Robert Aubin

[Monsignor Thompson, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the Trois-Rivières community welcomed thousands of visitors from across Canada and around the world who wanted to pay a final tribute to Monsignor Thompson.

An outstanding musician, a distinguished educator, a first-class ambassador of the Pueri Cantores organization and, above all, a man of faith like no other, Father Thompson—as he was known to the 4,000 choir boys he worked with—had a profound impact on anyone who crossed his path.

His life's work focused on the ideals of beauty and service to others, and his death does not mark the end of that. Today, thousands of former choir boys are working in all sectors of our society with those same goals in mind. I am one of them, and I would like to thank my mentor, my guide, my friend, for his precious teachings.

Last Saturday, the story of his life here with us may have ended, but a new story of eternal life began.

Monsignor Thompson, you are more alive than ever, for many of us believe that the best way to pay tribute to you is by following in your footsteps in our own endeavours.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, March 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what is happening here this afternoon seems quite paradoxical. Just when we are being told that debate has gone on long enough, the majority of the remarks coming from the Conservative bench are focusing on arguments or the bill. Yet this short, 30-minute window we have been given should be used to debate the time allocation motion, which, I would like to remind the House, is meant to be used as an exception.

What happened in committee or while this bill was being studied that would justify muzzling the members and shortening the time for debate when we know that enlightenment comes when ideas collide?

They are not debating that. They are debating the amendments we proposed, which were rejected. It makes no sense. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this whole situation.

I would like the minister to explain how the government can justify a time allocation motion and muzzling members.

[Regional Economic Development, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in 2011, the Conservatives promised to give more power to the regions, but over the past two years of Conservative rule, the powers that be have abandoned the regions.

The Conservatives seem to have no problem giving generously to big corporations and banks, but they are incapable of doing anything whatsoever to help our regions recover from the crisis.

I have serious concerns about the government's priorities when it says one thing then immediately does another.

The regions are key to our identity. Will this government make them a top priority once again?

[Clarity Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, you have listened to all of my speeches since I was elected to this Parliament, so you will probably be a little surprised that I rise today with neither a lectern nor a script.

The reason is quite simple: this speech is one that I not only wish to give by heart, but one that I intend to be heartfelt, because the bill in question this afternoon strikes at the heart of my political conviction which, alas, flies in the face of this legislation. Here is why.

Every time I tell one of my constituents that it was a long-held dream of mine to get involved in politics, I am invariably asked why I did not do so earlier. The answer is quite simple: it is uncommon that all the stars align, that one finds a party that corresponds to one's values and that lays out a suitable plan for society, that a nomination is available and that there is a charismatic leader to follow. Yet, what happened on May 2, 2011? The message was very clear.

I am from a riding that was, for some time, represented by Bloc Québécois MPs. Obviously, my election, on May 2, 2011, has nothing to do with my star quality, or lack thereof. The vast majority of people from my riding, just like the vast majority of Quebeckers, clearly demonstrated that they were ready for something different, that they liked Jack Layton's leadership style—his positive vision for the future, and the respect that he had for Quebec within the Canadian Constitution—and that they had an overwhelming desire to defeat the Conservative government. They decided, therefore, to place their trust in the NDP.

It must be said that on May 2, 2011, the NDP association in my riding would not have sufficed to get me elected. In fact, a massive coalition of constituents from my riding rallied behind a unifying idea, believed in it, and to this day believe in the basic principles of the Sherbrooke declaration. This guided my political involvement because it enabled me to meet with federalists and to tell them about the work that I intended to do in Ottawa. It also gave me an opportunity to meet with members of the Bloc Québécois and sovereigntists, and to tell them about the work I intended to do in Ottawa, and that if they truly stood by their conviction—and it is a noble idea that will probably never disappear—they would have to fight in the appropriate forum. I think that the majority of Quebeckers have a solid understanding of the fact that their future belongs to them and that it will be decided by them, at the appropriate time, if ever that time comes.

But in the meantime, on not one but two occasions, the majority of Quebeckers have affirmed that they wish to remain in Canada, and this message must be heard. Regarding the proposal by the Bloc, which I am going to vote against, everything, in my opinion, is a question of respect. Each party in the House appears to have a different approach to Quebec.

Every time I think of the Conservatives, I think of a small speech bubble in an Asterix comic book in which someone asks a question, and all the legionnaires start whistling and trying to do something else. In other words, we will not talk about it, there is no problem, we will forget about it and sweep it under the carpet.

For the Liberals, respect means asking us to trust them, because one day, they will be able to reply by saying that perhaps an acceptable answer to a question that is deemed to be clear after the fact is between 50% and 100%. In short, total confusion. This kind of clarity act is something that we understand full well.

What the members of the Bloc mean by their bill is that if you respect Quebec, then do not interfere in its affairs. That is my summary of it. However, telling others to mind their own business means yet again ignoring a whole segment of Quebec's population who mean business when they say they want to stay in Canada. The Bloc’s position is also unacceptable.

Who then has the most balanced approach? Without a doubt, the NDP, under the leadership of the member for Outremont. We are headed precisely in the right direction. Nearly all the major editorialists agree.

What does the NDP bill say compared to the bill introduced by the Bloc? It says very straightforward things. An association, whether a business association, a constitutional association, or even a romantic association, is based on trust. It starts with trust. We will not change the ground rules along the way.

It would therefore be rather silly to claim that 50% plus one is enough to join Canada's Constitution, but that in order to leave, you need 66%. The rules for entry and departure should be the same. The NDP's job is to make Quebeckers feel respected and at home in Canada, thereby ensuring that the question does not come up again. If it does, then these are the conditions that will apply.

The question could not be clearer. At the beginning, I said that Quebeckers will be able to decide their future at a time of their choosing. Naturally, they will also decide on the question. The NDP believes, however, that with their experience of repeated referenda, Quebeckers have also gained maturity. We believe that it might be possible, should a third referendum be held, to follow the example of the Scottish model and agree in advance on the wording of a question that would have everyone live with the results when the referendum was over. This is a very mature approach that Quebeckers are prepared to adopt, except perhaps for those who are spoiling for a fight.

If the option has to succeed through confrontation, it is because it does not have a strong enough foundation to move forward. For those reasons, it will be very difficult if not impossible for me to support this Bloc Québécois bill, which enables us to reject a Clarity Act that I agree is utterly abominable. On this point, we will share a very broad consensus with them. However, having said that the Clarity Act is anything but clear, we cannot replace it with a legal vacuum. That would mean going back 10 years, and reviving futile and, so to speak, puerile debates.

Quebeckers have had enough. They have chosen, and will choose again in 2015, to give wide support to the NDP. They want Quebec and Canada to be governed in accordance with a positive vision. Only one party embodies that vision, from Jack Layton to the leadership we have now under the guidance of the member for Outremont. I really wanted to say his name, but I refrained.

We need a policy that puts an end to the climate of tension, that seeks negotiation or says that we will address the issue as adults who can understand each other, should the need arise one day. The reality, however, is that today the need does not arise, and it probably will not arise tomorrow or the day after. The question about when the next referendum will take place does not figure in the frequent conversations I have with people in my riding. The government now in power in Quebec, which is itself sovereignist, does not seem to be making it a priority. It, too, is listening to the message from society as a whole, which says that its priorities lie elsewhere.

The NDP has already begun to put measures in place and propose legislation reflecting its vision to enable all Quebeckers to feel at home in Canada. That is what induced me to take concrete political action, and I will continue for as long as the people of Trois-Rivières place their trust in me.

[Rail Transportation, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we talked about planes, now I want to talk about trains.

There are more cuts coming for VIA Rail. Last year, the Conservatives slashed $20 million from the operating budget, and we have seen what that has done to service.

But the die has been cast, and nothing more can be done. The Conservatives have chosen to slash another $290 million, which is more than half of VIA's budget.

With these cuts, it will be impossible for VIA Rail to maintain the same services, which, it bears repeating, have already been cut.

Can the Minister of Transport tell us how many new routes will be cut?

[Transportation, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect the federal government to fulfill its responsibilities with respect to transportation safety and to protect Canadians by having the highest safety standards.

Unfortunately, the budget for aviation safety, for example, will be cut by $17 million, and the budgets for marine and railway safety are also being cut.

With investigations into the Burlington derailment and the capsizing of the Miss Ally fishing boat still under way, why are the Conservatives cutting programs meant to prevent these types of accidents?

[Language Skills Act, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, some days it does a body good to rise in the House, and today is one of those days. It is rare to feel this sense of optimism and excitement that leads us to believe that we are close to a broad consensus that would finally allow us to move forward on an issue that should have been resolved ages ago. Better late than never.

I am therefore pleased to speak about a common-sense bill.

In fact, one has to wonder why we are still discussing such a bill in a country that recognizes two official languages.

However, given the growing likelihood that many members of the government and the other opposition parties will get behind this proposal, I would like to talk more about the areas that unite us rather than those that divide us so that this bill can be passed.

In passing, I would like to commend the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst who, long before I arrived in this chamber, had already been fighting for years for the House to treat this country's anglophones and francophones equally.

I would also like to sincerely thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent who, through her bill, is strengthening the rights of francophones in every province and territory. Passing this bill will further strengthen francophone communities.

So, what does this bill say? Since the key message of the bill is contained in just a few short lines, I would like to read it for the benefit of all those who are watching these proceedings via CPAC or elsewhere.

The bill's short title is the Language Skills Act. In my opinion, it could not be any clearer.

The bill simply states:

2. Any person appointed to any of the following offices must, at the time of his or her appointment, be able to understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter and to express himself or herself clearly in both official languages...

I will spare hon. members the rest since the list of the agents of Parliament that should have these skills has already been read out by many of the other speakers.

Once it has been established that Canada has two official languages, everything else should just fall into place naturally.

First, the same level of service should be provided to both language communities since the Constitution protects that right.

Second, people whose appointment is approved by resolution of the Senate, House of Commons or both houses must be able to communicate with parliamentarians in both official languages.

Third, French and English must have equality of status as to their use in all institutions of Parliament.

Equality of use highlights the idea behind the original wording that candidates must have the language abilities before they are appointed to be an officer of Parliament. It seems obvious to me that a unilingual anglophone or francophone, even with the best intentions in the world, will not be able to provide equal service in both languages before learning the second language, something that can often take years.

There is a glaring inconsistency between the services offered to one language community over the other. As I mentioned earlier, in the past, more often than not, it has been francophone communities that end up losing out when the principle of official language equality is twisted.

I have been talking about principles since the beginning of my speech because prejudices in everyday life can become quite significant.

So what kind of service would a Canadian receive if he or she contacted the information commissioner, the privacy commissioner, the chief electoral officer or the auditor general if that government official spoke only the language that the Canadian did not speak?

It is easy to picture the fruitless discussion that would take place, despite the goodwill of the participants. That simple example illustrates the need to support Bill C-419, which was introduced by my colleague.

The entire francophone community is watching the members from every party to ensure that we address this issue once and for all and do not try to hide behind excuses or half-measures.

In his preliminary report on the investigation that resulted from the complaint filed by the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the Commissioner of Official Languages—who is bilingual, thankfully—concluded that the Privy Council Office failed to meet its obligations under the Official Languages Act when it appointed Mr. Ferguson as Auditor General.

As I said earlier, this bill is vital to all of Canada's francophone communities. However, I would be remiss if I did not mention that Bill C-419 on bilingual officers of the House, Bill C-315, which was designed to recognize the language rights of Quebec workers employed by businesses under federal jurisdiction, and the bill to recognize Quebec's political weight within the federation are all opportunities to recognize the Quebec nation. There was political will to recognize the Quebec nation within Canada, but there has not been any political will to grant the rights that should be part of that recognition.

Unanimity is a rare event in this House, I agree, but I am asking the few members not yet convinced of the rightness of this bill to try to walk, from now until the day of the vote, if only for a week, or at least a day, in the shoes of a Canadian living in an official language minority situation. If they do not have the good fortune to be bilingual, let them ask to be answered in the official language they do not know. They will quickly discover what lies behind the drafting of this bill.

The goal is not to make all Canadians bilingual, although such a dream can be a fine thing, and such an accomplishment is undeniably an advantage in the international world we now live in. The goal of this bill, rather, is to leave no one behind because of a communication problem arising from ignorance of an official language on the part of an officer of Parliament. It is a question of job skills and requirements.

I must therefore insist: let us never again be told that out of 34 million Canadians across this country, we cannot find a Canadian man or woman who is both bilingual and qualified for the job we are trying to fill. Bilingualism, after all, is an integral part of the skills or qualifications such a person should have.

Our language is much more than a work instrument; it is also a part of our identity. If Canada has chosen to recognize two official languages, for reasons that are historically highly defensible, it should now ensure consistency in its decisions and acquire the means to realize its goals.

The NDP has always been a fervent defender of the official languages in the public realm, and this bill is a conclusive example. We will fight relentlessly for every Canadian man and woman to be able to receive services and interact with officers of Parliament in the official language of their choice. We will soon have an opportunity to send a clear message to all Canadians by voting in favour of Bill C-419.

I implore parliamentarians in all parties in this House, let us not miss this historic opportunity. I will close by thanking all of my colleagues in this House who, in their heart and soul, have already decided to support the bill. I would suggest most humbly to those who still have doubts to drop by the Standing Committee on Official Languages. There they will definitely find food for thought and colleagues who ask nothing better than to discuss with them the wisdom of this measure.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, at this point, we know that the minister will vote against the motion. Perhaps the rest of his party will not, and that would be amusing.

They will vote against the motion out of pure partisanship. Having talked with the minister many times, I would say that, when it comes right down to it, he has no choice but to agree with the motion.

For once, could we forget about the political games and work together to serve Canadians?

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. My response is simple: it allows them to make smart choices.

Once a stable, long-term, ongoing infrastructure spending program is put in place, then decisions can be made in light of the budget envelope. If I have a specific funding envelope to spread over the next 20 years, I could implement more costly projects, for example.

On the other hand, managing infrastructure improvements on a short-term basis implies that I must choose projects based on the budget envelope allocated for one, two or three years.

I may not commit and I may not lock my community in to more costly projects, even though they are just as necessary. However, if I had the means to look ahead, I could make that commitment.

The government needs to change one key element in its approach. It needs to think of infrastructure improvements as an investment, not as an expenditure. Once the issue is seen in that light, everything changes, I swear.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to rise here this morning to speak to this motion, since it directly affects everyone in my riding, all Quebeckers and all Canadians. Indeed, infrastructure has a direct impact on our daily lives, for better or for worse—and for the past few years, it has been for worse.

More and more studies and reports have been done across Canada over the years, and their findings are consistent. Analysts have reached the same conclusions: it is time to increase our investment in infrastructure and establish programs that allow municipalities to plan their investment programs over the long term.

That is precisely what today's NDP motion is calling for, and as my colleague, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, explained so well, this motion contains three key requests: to improve Canada's lagging productivity, shorten commute times and fix Canada's infrastructure, whose condition ranges from good to mediocre.

The beautiful thing about these three requests is that working on our infrastructure will allow improvements in all three areas at once.

As we can see, these requests are very specific. They raise economic concerns, and at the same time, highlight issues that affect the daily lives of millions of Canadians, such as commute times.

Finally, the funding of our municipal infrastructure affects each and every one us. It affects the quality of the water that we drink and our access to and use of airports and energy facilities.

Canadians expect the Conservative government to take major positive action in terms of their infrastructure. I say “their infrastructure” because the condition of roads, water systems and bridges and the smooth flow of public transit are issues that affect and concern all Canadians. It is the government's responsibility to quickly meet their expectations. Canadians know that it is time to make major, long-term investments in things that make this country run smoothly.

What can the federal government do, or rather, what is the Conservative government not doing that it should be doing?

A recent Le Devoir headline aptly stated that Canada's infrastructure deficit continues to grow. What does that mean in practical terms?

There is no question that the federal government's contribution to infrastructure is becoming increasingly meagre. Insufficient funding in this area is nothing new, but nothing is currently being done to catch up to other countries. If nothing is done, the bill will just continue to grow as our bridges, roads and water systems age and crumble. Unfortunately, that is what is happening.

In 1980, the value of public infrastructure was 30% of GDP. It is now down to 22% of GDP. This means that our infrastructure is aging, that it is not withstanding the test of time and that its value is dropping while the country's population and needs are increasing. A modern, competitive country cannot let its infrastructure crumble.

To maintain an acceptable level, close to 3% of GDP must be invested annually. The government must take action immediately.

The federal government has reduced its share of investment contributions, which now falls below 15%. It is not because infrastructure costs less than it used to—quite the contrary. That is clear.

The federal government is sticking municipalities with the bill. Municipalities are responsible for 52% of infrastructure, while the provinces are responsible for about 35%. The issue is not just the federal government's transfer of responsibility or debt to the municipal level; the problem is much more complex than that. The municipalities simply do not have the means or tax leverage to take on this enormous responsibility alone. Without the federal government's commitment, our infrastructure will not be modernized and very few municipalities will have the means to invest in the Canada of tomorrow.

The federal government has spent many, many months consulting over 200 municipal, provincial and territorial representatives. For several months now, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has been talking about a sustainable plan. In his speech to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in November 2012, the minister said:

We can all agree that Canada needs a sustainable public infrastructure investment plan to replace the Building Canada Plan in 2014…A plan that will work well into the future.

For lack of a cabinet shuffle the same minister will be voting against the motion that my colleague moved this morning. I was pleased when I heard the minister's statement, but now I would like to see him take action. A long-term plan is exactly what municipalities and the NDP have been asking for, but the minister has never wanted to specify what he means by “long-term”. It seems that three, four or five years could be considered the long term. Or it could be 10 or 15 years. No one knows.

The NDP's position is clear: we believe that a 20-year plan would provide municipalities with the means to truly plan out their investments and would ensure that Canadians and future generations get the basic services needed by communities. If to govern is to plan—to the best of my knowledge, Clemenceau said that—then we should start planning today, assuming the government really does want to govern on behalf of all Canadians.

It is always easy to cut infrastructure spending in order to balance the budget more quickly. However, economic studies prove that such cuts and temporary underfunding have a dramatic impact on subsequent generations. Our children will have to pay for the Conservatives' short-term vision. We are hanging an environmental millstone around the necks of future generations, which will have a hard time overcoming the problems they inherit from us. The Conservatives are about to do the same thing with the economy.

Studies clearly show that government programs for municipal infrastructure have helped significantly slow deficit growth since 2008. These programs are effective. We must keep them going over a longer period. The federal government must commit to bringing in predictable, sustainable long-term funding.

When the government provides only ad hoc funding, long-term projects—such as public transportation—are not eligible for funding. Periodic reviews are needed to ensure that targets are met and to adjust funding. In Quebec, the municipalities already assume the vast majority of the financial responsibility for municipal infrastructure spending without any financial return. The federal government recovers nearly 30% of its investments in financial returns, which shows what a big, impressive economic driver this government can be. It is clear that the federal government must play an active role and commit to making the existing programs permanent.

For five years the NDP has been calling for a permanent infrastructure program to take care of this problem instead of dumping it on local governments.

Since I am quickly running out of time, I will conclude by saying that the federal government must act immediately. Since the building Canada fund expires in 2014 and the money has all been spent already, Canadian municipalities need to know now what to expect so that they can plan carefully and efficiently. Since every $1 billion invested in infrastructure helps create 11,000 jobs, job growth and economic productivity are partially tied to funding from the federal government. Canada cannot afford to ignore this opportunity for growth.

The NDP has heard from representatives of the UMQ, the FQM, the FCM, chambers of commerce, the Toronto Board of Trade, the Canadian Urban Transit Association and Engineers Canada, to name a few, and they all agree that now is the time to play catch-up with upgrading our infrastructure maintenance.