Robert Aubin

[Airline Safety, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, considering the relevance of the minister's answers, I must insist.

Last spring, the Auditor General was clear: the civil aviation inspection system contains some serious flaws, and Transport Canada has no plan to improve its monitoring program. These flaws could put the safety of millions of travellers at risk. What is the Conservatives' solution? To cut Transport Canada's budget even further. It is completely absurd and, frankly, very, very dangerous.

Can the Conservatives explain to us how cutting services will translate into enhanced safety for passengers?

[Census, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, hiding information about the effects of cuts to services has become a Conservative hallmark. Statistics Canada has given us the proof today. The Conservatives swore that abolishing the long form census would not have any effect on data. But we now know that the complete opposite is true: 12% of municipalities had response rates lower than 50%.

Does the Conservative government realize that its stubbornness has seriously compromised our ability to make informed, fact-based decisions regarding municipal development?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is with very mixed feelings that I take part in this discussion on Bill C-43. I say mixed feelings because there is definitely an issue here worth discussing and finding a solution to, but this is no way to approach it.

I am here, speaking in the House, because of the voters of Trois-Rivières. We can all agree that Trois-Rivières is not exactly an immigration gateway to Canada. Imagine my surprise in the weeks following my election when I saw the plurality of the cultural communities in Trois-Rivières, when I spoke with the people of those communities and recognized the wealth of diversity. I also recognized a need to listen to one another, in order to try to understand each other, given our respective cultural baggage.

I realized that there should be an individualized approach to immigration for each of the people that I met with in my riding office. There is no doubt that, of all the files that I have dealt with in Trois-Rivières since I was elected, those related to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have been the most complex. It seems that this goes without saying, given the nature of the subject at hand. As a result, I have a very hard time when someone tries to present a simple or even simplistic solution to a complex problem involving immigration.

Thus, to support Bill C-43 as it stands would require me to turn my back on core values that I cannot deny. It is also asking me to take a great leap of faith to vote to send this bill to committee in the hopes that major amendments will be made to it, particularly given the number of amendments that were accepted in the case of a bill as large and important as Bill C-38. If the past is any indication, there is not much there to reassure me.

However, with all due respect for parliamentarianism, I must still place some hope in committee work and in the fact that the committee could considerably improve a bill that contains certain elements that I think are essential and could do away with others that are simply not consistent with the values held by most Canadians.

For the sake of time, I will start with my biggest concern. If I have any time left, I will end with the points on which both sides of the House could come to an agreement. I hope that this approach will be constructive and will help to set the tone for the work that members of this committee will do.

My first concern is that the vision of the Conservatives' bill is completely black and white. Bill C-43 is one of many Conservative bills that, as I said earlier, proposes a simple solution to a complex problem. With regard to the bill we are discussing this afternoon, there seem to be good people and bad people but very rarely good people who have given in to a moment of weakness and are not necessarily destined for a life of crime, but whom the Conservatives want to force to leave the country.

The picture before us is, once again, presented only in black and white, with almost no shades of grey. Yet it is difficult to describe reality without using all shades of grey. We simply have to think back to black and white television, for those who are my age, anyway. If there had been no shades of grey, we would not have seen much of anything. Very few things, particularly concerning immigration, correspond to this dualistic view of the world. Any search for consensus must look at solutions that take into account a broader range of shades of grey, which will allow us to consider every possible situation.

Bill C-43 also presents a risk of considerable abuse.

Let us first talk about the powers that would be granted to the minister. I must point out that this is not a question of examining the personality of the current Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, but rather of the powers that could be exercised by any individual who is in charge of that rather complex department.

Usually, in famous western movies, there are good guys and bad guys, and there is usually a sheriff to mediate the conflict. Well, in this case, it seems that the sheriff is none other than the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. His discretionary power will increase, while the criteria used to achieve justice seem to be decreasing.

The minister would thus have the authority needed to rule on the admissibility of temporary resident applicants. That means that the minister could rule that the foreign national is inadmissible for up to 36 months, if he believes that it is in the public interest.

I will digress for a moment. First, the verb “to believe” introduces a grey area or value judgment. It is hard to imagine that the verb to believe refers to objective criteria. The belief might vary from one minister to the next. We know that cabinet shuffles, even changes in government, are legion in our democratic system.

Bill C-43 does not define public interest. What is really in the public interest and allows the minister to determine that it would be best to deport a person?

What is more, Bill C-43 takes away from the minister the responsibility, even the obligation, to examine the humanitarian circumstances of the foreign national who is deemed inadmissible for security reasons. That again is a grey area and is difficult to define.

I believe that the minister in charge of such a department must be the instance of last resort. He must rise above the fray and not be a part of the decision-making machine, and not have a penchant for ideology.

Furthermore, the bill changes the definition of what is considered to be “serious criminality”. This will be a particularly important matter to be debated in committee. What corresponds to the NDP or Conservative view of what we might term “serious criminality”, and will also garner the broadest consensus among Canadians when it is time to describe and judge what constitutes “serious criminality”?

Previously, a serious criminal was someone given a sentence of two or more years, which was the logical connection to the judge's reasoning when judging a crime. If a crime was deemed to be punishable with a sentence of two years or more, the criterion of “serious criminality” was met.

By changing this criterion from two years or more to six months or more, will judges be asked to change how they interpret the law and make their rulings? Absolutely not. It means that we are opening the door to including all sorts of crimes that, under the old law, would not have been viewed as “serious criminality” and that detractors would consider to be grounds for deportation.

We can well imagine that judges will not change their rulings and that a much larger number of cases may find their way into the new process set out by Bill C-43.

What about the right to an appeal process? It is no longer an option, even for someone given a six-month sentence for a crime that most Canadians would not consider a real threat to public safety.

For example, imagine an immigrant with an incurable illness that causes unbearable pain. He decides to seek relief by discreetly growing five or six pot plants at home. He is not selling drugs. While some parliamentarians are considering the possibility of legalizing marijuana, for just such a situation, that person could be found guilty of a serious crime and be deported to a country that he does not know well enough culturally to live in safely and soundly. He may have come to Canada as a child. Canada could be his only refuge and ours the only culture he has ever known.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation of my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, and I particularly enjoyed the examples that he slipped into his speech.

I would like him to comment or provide his opinion to see if he shares a certain vision. Actually, in listening to the debates since this morning, I have the impression that, with Bill C-43, the Conservatives are trying to depict a very simple, if not simplistic, situation: there are good guys and bad guys; it is black or white. But in my distinguished colleague's speech, it seems that there were many shades of grey, in various situations.

It makes me wonder whether this simple situation, if that is what it is, is truly so simple—when he talks, among other things, about the possibility of the minister's reviewing a foreigner's admissibility—when I hear phrases like: “if he feels it is justified by public policy considerations.” It seems to me that, with such phrases, the hon. member is being completely subjective. However, the picture the Conservatives have been painting since this morning, particularly with their examples, is that the situation is simple, black or white, and that is that.

[Petitions, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on behalf of many Canadians who want the government to support the bill introduced by my colleague from Trinity—Spadina regarding the creation of a national public transit strategy in Canada.

[Public Transit, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there is quite a difference between investing and having a long-term vision that supports those investments.

Quebec will mark “Car Free Day” this week. Each year, the number of participants goes up. In Montreal, it is estimated that congestion costs $1.4 billion a year and that 77 million working hours are lost. That is a serious blow to the economy.

Will the minister take this loss of productivity seriously and support a national public transit strategy?

[Petitions, June 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today I am speaking on behalf of a number of my constituents in Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who are asking that members of Parliament who cross the floor be required to answer to their constituents by resigning and then being re-elected.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, June 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple.

Concerning first nations, it seems to me that there should be a nation-to-nation consultation process to clarify this situation and implement a process that works for both parties.

Can my colleague expand on that? From what I can tell, this is yet another interventionist measure by the Conservatives, relying more on punishment than on finding a mutually agreeable solution.

[Canada Revenue Agency, June 15th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, things are getting clearer. According to a study by Revenue Canada, the government is considering transferring activities from the tax centres in Jonquière and Shawinigan to the private sector.

The government would be giving up incomparable expertise. We are talking about 65 full-time positions in Shawinigan and 35 positions in Jonquière. Sensitive and confidential documents could end up in the hands of a private company.

Why are the Conservatives attacking jobs and prosperity in the regions?

[National Public Transit Strategy Act, June 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it has been a long time since I said I was pleased to rise in this House to address Bill C-305. I see this legislation as a breath of fresh air after the debates that we have had over the past few weeks, and particularly before the marathon session that will begin in the next few hours, if not minutes.

This legislation is refreshing because it has been a long time since we had a bill that presents a vision for the future, a bill that takes Canada into the 21st century, where it should be.

I want to point out, because this is somewhat funny, that while we are often presented with statistics from the OECD to boast about Canada's place in the world, our country is the only OECD member that has yet to adopt a public transit strategy at the national level.

What are the objectives of the national strategy proposed in the hon. member's bill? They are very simple and quite appropriate: to have fast, affordable and efficient public transit in Canada.

We have to be aware of the time lost by people because of traffic congestion. According to a study that I read recently, over a period of one year, a worker in a large urban centre like Montreal or Toronto spends the equivalent of about 32 working days in his car, commuting to and from work. This time could be reduced significantly with a fast, affordable and efficient public transit system.

We must make the necessary investments. I emphasize the word “investments”, because I think one of the main differences between the Conservative Party and the NDP is that the NDP sees the development of a true public transit strategy as an investment instead of an expenditure. It may cost us in the short term, but the return on the investment will be significantly greater than the money spent.

The Conservatives will likely tell us that financial support for transportation infrastructure is increasing every year, and I am not disputing that. However, the growing needs are outpacing this infrastructure more and more rapidly. Child-rearing incentives, particularly in Quebec, have created a mini-baby boom, which means that the population of Canada is growing fairly rapidly and that the need for public transit is critical.

I would like to add that the younger generation is increasingly aware of the importance of adopting a greener approach to the economy and to transportation. The new generation is sending a message to all the slightly older generations, such as the one I belong to, that significant efforts must be made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Of course this involves a public transportation system that is more effective at every level: public transit within municipalities, within the provinces and even between provinces. I will have the opportunity to elaborate on that later.

So what are the fundamental elements of this policy that we want to see implemented to enhance the development of this country's public transit system? First, we must ensure that we have predictable, ongoing funding. The various stakeholders that have to deal with the problem of public transportation must have a vision for the short, medium and long term. In order for that to happen, they have to be able to count on predictable, ongoing funding.

We have to invest in research and development. For the past few weeks, I have had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Transport, where we have been studying new transportation technologies. Witnesses appeared before the committee and explained in very clear terms the changes that could be made if we had a little more support for research and development.

We should encourage the different levels of government to work harmoniously together. We know that transit is a municipal, provincial and interprovincial matter, and one day we will have to sit all the players down at the table so they can harmonize their policies, share their successes and, together, set a course for the future.

We should also develop greater synergy between urban development and infrastructure. The positive outcomes of this type of policy are just as straightforward as they are simple, and they are expected by the vast majority of the population. First, there is a quick and effective decrease in greenhouse gases. For every bus put on the road, for every suburban train, for every interprovincial transit ride, hundreds or even thousands of cars are taken off the road. The means of transportation, together with industry, are the greatest emitters of greenhouse gases. This is a clear, straightforward, specific and quick way to optimally decrease greenhouse gases.

We can also expect improved health outcomes. Studies have shown that, in big cities, traffic congestion has a direct effect on respiratory diseases and on people who are more severely affected. More public transit means lower greenhouse gas emissions; lower greenhouse gas emissions means lower health care costs related to respiratory diseases.

Take my own case, for example. I live in the riding of Trois-Rivières, which is populated densely enough to have a public transit system and has excellent rail infrastructure. We have a magnificent station, but the train does not go there anymore. If I want to travel between Ottawa and my riding every week, I have to go by car.

Imagine if we had a high-speed train. By high speed train, I do not necessarily mean TGV technology. A high-speed train would enable people to travel from one major centre to another within a reasonable period of time. It would also help people save time because they can work while using public transit. For example, there are bus routes that now offer Wi-Fi connections to all passengers. More and more people who work for small, medium-sized and large businesses are choosing this option because they want to make the most of their working hours.

People in my riding are very optimistic that rail services will come back to Trois-Rivières, high-speed rail at that, regardless of which technology is chosen.

Several organizations have confirmed that this bill is a step in the right direction. I will read some quotes quickly because time is short.

The Canadian Urban Transit Association said:

...the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) has always been supportive of a strong participation of the federal government in public transit. Indeed, we believe that close collaboration between all orders of government is essential in addressing the challenges our communities are facing when it comes to offering sustainable mobility options...In order to adequately respond to the growing demand for public transit, communities must develop long-term plans with the support of their local, territorial, provincial and federal governments.

That is in keeping with what I was talking about just a few minutes ago.

I believe that I am running out of time, so I would like to share some statistics that I believe are important and that demonstrate that this truly is a policy for developing and investing in the future, and that this is not about spending and putting band-aids on wooden legs, as we see too often with existing policies.

Canada's transportation industry represents 45,000 direct and 24,000 indirect jobs. Imagine creating growth within this investment sector, and we can already see how the government could quickly and easily see a return on its investments.

Earlier I mentioned 32 days being spent in a car. That is $6 billion in costs related to workers arriving late to work because of traffic jams. We are talking about $115 million in health care savings.

Once passed, the bill will bring together the Department of Transport, provincial transport ministers, municipalities, transit authorities and aboriginal communities to design and establish a national public transit strategy to meet the needs of our communities. The result of this collaboration would be brought before the House of Commons.

That is what we hope to see as quickly as possible.