bill. It shows that it realistic and achievable. We have heard the argument that we cannot prove that cases have been decided wrongly on linguistic grounds, but again, Supreme Court cases are decided on interpretation so we cannot really prove anything is wrong. All we can do is to say that the adjudication would be better if justices had an understanding of both languages, in addition to having access to the translation and interpretation services that already exist.

Having debunked the arguments against this bill, I invite all members of the House to vote in favour of it.

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, that was a somewhat convoluted question. The member for Winnipeg North criticized the Conservatives for bringing up the oil industry in a debate about forestry and then he tried to ask me about the oil industry instead of forestry and then came back to forestry at the end of his question.

I am not entirely sure how to respond to this, but I would say that all of us in the House recognize the importance of forestry. All of us recognize the importance of having a strong energy industry. To the extent that pipelines such as Keystone XL and Line 3 are being built, we should be working to make sure they are being built with steel produced right here in Canada, because it is cleaner and safer than pipe imported from offshore. I am proud of the fact that I have stood up in the House for Canadian steel and pipe production.

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, certainly the amount of pipeline capacity that is built in Canada depends critically on the projected future production of oil. That depends on the price of oil, which certainly no Canadian politician can control, but we do have a number of pipelines going ahead, significantly Keystone XL as well as the Line 3 replacement project. The analysis I have seen suggests that with those projects going ahead, there simply was not enough demand to support energy east. That is the assessment that TransCanada made. It is also building Keystone XL and many of its customers are being included in that project rather than energy east. That may be unfortunate. There is not a lot we can do about it.

We can try to ensure that all pipelines that are built get built with steel produced by EVRAZ in Regina. That is something I have advocated for regularly in the House. I am quite disappointed that my Conservative colleagues have never done so. They have been cheerleaders for any and all proposed pipelines regardless of where the steel is produced. They would be fine if the steel were coming from offshore. I have stood in the House and advocated that the pipeline review process consider where the pipe is made, which would certainly help support good jobs in Regina.