Robert Aubin

[Life Means Life Act, June 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, what a sensitive subject this is, and we are debating it in the context of a bill that was introduced at the very last minute. If there is one thing I find absolutely fascinating about my work here, which I feel very fortunate to do, thanks to the support and trust of the people of Trois-Rivières, it is the opportunity I have to learn so much about a whole range of subjects that are not necessarily in my area of expertise.

The subject we are dealing with this morning is a good example. I am not a lawyer or a criminal law expert, but in Ottawa, thank goodness, all members are lucky enough to have access to expertise, experience and relevant information. These things allow us not only to form an opinion, but also educate people who may be watching regarding the ins and outs of a bill like the one before us now.

If I were an ordinary citizen and a government said that its bill would enhance public safety, I imagine that I would probably start listening and I would likely believe that there must be some truth in there somewhere. Based entirely on facts, however, what we have before us is a bill that is designed purely to win votes and promote an ideology that is clearly the polar opposite of the NDP's ideology. The entire population, all Quebeckers and Canadians, will have to make their decision on October 19.

The Conservative government is proposing a vision of a society based on fear. I hope I will have time later to give some clear examples that directly relate to some election fundraising campaigns, for example, which have nothing to do with the substantive issue or the NDP's vision, which proposes developing a society based on public safety.

The Conservatives just introduced Bill C-53, which—to remind those who may not have been following this debate from the beginning—will make life imprisonment without parole mandatory for the crimes of first degree murder and high treason. However, life imprisonment without eligibility for parole is widely regarded as unconstitutional.

To plug the holes in their bill, the Conservatives included a clause that gives offenders a chance for parole after 35 years in prison. Parole will not be granted on the merits of the case or after a thorough review by the Parole Board, but after an application is made to the minister, because the minister is some sort of expert on this. I do not want to make any assumptions about the next Minister of Public Safety, but the current minister does not inspire a lot of confidence in me when it comes to making these types of decisions and leaving partisanship out of it.

Instead of spreading misinformation and electoral propaganda, the Conservatives should tell Canadians the truth. Under the current system, the most dangerous offenders who pose a risk to public safety never get out of prison. This bill is partisan to say the least, if not full-blown propaganda. The government's goal here is to give the impression that it is tough on crime, when it knows that these measures will have little to no real effect on the situation.

What is the current state of the situation in this area? For the benefit of those watching us I will briefly describe our system as it pertains to people convicted of first degree murder. An offender convicted of first degree murder is not eligible for parole for 25 years. I want to emphasize that “eligible” does not mean he will get parole, but that he can apply for it. It is up to the Parole Board to grant parole or not. We will come back to the conditions.

Protecting society is the primary criterion on which the Parole Board bases its decision to grant parole. Even if the offender is granted parole, he will spend his whole life reporting to a Correctional Service Canada officer. In other words, the current system already includes mechanisms for making public safety the priority.

The Criminal Code already includes special provisions to ensure that dangerous offenders do not threaten our safety.

If they are deemed to pose a serious risk to society, these inmates can be sentenced to an indeterminate prison term. That seems to be quite clear and strict. Public safety is the goal for this side of the House.

As we are on the eve of an election campaign, the Conservatives will use any means to fundraise and score political points, and there are still people who believe in that approach. I will just mention one example. On the day this bill was announced, the member for Scarborough Centre sent her constituents an email with the very moderate subject line: “Murderers in your neighbourhood?” That is their approach. Once again, the Conservatives' cynicism is in full view, and they are resorting to propaganda and fear-mongering. Instead, the NDP is focusing on safety.

Instead of engaging in blind partisanship, the government should instead listen to the findings of experts. I would like to elaborate on the expertise I mentioned earlier. A number of studies indicate that extreme sentences are not the solution to crime. That is backed up by statistics. After the death sentence was abolished, the murder rate dropped by 50%. That is rather curious. Here is what the Correctional Investigator of Canada had to say about that:

When you take all hope away from somebody, you don't give them any incentive to follow rules or to be at all productive and to contribute in any way.

A criminal can be released on parole and reintegrate into society. As I already mentioned, our current system has several provisions that protect society from the actions of these dangerous criminals.

In this case, there is no confusion. Everyone in the House agrees that it is important to protect society.

How will this bill protect us any better than the existing provisions of the Criminal Code? That is an interesting question. Did the government introduce this bill to do a better job of that? That is a question that the government has completely failed to answer.

According to Allan Manson, a law professor at Queen's University, there is a good chance that this bill is unconstitutional. Why? First, many studies have shown the negative effects of long-term incarceration. Prisons are becoming more dangerous for the people who work there. Second, this bill lacks a penal objective. The bill may in fact violate the very principle of fundamental justice.

If the Conservatives start breaking the backbone of our justice system, then they are doing exactly the opposite of what other democracies are doing in their legislation. It is often a good idea to compare ourselves to other countries to see whether we are heading in the right direction. However, is seems that the Conservatives are once again going against the tide.

Bill C-53 shows that public safety is not the Conservatives' primary concern. They would rather raise money through fearmongering and cobble together bills that are not based on evidence. The NDP is strongly opposed to that way of doing things. We want all criminal measures to be based on facts. We will ensure that our criminal measures seek only to enhance public safety.

We are deeply committed to the independence of justice. That is why only the appropriate authorities should decide whether an individual is eligible for parole. On the contrary, as they do in almost all of their bills, the Conservatives are once again placing more and more power in the hands of ministers, when those ministers are not necessarily qualified to exercise those powers.

I will stop there because time is flying by. That is too bad because I still had a ton of things to say. I will likely have a chance to talk more about this as I answer my colleagues' questions.

[Employment Insurance, June 18th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance situation is going from bad to worse: 240,000 Canadians applied for employment insurance benefits in April, but the unemployed may have to wait for months to get help because Conservative cuts have caused a backlog of 253,000 files. The 400 employees who were hired have not changed anything, and an internal memo reveals that the Minister of Employment and Social Development knew that the cuts would have a devastating impact.

Why did the Conservatives ignore the warnings that could have prevented this disaster?

[Unemployment Rate, June 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, again, I certainly will not have enough time to say everything I want to say about this motion so I am relying on your totally impartial time management skills.

I am particularly pleased that this motion, Motion No. M-585, moved by my colleague from Saint-Lambert, allows me to give a bit of hope not only to my constituents, but to all Canadians when it comes to the economic measures that would be introduced by the NDP, which, as everyone knows, has a good chance of forming the next government.

I am particularly pleased that my speech follows that of my colleague from York Centre, who said that the motion was redundant. It is probably redundant because his own government decided to take some of the ideas in the motion and incorporate them into its budget, proving the merits of the NDP's proposals. However, obviously a copy is never the same as the original. The Conservatives managed to do less than what we were offering.

It always surprises me when I hear my colleagues say or fuel the illusion that the Conservative government creates jobs, when ever since they formed a majority government, we have seen the Conservatives cut thousands of jobs. It would take a lot to convince me that a government, regardless of its political stripe, creates jobs. The role of a government is to create the right conditions to allow entrepreneurs, the business people in this country, to create jobs. The real job creators are the men and women in the business community.

It seems to me as though the Conservatives' policies in recent years have had some rather negative consequences. The breaks given to big business do not seem to have been reinvested into the economy. Members will all remember what I would essentially call a cry or a plea for help from the former finance minister, who urged big business to take that dead money and reinject it into the economy. We know that the Conservatives' theory is that tax cuts should lead to job creation, but it is clear that this has not worked at all. Furthermore, there are 200,000 more unemployed workers in Canada than there were before the recession. Since the Conservatives came to power, their economic policy has resulted in 1,300,000 unemployed workers.

My riding is reeling from this government's economic decisions. For example, 120 jobs were lost when Target closed. Many families are struggling, and many part-time workers do not have access to employment insurance benefits.

Members will probably recall the Conservatives' slogan during the last campaign: “Our regions in power”. Their slogan appears to have become “Our regions abandoned”. The Mauricie region is suffering as a result of the Conservatives' mismanagement. Wood processing is at a standstill and the manufacturing industry is slowing to a crawl. So many companies have shut down, so it makes sense that the household purchasing power in my region has been reduced. According to Statistics Canada, families owe $1.63 for every dollar earned.

While the Conservatives' poor economic record speaks for itself, the Liberals' plan is conspicuous by its silence. The Liberals are abandoning the 1.7 million manufacturing workers. The Liberal leader himself said that he did not have a plan to help the manufacturing sector get back on its feet. The Conservatives have been an economic failure and the Liberals have no plan, but the NDP is going to set things straight. We are making concrete proposals to stimulate the economy and job creation. We will start by lowering the small and medium-sized business tax rate.

The Conservatives deliberately gave tax breaks to big business. To justify these cuts, the government claimed that higher profits for big business would stimulate economic growth and job creation through productive investment. We see that the Conservatives' dogmatic position was quickly negated by the facts. Several studies have shown that companies are not investing their savings in the economy. Thirty-two per cent of GDP remains in the cash reserves of these major corporations. This money, which has been accumulated as a result of the Conservatives' tax cuts, is not being used to create jobs or innovate.

I would like to quote in passing the conclusion of a study carried out by Canadian Labour Congress economists:

...cuts in corporate income tax have contributed to a significant increase in cash reserves held by corporations, delivered higher compensation to CEOs, cost Canadians billions in lower than expected government revenues, led to a higher federal deficit and debt, and cuts to public services.

The Conservatives have chosen to tailor their economic measures to big business to the detriment of SMEs. The Conservatives have almost eliminated the tax advantage of SMEs, which are now facing unfair competition from big business.

The NDP has chosen to focus its economic policy on SMEs because they are vital to job creation in Canada. We are choosing to help SMEs because they have been responsible for the creation of 78% of new jobs in the private sector in the last decade. Small business is the engine of job creation in Canada.

For that reason, the NDP is proposing to reduce the small business tax rate from 11% to 10% immediately, in the first year. This immediate reduction of the tax rate will inject $600 million into Quebec's and Canada's small businesses.

As soon as the financial situation allows, we will further reduce the small business tax rate from 10% to 9%. Once this measure is fully implemented, small business will have some breathing room, as they say.

Martine Hébert, senior vice-president of CFIB, supports our initiative and has congratulated the leader of the NDP for proposing the small business tax cut.

The Conservative government borrowed the measure, but will implement it in small doses by making cuts of 0.5% at a time.

We will extend the accelerated capital cost allowance. This measure is crucial for the manufacturing sector because it will encourage new investments and improve the international competitiveness of our businesses.

Thanks to this NDP measure, manufacturers will save $600 million a year for two years. Small business will mainly use this measure to increase their exports, because 90% of Canadian exporters are small businesses.

To support businesses' research and development efforts, we will establish an innovation tax credit to stimulate small businesses' ability to innovate. Quebec and Canadian manufacturers that make significant investments in research and development will save $40 million as a result of this measure.

On the Conservatives' watch, Canada has fallen from 18th to 25th of 41 on companies' investment in research and development. It is clear that other countries and our number-one competitor just across the border have rather more quickly grasped the importance of investing in research and development.

In closing, I would say that this Conservative government has failed dismally when it comes to creating new jobs—stable, full-time jobs, that is.

What is more, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, employment quality has declined considerably. According to the CIBC report, over the past 25 years, the number of poorly paid jobs rose twice as fast as the number of well-paid jobs. That is to be expected considering the kind of measures I just discussed.

In light of that failure, the NDP wants to get Canada back on track. We have a plan to create good-quality jobs in a diversified economy.

We will certainly have plenty of opportunities over the coming weeks and months to bring our proposals to the people.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Lambert.

The Conservative government managed not only to balance its budget—which is not a bad thing in and of itself—but also to generate surpluses where investments are particularly dubious. Of course, it did steal from the employment insurance fund and cut services, but if there is one thing we tend to forget, it is the string of measures the Conservatives announced for various programs where they did not spend the money that was announced so they could claw back some of that money at the end of the fiscal year and put it back into the Treasury's coffers.

In answer to his question, it pretty much goes without saying. When we look at single-parent families in Quebec and Canada, it is very clear that their average income is not among the highest. When a woman is already having a tough time making ends meet and providing for her family, measures like income splitting are not just inappropriate, they are offensive.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, I would say that the thing that is going to help seniors in our country and every generation is October 19.

I was clear. We have a whole series of measures to ensure that everyone in society, regardless their age, social status, job or gender, will be part of a booming society where the creation of wealth will leave no one behind.

To answer my hon. colleague's question, I repeat that the NDP, under the direction and leadership of the hon. member for Outremont, made a very formal commitment to bring the retirement age back down from 67 to 65. Again, when the hon. member for Outremont makes a commitment—I am not talking about an election promise because back home we make commitments—he honours it.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to reply “virtually everything”.

Actually, the best measures in this Conservative budget are watered down NDP measures. I want to make that very clear to all Canadians. They will soon have a choice between settling for a copy or getting the real deal.

As an example, let us look at the lower tax rate for SMEs, which is going to dip from 11% to 9%. We proposed doing that over two consecutive years, at 1% each year. The Conservatives are adopting this measure, because they realize that, first of all, they forgot about it and they are out of touch with SMEs, which are the backbone of our economy, and second, they are becoming less popular with voters. However, they are spreading it over four years, or 0.5% a year. That is one measure, just one example.

I could also talk about reestablishing the retirement age at 65. Think about it. The Chief Actuary of Canada confirmed that a pension age of 65 poses no financial problems. What, then, is the ideology behind this measure, when people who worked, often physically and very hard, for decades are being forced to continue doing so until the age of 67, when their health is often beginning to fail? I think they deserve a better life than that and greater recognition than what the Conservatives are giving them.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in order to allow more of my colleagues to speak out loud and clear in the House and to give a voice to the people of their respective ridings, I will be sharing my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Indeed, we have to share our time, because once again the Conservatives are resorting to two of their old habits, which are both equally atrocious, namely gag orders and omnibus bills in which they put absolutely anything and everything.

By introducing Bill C-59 as an omnibus bill, they are forcing us to answer yes or no to a whole series of measures that are often unrelated to one another. For example, I could say that I support the home renovation tax credit, which is in this budget, but at the same time, how could I possibly say yes to income splitting, which is tailor-made for the rich? Both of those examples deal with measures related to the economy and have their place in a budget, I think.

At the end of the day, I could take stock, weigh the pros and cons, and then decide. However, I will provide a few other examples to give us a taste and allow those watching us to understand the inconsistencies of such an approach.

For example, I could very easily say yes to the lower tax rate for SMEs in the budget. What is more, that measure is based on one that was proposed by the NDP, although it extends over a longer period of time. We wanted to do things more quickly, knowing that small and medium size businesses were the backbone of the Canadian economy and that the sooner we supported them, the sooner we would promote job creation. However, voting in favour of this measure in Bill C-59 would also mean voting in favour of hijacking the bargaining process with public servants, which is also included in the bill. I simply cannot do that.

I could certainly vote in favour of the new veterans charter, which had its own bill number, Bill C-58, if memory serves me correctly. Why are we not voting on Bill C-58 and Bill C-59 separately? If this is not playing politics, then I do not know what is. In order to vote in favour of the new veterans charter, I would have to also vote for retroactive changes to access to information legislation.

None of these things—veterans, the Access to Information Act, or the bargaining process with public servants—have anything to do with the budgetary process.

As I said earlier, Bill C-59 contains a few positive measures. For example, it improves support for caregivers. However, this measure comes in response to many concerns that were raised by the NDP, again, during this Parliament and the previous Parliament. Except for a few miserly measures, this budget does nothing for the Canadian economy. Budget 2015 ignores the middle class and posts a false surplus at the expense of the most vulnerable and our public services.

The Minister of Finance boasted that because the government is a good economic manager, it was posting a surplus of $1.4 billion. The surplus is nothing more than an accounting trick. In reality, the Conservatives helped themselves to $2 billion from the employment insurance fund, dipped into the federal fund for natural disasters and sold its General Motors shares at bargain basement prices. Thus, this election budget comes at the expense of unemployed workers and other Canadians.

As I mentioned, the 2015 budget forgets all about middle-class workers and is detrimental to the Canadian economy. Let us start with the budget's tax measures. More and more studies by well-known economists show that income-splitting and increasing the TFSA contribution limit are unfair and ineffective policies.

For those watching who are not familiar with income splitting, a couple could split up to $50,000 in income thereby reducing their total income and rate of taxation.

With that in mind, let us take the example of single-parent families, which represent one in three families in Quebec. Whom do these families split their income with? We can see right away that this measure becomes less and less attractive.

According to the economists at the C. D. Howe Institute, which, I imagine, must be a very left-leaning organization, only 15% of families could take advantage of this program. Which 15%? The families where there is a huge difference in the income of the spouses. The income gap between rich and poor continues to widen, and this measure would really benefit those families where one spouse has a substantially higher income than the other. Some studies have shown that this might be an incentive for the other spouse not to work outside the home. More often than not, the woman is the person who stays home.

I remind members that the former finance minister was highly critical of this idea and recommended that it not be supported. What is the cost of this tax measure? It will cost the federal government $2 billion a year.

How will the Minister of Finance recover that $2 billion? The answer is quite simple, and members need only take a look at the EI fund to see that the $2 billion given to the wealthiest Canadians has been taken out of the EI premiums paid by workers and employers.

Since the Conservatives are nothing if not consistent as managers and insist on making this a budget for the wealthy, this budget increases the TFSA limit to $10,000. Most of my constituents have a hard time maxing out their RRSP. Imagine putting $5,000 in a TFSA.

The measure in itself is not a bad one. However, the people who benefit when we double the limit are those who have very good incomes and who are among the wealthiest of our society. Furthermore, the financial cost of this increase will double over the next four years and reach $13.5 billion by 2030.

Of course we had concerns about the impact of that financial burden on future generations. The Minister of Finance may also have given a moment's thought to future generations when he made the following statement.

He simply said, “Why don't we leave that to [the] Prime Minister['s] granddaughter to solve that problem?” Let us just keep shovelling the pile forward until we hit a wall.

I could go on and on about employment insurance. If barely 39% of the people who contribute manage to collect benefits when bad luck strikes, that means there is a problem with the way the employment insurance fund is managed.

The NDP proposed measures that should be in the budget but are not: getting rid of income splitting, which costs us $2 billion; developing a comprehensive strategy to tackle structural youth unemployment and underemployment; offering a hiring and training tax credit to help businesses create jobs for Canadian youth; and abolishing the appalling employment insurance reform. I could go on.

The New Democratic Party's proposals will be in its platform and will enable all Canadians to choose a better government that listens to their needs and has a clear vision for development that will leave no member of society behind. That will happen on October 19.

Between now and then, I invite the majority of MPs in the House of Commons to vote against this way of doing business that involves repeated use of time allocation and omnibus bills that purport to fix all of the world's problems with a single yes or no.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), June 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

It goes without saying that no one can oppose such a bill. Obviously, we all get emotional when we hear stories about service animals.

However, why did the government not go one step further with this bill and recognize that animals are not property? For many people, some of whom live alone, a pet is also a sort of service animal, since they have an emotional connection with it.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), June 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her speech, which I listened to carefully and which is especially meaningful now, since Quebec recently introduced a similar bill regarding animal welfare.

Obviously, I do not by any means oppose this bill, and of course I will vote to support it. However, there is one thing that concerns me about this bill, because, once again, the Conservatives are bringing in more mandatory minimum sentences. I wish to take advantage of my colleague's expertise as a member and as a lawyer to ask her whether this is another example of the Conservatives' tendency to confuse the legislative and judicial branches.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, June 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie concerning its participation at the meeting of the parliamentary affairs committee of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, which was held in Antananarivo, Madagascar, from April 15 to 17, 2015.