Nick Whalen

[Fisheries Act, March 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, at least for this fishing season, my understanding from our meetings and our consultations with the department and with the minister is that there is unlikely to be any change.

I do want to reassure the people of Grand Bank, many of whom I know. I spend most of my summers travelling back and forth to the Burin Peninsula playing soccer. Many people from the Burin Peninsula have moved into St. John's to pursue their livelihoods. We are all a family in this.

We want to see other opportunities arise for exploitation of the fishery in that area. One of the pillars of this change is to examine the monopolies that exist in our fishery and to make sure that indigenous people have a fair opportunity to participate. That had not happened to date. These changes allow that. Although I perhaps would have preferred other proponents, as it turns out, I did not have access to all the information. The minister assures us that the most beneficial proposal to indigenous people was selected, and I trust the minister.

[Fisheries Act, March 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, normally the Newfoundland and Labrador caucus team works together, and we look to the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity to lead us on this topic. However, I am happy to provide comments. Nobody has been a stronger advocate for his area than that member. He has been there and worked hard on the issue during the campaign. He has been advocating hard with us since his election.

There are many species that can be processed in the plant in Grand Bank. I understand that, for this year, given the timing of the decision, there should be no change. The company that currently holds the quota for processing of surf clam does about half of its processing there and half of its processing in Nova Scotia. We are well apprised of that issue—

[Fisheries Act, March 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that open-ended question which allows me to continue with my earlier remarks.

One of the main pillars of our election campaign was to revisit the nature in which environmental assessment and protection of our natural resources are undertaken in Canada. In that context, there was a review of transportation, natural resources, environment and climate change, and also the Fisheries Act. When I look at Bill C-68, I consider it in the context of changes that are also put forward with respect to CEAA . I look at it in the context of the broader national consultation that was undertaken with the NEB, the offshore petroleum boards, the CEAA process generally, and of course our international obligations and our commitment to protect 10% of offshore resources under our Aichi targets.

This is really a national undertaking. When people think of fisheries in Canada they think of the north, British Columbia, the Great Lakes, Quebec, the maritime provinces, and then of course Newfoundland and Labrador. It is really the sum of what makes Canadians Canadians in understanding that we have a place in the world, that we have a role in protecting our natural resources. There are changes in this legislation that would both allow us to protect our national resources and also to develop them sustainably so we can enjoy the high standard of living that we have.

[Fisheries Act, March 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to rise in this House to talk about an issue that is so important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly to the people from St. John's East.

Amending the Fisheries Act to bring it into modern times would provide the flexibility we need to make sure that we not only provide for the care and protection of marine mammals, such as porpoises, whales, and dolphins, but take into account indigenous concerns and make sure that our act and our fisheries protections takes their traditional knowledge and beliefs into account. It is also important that we provide some framework so that Canadians can better understand the decisions the minister will be making and how they will be made. It is important to make sure that there are advisory panels to consult on fees to make sure that people who are licensees under the Fisheries Act, who are engaged in the fishery, are appropriately paying into the system, but not overpaying into the system, and that when we administer the rights and responsibilities with respect to our offshore resources, stakeholders appropriately participate in that. The advisory council would be a great way to do that.

We also have to make sure that we meet our international obligations on fish habitat. We need to do the good work to protect the coastal waters of Canada under our international obligation under the Aichi target, which is 10% by 2020. To protect these areas, we need to make changes to the act so that we can protect fish habitat with respect to works, undertakings, or activities that may result in the death of fish or the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, this is obviously a very sensitive topic. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians care about the protection and growth of the biomass of fish off our coasts. At the same time, we need to make sure that we can undertake our enterprise so that we can maintain the high standard of living Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and indeed all Canadians, enjoy. This legislation would require that we both maintain access to the productive areas of our coasts and at the same time identify areas that are ecologically important. There is going to be a balance that needs to be struck.

My understanding is that the fisheries ministry has, through various mechanisms that already exist, hived off about 7.75% of Canada's waters for protection, meeting our target of 5% by December 31, 2017. However, there is still some way to go.

The member from Prince Rupert will have a chance to examine the changes we are proposing to the Fisheries Act in committee after, hopefully, we pass this here today. I encourage all members to vote in favour of it at this stage. The changes would allow the government to move forward and protect those next 2.25% or more of our coastal areas so that we can protect these ecologically important areas. We can protect things like cold-water coral off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador or dogfish off the southern coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. We can make sure that our ecologically protected areas are interlinked so that species can travel safely through them, and important breeding grounds and important transitory areas for different marine mammals are protected.

Yesterday the minister made an important announcement about protecting right whales. It is a scary prospect that it is possible that the world may lose yet another species this year, the right whale. We saw a couple of weeks ago the loss of the last male white rhino, protected at Ol Pejeta, in Kenya. Here we are now in a situation where people are very concerned about the reproductive capacity of right whales in Atlantic waters as they pass through the Gulf of St. Lawrence through very important areas for industrial development in Canada. At the same time, we need protections such as the Minister of Transport is undertaking under the Transportation Act and also that the Minister of Fisheries is doing. The changes we are proposing would allow them to do more and do it in the right way and provide a period of time in which we could make quick decisions to save species.

I look forward to the protections that are coming. When oil and gas proponents met with me earlier this year, such as British Petroleum, for instance, on their desire to do offshore exploratory drilling off the coast of Nova Scotia, there was some concern that their ships, drill rigs, and whatnot were going to be expected to move at a slower pace through those waters.

I fully applaud the foresight of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in including those conditions, because now we are seeing that this is going to be an important factor not only for oil and gas exploration but for other transportation in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It is similar to what happened last year, is my understanding. It is heartwarming and good to see the government of the day putting in place the mechanisms, regulatory policy, and now legislation that will help Canada meet its international targets to protect cetaceans.

The 45 days to address the proper management and control of the fisheries and conservation and to protect fishing is obviously very important in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a strongly held belief, not always supported by the science, that cod is coming back. We see it coming back in Norway. We see it coming back in the North Sea. Iceland's cod fishery is recovering, yet Canada's cod fishery remains a bit stagnant. It is important to have hope. It is important to make sure that the science is done.

I applaud the government's earlier decision to hire more fishery scientists in Newfoundland and Labrador to help create a plan to see the regrowth of the cod stock. However, as we are seeing this year, the science does not support a regrowth. Cod still finds itself in the critical zone. To get back to the point where we can have a sustainable amount of biomass so that cod fishing can be undertaken safely, with the preservation of the resource, and historical amounts of cod can be taken and can support the infrastructure that is needed, requires that we be patient. We need to do the necessary science. It is good to see that the minister will be provided with special tools under the act to take special steps to put a halt to overfishing if the science deems it required.

Protecting, preserving, and restoring our environment should be key principles of the Fisheries Act to make sure that Canadians trust the act. Not all Canadians, when they think about the fisheries, think about them the same way Newfoundlanders do. I need that empathy for the environmentalists. When they look at the fisheries, they see that perhaps they have a larger impact on our environment than I do, but it is important that all Canadians have confidence that our fisheries are being undertaken in a sustainable way. I know that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have faith that they are and that more could be done. They have faith that the government is doing the right thing by putting scientists in place. They like that the focus is on the fisheries and that the Minister of Fisheries is taking this time to propose new legislation to bring it into the 21st century.

We do not want to return to the previous version of the Fisheries Act. We want to make the law even better than it was before. Through this process, it is not just something that has arisen from the imagination of the minister. It came after thousands of consultations undertaken by the minister and his department. All Newfoundlanders and Labradorians find this to be of critical importance to our future.

When the previous minister was in Newfoundland and Labrador early in this government's tenure, all Newfoundland and Labrador MPs were invited to participate in the consultations at that time. Those consultations have continued. People feel that their voices are being heard by the government, but not always, perhaps, by the department. Providing this link between Canadians, government ministries, and departments is important for confidence to be created. These changes will allow both environmentalists and people who are engaged in the fishery to have more confidence. They will allow us to meet our international obligations with respect to the preservation of 10% of our territory. They are long overdue.

Without further ado, I would like to encourage all members of the House to support the bill at second reading and get it to committee, where people can answer some of the questions my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George had earlier. We can have this improved for future generations of Canadians and for the preservation and growth of our resource.

[Postal Banking System, March 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for London—Fanshawe for initiating the debate on Motion No. 166, which is about a postal banking system.

The motion calls for the creation of a special committee to conduct hearings and propose a plan for a postal banking system.

The government may not have decided where it stands on this issue, but I have. I see at least three reasons why we should reject this motion.

First, the future of Canada Post was studied extensively in 2016. The government has only just tabled its response, which does not include any specific recommendation on postal banking. Second, there is already a committee of the House responsible for Canada Post, which is more than capable of addressing the topic. Third, members of the government operations committee, at the insistence of the Liberal members of that committee, had the opportunity to review postal banking in depth. It determined, in section 4.2 of its report for this 42nd Parliament, that Canada Post should stick to its core competencies.

As that report indicates, we believe in the future of Canada Post, just not necessarily as a bank. As members may recall, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement announced, on January 24, the new service first vision for Canada Post, along with a number of immediate actions in support of that vision. Her announcement followed a comprehensive evidence-based review that included extensive public consultations with Canadians.

An independent task force was established that met with unions, municipalities, postal experts, and other stakeholders. It studied international best practices, analyzed potential options such as postal banking, and compiled this information into a discussion paper on our national postal system in the digital age, at a cost of approximately $2 million dollars to taxpayers.

Additionally, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, of which I was a member, travelled across the country to hear directly from Canadians, communities, associations, unions, businesses, and individuals. We submitted a detailed report and made recommendations to the government. We had 22 days on the road, at a cost of half a million dollars to taxpayers. We also heard from other parliamentarians, whether from personal feedback or town halls that they held in their home ridings.

We just completed the national conversation on Canada Post, which was quite comprehensive. The government listened to what was said and carefully considered findings and recommendations. We heard that Canadians care deeply about Canada Post and its ability to provide the services that are within its core competency. Through this review, one thing became abundantly clear: The core value of Canada Post is a service that all Canadians enjoy, expect, and appreciate. That is why the government's position is to renew Canada Post.

The government wants to reorganize Canada Post to ensure its continued relevance and long-term viability and to ensure that it continues to sustain middle-class jobs and provide valuable services to Canadians.

The new vision, which puts service front and centre, is key to renewing this iconic institution. Guided by the new vision, Canada Post will provide high-quality, reasonably priced services to Canadians, no matter where they live.

We also know that significant changes are needed to ensure the long-term relevance and financial stability of Canada Post. That is why, as part of the renewal, the government has asked Canada Post to embrace innovation, experimentation, and pilot projects; to adopt best practices; and to address market trends, new technologies, and shifts in the needs and expectations of Canadians.

The digital transformation occurring right now in the postal service industry is also occurring in the banking industry. It may be unreasonable to expect Canada Post, given its core competencies and the difficulties it is having in postal services, to also try to innovate, develop, and champion banking, when there is already a very competitive and stable banking market within the country.

We also expect Canada Post to explore partnership opportunities that could help the federal government and other jurisdictions leverage Canada Post's large retail network to provide access to government services, especially in rural and remote areas, and improve public services to Canadians.

As I said earlier, the government not only announced a new way forward for Canada Post, but also took immediate steps in support of that vision.

First, Canada Post permanently terminated its program to convert door-to-door delivery to community mailboxes. We made that promise to Canadians, and we kept it.

Second, after listening to the concerns faced by seniors and others with mobility challenges vis-à-vis community mailboxes, Canada Post will develop an enhanced accessible delivery program. This program will improve service for tens of thousands of Canadians. A national advisory panel will include experts as well as Canadians with lived experience who will provide guidance on improving the existing program.

Third, we have asked Canada Post to better promote its remittance services, which are used by Canadians to send money overseas to support family members.

Fourth, in line with the renewed focus on service, the government will reclassify the Canada Post Corporation under the Financial Administration Act so that it can reinvest its profits into service and innovation.

Finally, to fulfill the government's new vision, we need new leadership. The appointment of Jessica McDonald as chair of the board of directors is the first step. It is also part of a broader renewal of the board and a wider change in leadership at Canada Post that will support greater collaboration, diversity, and broader perspectives. An improved relationship between labour and management at Canada Post is something we heard about extensively in our consultations, and that would be a benefit not only to the organization itself, but also to its morale and its ability to deliver the services that Canadians deserve and expect.

I will quote from the discussion paper of the task force, which said:

According to experts and stakeholders, Canada’s financial environment is not conducive to the establishment and operation of full-scale postal banking. Postal banking is not likely to succeed in Canada as a result of the existence of a mature and competitive banking environment, as well as the extensive market coverage of not-for-profit credit unions in which more than 10 million Canadians have accounts.

As part of its review, the task force conducted public opinion research to gather feedback from Canadians, including on the issue of postal banking. Here are some of those findings.

Some 60 per cent of surveyed Canadians think that having “Canada Post open a bank that offers a complete line of banking services” would be a poor fit with Canada Post’s business, versus 38 per cent who believe that the idea has potential.... [A]mong Canadians that seem to like the idea of postal banking, ultimately, only 7 per cent claim that they would actually use postal banking services.

The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates also analyzed the topic of postal banking. It found that 99% of Canadians have bank accounts, and the majority of these Canadians, or 55%, use the Internet for most of their banking transactions. This committee, of which I was a member, also looked at whether Canada had done its due diligence in reviewing the possibility of postal banking, and we found that Canada Post's decision not to pursue this solution was reasonable. The committee recommended that Canada Post focus on its core competencies to help Canada meet the challenges of the 21st century.

It is fair to say that the possibility of postal banking has been adequately examined, and Canadians were widely consulted on this topic between June and November 2016. Is it really necessary to do this work all over again, hold almost the same hearings, and create another committee on top of the existing standing committee? I do not think so.

Canada Post has one of the largest retail networks in Canada, and in some communities, particularly in rural Canada, Canada Post is the only federal presence. This does not mean that Canadians, even rural Canadians, do not have access to banking services, because they do. However, there are other ways the assets of Canada Post can be leveraged, and our committee recommended that they be leveraged in such a fashion as to allow better access to public government services through these locations. We think this is a better fit.

It is essential that the new leadership at Canada Post be given sufficient time to implement our new service-first vision and consider innovative approaches to the long-term sustainability of Canada Post. This should be done before Parliament undertakes another expensive comprehensive review.

[Indigenous Affairs, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, indigenous children comprise 7.7% of all Canadians under 15 years of age, yet they represent a whopping 52% of children in foster care in private homes. Indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians alike, including my constituents in St. John's East, are demanding that this ongoing injustice be addressed. Can the hon. Minister of Indigenous Services please update this House on what our government is doing to champion indigenous children's welfare?

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the wonderful time we had together working on not only this file, which was quite difficult, but also on Canada Post.

The government operations committee is a very cordial House of Commons standing committee. However, I have not sat on the committee since the break due to some scheduling conflicts that had me move, so I was not aware until just now that the answer had not been forthcoming to the committee. I will undertake to reach out to the minister to determine whether additional resources will be provided to MPs' staff in their constituency offices. Obviously some people have more federal employees affected than others. It is something that I am happy to get back to the member with offline.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot necessarily speak to the negotiations at the bargaining table because I am not there. However, I will say that the problems related to employees not being under contract, or their pay not being appropriately accommodated, or the data not being properly entered, or the rules not existing in the electronic system, are all situations that existed before Phoenix.

I know that the member is interested in the CBSA workers in his riding. There are also some CBSA workers in my riding, as well as Coast Guard workers, who did not have appropriate pay. That issue predated Phoenix. It was only compounded by Phoenix. Without having the rules in place, without having the good data entry, it is garbage in and garbage out in any electronic pay system. That is what we were left with, garbage.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the backlog and employment deficit within the data entry capacity of Phoenix that we found ourselves with following the election, there was also a massive backlog in negotiating of contracts with public service employees.

To implement all the new rules with the old contracts, the backlog of retroactive pay associated with the contract negotiations, and then the new contracts as they entered into force, was an extremely complicated and difficult task. No one on our side has anything but the utmost good faith in the work that the unions have done on this. We support their efforts to make sure the system is holistic and that it functions well, and that all the rules are implemented.

We place the blame squarely on those who failed to make sure we had a robust system. If we look at the Auditor General's comments on what has happened since the June 2016 period and following, we can see there was a great gap in data entry. It points to the fact that they tried to do too much too soon, and took all the financial rewards before they had accrued to them.

This is a process that should have been broken up into two steps: one, getting a new functioning electronic pay system that worked within the confines of the systems that existed within the government departments; and two, had that proven correct, then looking at a process to possibly centralize it, if that had made sense.

However, the Conservatives did not, and this is what we are left with.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Quadra.

Let me begin by saying that we have the utmost and deepest respect for public service employees. The work they do is vital to Canada's economic, social, and cultural prosperity. We deeply regret that they are experiencing pay issues, and that these issues are affecting them and their families.

All of us in government take very seriously our responsibility to ensure that employees are paid accurately and on time. From my time as a member of the government operations and estimates committee, I can speak to issues of employee pay that we inherited on election day and have been seized with ever since.

To that end, I welcome the opportunity to speak to our government's efforts to stabilize and correct the pay system. We can note that this issue has been around for quite some time. Even in the period prior to 2008, pay issues affected the public service. We have cases from Lapointe, Murchison, Bolduc, and Prosper, which all point to problems with government pay that need to be corrected and have not been for a long time.

Allow me to take each aspect of the motion in turn, beginning with the first clause of the motion, which calls on the government to “pay all employees correctly and on time, every time, for the work they do”. Let there be no doubt. Our government is committed to doing just that. That is why our government has been giving the matter its full attention and applying the necessary resources to fix the problem. Our priority is to get public servants paid accurately as soon as possible. We are listening to the concerns raised by employees, and we are working as quickly as possible to resolve them. We will continue to work with all stakeholders, including union leadership, to find efficient solutions to the pay challenges for the short and long terms.

Since the launch of Phoenix, the government has dedicated significant financial resources to address the problem. The government has forgone $210 million in savings booked prematurely by the previous government, leaving those funds with the 45 departments and agencies served by the pay centre to assist them with the pay issues within their organizations.

Let me explain. As part of the original 2009 implementation plan for Phoenix, the new pay system was supposed to generate savings across government departments. These departments were expected to transfer the savings they generated from Phoenix to the government. Given that employees need more support and departments need more resources to help resolve pay issues, our government decided to leave this money with those organizations so that the funds could be used to resolve the issues for employees.

That is not all. Last spring, our government announced $142 million in investments in capacity and technology. This included hiring more employees to process pay transactions. Most recently, $56 million was allocated to further help stabilize the pay system. These measures are part of our government's commitment to doing everything it takes to ensure that employees are paid what they are owed, on time, every time.

Let me turn to the second part of the motion, calling on us to “exempt those who have been overpaid by Phoenix from having to pay back the 'gross' amount, despite actually receiving a substantially lower 'net' amount”. I would like to report that the government is implementing measures to help ensure that employees do not experience any permanent impacts because of Phoenix.

First, the government is working with unions to ease the repayment burden on employees. Second, we are reimbursing employees whose income is being taxed at a higher tax bracket. Third, we are reimbursing employees whose Canada child benefit or other income-tested benefits are being reduced. Fourth, we are also offering to refund employees who need to consult experts to sort out their income tax because of errors in their pay.

In short, we are very aware of the potential tax implications and other implications of Phoenix, and are taking actions to mitigate any negative effects on employees. We are in fact taking the holistic approach advocated by the second part of this motion.

I would now like to address the third part of the motion, which calls on the government to “compensate those in the public service who have experienced damages from Phoenix, both financial and otherwise”.

The Government of Canada is doing everything possible to ensure that no employee remains out of pocket because of errors caused by the Phoenix pay system. In July 2016, bargaining agents advised the government of employee concerns about the potential for inconsistent treatment of compensation claims for the financial hardships they experienced due to pay problems with Phoenix. The Government of Canada responded by establishing an out-of-pocket claims process. For example, if employees used their line of credit to cover regular payments while they were underpaid and have incurred interest charges, they can claim those expenses.

The process has been designed to resolve employee claims quickly, and each organization has a Phoenix claims officer who is available to answer questions and guide employees through the process.

Finally, I would like to address the final clause of the motion before us today, that the government “publicly apologize to all of those who have endured hardship as a result of the government's error.”

The government has done exactly that. In November, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement sent a letter of apology to federal public employees. Let me quote from that letter:

This issue is the most important file on my desk, and I apologize to those of you experiencing pay issues that are affecting you and your families. Your stories of hardship caused by the backlog of financial transactions keep me awake at night.

It goes on:

I am working with dedicated officials as well as the Ministers’ Working Group to make sure that our government remains open and transparent, and that we take concrete action to resolve the pay issues that have very real consequences on your day-to-day lives.

As I have explained, the motion before us today calls on the government to take four actions that the government has already completed or that are under way. As my hon. colleagues have already highlighted, the government is taking extensive action to ensure that this unacceptable situation is cured as quickly as possible. The government is leaving no stone unturned, because we agree it is completely unacceptable that the proper pay for this country's excellent public service is at stake.

I would also note in respect of what is before us today that, if not for the preamble, the government would be perfectly prepared to support the motion. However, as it stands, we cannot.