Robert Aubin

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote Joe Dassin, who stated that, “life is but one day after another, and every day is the same”. This is the 47th time allocation motion. If members were looking for a sign—as if one were needed—that the government is tired and no longer knows what to do, they would be hard pressed to find a better example.

I would remind members that time allocation motions are usually for a specific purpose, and denote some urgent need to act. However, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages certainly knows how to play up the benefits of his bill, and has been doing so for some time. Despite cutting short debate—which he has done 46 times—his colleagues and he claim that they do occasionally have ideas, but that they are not overly interested in debating them. They also claim that they want to be more efficient and insinuate that the parliamentary system is a hindrance to Conservative governance. Basically, the Conservatives wonder whether they might not simply do away with the parliamentary system altogether.

In my opinion, when the House reconvenes in September, an omnibus bill will be introduced that clumps together all the legislation that has been discussed over the course of the year. That will mean voting once, and only once.

[Expressions of Thanks, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary session winds down, I would like to thank a few people.

I would like to thank the members of my staff, who fight every day to ensure that our constituents receive their due from the government, a government that too often portrays Canadians as cheats and fraudsters.

I would also like to thank the organizations in Trois-Rivières that work with me. One example is Culture Mauricie, which led the fight against Parks Canada for the Forges du Saint-Maurice and made some progress on that front. I am also working with Proprio-Béton to make the Conservatives understand that they are the only ones taxing people's misery instead of helping them.

I would like to thank all public servants who continue to provide services on par with the best in the world despite the tension and fear overshadowing their working conditions.

I would like to thank everyone who has taken our message about working together to heart. In 2015, let us work together to elect a government with a clean record when it comes to cronyism and scandal, a government dedicated to the best interests of the people, economic growth and sound management: an NDP government.

[First Nations Elections Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like him to comment on something. From what I understand, as a bill evolves, it usually improves. It should be better and enjoy increasingly broad support. Yet, it seems that even though first nations were at first quite supportive of this bill, this is no longer true of the latest version we have before us. Apparently they also suggested a number of amendments but struggled to be heard.

Are aboriginal communities now suffering the same fate as the parliamentary committees on the Hill, namely lack of attention, no consultation, and the total dismissal of any proposed amendments to improve the bill?

[Rail Transportation, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of State for Transport misspoke yesterday when he answered my question.

First he said that he had read the Transportation Safety Board's recommendations and then he said that his department was encouraging the stakeholders to install recording devices. Encouraging does not go far enough. This is a public safety requirement.

The other thing he got wrong was his response to a question about automatic braking systems. He said there were stricter penalties for those who break the rules.

Is preventing accidents not one of the minister's responsibilities? When will there be mandatory rail safety requirements?

[Rail Transportation, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think that Canadians would appreciate less lip service and more action from the government.

How many more people will have to lose their lives for the government to do something about this?

For years the NDP has been calling on the government to make employee and passenger safety a priority and to have automatic braking systems installed on trains.

Will the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities respond to the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada by introducing a bill that would make automatic braking systems mandatory?

[Housing, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this week, we learned that the Shawinigan hospital is having issues with pyrrhotite. The Conservatives will probably try to pass the buck by saying that hospitals are under provincial jurisdiction. However, I urge them to read the National Assembly's unanimous motion calling for federal help on this matter. The federal government compensated pyrite victims, so there is no reason that pyrrhotite victims should not be compensated too. All levels of government are responsible for supporting people in crisis.

Will the government stand by as a hospital deteriorates to the point where it has to be closed?

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I am amazed to hear the minister and many others before him talk about the beauty of the island and the beauty of his bill, when we should be spending the half-hour that we have talking about the Standing Orders and the 42nd time allocation motion—if I have counted correctly—that the government has imposed.

Over the past several months and even years, we have become used to the fact that the government thinks that the laws and the rules are there for others to follow. When laws and rules do not fit in with the Conservatives' agenda, they change them.

My question is very simple. Should we expect a bill to change the Standing Orders of the House to be introduced in the next few days or can we expect the Conservatives to one day follow the rules?

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for her speech.

With one omnibus bill a year, I think we could at least expect the government to be consistent from one omnibus bill to the next.

I have a hard time understanding how in one bill it can tell Canadian seniors that they will not only have to wait another two years to retire, but they will also have to properly prepare. Then, in the next omnibus bill the government tells them that it is doing away with the benefit provided by labour-sponsored funds, one of the best tools they have to plan for retirement.

Am I missing something there? Does that make sense?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa South for his speech.

I get the impression that the Liberals will vote against Bill C-60. Although we are talking about the Liberals here, it can sometimes be surprising to see a change in direction.

My question is very simple. The Liberals have been strongly opposing Bill C-60 all evening, so I would like to know how many amendments they presented at report stage.

If my calculations are correct, I think you could count them on the fingers of an armless man. I do not understand how they can be so staunchly against Bill C-60, when they did not try to improve it.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Don Valley West, and I have to say that he raised a number of topics related to the economy that we could debate. That is even the purpose of tonight's debate.

Why does the government not make a budget bill, instead of an omnibus bill that includes all kinds of things that they refuse to talk about tonight?

For example, no one has been able to explain to me how the President of the Treasury Board's interference in negotiations at crown corporations can help our economy. There are many more examples, such as issues related to citizenship, the merger of CIDA and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and so on.

Why does the government never talk about the 50 acts that were slipped into this budget implementation bill? Why are government members suddenly talking only about infrastructure and a few topics that would ultimately be worth debating?