François Choquette

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that the shippers, of course, are happy that someone is finally trying to meet their needs and that the first steps have been taken. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, there were six proposals that were not answered and were simply dismissed. I cannot explain that.

I must also mention something very technical, as my colleague called it. Arbitration can pose a problem since it is only available for shippers who are negotiating new contracts. Consequently, shippers will have no right to arbitration for their older contracts. That was one of the proposals that was made and rejected so brusquely.

A number of proposals of that kind were made and, instead of providing rapid, reliable assistance to all shippers through a conflict resolution process, Bill C-52 provides a limited arbitration procedure only for a small group of shippers. That is a good example of a situation the Conservative government has not been able to address, and it explains why the bill is unsatisfactory.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech on Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration), by pointing out that this is the 37th time that we have been faced with time allocation. It is the 37th time that we have been gagged and that we have been prevented from discussing, debating and proposing opposition arguments to improve the bills before us. This is the Conservative way, since their ideological blindness makes them think they can do whatever they like. They put on their blinders and refuse to listen to anyone who puts forward solutions and amendments to their problem.

In this regard, I would like to speak about the excellent work the NDP members have done on this bill in committee. I would like to name the NDP members of the committee, because it is important. First of all, there is the outstanding member for Trinity—Spadina, our transport critic, who has been doing a great job for a long, long time. There is our wonderful deputy critic, the member for Trois-Rivières, our exceptional colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the member for York South—Weston. Once again I would like to say that they are doing excellent work in committee.

It is now 11:10 p.m., and I am very proud to rise in the House, convinced as I am that it is important that we go on discussing this bill, that we go on arguing and explaining that, even though we are going to vote for the bill, it is only a first step. My colleague spoke very clearly on this point earlier, calling it a baby step.

It is a first step, a tiny baby step, even though shippers, farmers, mining companies and the various other companies that use the railways have been asking for this legislation to be reviewed for years now. Unfortunately, no one delivered on that, as the expression goes. The government has produced a bill that is very disappointing. We are going to accept it because it is a first step in the right direction, but considering the number of years that we have spent waiting for improvements, the government could have done better.

On that point, in committee, and I mentioned this earlier during question period to the other members, and I want to say it again, there were six proposals made by shippers and businesses. Those six proposals were not asking too much. They were very reasonable, and they had been studied and analyzed and brought forward by experts. They were then assembled into nine amendments by the New Democrats and tabled in committee. We submitted those proposals in a very professional manner. As people who do their job properly, we decided that even though it was a bill from the Conservatives, we could improve it.

Unfortunately, in their ideological blindness and their desire to get everything done fast and without consultation, thinking only of their own interests, the Conservatives brushed those proposals off. I am truly saddened to see that.

I would like to talk about the Conservatives’ short-sightedness for a minute. As I said when I was asking questions, the railway is important not only for shipping freight, but also for transporting people. We should invest a lot more in shipping freight, and we should invest a lot more in transporting people. If shippers can rely on an efficient railway, they will use it more, and even more businesses will use it too. In Drummond, some businesses use it, but if it were more efficient, more businesses would use it.

If we had a policy, a national public transit strategy, a national rail transportation strategy, as the New Democrats are calling for, and as the NDP’s excellent transport critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina, is calling for, we could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and do a lot more to combat climate change.

The Conservatives do not think that combatting climate change should be a priority. I serve on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and, unfortunately, this is the message we get week after week.

In the two years that I have been in the House of Commons, we have been told that combatting climate change should be the Canadian government's top priority. We are told that climate change is currently the government's major challenge and that it will be for future generations as well. It should be a priority in committee.

However, unfortunately for them, the Conservatives favour studies that are less pressing, when they should be addressing climate change, and making it a priority.

The government should have a national public transit and rail transportation strategy to ensure on-time delivery. Currently, in 80% of cases, things go wrong, and 90% of shippers complain that they are dissatisfied with the service. Those are not passing grades. They do not encourage Canadians, shippers and big businesses to make more frequent use of rail transportation. Rail transportation should therefore be a part of a pan-Canadian strategy to combat climate change.

In the NDP, we are very proud to have this long-term vision, which is not just about the interests of big business, but also about the interests of all Canadians.

On that note, Canada is the only G8 country to not have federal funding and a national plan for transportation. This attests to just how far we lag behind other nations, when we should, in fact, be dynamic leaders. In the NDP, our vision is clear and progressive. It demonstrates why it is important to reform the Canada Transportation Act.

The NDP has three main demands regarding this bill. First, Canadian shippers deserve fair, reliable, bang-for-their-buck rail transportation. That is why it is important to strengthen the position of shippers vis-à-vis the CN and CP monopoly, which is something that Bill C-52 fails to address.

Shippers made six reasonable, practical, modest recommendations in committee. Unfortunately, the Conservators flatly rejected them all without giving them the time of day, while the New Democrats once again did all the work.

It is also important to remember that other improvements are necessary. For that reason, the NDP will continue to work very hard with shippers, forestry companies, mining companies and other businesses to improve the bill, which does not sufficiently address the issue of the lack of competition in this sector.

In closing, I repeat that we are going to support this bill. Unfortunately, it is only a baby step towards what should be accomplished, namely creating a national transportation strategy and a national strategy to fight climate change.

Those are the two greatest challenges for us to tackle on behalf of future generations, our children, our grandchildren and the people of Drummond, who come to see me often. They are worried about the environment and concerned about having a high-quality, efficient and reliable rail system.

The NDP is here and will continue to work very hard for a better rail system and a better public transit system.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech.

Let us not forget that this speech is on the 37th time allocation motion. It is very important to remember that. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have often resorted to such anti-democratic measures to shut down debate.

This bill is very important. It implements long-awaited measures. Unfortunately, even though we have been waiting for this for many years, we are getting just a few measures to meet the needs of businesses, shippers, farmers and other sectors subject to this legislation.

It is important to note that the shippers and other stakeholders submitted six proposals in committee, which were summarized in nine NDP amendments. Unfortunately, the Conservatives rejected them out of hand.

Why did they reject these proposals?

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Newton—North Delta on her excellent speech, which I listened to carefully and appreciated.

I would like to commend the excellent work done by our transport critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina, which my colleague also mentioned. She clearly demonstrates the importance of the work she has to do when it comes to standing up for shippers. She is also aware of the importance of rail transport and its effects in the context of combating climate change.

Unfortunately, our colleagues opposite, the Conservatives, have very little interest in combating climate change. To them, that is a pointless expense, when it should be a priority. In fact, it will be the challenge faced by an entire generation.

The question I would like to ask my colleague concerns the excellent work our New Democrat colleagues are doing in committee. They proposed nine amendments that referred to the six proposals she spoke about so eloquently concerning industry, business and shippers. Those very reasonable amendments would have been very effective in improving the bill, which would have gone from being a baby step to being a giant leap in the right direction.

On that point, I would like to hear her comments about the excellent work we are doing in committee, as compared to the one-way-only work done by the Conservatives, who are prisoners of their ideology.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my hon. colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord spoke about how important it is to have legislation that will convince the big rail companies to respect the people who use them: forestry workers, miners, farmers and so on.

He went on to say that the fine was not steep enough to convince the major corporations, CN and CP, which make billions of dollars a year, to respect their clients. Of course, this ruffled the Conservatives’ feathers.

It is important to have good managers, yet on the other side of the House, the Conservatives are very bad managers. They lost track of $3.1 billion earmarked for the fight against terrorism, and they have no record of a $90,000 cheque from their chief of staff, which was used to pay off the debts of senators who are not able to pay their own debts.

I would therefore like to hear why my colleague thinks that it is important to have credible, solid legislation to ensure that rail companies respect their clients.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord on his excellent speech and for standing up not only for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, but all of the Saguenay. He does a very good job at representing the greater Saguenay region.

Moreover, unless I am mistaken, the greater Saguenay region will soon be celebrating its 175th anniversary. We can therefore be proud of our member of Parliament. I am very proud of him.

Like him, other colleagues have done an excellent job on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Unfortunately, the Conservatives chose not to adopt the excellent motions moved by the NDP. Nevertheless, we did a remarkable job in committee. We always bring forward amendments to improve bills.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are blinded by their ideology, and they do not listen to the experts.

Would my colleague like to share his comments regarding the excellent job the NDP did on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities?

[National Charities Week, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-458, An Act respecting a National Charities Week and to amend the Income Tax Act (charitable and other gifts).

The New Democrats will support this bill at second reading. It provides for two main measures. First of all, it amends the Income Tax Act to provide that charitable gifts, made within 60 days after the end of a taxation year are eligible for a tax credit for that taxation year. Second, it establishes a National Charities Week, which would be the last week of February.

We therefore support this bill at second reading so that it can go to the committee stage. Since I sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I am well aware that the New Democrats do very serious work in committee. We work very hard. I have also sat as a substitute on several other House committees, and I can state that the New Democrats' work is exemplary. They do very serious work, analyze bills, listen to witnesses, take their recommendations seriously and insist that they be included in reports, unlike the Conservatives, who already have their minds made up and very often do not listen to the experts and scientists.

It is also important that the Standing Committee on Finance study this bill so that the committee can get a clearer idea of the actual cost of this measure. We must ensure that this measure is an adequate response to the difficulties charities currently face.

I would also like to talk about certain organizations in the riding of Drummond. For example, organizations benefiting from the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, the HPS, came to see me before the budget was tabled last year. The organizations affected include Ensoleilvent, Refuge La Piaule, Maison Habit-Action, Tablée populaire, Comptoir alimentaire and Carrefour d'entraide. These are all charitable organizations that assist the homeless and the poor in my riding.

These organizations are unfortunately being abandoned by the Conservative government. Their budgets have not even been indexed for several years now, perhaps more than five. Year after year, although demand is increasing in Drummond and elsewhere in Quebec and Canada, the funding allocated to the HPS is not even indexed. Although the Conservative government has fortunately renewed the program, allocated funding is inadequate. The government also wants to interfere in the way the organizations want to manage their money. We wanted complete freedom in this area so that the organizations, which know people's needs, could take the most appropriate action. We wanted funding to be allocated in a general way, but that is unfortunately not the case.

As my hon. colleague from Manicouagan noted in his excellent speech, the Conservative government is currently withdrawing from charities, which can no longer rely on recurring funding. They cannot count on stable funding with which to provide appropriate assistance. Furthermore, they are now accountable to the federal government.

On the contrary, with the Conservative government’s gradual and clear withdrawal, these organizations are increasingly being left to fend for themselves, so to speak. They must solicit businesses and generous donors more often for funding. At times, they are forced to adopt an approach that may not always be the most appropriate one, with questionable or dubious results.

A very large company that may not necessarily be bad but that may have other interests could in some way influence charitable organizations into doing what it wants them to do. Sometimes their actions may be questionable. That is why it is important for the federal government to ensure an adequate level of funding for agencies like the ones I mentioned, so that they may provide adequate support to members of the public.

Unfortunately, as we saw once again with the renewal of funding for the HPS, the government has failed on this score. This is a failure on the part of the Conservative government. While it did renew HPS funding, unfortunately it stripped the HPS of its general character, something that agencies in Drummond had asked it not to do. Funding amounts were not indexed, as had been requested. In a few years’ time, the process will have to be repeated.

I want to mention the excellent work the member for Hochelaga is doing in support of social housing. I want to thank her for her hard work. We can all be proud of our social housing critic. She is doing an excellent job and we are seeing the fruits of her labour. We are continuing our hard work in this area, because we are not getting a lot of support from those across the way.

I would like to mention the fine work being done by all of the charitable organizations across Canada fighting against social inequality. They provide support for our fellow Canadians during difficult times and make a truly essential contribution.

As I pointed out earlier, the NDP and the majority of Canadians believe that it is important not to relieve the government of its responsibilities. Our social policies must also reflect the actions of charitable organizations. We must support these agencies in a more tangible way.

Government cuts to grants to NGOs working in the area of international citizenship adversely affect all agencies.

The facts show that we have reason to be leery of the Conservative government’s approach. It seems to want to leave the charitable sector to fend for itself. As I said earlier, this is a dangerous approach.

Canadians want a responsible government that shoulders its responsibilities. They do not want a government that sloughs off its basic responsibilities onto the private sector, with all the risks that may entail. Once again, I refer to the excellent speech by the hon. member for Manicouagan, who explained these points so well.

In short, I will say that the NDP supports the charitable sector. We want a comprehensive, coherent, long-term policy. We must include the charitable sector when we create social policies, and charitable organizations should not be required to manage our social programs. The government must remain the master planner. It must retain the responsibility. The Conservative government must maintain the social programs and invest in them in order to avoid an explosion in demand in the charitable sector.

I would like to point out that other organizations have suffered funding cuts. Earlier, I talked a lot about HPS and the initiative to end homelessness, but then there are Rights and Democracy, Alternatives, Kairos, and Development and Peace. All these charitable organizations work independently and accountably.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government has not supported them; on the contrary, it has made cuts, which is really deplorable. We are in favour of charitable donations, but the government must also face up to its responsibilities. Unfortunately, the Conservative government has not done so. The NDP will do it in 2015—the public can rest assured.

[Relay for Life, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to highlight an important event being held across Canada, namely the Canadian Cancer Society's Relay for Life.

I would also like to take this opportunity to invite my constituents to sign up for this one-of-a-kind event. This year, in Drummond and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, people may join the Relay for Life in Acton Vale on May 31, in Drummondville on June 1, and in St-Hyacinthe on June 7.

Walking 12 hours overnight may seem quite a challenge. However, the people facing the real challenge are those living with cancer and their loved ones.

Civil society must engage in raising funds to support cancer research. The federal government should follow the NDP's health-related recommendations for a public and accessible Canadian health care system.

Solidarity is also essential both for motivation and to keep hope alive. That is why I warmly invite my constituents in Drummond and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to join in an enriching human experience by participating in the Relay for Life. Together, we can create hope, the hope to eradicate cancer, to live healthy lives and to embrace a dignified life—hope for tomorrow.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that he did not answer the NDP's question. Will we be going to the end of the calendar? That is what we want to know. We have no problem working until midnight, or even for the entire time allocated to the House of Commons if necessary. We can even extend the motion. The problem is that what we have before us now is another time allocation motion. The House of Commons has been muzzled over 30 times.

The sitting hours of the House should be extended to ensure a democratic process and democratic discourse, not to impose endless gag orders. The Conservative government has set an all-time record in this regard, even managing to beat the Liberals. Something must be done to protect the democratic process and make the Conservative members answer our questions. When asked whether we will be going to the end of the calendar, the Conservatives should tell us. When asked whether they will act on the scandal involving the senators, they should tell us. That issue does not make sense either. It is outrageous. We will rise in the House and we will keep fighting.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the minister's responses regarding the consultations he held.

He brags that he consulted a number of first nations. However, the Assembly of First Nations strongly opposes this bill.

Had the Conservatives consulted the Assembly of First Nations, the assembly would have told them what amendments should have been made to this bill. I can think of a lot of them. I will not rattle them off for you the way the minister does for the groups he supposedly consulted.

Consulting groups is not enough; we must listen to them as well. When groups ask us to make amendments, we need to do it. That is why we want to continue debate on Bill S-8. The government has obviously not done its job. It has not made the necessary amendments.

Introducing legislation on safe drinking water is not enough. That needs to be done, but funding must be provided too. That is what the Assembly of First Nations is asking for, but that is not in Bill S-8. That is why we want to continue the debate, to explain all the good amendments and changes to be made to the bill.