Robert Aubin

[Employment Insurance, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the employment insurance fund will have a $3.5-billion surplus in 2015.

To create that surplus, the government cut benefits and limited access to the system, just as the Liberals did. The unemployed may never lay eyes on that $3.5 billion.

The government cannot claim to be a good manager and dip blithely into the employment insurance fund.

Will the government support our bill and ensure that premiums are used the way they were meant to be used?

[Ebola Outbreak, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

We have to be careful when we talk about numbers and compare Canada's $5 million to the United States' $100 million. Let us not forget that in the United States there are 250 million people contributing to the public purse, while in Canada there are 34 million. In this type of situation, we have to understand that if the problem we are discussing this evening changes exponentially, then the aid provided by each country, while remaining proportionate to each country's weight and finances, must change exponentially as well and not just mathematically, slowly and always keeping the relative proportions of each country's finances. We cannot ask Canada to invest as much as the United States. I think that is easy to understand.

This progression must follow the scope of the disaster.

[Ebola Outbreak, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie for her question, to which she provided part of the answer.

One of the suggestions I was going to make involved deploying this team, which is able to intervene quickly. The team is always ready and just waiting to be told the time and location of its mission so that it can go there and work with its partners to find solutions to the crisis.

We could also think about deploying military personnel who specialize in health care. In every garrison, there are a certain number of doctors, nurses and heath care professionals who chose a career in the military. They are still health care professionals. They therefore have all the skills required to intervene.

What is more, you need to be familiar with the army to understand how great a capacity military personnel have to isolate themselves and create a safe environment before intervening.

All members of the House could consider these two options so that Canada could take further action in this crisis.

[Ebola Outbreak, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be back in the House and to see you again.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord who certainly has some good insights to share on this issue.

I am not sure whether I am the only one to notice this, but it was a strange summer. Summer is normally the most festive season in our respective ridings; this may well be, but as they say, in the summer every day is a slow news day. However, this summer, the events caught up with us night after night, casting a dramatic pall over the festivities going on in our ridings.

This summer, we saw numerous armed conflicts going on, one air tragedy after another, a lot of political tensions, unresolved economic crises, and young women being abducted. I am thinking, for example, of Boko Haram, a name that was unfortunately on everyone's lips for all the wrong reasons.

So here we are back for another session of Parliament where a number of issues will clearly divide us. In our emergency debate this evening, I would prefer to do away with the word “debate” and talk instead about a discussion on an urgent matter to which the Government of Canada must say “present,” while constantly reasserting or updating that presence as the situation develops.

I dare hope that this issue will bring us closer to each other and to the international community. Indeed, the crisis the people of some West African countries are going through speaks to our solidarity, but also to our desire to be safe wherever we are.

At a time when our planet has become very small and it is possible for almost all of us to go around it in about 24 hours, when our means of transportation allow us to travel back and forth as if globalization had erased all borders, we must act responsibly at home. Ultimately, our home is everywhere.

Before I continue, let me give a heartfelt salute to my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie who requested this emergency exchange, or this debate as it is more commonly referred to. It enables us not only to learn more about this tragedy , which is far from over, and how various countries are trying to deal with this crisis, but also to put additional pressure on the Government of Canada to do more. Far be it from me to criticize the actions already taken by the Government of Canada. However, in a crisis such as this, we clearly need to follow its progress daily, even hourly, and adapt our response according to the needs.

What about this situation, this Ebola crisis? Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Senegal are grappling with an epidemic confirmed by the World Health Organization. We are talking about more than 4,000 confirmed cases since the infection was first identified in 1976. There have been a few multiple cases over the years, but nothing like the crisis we are currently facing. Research has made great strides in trying to develop a vaccine, but about 50% of people who contract the virus one way or another will still die from it.

Of course, we need to continue focusing our efforts on this research. However, we also need to put in place everything we can to confine this crisis to the smallest possible area in order to fight it as effectively as we can.

Why is the epidemic now being described as “unprecedented”? First, it is because of its magnitude. Over 2,000 people have now contracted the virus, and the geographic distribution is quite different. In fact, when the virus affects people living in a relatively modest village, or it is brought under control quickly, or the disease decimates a large part of the village, it is relatively easy—I am weighing my words carefully because there is nothing easy about this—let us say, it is easier to beat a virus like this. What we are seeing now is that the virus has also moved to large centres, to the cities where people live much closer to one another and where spreading a virus, even without intending to, has perhaps become much easier.

That is one explanation that may help us understand the extent of this crisis.

As well, since the number of victims is increasing, there is a direct impact on the health system itself. Doctors, nurses and health care workers are doing the best they can to the best of their knowledge as they work with those afflicted. Sometimes, as a result, and despite all the protections that have been put in place, they contract the virus and die. Their death rate is no different from that of the general population, which is to say approximately 50% of those who contract the virus. If the medical team is reduced, it is clear that there will be a downward spiral.

The fight is increasingly difficult. It is so difficult that in some particularly underdeveloped regions that have less well-equipped health infrastructure, we are now seeing collateral damage. If there is no staff or infrastructure to treat diseases that could be dealt with, stopped, controlled and treated with relative success in the past—such as diarrhea or malaria—that, too, has a direct impact on the mortality rate of the population in general and infants in particular. That is yet another catastrophe.

Fear is also taking hold. When so many health care professionals die because they wanted to give their all to the people, that obviously deters other health care professionals who would certainly want to help and apply their knowledge to help curb the crisis, but who want to be 100% sure that they can do so in completely safe conditions. That also slows the process down.

Those are a few reasons that provide some explanation.

What is the World Health Organization saying? According to its roadmap, there is a need for $600 million. So far, the various countries that want to help find a solution to this crisis have committed approximately one-third of that. The goal is still far from reach. It is very easy to imagine that the sum of $600 million will increase if this epidemic grows exponentially. It will require additional funds.

In other words, time is of the essence. We have to make decisions quickly while making the best choices and providing the necessary funds to win this fight.

What are the top priorities? Perhaps expanding isolation centres. In some cases, these have to be built in the first place before they can be expanded. We also have to be able to deploy mobile labs to diagnose people with the disease on site and even faster so that they can be isolated even faster.

We need to be able to create air bridges for the safe international transfer of personnel who want to help handle the crisis and for the transportation of necessary equipment and supplies. Lastly, we need to build a regional network of field hospitals.

There is no doubt that all of these measures will require a significant contribution from each participating country in addition to the $5 million that Canada has already pledged. That is good, but I think it is not nearly enough.

I would like to close with two short quotes.

The first is from Margaret Chan of the WHO:

In the three hardest hit countries, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, the number of new patients is moving faster than the capacity to manage them.

The second is from Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in a letter to President Barack Obama:

I am being honest with you when I say that at this rate, we will never break the transmission chain and the virus will overwhelm us.

Canada's help during this crisis is of the utmost importance, and we must be unwavering in our support.

[Housing, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, no one uses pyrrhotite, since it can cause concrete cancer. The government said that it would help victims, but, based on what it is telling us now, we can see that that was a joke.

Pyrrhotite victims are demanding answers. It is our duty to prevent any further victims in Trois-Rivières or elsewhere in Canada.

Can the Conservatives explain how the federal standard that regulates the tolerances of concrete structures can be a provincial jurisdiction? Will they continue to make up excuses to avoid helping pyrrhotite victims back home?

[Housing, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, every time I ask a question about pyrrhotite, which is destroying thousands of homes in Trois-Rivières, the Conservative government refuses to take responsibility. Every time the government tells me to talk to the Government of Quebec.

A recent court ruling—specifically about the CSA A23.1 standard, which determines the amount of pyrrhotite that can be contained in concrete before causing a disaster—contradicts the Conservatives' argument. That is a federal standard. I repeat: that is a federal standard.

Will the government commit to amending the federal CSA A23.1 standard to protect the public?

[Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with just a few hours to go before the House adjourns for the summer, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all members from Quebec and all Quebeckers a wonderful national holiday.

Whether we are going to a big gathering, a block party, or a small gathering with friends and family, we should all take this time to tell our loved ones how much we love them. In the words of our national poet, Gilles Vigneault, in his song Gens du pays:

The time we take to say "I love you"
Is the only thing left at the end of our days.

I also want to extend warm wishes to all of the francophones across Canada, from the Yukon to Acadia, who will celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day on June 24. I hope that francophiles near and far will be welcomed by the francophone community that is so dear to me, so that we can all share the values we hold dear.

This holiday was once a celebration of the summer solstice, and I hope that for everyone, it will kick off a beautiful summer filled with rest, holidays, and joie de vivre.

I wish everyone a happy national holiday. Happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

[Victims Bill of Rights, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I could easily have gone into a full-scale attack on the preliminary steps that led to the second reading vote, but I chose not to do so because, of all bills, this is certainly one that should be considered without any partisanship. We can criticize them for taking eight years, but the fact is that the bill is now before us.

My self-restraint comes from the hope that government members will show the same open attitude that would help us work together and send a positive message not only to victims, but also to all Canadians, who are fed up with the way parliamentarians work. It is in our best interests to send a positive message and show that we are able to solve problems when we work together.

[Victims Bill of Rights, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I rise today to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. I say trepidation because I have an unlimited respect and admiration for the resilience of victims of crime. That is why we, as Canadian parliamentarians, do not have the right to mess things up by making victims believe or hope for options that the law would not offer them.

I have to say at the outset that I will support this bill at second reading so that it can be considered in committee, where numerous experts who are much more qualified than I am will give us their insight. We will then be able to improve this bill, which, by many accounts, already has flaws that we must address before it becomes law. It would indeed be embarrassing to pass Bill C-32 only to see it fail to reach its goals.

I must admit that the Conservatives' strategy makes me uneasy. It took them eight years to put forward such a flawed proposal, but, during all that time, they tried to score political points by holding press conferences and photo ops.

The NDP, however, has always supported victims' rights. We will continue to consult victims' groups and specialists to determine how to really help victims. If creating a victims bill of rights is indeed the right approach, and if it is to be more than simple lip service, then it must be properly backed up with the resources it needs. At this point in the debate, Bill C-32 still makes no mention of funding. The devil may be in the details, but it seems to me that resources are more than mere details. I am legitimately concerned that the bill will be just for show, a simple list of principles, rather than the outcome of a genuine desire to support victims.

A good number of people who work with victims share my concerns. Steve Sullivan, the first ombudsman for victims of crime, has accused the Minister of Justice of not living up to his promises. In a CBC interview on April 3, he said that the bill itself was fine, the main problem being that the Minister of Justice had failed to live up to his promise to put victims at the heart of the justice system. He expressed some concern that many victims would only read the headlines rather than taking the time to read the actual bill, which would lead them to believe that the system has fundamentally changed when in fact it has not.

We are just as concerned as Mr. Sullivan is, and we will do everything we can so that the bill achieves the stated goals.

I could quote dozens of other people who worry that, as it is now, Bill C-32 does not seem able to meet expectations.

Our job and main objective in committee will be to make sure that the Canadian victims bill of rights fits into the Canadian judicial system, meets victims' expectations and responds to the recommendations they made.

For the people who are watching us, I would like to summarize the recommendations in nine simple and easy-to-understand points: enforceable and usable; integrated, accessible and simple services and resources with minimum standards across the country; inclusive definition of victim to include anyone in Canada harmed by crime; equitable, respectful and individualized; voice and standing; right to information; financial protection and support; psychological support and resources; and limited opportunities for offenders to profit from crimes or reoffend.

I agree this is an ambitious agenda. At first glance, we must recognize that the proposed bill of rights meets some of these requirements. For example, it broadens the definition of a crime victim and it codifies the right of victims to information, protection, participation and restitution.

However, this bill of rights does not create legal obligations for other stakeholders in the judicial system. It simply provides access to a vague mechanism to file complaints with various federal departments, agencies and organizations that have a role to play in the justice system when victims' rights are infringed.

As with many other Conservative bills, this bill seems to lack the means to fulfill its ambitions. It seems that no specific funds have yet been allocated to implement these complaint mechanisms or help out the provinces. The bill of rights also contains limitation clauses stipulating that the proposed rights have to be exercised in a reasonable way.

“Reasonable”, that is the kind of weasel wording that causes confusion and that, unfortunately, is a trademark of the Conservatives. They used the same kind of wording in other bills. I could, for instance, mention the concept of “suitable employment”, which creates a major headache in the implementation of the new employment insurance system. The Conservatives seem to be masters at including deliberately undefined and confusing weasel words allowing the government to renege on its commitments as soon as things heat up.

This is why we hope that the bill will be thoroughly studied, clause by clause, in committee under the eyes of experts who are much more qualified than your humble servant. I will support this bill at second reading mostly so that we can study it thoroughly.

We sincerely hope that partisanship will give way to an effective and determined effort to seek the best solutions possible so that we can offer victims more than hope, namely the means to take action and the resources to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I had promised to follow up on some testimonies from people who expressed their concerns about Bill C-32. I am therefore keeping my promise so that we can be prepared to find answers for the issues we are considering in committee.

I would like to quote Mrs. Lori Triano-Antidormi, the mother of a murder victim and psychologist. While going through her own tragedy, she helps other victims overcome hardships. Here is what she told us: “This bill will create false hopes for victims.” Let us hope that we will be able to allay her fears about that.

The Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes also welcomes the bill. The Association points out, however, that the bill of rights will be effective only if the mechanisms giving the victims recourse when their rights have been infringed upon are truly accessible, and if we allocate the resources to make that happen.

A more scathing comment came from Mr. Frank Addario, a criminal lawyer. He said:

The Conservative government's agenda is to position itself as tough on crime, even though it knows its measures have little real-world effect.

As you can see, these quotes show a wide range of perspectives. While everyone wants to give the government the benefit of the doubt, hoping that the bill will materialize and really meet the expectations that it created, there is also some degree of skepticism and concern. These three examples really highlight the challenge we are facing and the government's responsibility to be open and responsive to suggestions at the committee stage.

If the past is any indication, it does not bode well, as the Conservatives have often proven unreceptive, even closed-minded, when their proposals or methods have come into question.

I sincerely hope that, when it comes to Bill C-32, our empathy for the victims' tragedies will bring us together as compassionate human beings, rather than divide us into different camps based on our party's colours.

[Victims Bill of Rights, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for his speech.

I must say that I am having a harder time than he is being optimistic about all of this. He will know why once I ask him this question, even though I know he is not a lawyer. I am not a lawyer either, but maybe between the two of us we can figure this out.

When reading Bill C-32, as it now stands, it is clear that the justice system is not legally obligated to uphold the various rules in the bill of rights. That is why my optimism is somewhat muted. There should at least be some sort of basic minimum. I have a feeling that all of the witnesses we will hear from in committee will talk about the fact that there should be a clause like that in the bill. After eight years of working on this, it is still not there.

Does he feel that, once again, the Conservatives are creating false hope with these ideas that will not be enforced on a daily basis?