Matthew Dubé

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Operations Legislation, November 23rd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague pointed out several times, it seems that people on the other side of the House have difficulty understanding what the balance of power is.

I would like to come back to some comments I made when I asked the hon. member for Joliette a question earlier today. Pressure tactics must exert pressure. When teachers strike in the summer or SAQ employees strike on a Monday night, no pressure is exerted.

Perhaps my colleague can explain why it is important for employees to have this tool, especially since mail carriers are making additional effort to ensure that the public is not affected.

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Service Operations Legislation, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for his support for workers.

I would like to come back to the exchange he just had with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

My colleague has just identified several elements related to the right to strike. A pressure tactic that does not exert pressure is useless. Postal workers are being told to wait under January or February. I do not have the figures in front of me, but I think that that is when there will be a significant decrease in the number of packages to be delivered. Everyone will be in debt up to their ears because of Holiday spending. It is like asking teachers to strike during the summer.

It is also reminiscent of a labour dispute going on in Quebec. Employees of the Société des alcools du Québec, the SAQ, decided to strike on a weekend. If pressure tactics do not demonstrate the value of workers, it becomes difficult to negotiate and prove that they have value. That is why these strikes were called.

I raised that point in 2011. There is also an impact on other sectors, because any cold water poured on the bargaining process between Canada Post and the CUPW also affects other federal and provincial sectors. An employer only has to wait for the government to get fed up and for employers and the companies in question to exert pressure.

I would ask my colleague to comment on this fact. We are no longer talking just about postal workers. We are with them 110%, and we will do everything we can to fight for them, but we are also talking about every other worker whose rights are being taken away by legislation like this one and by this type of motion, of course.

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Service Operations Legislation, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to my colleague for her speech.

I was here in 2011. The Liberals are telling us not to worry, that they will certainly raise the issues of pay equity, lack of security and the difficult and dangerous work that postal workers are doing.

In 2011, we rose in the House to condemn a two-tier pension system that pitted older workers against younger workers. We condemned the fact that it took a Supreme Court decision to make Canada Post respect pay equity.

Nothing has changed over the past seven and a half years since that debate. We are told that we need to trust the government and Canada Post. We have no reason to trust Canada Post.

Canada Post has been showing for years—not just this year or in recent weeks—that it is not able to negotiate in good faith. I would like my colleague to tell me how it is going to help us if the government tells Canada Post that things are working out for them?

The government is basically telling us that it does not matter if Canada Post has been negotiating in bad faith for a decade or even longer, because it is going to bail it out. That is what is at stake, and I would like her to elaborate on it.

[Point of Order, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to clarify the situation of my colleague from Sherbrooke. He quoted a standing order and then began reading the wording of a motion for which he wanted to seek unanimous consent.

I would like you to clarify one thing. If he is heckled while reading his motion, it does not give the House an opportunity to hear the motion and decide whether to give its consent. Does he not normally have permission to finish reading his motion without being yelled at by the other side? Could you clarify that?

[Telecommunications, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, social licence is not optional; it is mandatory. This is why I participated in the march against Telus last week, alongside 300 of my constituents.

Since 2014, Telus has been acting in bad faith with respect to its telecommunications tower. It is now pushing to put up its tower in a sensitive and protected environmental area. What is worse, the minister is ignoring my comments and is forcing the city to take this matter to court.

Will the minister listen to the people of Otterburn Park and step in?

[Petitions, November 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the Government of Canada to recognize eye health and vision care and to develop a national framework for action that would help reduce vision impairment resulting from preventable conditions and the modification of known risks.

[Petitions, November 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first was initiated by a constituent in my riding who then collected signatures of her fellow constituents. It calls on the government to condemn the unlawful arrest of a Canadian citizen for practising Falun Gong and is asking for the immediate and unconditional release of Ms. Sun Qian, a Canadian citizen.

[Criminal Code, November 20th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her answers.

Since the start of this debate on yet another time allocation motion, several members have commented on the complexity of this bill and the fact that it covers many issues we need to discuss. We should also talk about what is not in the bill. For example, the NDP has talked about how the government broke its promise to deal with mandatory minimum sentences.

The minister thanked the committee for its work. That is great, but the reason the committee took so long and was so thorough and heard from so many witnesses is that the bill is very complex, as I said just now.

I would like the minister to explain why she wants a time allocation motion for such a complex bill.

I spoke during debate on this bill. I had 10 minutes instead of 20. I thought 10 minutes would be enough time to say everything I wanted to say, but before I knew it, the Speaker was raising her hand to signal that my time was up. That is how it goes in the House. The point is, 10 minutes, even 20 minutes, is not enough time to talk about everything in this bill.

How can the minister suggest that all parliamentarians will have enough time to dig into this extremely important and complex issue if there is a time allocation motion and so little debate?

[Criminal Code, November 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one correction. My colleague tried to claim that the NDP is worried about preliminary hearings because this measure would not really reduce delays in the justice system and because, ultimately, there are not enough hearings to create delays. This was certainly one point that came up.

However, in essence, our major concern is what we heard from defence lawyers in committee. They explained their concerns that, without preliminary hearings, it would not be possible to identify the cases in which the accused is, in the end, actually innocent and should not have been charged.

Eliminating the preliminary hearing process will mean that people who are not guilty will end going to trial. The conviction rate for people who are not guilty will go up.

What does my colleague think about that? Is he not worried about eliminating this essential step to preventing false convictions in a system where vulnerable Canadians are already overrepresented?

[Criminal Code, November 8th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I share her dismay at the thought of women losing custody of their children because of a law whose mandatory minimum sentences were ruled inappropriate by several courts.

As she correctly pointed out, it was in the mandate letters, and more consultation is needed. In addition to the court rulings, we can consider the facts themselves: this policy has not achieved the desired outcomes, it has not ensured public safety, and it has not reduced recidivism. In some cases, it has had the opposite effect. The facts are very clear.

I think everyone involved, those from civil society especially, agrees with us. That is why the Prime Minister wisely included this directive in the mandate letters. Now we are asking the government to do the right thing by implementing this new policy and putting an end to provisions brought in by the Conservative government.