Robert Aubin

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, knowing that several members wish to address this matter, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

Last week, I had the opportunity to experience one of the rare moments of unanimity in this House, when we all agreed to support Shannen's dream. These kinds of issues should always have our unanimous support, because their importance is indisputable. The same goes for how we should treat our military and RCMP veterans and their families.

I would remind the House that politicians do not take part in combat or peacekeeping operations, but we are the ones who decide on the missions that, quite often, jeopardize the health, if not the very lives of our men and women in uniform. Our soldiers defend our values and our freedom on behalf of all Canadians, because that is what we ask them to do. All members in the House carry a great deal of responsibility on their shoulders when they decide to send our troops into a foreign operational theatre, and members should be particularly careful about the respect, treatment and consideration our soldiers deserve.

We owe it to our veterans to remember, and this duty goes beyond the respect shown at Remembrance Day ceremonies. Our respect should be shown through concrete actions that constantly reflect the sacrifices made by our veterans so that we can all live comfortably in a world of freedom and justice.

I am very surprised at our government's attitude toward our veterans. The government has been making one funding announcement after another related to its plans to celebrate a war that happened a very long time ago. Our ministers seem much more interested in commemorating the War of 1812 and the soldiers who died in it than they are in the reality of today's veterans. We are uncomfortable with the extraordinary emphasis the government is putting on that long-ago conflict and the money it is spending to celebrate it. Nation-building means recognizing those who are currently contributing to Canada's presence on the world stage by participating in our diplomacy and military action.

In another sphere of activity, RCMP veterans also deserve recognition through action, not just words. We are just weeks away from a federal budget, but it seems the Conservatives have once again chosen equality over fairness. I will use a very simple example to explain the difference.

If a teenager and I share a pizza equally for dinner, we each get half. After dinner, the teenager is definitely still going to be hungry because he needs more food to fuel his growth, while I will probably have eaten too much and raised my cholesterol level. Equal shares may have seemed like a good idea at the time. Were we to do things differently and share the pizza fairly, neither the teenager nor I would still be hungry at the end of the meal.

Why choose that example? Because for months, the message the government has been sending is that everyone has to fork over their 5% or 10% contribution to the national treasury. Applying such a simplistic formula is not a courageous political agenda. Governing is not just about doing a little math to come up with a budget. It is also about making fair choices to meet the needs of every group and explaining why it is fair. The government must behave courageously.

A simplistic approach might be to say that every veteran who passes away should correspond to a decrease in the credits on this budget line, but that would be to forget that Canadians want a fairer society. They want the government to be there for those who served and even sacrificed their lives. What is more, the needs of today's veterans are very different from yesterday's veterans. War has changed and when veterans return, they need the appropriate care and services for each individual: both veterans and their families.

We are dealing with a new generation of veterans, many of whom are coming home with new psychological disorders. Indeed, this costs money, but that budgetary effort should be a given. A new generation of veterans means a new kind of care for them. Here are some ways the reality is so different: the declining average age of soldiers needing services and the rising number of years during which they need those services; the consequences of choosing combat missions over peacekeeping missions; the growing use of reservists; I will stop there because I do not have enough time.

The NDP is making very reasonable requests and showing increased sensitivity toward veterans and RCMP veterans, while remaining aware of the current economic situation. That is what it means to make choices.

As a result, the NDP is making two requests. First, it is asking for a guarantee that the Department of Veterans Affairs will be exempt from the cuts in the 2012-13 budget. Second, it is asking for a guarantee that all military and RCMP veterans and their families will have access to programs and services in a timely and comprehensive manner.

I would like to remind those who think this measure is excessive that, in 2011, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, committed to not making any cuts to programs for veterans at the very time when Congress and the administration were seeking to balance the budget. The United Kingdom and Australia did the same, so why not Canada?

In addition, according to all the government ministers and many economic analysts, Canada is the G8 country that fared the best during the economic crisis. The budget cuts that the government has been announcing for many months are controversial. It even seems that they may not be very effective or even useless. Given these circumstances, we certainly have the means to recognize military and RCMP veterans.

In addition to our two requests, we also have a number of recommendations to make to improve services for the clients targeted by this motion, such as developing health care centres of excellence for modern veterans, more access to veterans' hospitals, reforms to the new veterans charter, an increase in funeral expenses—a last show of respect if ever there was one—and action on veterans’ homelessness.

In short, the NDP wants to implement a system that will change with the changing needs of military and RCMP veterans. In this case, as in many others, the Conservative government is unfortunately the champion of half measures.

Although the Prime Minister promised, when he was the leader of the opposition, that a Conservative government would immediately extend the veterans independence program to all widows of World War II and Korean War veterans, regardless of when the veteran died or the period in which he received benefits before he died, the measures that have been put in place have resulted in the creation of two categories of widows.

The same approach has been taken with Agent Orange. Not only has the government created different classes of victims—with some receiving benefits and others not—but effective December 31, 2011, the department is no longer accepting applications for lack of program funding. Can we really put a deadline on compensation owed to victims suffering from medical problems associated with the use of Agent Orange?

The same battle is being fought by veterans exposed to radiation, and the list goes on.

At a time when the government is preparing to spend recklessly, without even batting an eyelash, to equip the military with a plane that is unproven and whose costs that continue to spiral upwards, should we not ensure that our soldiers who return home are treated as well as they have served our country abroad? That is the recognition and the respect that we owe our men and women in uniform.

The people we represent are all waiting for this type of action, which allows them to believe in their institutions and, above all, in the value of the politicians they have elected.

I am pleased to have joined in this discussion, and I hope that together we will find the means to meet the expectations of our military and RCMP veterans and their families.

[Members of the New Democratic Party, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight the citizen engagement of 160 people in my riding and more than 14,000 others in Quebec. I sincerely thank all these people for taking action to move this country forward. They refused to be intimidated, they accepted the risks associated with taking a stand and, proud of their ideals, they became official members of the New Democratic Party.

They are showing the way for thousands of others who support us, but who have told me that they are afraid that their organizations will suffer if they publicly support a party other than the one holding the purse strings. This is indicative of the unease caused by the Conservatives' style of governing, which appears to favour friends of the government.

Nevertheless, the movement is afoot and, day after day, we will continue to show all Canadians that the NDP is the only party that puts the interests of the people before those of big business. Our party truly listens to all Canadians. It will be 2015 before we know it and, together with all Canadians, we will once again have every reason to be proud to be a part of Canada.

[Official Languages, February 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as renowned Quebec singer Éric Lapointe would say, if he were speaking English, “Whatever”.

Bill C-315 is balanced and solves a real problem. NDP members from across Canada support it unanimously because they believe that the recognition of Quebec as a nation within Canada should be backed up by real action.

Will the Conservatives acknowledge that it is high time Quebeckers felt respected? Will they vote in favour of Bill C-315?

[Official Languages, February 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in a few hours the House will vote on Bill C-315, which would give Quebec workers employed by businesses under federal jurisdiction the same language rights as other Quebec workers.

Instead of beating around the bush and announcing a new committee that has still not come to be, will the Conservatives take action and vote with the NDP to recognize the rights of all francophone workers in Quebec?

[La Francophonie, February 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, 2012 has one extra day. In a non-leap year, today would be the first day of March, which is the month during which we celebrate la Francophonie. That being said, Mr. Speaker, it is never too soon to celebrate with the 200 million French speakers and the 870 million citizens of the 70 states and governments that are members of the International Organization of La Francophonie. I want to celebrate all francophones and francophiles and everyone who is learning French and discovering a rich, universal culture. I would also like to salute the Auditor General and the Supreme Court justice who, like millions of young students around the world, are spending time learning the language of Molière.

French is not a dead language. French is alive because we live in French in our communities, schools and workplaces. That is why NDP members from across Canada support the bill that recognizes the use of French in Quebec companies governed by federal regulations. Not only will this bill guarantee the rights of Quebec's francophone majority, but it will also enhance the vitality of Canada's Francophonie.

Enjoy the celebration, and long live la Francophonie.

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if there is any relation, but as I listened to my esteemed colleague's passionate speech, I suddenly got the feeling that I was in the presence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the Enlightenment philosopher who could very well have said almost exactly the same thing.

My question is very simple: does the evolution of our modern means of communication justify this kind of violation of basic rights and freedoms? Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the first to declare his support for the declaration of the rights of man, which came along a few years later.

[Official Languages, February 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if it were not so sad, I would say that the answers were quite ludicrous. Allow me to change subjects, given the quality of the answers we are getting.

Three months after announcing that it would create a committee on the use of French as the language of work in Quebec's federally regulated businesses, this government has still not taken action, the committee has not been struck, we do not know who will sit on it, what its mandate and budget will be, or who will be the chair. The government's inaction clearly shows that it does not find the use of French in federally regulated businesses to be very important.

Instead of creating diversions, will the Conservatives support our bill tomorrow?

[41st General Election, February 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will try again since they do not seem to have understood.

Pierre Poutine of Separatist Street in Joliette bought disposable phones for the purpose of deceiving voters during the last election campaign.

The phone number was activated on April 30, two days before the election.

The phone number has been connected to RackNine, the Conservatives' telemarketing firm.

If they want to help us, they should tell us who is hiding behind Pierre Poutine.

[Official Languages, February 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for some time now, the NDP has been criticizing the deplorable situation that prevails in employment insurance services. Not only have processing times quadrupled, but on top of that, we are receiving more and more complaints from francophones who cannot obtain service in French. Every day this government is demonstrating how little regard it has for Canada's Francophonie.

Is the anglicizing of Service Canada services merely a negative side effect of budget cuts or is it a deliberate attempt to suppress French in Canada?

[Canada Labour Code, February 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, based on my understanding of the procedure, I have five minutes to conclude on such a fundamental bill. I am not going to repeat what was said by my distinguished colleagues, but I thank them for supporting this bill. I also thank all the parliamentarians who spoke during the first hour of debate that we had on Bill C-315. There were a few parliamentarians from the third party and even from the government.

I must admit that I am somewhat uneasy as I conclude in these last five minutes, because I do not really know what to expect, particularly since the government has announced the establishment of a committee to review the issue and determine whether there is a problem with the use of French in Quebec's federally regulated businesses.

If the government has not already seen that there is a problem, that is a problem in and of itself. But even if there were no problem, Bill C-315 recognizes a basic right for workers in Quebec which, again, is the only province where French is the official language. Nowhere else in Canada does a worker feel compelled to defend his language of work. This is because the language of work in the other provinces is respected. There is something unique here, and this is why this bill is also unique in that it recognizes the rights of Quebeckers. Such recognition is a no-brainer, even if there were no problems. But it is already too late: the problems exist, so let us deal with them now.

The New Democratic Party is a great national party which fully and unanimously supports this bill. No one can say that this legislation was concocted by a group of francophones seeking some privileges. Everyone recognizes that this bill provides Quebeckers with a critical element, following the recognition of their province as a nation. For this, I thank all my other colleagues, and I hope the House will at least agree to have the bill reviewed in committee.

If it needs to be improved on—like all bills, and mine is no exception—let us at least allow it to follow its course and be reviewed by a standing committee. At the same time, the minister's committee can do its own work and shed a different light on the issue. We are not opposed to anything, but please let us not shut the door on the rights of Quebeckers that are recognized in this bill. Otherwise, it will be yet another step backward. In this kind of situation, the status quo is not an option. If we do not recognize the problems, and if we do not solve them, we get caught up and we slip backwards.

I hope all francophones and francophiles in this Parliament will give the bill a chance to go further and refer it to committee for clause by clause review. I am using the term “francophiles” in its broadest sense, because one does not have to speak French to be a francophile, but simply have an open mind toward that language.