Matthew Dubé

[Committees of the House, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this is once again the Liberals' Goldilocks approach. They feel that because they are being attacked from all sides, they must be doing something right. The reality is that they are being attacked from all sides because they are doing nothing right. The current government has Stephen Harper's greenhouse gas emissions targets, which it will not even meet and which are a far cry from addressing climate change. We have an environmental assessment process that it promised to fix, which was already broken before the Conservatives completely dismantled it, and the Liberals have still has not fixed that. It did not re-evaluate the projects that were on the table using a fixed process that was never actually fixed.

When I hear the member say that they are doing a bit of this and a bit of that, it is just a lot of nothing. The fact of the matter is that the Liberals can say all the great things they want, and they can consult and consult. As New Democrats, we will always support consultation. However, we also want to see action, and that is certainly not what we have seen from the current government when it comes to sustainable development, tackling climate change, and standing up for the workers whose jobs are on the line.

[Committees of the House, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great example of social licence for my colleague.

It is easy to say that we are striving for unanimity, but what people really want is respect. Take for example reconciliation with first nations. That involves understanding their role in the process, which is something the previous government, the Conservative government, did not do. The fact that first nations have to hold protests because they feel as though their rights are being violated during the planning and implementation phases of these projects is a good example of what social licence is all about.

Social licence is not about saying we need 100% approval when 99% of the people are in favour of something and only one person is unhappy about it. It is about truly recognizing that a nation-to-nation-to-nation dialogue has to happen respectfully with an understanding that first nations play an important part in the process. That aspect has been glossed over for too long, and we are looking to finally make some progress on that front. Obtaining social licence is not something politicians should be able to use as an excuse; we should use it to ensure we are doing the best work we can and moving forward in a way that respects everyone.

The member spoke about unity and not pitting one region or group against another. The perfect way to achieve that is by ensuring respect for indigenous peoples during this process. Again, that is something that has not been done to date.

[Committees of the House, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not agree with the Liberal government that we need to pit one region against another.

That said, we also believe in sustainable development. However, when it comes to such matters, it is not enough to believe in sustainable development. We also have to seek to obtain social licence. That is something the previous government did not manage to do, and the current government has not been very successful in this regard either, even though it talks a lot about consultation.

Nevertheless, we have to move forward, and I would like to reiterate for my colleague that consultations should not be used as PR opportunities. The government cannot keep paying lip service and making promises. It must also take action. That is why we think that, although it is important to consult and listen to communities, especially the ones I mentioned, it is also important to move forward with a bill based on the important work that has been done, not just by government members, but also by members on our side of the House.

[Committees of the House, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his motion. As democrats, we are certainly always pleased when consultations are held. However, the ongoing challenge with consultations, especially with this government and its approach, is knowing where to draw the line, since excessive consultations prevent us from making progress on extremely important files.

It is all very well to boast about how much was said in committee. However, all these fine exercises in democracy must produce results.

That is why we always support giving a committee the opportunity to travel, especially with respect to an issue that mainly affects Canada's west coast. We know that my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley in particular and the other members from B.C. have been working on this file for quite some time. With that in mind, we find it difficult to agree to a 45-day consultation period, since that seems rather excessive. Once again, we must strike a balance between holding consultations and taking concrete legislative action.

More particularly, and I know that my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley would certainly emphasize the importance of this, there are three communities in particular that New Democrats would like to see visited as part of this tour, which we support in principle, although it is too long. In particular, we believe that the committee should visit Kitimat, Haida Gwaii, and Smithers to hear what people on the ground are saying.

Consultation is important, but at the same time, the bill is also extremely important, and 45 days seems like too long a holdup.

I thank my colleagues for their attention.

[Public Safety, October 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians' overall distrust of our security agencies is a direct consequence of the fact that we have no mechanism to provide real-time oversight and accountability.

The government is currently in court with environmental groups it has accused of spying. Even the watchdog tasked with monitoring CSIS operations failed in its duty by dismissing their complaint and throwing a cloak of total secrecy over the whole case.

Bill C-59 does nothing to fix these problems, but pays lip service to them. When will the minister truly take steps to make real-time oversight, fix these problems, limit the excessive powers of CSIS, and truly protect the rights of Canadians to peaceful protests?

[Public Safety, October 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, a report from the correctional investigator has sounded the alarm on the situation of young adults in federal prisons. They are vulnerable to exploitation, bullying, and abuse. What is more, they are overrepresented in terms of placement in segregation and use of force incidents.

The government promised major reforms emphasizing rehabilitation and protecting vulnerable people. Will the government respect the report's recommendations and abolish the use of solitary confinement on those under age 21, in favour of proper rehabilitation?

[Petitions, September 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by residents of Beloeil—Chambly. They are calling on the Minister of Immigration to grant permanent resident status to my constituent Sophie Thewys and her son Louis Pollack. She had been originally granted that status but then it was rescinded when her partner Nicolas tragically died. We hope that her case is resolved soon and that she can get some good news.

This petition shows the community's solidarity with this person. We have been supporting her since the tragic event occurred and we hope to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

On a lighter and less serious note, I am pleased to say that this is the 1,000th electronic petition.

[Gilles Plante, September 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed emotions that I rise to recognize the political career of Gilles Plante, mayor of McMasterville and reeve of the Vallée-du-Richelieu RCM. Along with the residents of McMasterville, I learned on Monday that Mr. Plante will not be seeking a new term.

Mr. Plante served his community for 28 years, first as a municipal councillor from 1989 to 1993, and then as mayor from 1993 to 2017. That is incredible. He has also been the reeve of the RCM for 14 years. As a mentor he gave the best of himself, demonstrating discretion, humility, and strength of character. His advice and dedication have helped me become a better MP. His legacy is the vibrant city he helped create, a city beloved by young and old alike. However, there comes a time for every politician to put their family first.

I am sure that Bernadette and their entire family will be happy to have him to themselves. On behalf of the residents of McMasterville and everyone in Vallée-du-Richelieu, thank you, Gilles.

[Customs Act, September 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

What is particularly interesting about all of this is the context. This bill was problematic well before the arrival of Mr. Trump. Since his arrival, however, we have every reason to be concerned about the privacy breaches and the policy of profiling that seem to be entrenched in the procedures of border services officers, especially those in the U.S.

To reassure us, we are told that only the information appearing on a single page of the passport, such as date of birth, name, and nationality, will be shared. The problem, however, is around nationality. Given the reports of profiling and discrimination occurring at the U.S. border targeting Canadian citizens with dual citizenship who wanted to cross the border to work or visit family, for example, we have every reason to be concerned. When this type of information is shared knowing that this culture of profiling exists, we are on a slippery slope. Even if the information may be simple, the reality is very different.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about these concerns and Mr. Trump's other executive order under which American privacy laws no longer apply to non-U.S. citizens. That is another problem that can arise from this information being shared.

[Customs Act, September 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the issue of information.

The government is acting as though this information is trivial since it is just the information on our passports. However, the problem with this agreement is that it takes us down the rabbit hole. I would like to remind members that this is just the first step in a more integrated border with the Americans.

Take for example President Trump's immigration order that prevented certain people from entering the country. That, quite frankly, was a racist measure. Sharing the information from people's passports can be problematic because that includes information on their nationality. We have seen cases of racial profiling at the border that targeted Canadians who wanted to enter the United States.

The NDP and I are concerned about the fact that the government wants to share even more information with the Americans, even though there have already been problems and things will only get worse since that information can be used for harmful purposes.

Does my colleague really think that the planned safeguards are sufficient?

Does she not think that we should slow things down a bit and ask ourselves just how much information we are prepared to share to supposedly speed things up at the border?