Robert Aubin

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, obviously that distracted me from my point, but when I hear comments like that, it really looks to me as though people are trying to take advantage of a situation to score political points because they think that, since security issues are sensitive issues in terms of public opinion and people pay attention to them, they might score a few points here and there by saying that danger is at our doorstep.

Danger is not really at our doorstep. Nevertheless, we have to improve our security forces. That is a fact.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I would add that I am not a constitutional expert, but I do believe that common sense still has a place. During the age of Enlightenment we learned how important the separation of powers is. This should be the focus as we make decisions, as should the competence of those who defended us and who continue to defend us.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and I commend him on his openness when he says that, regardless who is heading security, they must report to the government. That is where we are now. If it is a matter of choosing the most competent authority, then I would tend to trust those who are already here.

Unfortunately and oddly, they were not consulted in any way in the process leading up to the moving of this motion, even though they were the ones who have been ensuring our safety ever since I got here and long before that.

When I look at other Canadian models, including that of Ontario where they did exactly the opposite, or in other words they asked the RCMP to leave in order to make room for an internal and independent security force, I think this shows us the way and the direction we should be taking.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying a big thank you to the member for Parkdale—High Park. If she had not kindly agreed to share her time, I probably would not have had the opportunity to speak to this motion, since we are facing a gag order for the 87th time. That number in itself is huge. However, it is even more absurd that the government is muzzling us on a topic as important as the one we are debating today.

I also want to say that there are two clips that still stand out in my mind from the events of October 22, since the discussion we are having today is unfortunately related to the events of October 22.

First, there is the first clip that we have seen repeatedly, I would even say ad nauseam, of the shooting in the main hallway, but there is the second clip from the House showing us, the Parliament of Canada, speaking with one voice on October 23. On October 23, there were no Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats; there was one Parliament sitting, aware of what had happened the day before. On an issue as vital as the security of Parliament, the house of the people, Canadians are expecting Parliament to be unanimous once again, without a government or partisan motion or bill. They really expect the entire House to be able to speak to the security measures it wants to take, because this is not just about the security of the parliamentarians and senators who work here; this is also the house of the people.

I remember spending the entire day of October 22 confined with Canadians who had come to visit us in caucus that morning. They sure knew how to pick their morning. They spent an entire day in one room in Parliament. I am therefore also concerned about the security of each and every Canadian who enters their house.

I do not think we are too far from being able to reach unanimity. I think there is already a consensus that response forces need to be consolidated. We just have a few differences of opinion on the approach: who should be given this consolidated power?

In the speeches that have been given over the past little while, I have heard some things that made my hair stand on end. One example is the hypotheses about what could have happened if there had been two, three or four shooters and if the weapons had been different. That makes the hair on my arms stand on end, because we have all imagined those horrific scenarios, but that is not what happened, thank goodness.

However, when the government defends a motion by claiming that there is a pressing need, it is as though the government is telling all Canadians that Parliament is still not a very secure place right now. However, that is not the case. Security measures have already been heightened since the events of October 22.

Do we have the leading-edge security we would like? Probably not, but I can say that I come to work here every day feeling safe, and I think that the visitors who come here also feel safe. Let us stop talking about the urgency of this matter and let us work together to find the solution that will allow Parliament to speak with one voice. The reason why I insist on talking about Parliament so much is that, if there is one common denominator that all democracies share, it is the principle of separation of powers. When we talk about Parliament, we are not talking about the government, but about all of the representatives of Canadians.

As I examine this motion, it is clear to me that the government is trampling on the backbone of our democracy by taking advantage of the tragic events that occurred in this very place on October 22, 2014.

This motion is essentially government interference in an area under Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction. If the Speaker of the House has one customary and deeply rooted responsibility with respect to the operations of this House, it is the privilege of ensuring the security of parliamentarians, visitors and staff. If there is one institution that the current government ignores, it is certainly the House of Commons and the citizens whom we are privileged to represent in the House. Over time, our democratic tradition has grown stronger thanks to the House of Commons' participation in society's great debates. In many ways, it is this powerful instrument of representative democracy that the Conservative government is trying to undermine.

We firmly support the idea that an integrated security force should be present and operational within the parliamentary precinct. If it is to be effective, we must allocate more resources to that security force and ensure closer coordination among its teams while ensuring that it meets the highest standards in the field. These conditions are essential to our ability to carry out our parliamentary duties in absolute security.

I once again reiterate the critical importance we place on the security of our parliamentary institution. We think it is crucial to support the integration of the House of Commons and Senate security forces. However, our support is contingent on this integrated security force being accountable to the speakers of the House and the Senate, and not to the authority of the RCMP, which reports to the executive branch of government.

This is not to suggest in the least that I have any doubts whatsoever about the competence of that police force, but I must recognize that within Parliament, if we cannot keep the legislative branch separate from the executive branch there could be some question of whether justice is being done or seen to be done. Let me give a hypothetical example. Imagine that the RCMP is the body in charge of this integrated force and a member has the impression that the RCMP is reporting the actions of a member to the government. Clearly, even if there is not a conflict of interest, there is certainly the appearance of a conflict of interest. That is why, ever since the age of enlightenment, everyone understands the importance of the separation of powers.

The question, then, is this: have we dimmed the light of understanding in 2015? The question remains unanswered, but personally, I am 100% convinced that the separation of powers is necessary and that the executive branch cannot be left in charge of this unified force.

Consequently, it is unacceptable for a government to twist Parliament's arm in its bid to control internal security at all costs.

Time is flying by and, once again, I will not have enough time to present everything I had prepared. Therefore, I will instead stop now in order to have as much time as possible for our discussions. On such a crucial issue as this one, I would prefer to have exchanges among members of the different parties, rather than questions and answers that seek to corner members and to give this motion a political and partisan slant. This House truly represents all Canadians and requires the implementation of the best possible security system.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, when I think about the events of October 22, two images come to my mind. I remember the shooting, which we have seen over and over again, probably too often, but I especially remember what happened the next day, which we probably have not seen often enough, when this Parliament spoke with one voice.

Now, just a few months later, we are again prepared to unite our voices in support of a security system, as long as the government accepts our amendment to its motion, which would unite all the voices in the House. Canadians expect Parliament—because that is what this is about—to speak with one voice on this issue. We expect the government to set partisanship aside on this issue.

Why not give ourselves the time and the means to do things properly?

[Assaults Against Public Transit Operators, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague immediately that we feel exactly the same way.

I would like to point out that members of my party have introduced a number of similar bills, and as I recall, though I was not here, during the previous Parliament, Bill C-333 dealt with exactly this problem.

My question is this: why has the government been dragging its feet on this issue since 2006? Can the sponsor tell me what happened to make this measure, which we will support, a priority?

[Employment Insurance, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it is a well-known fact that fewer and fewer unemployed workers have access to the employment insurance program as a result of successive Liberal and Conservative cuts.

Many of the 17,000 employees put out of work by Target will not have access to employment insurance because they have not accumulated enough hours to qualify. Tighter rules also have a significant impact on the economy of many communities.

As the number of job losses and bankruptcies increases, why do the Conservatives continue to raid the employment insurance fund instead of helping unemployed workers?

[Amendments to Standing Orders, December 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I often have the habit of starting my presentations with a quote. I have another one today. All quotes have their shortcomings and do not apply 100%, but I would like to quote Blaise Pascal, who said that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. The spirit of this quote could apply here. The motion introduced today does not represent hell, but the means proposed are not in keeping with the intentions of the motion. I will have the opportunity to explain.

Members will have already understood that I will be voting against this motion for the good reason that we do not have before us a bill, but a binding private member's motion. Therefore, I will not be referring to the two hours of debate, because the two hours allocated for this motion will be two hours of discussion. We will have the opportunity to listen to the arguments for and against from each member who speaks, of any political affiliation, including independents. However, we will not have the opportunity to take this discussion to a higher level where we can ask questions of others or of ourselves and talk about where this motion could be taken further and improved.

Since we are talking about a binding motion, it means that even if we mostly agree with the motion, it would take effect immediately, without any further discussion. A bill would have to go through the regular process, which involves a clause-by-clause examination in committee and a more thorough debate. Most members could have likely gotten on board with that approach.

I understand the member's concerns, but good intentions must be combined with appropriate methods in order to achieve truly democratic parliamentary reform. That is the main weakness of this motion. The motion proposes a legitimate principle, but the methods suggested for achieving it are somewhat questionable or even completely inappropriate.

I want to say right away that I am opposed to this motion, as I already mentioned. Before getting into the mechanics of this motion, I would like to make an analogy, but once again, no analogy is perfect. For those who are watching at home, we are fairly fond of sports here in the House. If we compare a political party to a hockey team, it is easier to understand the problem. It would be one thing if we let players choose their position on the team. They might choose based on talent but they might also choose based on the fact that forwards have better statistics and score more goals than defencemen. If we also asked players to choose their captain, their coach and even their general manager, it is easy to see how this would cause problems that would negatively affect the team's performance. The success of a hockey team or any sports team, like the success of a political party, depends on the ability to put the right person in the right place to do the right job.

In that regard, we are still trying to maintain a balance between members' opinions and our party-centric parliamentary system. Concretely, we are trying to make Parliament work effectively while enhancing the independence of members and their role of representing the interests of their constituencies.

As hon. members know, the public pays close attention to question period. Beyond how it appears in the media, question period is an opportunity for our audience and our constituents to keep abreast of the most pressing national and local issues. For that reason, it is appropriate for a party to be able to develop a strategy for effectively exercising oversight over the government's activities. This motion hinders the opposition's ability to organize and to check and analyze the government's policy choices. The motion proposes mechanisms that totally exclude the strategic dimension of this exercise.

In examining the content of the motion, I get the impression that the hon. member does not know what a party is trying to achieve during question period.

We ask questions to draw attention to local and national issues and show the flaws and contradictions in the government's policies. The ultimate objective is to put pressure on the government and make it reconsider its positions or, quite often, make it do something.

With this motion, it seems as though my colleague wants to turn question period into a game in which the objective is for every member to ask a question. To make the game even more fun, my colleague is suggesting that members take turns, on rotation, asking the questions they want to ask.

We can already imagine, if not the disorganization, how difficult it would be to organize an efficient question period in which we hold the government accountable. I remind members that it is important for every member to participate in this process, but we must keep in mind that we need to see results from our right to ask questions of the government. The most important thing for members of a team is for the team to be successful and to hold the government accountable to the people we represent.

The objective, then, is to push the government to change direction and, more importantly, to reveal to the public the flaws, if not the failures, of its public policies, while putting forward our point of view regarding the day-to-day concerns of our constituents. The motion completely alters the role of question period, because it would prevent the parties from working together and coming up with a consistent, effective strategy for putting pressure on the government on certain issues.

I would remind members that on many bills debated in the House, our effectiveness in question period as the official opposition party has forced the government to make some compromises and back down on some important points. Consider, for example, Bill C-23, which we asked about on a daily basis until the government backed down on some of the more controversial parts of its election reform.

Another example would be rail safety. Our collective effectiveness pushed the government to phase out DOT-111 tank cars, thereby making for safer rail shipment of dangerous goods, particularly flammable liquids like oil.

I find it hard to believe that these issues could have been dealt with as effectively in the kind of random, arbitrary question period that this motion is proposing. What is more, how can this motion ensure that there will be equal representation of genders, languages and regions? Those values are central to our objectives and they will be completely overlooked by the parties if this motion is adopted.

The same can be said of the lottery that would allow members to choose the various committees they wish to join. Once again, it is clear that any team strategy could go out the window. I am not saying that it definitely would and that this is unavoidable. However, there is a real risk that people would choose a committee for the wrong reasons, because one has a higher profile than another or because they are hoping to get re-elected. The basic premise of the work we do as parliamentarians is that everyone's skills should be put to the best possible use. In other words, we should be putting the best person in the best position to get the best results. The lottery being proposed would not achieve that objective.

There are many other reforms we could have worked together on and even agreed on in order to promote the important role that MPs play in the House. I will just quickly mention the option that we put on the table, since I am running out of time. We proposed that after 2015, we no longer use this unfair election method where votes are not given equal value or importance in the House. Proportional representation would eliminate or alleviate many of the problems that this motion is looking to resolve.

I would like to conclude by, unfortunately, restating my intention to vote against this motion. I think that the gap between its objectives and the methods proposed to achieve those objectives is too great for me to be able to give it my support.

[Employment Insurance, December 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, after getting rid of one out of every five employees in his department since 2010—probably more bureaucrats—the Minister of Employment has finally resigned himself to hiring not five, 10 or 15 but 400 temporary employees to deal with the unacceptable wait times for employment insurance.

This is such a huge mess that the number of complaints has skyrocketed by 40% compared to last year. It is not right to make unemployed workers wait, when there is already a two-week waiting period for employment insurance benefits.

Does the minister actually believe that hiring temporary workers is a real solution to the mess he has made?

[Mauricie, December 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Moisson Mauricie just finished its campaign, and today the media in my riding are holding their charity drive. Tomorrow will be the 56th edition of the Noël du Pauvre telethon. These few events illustrate how great the needs are in my riding, as in many regions across the country.

These three events meet their objectives by appealing to the compassion we all feel as Christmas approaches. However, I want to point out that hundreds of volunteers at these organizations have been working for months to make these events a success and also to bring out unparalleled community spirit.

These dedicated volunteers embody the Christmas spirit all year long and encourage everyone to keep up the spirit of sharing. I want to express my appreciation and respect for all those who give their all for the well-being of others.

In the spirit of Christmas, let us look not at hands that give or hands that receive, but simply at hands that share.