Robert Aubin

[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.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to thank the member for Trinity—Spadina for her incredible leadership in this area.

Over the past few months, we have met with dozens of municipal representatives across Canada, and not a single one was opposed to the motion moved by my colleague this morning. It is unanimous. There is something much larger than a consensus on this issue. It would appear that there are anywhere from 150 to 200 people who are prepared to vote against this motion, namely the Conservatives on the other side.

Am I right? Did my colleague find even one organization that has reservations about this motion, or have I understood correctly and people are unanimous in their support? Is there really a consensus about what needs to happen with Canada's infrastructure?

[Infrastructure, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it seems clear that the Conservatives want the people of Montreal's south shore to pay for the construction of the new Champlain bridge. Toll booths could be installed on every bridge and tunnel leading to the south shore.

The problem with the minister's plan is that it leads to the federal government abdicating its responsibility for infrastructure.

Before implementing a tax on transportation in the Montreal area, why not work with the municipalities on coming up with a stable, predictable strategy for funding infrastructure on an ongoing basis?

[Canada Post Corporation, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' lack of consistency has reached new heights.

In June 2011, the Conservatives said that our economy would be devastated if we did not force Canada Post employees back to work. They said that businesses and Canadians would pay dearly for the reduced services.

Yesterday CTV news was reporting that the Conservatives might reduce mail delivery from five to three days a week.

If a simple rotating strike presented such a serious threat to our economy, what sort of impact would a permanent reduction have? Would it be the apocalypse?

[Transportation, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, traffic congestion is a problem that can no longer be ignored. Every day in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and many other cities, people have trouble getting to work, which means billions of dollars' worth of lost productivity. To help our economy, we must invest in effective solutions, and the best solution, hands down, is public transit.

Has the minister included funding for public transit in the next infrastructure program in order to reduce traffic congestion?

[Petitions, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, access to secure, accessible and affordable housing is not a privilege, it is a fundamental right. But in Canada, a rich country, this is not yet the case.

That is why hundreds of people are adding their voices to the debates in Parliament in support of Bill C-400.

I am pleased to present this petition.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening closely to the debate for hours. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no funding set aside for this program. I would be pleasantly surprised to see something in the budget, but I will not count on it.

I am very disappointed to see that the government is asking everyone to do more with less. It is asking that of us, of the RCMP, of everyone except itself. The bill does not reflect any of the recommendations that came out of the Air India inquiry, for one. That inquiry recommended a transparent eligibility process and more rigorous accountability.

Finally, what is this wishful thinking? What are the Conservatives doing by giving us this bill and asking us to find a way to make it happen?