Robert Aubin

[Housing, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, every time someone gets up to talk about the pyrrhotite crisis in Trois-Rivières, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says that it comes under provincial jurisdiction, that the Government of Quebec has a program and that people need to contact the provincial government.

The problem is that a study—if it was even necessary—has clearly shown that the federal government is directly connected to this crisis. Refusing to meet with victims will not make the problem go away.

When will the government appoint a credible spokesperson on this issue to meet with elected officials in the region and representatives of the Coalition Proprio-Béton, who are standing up for the victims?

[Pyrrhotite in Mauricie, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I released the results of a survey of the pyrrhotite victims in Mauricie.

Not surprisingly, the results paint a chilling picture. We are talking about a disaster that will cost over a billion dollars. From a residential standpoint alone, 1,300 families have already been affected, and an estimated 3,700 more will be added to that number.

What is more, the numbers have yet to be tallied for the affected businesses, public buildings and infrastructure. The average cost for repairs varies between $150,000 and $175,000 for a residence.

What is surprising, however, is the federal government's lack of concern about this problem, which could occur anywhere in Canada if changes are not made to the federal standard for aggregates in concrete.

The Conservatives are choosing yet again to remain blind, deaf and dumb to the plight of the people in my region. What is worse, the Conservatives are getting rich on the backs of the victims who have to pay thousands of dollars in taxes to deal with this disaster.

In solidarity with the people, businesses, municipalities and the provincial government involved in this matter, can we hope that the Conservative government will at least appoint a credible spokesperson who would agree to sit down with elected officials and representatives of the Coalition Proprio-Béton?

[Employment Insurance, February 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives have frozen EI premiums at $1.88 for every $100 in insurable earnings, they are still gutting services. Is it because of a lack of funds? Definitely not. The employment insurance fund could have a surplus as high as $6.4 billion by 2016.

Will the recipients benefit from that surplus or will the Conservatives go back to their old ways, which they learned from the Liberals, and dip into the fund to pay off their debt?

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I admit that I find the comparison a bit clumsy. Obviously all the comparisons are a bit clumsy, but here the hon. member was talking about customer service as it relates to a civic right, that of voting to determine who will lead the country. I think that one important thing that has not been mentioned is the fact that a large part of the population does not vote because they have become quite cynical about politicians and politics. That is what we should be focusing on.

However, Bill C-23 before us today is something that will help fuel this cynicism. Once they see such measures as increasing the annual contribution ceiling, those who feel that elections are bought will wonder whether there is any point in voting, given that the elections are bought by those with the means to do so, in any case. What we must do—and Bill C-23 does not do—is show each and every Canadian how very important their right to vote is. By eliminating the prerogatives of the Chief Electoral Officer, this bill would reduce the opportunities for education.

How is the right to vote a customer service? It is civic right. I would like the hon. member to explain that one to me. It seems that the comparison does not hold water.

[Petitions, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am joining all those people from New Brunswick, eastern Quebec and Haute-Mauricie who are sending a clear message to this government that VIA Rail services must be restored to provide for economic development in those regions as well as a greener mode of transportation.

[Employees' Voting Rights Act, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today to comment on private member's Bill C-525, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act (certification and revocation — bargaining agent), I cannot help but feel a little angry.

Actually, that is an understatement. I am very angry. When someone tries to amend the Canada Labour Code, we expect the proposed measures to improve problematic situations at least a little. In this case, the bill is yet another attack on an institution that has proven its worth and has made a significant contribution to ensuring quality of life for its members and, by extension, many workers in our society. That institution is the union movement.

I do not know what the unions can possibly have done for the government to treat them like this, but as a former president of a teachers' union in my riding, I will always stand up to fight for the fundamental rights of workers.

This private member's bill is clearly part of the government's agenda. There is no way this just happened by accident.

If this bill passes, it would be a first. As far as I know, changes to labour relations legislation have never been introduced via a private member's bill. Governments that do things properly and truly want to improve labour relations do not feel the need to slip changes in through the back door. They stand up in the House, introduce a bill and put it through the legislative process.

In the past, changes to the Canada Labour Code have come about following discussions between employers and workers, not when an MP stands up to say that he has made the discovery of the century.

That being said, what makes me most angry is the fact that I cannot pretend I am surprised. Since its inception, the union movement has come under constant attack, and that is still happening today.

Worse still, the changes this bill proposes are a direct attack on our democratic rules because they would establish a separate system that applies only to unions. Let us take a closer look at the changes proposed in this work of genius, Bill C-525.

Two processes would be undermined: the certification and decertification of unions in workplaces under federal jurisdiction. For now, this applies only to workplaces under federal jurisdiction.

Let us start with the process of union certification. Normally, when employees in a workplace decide to organize in order to establish a union, they discuss things with their colleagues with a view to presenting the benefits of association when the time comes to negotiate working conditions, for example, or a first collective agreement. They then invite them to sign a membership card if the union's objectives are in line with their expectations.

The union then files an application for certification with the Canada Labour Relations Board. If the application fulfills the requirements of the Canada Labour Code and if 50% of the members have signed a card, the union is automatically certified.

However, there is a second possibility. If between 35% and 50% of the members have signed a card, the Canada Labour Relations Board organizes a vote of the employees to determine the future of the potential union. A majority vote means that a union organization can be formed in that workplace.

Now here is the low point of the evening, the appalling proposal in Bill C-525. First, for the Canada Labour Relations Board to hold a vote, it will now require a minimum of 45%, not 35%, of the workers in the company. It gets even worse. When the vote is held, a majority of the entire bargaining unit—not 50% + 1 of the members at the meeting—must vote for the creation of the union. In other words, all those who do not vote would be deemed to have voted against a union being formed. Now we are playing with people's heads and telling them what to think when they are absent. If this is not vote-rigging, I really wonder what it is.

For a moment, let us imagine that, in the 2011 federal election, we had counted the votes of everyone who did not get out to vote as a vote against the re-election of the Conservative government. I am sure that the Conservative ranks would be up in arms. However, in this case, since it is about organizing a union, to hell with democracy; let us go for it.

If that were not enough, the process works in reverse for decertifying a union. The new rules would require a majority of the members of the certified unit to vote in favour of keeping their union representation. They would also require that everyone who did not vote be deemed to have voted for revocation. That effectively means that we are forging the signatures of people who are not there.

The bill would also require that 55% of members vote in favour of union representation in order to prevent decertification. Clearly, the concept of 50% plus one is light years away from Conservative thinking. That might explain why this government has such a hard time taking a position on the Quebec issue.

To continue with my analogy, this new directive would mean that all those who did not vote during the last federal election in 2011 would be added to those who voted for an opposition party, and therefore the Conservative government would be required to clear the government benches. In other words, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but that does not seem to be the case here.

I know very few MPs in the House who would be able to meet such pseudo-democratic standards under this approach. The purpose of Bill C-525 is to manipulate union elections and make it practically impossible for workers to form a union.

To add insult to injury, this attack comes in addition to the one in Bill C-377. That is the real story behind this anti-democratic bill that reflects a Conservative, even Republican, ideology that has nothing to do with Canadian and Quebec values.

This bill is also economically counterproductive because it helps widen the income inequality gap, accelerates the downward spiral of middle-class wages, and creates work environments fostering conflict between managers and workers.

Unions have always contributed to improving working conditions, wages, and health and safety standards, not just for unionized employees but also for all other workers, by extension. However, it is no secret that this government is resolutely anti-union.

I remember one of my first debate experiences in the House, when we were discussing the Canada Post dispute. With the support of the current government, Canada Post locked out its employees, but the government kept saying that the employees were striking.

If the government truly wanted to reflect greater neutrality when it comes to employer-employee relations, it could have proposed something much better. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to expand on that.

In closing, the House can count on my presence to firmly oppose this bill. I urge all members of the House to review the bill very carefully and ask themselves whether this is the kind of democracy they want for our country. By the way, there are not multiple kinds of democracy—one for politics, one for unions and one for community organizations. The “Code Morin” and the 50% plus one rule exist for everyone, and the rules work.

While we await that day in October 2015 when Canadians will choose a new government, every worker in this country can count on the NDP to defend their interests. We are the only party that can embody the “working together” slogan, which so many people can identify with, and we embody it for the simple reason that it is part of our DNA in the NDP.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

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

If I were a Conservative MP—something that would never happen—my answer would be simple: we do not want to look at new services because we want to sell. We are not going to bother developing new sectors because that might prove that we can make Canada Post profitable again.

What is clear is that the unionized employees, namely all the people who are behind Canada Post and want to maintain this public service, are presenting a united front and wondering why the government is not benefiting from international experience.

Canada is not the first country to have to adapt its postal services in response to the new realities. Unfortunately, there are two categories of people who are turning a blind eye to this issue: the Conservatives and Canada Post management. Obviously there is a brick wall between them. Everyone knows that they do not talk to one another. Oddly enough, on the morning of the announcement in December, the Conservative government issued a press release two hours later to say that it totally agreed with the battery of measures that had just been announced.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

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

I have a two-part answer. First, regarding the supposed imminent demise of the corporation, I would argue that Canada Post is not at death’s door and never will be. My biggest fear is that this jewel will be sold off to private interests.

This government does not appreciate the importance of maintaining public services. It thinks the private sector can do everything for less money. In truth, there would not be much of a cost saving. In fact, for the same price, we would enjoy far fewer services.

As for the impact of the decision on seniors, I would like to expand on this because seniors are not the only group affected. By repeating the same ridiculous thing over and over again, the Conservatives hope to make us believe that what they are saying is true. They say that a certain percentage of Canadian households no longer receive home mail delivery anyway, but that does not mean that these households are satisfied with the service they do receive.

A few years ago, I moved to a neighbourhood with mailboxes. I got used to it, but I do not really like it. It is clear that, for many people in my riding, especially the elderly, it is a deciding factor when considering a move. People have to consider whether they will be able to live where they do not have access to door-to-door postal service because they cannot get out easily, especially not in winter.

Nobody wants the situation to get worse, but maybe it could get better if there was a real survey of Canadian consumers to find out whether they are satisfied with the mailboxes they will be forced to use.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my learned colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, even though 10 minutes is not enough time to defend Canada Post and I have a lot to say.

I will start with a story that dates back to February of last year, when the Conservative government came up with the brilliant idea to stop sending out income tax forms by mail, telling everyone they were readily available online. However, one of my constituents, a blind man, had trouble finding the form on the Internet and, despite his disability, went to the postal outlet closest to his home. That postal outlet no longer reports directly to Canada Post because many post offices were closed, while postal outlets opened in pharmacies, convenience stores and businesses of all kinds. Then, after several minutes of arduous walking in the middle of February, that man was told that the postal outlet no longer received income tax forms.

I then served as his letter carrier for a while and went to get the income tax form from a post office that was still open in Trois-Rivières, finally delivering it to him. I did not have the heart to tell him that not only would he not be receiving his form in the mail next year but that soon he would not be receiving anything by mail.

It seems to me that approving and supporting a decision such as this really shows a total lack of understanding of what a public service is. I am astounded by the Conservative speeches I have been hearing for the last while. I get the impression they are using their speeches to prepare the public for a full privatization of Canada Post. What they have been doing for years now, in a barely concealed way, is to represent Canada Post more like a private company, whose primary aim is to maximize profit rather than deliver services to the public. I repeat, however, that Canada Post is a public service.

I would not go so far as to say that Canada Post could operate at a loss because it is a public service, but the corporation has nevertheless made a profit in 17 of the past 18 years, even sending revenues to the government of Canada. Suddenly the government would have you believe that it is a disaster waiting to happen by 2020. However, that disaster in the making is based in large part on a report by the Conference Board of Canada, which selected 2012 as its reference year and called it a deficit year in its report. However, Canada Post finished 2012 with a budget surplus. Furthermore, three months of operations at Canada Post were overlooked in the figures used in that study because it was completed before the end of the corporation's fiscal year. Consequently, the most profitable months for Canada Post, which occurred around Christmas time, were not reflected in the budget. That is quite extraordinary—not to mention that the CEO of Canada Post sits on the board of the Conference Board of Canada. Which way do they want it? I think they wanted it both ways. This study served as a basis for all the Conservatives' arguments and all the decisions that were curiously announced the day after the House rose in December. I would not go so far as to say that the report is not worth the paper it is printed on, but it is questionable to say the least.

That raises serious questions about the Conference Board of Canada's independence from the government and about the reliability of its diagnostic analyses. Clearly, it also raises serious doubts about the acceptability of the conclusions. For a while now, in almost all the speeches made by my Conservative colleagues, I have heard the same old story of how Canadians have turned a digital corner and no longer write letters to put in the mail. I am starting to develop a serious allergy to that story.

One thing the callowest administrator to come out of a Marketing 101 course knows or should know is that letter mail is decreasing. The graph of the decrease in letter mail is probably Canada Post's most predictable feature. So any top-notch administrator, not the kind who is paid $10 million per year, should be able to predict the loss of revenue that comes with that decrease. However, there is a limit; it will not drop to zero. We are not far from seeing the decrease in letter mail bottom out.

On the other side of the ledger, we hear very little about the rather exponential increase in parcel post resulting from our transformation to the digital economy. People are sending more and more emails, and they are doing more and more online shopping. That means parcels need to be shipped.

Of course, when we are getting a parcel shipped to us, we can choose the company that will deliver it to our door or to the nearest pick-up point. Do we know of any private parcel-delivery companies operating in Canada that have distribution network, in both rural and urban areas, that is as large and extensive as Canada Post's? Once again, it seems to me that it does not take a graduate degree in marketing to understand that this is an area to be developed and that Canada Post's network is not a liability but an asset, a driving force for the change needed in Canada Post's services.

However, what did that same Conference Board of Canada report from the 1970s propose? The only proposal is about managing the drop in letter mail. Is that an acceptable vision for such well-paid managers, to tell us and try to convince us that the only issue Canada Post has to deal with is managing the drop in letter mail? That is unbelievable and inconceivable.

On the contrary, we can see from the decisions that have been made—such as eliminating an excessive number of post offices—that we are only a few post offices away from hitting the minimum number required by the agreement. I imagine that some other way will then be found to close more.

What does all that mean? I believe the Conservatives are quietly setting the stage to present Canada Post as a private business, one that generates enough profit to interest a private investor, once they have done away with anything that might be weighing it down.

However, a public service is about give and take. What is cumbersome on one hand should be compensated for by rapidly expanding sectors. In the Conference Board of Canada report, there is not a single word about emerging sectors for the future or innovation. The only thing it talks about is managing the drop in letter mail. That is terrible.

During the private meetings I attended, I could sense how stubborn the Canada Post officials were. If you listen to them and look at their outcomes, it seems as though there is no solution. That is completely untrue. We must be wary of privatization. Canada Post is more than just a public service; it is vital for Canadians.

[Respect for Communities Act, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that we have facilities such as InSite.

The most basic reason is that, as soon as people who use drugs, such as heroin, come to InSite, they are no longer anonymous users who do drugs in the recesses of a park or in a dark alley somewhere. Those persons are now known and recognized. They begin interacting with others. At that moment, anything becomes possible in terms of changing the situation.