Erin Weir

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, March 20th, 2017]

With regard to the federal government and the potential sale of up to 49 % of SaskTel by the Government of Saskatchewan: (a) what approval is required from (i) the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, (ii) the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, (iii) the Competition Bureau; (b) what powers does the federal government have to stop the partial sale of a provincial Crown corporation; and (c) at what percentage of shares sold would SaskTel have to pay federal corporate income tax?

[Public Services and Procurement, March 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear the government is working on this, although it has been very disappointing that the government rushed ahead with implementing Phoenix when there were all kinds of indications these types of problems would manifest themselves.

It has now been more than a year since that implementation was done and we are only just at the point where perhaps the government is starting to reduce the size of the problem rather than allowing it to increase. We are hopeful progress can be made, but we are also disappointed about the lack of progress up until quite recently.

Another constructive proposal that came out of this conference call of casework assistants among New Democratic MP offices was that the government should not put pensions under the Phoenix pay system. I wonder if during his final minute, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement could commit to the House that the government is not going to put public service pensions through the Phoenix payroll system, which has proven to be so problematic for normal and other types of pay and benefits.

[Public Services and Procurement, March 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Phoenix payroll system started as an ill-conceived Conservative scheme to cut corners and cut costs by replacing complex federal payroll systems with off-the-shelf software from IBM. However, it was the Liberal government that rushed ahead with the implementation of Phoenix despite many warnings of problems and deficiencies with the system. The result is that many thousands of federal employees, delivering important public services across the country, have not been paid the money they have earned.

The question I posed on February 23 was about inaccurate information on T4 tax slips sent to employees who had been incorrectly paid by the Phoenix system. The government has assured us that it is on the verge of correcting those T4s. Therefore, I take the government's word at face value. Rather than questioning whether it will meet that objective, let us wait and see.

I would instead like to use this adjournment debate to update the House on some of the work my constituency office is doing to assist people who have fallen victim of the Phoenix pay system.

Also on February 23, while I was asking a question in the House, my casework assistant in Regina was hosting a conference call of all the caseworkers among NDP MP offices across the country to educate them on how to deal with Phoenix problems and to share best practices between offices. Of course it was through my constituency office that I first became aware of problems with the Phoenix pay system. Employees of the RCMP depot in Regina phoned to complain they were not receiving the pay they had earned.

I know one of the great frustrations experienced by my own casework assistant and by caseworkers in MP offices across the country is that they really do not have the tools to assist people who are not getting paid by Phoenix. One of the constructive proposals they came up with through this conference call on February 23 was to establish an MP phone line, a dedicated line, to the Phoenix pay centre in Miramichi. We have these dedicated lines for employment insurance. We have had them in the past for passports. We have them when we recognize that sometimes people will have problems with federal programs and services and may need their member of Parliament's office to assist them. I would argue that the Phoenix pay system is certainly a large enough problem that a dedicated line would very much be justified in this case. It has been more than a year since Phoenix was implemented and it is still a huge problem.

The deputy minister of Public Services and Procurement came to our committee today and stated that we had now reached the important tipping point where we were starting to process more transactions than we received. Therefore, it may be that the government is finally starting to reduce rather than increase the size of the Phoenix problem. However, if it has taken a year to even get to that tipping point, it suggests that it may take a great deal longer to get to a point where the problem is actually resolved. In the meantime, it would make a lot of sense to provide a dedicated phone line so MP offices and our staff are able to provide tangible assistance to constituents who have fallen victim to the Phoenix boondoggle.

[Public Services and Procurement, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the government started the Phoenix pay fiasco. For months, over 360 employees at Saskatchewan's federal penitentiary went without proper pay. To protect Canadians, we must ensure that guards who are overseeing maximum security prisoners are not distracted by ongoing payroll problems.

Will the Minister of Public Safety, who is also from Saskatchewan, ask the Minister of Public Services to finally fix the Phoenix pay system once and for all?

[Public Services and Procurement, February 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on the one year anniversary of Phoenix, thousands of public servants still have not been paid what they have earned. Now, in the midst of tax season, an estimated 50,000 erroneous tax slips were sent out and the CRA has said that even if T4s are inaccurate, public servants must still file their taxes on time. That is shameful.

Since the Liberals have failed to fix this fiasco, will they do what is right by issuing a delay to this year's tax deadline?

[Business of Supply, February 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I recognize the member for Foothills has roots in Saskatchewan. In fact, I have some insurance with his brother's firm. However, I think he has been away from the province for far too long because he seems to be out of date on the job market situation.

The member for Foothills suggested that everything is great in Saskatchewan without a carbon tax. If we look at the last labour force survey, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick were the only two provinces in which employment declined during the first month of this year. If we look over the past year, Saskatchewan was one of only three provinces in which employment declined.

Clearly the problem is the drop in commodity prices and clearly Saskatchewan is not having some sort of employment boom as a result of low carbon tax. Would the member for Foothills acknowledge these facts as reported by Statistics Canada?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I do not believe in the constitutional entrenchment of property rights. As I pointed out in my speech, the construction of infrastructure, whether it be pipelines, railroads, or highways, typically requires the expropriation of some land. Giving a veto power to every private landowner along the route would result in no such infrastructure being built.

The argument suggested by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is that these property rights would be subject to section 1 of the charter. A judge could decide that an expropriation was a fair and reasonable limit on those property rights, but the Conservatives really want to hang their position of entrenching property rights in the charter on their faith in activist judges.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Winnipeg North may be aware, the current American President is proposing a renegotiation of NAFTA, and the NDP has been very clear about the fact that in that renegotiation, our priority should be to remove chapter 11, the investor-state provisions of NAFTA. We also think it would make a lot of sense to remove the proportionality clause from NAFTA, given that it puts real limits on Canada's ability to decide where it would like to export our energy resources.

We believe there are some positive aspects of NAFTA. We also believe there are some aspects that could be improved.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Drummond.

My ears were burning during the speech of my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, because he spoke about members of the House objecting to CETA based on the investor-state provisions. Having given several speeches to that effect, I thought it was a good opportunity to engage with the arguments that he brought forward.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan essentially made two arguments as to why investor-state provisions are okay. He said that we need to have some sort of adjudication of the provisions of trade agreements. He also said that we live in a society with rule of law, where individuals and businesses can sue the government, can take the government to court. At some level I actually agree with both of those statements, but I do not think either one of them supports the kind of investor-state provisions that we see in CETA and a number of other trade deals.

If we talk about the need to have some sort of adjudication process to enforce the provisions in trade agreements, that is very true. Almost all provisions of CETA are subject to a government-to-government dispute resolution system, and it would be entirely reasonable to have the investment provisions subject to that same type of dispute resolution where, if investors felt that their rights had been breached, they would convince the government they had a legitimate case, and the government would bring that case forward. That is how every other aspect of the deal works.

What is objectionable about the investor-state provisions is they set up an entirely separate process of dispute resolution just for investors. They set up an entirely separate tribunal process that is available only to financiers and property owners, not other parties that might have concerns or complaints or issues under the agreement. What this leads to is a lot of frivolous cases being brought forward under investor-state provisions, because there is no need for investors to even convince their own government that they have a reasonable case that is worth bringing forward. They can bring forward a case to kind of try their luck before the tribunal. They can bring forward a case just to harass a foreign government and try to push back on its democratic laws, regulations, and policies. The problem is not with having some sort of enforcement process; the problem is with setting up this entirely separate and much more powerful enforcement process that is available only to investors.

The next argument we heard from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was about the rule of law and how, in our current society, individuals and businesses can already take the government to court. Exactly, so why is it that we need to set up this entirely separate process for investment disputes under this agreement? There are functioning court systems in both Canada and the European Union. I think members would agree that both jurisdictions have legitimate judiciaries. Therefore, how does the existence of rule of law justify creating some sort of entirely separate process?

The original justification for investor-state provisions in NAFTA was that American and Canadian investors were suspicious of the Mexican judicial system and did not have confidence in the Mexican courts. Perhaps that was fair enough, but I really do not see how we would have the same sort of doubts or lack of confidence in the European judicial system. We really have not heard an answer as to why we need this special set of investor-state provisions in CETA.

To illustrate what I am saying about frivolous cases coming forward when we empower investors to directly bring these complaints without even having to clear them through their own governments, it is worth reviewing some of the obnoxious chapter 11 cases that have come forward under NAFTA.

We have the Ethyl Corporation case, where an American company was selling a gasoline additive that had actually already been banned in the United States. The Canadian government tried to ban it as well and Ethyl successfully challenged the Canadian government under NAFTA for lost profits, got $13 million U.S., and had the Canadian government repeal that ban.

There was the AbitibiBowater case where that company shut down its last pulp and paper mill in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The provincial government reclaimed water rights that it had given to AbitibiBowater to operate the mills, but then the company challenged Canada under NAFTA for the loss of its water rights, which it was no longer even using for the purpose they were intended. Well, the previous Conservative government paid AbitibiBowater $130 million to withdraw that NAFTA chapter 11 claim.

We have the current case of Lone Pine Resources. Like AbitibiBowater, it is basically a Canadian company that has registered itself in the United States. It has launched a challenge under NAFTA over a ban on fracking in the province of Quebec depriving it of potential business opportunities. It is claiming some $250 million from our country.

Members can see that these investor-state provisions make it very easy for investors to come forward with almost frivolous cases just to see if they can get a favourable decision, just to sort of intimidate governments into paying them off. We do not want to replicate and amplify this under CETA.

Finally, I would point out that these investor-state provisions are actually having a pernicious effect on domestic politics in our own country. We are starting to see this in the Conservative leadership race where two of the contenders, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the member for Beauce, are proposing to entrench private property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let us consider the arguments that the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston made in endorsing this radical libertarian idea. He said:

The lack of constitutional protection for the private property rights of Canadians means that the rights of Canadians can be treated as second-class under NAFTA. Canadians deserve the same property rights that foreign companies enjoy in Canada....

We see that the presence of these investor-state provisions in free trade agreements is causing this proposal to entrench property rights in the Constitution. Let us consider some of the consequences of that. We have heard from the Conservatives a lot of rhetoric in favour of pipelines, but the reality is that the construction of pipelines, railroads, or highways depends almost all the time on the government expropriating some of the land along the route. If every single landowner along the route had a constitutionally enshrined veto, no pipelines, railroads, or highways would ever get built. Therefore, I would encourage the Conservatives to think through the implications of enshrining property rights in the Constitution before they get too excited about the idea, and before their leadership candidates trip over each other too much in trying to be the most libertarian.

We have seen that the investor-state provisions of free trade agreements, including CETA, are not necessary, given that the agreements have a much more sensible government-to-government dispute resolution process already, and given that Canada and Europe already have functioning court systems. There have been many cautionary examples under NAFTA of frivolous cases coming forward with the Canadian government having to pay outrageous amounts of money based on very strange claims. Finally, we see that these investor-state provisions are having a corrupting influence on the political philosophy of our official opposition and are leading the Conservatives down this path of extreme libertarian ideas.

For all of those reasons, I am pleased to speak and vote against this bill.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the labour mobility provisions of CETA would allow European companies to bring their own workers into Canada, without having to go through our immigration system. The deal would also allow vessels flagged in ports of convenience, like Malta and Cypress, to operate in Canadian waters, despite atrocious labour standards on board.

I wonder if the member for Cariboo—Prince George shares our concerns about CETA's effective expansion of the temporary foreign worker program.