Robert Aubin

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would say this, but I have something in common with my Liberal colleague: I was not in the House in 1995 either.

I hope he will forgive me for not having done the research to know how the NDP voted at that time. If the question really is that important, I can do the research and send him a response by email.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that rail services are crucial.

However, if the intention was to nudge me toward the topic of negotiation by talking about “essential services”, my 52 years on this planet have taught me not to take the bait.

I think the hon. member has his answer.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I must say, I have rather mixed feelings as I begin my speech, because I feel like I have become an expert in the moonwalk, that dance move that makes you look like you are going forward when in fact you are going backwards.

When I first learned of the problems in the area of rail freight transportation, I had the impression, given the response and the private member's bill introduced by my colleague from Trinity—Spadina, that we were moving in the right direction. Today, however, when I see what is in Bill C-52, I really feel like we are taking a step backwards. Nevertheless, there are enough things in this bill that we do agree with for us to support it at second reading. In committee, we will try to make some changes and some significant improvements.

It is important to note that in 1995, there was a re-engineering and modernization movement that led to the privatization of CN and CP. That is no secret. A neo-liberal ideology prevailed over an objective analysis of the facts demonstrating the importance of this service, which is crucial to Canada's economic development. Although railways remain publicly owned in many countries, here in Canada, it was decided to go for broke, and since then, we have seen the privatization of profits and the socialization of costs.

Balance sheets and recent decisions relating to public transportation show beyond a doubt that the return paid to shareholders takes precedence over developing business services and moving goods and people. The reason I refer to moving goods and people is that a choice was made to prioritize shipping goods over carrying people, something else that is uniquely Canadian. Canada is one of the rare countries to have made that kind of choice.

I will leave it to my colleagues to imagine the passenger transportation challenges that await us in the years to come given that the coalition of private shippers has been complaining for years about the poor quality of the services they receive, and they are the priority clients.

Rail shipping is the backbone of the Canadian economy. Over 70% of all goods shipped by land go by train. The reason is relatively easy to understand: you do not need a university degree in geography to see that in our country, rail shipping is often bulk, and it would be difficult to replace it with shipping by truck. And shipping by boat, which is sometimes more economical than by train, is not available everywhere, for fairly obvious reasons.

Canada was built by the train, and the railway is a vital link between communities in an enormous country. So we might be surprised at the present state and poor quality of rail shipping services. The Conservative government is not the only one responsible for this situation, but it is guilty of not tackling the problem head on in time to rectify this situation.

Day in and day out, the Conservative government claims to be working for the Canadian economy, but everywhere in the country, businesses are suffering from unreliable service, the result of which is hundreds of millions of dollars in economic losses every year. In addition, poor service leads to higher prices for some goods, chemical fertilizers being one example.

To put it more simply, over 80% of rail shipping services customers are not satisfied with the services provided by rail carriers—in other words, nearly everyone. This is 80% of loyal customers. MPs may have experienced this themselves, as customers of a store or a business. They may have started by getting excellent offers so they would become customers, but as soon as they became regular customers, they were taken for granted. And then their relationship gradually deteriorated and all the benefits were offered to new customers to expand the customer base.

That is something we see in Bill C-52, when it says that agreements governed by the new law will be made only with new customers, new contracts. And so anyone who has been using the services for years, and who is a long-standing loyal customer—if we can talk about loyalty in the case of a virtual monopoly—will not have access to the same rules that Bill C-52 seeks to put in place.

Clearly, there is room for improvement. We could make these improvements in committee if the government would be open enough to come to the table and participate in meaningful discussions and listen to the best suggestions to get the best bill possible.

I would like to come back to the fact that 80% of customers are dissatisfied. Something had to be done and something still urgently needs to be done, but the Conservatives clearly have not done anything because this matter has been dragging on not just for weeks and months but for years.

Why have the Conservatives taken so long to do something? Here is what I think may be happening.

First, rail freight customers are often farmers or mining companies. These customers have to deal with large railways that have a virtual monopoly over rail transport. I spoke about this earlier.

In most regions of the country, shippers cannot choose a rail transportation company because they have access to only one or the other. Even in cases where the two railway companies are present, the competition struggles to play the role it should and to influence the basic economic principle of supply and demand.

Why do we now have to legislate? Why can the stakeholders not come to an agreement among themselves? In all likelihood, CN and CP benefit from the tacit support of the Conservative government and, in that context, they are not at all prepared to make real concessions.

The result, as has been mentioned, is that 80% of rail freight customers—shippers—are not satisfied with rail freight service. So, of course, they have asked the government to take action and to introduce legislation that would require CN and CP to reach agreements on the level of service provided to shippers. After years of empty words, the Conservatives are now being forced to act as a result of pressure from the shipping community and the NDP.

Under duress, the Conservatives finally introduced a bill designed to solve some of these problems after the NDP critic's bill was introduced last spring. That bill, which was entitled the Rail Customer Protection Act, was much clearer and covered all customers.

The government is using half-measures. Quite frankly, although the Conservatives' bill is a step forward, it is a weak step. Here are some reasons: the protective measures do not cover existing contracts between shippers and rail transport companies; the bill offers only a limited arbitration process for unsuccessful negotiations of new contracts; the arbitration is available only for shippers who are negotiating new contracts instead of providing fast and reliable help for all shippers; Bill C-52 will cover only new service level agreements, not those that already exist.

Furthermore, the fines mentioned in Bill C-52 would go to the government and not the shippers. We could talk all night about the amount of these fines, which seem a bit weak to me for such big companies. The ability to interact, discuss and negotiate is undermined when the fines go into the government's pocket, which supports what I was saying earlier that, rightly or wrongly, CN and CP probably feel like the Conservative government is in their corner.

I will move on from what is missing from the bill, since I am running out of time. I will no doubt have an opportunity to speak more to this in committee. I have a short conclusion.

Rail transport is not the only file on which the Conservatives have been dragging their feet. They implemented new railway safety measures. They made cuts to VIA Rail Canada and prevented the introduction of high-speed rail in Canada.

The Conservatives simply do not give Canada's rail network the attention it deserves.

[Air Canada, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a Quebec Superior Court Justice just ordered Air Canada to do what the NDP has been calling for since the announcement of the closure of Aveos: that the company respect the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The Conservatives have refused to enforce the act, they have twiddled their thumbs, and now, they are getting rapped over the knuckles.

Now that the courts are requiring that maintenance services be kept in Montreal, Winnipeg and Mississauga, will the Minister of Transport finally take his responsibilities seriously?

[Hydroelectric Project, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are discussing today, Motion No. 412, is of the utmost importance to Canada if it wishes to become a world leader in sustainable development. Sustainable development implies that there has to be a balance between the economic, social and environmental aspects of a project for it to be given the green light. It also means that a project supported by a government that believes in sustainable development should offer the same benefits for future generations as it does for this generation.

I have a hard time believing that the Conservative government, which has repeatedly turned its back on our international commitments—most notably by pulling out of the Kyoto protocol—and that went so far as to distort reality by creating green oil, has this view of development.

If we look into the story behind this loan guarantee—which represents the federal government's participation in the Muskrat Falls project—it quickly becomes clear that it was likely a bit of electioneering and was in no way a reflection of the federal government's desire to become a leader in renewable energy. If that had been the case, we would not be discussing this motion, but rather an actual bill that would set out specific criteria for all the partners in the federation to ensure that each one contributes to achieving a common, global environmental goal.

However, it is no secret that climate change knows no borders. We must work together to introduce measures to ensure that the two degree increase in global temperature is not reached. Some scientists say that it is practically too late already, but I continue to be optimistic and maintain that, if we quickly work together, we can do it.

Other than the two degree temperature increase, it is quite difficult for climatologists to suggest models that would allow us to anticipate the consequences of this warming on our lifestyle and our economy. Nevertheless, I would like to point out the interesting aspects of the motion in order to inform all parliamentarians, my colleagues and my fellow citizens of the work we still have to do to move into the 21st century and face the challenges.

The NDP believes that consistency must prevail. The leader of the NDP is defending the position of his predecessor, the late Jack Layton, on how important it is for the federal government to take a leadership role in the fight against climate change and in the development of green energy. It goes without saying that this loan guarantee should meet specific criteria that could result in all provinces and territories submitting their own applications. The unique and somewhat improvised nature of the loan guarantee has led to some confusion in Quebec. I will take a few minutes to try to clear this up.

First of all, Quebec objects to the project because it believes that the federal government is competing with Quebec's own taxes. Let us be clear. This is a loan guarantee and therefore Quebec taxes or any other province's taxes sent to Ottawa, will not be used to finance a Newfoundland project. Newfoundland is leveraging Canada's economic strength to lower its borrowing costs, but the province will be covering the full cost of the project, if it chooses to go ahead with it.

The second source of confusion we often heard about has to do with the federal government's interference in provincial jurisdictions. We heard that again this afternoon during question period from our Bloc Québécois friends. I must say, when an application for a loan guarantee comes from the province itself, I would hardly call that interference. I know that comparisons are always clumsy, but this is like the youngest child in a family asking his father to co-sign a car loan, while his older brother, who never thought of asking, accuses the father of being unfair. Furthermore, I would repeat, it is clear that the provincial government will remain the one in charge of the project.

The third source of confusion has to do with unfair competition on foreign markets. If the federal government had directly funded one project at the expense of another, we probably could have been talking about unfair competition.

As long as we ensure that all provinces and territories can obtain the same loan guarantees for green energy projects, I think this is a step in the right direction. Nothing is stopping the other partners in the federation from submitting similar applications, and the NDP will be there to ensure that all of these applications are processed equitably.

Regarding one final source of confusion, Hydro-Québec appears to be the biggest loser with this agreement. As the expression goes, “what is good for the goose is good for the gander”. Hydro-Québec has every right to apply for the same loan guarantees, and once again, the NDP will be there if any rights are trampled on.

Besides, when it comes to energy development, there is a history of collaboration between the federal government and Hydro-Québec, which we often forget. For example, consider the federal funding provided to help build Gentilly-1 at a time when people strongly believed that developing nuclear energy was a form of green energy despite the radioactive waste produced because thermonuclear plants do not emit any greenhouse gases.

In short, Quebeckers' concerns may have been understandable but I hope that I have shown that they were not justified, especially since the Muskrat Falls project offers the potential for significant economic spinoffs for Quebec. Over the years and through the projects that have been implemented, a solid expertise in hydroelectric infrastructure and distribution networks has been developed in Quebec.

In keeping with the way that the NDP looks at these major development projects, we cannot talk about big money or even loan guarantees unless serious environmental studies have shown that these projects are environmentally responsible. In the case of Muskrat Falls, the project passed the test. In March 2012, it received the green light based on the results of a federal-provincial environmental assessment.

What can we say about how this project will help our fight against climate change? If Newfoundland chooses to go ahead with its project, the following improvements will result. I will address them quickly since the previous speakers have mentioned them already. There would be a huge reduction in carbon dioxide gas emissions. We are talking about 16 megatonnes a year. It is difficult to measure megatonnes on a scale but it is equivalent to taking about three million cars off the road. Three million cars in a population of 34 million who do not all own vehicles constitutes significant progress.

The closure of a thermal generating station constitutes even more progress, as does the increase in renewable energy to over 90% of all Newfoundland's total energy. This would be another contribution that is just as significant as the progress Nova Scotia has made in terms of renewable energy. These are other things that deserve recognition.

Sharing income from natural resource development must improve the quality of life of all Canadians, from one generation to the next, first nations included. As such, the Quebec model for sharing the economic spinoffs generated by such projects could be an approach worth looking at.

Many economists believe that investing in our infrastructure is an effective way to put people to work and stimulate the economy, and at the same time provide an equal—if not better—quality of life for future generations. What kind of jobs could such a project generate? We are talking about 8,600 person-years of direct employment for Newfoundland and Labrador, 18,400 person-years of indirect employment, multiple engineering contracts that can and will extend beyond Newfoundland's borders, as well as multiple industrial manufacturing contracts. Take, for example, SNC-Lavalin, which has already signed a technical design contract for the Muskrat Falls project.

I have been going on for 10 minutes now about a sustainable development policy that balances the economy, the environment and an increased quality of life for Canadians, while the Conservative motion unfortunately mentions only a loan guarantee. Experience has shown us that we obviously cannot expect the Conservative government to develop such a vision for the future. However, 2015 is not far away, and now is the time to start preparing.

That is why I am proud to belong to this political party that will form the next government for the greater good of Canadians. Our leader, the member for Outremont, has demonstrated again and again his ability to balance economic development and environmental issues. Canadians will identify with the style of governance we are proposing for the next election and they will be respected, since Canadians clearly deserve more than half-measures.

The NDP always steps up when measures proposed by this government are pragmatic and will benefit all generations. We must act responsibly today to ensure that our country is a good place to live for our children and grandchildren.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that for the next few minutes the debate should be about procedure and the time allocation motion just moved.

For the past few minutes, the Conservatives have been talking about the substance of the bill, as though they wanted to present a summary debate. They seem to want to spend two minutes on the bill and then move on.

I would like to hear what the minister has to say about the denial of democracy in this House every time a time allocation motion is moved.

[Petitions, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition concerns the installation of truck side guards in order to protect cyclists and pedestrians from preventable accidents.

[Petitions, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns the national public transit strategy. Canada is the only OECD country that still does not have a transit policy.

[Petitions, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief, but petitions ensure that Canadians are heard in the House.

I have three petitions to present this morning. The first concerns the possibility of enacting legislation to protect Gatineau Park so that all future generations can enjoy it as much as I do.

[Rail Transportation, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, NDP MPs are not the only ones who are worried about the major staff cuts and service reductions at VIA Rail. Rumbles of discontent can also be heard within the ranks of the Conservatives.

Admittedly, I am rarely in agreement with my colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, but I have to say that we are in agreement on this matter. Even though we are not in the midst of a spending spree, there is no reason to let services in the regions lapse.

Will the Minister of Transport listen to the concerns of Canadians, concerns that are shared by his colleagues, and ensure that rail services continue to be provided to all Canadians?