François Choquette

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Before beginning my speech, I would like to stress how committed the NDP is to this legislation. Many of my colleagues have risen over the past hour to show their commitment to addressing the problems within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

On that note, it is important to stress just how disinterested the Conservatives are in this important legislation and in improving the RCMP. We have done very serious work in committee. Moreover, I would like to highlight the work of my colleagues who sit on this committee. They work very hard and have introduced amendments that, unfortunately, have not been accepted.

Now, what does this bill contain? To begin with, Bill C-42 adds new provisions to the sections on labour relations and gives the RCMP Commissioner the power to appoint and dismiss members as he sees fit. Secondly, it attempts to reform the process pertaining to disciplinary matters, complaints, and the management of human resources for the members of the RCMP. Finally, it is an attempt to reform the former RCMP public complaints commission by establishing a new civilian complaints commission.

As members can see, Bill C-42 reintroduces several provisions included in Bill C-38 of the 40th Parliament. At that time, the NDP criticized the bill because it did not go far enough in reforming the disciplinary inquiry procedures. The most notable difference between Bill C-42 and former Bill C-38 is the fact that the new bill says nothing about the issue of unionizing the RCMP.

On that note, I would like to remind members that the NDP is the only political party in the House of Commons whose employees are unionized. We are very proud of this. It is something that we care about deeply. For that reason, we stand behind workers and cannot stress enough how important it is to respect the work they do. We are proud that our employees are unionized. I take this opportunity to put the ball in the courts of the other parties, so that they, too, begin negotiating with their employees. I think that all employees of the House should have an opportunity to become unionized.

The NDP supported the intention of Bill C-42 to modernize the RCMP and to address problems such as sexual harassment, about which my honourable colleagues have spoken. The NDP voted in favour of referring the bill to committee. As I mentioned, my colleagues who sit on this committee have worked very hard, and very seriously.

After hearing from witnesses and experts, however, it became obvious that the bill had major shortcomings, and would not succeed in improving the RCMP's oversight mechanisms. Moreover, Bill C-42 does not reflect, for example, the recommendations of Justice O'Connor emerging from the inquiry into the Maher Arar case, which also sought to improve the RCMP's review standards so as to meet the needs of Canadians.

The Conservatives introduced Bill C-42 as the solution for the problems of the RCMP, which has become somewhat dysfunctional; on the contrary, however, this is not the solution. The bill does not directly address the problem of sexual harassment, as I said just now, and as my colleagues explained so clearly in their speeches earlier. Nor does it address a number of other issues that were the subject of NDP amendments at the committee stage, and which the Conservatives unfortunately rejected.

The NDP put forward a range of amendments designed to ensure that Bill C-42 reflected the challenges the RCMP is now facing. Once again, I take my hat off to my colleagues, who did such careful work in committee.

The main thrust of the amendments related to the following points. The first thing was to require all members of the RCMP to take harassment training, under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. Unfortunately, this was rejected by the Conservatives. Next, we sought the establishment of a completely independent civilian agency responsible for investigating complaints against the RCMP. Unfortunately, this was denied by the Conservatives. We also proposed adding a provision to set up an independent national civilian investigating body to avoid having the police investigate themselves. Again, this was rejected by the Conservatives. We also wanted to develop more balanced human resources policies by withdrawing some of the draconian new powers suggested by the RCMP Commissioner, and strengthening the RCMP External Review Committee in cases involving discharge. Unfortunately, this too was rejected by the Conservatives.

So the Conservatives rejected all these NDP amendments, ignoring many recommendations from witnesses who had given up their valuable time to come and speak before the committee and explain their points of view, and to suggest amendments and ways of dealing with the shortcomings. We are in fact in favour of the RCMP review principle. We even supported this bill at second reading. Unfortunately, it is not well enough developed at this stage because the Conservatives botched the committee work. They rejected the amendments proposed by witnesses and members of the NDP in committee. That is why we are going to vote against this bill at third reading.

I will now return to the point we were speaking about just now about misconduct and sexual harassment. It is an exceedingly important point, one that has been very much in the news recently and needs to be addressed. Bill C-42 has not gone nearly far enough. Furthermore, as you know, we are asking that this bill should at least provide for training at the RCMP on sexual harassment issues. We are still awaiting the conclusions of the two reports that should shed light on sexual harassment at the RCMP—the investigation by the RCMP public complaints commission and the RCMP gender issues report.

Another problem I discussed earlier, which I find extremely important, is unionization at the RCMP. As I mentioned, we in the NDP are very proud of our support of the unions. We take pride in having unionized assistants and we would like to allow all employees to be unionized. The bill does not address this matter, which is currently before the courts. The RCMP is the only police force in Canada without a collective agreement. Imagine that.

For 35 years, labour relations representatives have been elected to manage employment-related matters. However, this way of doing things, which established a democratic process for employee representation, is a consultation process rather than a true collective bargaining process. As I mentioned, only the RCMP does not yet have a collective agreement and is not yet unionized. This is a shortcoming that needs to be dealt with and which this bill unfortunately does not address.

I could mention a number of other points like that to illustrate the failings of the bill and to explain why we will be voting against it. Among other things, it is because the Conservatives did not take the trouble to listen to the conclusions of the excellent work done by NDP members, in this committee and elsewhere.

I am available to answer any questions you may have about this. I would be more than happy to go into detail about a number of subjects, like sexual harassment and unionization, neither of which this bill deals with.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his excellent speech.

He clearly laid out the effects of this bill, a bill whose initial promise quickly turned to disappointment. We brought forward many amendments in committee; unfortunately, all were rejected.

I would like my colleague's take on the Conservatives' unwillingness to consider the amendments brought forward to improve the bill.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his excellent speech. All of the points he raised were very pertinent.

One thing I would like to say about this omnibus bill is that it is too long to examine as thoroughly as we should. At least this bill is a step forward in the fight against tax evasion. But it is not enough.

The NDP believes that fighting tax evasion should be given greater priority. The NDP has even organized information sessions on this. The Leader of the Opposition gave a speech to demonstrate that we support this fight, which should be a priority.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government did not work hard enough on the fight against tax evasion and I would like to hear what my hon. colleague would recommend in that regard.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her excellent speech. She highlighted all of the flaws of this bill. We will support this bill, since it is a step in the right direction, but there are some problems with it. For example, the government could have improved certain things, such as tax evasion. This bill is a step towards combatting tax evasion, but it is just a start.

The NDP recently held a meeting where it condemned the Conservative government's complacency towards combatting tax evasion. The Leader of the Opposition was there. He spoke and mentioned that the NDP wants more tax fairness, so that everyone pays their fair share.

I would like to hear what my hon. colleague thinks about more seriously targeting tax evasion so that Canadians get their money's worth from a services perspective.

[Transboundary Waters Protection Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to speak to Bill C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act.

I will start by saying that the NDP will be supporting this bill despite all its flaws.

This bill would amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to strengthen prohibitions against the bulk removal of water and to enhance current protections. The bill applies to all transboundary waters between Canada and the United States, waters that flow from Canada to the United States and rivers that flow to the United States. If I am not mistaken, the Saint-François River, in the riding of Drummond, is affected by this bill.

This bill is very important to me because water is one of the world's greatest natural resources. Water is an incredible resource. It should even be a human right. The United Nations General Assembly recognized the right to water. On July 28, 2010, the General Assembly adopted, by an overwhelming majority, a resolution recognizing the human right to water and sanitation. It is a right that is essential to human survival. It is such a fundamental right that violating it can cause death in just a few days if people do not have access to drinking water.

Canada is very rich in water, in lakes and rivers of all sizes. Our country's water should be protected by a far-sighted national water policy.

After a series of promises from the Conservatives, this bill is before us at last. However, it does not address the most likely threat to Canadian waters: the interbasin transfer of water. Those are neither boundary nor transboundary waters, but they could be linked to international waters that flow from Canada to the United States and then exported to the United States.

While Bill C-383 is a step in the right direction, it clearly does not ban all bulk exports of water. My colleague mentioned in his question that the bill has some serious weaknesses that could lead to bulk exports of water. We will continue our fight to reach our objectives. The NDP is completely opposed to bulk water exports.

Thus, we want to ensure that all surface water is protected, that any eventual water exports by tanker ships are regulated, and that NAFTA's threats to our water supply are opposed. What is needed is a coordinated plan by all provinces to establish measures that ban the removal of water in bulk. We must call for the signing of bilateral agreements that would prevent the United States from acting unilaterally to import water and would address the issue of the exemptions under the act that allow the export of bottled drinking water and other beverages.

As we can see, this would not be just a little bill about boundary waters. We want it to have a much larger scope. It would truly be a national water policy. In order to accomplish this, we need a government that really understands the importance of water to Canada. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is not demonstrating such an understanding at this time. The Conservatives prefer to act through little bills and little actions. We see that such actions are not part of a vision. The Conservatives do not have much of a vision.

When we were talking earlier about the railways, it was the same thing. It lacked vision. This bill shows that the Conservatives have no vision.

In the NDP, we have a real, overall vision of what a national water policy to prevent bulk water exports should be.

NAFTA defines water as a product. That is why that agreement has long been considered a threat to Canada's sovereignty over its water resources.

On February 9, 1999, the House of Commons adopted an NDP motion calling for an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and interbasin transfers. The motion also called on the government to introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater exports and interbasin transfers. Furthermore, the motion asked that the federal government not be a party to any international agreement that compels Canada to export freshwater against its will.

It should be clear to everyone that the NDP has been working on this issue for a long time and working in this field for a long time. For many years, the NDP has called for a ban on bulk freshwater exports. The NDP has been the leading voice in this. We even have an idea for a national water strategy, which is very important.

I would also like to talk about a recent report by the Commissioner of the Environment, Mr. Vaughan. The report was released last week. And I would like to thank Mr. Vaughan again for the excellent work he has done for Canadians. He has done an excellent job as environment commissioner.

In his recent report on the environment, he said that the federal government has not done its job when it comes to shale gas. According to Environment Canada, Health Canada and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that health and the environment are protected against chemicals.

At present, the federal government does not require mandatory disclosure of the chemicals used by shale gas companies. This is very serious, in spite of what they would have us believe. Every year, about 600 shale gas wells use the equivalent of 360,000 Olympic swimming pools of water, all mixed with 900 Olympic swimming pools of chemicals. When they say it is just a bit of chemicals seeping into the ground and into our environment, they forget to mention that it is mixed with a huge quantity of water, and that this amounts to a huge quantity of chemicals. The federal government, the Conservative government, is failing to protect our water, because it does not require mandatory disclosure of the chemicals used in the shale gas industry.

I am very proud of the position taken by the leader of opposition, who is calling on the Conservative government to require mandatory disclosure of these chemicals. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is resting on its laurels and doing nothing about it. This is a threat to the environment and to people’s health.

In fact, the environment commissioner said that it is a violation of the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which includes the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle goes like this: when you are not sure, when you have doubts, and when there is a risk of a threat to health or the environment, you have to take precautions. If the Conservative government at least required disclosure of the chemicals, an appropriate analysis could be done and proper rules made and standards established for shale gas so that it is done in a way that is not harmful to the environment and human health. At present, we are in a complete vacuum.

I have talked a lot about shale gas in this regard because I care a lot about it. My hon. colleague’s bill does not mention this national water policy, but it is necessary. What is missing is a more comprehensive vision, a broader vision. Water is a human right recognized by the United Nations. We have to have a strong national water policy that we can use to protect our environment and human health.

[Transboundary Waters Protection Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's speech. Bill C-383 is definitely a first step, but it is not enough.

For a long time the NDP has been asking for something much more comprehensive, a national water policy to address all aspects of water protection in Canada. Our party also wants a review of NAFTA with respect to bulk water exports.

I would like my colleague to comment on what else should be included in a national water policy.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for this very relevant question. She explained the situation very well in her preamble.

And that is why I would like to come back to the national transportation strategy proposed by my hon. colleague, our transport critic, in her bill.

I hope the Conservatives will have a look at it, because what we really need is a comprehensive vision—one that involves investing in infrastructure and investing in our economy, especially our regional economies. This vision involves protecting the environment and protecting our roads, which would be better for everyone if they were in better shape.

Indeed, my hon. colleague painted a clear picture of the situation. Bill C-52 is merely a drop in the bucket in terms of this problem. A much more comprehensive, more overall vision is needed.

We in the NDP have a vision that includes the economy, the environment and a national transportation strategy.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges for his very relevant question.

As I mentioned in my speech, that aspect is missing from the bill. It is another example of how the Conservatives failed with this bill. We will support it, but unfortunately, certain aspects of it need to be improved, including fees. That is problematic.

If we want to encourage the use of the railways and if we want farmers in a given region to be able to use them, fees needs to be affordable and accessible. If fees are made more affordable and if heavy trucks are pulled off our roads, we will improve our roads, our economy and our environment.

Railways are the way of the future. I believe that Bill C-52 is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not have the courage to finish the job concerning fees.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration).

I will say right away that we will support this bill at second reading, even though it is flawed.

Some 80% of rail freight service customers, that is to say shippers, are not satisfied with those services. They asked the government to take action and to introduce legislation compelling CN and CP to enter into service agreements with them.

As I mentioned, this bill is a first step, but it is not a panacea, on the contrary. Shippers are having trouble getting fair and reliable rail freight services. Some of them cannot even sign contracts with major railway companies, which experience significant delays or do not have enough cars at their disposal.

The Conservatives finally introduced this bill to address some of those problems after the NDP critic tabled her bill introducing the rail customer protection act last spring.

The NDP transport critic did a very good job on railways. She is also working very hard on public transit and has suggested that we have a national public transit strategy. The Conservatives should entertain that strategy, but they are unfortunately still turning a deaf ear. It would be good if they listened to all these good ideas on public transit.

As I mentioned earlier in asking my honourable colleague from Manicouagan a question, the railway is Canada's raison d'être. It is a historic and essential factor for Canada. The level of service has been declining for some time now. The government has stopped investing in infrastructure, and legislation does not have enough teeth to force businesses to invest in that infrastructure.

Consequently, we are using the roads and trucking far too much, when we could be using the railway. The benefit of doing so would be considerable, not only for our roads, which are being damaged, but also for the environment because the railway is a very environmentally friendly mode of transportation.

Bill C-52 is a first step in the right direction, but it is far from perfect, since major demands by shippers have gone unheeded. Its ambiguous wording, for example, creates potential loopholes. The NDP will seek amendments at the committee review stage to prevent any abuses of market power by requiring that service agreements be reached and putting in place conflict resolution processes.

Rail freight services are currently of poor quality, and this is costly for the Canadian economy. In fact, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Many industries in Canada have to deal with rotten crops, work stoppages at plants and in mines and missing freight on a daily basis. Poor rail services hurt Canadian shippers and undermine our global competitiveness, in addition to costing jobs.

We should rely much more on the railway, but in order to rely on it, it has to be efficient and first-class, so that businesses and SMEs use it more and more. In my region of greater Drummondville, the railway is an important industrial element, but it is not used as much as it could be. If we had a railway that was more efficient, more available and more reliable, and on which we could rely, I am sure that businesses in my region would use it more. This would be a win-win situation on all levels: our competitiveness, our economy and our environment.

The Conservatives have not provided enough money for our infrastructures. Because of this, we now have a huge quality deficit, and one example of it is the poor condition of our network of railway tracks.

In addition, the Conservatives’ bill is very weak in that its safeguards do not cover existing contracts between shippers and railway companies, and it provides only a limited arbitration process in cases where negotiations on a new contract break down. Furthermore, we need to have a more global vision, as I mentioned earlier.

Railway transportation is the backbone of Canada’s economy, as 70% of our goods are shipped by rail. It is therefore essential that railway services be advantageous both for shippers and for our railway companies. The high cost of railway services also has a negative impact on Canadian shippers. Bill C-52 explicitly excludes the issue of rates, ignoring the demands of certain shippers’ associations.

We should not forget Canada’s trade deficit, which continues to escalate. According to Statistics Canada, our trade deficit reached $2 billion in November 2012. This is clear evidence of the Conservatives’ failure. Not only does the Conservative government have the highest budget deficit in Canada’s history, but in addition, our trade deficit is clear proof of its failure across the board.

The fact that it ignored railway transportation is just more evidence of its economic failure. As I mentioned, 70% of our freight is shipped by rail. We must give much greater consideration to railway infrastructures and take a more global viewpoint. Not only was Canada built by the railway, which has quite a history in Canada, but in addition, the railway is clearly the way of the future. All modern societies are investing in railways. All societies that have a long-term vision are investing in the railway infrastructure.

We have been asking for a long time for a national public transit strategy that would include the railways. Unfortunately, once again, the Conservative government has failed. This is a very serious matter.

I am now going to digress from talking about Bill C-52 to make a brief aside. Recently, the environment commissioner issued his latest report. I would like to thank Mr. Vaughan for all the work he has done. In his latest report, he has done an excellent job for Canada and the environment. In the report, he mentions the annual financial support, in hundreds of millions of dollars, nearly $1 billion in total, that the Conservative government continues giving to coal, oil and natural gas, even though the money could be put toward a national transportation policy. This is very important. We think of public transit, but we should also be thinking about freight transportation. They go hand in hand. We will have to revisit this notion.

Everything is interrelated. Transportation is related to the environment and to our economy. It is all part of the same thing. Unfortunately, as we have shown, the Conservative government has the largest budget deficit in Canada’s history, as well as a trade deficit that reached $2 billion last November, according to Statistics Canada. In addition, there has been a lack of investment in infrastructures. I would like to add that 80% of shippers are unhappy with the services provided by our railway system.

This is clear evidence that the Conservatives have failed. The NDP must absolutely take their place so that we can implement a national transportation strategy. This will help the economy, the environment and transportation overall.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Drummond, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague for his very good speech.

As he pointed out, railroads are very important in addressing climate change and environmental issues. Rail service was key in building Canada, but it has now fallen by the wayside.

The Conservative government has neglected our infrastructure. It has not done enough to subsidize, fund and promote public transit, which includes rail as an important pillar.

Could my colleague explain the importance of rail for the environment and tell us how the government could promote rail transportation much better by investing in our infrastructure, so we can benefit from a better means of transportation?