Raymond Côté

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

Unfortunately, time is short. I will not make use of the privilege of making a 20-minute speech. That way, any of my colleagues who so desire will have the opportunity to talk about this bill by expressing their concerns about or their support for the positive aspects of Bill S-16.

The use of time allocation motions has been a real tragedy in our democracy during the 41st Parliament. This bill addresses a very important issue that affects society in many ways. It is a public health, tax collection and major crime issue. It is truly appalling that the government is so foolishly restricting our attempts to put forward constructive proposals in order to stimulate debate and potentially improve this bill, if needed.

This debate is all the more necessary because Bill S-16 is designed to amend sections of the Criminal Code, which is not a bad thing in and of itself. Quite the opposite, actually.

This bill comes to us from the Senate, not from the Minister of Justice, which would have been logical and certainly preferable. The government's approach is very questionable and does not help us in our work. It raises questions about the government's motivation and about what it is hoping to achieve by introducing this bill.

I am not denying that it is good to be able to use this bill to discuss this issue. However, is Bill S-16 the best way to fight contraband tobacco? Unfortunately, this bill raises more questions than it answers.

Just a few weeks ago, we celebrated the two-year anniversary of my short career here in the House. During my time here, I have had the privilege of being the critic for small business and tourism, for one.

There is no denying that contraband tobacco, in addition to being a criminal activity and a real threat to our society, is a very serious problem that threatens the profitability of many small businesses.

Often, these businesses are owned by just one person who has a similar status to an employee. These business owners, who may have one to three employees, are just trying to earn an honest living.

These small business owners shoulder almost all of the responsibility for the business and they often do not make very much money, particularly in the first few years after they start or acquire the business. Absolutely anything that reduces their profit margin poses a very serious threat to their business. It can make the difference between earning an honest living or the business failing or going bankrupt. We hope that many of those businesses avoid bankruptcy, but there are motivated entrepreneurs who are prepared to enter the business world whose businesses fail and disappear. That is just how it works.

All small convenience-store-type businesses make a lot of money from tobacco sales. They can make a bigger profit from tobacco than they can from many other products. A significant drop in the sale of tobacco products seriously cuts into the profits of these types of businesses.

I think that we can quite easily reach a consensus with the government on this issue. In fact, we are in favour of any measures that support small businesses, as long as the government gives us the opportunity to present our arguments and suggest improvements that will allow us to address the challenges associated with the fight against contraband tobacco.

I would like to focus on a very questionable aspect of this bill. I had the great privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for a time and helping the committee examine bills, particularly private members' bills that amended provisions of the Criminal Code. Unfortunately, these private members' bills too often failed to meet their objectives. As part of the study of these bills, we often heard witnesses strongly declare that the proposed measures, despite their good intentions, would not help the situation and could even make it worse.

The aspect of the bill that I seriously question is the mandatory minimum sentencing for various types of offences. I hope that this will be examined in more detail by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I would like to talk about the testimony of former Supreme Court justice John C. Major, who appeared before the committee. As a very experienced and learned legal expert and a former member of the Supreme Court, Justice Major was in a position to correctly assess the pertinence, usefulness and effects of mandatory minimum sentences. I do not wish to repeat everything he said, but he did conclude that there was no conclusive evidence that mandatory minimum sentences are a deterrent and of any real use.

In fact, Justice Major, and other witnesses as well, said that, in the complex and subtle mechanism of court proceedings, the fact that there are mandatory minimum sentences could even be an incentive for the parties in question. In fact, the prosecutors and the defence attorneys could come to an agreement to avoid this type of measure with the judge's agreement, simply because it would not allow for any room to manoeuvre in a criminal case.

It does go quite far. In the end, it would be detrimental to the work done in the justice system to enforce the Criminal Code. This will become apparent in the coming years, if we are not already seeing it in certain cases. This very serious consequence deserves to be studied in depth. In my opinion, it is the most debatable aspect of this bill.

I urge government members to seriously consider, question, or at least take the time to assess the adverse effects of mandatory minimum sentences. If we should continue down this road, we will at least understand how this can usefully be applied to fighting crime related to the illegal trafficking of tobacco.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his speech.

I had the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Dura lex, as the expression goes; the law is strict. While the law may be strict on paper, if we do not have the means to enforce it, then what good is it? Instead of being a real deterrent for criminals and traffickers of all kinds, it would merely be an idle threat.

During our deliberations in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, members have repeatedly pointed out that the government often likes to hide behind harsh sentences and laws that are strict on paper, but does not provide sufficient resources. That is something we in the NDP are very concerned about.

Does my colleague share the same concern?

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister and his government colleagues clearly do not understand the message the official opposition is trying to get across.

The minister is targeting the symptoms of something he considers to be a problem: thoroughly debating important bills. We are not denying that Bill S-16 is an important bill.

However, instead of trying to understand why we are hesitant and why we want to have thorough, comprehensive debates in which a large number of MPs can speak, the government is systematically refusing to listen to recommendations from the opposition. That is a very serious problem.

We will therefore not stop putting pressure on the government. As long as it keeps refusing to listen to our recommendations and our amendments in committee, we will keep up the pressure. As soon as the government is open to our suggestions, as the Prime Minister claimed he would be in previous years, it might see less heated debates or, at the very least, debates could come to a natural end because of a lack of speakers.

Why does the minister refuse to consider the real reason behind our resistance?

[Petitions, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by many of my constituents.

The petition concerns the amalgamation of the Canadian International Development Agency with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The petitioners are concerned about the amalgamation, particularly the possible realignment of international development assistance programs. They are calling on the government to uphold international aid principles. Also, to ensure the integrity of assistance programs, they want the minister to be given the same status as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for his very strong speech. He has made clear the great weaknesses in this bill.

One truly deplorable aspect was not addressed in my colleague’s speech, and that is the fact that this bill comes from the Senate. I must also point out that we are debating something so fundamental under a time limitation.

Canada has already played a special role in undermining the negotiation of the convention, but Bill S-10 goes much farther. It offers an outright loophole, so that Canada can be complicit in the use and even the manufacture of cluster munitions.

Would my colleague like to talk about the fact that this bill has come, unfortunately, from the Senate? It could have come from the Department of Foreign Affairs, for example. In other words, the government has not played straight with the House with respect to this issue that is so sensitive.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence, like most of his colleagues, is trying to manipulate reality to his liking. I serve on the Standing Committee on Finance, and I have seen just how often the government chooses not to play by the rules. That is why it is imposing this 45th time allocation motion under false pretenses that are completely unfounded. The real problem is that the government is trying to impose its will from a to z, without listening to proposals from the opposition parties.

I want to speak briefly to the bill. The problem is not with the agreement itself; we are completely in favour of the agreement. The problem is that the bill undermines the enforcement of that agreement. Once again, as it did with the provinces and the health care agreement, for example, the government is trying to impose its will, to erode and sabotage perfectly valid agreements.

In a similar fashion, the government has turned a blind eye in other cases. It absolutely refuses to hear proposals from the opposition parties. Am I right to think that the minister will say the bill is perfect and that no NDP proposals will be received, debated, studied or considered by the government?

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chair of my committee, the Standing Committee on Finance, for his speech. He is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I hope the feeling is mutual. He can tell you if that is the case.

Naturally, I would like to thank him for his speech in which he described a whole range of measures. His speech covered a lot of things. Unfortunately, what he failed to mention were all the shortcomings or things that might be missing.

Of course, I spoke about Cartier-Brébeuf Park, which is located in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, an important place in our history. It is a key place for the entire country in terms of the French presence here in Canada. While I was listening to my colleague talk about winter sports, among other things, I could not help but think about the plight of Forillon Park, which has not lived up to its potential. Unfortunately, major cuts are being made to this park, which is a natural wonder and a cultural treasure.

I would like my colleague to explain how Forillon Park could benefit from the measures set out in the bill.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question and comments. We have to wonder whether this is a rearguard fight. Are we taking a step backwards by making some seemingly limited concessions in the hopes of making progress in certain areas?

I will focus only on the issue of the low-impact development that would be authorized. One of the problems with the bill is that this expression has not been defined. What does “low impact” mean? There is no shortage of possibilities. The bill is far too vague.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I must admit to a personal interest in the subject. Parks Canada represents not just our national parks, but also our archaeological and historical heritage. I trained as an archivist, and I worked as one for about two years in the 1990s, when the situation was quite terrible. I can see the devastation caused by the closure of centres and the job cuts to archaeologists, archivists and all kinds of specialists at Parks Canada in Quebec.

I am sorry to say I have no confidence in the government, especially after seeing the results of the indirect damage these measures have wreaked in Quebec. In Quebec City, where I live, the archives and private historical societies that benefited so much from the expertise of Parks Canada have all been affected. I do not feel confident. In addition, approximately 600 biologist and tour guide positions were eliminated nationwide at Parks Canada. I stand by what I said. Obviously, the money is not coming.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with my very esteemed colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

How could I not begin by speaking out against the 42nd time allocation motion imposed by the Conservative government? It is truly shameful because we agree with the overall intention of this bill.

I will focus mainly on the case of Sable Island and on giving it national park status. That is basically a very good idea, but since the devil is in the details, with all due respect to our Conservative colleagues, we would like to work with them as equals to examine these details and find common ground.

Unfortunately, our time will be limited, which is truly a shame. Clearly, we will not use our parliamentary privilege to talk our colleagues' ears off. All we are asking is that the Conservatives listen to our legitimate concerns, our proposals and any other reasonable issue that deserves to be debated in the House. Unfortunately, we will have to make do with what we have.

The Conservatives have a majority in the House. Good for them. Although they may abuse their power, we will continue to work and, more importantly, we will get behind a bill that has a number of positive aspects.

As a proud Canadian who was born in Quebec and still lives there today, I will talk about Sable Island, which is a rather mythical place in the minds of all Canadians. Who has not heard of Sable Island, this thin and fragile strip of sand off the coast of Nova Scotia? The island is home to many animals, including the mythical herd of wild horses. It is an idyllic place. It is also a national treasure whose reputation extends far beyond our borders.

I repeat: it is a wonderful idea to make Sable Island a national park and to provide it with the protection that comes with that status.

However, the hon. member for Halifax, a strong advocate for this issue, has pointed out a serious problem. Unfortunately, major environmental protections at the federal level have been weakened and even gutted, which is a great cause for concern and which undermines national park status.

I will not talk about that because it has been debated. I am certain that some of my colleagues will want to expand on that.

I will talk instead about the national park status. With that status, Sable Island will become the responsibility of Parks Canada, which will supervise and operate it. I will also talk about the lack of funding. No matter the value that we place on this bill, the lack of funding ultimately makes it a hollow bill, unless we at least restore some means to ensure that the island is protected and studied in order to acquire the knowledge we need about this magnificent natural place.

To illustrate this point, I will talk about my riding, Beauport—Limoilou. It is home to an important element of our history that is the responsibility of Parks Canada. I am referring to Cartier-Brébeuf Park, which history and archeology have identified as the first spot where Jacques Cartier wintered back in the 16th century.

Cartier-Brébeuf Park, which is now located in downtown Quebec City, on the shore of the St. Charles River, is a place that I remember well. When I was in high school, I went there on a school trip. I also visited it with my son after settling in Limoilou. In the winter, I think we enjoyed drinking a cedar bark brew. I do not remember it well because it was about 20 years ago. My son was a young boy at the time. It was an aboriginal recipe that helped Jacques Cartier and his crew survive the terrible Canadian winters and the ravages of scurvy, among other things.

It is very important that we preserve such an asset because it is a source of pride, not to mention knowledge. When we know where we come from, we have a greater understanding of ourselves and we have certain basic tools to guide us. The historical perspective is key. It is very easy to lose track of the past, of artifacts and material aspects of our history, which are fragile and few. These objects are part of our heritage.

This year, there will be no more interpretive guides at Cartier-Brébeuf park. Everything will be done with interpretive signs or audio-guides. People will go around with their earphones. It is an appealing method, from a technical standpoint. It is a very interesting innovation, but ultimately, nothing can replace a human being or the interaction that can mean so much to both the visitors and the interpretive guides. I can say that based on my experience at a heritage site in Lotbinière.

Nothing can replace that interaction between the visitors and the interpretive guides, who can offer so much more to the visitors. They can answer questions, or if they are asked a question that they cannot answer, they can expand their knowledge and come back with even more information to share with visitors. It is really dismaying to see this place—one of the spots where the French presence was first felt in Canada—being abandoned like this.

At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I have often asked what the point is of passing a bill if we do not have the means to put it into effect and ensure that it will be fairly and thoroughly implemented.

It is true that Bill S-15 could be very promising. However, biodiversity in Canada is on the decline, particularly marine biodiversity, and in the case of Sable Island specifically, if we do not have the means to fulfill this bill's ambitions, it will all be for naught. It will be a disgrace for us because we are passing this legacy on to future generations, and it is a rich, fragile legacy.

I also wanted to talk about the drop in visitors to our national parks. I used to be the proud critic for small business and tourism, a position that is now held by my nearby colleague. We have both noticed a dramatic drop in the number of foreign tourists. We can draw the same conclusion, be it regarding Parks Canada or foreign tourists: unfortunately, we are not doing what it takes to spark people's interest, draw them in, welcome them and help them enjoy a one-of-a-kind experience.

At the same time, we agree with the purpose of Bill S-15 and we agree to support it at second reading, but will the means follow? Can the government reassure us that they will? I have serious doubts.