Robert Aubin

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for reminding us of those facts. However, since those facts were already set out several times today, I would like to ask a related but somewhat different question.

Over the past few hours, days and soon to be weeks, the Liberals have been defending themselves by saying that remediation agreements protect jobs. If I wanted to introduce a measure to defend and protect jobs, I would not have inserted it into an omnibus budget implementation bill. I likely would have made a big deal about what I was doing to address the issue. However, this provision was hidden in an omnibus budget implementation bill.

Does this show that the Liberals are trying to give themselves tools to help friends of the party rather than defend Canadians?

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's remarks and everything members have said since this debate began. As I am neither a lawyer nor an expert in the Criminal Code, deferred prosecution agreements or remediation agreements, it was an interesting legal education for me.

One Liberal member even shared some statistics at the end of his presentation. He told us that, since this whole issue—which has more to do with how the Prime Minister handled things than with SNC-Lavalin itself—first came up, the Prime Minister has fielded 45 questions on the subject. Unfortunately, he did not share statistics about the number of answers we received. It seems to me that we have received about two or three different answers to those 45 questions, and they probably all meant the same thing.

How confident is my colleague that the Prime Minister would provide legitimate answers to questions the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would ask him if this motion were to receive the approval of the House?

[Petitions, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, although I hope this issue will be addressed in the budget to be presented on March 19, I will rise in the House for as long as necessary to remind members that the people of Trois-Rivières have been waiting for 25 years. I will also remind members that the millions of dollars in studies sitting on the minister's desk all indicate that the government should stop studying and take action.

This is what the people of Trois-Rivières who signed this petition want, for a number of reasons. For example, it would help combat climate change, help stimulate economic development in the regions, and allow for travel between the regions.

We want action as soon as possible.

[Petitions, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, in just a few days or weeks, I will probably have tabled as many pages of a petition calling for a high-frequency train to Trois-Rivières as the minister has studies on his desk. Unfortunately, inaction is still his trademark.

I would like to remind members of the main reasons why we would even agree to see this project included in the Liberal platform, if the Liberals are unwilling to take immediate action. Specifically, we think that a high-frequency train would be a good way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, developing regional economies and facilitating inter-municipal mobility.

[Rail Transportation, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it was Manitoba's turn to suffer a massive derailment involving flammable substances. With trains getting longer and running more frequently, and with deregulation on the rise, another tragedy like that of Lac-Mégantic could still happen. That much is clear. Residents are worried. They do not want to experience another tragedy like that.

The Minister of Transport is all talk and no action.

Could the Prime Minister direct his minister to get to work on rail safety in order to protect Canadians?

[Divorce Act, February 6th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, let me try again. Hopefully, this time, I will be able to make myself understood and the minister will not talk to me about the merits of the bill in his answer. That is not the purpose of the 30 minutes that have been allocated for discussion. This is a procedural debate. I would like the minister to tell me why it is so important or urgent to impose time allocation on a bill for which there is such broad support. Surely there are other ways to come to an agreement between parties.

The work that was done in committee is one thing. The work that must be done in the House is another. We were all elected to do that work. If the government wants to take away our opportunity to debate a bill, there should at least be a discussion among the parties, which does not seem to be the case.

Why is the government imposing time allocation rather than negotiating with the leaders of each party, for example?

[Divorce Act, February 6th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, in our parliamentary process, time allocation is meant to be used in exceptional circumstances only, and yet, according to my count, this is the 56th time that the Liberal government has brought in time allocation.

I am wondering about the reason for this afternoon's time allocation motion. Perhaps the Liberals want to beat the record set by the previous Conservative government.

I am wondering about the broad consensus. If there actually is such a broad consensus about moving forward on this bill, why do the Liberals believe that the only way to do it is by imposing time allocation rather than debating it with the other parties?

In my opinion, this is another example of this government's arrogance.

[Petitions, February 6th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government's last budget is due in a few weeks, a few months at the most, and the people of Trois-Rivières want to make their voices heard now more than ever. They have been waiting 25 years for passenger rail service to return to Trois-Rivières.

That is why I am happy to speak on their behalf by presenting another instalment of a petition that attests not just to consensus, but to unanimity among stakeholders in Trois-Rivières and Mauricie as well as all the people who want the high-frequency train from Quebec to Windsor to serve their community.

On their behalf, I am presenting another instalment of this petition, which calls on the government to take action on this matter during its current mandate, rather than making it an election promise for some future government to keep.

[Education, February 6th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, every time our society has undergone tremendous change, it has been related to education. To name just a few such changes since I was a kid, take for example our thoughts and attitudes towards seat belts, smoking, waste disposal and recycling, the recognition of LGBT rights, and climate change. In each instance, younger generations had a profound influence on their elders.

Change was possible in all of those areas because school was, and remains, the crucible of knowledge that shapes minds on a neutral, scientific basis. Since Teacher Appreciation Week and Hooked on School Days both happen to fall in February, I wanted to take this opportunity to express my admiration for these women and men who give it their all day after day, who sometimes inspire dreams, but always help keep them alive.

The idea of offering a teacher an apple is probably outdated, but I encourage anyone who is a parent to reach out and send an email of thanks or encouragement to those who are there for our kids day in and day out.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but I cannot help but draw a comparison between the new Conservative and new wine. Often, the packaging is attractive. As for taste, I will let everyone make up their own mind, but I will just say that mine is pretty much set. Let us go back to the facts; when I hear my colleague talk about this co-operation that we should have, I wonder why we cannot achieve it.

Since the beginning of this conversation today, we have heard the Conservatives tell us ad nauseam that there will not be any job losses. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable repeated it at least 15 times. However, the Conservatives rejected our amendment to specifically add that to the motion they introduced.

Can they not include in their motion that we will implement this idea while guaranteeing no job losses? Why do they not agree to put in writing what they have been telling us in the House right from the start?