Robert Aubin

[Housing, May 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, once again this evening, I am continuing my crusade to get pyrrhotite victims in Trois-Rivières the financial help they are entitled to.

I put this down as an adjournment debate just a few days before the budget. At the time, I was expecting the worst, and I think the worst is pretty much what we got. It all started during the election campaign, when I felt like Thomas, the biblical character who refused to believe until he saw the holes in Christ's hands. I found it hard to believe that the Liberals would really do anything to help all pyrrhotite victims.

I do not know how to describe the offer in the budget. Objectively, it is a final offer for $30 million, or $10 million per year over the next three years, to help pyrrhotite victims. What does this really mean for people affected by pyrrhotite? That $30 million will help about 75 people per year over three years. That is 225 people out of as many as 4,000 families afflicted by this terrible problem.

Furthermore, I imagine that the approach, which requires this $30 million to be channelled to the provincial assistance program, will vaguely seem like charity and that the federal government will not accept any responsibility for this disaster. I am anxious to hear the government's response.

By way of explanation, I will provide two quotes from the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who is the MP for the riding next to mine. Oddly enough, his views during the election campaign and after the budget was tabled were rather different.

During the campaign, he said, “We will help the victims because human misery knows no borders or jurisdictions.” After the budget was tabled, my colleague said, “It is primarily a provincial matter.”

That was the answer I heard for four and a half years from the Conservatives. It was their main justification for not paying a dime. They said that this was a provincial jurisdiction. The difference is that the Liberals are paying out $30 million, while saying that this is a provincial jurisdiction.

Therefore, here is the most crucial question, and I would like to get a clear, straight, precise answer: does the Liberal government recognize that it is in part responsible for the disaster that has affected almost 4,000 families in Mauricie?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 9th, 2016]

Madam, Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I understand where he is coming from because, during his election campaign, he had to focus on his platform and never read ours. We never said anything about austerity. We talked about balancing the budget for one very good reason that he forgot to mention, unfortunately: in the NDP's budget, our revenue column included new revenue sources that the Liberal government would never dare contemplate, such as getting big corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.

Our plan was to raise taxes on big corporations by a few points, which would have covered the cost of our promises.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 9th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his extremely relevant question, which essentially answered itself. The answer is in the question, but if I could take it one step further, I would bet that we will soon hear the government telling us that this is a virtually impossible situation, that we need to look at it from an international perspective, and that every country would have to be on the same page.

For every country to agree, we need a leader, and we do not seem to have found one yet.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 9th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the fact that Internet infrastructure is included in the measures to help SMEs shows how little the government understands their immediate needs. Of course that is important, but it will not directly help SMEs balance their budgets. I would also like to quickly mention that a study conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated that one-third of small business owners earn less than $33,000 a year. That means that even the tax cuts and other measures for the middle class will not affect small business owners and will not support that industry.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 9th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, six or seven months ago, we were all busy campaigning, and the Liberal candidates were visiting all of the ridings with suitcases full of promises. Then, in the throne speech, they tried to give us what seemed like a wide range of measures.

In the budget, the next step, they started being more specific and they realized that they would likely be unable to keep all of their promises or even most of them. As a result, today, we find ourselves dealing with what is quite frankly a rather sad budget implementation bill. What makes the whole situation even sadder is that we have just learned, this minute, that time allocation will once again be imposed on the House. I am having an increasingly difficult time distinguishing between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Good God. If only we could go back to the polls, but I know that that is not going to happen any time soon. In the meantime, I would like to make a few comments about this budget implementation bill.

Not everything about the budget implementation bill is bad. The Liberals are taking the Conservatives' usual approach, and so once again I am having a hard time distinguishing between them. The Liberals introduced an omnibus bill that forces us to vote either yes or no. There is not really any other name for this sort of bill. I would like to give an example of one of the dilemmas I am facing, which will ultimately force me to vote against this bill.

Let us talk about employment insurance, for example. I fully support getting rid of the old 910-hour eligibility requirement for new workers eligible for employment insurance benefits. However, considering that fewer than four out of 10 workers who have contributed to the plan end up being eligible when disaster strikes, such an insubstantial measure is just not enough. I am also disappointed that there is nothing in the budget, the implementation bill, or even the Liberal promises about the universal 360-hour threshold that all stakeholders have called for. The Liberals seem to be taking a piecemeal approach by scattering bits of funding here and there to give people the impression that everyone is going to be happy. Most likely, nobody will be happy.

Seniors are a particularly important segment of the population in Trois-Rivières because the proportion of people over the age of 65 there is significantly higher than in Quebec ridings as a whole. When it comes to seniors, I can say that enhancing the guaranteed income supplement has my full support. However, strangely, even though this measure should be a priority, it will only come into effect on July 1 of next year, which is a bit late considering that seniors' needs have been pressing for quite some time now.

If the government truly believes that the solution is to improve the guaranteed income supplement, restore the age of eligibility for old age security to 65 from 67, and maintain income splitting for seniors, then it must also work with the provinces to improve the Quebec pension plan and the Canada pension plan.

According to a recent Broadbent Institute study, the programs designed to provide some relief for vulnerable seniors are woefully inadequate. To combat marginalization and poverty among single seniors, the guaranteed income supplement needs to be increased by more than 10%.

As in many regions in Quebec, the populations in Mauricie and Trois-Rivières are aging. According to a projection by the City of Trois-Rivières, by 2031, the number of seniors will increase by 52.2%, which means that there will be 23,469 people aged 65 and over. The median income, not the average income, of seniors in Trois-Rivières is estimated at $18,702. Needless to say, the tax cuts promised and implemented by the Liberal government will do nothing for them. Statistics aside, during my term, I came to meet with hundreds of seniors and I witnessed for myself how vulnerable many of them are.

We could also talk about the promise made regarding Canada Post, which was fulfilled late or only partially fulfilled. Postal service was supposed to be restored in certain areas that were considered among the most important ones. All of that is on hold, waiting for the findings of a task force that was just created.

Once again, not only did a great deal of time pass after the election campaign before the promise was kept, but the promise itself was watered down. Given the Machiavellian choices the Liberals want to impose on us, there can be only one clear answer when the time comes to vote: a resounding no.

Furthermore, except for a few miserly measures, this budget does nothing to help the pyrrhotite victims or Canadian workers, and it will hurt our regional economies, especially in the Trois-Rivières area.

Although I applauded the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance as the government spokesperson for the pyrrhotite file, I must admit that the disappointment I feel today is just as deep as that of the victims. Let us be clear: the final offer is $10 million a year for three years.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister, a candidate at the time, told us that the Liberals understood the human and financial plight of Mauricie families, who account for roughly 4,000 homes. He later said that the Liberals' final offer was $10 million a year for three years, for a total of $30 million. We might hope to support approximately 75 victims a year, or 225 by the end of the term. What about the thousands of others? The answer is simple: the government is shirking its responsibility.

Clearly the Liberals are truly out of touch with the human and financial distress that the families in Mauricie are experiencing daily. For five years, the NDP has been calling on the federal government to acknowledge its share of responsibility, and after four and a half years of categorical refusal by the Conservatives, the Liberals are going a step further and contradicting themselves.

Here are some examples that are very clear and very easy to understand. The Liberal member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain recently said that pyrrhotite was a provincial concern. We have heard that one before.

However, a few weeks after the election, he said the exact opposite. I quote: “We will help the victims because human misery knows no borders or jurisdictions.”

How can we trust a politician who changes his mind like he changes his clothes? Therefore, I will continue to point out the contradictions in the positions of the Liberal member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain and his government.

SMEs are the economic heart of all of Canada's regions, including the Trois-Rivières and Quebec City areas. After promising SMEs that they would reduce their tax rate, the Liberals are breaking their promise. However, this government is keeping its costly and unnecessary subsidies for its friends, the big banks and major corporations.

Is the Liberals' disdain for SMEs really surprising? After stating that small businesses are tax shelters for the wealthiest Canadians who want to pay less taxes, the Prime Minister could also have added that that also holds true for large corporations such as Bionest in my region, which approved payments to a shareholder through a tax haven.

The current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who sat on Bionest's board of directors, approved these legal but, to say the least, questionable practices. There is more to come.

In my region, SMEs are vital to job creation. I would have liked to talk about a small business in my riding, Innovations Voltflex. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time left to speak to such a broad topic.

I hope to have the opportunity to continue during questions and answers.

[Employment Insurance, May 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, of course I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech, but not the answer, because my question remains unanswered.

Still, I find it curious that in a four-minute speech, the member said that we are not paying attention to the file, and at the same time, that we know the answers. I see an inconsistency there. I can assure my hon. colleague that I have been paying attention to this file for years now, and I am perfectly aware of what is in the budget. I even referred to some dates earlier.

However, he still has not answered the critical question. The youth unemployment rate is practically double the national average. What can we do to ensure that our young people are able to access the employment insurance system when they need it, when we know that fewer than four out of 10 workers qualify for EI, even though they have paid into it for many years? Will we get an answer to our question regarding a universal 360-hour eligibility standard?

[Employment Insurance, May 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there are ups and downs in politics, and between the time that I put my question down as an adjournment debate and the time this debate started, there have been numerous reports. If the situation had been resolved in the meantime, I would have happily withdrawn the question, but unfortunately that is not the case.

I want to give a little background before I get to my question. This obviously has to do with employment insurance measures, which is the subject of the debate.

I want to remind members of some of the promises made by the Liberals during the election campaign. First, there was the promise to reduce the wait time by one week. They are telling us that this will happen in January 2017. I do not deny that this proposal is important to those who will be receiving EI, but I remind members that currently, fewer than four out of ten workers who pay into the EI system manage to qualify when they need the benefits, in other words, when the worst happens and they lose their jobs.

The Liberals also promised that they would reduce EI premiums for employees and employers. That change took effect on January 1, 2016. However, just between us, that does not solve the problem. It just means that there is even less money in the employment insurance fund to give benefits to those who need them.

The Liberals should be protecting the employment insurance fund. They are not doing that. Instead, as we saw in the most recent budget, they are once again planning to greedily pilfer billions of dollars from the EI fund, as has been the habit of both the Liberals and the Conservatives.

The Liberals also promised to do away with the Conservatives' EI reform. However, from what I have seen, there are still three categories of unemployed workers. This measure therefore demonstrates that the government is still stigmatizing workers who have lost their jobs rather than doing something to address the problem of systemic unemployment.

The Liberals should make access to parental leave and compassionate care benefits more flexible. They still have not done either of those things.

In short, the Liberals have not done much when it comes to employment insurance, even though this service, or rather this insurance that is paid for by workers and employers, is becoming increasingly important and harder to access as a result of the economic situation. That is a serious problem.

On the plus side, if there is one, since the government has done so little about employment insurance since coming to power despite making tonnes of promises, does my colleague agree that the first thing to do is introduce a single 360-hour threshold for everyone? That would enable the majority of workers who contribute to the plan to access benefits if bad luck strikes. The first thing we need to do is make the insurance plan that people are paying for available to them.

Imagine any kind of private insurance, such as home or car insurance. Imagine disaster striking and being unable to claim payment from the insurer. The private system being what it is, insurance companies operating that way would lose their clients. In this case, however, the unemployed are a captive clientele.

Here, then, is my question again: will the Liberal government introduce, as quickly as possible, a single 360-hour eligibility threshold for everyone?

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am completely astounded. A similar process in Quebec lasted no less than six years and they want me to believe that, after 21 hours of debate, we will achieve the same thing. The House is probably where there is the broadest representation of all the opinions that can be expressed across Canada. Does the minister really believe that by cutting short the debate she will be able to establish a consensus?

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague.

I know what he means about confronting death. Many people, who are well supported in palliative care homes decide to see things through to the end. Both the Quebec legislation and the Canadian legislation we are currently studying provide for the right to withdraw a request up to the last minute.

I would like my colleague's opinion on the following. There is a major difference between the Quebec legislation and the proposed Canadian legislation. Under the Quebec legislation, a health care professional must be present until the very end. However, under the Canadian legislation, a health care professional could give the patient the lethal drug and then leave the patient alone. That seems unthinkable to me. We cannot talk with so much compassion for hours and then imagine that under this bill, someone could be given the drug he needs to end his life without anyone by his side throughout the process.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, discussions on this topic are always interesting, even this late at night.

Once again, my colleague caught my attention with his comments about medications that exist to alleviate suffering during the palliative care stage. We cannot ignore the fact that these medications precipitate death and that quite often, they make the patients disconnected from reality. The drugs may alleviate the patients' physical suffering, but they also affect their consciousness.

I think this bill is an opportunity for us to take a different perspective. Instead of taking the perspective of a caregiver supporting someone at the end of their life, let us look at this from the perspective of someone who is dying and who could, with this legislation, make an informed decision to die, fully conscious, surrounded by loved ones. I would venture to say that this dying person would truly be able to enjoy the love of his or her dear ones in those last moments of life. I think that is the objective, or one of the objectives, of this bill. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.