Matthew Dubé

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all the work he has done on this file and for speaking up for those who experienced such horrible things.

It is possible, since this would not be the first time the Pope apologized for past wrongs. I understand that people are upset, because the road is very long. Although time is needed to heal, action is needed as well. I hope and I believe that this is what Parliament will do in supporting this motion.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for my colleague's question, because it gives me a chance to clarify that reconciliation does not happen overnight. It is just one step among many on a path that is unfortunately very long.

As for the example he gave, the time that elapses between demanding an apology, receiving it, and accepting it is very important. The then prime minister apologized 10 years ago. Since then, a long road has been travelled by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I have no illusions. I realize that the apology will not mark the end of the road, but the beginning.

I do not know how long it will take to achieve reconciliation after the apology is given, and it will certainly not be up to me to decide. I think my colleague would agree. Nevertheless, at least the gesture will have been made and the healing process can begin, as my colleague said. If we as parliamentarians can at least make this request, there will be one less item on the long list of things that need to be done to achieve reconciliation.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I should let you know that I will be splitting my time with the member for Nunavut.

Today's debate has made for difficult listening, I must say. After hearing today's debate, I feel ashamed that I never took the trouble to truly understand what people went through in the residential schools. The way they were treated was absolutely horrific. Stories are being courageously being told by members who lived through this tragedy or who have relatives or constituents who experienced it. Sometimes, they are just stories that they heard and wanted to share with us.

Today's debate stems from the motion moved by my colleague from Timmins—James Bay and seconded by my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, as well as the commendable efforts they put into this file. It shows why it is vital that we call on the Catholic Church to apologize to those affected by the residential schools.

The statements made in today's debate have been both moving and powerful. Given the impact this debate has had in the House today, it is not hard to imagine that an official apology from the Pope, on behalf of the Catholic Church, would represent a giant leap forward on the path to reconciliation.

Today's debate reminds me of something that really moved me as a parliamentarian and made a lasting impact. On a Friday in 2014, a day that often goes by unnoticed on the House of Commons calendar, the NDP forced a debate on a committee report about missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. We debated whether there should be an inquiry. A number of MPs spoke. The first was my seatmate and esteemed colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who spoke of his own experience and helped us all understand a few things.

Since I was elected, my work as a member of Parliament has been full of surprises, and it has nothing to do with my age. I expect that all of us experience the roller coaster of political life, but I never expected that hearing such stories would bring us to tears right here in the House. That is what happened to me that day, and I was not the only one. A member told his story, a story that was extremely difficult to hear but very touching, to help us understand the need to do something, something political.

What is interesting, however, is that after my colleague gave his speech, the former member for Nunavut, who was the environment minister at the time and who had also experienced the residential school system first-hand, stood up. As an MP elected in 2011, it was the first time I witnessed a non-partisan debate. There were no ideological points of view being fired back and forth. She also shared her personal story with us. All the members applauded, as did my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who earned the respect of everyone in the House.

The tone of the debate that day and the things that were shared taught me something about the sorrow we feel when we hear about such tragedies and are confronted with such atrocities. These atrocities are experienced differently by everyone, depending on where we come from, our own experiences, and those of our ancestors. Still, there is a sense of community. For us, it is the House of Commons, which represents Canada and our shared history.

For better or worse, that forces us to make decisions. Today, we are asking Parliament to make an informed decision to ask the Catholic Church to do the right thing. Forgiveness, an important concept for the Church, and reconciliation call for an apology. People watching us need to understand that it is not just symbolic. This has a profound impact on those affected by this black mark on our collective history here in Canada.

The apology offered by former prime minister Harper here in the House of Commons was deeply meaningful. We understand the importance of bringing together members, the indigenous community, and the chiefs who were here on the floor of the House. I was not an MP at the time, but members can believe me when I say that I listened closely. I heard an MP from Saskatchewan, who was a journalist at the time, talk about the fact that all eyes were glued to the TV not because of the news, but because of the emotional experience that came with this extremely difficult gesture. That is what is important. Apologizing is difficult.

We have all had moments where we have had to apologize to our loved ones, in public or in private, whether it was in the House of Commons, at home, or at school. No matter where it was, we have all experienced this. It is difficult to apologize. We have to acknowledge our failings and swallow our pride. Without getting into a theological debate, we have to understand that this is the essence of the values expounded by religious institutions: recognizing one's failings and understanding the importance of forgiveness, accepting that we did something wrong and that we are seeking forgiveness. I realize that this is not easy and that is why it is important. When the Catholic Church apologizes—and I hope it does when it is asked to do so by this motion of the Parliament of Canada—the fact that it is so difficult and meaningful will be significant for the survivors of this terrible residential school system and for their descendants.

I will close by thanking all my colleagues, especially my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for moving this motion, along with everyone here. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the tone of today's debate, the shared tragedy, and our collective grief and sadness show why apologies are important. That is exactly what we have heard during this debate and what the Pope's apology would contribute. My whole speech has been about apologies, but I did not mention all the other elements that are crucial for reconciliation. I wanted to say this, because I understand that it is hard, but I am prepared to fulfill my role as a parliamentarian and make this official request, and I believe my colleagues are too. I think that today has been a perfect demonstration of why this is so important.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am siding with the municipalities and community organizations that are asking for help, the Government of Quebec, border services officers, Amnesty International, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and all the other organizations that have been saying since January 2017 that the NDP has the right approach.

We could boast about it with quotes, but, ultimately, here we are in April 2018, more than a year later, and there is still no plan to address what is happening on the ground.

My colleague can say that everything is fine, but the reality is very different for everyone on the ground affected by this issue. The time has come for the government to wake up, acknowledge the situation, and take action.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, considering he is the only Liberal to speak, I am sure he will have an opportunity to elaborate on his thoughts at some point over the course of debate.

The fact is that I do not know what the Liberals are trying to accuse us of. In question period the Prime Minister accused us of fearmongering. God only knows why he is saying things like that. Now that member is accusing us of calling for a free-for-all.

Since the beginning of this situation in January 2017, we are the only ones who have called on the government repeatedly to do something about this. In January 2017, I along with with my colleagues from Laurier—Sainte-Marie and Vancouver East were telling the government to wake up, that President Trump had not made a secret of how he felt about different communities that had made their lives better in the United States, and that this would be a problem.

We were calling for the Liberals to offer help to the Canada Border Services Agency, and not in May 2018. We called for it in January 2017. We also called for the safe third country agreement to be suspended so entry could happen in a more appropriate way at the border. We are calling for that, not the nonsense the member just dreamed up right now.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît.

She will certainly not say this about herself, so I want to take this opportunity to congratulate her on the work she is doing in her community on the refugee file. As the NDP's public safety critic, I have had the opportunity to work with her and, unlike the Conservative members, she sits down with people on the front lines, such as border services officers or representatives from the municipalities grappling with this issue. I congratulate her on that. I think that her fair-minded approach is a good example of how best to represent our constituents and to manage an extremely difficult situation.

Before I go on and talk some more about the situation of immigrants, I would like to thank the border services officers at the Canada Border Services Agency, the RCMP, the police, the Sûreté du Québec, the non-profit organizations, and the community organizations in the regions and municipalities. Unlike the federal government, they have all been working on the ground. Border services officers and the RCMP fall under federal jurisdiction, but these men and women have worked hard despite the rain and the fact that their government does not have a plan. I would like to take this opportunity today to commend and thank them. This is a very difficult situation to deal with.

I would like to provide a little background on this situation. In January 2017, when Trump took office and was inaugurated as the President of the United States, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the member for Vancouver East, and I told the government in the foyer of the House of Commons to take into account the fact that, with the arrival of spring just a few months after Trump officially took office, we would see the consequences of having a racist president that was not shy about using cultural communities to score political points.

We warned the government numerous times to take that into account. We requested an emergency debate in the House on the situation so that we could talk more about what we were hearing from municipalities, border services unions, and Canadians. The government, however, did nothing.

That should come as no surprise. I asked this question last year at a joint meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but of course, I did not get a satisfactory answer. I pointed out that when Mr. Trump visited Minnesota, which shares a border with Manitoba, he talked about Somalis and problems associated with the Somali community in that state. It just so happened that, afterward, people from the Somali community crossed the U.S.-Manitoba border. When Mr. Trump said he would end the moratorium on deporting Haitians who had been through major disasters like earthquakes, Haitians came to Quebec to join their families. That was no coincidence. There is a direct link between what happened and what Mr. Trump said. To suggest otherwise would be an attempt to kiss up—my apologies for using that expression—in hopes of resolving all kinds of issues that, frankly, are far from being resolved, such as NAFTA and U.S. tariffs. We can see how well that strategy has worked.

Despite everything, our officials have not been able to take a stand. When I said these things to my colleagues, I was thinking about a CBC program where Jean Chrétien talked about his decision to stay out of the Iraq war. Canadian business people approached him and said that it was a disaster and that Canada would pay the price, because the Americans would no longer want to do business with them, since we were not supporting the U.S. in that war. Mr. Chrétien said he would not change his mind and told them to let him know if they suffered any consequences. As he wryly pointed out in the interview, about 15 years later, he was still waiting for their complaints. Obviously, there were no negative repercussions, because countries are capable of expressing opinions and criticizing the behaviour of other heads of state without burning any bridges or ruining any relationships with their most important partners. That is what this government has been unable to do.

Not only did the government not denounce this, but it did not listen to the NDP in January 2017, over a year ago now, when we noticed that the situation was becoming strained. We saw it last summer. I remember meeting a journalist at the Quartier DIX30 centre, not far from home in Chambly. The journalist had just returned from the Stanstead border crossing. He had just filed a story and said that the situation was completely insane. We talked about the situation. We made the same request again. I said in a public forum that we were calling on the government for a plan, we were calling for help for the Government of Quebec, for the municipalities, for the community organizations, and for the border officers who had come to our offices to say that they were fed up.

Now we are getting back into this debate just as the weather is improving, and I am proud to say, as I have said many times throughout my speech, that the NDP has been on this issue from the start. Before anyone was talking about it, we knew that this was a problem and we wanted to deal with it.

It is quite the opposite for the Conservatives, who come here with a motion designed to spread fear instead of truly solving the problems and giving Quebec the money it is owed, offering assistance to those fleeing hatred in the United States, and providing help to the CBSA. The only thing the Conservatives had to offer these people when they were in power was cuts, and we are still suffering the consequences.

The NDP has concrete solutions that do not require a war of words or an attempt to pit communities against each other. We support Quebec. We want to give the CBSA the resources that its officers need to do their jobs. We are calling for the suspension of the safe third country agreement, since the United States, in its current state, is no longer a safe country for people fleeing violence, hatred, and all kinds of terrible situations around the world.

We are calling for the agreement to be suspended in order to make it easier for such people to cross the border in an orderly and regular manner, if I may say it that way. It would make things easier not only for the people who work at the border, but for the people crossing the border, since their lives are in danger when they try to cross the border irregularly. They are not doing this for fun. They are facing very real hardships. However, there was a party in power for 10 years that did nothing to advance any immigration or public safety issues, in spite of its never-ending overheated rhetoric. Now, that party has moved a motion that, although we agree with certain aspects of it, does not really help fix the situation.

The solution is what the NDP has been saying from the beginning. It is to address all of these elements, to help these communities, to do what the member for Salaberry—Suroît did, or what the union did, namely meet with members and explain what is really happening on the ground. It is to do as the Government of Quebec did and ask for help, and to do as organizations have always done, I might add, even in the face of widespread austerity, and offer assistance despite being stretched beyond their limit, because it is the right thing to do. We are not here to pass judgment. We must help everyone. Everyone is shouting for help, and the government is turning a blind eye. The only solution for some people is to spread even more doubt and fear regarding this situation. Instead, we need to talk about real solutions, as the NDP has been doing for over a year now.

If we look south of the border, with President Trump, it is clear that the situation is not getting better. This government keeps spouting hollow words, blaming the previous government, and pinning everything on a bogeyman by the name of Stephen Harper. They are no longer in power, so for crying out loud, the Liberals need to realize that they are the ones in power and that Mr. Trump has been in power since the November 2016 election and his installation in January 2017. None of that is a surprise to anyone except, apparently, the federal government.

Today, we oppose the motion because we have seen one Conservative failure after another for close to 10 years. Nevertheless, we will keep asking the government for a real plan, just as my colleagues have done, as my colleagues from Quebec have been doing for weeks by supporting Quebec's demands, and as my colleague from Vancouver East did when she talked about the importance of protecting refugees. There is no need for heated rhetoric. What we need to do is stand up to a president who says dangerous things and stand up for the men and women in these dangerous situations, be they first responders at the border or people seeking a better life here.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is always a pleasure to work with him on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

It is rather interesting to hear the Conservatives talk about a plan, because the union that represents border officers clearly told me that they are still paying the price for the cuts made by the Conservatives.

I would like my colleague to explain something. If the Conservatives' approach is supposed to reassure us, how does he explain that, when it was in power, this same party cut resources? How does he explain that the cuts made by the Conservatives exacerbated all of the issues that these officers face, including the valid issues he raised, such as overtime and even, in some cases, post-traumatic stress?

How does he explain this?

[Public Safety, April 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, five months ago, a CBC/Radio-Canada investigation showed how easy it is to hack a cellphone, track a person's movements, and eavesdrop on conversations.

Telecommunications companies and Public Safety Canada now refuse to answer Canadians' questions. They prefer to meet behind closed doors.

What does the government have to hide, and why is the minister refusing to publicly reassure Canadians?

[Public Safety, April 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Abousfian Abdelrazik has been imprisoned in Sudan for six years. He has endured isolation, unlawful detention, and torture. Even worse, Canadian intelligence officers allegedly collaborated with the Sudanese authorities when he was detained and undermined the work of Canadian diplomats.

How will the minister ensure that CSIS will never again be involved, directly or indirectly, in torturing a Canadian citizen?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes, Ottawa can seem far away, as Patrick Lagacé pointed out in a column two weeks ago about one of my constituents, Sophie Thewys.

Despite the hard work by my team and Sophie after the tragic death of her partner Nicolas, she has yet to receive her permanent resident status, which had already been approved.

The Prime Minister likes to boast that our immigration system is compassionate and humane, but it certainly does not feel that way.

When will the minister use his power to put an end to this tragedy and allow Sophie to grieve and move on?