Robert Aubin

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I led anyone to believe that I agree with Bill C-2 through anything I may have said, I would like to set the record straight right now: Bill C-2 is a bad bill. I decided to instead talk about empathy.

My colleague wants to know how the Point de Rue organization works. The organization has street workers who are the point of first contact with vulnerable individuals. That is essential.

However, the problem is not solved in the streets. Solutions are found when we convince people living in the streets to visit an organization such as Point de Rue. Point de Rue is not an injection site, but rather an organization that helps the less fortunate. Once these people are persuaded to come in, we can help them regain their humanity and tell them that we will support them in their decision to overcome their addiction. There is much to be done.

Time and space are required to build relationships with these individuals. It is important to provide a physical location where they can feel that they belong, that someone is listening to them and that they have a network of people to help them overcome the feelings of isolation that are unfortunately often associated with drug use.

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

Mr. Speaker, this will be my second time taking part in our debate today on Bill C-2. This allows me to make an initial comment about the very concept of the debate. I have been in the House since early this morning and, from the moment when we began this debate on Bill C-2, it seems to me—unless I slipped away for a few moments—that I have not heard one Conservative member make a single remark about the validity of their own bill. This clearly raises questions as to the very concept of the debate. In a chamber where we should be sharing ideas and finding solutions, I get the impression that the members of the NDP have been on the same wavelength for hours but the other members are not even listening.

In my first speech on the same issue, just before the holidays, I relied extensively on facts, statistics, studies and scientific articles published in newspapers or medical journals to show the facts. Unfortunately, there seems to be a tendency in Canadian, Quebec and even municipal politics—at every level—to have debates that are based more on opinions than on actual facts. I believe that science and objective facts should still be the basis of our discussions. This does not mean that, because the facts are specific, we must necessarily share the same view at the end of the debate. However, it seems to me that we should at least agree on the basic facts.

For my second speech, I intend to use a more empathetic approach. Let us set aside statistics and studies and try, for a few short minutes, to put ourselves in the shoes of an individual—one of our constituents—who, for one reason or another, has tried hard drugs and is now struggling with a severe addiction.

It seems quite inappropriate to paint society as black and white, or as good and bad, as several Conservative bills try to do, and say that an individual who is addicted to hard drugs is living with the consequences of his behaviour, that it is his fault and that he has only himself to blame. Even if it were true that this individual has only himself to blame—and I do not agree with that—it does not mean he is not entitled to get help from society to get out of his predicament. When an individual is suffering from this addiction, several others who are close or not so close to him also suffer. Therefore, we should rely less on perception and more on reality.

I remember that my late mother—may God rest her soul—was convinced at one time that a young man who tried smoking a marijuana joint would definitely end up a wreck. Even though she and I did not do drugs, we had many discussions on this issue, and I tried to prove to that she was wrong. However, her perception went beyond the scientific facts that I could show. This revealed something even more extraordinary: the fear of the unknown and the fear of something we do not know how to fight. Well, it seems to me there is only one effective way to fight fear, and it is called education.

Looking at Bill C-2, I see that it covers everything but education. If we were to talk about education in reference to a centre like InSite, we should also talk about the neighbouring parks in the community, but I am thinking mainly of the parks that have been made safer because needles no longer litter the park.

Moreover, what is true for Vancouver is also true for Montreal, Trois-Rivières and all small cities, not just the major centres.

InSite is a successful formula that helps reduce crime. If we are really concerned about heroin use—and there is every reason to be, of course—we should also be able to recognize initiatives that reduce crime rates. InSite is one of them.

InSite also helps reduce infections. Addicts can get an infection through injection drug use, but others can get infected entirely involuntarily by stepping on a needle thrown away in a public park.

InSite also helps reduce the relapse rates for drug users. In other words, when addicts choose to go clean to overcome their addiction, organizations like InSite help them and let them reach their goal with a better success rate.

I have some examples from my own riding. They are not injection sites, but agencies that do street work with people suffering from addictions, often multiple addictions, people thought to be hopeless who, for just a few dollars, managed to reintegrate into society and the workforce.

This hardly ever makes the headlines. The government probably prefers photo ops with big cheques announcing that it has funded such and such a program that creates jobs. It seems to me that bringing people back to life also deserves a photo on the front page of the newspapers. Some people might not be as socially sensitive as they should be.

Support is the key to everything. When people decide to inject drugs at a place like InSite, they are no longer alone. They are back in contact with society and agencies that can help them overcome their addiction.

What better way to combat illegal drugs than to eliminate drug users by rehabilitating them. We all know that organized crime is behind the drug industry. Since the crime is highly organized, we have no choice but to organize the resources that will help victims overcome addiction. InSite is one such resource.

I was talking about an agency back home called Point de rue that works with young people dealing with all kinds of problems, including addiction. I had a minor hand in two projects that have restored hope and life to many of those young people.

There was a project back home by an artist named Jean Beaulieu, a world-famous painter and stained-glass window maker. He put people to work 40 hours a week making stained-glass windows (cutting, polishing and soldering) while sticking to the plan. Each piece honoured a celebrity, and at the end there was a public exhibition. More than 90% of the addicts who took part in this program reintegrated into society.

This agency, which enjoyed extraordinary success, has unfortunately closed its doors because the Conservative government stopped subsidizing such agencies. With that attitude toward fighting homelessness, soon Point de rue will also be closing its doors, not just Jean Beaulieu's stained-glass-making project. For a photo exhibit project that was held at the office of the member for Trois-Rivières, young people from Point de rue went to South America as part of an international support project and took that opportunity to launch a photo campaign.

Unfortunately, since time is short, I will simply say that the values of every parliamentarian here today, whether they are religious or humanist, should instill in us the duty to overcome our prejudices, face reality and do the work entrusted to us—to serve Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard for her speech. I have a question for her.

The majority of studies show that people who have a drug dependency or addiction very quickly become isolated. InSite, like many other organizations, is probably the first step toward finding their way back into society and eventually into the labour force.

Some of my Conservative colleagues argued that they could not support a facility like InSite because there was no legal way to obtain cocaine in Canada and that since it was a crime, that would be contemptible.

Is it not true, however, that InSite, as a transition house, could give addicts access to methadone treatments, which are completely legal, and help them gradually find their way back into society?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question for my colleague.

The first part of the question is a little sarcastic. I would like to know whether the roles have been reversed in 2014. Since we have resumed debate on Bill C-2, we do not seem to be hearing the Conservative government's position, even though it introduced this bill. On a few rare occasions, a Conservative member rises to ask a question about our suggestions to support an organization like InSite. I get the impression that we are ready to govern and they are ready to cede power.

More seriously, does the member think that an organization like InSite is the first step towards rehabilitation and, eventually, reintegration into the workforce for drug addicts?

[Electronic Petitions, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have risen to speak in 2014. Allow me, respectfully, to wish you a good year, in the hope that our democratic institutions will increase in value, which has absolutely not been the case in previous years.

The motion we are discussing this morning could be an excellent way to get back on track.

I would also like to wish an excellent year to my fellow MPs and to all Canadians and Quebeckers, who I hope might once again be proud of their politicians because of the quality of the debates that we engage in throughout this new year.

When I was elected in 2011, I was determined to improve our democracy. I still am. The desire to change the way politics is done continues to drive my political involvement. It is not so easy to change things in this honourable institution, Canada's Parliament, but I am not one to give up on my goals so quickly.

The subject we are discussing this morning is quite the paradox between tradition and the need to modernize our political institution.

Hon. members also know that I am a teacher by profession and that engaging young people in public debate is one of my priorities. I, like many others, was disappointed to see that voter turnout among 18- to 24-year-olds in the 2011 federal election was 39%, which was well below the national voter turnout of 59%. That is not a spectacular number either, but it is far better.

There are likely a number of reasons for this that deserve our attention. In my riding, Trois-Rivières, I was surprised to learn that political debate seems undesirable at the university, where student associations—NDP, Conservative, Liberal, PQ, whatever the political stripe—do not seem to be welcome.

How are we supposed to engage young people and prepare a new generation of active citizens when political debate is considered suspect or dangerous? I must admit that I have a problem with that attitude and the fact that many public places are not open to political debate.

Now that the opportunity is here to explore this issue, I am very pleased to speak to Motion No. 428 on electronic petitions moved by my colleague, the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

Mr. Speaker, like the vast majority of us, you have a Facebook page, a Twitter account, a YouTube channel and a website. I know because I checked.

All of these digital tools are useful in helping us accomplish some of our work as parliamentarians. They allow us to share our ideas, our values and our vision for the Canada of tomorrow. Much of our work and that of our assistants is visible on social media.

I have, at times, had the pleasure of working with the longest-serving member of the House, the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour. He told me that when he began his career, he did not have any of these tools, not even a cell phone. Today, politicians would be at a loss without these tools. As time moved on, we adapted to new technology and the purpose it can serve. I believe there is more to be done.

These platforms serve as more than just a means of spreading our political message and doing politics. We also need social media and the Internet to communicate with all of our constituents, all of the groups that wish to be in contact with us and those interested in the debates taking place in our democracy. We use digital media every day in order to speak with our constituents, no matter which party we belong to or what our ideas are.

In just a few short years, democracy has gone online. Long speeches in the public square are becoming increasingly rare. Even more rare is an entire town or community gathering together to listen to us. The relationship between parliamentarians and constituents has been transformed and there is no going back. The town square is virtual now, and we need to keep up with the times if we want to connect with the people we claim to serve.

My colleague's motion acknowledges that transformation and sheds some light on the issue. The idea is that if we, as parliamentarians, can make frequent use of digital tools to share our thoughts, why is the public not also able to use technology to connect with us?

In other words, we are constantly reaching out, trying to convince them of our ideas, but they cannot influence our debates or our agenda by taking advantage of progress in electronic communications.

It is almost hypocritical of us, and we need to try to change that. That is exactly what this motion is about. What my colleague is proposing in this motion is quite simple. He is proposing that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommend changes to the Standing Orders so as to establish an electronic petitioning system in Canada, while maintaining the existing paper-based petition system. The committee would present a report to the House sometime in the next year. Among other things, the member's motion recommends that the committee consider the possibility of holding debates in the House of Commons, similar to take note debates, once a certain threshold of signatures is reached. For example, 50,000 signatures on an electronic petition is a considerable number. I think it is a rather serious problem if members do not feel that an issue with such support must be addressed. In addition, five members of Parliament would have to agree to sponsor or support the petition in question.

Electronic petitioning systems are nothing new. An increasing number of democracies are embracing this new way of doing things to revitalize the relationship between the work of parliamentarians and constituents. Need I remind members that our Parliament does not always have a good reputation and that our institution has been harshly criticized by Canadians? The Senate scandals and the Conservative government's inability to address the related issues are fueling people's cynicism about both chambers of Parliament. I am confident that any initiative that would reaffirm and restore Canadians' trust in our work is a step forward, a step in the right direction for our democracy.

As I was saying, electronic petitioning systems are nothing new. They are already in use in Quebec and the United Kingdom, and the results are quite promising. We would do well to take a closer look at them. In the British system, for example, petitions supported by at least 100,000 signatures trigger a debate. However, this new way of doing things has not made any significant changes to procedures or the rigour of the work. Members do not have to be concerned that our agenda will be disrupted by the tabling of a huge number of petitions. Although electronic petitions with over 50,000 signatures are not unheard of, they all draw attention to important issues.

According to an Angus Reid poll, this motion already has support from a wide range of stakeholder groups and 81% of the population. We are talking about 81%. In what survey will you find more than 80% of Canadians and Quebeckers agreeing on an issue? It is clear that Canadians and Quebeckers want to see our systems modernized. This reflects their growing expectation that the House of Commons pay more attention to movements of opinion across the entire country.

I have two examples. First, I want to talk about Marie-Hélène Dubé, a Quebec woman who decided to start a national petition after her third reoccurrence of thyroid cancer. Her petition calls on the federal government to amend section 12 of the Employment Insurance Act, which is 40 years old, to ensure that people with serious illnesses can receive more than 15 weeks of benefits, which is what they receive now. As we speak, this national petition has collected around 430,000 signatures.

I would also like to talk about Sylvie Therrien's online petition. Ms. Dubé developed a rather onerous technique that means people have to sign the paper version of the petition and print it, so that it can be submitted in the House. Ms. Therrien, who had a different experience, also has thousands of signatures on her petition, but unfortunately, it cannot be submitted to the House.

In conclusion, I want to quickly say that this is a tangible measure that will have a clear and demonstrable impact on the way issues that are important to Canadians are represented in parliamentary debates. This proposal would also be a proactive way to combat the widespread discontent with respect to Canadian democracy and many of its institutions, including the Senate.

Therefore, I fully support my colleague's motion. I hope that in 2014, the Canadian Parliament can join the 21st century and agree to hear from the people of this country through electronic petitions.

[Employment Insurance, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture wanted to talk about employment insurance with Quebec farmers.

Instead of listening to their concerns, he chose to insult them by implying that unemployed workers are only looking to lie on the beach in Cuba. Once again the minister has shown that the Conservatives are managing employment insurance based on prejudices. There is no consultation beforehand, no impact study afterward; just their good old prejudices.

Will the member for Beauce apologize for his offensive comments or will he stick to being the spokesperson for the Minister of Human Resources, who says the same kind of offensive things?