Robert Aubin

[Criminal Records Act, April 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

However, there seems to be a problem of substance and process in Bill C-93.

I will certainly have a chance to come back to the substance. As far as the process is concerned, although I am not the dean of the House, it seems to me that at the rate we are doing our work, I do not see how this bill will pass and receive royal assent before we rise for the summer.

I have a very simple question. Is this just a bill that does not go far enough or is it a smokescreen to appease the public?

[Rail Transportation, April 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we learned on Friday that the Minister of Transport, who has a history of very quietly announcing questionable decisions, did not re-appoint Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano as head of VIA Rail. Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano had a strong record and set the stage for the high-frequency train, but the government thought that a change in leadership was the right thing to do. Furthermore, the Liberals' recent budget made no reference to the high-frequency train, even though an announcement by the minister was promised.

Is the Minister of Transportation disavowing VIA Rail's vision of development?

[Petitions, March 18th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this being the last time I rise to present a petition concerning the high-frequency train that is supposed to go to Trois-Rivières. My hope is that tomorrow, on budget day, the thousands of people who signed this petition will finally get an answer from the minister.

We know that this project has many benefits. It will reduce greenhouse gases, contribute to the economic development of the regions and expand tourism. There is no reason to ignore this project. That is why I am supporting this petition.

[Rail Transportation, March 18th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, from spurring economic development to reducing greenhouse gases, the virtues of the VIA Rail high-frequency train proposal are well known.

One year ago today, the Minister of Transport promised us an answer before the end of the year, but we have no answer yet. It looks like high-frequency rail will end up being just an election promise, not one of this government's accomplishments.

If the Minister of Infrastructure can announce a $1-billion investment in light rail projects in Edmonton, why can the Minister of Transport not do anything for Canada's most densely populated corridor?

[Petitions, March 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, today, it is my pleasure to once again speak on behalf of the hundreds, or even thousands, of Trois-Rivières residents who wish to remind the government that they hope the budget that is tabled on March 19 offers some good news by ending their 25-year wait for passenger rail service to return to Trois-Rivières.

There are countless arguments for resuming passenger rail with VIA Rail's high-frequency rail project. Sadly, I do not have time to present them all this afternoon, but I will certainly want to raise the subject again, because hundreds of people are adding their names to this petition every day, hoping for a favourable response on March 19.

[Employment, March 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, 93 Aéroports de Montréal or ADM workers learned, in answer to their counter-offer, that they were simply being laid off. The Liberals claim to protect good jobs, but if the minister was aware of this matter, he just stood idly by.

Last year, ADM's top eight executives shared a $1-million bonus at the expense of workers. Meanwhile, the safety of the travelling public is being contracted out on the cheap.

What did the Minister of Transport do to protect these jobs?

[Alleged Interference in Justice System, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I liked the beginning of my colleague's speech the best. He said that we are at a crossroads. I thought that was a very simple image that is easy to understand. We can either turn right toward a criminal trial or turn left toward a remediation agreement.

Here is the fundamental question: why did the former attorney general decide to turn right? She likely had legal opinions telling her that it was impossible to turn left. Perhaps SNC-Lavalin did not meet the criteria that the Liberals themselves included in the omnibus bill.

Does my colleague agree that the solution is to conduct a public inquiry as quickly as possible to shed some light on the situation, get some answers to that question and find out whether it was possible to turn left?

[Alleged Interference in Justice System, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the things my colleague said, such as the importance of getting to the bottom of this matter.

The government and SNC-Lavalin representatives discussed the possibility of a remediation agreement. The government included the remediation agreement clause in its omnibus bill. It seems odd to me that, when the opportunity arises to use that provision, suddenly the company is no longer eligible.

The question we need an answer to is this: Why did the former attorney general say no? If she said no because SNC-Lavalin is no longer eligible for the measure negotiated with the Liberals, that is a problem.

Does the member think there is a problem? When the Prime Minister wants to protect jobs—which I do not believe was his intention because he failed to do so on many occasions—that is a thin line. When the Prime Minister becomes the leader of the Liberal government and wants to salvage his election and his seat—

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Earlier I asked what I thought was a very simple question. Since there is broad consensus around this bill, I wanted to know why we had to wait so long to get it to this point and pass it. The member who responded talked about all kinds of other things that had been done in the Canadian Armed Forces but did not answer my question.

If the two or three years it took to get to this point had made it possible to resolve the self-harm issue, I might have understood the need to spend time hearing from experts in committee, but there is nothing about that in the final version of the bill.

How can a bill that has been met with such broad consensus take so long?

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the speech of my colleague across the way.

At first he seemed to want to make a distinction between the bill the Conservatives introduced in the previous Parliament and the one before us today.

One thing that is clear is that the bill is being met with broad consensus, give or take a few amendments that some wanted to see included, such as the one we just discussed.

My question is as follows. Since the bill has the consensus of the House and almost had consensus in the previous Parliament, then why did we have to wait for the last year of the Liberal term to move forward with these long-awaited measures?