Robert Aubin

[Housing, June 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, need I remind the government that construction season is already well under way in Quebec and does not last very long?

Despite the meagre sums that have been promised to pyrrhotite victims, they are still being made to wait. Homeowners are worried, and with good reason, because they could completely miss the 2016 season. What is more, the delay is unfairly penalizing these families, who are having difficulty making ends meet.

Will the federal government commit to transferring the $10 million set out in the budget this week?

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I paid close attention to my colleague's remarks, and I admire her choice to use her time to serve as her constituents' mouthpiece.

We have all heard from people in our ridings who are in favour of medical assistance in dying and people who are not. Their views are polar opposites. However, there is one theme most people agree on: palliative care.

My question is simple: is there a way to reconcile the perspectives of those who are in favour and those who are not? We know that increasing pain medicine dosage in palliative care often results in death. In many cases, patients lose consciousness. With medical assistance in dying, patients consciously choose to leave their loved ones for the same reason and use the same medication to do so.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments.

I would like to go back to the criterion of reasonably foreseeable natural death because in Quebec there have been people who starved themselves in an attempt to meet this criterion.

Does the member not believe that this criterion runs completely counter to the guidelines established by the Carter ruling?

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's comments.

Two things really caught my attention. The first was at the beginning of his speech, when he commended the leadership of all the parties for allowing a free vote on this bill. Obviously, I also commend that. It seems to me, however, that in addition to a free vote, we should be making a more concerted effort to seek the broadest possible consensus in the House. I think that is where our views diverge somewhat.

Furthermore, at the end of his speech, the other point that struck me is when he said that, no matter which legislation we pass, whether it is an NDP, Conservative, or Liberal bill, it will face a court challenge.

My question is very simple: why did the Liberals refuse to refer the bill to the Supreme Court, which would have ensured that it was acceptable?

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I paid close attention to the minister's speech.

Over the past few weeks, every time we have had the rare opportunity to talk about this particularly important bill, the same issue has come up repeatedly: the Supreme Court's June 6 deadline. Now, even government MPs, including the Minister of Health, are starting to say that the June 6 deadline is hardly a sure thing. Leading senators have said so too.

I should point out that we are operating under time allocation, which means that only three members of my party will have a chance to debate this bill at third reading.

What seems to be the minister's priority right now? Meeting the June 6 deadline, which seems highly unlikely, or building the broadest possible consensus among members of the House, which would likely smooth the way in the Senate as well?

[Criminal Code, May 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

In a number of speeches, including his, members often mention June 6 as some kind of unavoidable deadline. I admit that I am a bit less of a stickler than my colleague on this, although this date is an important objective.

Why is the government not focusing as much on the fact that the Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision in Carter? A unanimous decision does not come around often in Canadian law. That seems just as important to me.

We must acknowledge that the Supreme Court is representative of the Canadian public, in a way. Perhaps we could move forward more quickly if the government were open to some amendments to bring the bill closer to the unanimous decision rendered by the Supreme Court.

It is very clear where we are going with this bill, and I think we could come to an agreement quickly if we put as much emphasis on the unanimous decision as on the June 6 date.

[Mining Industry, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, mining companies operating abroad are suspected of violating the most basic human rights of local populations.

The situation is ongoing, but the minister is studying the matter rather than taking action. However, when they were in opposition, the Liberals supported the NDP's proposal to appoint an independent ombudsman with investigative power in order to stop the illegal activities of these Canadian mining companies.

Why is the minister trying to buy time instead of taking action?

[Trois-Rivières, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, as the fine weather returns, Trois-Rivières is more eager than ever to welcome tourists from across the country and around the world.

Whether they come by car, by boat, or by plane, they will get a warm welcome from our tourism partners, who have the necessary measures in place to accommodate them. We have something to offer everyone, no matter their interests.

For festival lovers, DansEncore, FestiVoix, and our blues music festival await you. Sports fans can look forward to the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix and the International Canoe Classic. Performing arts enthusiasts will be entertained by everything and everyone from Cirque du Soleil to Céline Dion, at venues like Amphithéâtre Cogeco, Salle J.-Antonio-Thompson, or the Satyre cabaret. I am sorry, but Céline Dion is sold out.

For people of faith or those seeking spirituality, Our Lady of the Cape Shrine welcomes pilgrimages and hosts the Festival of the Assumption. Trois-Rivières is also home to a wide range of museums, making it a hub of history and culture.

I hope that anyone and everyone who is passing through the heart of Quebec will come and experience the warm welcome that Trois-Rivières has to offer.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, May 16th, 2016]

Is it Les cornichons?

[Housing, May 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation on pyrrhotite, a topic with which I am quite familiar.

I am particularly interested in support for the victims. We just heard the exact same argument that the Conservatives used. The building code falls under provincial jurisdiction. Yes, we know. The problem is that the standards in the building code are federal ones, such as the quality standard for aggregates used in concrete. This is a federal responsibility.

Will the government commit to amending the standard to ensure that this never happens again in Mauricie or anywhere else in Canada? In the meantime, while the legal proceedings take their course, can we agree to provide support for the victims? No one is going to get rich off this problem. If the private company ever pays, the homeowners will return the money to the government. We are not talking about a lot of money.