Robert Aubin

[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.

[VIA Rail, June 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a simple question. Will the Conservatives make the announcement before the House rises for the summer?

The service cuts that my colleague mentioned are not the only ones. Rail service between Montreal and Halifax will be offered only two days a week in the winter, instead of the current six possible departures. The trains that serve the people of Rimouski, Rivière-du-Loup and all of eastern Quebec are being cut. Not only does this sabotage a mode of transportation that is practical, environmentally friendly, safe and historic in Canada, but it will also undermine regional economies even more.

Are these cuts just another way to force the regions to pay for the Conservatives' ideological cuts?

[VIA Rail, June 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is just another empty answer. Yet it was a simple question. Will the Conservatives make the announcement before—

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the hon. member's presentation, with some admiration for his experience, his eloquence, and his ability to pass off half-truths as the whole truth. What more evidence do we need than this extension of sitting hours that we are being asked for? We are now being asked to believe that, finally, additional time is being allowed for debate in this House, but the list of bills that we are going to have to study keeps getting longer.

Let me do some simple calculations for those who are watching. Imagine we have one hour to debate one bill or two hours to debate five bills. In my opinion, the math can be done quite quickly, and everyone understands quite well that what is actually being proposed is once more a reduction in the time in which to debate each one of the bills that the government wants passed before the summer recess.

However, I am ready to listen to the proposals for a possible compromise on the amount of time allowed for various bills. I feel that there would be more chance of that if we had the feeling that we were listened to on at least one occasion, but really, that is extremely rare.

Is there a specific proposal on the table?

[Housing, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for a year now, the Government of Quebec and the NDP have been asking the federal government to help more than 1,000 families that have been forced to rebuild their basements because of the presence of pyrrhotite in the concrete.

Since the NDP made this request, the Conservatives have still not reviewed the federal standards on the composition of concrete and have still not provided any financial support to the families that have had to spend an average of $200,000 on repairs.

The Government of Quebec, the municipalities and even businesses have already done their share. Why are the Conservatives dragging their feet on this file?

[The Budget, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, a lot can happen in a week. While hundreds of organizations oppose Bill C-38 because of its despicable content, now mayors from across Canada also oppose it, because the government likes to cut corners when the time comes to consult Canadians. Among other things, the mayors want all changes to legislation on the environment and on fisheries to be properly examined in committee, so that Canadians' voices can be heard.

Will the government stop going it alone and start listening to the municipalities?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I do not agree with everything the hon. member said.

Last week, when I was in my riding, one thing in particular struck me about this employment insurance reform bill.

Obviously, I was expecting strong and intense reactions from workers, but I also noticed that many employers were questioning—this word is not strong enough—the fact that they will have to invest in training seasonal workers year after year. It is not the employees who do not want to work year-round. The very nature of the job makes it impossible for them to do so.

Employers are afraid that they will have to devote more money to their company's production or productivity since their employees will not be able to return each year if they are obligated to accept another job an hour away that pays only 70% of their usual salary. Employers are saying that this will increase their costs considerably and will also make it harder to find workers.

What does the minister think about that?