Robert Aubin

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for such a relevant question.

In the past few weeks, I have listened to some epic conversations and debates about the word “tax”. Whether they call it a tax or a fee, the result is the same: it comes out of taxpayers' pockets. The fact that the budget contains such a big tax grab is certainly a reason to vote against Bill C-60.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, that would be good.

I have serious doubts about the government's empathy for pyrrhotite victims, whom I see regularly in my riding. The infrastructure measures are no different. Municipalities across Canada have strongly criticized the significant amount of catching up that needs to be done just to update existing infrastructure. I am not even talking about creating new infrastructure, just updating our existing infrastructure.

With a sleight of hand worthy of Merlin the magician, the latest budget proposed by the Minister of Finance would have us believe that the government will be investing more in infrastructure when really, it is suddenly going to be cutting billions more from the infrastructure budget.

That leverage could have really helped what is at best a struggling economy. The Conservatives wasted yet another opportunity.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for his question.

The first question had to do with the huge amounts of money being spent on advertising. The word “advertising” itself could spark a debate of its own: is it advertising or propaganda? It is worth asking. What is a budget, after all? That is another very relevant question.

Mr. Speaker, you and I can probably think of more things we would like to do than we have funds to pay for. Drawing up a budget means making choices. And for a government, making choices means choosing what will help all Canadians improve their quality of life.

The proposed budget falls far short of that goal. The government is presenting an austerity budget whose only goal is to work toward balancing the budget, but I am still not convinced that it will work. One thing is sure: this bill will not boost the economy the way Canadians expect it to.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this debate on Bill C-60 is another sad day for our ailing Canadian democracy. The only reason I can rise today is that I am very fortunate. I am fortunate not because I have the pleasure of being a member of Parliament, which is already a great privilege, but because even though a 32nd gag order is depriving the House's 308 members of their right to speak, I am one of the lucky few who has a chance to rise and to state, loud and clear, his many reasons for voting against this bill.

Although the bill includes some good elements, the Conservatives' now-notorious habit of using omnibus bills forces us to vote either yes or no. For example, voting “yes” would mean that I support the adoption tax credit, something this side of the House totally agrees with, but it would also mean that I agree with all the tax increases laid out in the budget. This creates a real dilemma. When faced with such a Catch-22, we can only give one answer: “no”.

Canadian voters expected much more when they voted for a Parliament as diverse as the one we have now. They expected all of their members of Parliament to be heard, and they expected ideas to collide.

Unfortunately, today is yet another dark day because, although our government has a majority, it feels the need to hide all of its plans, which likely do not reflect what most Canadians want.

It is ridiculous that the committee had only five days to study Bill C-60, which will amend or create no fewer than 50 pieces of legislation. I will leave it at that, since I do not want to be disrespectful. I will let those watching decide for themselves how inappropriate this tactic is.

The Conservatives' Bill C-60 is unfortunately not a surprise to the official opposition, and it should not be a surprise to Canadians. Bill C-60 is part of a growing trend that spells dark days ahead for Canadians. We are seeing an increasing number of omnibus bills, the committee had little or not enough time to discuss the bill and the government is not consistent or transparent in how it manages public affairs.

We are still not used to all that, and I hope that we never will be. However, these tactics are unfortunately becoming all too common.

As I said earlier, Bill C-60 includes some positive measures. For example, it allows for two tax credits that we support: the tax credit for adoption-related expenses, which I mentioned earlier, and the charitable donations tax credit. However, there are a lot of concerns about the fairness of the provisions that aim to increase charitable donations. The NDP raised these concerns at the Standing Committee on Finance.

Charitable organizations are increasingly relying on donations from individuals to fund their activities, as a result of the countless cuts made by the Conservative government.

Despite what the Conservatives claim, this budget does not stimulate the Canadian economy. Budget 2013 will eliminate thousands of jobs and cut program spending.

More and more studies by well-known economists show that strict fiscal restraint and austerity budgets are counter-productive.

I will just quote one of them. Carol Goar of the Toronto Star said that^, ever since the Minister of Finance began chopping programs and expenditures, the economy has drooped, the job market has sagged, consumers have pulled back and the corporate sector has hunkered down, sitting on its earnings. She also said that the same formula has delivered worse results in Europe.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimates, the 2012 budget, the 2012 budget update and the 2013 budget will lead to the loss of at least 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% drop in the GDP.

That will seriously slow down the country's economic growth, but will we still see growth?

The Conservatives' measures put the brakes on growth and job creation. There is nothing in this budget that would create jobs; there is nothing that would make living more affordable; nothing to strengthen the services on which families depend. Not only are the Conservatives failing to create jobs, but they are still attacking working Canadians. This bill gives the Treasury Board far-reaching powers to intervene in the collective bargaining process and dictate the working conditions in crown corporations.

I want to emphasize this point, in view of the portfolio and responsibilities my leader, the hon. member for Outremont, has given me. As the deputy critic for transportation, infrastructure and communities, I regularly rise in the House to ask the government questions about Via Rail or Canada Post, for example. Invariably, the minister or minister of state who is responsible for transport replies candidly that these crown corporations are independent corporations and that the government does not intend to interfere in their management.

The reality, however, is quite different, and we have seen this in the many pieces of special legislation that have been imposed on workers in various sectors. Bill C-60 goes even farther in this "non-interference". It would bring in changes that would allow the government to direct a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board for the purpose of the crown corporation entering into a collective agreement with a bargaining agent.

I am asking the simple question: is this intervention or not? I must admit that I am starting to get a bit confused. Do we believe the words of the Minister of Transport or the will of the President of the Treasury Board? It is hard to answer this question. Still, if I must choose between a speech and a law, I know what I need to know.

Under the provisions of Bill C-60, if the government directs a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board, then the Treasury Board can impose whatever it wants in terms of the crown corporation's employees' working conditions. However, let us not forget that these are independent corporations.

No crown corporation receiving such a government order will be able to reach a collective agreement without Treasury Board approval. Can we see an intervention there? Bill C-60 also authorizes the Treasury Board to establish the terms and conditions of employment of non-unionized employees, on a government order.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-60 clearly constitute an attack on the right to free collective bargaining in Canada. They violate the basic principle of the operational independence of crown corporations, since they give the government the right to intervene if a crown corporation is not managing its labour relations to the government's satisfaction. Is this still not interference? I think the answer is clear.

I will therefore conclude by saying that all members of my party and I oppose this bill, because of its content and for procedural reasons. Bill C-60 is proposing a very wide range of complex measures that should be analyzed and examined carefully. Bringing in such a huge bill on such a tight schedule makes it impossible for members to study the proposed measures and their likely effects in a satisfactory manner, and that undermines the fundamental role of Parliament.

Moreover, Bill C-60 does not reflect the real concerns of Canadians. Instead of passing meaningful legislation to create jobs, the Conservatives are imposing austerity measures that will stifle economic growth, raise the cost of living, and negatively affect employment.

Thus, we are opposed to the 2013 budget and its implementation bills, unless they can be rewritten to take the real priorities of Canadian families into account.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech given by my eminent colleague.

I think it gave an excellent summary of the debate we are having here today. This is really a third omnibus bill. Of course, we agree with a few of the measures presented in this bill, but they are mixed in with many a bitter pill that will be difficult to swallow. This is becoming a real problem.

For example, I wonder if the member could explain how it is that a government that raised the retirement age from 65 to 67, telling people they will simply have to plan better, could at the same time take away one of the most important measures available to small investors, a tool that allowed them to put money aside for a decent retirement.

Of course, I am referring to the removal of special tax treatment for workers' funds.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his presentation.

Personally, I am not really a big fan of these types of fights. If I have understood correctly, the bill introduced this morning will update the rules and make this type of fighting legal, but not promote it. I would like to hear what he has to say about that.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

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

I would like her to clarify something. Of course, we are preparing to support the bill because the government has sort of opened the door to an improvement. As things stand now, any improvements that can make a difference on the ground for our men and women in uniform deserve to be supported, even though we know that this is not very much and a great deal more needs to be done.

However, I have a question about the approach. I just heard a Conservative member say that it was time to put an end to all these debates and move forward. How is it that the government is opening a door, while systematically rejecting all amendments at committee, even the amendments that support the government's openness? That has actually been the case in pretty much every committee, with each and every bill.

Could the hon. member explain this partisan approach, which is light years away from the service that Canadians and our military should be receiving?

[Business of Supply, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will let the Liberals and the Conservatives squabble about their respective records, because it seems to be a case of “my dad is stronger than yours”.

What really stood out for me was that the parliamentary secretary said that the Kyoto protocol is just symbolic, and that is why Canada withdrew. If she is implying that that we would not solve the problem even if all the signatories achieved their targets, I agree with that.

However, the problem of climate change has to be tackled at home and abroad. We withdrew from the protocol on the grounds that not all emitters were on board. We need to understand the differences between the countries that were directly responsible for this situation and those that will be responsible for carrying on. We cannot say that everyone should do the same thing at the same time. There have to be negotiations.

Had Canada been a real leader, I think that, after it withdrew, a number of countries would have followed suit and withdrawn from the Kyoto protocol at the same time because that was the right thing to do. We are the only country that withdrew from the Kyoto protocol, and that attitude does not encourage people to work together.

Perhaps reconsidering our international stature in the approach to the problem is in order.

[Canada Post, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, all the Conservatives want to talk about is cuts and downsizing, but the NDP wants to talk about new ways of doing business.

A number of countries, such as Germany, Switzerland and New Zealand, have developed effective financial services that ensure that their postal services are profitable. If the Conservatives rely solely on the Conference Board report, they will find nothing but arguments justifying their drive for privatization.

My question is simple. Will the Conservatives maintain this public service for Canadian individuals and businesses across the country?

[Minister of National Defence, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the disastrous record of the Minister of National Defence keeps going from bad to worse: the minister who constantly says that criticizing the shoddy management of his department is the same as criticizing our troops really took a beating this morning—and for the second time concerning soldiers' pay while deployed.

Canadian soldiers currently serving in northern Afghanistan were asked, by departmental directive, to pay back thousands of dollars in danger pay, a decision that was once again reversed in a panic following a media scoop.

The minister tried to save a few pennies on the sly, at the expense of our soldiers. It seems to me that the Minister of National Defence—who is willing to slap down tens of thousands of dollars to get his photo taken with an F-35 or to be taxied out of his fishing camp in an army helicopter—should not be playing bailiff with our soldiers.

Our brave soldiers are courageously serving in one of the most dangerous countries on the planet and deserve a government that treats them with respect and dignity.

In 2015, that is exactly what the NDP will give them.