Robert Aubin

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. I always appreciate the relevance of his comments, which are based on his indisputable experience and expertise, especially on a topic like this one.

My question for him is similar to one we just heard from a Liberal colleague, who said that Canada should be providing more meaningful emergency assistance to the countries struggling with this epidemic in West Africa.

The motion that we are debating today is very specific. It states that the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada and the Minister of Health must appear before the Standing Committee on Health twice monthly. However, we all know what an insatiable appetite the Conservatives have for transparency and disclosing information.

In my colleague's experience, would it not make sense for the Liberals to open the door to an amendment that would put more emphasis on what we really want, which is meaningful action on the ground, both within the country and abroad?

[Employment Insurance, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, many families in the regions are expecting to go through some lean months because fewer jobs are now available in seasonal industries.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are taking steps to generate an employment insurance fund surplus, but families affected by unemployment will not see a penny more.

The NDP believes that protecting the employment insurance fund is essential to ensuring that contributions are not used for other purposes.

My question is very simple. Why is the government abandoning the regions and workers in seasonal industries even though the employment insurance fund is building up a surplus?

[Red Tape Reduction Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time so that as many people as possible can speak to this bill, which, at this point in time, raises more questions than answers in my mind. I have a very hard time trusting the Conservative government on this issue, even though we may agree on a few fundamental points.

Bill C-21 was introduced by the President of the Treasury Board and has two key provisions. To begin, it will implement the one-for-one rule, in order to supposedly reduce the red tape that is hampering business growth and innovation.

This raises questions in my mind. It seems to me that a simple mathematical equation demonstrates that if we take one regulation away for every one we create—or one minus one—we get zero. We are back at square one, and nothing has improved. We have simply kept the situation from getting any worse. The rule is also based on the assumption that the two regulations are equal. A company will invest a different amount of time or financial resources, depending on the regulation. That is the first problem.

Second, this bill would make the President of the Treasury Board the ultimate arbiter when it comes to eliminating regulations; it would give him a monopoly on that. That is the second problem and also very typical of this government's bills, which seek to concentrate power in the hands of ministers. This is another great example of that.

This bill certainly has to be analyzed in committee because, even though we agree on some of its general principles, it needs amendments to correct its shortcomings, particularly with respect to the environment.

We also have to make sure that regulations protecting the health and safety of Quebeckers and Canadians are not gutted. We have to ensure that the health and safety of Canadians remain priorities in the debate on businesses' administrative burden.

Small and medium-sized businesses are crucial to our economy. There is no doubt that they are essential to the job creation process, especially in Quebec, but also across the country. In ridings like mine, we want to see small businesses become medium-sized businesses. They are the backbone of our economy.

Since we know how important small and medium-sized businesses are to economic recovery, we are of course ready to explore various options available to maximize their potential. Businesses could then focus on their two main objectives: growing their resources and creating jobs.

Now that we have laid out the general principles, let us take a closer look at the implications of this bill. Let us talk about the first original sin: from the bill's preamble to its provisions, the notion of environmental safety is simply absent from the spirit and the letter of the bill. The unbelievable way this bill was conceived sacrifices all environmental issues. If there is one subject on which all Canadians agree, it is the environment, and yet it is completely absent from the bill.

The Conservative approach is to allow industrial stakeholders to self-regulate. That formula has been used in the past and has led to catastrophes. Here once again, industrial stakeholders regulate their own activities without any public power looking at the risks those activities pose to the environment

Furthermore, health and safety are mentioned only in the bill's preamble, which leaves very little room in real terms for the importance that really should be placed on issues of health and safety.

Since my colleagues opposite went to the trouble of including the one-for-one rule, the question is this: why did they not allocate the resources needed to make sure there is legislation in place to also protect the health and safety of Canadians?

By all accounts, this bill embodies the Conservatives' thinking on the environment. They seem to think that environmental safety is an administrative burden that must be reduced, when environmental issues are directly related to the safety of citizens.

Our legitimate questions on the scope of this bill on health and safety will lead the NDP to propose robust amendments to ensure the long-term sustainability of regulations protecting the health, safety and environment of Canadians. The rules that are in the public's interest must be upheld. This is not a question of exerting theoretical control over the number of rules, but of determining which ones are truly useful for the public.

We must focus on tangible measures to help small business owners expand and beware of the illusions Bill C-21 might create. The critical question posed by this bill could be summed up in these terms: it is not enough to reduce red tape for SMEs in an effort to support their potential for growth and innovation. These claims have to translate into action and these reduction measures must be consistent with health and environmental safety criteria.

When it came to moving from words to action, the Conservatives refused to support the NDP motion on the regulation of credit card fees that card issuers charge merchants, for example. However, the lack of an ombudsman and non-existent regulation in this area are having a serious negative impact on the competitiveness of small businesses and constitute an extra administrative burden for these merchants.

With regard to safety standards, we need look no further than the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, which is still fresh in everyone's minds. This tragedy reminds us of the extreme consequences that drastic deregulation can have and the risk that such an approach poses to rail safety.

Furthermore, the Liberals, who are also very timid when it comes to regulation, reinforced the principle of deregulation of rail safety by continuing to implement an approach allowing the industry to monitor the safety of its own operations instead of requiring the government to set standards that the industry has to meet.

That being said, the main focus of Bill C-21 is to implement a one-for-one rule. This approach, which was discussed by the Red Tape Reduction Commission, requires the government to eliminate a regulation every time it adopts a new one. Once again, I would like to remind hon. members that there is no evidence of any reductions in red tape.

However, the bill does not explicitly state that the regulations can apply to health and safety issues. In addition, the bill stipulates that the President of the Treasury Board has the power to calculate the cost of the administrative burden and determine how the law will apply to regulations changed when the one-for-one rule came into effect.

It is clear just how much bargaining power is being given to the President of the Treasury Board. In other words, he could be granted discretionary powers over regulations affecting safety, health and the environment. Centralizing regulating and deregulating powers in the hands of the President of the Treasury Board is, without a doubt, an unsound, undesirable way to manage the public service.

We are fully aware that we need to reduce red tape by offering balanced solutions to our entrepreneurs. However, we feel that this bill needs to be examined more closely in committee so that we can address its main weaknesses, including—and I have said this many times—the ability to protect the health and safety of Quebeckers and Canadians.

I will now answer questions.

[Criminal Code, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, drunk driving is a public safety issue that deserves more of our attention. That applies to our assessment of whether the legislative measures in this bill can help eliminate this scourge.

It goes without saying that enhancing road safety involves several factors, from the quality of physical infrastructure to Criminal Code provisions penalizing drunk drivers.

I would like to go over some key numbers that illustrate the devastating impact of this scourge on families in Quebec and Canada. Some 5.4 million Canadians say that they have a family member or friend who has driven drunk or caused an accident. We know that with this type of statistic, when people talk about a friend or an acquaintance, they are sometimes talking about themselves, but because they do not want to incriminate themselves, they say they know someone. That number is still astronomical.

Nearly a quarter of the Canadian population has a family member or close friend who has been a victim of a drunk driving accident. According to Transport Canada, alcohol was a factor in nearly 30% of traffic accident fatalities from 2003 to 2005.

Unfortunately, my riding, Trois-Rivières, has troubling statistics on this too. According to a study that looked at June of 2013, the Trois-Rivières police service made about one arrest a day, 28 that month to be precise. Impaired driving is still the leading criminal cause of death in Canada.

These statistics show how important it is to examine this issue. I support moving forward with the bill introduced by my colleague, the member for Prince Albert, so that the committee can look at it, study its impact on sentence length and ensure that the provisions comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian criminal law.

The Criminal Code of Canada has very strict laws and sanctions for impaired driving. Specifically, several Canadian provinces have in place a three-tier system based on blood alcohol content. The first tier is zero milligrams of alcohol for young and novice drivers. The second tier allows for administrative sanctions in some cases for a BAC over 0.05 milligrams. Lastly, drivers with a BAC over 0.08 milligrams are liable to sanctions under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Furthermore, new provisions were added in the Criminal Code and came into force on July 2, 2008. This means that there are now nine distinct offences related to impaired driving. Unfortunately, despite the introduction of more coercive measures, the Canadian Police Association recognizes the challenges faced on the ground in terms of combatting this scourge.

In addition to the human cost related to this phenomenon, the average cost of impaired driving accidents in Canada from 1999 to 2006 has been estimated at $1.9 billion per year. This estimate does not include any of the social costs that result from those offences.

With respect to Bill C-590, it would be interesting to explore whether reducing mandatory minimum prison sentences for impaired driving causing death is the right thing to do here. It would be useful to debate this, because these mandatory minimum sentences are shorter than existing sentences. Reducing mandatory minimum sentences for impaired driving causing death could prove counterproductive. According to the jurisprudence, minimum penalties tend to become the default penalty. In other words, minimum penalties become the norm, rather than being reserved for the least serious cases or those where there are mitigating factors.

Accordingly, it would be entirely reasonable to expect defence lawyers to ask for the minimum penalty, unless the Crown can prove that the defendant's crime deserves a punishment that will serve as an example.

The federal Criminal Code is not enough to address the risks to road safety caused by impaired drivers. The duty to enforce the law in this area is shared by the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

There are a number of solutions that we can implement incrementally to deter impaired drivers from getting behind the wheel and endangering others. One of the deterrents that can be implemented is random breathalyzer tests for blood alcohol concentrations.

In Ireland, the Road Safety Authority believes that random breathalyzer testing has led to a 23% reduction in the number of highway deaths. That is something that could be considered. This last measure is just one of many options available to us to effectively fight delinquent behaviour.

To introduce an effective measure that will eradicate this scourge, we have to consider the fact that drunk driving is the manifestation of social problems that coercive measures alone cannot address. By adopting this approach, we could transform our legislative framework and make it preventive as well as punitive.

Preventing impaired driving must be based on campaigns that look at much more than just drunk driving and also raise awareness among drivers of the link between alcoholism, violence and risky behaviour.

Impaired driving is above all a social problem. We have to consider ways to prevent risky behaviours and create public policies with the ultimate objective of reducing risky behaviours in our society—including impaired driving—rather than creating a legislative framework that depends solely on coercion. Alcoholism does lead to crime, but we must remember that coercion can make it worse.

Preventive social policies, such as those that seek to address the socio-economic determinants of alcoholism, produce more effective results in the long term by taking a holistic approach to the problem, which requires the intervention of health professionals, social workers and members of police forces.

In closing, I support the bill introduced by the member for Prince Albert. I believe that sending it to committee will provide the opportunity for more in-depth analysis of how to achieve the desired results.

We should also be looking to technological advancements for solutions. For example, I am thinking about car locks that are opened with a number combination instead of a key. They make it more difficult to open the door if the driver has had one too many and is not fully coherent. Opening the door requires some thought, and the door is prevented from opening if it is not unlocked within a given time frame.

The Criminal Code, new technology and international experience in this area should all be part of our collective thought process as we determine how we can put an end to this problem, which has disastrous consequences for families in Quebec and Canada.

[Housing, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative ministers from Quebec have done absolutely nothing for pyrrhotite victims. They would rather send the issue back to the Quebec courts.

The federal government is responsible for concrete aggregate standards. However, it failed to prevent this tragedy. People in the Mauricie region are calling for a public inquiry to look into this tragedy.

Will the minister listen and do what it takes to ensure that this kind of crisis never happens again?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult for me to answer that question by trying to get inside the head of a Conservative, which is almost genetically impossible.

Clearly, it must be because of their views and interests. I even think that, to some extent, it is part of the election strategy to get what they believe to be the majority of Canadians behind these air strikes. However, in the weeks to come, as we find that this undertaking has not been effective, I believe that public opinion will change dramatically.

It will not be a coincidence that we will re-evaluate this mission in six months when we all know that nothing will have been resolved. The government is doing this so that it can gauge public opinion about its decisions as it goes along.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, if New Democrat MPs sleep well at night, that is because they are consistent with their beliefs and in tune with what their constituents tell them. New Democrat MPs are not saying we should not participate—far from it.

It is strange that my colleague opposite mentioned conversation because we are talking about the bombs they want to drop on people's heads, which will probably produce a lot more casualties than anything the Islamic State is doing. I do not want to downplay the actions of this terrorist group, but it is totally obvious that air strikes are not the solution to this conflict.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I take part in this debate on the Canadian Forces combat mission in Iraq, and with a sense of urgency to offer a different take on this from that of my Conservative colleagues, whose approach I do not share.

The debate is vigorous because once again the Conservative government is trying to present things in a far too simplistic or binary way, coupled with a flagrant lack of relevant information. This insults the intelligence of partners and citizens who would like to understand the issues and the context, instead of getting broad strokes of Conservative rhetoric.

In the government's eyes, there are good guys and bad guys, allies with whom we must join in solidarity, meaning only one thing: contribute to the air strikes.

The question is: of the 60 countries that make up this international alliance, are those who have chosen to intervene other than militarily, such as Italy or Norway, lesser allies?

The government's position rests mainly on argument (iii) of the motion moved by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which says:

That this House accept that, unless confronted with strong and direct force, the threat ISIL poses to international peace and security, including to Canadian communities, will continue to grow;

Are we to understand that deploying a strong and direct force means sending six CF-18s?

One does not need to be a five-star general to understand that air strikes are not a guarantee of success and that a strong and direct force requires a strong army backed by an air force.

Thank heavens the government has not taken us down that path yet, but I am afraid that is in the cards for the future because it is not very likely that the situation will be resolved six months from now. A number of analysts even go so far as to say that the air strikes may be completely counterproductive.

Just look at the recent air strikes in Kobani, which, in addition to being inaccurate, have prompted the exodus of hundreds of new refugees and momentarily dispersed Islamic State militants into the city, transforming the conflict into urban guerrilla warfare that is hard to combat from the air. Once the bombing stops, the forces regroup and move on to their next objective.

It is difficult to argue that there is a simple solution to a complex problem. It is an illusion to try and make people believe that aerial bombings are the solution to a conflict that pits the world against this Islamic terrorist group. Things get even trickier when it comes to clearly defining the objectives of the Canadian mission, where our troops will be based, who will lead them, what criteria will be used to measure our progress and how we will measure our success or the obligation to extend our mission beyond the planned timeframe. All of those questions remain unanswered by the very people who are trying to convince us that Canada needs to be engaged in a military mission.

The conflict we are facing today is the result of just such an approach, where, under false pretenses, the United States invaded Iraq and dismantled it. The country the Americans left behind needed to be reorganized. In addition to numerous tensions, there was no balance of power, and the governance structure was in disarray.

It should also be said that this combat mission is in no way justified by a UN or NATO mandate. Here again, the government is flirting with disinformation by insinuating that our involvement is connected to UN resolution 2178. However, that resolution addresses the need to prevent nationals of member states from leaving their country to join the jihadist ranks. It has nothing to do with any international strike force.

Does that mean that we should do nothing and that Canada should remain unmoved by these atrocities? Of course not.

In fact, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre went to Iraq just weeks ago and, upon his return, briefed us on what he witnessed and the requests that were made. There were two requests, and they are perfectly in line with the amendment proposed by the leader of the NDP and the hon. member for Outremont in his speech yesterday.

The NDP is not saying that Canada should sit idly by and do nothing. On the contrary, we are saying that our humanitarian aid should be increased dramatically.

For instance, we are asking the government to increase humanitarian aid activities in areas where they could have an immediate impact and save lives every day, starting today.

We also want to offer Canada's assistance in investigating and prosecuting war crimes. We also want Canada to provide support to the many victims of sexual abuse.

All of these measures do not preclude our support for military involvement, which, we believe, should focus on transporting weapons for a period of up to three months, as this will allow local stakeholders to act effectively on the ground. After all, they know the area so much better than we do, including its geographic, ethnic and demographic makeup. When it comes to saving lives, that is how our efforts could be most effective most quickly.

Of course, we were all horrified by those terrible images showing the beheading of journalists and humanitarian workers. However, since there is not scale or gradation I could apply to such horrors, our reflection should transcend the disgust generated by these atrocities and our action must respond to all of the horrible situations caused by this conflict.

Although I commend the $28 million Canada has promised, we must recognize that that is not very much. The UN has asked for over $300 million for the short term, so is $28 million enough of a contribution from Canada? To answer that question, unfortunately, I have only a number of other questions that also remain unanswered.

For instance, we could ask ourselves why it is that our government cannot give us a figure regarding the cost of our military involvement, so that we can assess our humanitarian aid as compared to our military support in terms of services on the ground to local populations dealing with all kinds of atrocities.

Are we responding to a request from our American allies, or did Canada offer to take part in these air strikes? Has Canada turned into a nation of war, or does the spirt of the peacekeepers remain somewhere within our walls? Why are we taking part in such a large mission against the Islamic State terrorist group when so little effort was put into fighting Boko Haram or preventing the crisis in the Congo or minimizing its consequences?

For now, let us concentrate on the motion currently before the House. Needless to say, unless the government recognizes the appropriateness of the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Outremont, I will be forced to vote against the government motion.

In doing so, I will be consistent with my beliefs and those that many of my constituents shared with me when I met them in my riding or in comments on social media. If the government were to reconsider its position following this debate, I could reconsider mine too, but there would be many more questions in need of answers.

In closing, I cannot help but note the strange coincidence that, on Friday, just as the Prime Minister was moving his motion, the 30th International Poetry Festival was getting under way back home in Trois-Rivières. All day, the words of our national poet, Gilles Vigneault, kept coming back to me.

Our poet said: “Violence is a lack of vocabulary.”

Unfortunately, what I see in this motion is a preference for weapons at the expense of dialogue, diplomacy and assistance even though these are the only ways to establish long-term security and good governance in a region that is experiencing tremendous turbulence.

[Combatting Counterfeit Products Act, October 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her very relevant and informed speech.

What would she suggest we tell Canadians in the big cities, most of whom are well aware that a $20 Rolex is very likely not real and that a $25 Coco Chanel purse is a knock-off?

The sale of counterfeit products tends to be trivialized, especially in Quebec, where all kinds of counterfeit products can be found at flea markets. How can we inform Canadians that this is a real problem? How do we explain this to the average Canadian watching us today?

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. I will pick up where he left off and talk about the losses our economy suffered because of how long it took to negotiate a free trade agreement with South Korea.

I am pleased that ridings such as mine will most certainly benefit from an increase in forestry exports; however, I cannot help but think that while we are considering sending wood to Korea—wood that may have been only minimally processed and turned into plywood or something similar—I bought a grand piano from Korea. That product has a much higher added value.

I did not get an answer when I asked this question of my colleagues from the governing party. Does my colleague feel that the government is doing enough when it comes to research and development to ensure that the products we are exporting have significant added value?