Mathieu Ravignat

[Business of Supply, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to defend the motion moved by my esteemed colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. This motion focuses directly on improving the quality of life of thousands of workers under federal jurisdiction.

We realize that the members across the way only defend the employers, but there needs to balance in our society. The federal minimum wage has not been increased in 40 years. There needs to be a balanced perspective.

I cannot say that the small tax credit handouts my colleague referred to truly help the workers in my riding who are living in poverty earning minimum wage.

Those are the workers I am defending today and every worker across the country could benefit from this, because it will definitely have an impact on the provinces.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate. Is this what we expected from the Conservatives? The answer is yes. Does this surprise me? The answer is no. We proposed specific solutions to help small and medium-sized businesses. They were reasonable solutions, but they were rejected.

It is hard to understand. I know that there are members on the other side of the House who own small and medium-sized businesses. However, the government has eyes only for big corporations like SNC-Lavalin, the big oil companies and the big farming companies in western Canada. They are what the government cares about most. That means that the government is not prepared to help small and medium-sized businesses become more competitive.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent question.

Like me, she knows that this country has never had a social democratic government at the federal level. We have had that good fortune provincially, however. In Manitoba, for instance, the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses is 0%.

It is a balancing act. This government is a friend to big corporations, as were the previous Liberal governments. The wind of change needs to blow through to help small and medium-sized businesses and co-operatives at the federal level. We need to take another look at the system to ensure that there is true competition when it comes to federal procurement contracts. Unfortunately, it is always the same people who win. This government supports big corporate welfare. It is too bad, because the vast majority of jobs in this country are created by small and medium-sized businesses.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my interest in this bill is twofold because I am the official opposition's Treasury Board critic and the member for a riding that relies heavily on small and medium-sized businesses to create jobs.

This year I had the tremendous privilege and pleasure of touring several such businesses in municipalities like Chelsea, Wakefield and Shawville. I even toured a number of pharmacies to talk about the drug shortage. It was great to consult with business people in my region. They agree that we need to cut red tape, but not necessarily via the approach in this bill.

As an MP, of course I believe in the principle of red tape reduction, which will reduce administrative hassles for business people. However, as the official opposition's Treasury Board critic, I have serious concerns about this bill. As is often the case with the Conservatives' bills, it seems that their almost religious zeal for defending the free market as they see it at any cost has led them to conceal in this bill their intention to eliminate regulations that protect my constituents' health, safety and environment. In light of the listeriosis crises and the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, we need this government to guarantee that it will do more to protect and regulate Canadians' health and safety.

Regulations that are in the public interest should remain in place. This bill jeopardizes them because it gives the President of the Treasury Board the power to eliminate such regulations under the guise of reducing paperwork for businesses. That is obviously not the way to achieve sound public administration.

It is true that the NDP wants to reduce the administrative burden borne by small businesses, but we do not want to do so at the expense of Canadians' safety. We cannot trust the Conservatives, who have a tendency to deregulate without considering safety, health or the environment.

It is not just a question of managing the number of regulations, but of determining which ones are helping Canadians. This means carrying out a proper study, which is a reasonable approach to public administration.

Only the preamble of the bill states that the regulations affecting the health and safety of Canadians will not be affected. We all know that the legislation that will govern these regulations has no preamble. No mention is made of the environment in the entire bill. If the Conservatives really care about the health and safety of Canadians, why did they not specifically guarantee the application of the bill and the regulations that protect their health and safety?

I would remind my colleagues in the House of some important facts about this government's tendency to let things slide when it comes to the health and safety of Canadians. The Conservatives do not have a good track record in terms of preserving these regulations.

For instance, last year, the Minister of Transport allowed an exemption to the Canadian Aviation Regulations for the air carrier WestJet. WestJet planes will now be able to operate with one flight attendant per 50 passengers rather than according to the standard of one flight attendant per 40 passengers. Other airlines have since asked for similar exemptions. The NDP has asked that the 1:40 rule be maintained, which is reasonable.

In 1999, the Liberals, who are no better, persisted with the Mulroney government's deregulation of rail safety by continuing to implement the safety management systems approach, which was maintained by the Conservatives. This approach leaves it up to the industry itself to ensure that its operations are safe, instead of ensuring that the government works with the industry to set safety standards that should be followed. Basically, it is self-regulation. The goal of any business is to make a profit.

That resulted in many derailments throughout the country.

In addition, the Conservatives used the budget implementation bill, Bill C-4, to make changes to the Canada Labour Code, and those changes will gut the powers of health and safety officers in federal workplaces. It is unacceptable to compromise the health and safety of workers.

It is clear that the Conservative President of the Treasury Board should not be given discretionary powers over our laws and regulations that govern our constituents' health, environment and safety.

It is hard to believe that the Conservatives are sincere about wanting to reduce red tape. They did the exact opposite with the building Canada fund. Instead of helping municipalities and small businesses start infrastructure projects in a timely manner, the Conservatives set up a long and cumbersome bureaucratic process for every project worth more than $100 million. That will create 6- to 18-month delays that will slow down important projects.

They did the same thing with their so-called employment insurance reform, which requires that employers provide more and more information about their employees. In addition, small and medium-sized business are not really getting any help.

For example, the Conservatives are dragging their feet when it comes to taking serious action to regulate anti-competitive credit card fees that merchants must pay to card issuers. If the Conservatives really wanted to help SMEs, they would have supported the NDP's idea to have an ombudsman to control the credit card fees that card issuers charge merchants. It was a simple and reasonable solution, but it was rejected.

This bill cannot be taken seriously. The principle behind it is good, but it is unclear whether it will achieve the expected results.

What we really need to do for small businesses is to identify what does not make sense in the system and eliminate it. That is a simple study. The one-for-one rule is too vague, and there is no guarantee that it is going to work.

We also have to stop giving lip service to small and medium-size businesses and actually help them out, for example, by restoring the small business hiring tax credit for young people; reducing taxes for small businesses specifically, not the corporate tax rate for the largest and most successful businesses in this country; cracking down on hidden credit card transaction fees; and perhaps redefining what a small and medium-size business is for government procurement contracts.

I do not know if members realize this, but small- and medium-size businesses are defined as 500 employees and less. I would approximate that, in my riding, the average number of employees that small and medium-size businesses have is 25. Therefore, it is completely unreasonable to expect a company with 25 employees to compete with the supposed small and medium-size business with 499 employees. It does not make any sense. There is no sensitivity built into the system regarding profit margins, the size of staff, et cetera.

We could talk about the service agreement between merchants and credit card companies that profit small business owners by directly passing on these fees to consumers. This increases the price of goods on everything. Despite dismissing a recent case against Visa and Mastercard, in a rare move, the Competition Tribunal called for a regulatory framework to deal with anti-competitive practices.

We could also create a new tax credit for businesses that hire and train young people, and financing to help small business owners grow their business. We could make it easier for parents to pass family businesses to their kids, create tax credits to offset payroll taxes, and help small businesses innovate, et cetera. In the agricultural sector, we could perhaps do something about risk capital and high interest rates for acquiring new agricultural lands.

It is clear that on this side of the equation, we are proposing sensible, concrete, realistic means of truly helping our small and medium-size businesses to create jobs that are desperately needed in our country.

[Speaker's Ruling, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous privilege and honour for me to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the people of Pontiac, which is certainly one of the most beautiful ridings in the country.

Like my colleagues, I was fortunate enough to visit every part of my riding and to listen to my constituents. People everywhere, whether in Maniwaki, Rapides-des-Joachims, Masson-Angers or Buckingham, shared their views, which has re-energized me and given me the boost I needed to represent them here, an honour that I am quite happy to accept. Of course, they also shared their concerns with me.

Many active and retired public servants live in my riding. Given that it is not far from Ottawa, many people follow federal politics closely and have concerns about democracy. They have seen the government put more and more power into the hands of the executive branch in a partisan manner.

This is what is so ironic about the bill. It is a blind, really. It speaks about dealing with partisanship but it does the opposite. One thing we have to fundamentally recognize about the Westminster system is that it is a partisan system. The partisanship goes from the very base all the way to the top.

Therefore, I ask this fundamental question: Who is going to judge partisanship in the bill? The only logical answer to that question is the government. Therefore, we have to be careful with the very definition of partisanship. We are not talking about an arm's length judgment of the agents of Parliament or of the public service. We are talking about a government, which has proven itself highly partisan, giving itself the tools to basically go forward with a witch hunt across the public service.

This ill-conceived, badly written piece of legislation is actually redundant. Somehow, over there on those benches they forgot that there is an entire article in the Public Service Employment Act, part 7, which very clearly defines for the public service what a partisan activity is. That definition applies to employees of agents of Parliament and the public service at large. In fact, as a public servant before becoming an elected official, I myself had to abide by that article very closely. If they happened to take the time to read it and actually look at its details, they would have seen that the bill proposes redundancies.

One might think that we are being partisan in saying that, and that it is the NDP's opinion. In fact, it is an opinion shared by experts and by the commissioners themselves. It is important to put on record what the commissioners actually think about the bill.

The information commissioner said that it is:

Difficult to understand the need for the Bill; or what problem it is attempting to resolve

Although the stated purpose is to avoid conflicts related to “partisan activities” that term is not defined or mentioned in the Bill

Creates an environment that may hinder the independence and the execution of the mandate of the [Office of the Information Commissioner].

I will continue with a quote from no less a person than the Auditor General, Mr. Ferguson. He said:

...I think the way it is drafted now, there are some irritants in it that really aren't necessary and wouldn't help our independence.

It won't affect the way we define these types of activities or the way we manage conflict of interest. But I think, as I've said before, it raises some [important] questions....

It does raise some important questions and I will give that to the government. The problem is that it does not answer them. When it does answer them, it answers in vagaries. Why would it not even define the term "partisanship" in the legislation? There is a clear definition of that in part 7 of the Public Service Employment Act, so why make it even more difficult to judge the partisanship of a public servant or partisan activities if it were not to open the door to what would be political interference?

I do not have to tell my colleagues on this side of the bench. We have seen that political interference time and time again. We saw it recently with an ATIP request. If the government truly believed in transparency and in non-partisanship in the public service, why did some of its staff get involved in an ATIP request? Access to information is one of the fundamental ways for our democracy to get access to information that is owned by Canadian citizens. Time and time again the government has used the cabinet confidentiality clause in order to get around revealing sensitive information to Canadians.

What I would also bring up is that only one session was given to the study of this bill, one session for something so fundamental it affects the independence of the agents of Parliament.

When it comes to the supposed independence of the public service, the government has also shown, in giving new guidelines for the use of social media by the public service, by the way it is dealing with sick leave in the pre-negotiations of the collective agreements, how it has hidden its intentions with regard to a number of matters when dealing with the public service, and not just the fundamental lack of respect that has been shown time and time again by the President of the Treasury Board to our public service. I can understand why Canadians are skeptical about the bill. I can understand why my own constituents are.

Fundamentally, we have to ask ourselves before drafting legislation whether or not there are already existing rules in place that do the same job. This is an issue of sound management and as legislators it is just part of our homework. The fundamental homework on the bill was not done. Obviously, the question that one can ask is: why? I particularly have some doubts about whether or not this bill was cooked up in the PMO's office to deal with people who have an independent voice like Kevin Page and Marc Mayrand. The government has even taken on the Supreme Court, one of the highest, highly-respected, if not most respected institutions in our country.

As democrats and as Canadians, we have to worry when a government tries to slip in these types of rules through no less than a private member's bill. If the government really wants to muzzle our independent agents of Parliament, it should just come out and be honest about it and bring out its duct tape and ropes. Instead, time and time again, it smears their names. If the Parliamentary Budget Officer agrees with it, there is no problem.

The accolades roll in.

However, the second that a parliamentary agent says something critical of the government, the entire Conservative machine and the entire media circus that is there to protect an ideology that wants to concentrate power in the hands of the PMO's office are there to dwindle the quality of our democracy.

[Public Service of Canada, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, federal employees are boycotting National Public Service Week once again this year.

The week, which is intended to recognize the importance of the public service, no longer has any meaning, since the Conservatives have cut 19,000 public service jobs and are promising to cut even more. Public servants lament the contemptuous attitude of this government, which prefers to govern based on its own ideology.

When will the Conservatives stop turning their noses up at the excellent work done by the 400,000 federal public servants?

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally agree with those comments. I would also like to add that on this side of the House, our glass is pretty thick. Good luck breaking this glass house.

I am in the Pontiac. Do members think the Pontiac has a high rate of addiction problems? No. Yet I am standing here speaking about this issue, which is fundamentally important.

One would think that those members from ridings where addiction is a fundamental issue, particularly urban ridings, but not only urban ridings, because there is also addiction in rural ridings, and members who care about, for example, veterans, because many veterans, unfortunately, are dealing with addiction problems, should be standing in this House and speaking to the bill to ensure that we do the right thing.

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have done the exact same thing with a number of different issues, including crime and victim protection.

They identify a group of people and then stir up fear within another group of people as a reason for giving money to the Conservative Party. They do it all the time.

Unfortunately, they are choosing to marginalize groups; it sometimes frightens me that they do it with minority groups. For example, when they talk about immigration, it is all about those wicked immigrants. This plays on emotions that are unacceptable in a modern civilization such as ours, where all Canadians are equal and all Canadians deserve respect.

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

That is an excellent question, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my Liberal colleague for it. It is true that the government has consistently defied Supreme Court rulings. Thank God there are judges who think independently of the government and come up with rulings that actually make sense and are evidence based.

The reality is that we can legislate electorally as much as we want, but the rubber hits the road when dealing with judges. They can look at the facts and tell what has a positive impact. Canadians have a tremendous amount of trust in judges. The Supreme Court certainly has more legitimacy than the government, and for good reason.

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for applauding my riding and, I am sure, applauding the people in my riding. I certainly hope it was not for me. There are 90,000-plus electors in my riding who all deserve to be applauded, in part because they have to deal with this misguided government.

I would like to speak to this particular bill because it is a great example of how, when we add politics into the mix on something as fundamental as this issue, we get it wrong.

I would like to start my comments by saying something that is perhaps more philosophical than it is political. The bill is fundamentally about compassion. This is what it brings up. If there are people in this room who think one can get rid of addiction, let us talk about the 40,000 years of human history that prove them wrong. The reality is that the substances that exist today that cause addiction are not natural. They are not something that one can plant, that one can eat from the garden, or that can be cultivated. Even those things that are cultivated and can be created into a substance of addiction have been genetically modified. When we talk about heroin and these incredibly destructive drugs, we are talking about things that have been manipulated unnaturally.

No human being chooses on a whim to wake up one day and say, “I'm going to become an addict; I'm going to become a dropout; I'm going to become dependent; I'm going to lose who I am”. No young child wakes up in the morning thinking that the future is going to be like that. I am a parent, and I can only imagine having a child in that situation.

Let us start with the things that matter. The fundamental reality about humanity is that the thing that is the most difficult for us is human relationships. We can all figure out how to eat. We can all figure out how to have a house and how to warm ourselves. These things we can figure out. The hardest thing is to figure out how to have good human relationships. There is no one in this room who can tell me that the relationships that addicts have had in the past have not contributed to their situation, that none of this has to do with mental illness, that none of this has to do with abuse, that none of this has to do with hardship and suffering.

When we suffer, the answer is not suffering, it is not discipline, and it is not the heavy hand of government. The solution is love. The solution is compassion, not less of it, but more of it. That is what should motivate the creation of our legislation on something so fundamental as addiction.

The solution is not to make sick people sicker. The solution is to provide a comfortable, secure environment for them to deal with their problem. Addiction is like any other disease. It is not to be marginalized. It is not to be demonized. It is to be understood and dealt with rationally, using the correct solutions to the problem.

Sometimes I wonder if maybe as legislators we should all remind ourselves that we were once in love. When we are in love, and I am sure most of my colleagues have been, and not just puppy love but deeply in love, our entire view of the world changes, but we begin to forget it. We take things for granted. However, if we remind ourselves of those days, we realize that we view the world in a completely different way, in a better way, and we make the right decisions. I know I am getting psychological and maybe a bit idealistic. The point is that I believe that there are solutions to problems between people. I believe that if we use the history of humanity, all those incredible words written on honesty, compassion, and love, we can bring people back together, we can solve their problems, and we can heal any situation.

Let us get into the public security issue to get a bit more concrete. The reality is that injection sites are safe. That is the reality. They are not only safe for addicts, they are safe for the populations around them. They make neighbourhoods safer and cleaner and there is less crime in those neighbourhoods. Statistically, that is true. We know it. Unfortunately, the Conservatives ignore it. That does not surprise me, because they have put duct tape on the proverbial mouths of our scientists. They have refused to take evidence-based approaches to making legislation. We can only think about the recent legislation and the complete disregard for Supreme Court rulings, and that is the case for this bill as well.

However, the worst thing about this bill is the electoral aspect of it. It is completely irresponsible to demonize one sector of the population to fill the coffers of a political party, and that is what is going on with this bill. Fear is fear. Every human being has fear. What makes the sum of someone is how he or she responds to that fear. In my opinion, what makes the quality of a political party like ours is not to be governed by fear but to be governed by hope. The fear in this bad piece of legislation is fear of the addict. Instead of holding out their hand in help, instead of understanding the situation, they demonize them. By demonizing them, they think they are going to make electoral allies, people who will give them donations.

It is true. A lot of my fellow citizens do not want a safe injection site in their neighbourhoods. They are wrong. They do not understand the details and the statistics with regard to how injection sites make their neighbourhoods safer and how they reduce cases of AIDS and cases of communicable diseases. The responsibility of elected officials is to explain. It is pedagogy. It is not fear.

I have faith in the Canadian people and in their compassion. I know very well that there are people in my riding who, once it was explained to them how an injection site could improve the lives of their fellow Canadians, would say, “Okay, that is all right”.