Matthew Dubé

[Criminal Records Act, June 6th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I know that he spoke briefly about this, but I would like to go back to the issue of making the process automatic.

When the bill was in committee, we heard that giving it a title that implies the process would cost nothing is misleading. My colleague briefly mentioned this at the end of his speech.

In reality, not only is there a cost associated with obtaining the documents required to apply, but these costs also vary widely from one region to the next. Furthermore, people living far from major urban centres may have an even harder time obtaining these documents.

I also want to add that the Conservatives proposed an amendment, which I supported. In Canada, we have a serious problem with storing and maintaining criminal records, so this amendment would have allowed people whose documents have been lost or destroyed to swear an oath and receive a sworn statement that they could use to apply. This amendment was rejected by the Liberals at report stage.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say about this. Does he believe that we should be a bit more flexible and make the process automatic?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, June 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely dishonest for a member to say that a party voted against a given measure when that member knows full well that budgets contain many measures and that one can only vote against the budget as a whole. If we could vote on individual measures, things would be different.

That gives me an opportunity to remind everyone that we are talking about an omnibus bill that deprives MPs of the right to vote on individual measures. Once again, they are preventing us from voting on individual elements.

Just to prove how willing we are to do that when we are able to vote on separate elements, I would point out that, earlier today, we voted in favour of an amendment that would have done exactly what the NDP wants to do with the housing file. The amendment was proposed in committee by my colleague from Sherbrooke, but because it lacked a royal recommendation, the government had to come back with this one.

When a government maintains oil industry subsidies, refuses to tax web giants and refuses to protect workers' pensions, its progressive measures are really just half-measures that are not nearly good enough.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, June 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Some shady individuals try to profit off of vulnerable people by offering services at an astronomical cost. In some cases, these services could have been provided by an MP's office or by people much more honest and reputable, for example, a lawyer, for a much more reasonable fee. This is an extremely important issue. I remember an article in Le Journal de Montréal about this. It talked about consultants that were misleading people about what they could or could not do when coming to Canada.

What we mainly object to in the proposed changes is the inequity that the changes will create. The Liberals spoke about having a compassionate system that would respect human rights. They mismanaged the situation at the border because they did not know how to deal with President Trump's racist policies and the irregular arrival of people at our borders, they made a de facto change to fix the situation. At the end of the day, this change will violate the rights of people who are seeking a better life here in Canada and who are simply trying to start a process legitimately.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, June 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Provencher for sharing his time with me. The NDP and the Conservative Party often disagree, but we have been able to work well together in true parliamentary spirit.

I have five key points to make. Obviously, there could be more, since we are talking about an omnibus bill, but I will focus on five points that I believe should raised in today's budget debate.

The first is that the oil industry subsidies are being maintained, despite the government's promise to get rid of them. These subsidies are still in place. Budget 2019 is a missed opportunity to do something to fight climate change and provide additional revenue in order to truly invest in green energy, the energy of the future.

The second aspect I would like to address is another missed opportunity, and that is the fact that the government is not requiring web giants like Netflix to collect sales tax. That is important, and it shows a major lack of political will. Just look at Quebec. With the stroke of a pen, Quebec managed to do what the current government has not done in four years. We are seeing the consequences today, with massive layoffs at TVA. We know that our cultural industry is suffering the effects of this unfair situation, which would be so easy to fix. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a new tax. It is just a matter of applying existing taxes and the law consistently, as they apply to businesses here.

Third, I would like to talk about the fact that this is an omnibus bill. The issue of immigration and refugees comes up in this bill. A budget bill is creating a situation that is unfair and discriminatory towards refugees. Omnibus bills were criticized under the previous Conservative government, which is precisely why the Liberals promised not to use this kind of problematic tactic. As the member for Sherbrooke pointed out earlier in his speech, this matter was raised several times at the Standing Committee on Finance. Stakeholders and civil society representatives had to appear before the finance committee to share their concerns regarding legislative changes that will affect refugees. It is completely absurd that this issue appears in an omnibus budget bill. It is completely unacceptable.

Speaking of missed opportunities, my fourth point is about employment insurance, the 50 weeks, and people with serious illnesses who cannot get their fair share of EI and so are unable to return to work, despite having gone through a terrible ordeal while dealing with a very serious illness. We have been fighting for this for quite some time. Just think of people like Marie-Hélène Dubé and everyone fighting for the same cause. We in the NDP will continue to support them. This is another one of this government's missed opportunities.

I addressed my last point when I talked about the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Despite the government's repeated promises, it introduced a number of omnibus bills. Some of them were even longer than the ones introduced by the previous government. That is a broken promise that violates our rights as parliamentarians.

In closing, I would like to present an amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House decline to give third reading to C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, because it:

(a) gives more to big business than to Canadians;

(b) does not establish a universal pharmacare plan;

(c) does not solve the current housing crisis;

(d) maintains subsidies to oil companies;

(e) makes major changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are unfair and fail to meet the standards of the process established by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada;

(f) is an omnibus bill that is contrary to this government's promises; and

(g) limits the Members' ability to vote separately on the various divisions of the Bill.”

[Telecommunications, June 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, with hundreds of people taking to the streets and thousands of petitioners, public engagement in Otterburn Park is strong, for it is clear that the cell tower Telus wants to build in a sensitive woodland does not have social licence.

The minister offered to meet with city officials, but they are hesitating because the matter is currently before the courts. Will the minister opt for the simplest solution, which is to listen to local citizens and revoke the permit to build the tower, since it clearly does not have social licence?

[Criminal Code, June 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yellowhead for introducing the bill we are debating today. I also thank him for his years of service in another life.

We serve together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. While I tend to disagree with the Conservatives on matters of justice or public safety, I have to say that I often nod my head when the hon. member asks questions or makes proposals in committee. That speaks volumes about the work he does in committee, and I thank him for that.

I also thank him for drawing the attention of the House to the important issue of elder abuse. This abuse can take different forms, as has been pointed out in the speeches we have heard so far. It can be physical, sexual, financial or emotional. I think it is important for the House to address this issue.

The NDP has always cared about this issue and has always understood the importance of judicial sentencing discretion. That is why I am pleased to tell my colleague that I will be supporting the bill at second reading so that the committee can examine this issue more throughly, given how serious it is.

As mentioned earlier, not only will our aging population continue to grow in the years to come, but statistics show that abuse is unfortunately becoming increasingly common in our society. This phenomenon is growing at an alarming rate, and it is underestimated and all too often under-reported.

I would like to use this debate as an opportunity to talk briefly about initiatives being taken in my riding. I must say, I am proud to support them in various ways. I became aware of the abuse that can be directed at seniors because of these initiatives.

First of all, I would like to recognize the contribution of the seniors' forum that is held in Chambly every October. It is organized mainly by the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées. I want to salute Ginette Grenier, among others, from the Centre d'écoute Montérégie. I will come back to this in a moment.

The fair brings together almost every stakeholder in the territory. It brings together MPs, including me and my Quebec counterpart, as well as representatives of the Régie intermunicipale de police Richelieu-Saint-Laurent. It also brings together organizations that work to break the isolation of seniors in different ways and that consider issues directly related to my colleague’s bill. The fair takes place at the Chambly seniors’ centre every year. It is a prime opportunity to learn more about this issue which plagues our society.

It is disturbing to hear what the police have to say. The team that works at my riding office is at our booth to talk about the services offered to seniors. Our booth allows me to meet with representatives of various organizations. When police talk about the various forms of elder abuse, they tell us that this abuse is often perpetrated by caregivers, family members and friends.

We have heard many stories of abuse in our society. These stories involve not only seniors, but all vulnerable individuals, including children. The abuse suffered by these individuals is often perpetrated by the people who are meant to help them, such as family members, for example. That is unconscionable, and it is a problem that society overlooks.

After all, when we see a neighbour or someone who lives in our building helping a senior, we think that neighbour must be a very nice person. It may be the senior's niece, nephew or child who comes to help the senior every weekend. We tend to believe that the person is acting in good faith, in the interests of the senior, who may unfortunately have lost their independence and need help from their family as they get older. However, those family members may be treating the senior inappropriately, which could have a serious impact on the senior's finances and physical well-being, among other things. These can be horrible situations.

The seniors' forum led me to support the Réseau actif de dépistage des aînés à risque or RADAR, a network that identifies and helps at-risk seniors. It is an initiative that is being undertaken in the area served by the Richelieu and Patriotes local community service centres, which covers most of the riding of Beloeil—Chambly. This initiative was mainly funded by community stakeholders and the Government of Quebec and was supported by the efforts of members from both levels of government.

I would be remiss if I failed to talk about the stakeholders who worked on this project. Many organizations attended the seniors' forum, but the police were also there. That is important to point out, because the bill before us was introduced by a member who used to be a police officer. The police are on the front lines when it comes to identifying at-risk seniors. They see the horrible crimes committed against seniors. It is therefore crucial that they be included in this type of project, which also includes social workers from health and social service centres and local community service centres.

The frontline workers in Quebec will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that this initiative is quite novel and commendable. This is something rare that could be a model for creating other similar initiatives across Quebec and Canada to tackle this scourge.

We may think that seniors are not vulnerable because they are supported by family members, but we sometimes learn, to our utter dismay, that it is those same family members who commit acts of violence against them. This type of project seeks to bring them help from their community.

Now I would like to take this opportunity to give a shout-out to the people at the Centre d'écoute Montérégie and talk about their work. I am proud to have had the chance to work with them to secure a federal grant that enabled them to hire a young man in his twenties to answer the help line. There are volunteers, but there are also employees. The centre also underwent a major renovation. It is located in an outdated building in the older part of Chambly, where zoning regulations make renovation extremely difficult. The people who work at the centre know what I mean, because we talked about it at length last time I visited. It is very expensive to maintain heritage buildings in old Chambly, which makes sense considering everything that has happened there lately. I am not saying that preserving our built heritage is not important, but it is a major burden for organizations.

I am proud to highlight this achievement, but the people at the centre deserve all the credit. I mentioned Ginette Grenier, whom I have known since I was first elected in 2011. She helped me understand why the organization's work is so important. These people dedicate time to a call centre to help seniors overcome isolation. Many of the people involved with the Centre d'écoute Montérégie are also involved in other initiatives.

The Centre d'écoute Montérégie's logo appears on the projetradar.org website because the centre is partly responsible for the success of this new initiative, which is just a few years old. The Centre d'écoute Montérégie works to help seniors overcome isolation, which is a significant factor in much of the abuse my colleague wants to tackle.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about what is being done in my riding because everyone on the ground is aware of this issue, including organizations, police forces, elected representatives and municipal officials.

This bill shows that we can do more, through the Criminal Code, to ensure that crimes are punished in a way that raises public awareness. The population is aging and abuse is increasingly common, so we must get people to understand that any abuse is unacceptable in our society.

In closing, I would like to thank my colleague and reiterate my support for this bill at second reading, so that we can further study the issue. I hope that we can all work together to eradicate this scourge in every riding across Canada, because our seniors deserve better. They deserve to live with dignity, and we owe them that, at least.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, June 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to join our colleagues in thanking the member for his service. We had a brief time sitting on committee together. However, as members of the House know, MPs who travel together stay together in a sense. The most cross-partisan friendships that one will find are usually among those who have had the chance to travel together, as the member and I did.

I want to thank him. I know when we go through a variety of issues, or miss our families, or have health issues or whatnot that crop up, it takes a lot to be here. The amount of service that goes into it by members who have been here as long as he has is probably underappreciated by the public, and I will say that on the record.

On behalf of the New Democratic caucus and myself for having had the opportunity to work with him, I want to thank him for his service.

I certainly hope he makes the best of that time. A lot goes on in this place, but at the end of the day, there are things beyond this place that are far more important to us both for our health, but especially for our happiness. I thank the member very much.

[Public Safety, May 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, for four years now, the Minister of Public Safety has been ignoring decisions handed down by various courts ruling that excessive use of solitary confinement is unconstitutional.

Yesterday, the family of Ashley Smith spoke out against the government's broken promises and the fact that it is invoking their daughter's name to justify its failure to act. Bill C-83 will do nothing to fix this appalling situation.

Will the government abandon the bill, comply with the court rulings and, above all, apologize to the family of Ashley Smith?

[Otterburn Park and Richelieu, May 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, two municipalities in my riding are celebrating milestone anniversaries this year. The Town of Otterburn Park is celebrating its 50th and the City of Richelieu its 150th.

Let me begin with a few words about Richelieu, a municipality on the banks of the Richelieu River. The present-day city is an amalgamation of Richelieu and the municipality of Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours. I would like to congratulate the mayor, Jacques Ladouceur, the parish president, Clément de Laat, and the festival patrons, actor-composers Viviane Audet and Robin-Joël Cool.

Otterburn Park celebrated its 150th birthday in 2005, but this year is the 50th anniversary of the town's becoming an independent entity. I would like to congratulate the mayor, Denis Parent, on the town's fresh new image in honour of this anniversary and on all the planned festivities.

I am proud to highlight these important anniversaries and to have participated. Sadly, I missed a golden opportunity at the Richelieu celebration to hear Mayor Ladouceur himself sing before a full house.

Congratulations to all, enjoy the festivities, and long live both municipalities.

[National Day of Solidarity with Victims of Anti-religious Bigotry and Violence, May 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak to Motion No. 153. After all, we are discussing violence against people of faith, religious communities and the discrimination they face.

In Canada, there is an important tradition of religious freedom and also of religious diversity. These rights are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Despite the claims we hear from time to time, we are unfortunately not immune to the forces that exist here and around the world and that, all too often, target these people because of their faith or for all sorts of other reasons that we will examine today.

Some of these acts of discrimination may seem to belong to the past, but several have occurred recently. For example, there are frequent attacks on Muslim women wearing a hijab or niqab. They are victims of violence in our public spaces. We also know that these incidents occur in big cities with diverse populations, places like Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, where the population's diversity is rightfully celebrated. However, these people are targeted all too often.

I want to point to a variety of incidents, but one in particular I read about in the media. People we know personally have lived these experiences.

I want to mention the experience of Ms. Merriman, who has roots in Canada. She was born in Winnipeg. She was physically attacked in Toronto because she was wearing a niqab. That type of incident makes one's blood run cold. In a city that rightly celebrates its diversity, a woman was attacked for something she had chosen to do. Her life could potentially be in danger.

I would invite colleagues to read that media coverage and the many other stories. It is a sobering reminder that we are not hidden away from these forces, the discrimination, the hatred that can be committed on religious communities, and too often on Muslim women.

It is not only individuals who get attacked both physically and otherwise for their faith. It is also places of worship. As the NDP's public safety critic, I know a lot of work needs to be done, and that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that the government needs to provide protection for these places of worship.

We can think of things ranging from vandalism to firebombings and other forms of heinous damage that is caused, sometimes with the risk to people in those areas.

I think of February 1981, in Merritt, BC. Around 3 a.m., an explosion occurred at an East Indian church. Firefighters speculated that someone had thrown dynamite through the window. Obviously, given the time, no one was in the building. One can only imagine what that represents to the community and it people, seeing their place of worship attacked.

In 1985, the Temple Shalom in Vancouver was firebombed. The damage was significant, $400,000. It also threatened a Jewish funeral chapel.

Communities too often feel under attack by individuals who put forward bigotry and hatred. That fear is certainly exacerbated by these types of attacks.

There have been firebombings in Mosques in Calgary and Hamilton and in synagogues in Edmonton. A Hindu temple in Hamilton suffered an arson attack. That attack was mentioned earlier in debate today. There were attacks on a synagogue in Saskatoon and a Mosque in Edson. A Sikh temple in Vancouver suffered an arson attack. Someone who douses gasoline on temples creates a climate of fear and hatred.

These acts obviously create a climate of fear and hatred and cause physical harm. They can lead to the kind of physical attacks we have seen committed against people.

This brings me to the next example, the attack at the Centre culturel islamique de Québec on January 29, 2017, which we are unfortunately all too familiar with. Six people were killed, and nearly two dozen were seriously injured. As we know all too well, it was an important and tragic reminder that such acts can be committed here in Canada.

An individual had been radicalized by far-right values and white supremacy. He was anti-Muslim and had been radicalized by politics that are more common among our neighbours to the south and by certain ideas that have been put forward by President Trump. These ideas can fuel a fear of the other, which is too often behind these acts.

Since then, people within the Muslim community, along with many Canadians, have shown their support for and solidarity with their grieving neighbours. This solidarity in the face of all the hatred and violence is an important reminder that we have the power to make a positive change when it comes to these kinds of acts. When we list all these heinous acts, all the attacks against places of worship and people of faith, the list is unfortunately far from exhaustive. However, these examples show that there has been an increase in religiously motivated hate crimes in Canada.

According to Statistics Canada, police reported that hate crimes increased by 47% from 2016 to 2017. In 2017, just two years ago, there were 2,073 incidents, 664 more than in the previous year.

Jewish Canadians, as we unfortunately know, continue to be the most targeted community for religiously motivated hate crimes, and incidents increased from 221 in 2016 to 360 the following year.

Muslim Canadians see a growing trend of hate crimes committed against them, with incidents increasing by over 150% in that same span from 2016 to 2017, for a total of 349 police reported hate crimes. That is an important distinction. We can only imagine the unreported crimes that are also committed. Additionally, there were also 142 racially or ethnically motived hate crimes against Arab or West Asian Canadians. Given the overlap between these groups, we would definitely see the statistics as being interrelated.

The New Democrats understand the role we also need to play as politicians when we see outlets like Rebel Media and associations between party leaders that take the same platforms as individuals like Faith Goldy, for example. Even though social media has been a laggard in dealing with this type of hate, even they know this hate has no place on their platforms.

We have a responsibility. The New Democrats are proud to work with anyone who believes, as I think all Canadians do, that this type of bigotry and hatred toward religious communities and, quite frankly, any Canadian who is part of any part of any minority group who can be discriminated against for any reason whatsoever deserves our full and unequivocal support.

Before I propose an amendment to the motion, we should to look to New Zealand and its Prime Minister and the example she showed. It was so important for her to remind her constituents, and particularly the Muslim members of her community, that it was not an us and them thing that too often fuelled this hate.

We are all one together in this fight against this form of bigotry and hatred. That is our core responsibility as parliamentarians.

In closing, I would like to move an amendment seconded by my colleague from Drummond. Considering all the groups targeted by hate, I think this amendment gives the motion a broader scope.

I move that the motion be amended by replacing the words “January 29 of every year as National Day” with the words “the entire last week of January of every year as National Week”.