François Lapointe

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact there is one other aspect that is just as important as the others that I wanted to bring to the attention of the House, and that is the fact that, generally speaking, rail services are underdeveloped in this country.

We missed an historic opportunity during the 2008-09 post-recession recovery planning phase. For example, of the billions of dollars spent by developed nations to recover from the 2008 recession, South Korea put a large percentage into rail networks. Why? I believe it was trying to achieve two things. First, rail transportation is one of the sectors that creates the most jobs. Second, when the IMF eventually evaluates whether the country's economy is healthy or not, railways are something tangible. The money invested in them did not disappear; it was spent on goods that are part of the country's inventory.

South Korea did not squander its resources on programs that do not always produce results in the long run. It invested in transportation. Now that the crisis is coming to an end, South Korea has a high-performance network to offer its people and businesses. Did the Conservative government have even an ounce of the wisdom the Koreans did? Absolutely not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which will allow me to be a bit more specific.

There are two sides to the problem. The cost of the arbitration process will be paid by both parties. I repeat that in this country there is a duopoly. Two massive companies regularly face off in arbitration with medium-sized companies and sometimes even small companies with far fewer resources, but the cost is the same.

I would like to read out a provision that really concerns me:

No party to a confidential contract is entitled to submit a matter governed by the contract to the Agency for final offer arbitration under section 161, without the consent of all the parties to the contract.

So people have a contract and go to arbitration. What happens if the big company says no? They will end up in court and the costs will be insane.

If a massive company like CN does not want a potentially damaging issue to move forward, we know what will happen: it will drag out for years or decades, because the company is strong enough to drag things out. In the meantime, SMEs will have to wait for fair service.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have 10 minutes to talk to the House about my party's viewpoints and my own on Bill C-52, which I have here in my hands. This government bill amends the Canada Transportation Act.

I would like to preface my remarks with a comment on the atmosphere here this morning. We are talking about and debating a government bill, but none of the MPs who have agreed to debate this bill in the House belong to the governing party. There are three possible reasons for that, reasons that may be unknown to members of the public, who I hope are listening on CPAC.

It may be a strategic move to put a lot of pressure on the opposition members, forcing them to work hard in the hope that they will exhaust their resources. But I have news for the government: we have many very young MPs who can work very hard for long hours. If that is its tactic, perhaps it should think of a new one.

If that is not the case, then it might be something that worries me a little more: contempt for the parties affected by its own bill, perhaps even contempt for the work of parliamentarians. We belong to a Parliament. When we are here on the Hill, we are paid very well to do our jobs as parliamentarians.

The government introduced a bill of major importance to the Canadian economy, but its members could not even be bothered to stand up in the House to explain their government's position. That reminds me of the time a few years ago during an interview while Parliament was prorogued when the current Prime Minister—only for another two years—came right out and said that he thought shutting down Parliament would be better for the economy. He was quite serious when he said that.

After considering all the possibilities, we think we have the answer. We see this as a very clear demonstration of the utter contempt this government has for our parliamentary duties. All modern legislation has regulations. Many members of the current government seem to live in a fantasy world of libertarianism. We sometimes wonder if it should not be called the conservative libertarian party of Canada, whose answer to everything would be the invisible hand of the market.

In good legislation, there is no place for that kind of fantasy. Furthermore, I challenge any one of my colleagues across the floor to name a single piece of legislation, from anywhere in the world, that has followed that logic through to its conclusion and has been beneficial for the people. It simply does not exist.

Modern legislation needs to strike a balance among people—the buyer and seller, those who need a service and those who provide that service.

There are near monopolies or duopolies, as in the case of credit cards and rail freight transportation. There are just a few huge companies that provide a service to thousands of users. It is impossible to think that, within such a completely unbalanced framework, the invisible hand of the market can balance everything. That is impossible.

That is why it is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure balance and some degree of fairness, and to promote commerce not just for a small number of huge companies, but for all Canadian companies.

Let us come back to the bill before us today, Bill C-52.

I would like to point out that my party and I will be supporting Bill C-52, despite its many weaknesses. We will do so mostly to address the needs of this country's rural areas. But this bill is merely half a step, and not quite in the right direction.

However, out of respect for people in rural areas, who really need to have their processed goods and raw materials shipped efficiently, even a small, flawed, sideways, ill-conceived step is better than nothing. Therefore, we will be supporting this bill.

I was saying earlier that we are dealing with a duopoly that has created a ridiculous situation: 70% of our primary processed materials, our natural resources, are shipped by rail by two companies. Eighty per cent of shippers are dissatisfied. It is impossible that 80% of the country's entrepreneurs have suddenly caught the “complaints” bug for no reason. We have to think of the consequences of this situation.

At present, some shippers are unable to enter into reliable and clear agreements that would allow them to provide services themselves to other companies, even internationally, with reliable transportation.

Shippers that have an agreement regularly have to deal with delays that are so long they result in catastrophic scenarios where assembly lines in Canada are slowed down. I will say it again because it is such a big problem: time and again assembly lines are slowed down. It is not because people are not qualified or are not willing to work. It is because they are waiting for parts that have been delayed by an inadequate rail transportation system. This represents tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in lost efficiency.

For other shippers, it is a question of the lack of availability. For example, a certain tonnage of materials could be shipped to China, but shippers are unable to sell their products. It is not for lack of supply or because they cannot meet demand. It is because the link between Fermont and China is slowed down by poor rail service. How do you put a price tag on such losses in a global economy?

I would like to point out a fairly disturbing aspect of the Conservative's approach to the economy. They spend a lot of time botching free trade agreements. They have been signing agreements with many countries as quickly as possible, even if the agreement is flawed and provides for much less than what Canada could require. The Conservatives are focusing on quantity.

Meanwhile, they are not making the necessary efforts to ensure that Canadian companies remain competitive. Some ways of achieving this would be through decent transportation, a credit card system that does not charge exorbitant fees, and a research and development program. Although our Canadian entrepreneurs have a great deal of expertise, we must make their job easier so that they are able to be competitive.

The government has not managed to do that, but it is rushing to open markets left and right by signing agreements that are all too often flawed.

To summarize, the Conservatives do not care about keeping companies competitive. We should not be surprised to see an increase in our trade deficit, which recently reached $2 billion.

The bill is flawed and was introduced only because one of our colleagues, who introduced a bill on the protection of railway customers, exerted a lot of pressure. Her bill was clearly worded and truly designed to help those experiencing this problem.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill is weak, particularly when it comes to the arbitration process, because it puts the burden of proof solely on shippers.

One of the clauses of the bill says that both parties must consent to arbitration. As a result, if a large company says that it does not want arbitration, the case will end up in court. My colleague from Côte-Nord can attest to this. An SME could, once again, end up in court with a mega-corporation. We know how these types of situations turn out.

We will support this bill, but we hope that it will be improved by the standing committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for his speech. He showed empathy for the groups who are faced with these difficulties and will feel the impact of the bill tabled in this House.

We will support the bill, despite its serious flaws. For example, I am very concerned to note that, in the arbitration process, the burden of proof will rest solely on the clients and not on railway companies.

Does my colleague share my deep concerns regarding the impact of that approach?

[Tourism Industry, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, for years the tourism industry has been concerned about the constant decline in spending by international visitors to Canada. This reduction in spending runs counter to the international trend of 4% growth in 2012 alone.

We wonder why Canada is not benefiting from this trend, except when we consider the Conservatives' actions and see that the Canadian Tourism Commission has been underfunded for years. In fact, the Conservatives constantly cut its budget, contrary to what all of Canada's major competitors in the world are doing.

What measures will the Conservatives adopt in the next budget to correct this situation?

[Food Banks, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to help distribute hundreds of pounds of meat from deer culled in a national park to various food banks.

I would like to salute the work of the La Frontière shelter and the RCM of Montmagny family support centre in Sainte-Apolline-de-Patton. Moisson Kamouraska and the Rivière-du-Loup Carrefour d'initiatives populaires and Society of St. Vincent de Paul are staffed by administrators, employees and volunteers who refuse to let their fellow human beings lose their dignity. Every day, they find the resources to prepare meals for those who have fallen on hard times.

I would also like to salute Moisson Beauce and Les Frigos Pleins de Bellechasse. On the spur of the moment, the members for Beauce and Lévis—Bellechasse graciously participated in this endeavour. I will leave it to them to talk about the importance of these organizations one day.

All of the organizations told me the same thing: the number of people having a hard time putting food on the table has been going up for the past four years. That includes people with jobs. All members of the House have a duty to find a solution to this problem.

[Credit Card Industry, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about debit cards; we are talking about excessive transaction fees for credit cards. It is not complicated.

The voluntary code of conduct simply does not work. And retailers across the country are paying the price.

In Quebec, grocers, retailers and hotel, convenience-store and service-station owners have all confirmed that the transaction fees for credit cards are excessive and constantly increasing.

They have all concluded that we need strict, effective regulations.

Why does the minister refuse to bring in rules to protect small businesses from having their small profit margins cut by the excessive fees imposed by credit card companies?

[Employment Insurance, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is not alone in being disgusted by the Conservatives' gutting of employment insurance.

Across the country, Conservatives have been critical of their own party's actions. Even Conservative candidates in the last election are disgusted by what the Conservative government is doing to the employment insurance program. They are saying:

...it makes no sense...a step backwards for the regions...With this reform, entire towns and cities will disappear!

The former Conservative member of Parliament for Gaspé, Charles-Eugène Marin, said, “This is bullshit!”

The Conservatives are turning their backs on the regions. Their most loyal supporters have acknowledged this publicly. The Conservatives' 2011 slogan, “Our region in power”, served only to disguise their contempt for the regions.

This reform can destroy the human resources our seasonal industries rely on.

Members of the NDP, reeves, industries, chambers of commerce and Conservatives in eastern Quebec all agree: this reform must be cancelled.

People in the regions, in Atlantic Canada and across the country can count on the NDP to stand up for them against a government that will clearly never respect them.

[Small and Medium-Sized Businesses, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is disappointing. Once again, the main idea is “plus one, minus one, equals zero”. It does not mean less. The rest is a vauge intention about how to do it. Reducing red tape is a highly technical endeavour. The government must explain how to achieve that goal.

The other important thing is that the government cannot do what it is doing and say that reducing red tape qualifies as an economic plan. When we sit down with business people, we talk about fundamental issues, such as specific tax cuts for small businesses and a true job creation tax credit of more than $3,000. Again, I mean a real tax credit, not $1,000 applied to employment insurance. We can talk about making it easier to transfer businesses between members of the same family. Making it easier for small businesses to have access to research and development support would also qualify as an economic recovery plan for small businesses, as opposed to merely reducing red tape, particularly since we still do not really know how small businesses can actually do it.

[Small and Medium-Sized Businesses, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to speak rather quickly in order to talk about everything that could be relevant to the question. I would like to revisit a question I raised in the House in October 2012, when I said the following:

Mr. Speaker, the economic recovery is still fragile and, yesterday, instead of announcing tangible solutions to support SMEs, the minister hauled out of mothballs his worn-out promise to reduce red tape, which has not produced any results in six years.

Yesterday's announcement certainly cannot be called a recovery plan. It is nothing more than a normal goal for a modern country, and it does not hide the lack of a real vision to help our SMEs and stimulate the country's economy.

We are waiting for a real plan for SMEs. What is the minister waiting for to come up with one?

I would like to revisit this important question. I will now share a few highlights of the response given by the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism. First he congratulated me on my appointment, and I thank him for that. Then he went on to say, “I have been waiting since April to be asked a question about entrepreneurship.”

Let me quickly tell the minister that that is not true, because I had already put questions to him regarding excessive fees for credit cards weeks and months before, but the minister had not bothered answering my questions.

The minister then said, “For us, entrepreneurship is a priority, not just today but every day.” Again, this is a kind of cynicism that, unfortunately, is very prevalent in this government. It also appropriates economic issues as though not all members of this House were hoping to see the Canadian economy get firmly back on track.

The minister added, “That is why we are reducing the amount of paperwork that governments impose on entrepreneurs.” What a surprise, he used the plural and said “governments”. Why? Is the federal government preparing a plan that will impose standards on the provincial governments? We do not really know, but there is still not even a hint of a plan for small and medium-size businesses.

The next day, my colleague, the industry critic, said, “We want to make things easier for our SMEs, but the the application of random principles like the abolition of a rule before creating another seems much more like improvisation. This is not an economic recovery plan.”

On the government's website, in a January 2012 document entitled Cutting Red Tape and Freeing Business to Grow, we can read the following under the heading “Message From the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism)”: “This is why we are proposing to give the Office of the Auditor General of Canada the mandate of reviewing and reporting on the government's progress in reducing regulatory administrative burden through its One-for-One Rule...”.

Plus one minus one equals zero. We cannot reduce by adding one rule and taking away another. Yet this is the basis for the minister's announcement in the introduction to this document, which has some good points. So we are talking about the Red Tape Reduction Commission that worked on this issue. Why did the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology not study this matter? Why was that mandate given to a committee outside of Parliament?

Some very good people sit on that committee, including Bernard Bélanger, the president and chairman of the board of Premier Tech. There are essential recommendations on Web 3.0. That is very important, because if we integrate Web 3.0 properly, we could at last see small and medium-size businesses reduce their paperwork. However, we do not really know how this could be achieved.

However, on the website of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, there is an explanation of the administrative reforms. These reforms are broad—and they are referred to as highlights—and so many requests will be made to regulatory bodies, that I am afraid we will have red tape on the red tape related to the process designed to reduce red tape. On the face of it, it really looks like a mess. Therefore, we need answers.

This evening, we have four minutes, and I hope someone on the other side of the House will be able to give us some real answers about how red tape will be reduced.