Robert Aubin

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, December 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we live in a funny world. In recent years, we have seen lots of trends, including speed dating, as though people needed to date in a hurry. I have the impression that something like “speed parliamentarism” is emerging, because they are trying to sell us all the extraordinary measures that are supposedly in this bill in about 15 minutes and we cannot debate them. That is the purpose of this measure.

The debate should revolve around the reasons why the government is bulldozing the parliamentary system, which gives each member the chance to speak on behalf of his or her constituents on such an important and sizeable bill. Nothing is being said about that. I would like to hear what the government representative has to say about that. What is the basic reason for bulldozing the parliamentary rules for the 83rd time?

[Housing, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are talking out of both sides of their mouth on the pyrrhotite issue, and they are even starting to believe their own stories.

A few months ago, they committed to changing the concrete standard, but we still have not received a response. That is typical of the federal government.

In the meantime, the problem is growing and this disaster could well happen again anywhere in Canada. Every week we are seeing more and more victims, and their situation is getting increasingly complicated.

Is the minister waiting for an election campaign to change the standard and to provide financial support for victims, or will he show some compassion and sense of responsibility right now and do his job?

[Public Works and Government Services, November 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think that the slogan “Our regions in power” has come to mean “We are abandoning your regions.”

Mauricie has seen hard times under the Conservatives' bad management. Wood processing has stalled, the manufacturing industry has slowed down, and Radio-Canada is feeling the pinch from the government's ideological cuts.

In addition, the closure of the Health Canada office in Shawinigan affected 34 jobs and means a loss of $1.5 million.

Can the minister commit to integrating those jobs into the federal public service in Shawinigan, in the region, where we need jobs?

[Business of Supply, November 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Churchill for her presentation.

I would like to tell her that having been born in the 1960s myself, my first experience with the consequences of thalidomide came when I met classmates in my own classes who unfortunately were affected because their mothers had taken this drug. I became aware of this illness very early. I am very moved to see that this motion is getting unanimous support in the House this afternoon and that everyone wants to move forward on this.

I want to ask my colleague whether she thinks that this wonderful unanimity that we have here today could possibly lead to the creation of a real program, so that this issue could be resolved before the next election, which is 11 months away, and whether it could become in some way a tangible example of the empathy this House has for the people we represent.

[Official Languages, November 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the government opened two new Twitter accounts, one in English and one in French, that it is marketing as Canada's voice to the world.

It is obvious that the English account is rather awkward, even grating, but the French account is an absolute disaster. I do not even know where to start—maybe with the sketchy French.

For example, one tweet talks about “captivating” the public's attention rather than “capturing” it. After that, there are several tweets that are nothing but word-for-word translations of jokes written in English.

The worst tweet of all goes like this: “@AuCanada est maintenant sur Twitter, Ouais!”

Once again, this shows the Conservatives' deep lack of respect for francophones. If they want to tweet and put Canadian culture out there, they need to think and write with the proper level of respect for both cultures or they will demonstrate an utter lack of sensitivity toward francophones and Quebec.

Still, that is what we have come to expect from the Conservatives for some time now.

[Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, November 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, given that I live in Mauricie in the riding of Trois-Rivières, I could hardly turn down the invitation to participate in the debate on Bill C-574. This is an important bill that we are debating because it promotes the use of wood in the construction and renovation of federal buildings and emphasizes the role that the Department of Public Works and Government Services can play in meeting this objective.

To begin, I would like to say that I support Bill C-574 at second reading because it gives us the opportunity to promote an economically viable renewable resource that can both help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stimulate the economy in my region and my riding. It is a perfect example—as if we needed further evidence—of how economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive but go hand in hand.

That being said, Bill C-574 could have gone much further had it been part of a national strategy for the wood industry. I will come back to that a little later.

Wood is much more energy efficient than steel or concrete. The world's population is increasing as quickly as the demand for resources, so a renewable resource like wood is a responsible choice for consumers and society as a whole.

Furthermore, applied research shows that much less energy is expended to manufacture wood products than to produce concrete, plastic or other materials. A study conducted by a research institute in the United States compared the environmental effects of houses framed with wood, steel and concrete. As one might expect, steel or concrete frame houses produce 26% more greenhouse gases and release far more atmospheric pollutants.

Wood is energy efficient and economically efficient. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, wood structures cost much less than steel or masonry structures.

Environmentally speaking, concrete or steel structures can emit up to 81% more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In other words, concrete and steel are energy guzzlers, while much less energy is used to build largely comparable structures out of wood.

I would also like to point out the importance of the national building code in the development of multi-level wood frame buildings. When the right technical conditions are in place, the national building code authorizes the construction of wood frame buildings as tall as four storeys. It even authorizes some exceptions when justified by the standards. That is a first step in and of itself.

However, the government could also learn more from the national building code and should even take a look at international experience and expertise in this area. Norway, for example, is often cited for the work it does in combatting inequality, and it is also exemplary with respect to the use of wood in construction. In the city of Kirkenes there are plans to build a 17-storey wood frame building. That is far higher than the 4-storey buildings that are permitted under our national building code. I believe it would be worthwhile to at least look at that project.

Countries such as Germany and Sweden do not limit the height of wood frame buildings. Assessing the environmental impact of wood demonstrates that it is, by far, the most environmentally responsible choice, as well as the most economically viable and energy-efficient one.

In addition, the national building code offers options that the minister could use as the basis for increasing the use of wood in the construction of federal buildings. However, after looking closely at this bill, I think—and I said this at the beginning—it could have gone much much further, and the NDP goes further.

My colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, moved a motion calling for a national strategy for the wood industry. As we all know, the drastic drop in demand for construction wood and international competition are the main reasons for the decline of the forestry industry.

According to Forest Canada, the closure of 80 mills resulted in over 11,000 layoffs. It is hard to quantify the human tragedy behind those numbers. Despite the seriousness of the situation, I think that our forestry industry's potential remains largely untapped, just like the potential of Bill C-574.

I would like to point out that Canada has 10% of the world's forest cover and 30% of the world's boreal forest. Those are major natural assets that we can leverage to support a sustainable and competitive economy. In light of that, it is clear that there should be a comprehensive strategy for Canada's forestry sector so that it can achieve its full potential.

I would like to focus for a minute on my riding, Trois-Rivières, which is at the centre of this debate. Just last summer, Kruger launched the first cellulose filament demonstration plant.

I just want to add that the Conservative government is not investing enough in the recovery of the forestry industry, nor is it investing enough in conducting, funding and supporting the basic research required for projects as important as the one I just mentioned.

This new biomaterial, cellulose filaments, is revolutionary. It has huge potential for the Canadian forestry industry because it can be combined with a number of other materials to create high-value products. More importantly, cellulose filaments are becoming indispensable to the Canadian pulp and paper industry.

One can therefore understand my enthusiasm for our local jewel, because it will produce diversified high-value products that are highly sought after by Canadian and international industries. Thanks to this innovation, the pulp and paper industry in Trois-Rivières could recover and fuel the region's economy once again. What is more, the Forest Products Association of Canada could succeed in international markets.

The creativity of the people of Trois-Rivières knows no bounds. I could also talk about UQTR, a university known for its pulp and paper industry research centres, which is also contributing to research and the economic recovery of my region.

Patrice Mangin, a professor in the chemical engineering department, said:

We have 650,000 tonnes of wood waste in Mauricie alone, which could be used to make diesel. Imagine the jobs this could create—1,500 to 2,000 jobs in Mauricie alone.

With the motion moved by my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, we could achieve three objectives that go further than Bill C-574. First of all, we could improve our competitiveness in order to compete with international industries; second, we could diversify our export market to be less dependent on the U.S. housing market; and third, we could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In closing, and for once I think I have managed my time almost perfectly, I would remind the House that wood is a renewable resource that is efficient in several respects. Industrial, academic and environmental stakeholders all agree on the merits of wood, and I hope the House can reach the same consensus.

I therefore support the bill at second reading, and touch wood, I hope the government will support it too.

[Care for Veterans, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to salute all the veterans living in my riding. They can count on the fact that I will work in this place on their behalf at all times, and to the best of my ability, not just by speaking to the motion moved today, but also by helping them with any problem they may face. My riding office is always open to them. They are always welcome to come in, so that together we can find the best solutions as quickly as possible.

I must say that it is November 25 and it was not so long ago that, no matter our political affiliation, we were all preparing to participate in Remembrance Day ceremonies in our respective ridings. There is no doubt in my mind that there was more than just a consensus, that members of Parliament were actually unanimous in recognizing the importance of what we were doing. We were recognizing the duty to remember our veterans every year.

However, this duty to remember should not take place just once a year, as part of an event we celebrate. We have to carry it deep within ourselves, 365 days a year, to ensure that those who did so much for the country can in turn receive what they need.

Even though I support this motion, as my party does, I nevertheless have to point out my concerns with respect to the development and delivery of services. I will guarantee that the services are provided as quickly and consistently as possible.

I would first like to talk about the red tape involved in delivering veterans' services. At present, our veterans have to fill out a mountain of paperwork and go through a lot of red tape in the hope of receiving services and benefits.

The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs suggested that the government implement a unified payment system that would result in a single monthly payment to the veteran. This measure would simplify things, it would be easy to implement and it would be efficient, because it would prevent mistakes arising from the multitude of administrative forms, mistakes that delay veterans' access to the benefits they are waiting for.

The government's promise in response to this recommendation was nothing but empty words. It did not truly commit to easing the administrative burden for our veterans. The Conservatives did not stop there, and I will share some other examples.

One example is the duplication of programs. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces contribute to the life insurance plan included in the service income security insurance plan. However, Veterans Affairs Canada already offers several programs under this plan. That is why the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Veterans Ombudsman jointly recommended that VAC no longer offer SISIP programs.

The Veterans Ombudsman called for the Minister of Veterans Affairs to work with the Minister of National Defence on an independent review to determine whether it was efficient to have duplicate programs. I must point out that what we are all looking for is the most efficient way to provide services as quickly as possible to those who have already rendered the service we asked of them.

Since enlightenment comes when ideas collide, the government's response reflects the meeting of these two great minds—the two ministers I just mentioned. I would like to share a quote to illustrate the concerns I still have:

The Government agrees in principle with this proposal and will explore options for addressing the recommendation.

I read that many times, in one form or another, in the government's responses to the reports. All too often the answer is “yes, but” or “yes, however” or “yes, but later”, when what we need is meaningful action right now.

While government action is going into hibernation, our veterans feel as though they are being abandoned once they leave the Canadian Armed Forces. They are suffering from the lack of support and assistance when it comes to health care. That is why the committee suggested that the government should be more proactive by ensuring that health care is provided to all military personnel before they leave the Canadian Armed Forces.

Military personnel leaving the armed forces to become veterans need to be supported by a continuum of care, because many illnesses can emerge years after they have left the forces. I am thinking of illnesses related to mental health in particular, such as PTSD, which can emerge much later and can adversely affect the health of our veterans, as well as the health of the people around them. Also, the closing of the last hospital dedicated to veterans is not helping matters in terms of the problems they face every day with their families.

To make matters worse, modern veterans are excluded from the long-term care program offered to those who fought in the Second World War and the Korean War.

More generally speaking, the statistics published by the Veterans Ombudsman are extremely alarming. A total of 1,428 veterans out of 76,446 Canadian Forces veteran clients were assessed by Veterans Affairs Canada to be totally and permanently incapacitated.

Those statistics are alarming, but a lack of statistics in other areas is even more worrisome. Veterans Affairs Canada does not even have any statistics about the rate of suicide among veterans, despite the recommendations of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman and the Veterans Ombudsman. That gives us an idea of the work that still needs to be done in this file, work that cannot be done fast enough, given the existing needs.

The government does not have a stellar track record financially speaking either. A total of $1.1 billion was not used for its intended purpose and was returned to the government treasury. Recently, the government announced a $200 million program. We are not going to say no to that money, but veterans need both that $200 million and the $1.1 billion.

I digress. After the committee recommended that Veterans Affairs Canada increase the level of compensation, the government showed, yet again, a “great interest” in the recommendation. Here is a another quote, as noteworthy as the first:

The Government agrees in principle with this proposal and will explore options for addressing the recommendation.

That is a perfect example of bureaucratese, of language void of all meaning. This government has become a master in the art of deciding to think about exploring its options. That is the kind of effective government responses that are being proposed. We on this side of the House, both sides of the House even, and especially veterans, are expecting something far more effective than that.

While the government is meditating on this, the NDP is proposing meaningful and effective solutions to modernize the new veterans charter in its entirety. Speaking of the new charter, if we were to look at the time it took to implement it, I am not even sure it could be called a “new charter”. In this case, “new” more likely means the latest on the list.

Since I am quickly running out of time, I will skip over a few remarks and jump right to my conclusion. The NDP supports this motion because, as I said, there is more than just a consensus; everyone in this House unanimously agrees that we should give our veterans their due. More than ever, by supporting this motion, the NDP is reiterating its support for our veterans, in terms of medical and financial assistance, as well as support for their families, who are too often marginalized.

I hope we can set aside our partisan differences and I hope all members of this House will support this motion in recognition of the sacred duty that all responsible governments have towards their veterans.

[Employment Insurance, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about child poverty, but there are also parents who are living in poverty. Take, for example, seasonal workers who, year after year, have to face waiting periods and seasonal gaps, in addition to receiving a maximum of 55% of their insurable earnings, if they even qualify after the Conservative reforms.

Instead of funnelling workers' contributions into a program that will not create any jobs, why is the government not improving employment insurance in order to reduce poverty, including child poverty?

[Social Development, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the chair of the Social Security Tribunal confirmed that there are significant delays in the processing of cases: 14,677 cases are languishing on her desk.

At this rate it will take 11 years to clear the backlog just for the income security section. That is shameful. For over a year, Ms. Brazeau has been in regular contact with the minister about the lack of staff at the tribunal, but the minister is asleep at the switch.

How can the minister allow such an administrative nightmare?

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the context.

If I had more time, I would go into all of this government's expenses that I would call inappropriate. Governing a country involves making choices. For a government, as with personal finances, the main obstacle to pursuing dreams and plans is the availability of funds. Good managers are those who are capable of making good choices.

When it comes to public safety and civil liberties, many things are already possible under the existing legal framework. However, it is difficult to do anything if the resources are not there. As my father would always say, if you do not walk the talk, nothing will get done.

A study needs to be done about the funding that is available so that the agencies already on the ground can do their job effectively before they are given new tools, which will probably not be properly funded either.