Matthew Dubé

[Justice, October 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today or tomorrow is not the appropriate time. The Liberals have had three years to work on this and have done absolutely nothing, while these records continue to pile up.

Too many people, many of whom are already vulnerable, as my colleague said, are finding that their quality of life, their employment prospects, and their freedom to travel are compromised because of a criminal record for simple possession. My colleague from Victoria proposed a simple, innovative bill that would immediately expunge simple marijuana possession convictions for all Canadians.

Will the Liberals support this bill or not? Will they do something? We do not want to hear another announcement. We want the government to take action now.

[60th Anniversary of the Gault Nature Reserve, October 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to acknowledge the 60th anniversary of the Gault Nature Reserve in Mont-Saint-Hilaire. Bequeathed to McGill University by Brigadier Andrew Hamilton Gault to protect and conserve nature and the mountain, this reserve is central to the natural heritage of my riding.

The Mont-Saint-Hilaire Nature Centre was founded in 1972 with a mission of education and conservation, and in 1978, the Gault Estate was designated the first Canadian biosphere reserve as part of the UNESCO program.

I want to acknowledge the tireless work of the dedicated employees and volunteers of the Mont-Saint-Hilaire Nature Centre and the McGill University team, which helps advance research and conservation.

On the 60th anniversary of the nature reserve, I hope that the public will continue to support and celebrate the critical work being done to protect our environment. The reserve depends on it, and so does the planet.

Long live the Gault Nature Reserve. Happy 60th anniversary.

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, October 3rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, given my better understanding of Standing Order 78(2), I want to ask unanimous consent of the House for a motion. It would allow us us to have proper debate, a 10-hour debate instead of four. The motion would be as follows: That, given the government's attempt to allocate just one day of debate at the report stage and at the third reading stage of Bill C-79 is likely to amount to less than one hour of debate at report stage and less than three hours of debate at third reading, in relation to Bill C-79, an act to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, not more than one sitting day, or five hours, whichever is longer, shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage and third reading stage of the bill; and that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time allotted to the consideration at report stage and the time allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

I could hear my colleagues getting impatient, but I wanted to take my time for the interpreters.

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, October 3rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, depending on the answer that you give me, I may afterward seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion. My question has to do with the use of Standing Order 78(2). This tool has rarely been used in the seven-plus years that I have been a member of the House. I would like you to clarify whether it requires the support of the majority of the recognized parties in the House. I believe the Conservatives support that use of the standing order, despite their dislike for the Liberals' use of time allocation.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, raising this in the House is indeed appropriate, and unfortunately we may not find agreement on how it was raised. However, on the issue of the commissioner and the folks at Correctional Services Canada, I am very ready to criticize them and tell them they have made a mistake once I have the facts.

Understanding that answer will seem unsatisfying to the victim of a heinous crime, as the member said. Therefore, the challenge here is that if the correctional service officials have indeed made a mistake, and understanding the reasoning that might have been used in the decision-making process, and should a determination be made about that and legislation is tabled, I will work with that colleague and all colleagues to consider that legislation and move forward on it. That is our responsibility, ultimately. In the meantime, it is important to understand when we get to that point of criticizing, and I will criticize public servants when I have all the facts before me.

My last point is about the healing lodge. These are both medium-security institutions and I hope we will not mischaracterize how they are laid out.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I hope that the conclusions of such a review will allow us to understand why the correctional services deemed this to be the appropriate course of action. In the event that the decision the authorities made can be called a mistake and there is perhaps a yet to be determined failing in the system, then indeed I would hope that the government would table legislation to address that issue. Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this, until I have those facts, and here I can only speak for myself, it is difficult for me to understand what legislative solution would be the most appropriate.

For all I know, the determination might have been made for factors that are outside of my knowledge. That, I recognize, is the unfortunate contradiction, and I do not know if that is the right word, but it is the word I have been using. It is the unfortunate contradiction in the debate we are faced with, because I recognize and in some ways agree with the fact that the creation of a review for the father of a victim of such a heinous crime is just not enough. I do not think anyone is saying that. We understand that it is just not enough, but I hope that the government will expedite it, that it will be the priority of the commissioner and that we will see those conclusions as soon as possible. We owe at least that to this family.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the tabling of legislation.

This might seem in terms of a response to be woefully inadequate, but I believe that with the information that I hope will come from this review, understanding why the decision was made by Corrections Canada, we should then be able to properly assess whether legislation should be tabled, as was done in the situation to which the member alluded.

I cannot speak for the Minister of Justice and I cannot speak for the Liberal government and how it responds to one case or another. I can speak for myself. I hope my colleagues will allow me to speak for our party in that, if legislation is deemed necessary to address a mistake that may have been made after we have the full facts of the decision, I will consider that legislation and move forward with that.

As far as I am concerned, there is no contradiction in understanding the minister's involvement in individual cases versus the role of Parliament to adopt legislation. They are two very separate things that we consider in this place.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague raising that point. I should have taken the opportunity during my speech. I did yell out “quiet” to the member for the riding of Lethbridge while she was responding to me earlier and I do want to apologize for that.

This is a difficult issue. My intention here as a parliamentarian is to make sure that we get this issue right. My concern is the role that politicians should or should not play in how our system functions. That is the tension that we are faced with here today.

The involvement of political apparatus in individual cases is not conducive to achieving the objectives that we want to achieve. We also need to understand that there is a great deal of pain in hearing a response of that kind. We need to debate this issue in a respectful way. If I have failed in that, I accept that responsibility. Hopefully it is something that we can do going forward on this extremely challenging issue.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

The heckling continues, Madam Speaker, which to me says that all Canadians need to know about the approach that is being taken here. We want to do right by Tori Stafford's father, who has been let down by parliamentarians and his government. He is right to feel revictimized. No one is saying the contrary. We have a responsibility to understand that. Some members from all parties, and the words they have used, may not have expressed themselves in a way that is appropriate for this type of debate on this horrible crime. That is a mistake. I think we can own up to our own failings, despite the responsibility we have as members in this place, on how we express ourselves and talk about policy when we are thinking of this type of horrible crime. That is the contradiction we face.

I understand that we face a challenge because we have a responsibility to adopt legislation. We also have a responsibility to let judges, the corrections commissioner and others who are involved in our justice and corrections system make decisions. Our ultimate failing as politicians is that sometimes we cannot be in a position to make those decisions. Sometimes when we see that too many mistakes have been made and justice is not being served, the Conservatives are correct to point out that maybe new legislation is required. That may be a failure on this place and on us, and it certainly might seem like a failure for the government. As woefully inadequate as that might feel to people who live with the pain of crimes that have been committed against them and their families, the conclusions of this review that has already been undertaken, from what I understood from the parliamentary secretary, are so important. Legislation needs to be adopted to rectify certain situations if mistakes are made.

A question that was posed to me by one of my colleagues when this motion was tabled was the following: why was this decision made? It is a very good question. It is the essence of the question that the Conservatives are posing. That is the ultimate challenge we face, because I do not know why that decision was made. Was there an issue in the institution where the person who had committed these horrible crimes was located, and a decision was made to address specific issues that we do not know about? I do not know. That is our ask of the government today, that this will be dealt with, with due haste and expedited. I believe that, at the very least, we owe that, as woefully inadequate as that may be, to the victims in the situation.

The conclusions and a better understanding will make me more comfortable as a parliamentarian asking what is next. As the sponsor of this motion correctly pointed out, without relitigating or rehashing the debate over legislation tabled in the previous parliament, a government and parliamentarians can table legislation to resolve issues. I want to understand those issues before we move forward.

I know today that those words ring completely hollow to Tori Stafford's father, and anyone else who has been a victim of this type of crime. As I said at the outset, the constant challenge we have as policy-makers is what can we do to make sure that we have the tools to get it right. We want to get it right and get it right as quickly as possible.

On one policy piece, on this extremely challenging issue that is before us today, there is the eternal challenge of what corrections faces with regard to female offenders. I have seen it on the public safety committee, and I know the status of women committee members have seen it in the studies they have undertaken. There is a lack of resources in some cases, there are challenges with security classifications and there is a lack of maximum-security institutions. There is an existing and appropriate program for mothers and children, which the parliamentary secretary explained, that is rigorously enforced, in terms of its parameters, by corrections.

These are the constant issues that Corrections Canada and, ultimately, we as policy-makers face. We want to make sure we understand, whether it is an indigenous offender, a male offender or a female offender, whoever it may be in the corrections system, the situations and how they play out in terms of their place in the corrections system or the safety of corrections officers, the integrity of the institutions or ensuring public safety, which is the ultimate goal of the system.

There are a variety of constantly moving parts. Never has that been more apparent to me, as my party's spokesperson on public safety, than with the debate that is before us today. It is a challenge, and it is a challenge that sometimes leads us to believe, as I feel today, that we have let many Canadians down.

Many Canadians are rightfully outraged, as I am, by this situation. As the member for Mount Royal said and as the hon. opposition House leader said, we are outraged. I do not want to hear anyone else try to tell this House and indeed Canadians that we do not share their pain and frustration.

We talk about the role of healing lodges in the corrections system, the challenges in women's institutions and in men's institutions, the challenge of security classifications, the variety of considerations that are taken by corrections, and the constant tension between politicians, non-partisan judges, commissioners and others who play a role in this. I will take one lesson from this motion and from this debate that I think is incumbent on all of us, that we strive to do better for those Canadians who feel we have let them down.

I certainly hope that, regardless of a motion more substantively on legislation and policy, we are always striving to do better, make sure that the corrections system is working, and ensure public safety through different roles relating to mental health and other things that corrections has to consider. I also hope, and this is the most important piece, that we are protecting those victims from the crimes themselves, and that we are understanding, and I say this with all due respect, contrary to what was insinuated earlier, that I do not understand, living with the constant pain.

In conclusion, I will go back to those two words I said at the beginning of my speech, hell and nightmare. I can only hope that, moving forward, we make the hell and the nightmare for a father, like Tori Stafford's father, although it will likely never end, easier, if possible, and that we strive to make sure no other Canadian has to live with that type of pain.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

I would ask my colleague to perhaps not heckle me as I talk about the type of debate we want to be engaged in. That would be appropriate.

I will go back to what she is referencing in her interruption of my speech. It is the notion that the language we use has unintended consequences. Therefore, when I referenced the situation I went through, it was not to portray myself as a victim, far from it. I am only thinking of the people in these issues, not myself. I accept that the consequence of public life is that we will hear things we do not want to hear. We will have things said to us that we do not want to hear. However, I take the my responsibility in this place very seriously.

I also take the responsibility that when an individual decides that an appropriate response to a very difficult issue is to write a member of Parliament and wish the same kind of unimaginable pain that Tori Stafford's father has felt on that member's family is not appropriate. I know we are not responsible for what some deranged individual might write to a member of Parliament, but we are responsible for how we engage in this debate and not fanning the flames on a issue that is so gut-wrenching and heartbreaking.

Therefore, in response to a question about that type of decorum, to be heckled and told that I am somehow trying to get away from this by portraying myself as a victim is completely missing the point. The Conservatives are right to pose these questions, but they are wrong to politicize the sick crimes that were committed and the pain of a father, a pain I cannot even begin to imagine. I can only hope, as we all do, that we never have to experience the same thing.