Matthew Dubé

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague was too busy heckling the previous speaker to have heard what I said in my speech.

I specifically mentioned that I recognized that we all have an obligation in this place as candidates and certainly as members of Parliament to have the strictest laws and rules in place to ensure that we are not finding ourselves in positions of conflict of interest, or “cash for access”, which is the term that is used. We cannot pretend there is not a difference between an opposition MP, regardless of whether he or she may one day be in cabinet or even in the Prime Minister's seat, and the the immediacy of a minister who within weeks or months of having participated in said fundraiser will have the power to give out contracts, to hire people, to spend money, to make all kinds of regulatory and political decisions that are completely different from any decision that I may make after an election two years' down the road, in the event that there is an NDP government and I should be so honoured as to be part of that cabinet.

The point is to acknowledge that when one is in government there is a constant and immediate power that exists.

To my colleague's question, I recognize that extending that to party leaders and others who are in slightly more influential positions than a simple opposition critic is understandable. We are not going to disagree on that point. However, this notion that the government keeps putting forward, as it has with every conflict of interest issue that has marred it since it has been in power, that somehow we are all equal in this place and that it does not recognize the power it holds, is quite disconcerting for me.

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this is timely, because the heckling we are hearing between the Liberals and Conservatives only serves to reinforce the point I wanted to make.

In the previous Parliament, the Conservative government only generated more cynicism and changed our elections legislation, making it harder for Canadians to vote.

Now the Liberal government is fuelling cynicism with superficial changes that ultimately will do nothing to correct a serious perception problem that the Liberals themselves created. Everyone who has been watching today's debates heard the Liberals say that the leader of the official opposition was just as bad and that he did the same thing. The Conservatives, for their part, said that what they did was less serious because at least when their ministers attended fundraisers, they met people whose areas of business were not directly related to the department.

I have been an MP for almost seven years now, and I am starting to get pretty sick of giving speeches about all the issues that breed cynicism. Others have talked about this today. As my colleague from British Columbia mentioned this morning, when we go door to door and talk to people, that is what is on people's minds. They say they are not interested, they do not want to donate money to political parties, and they do not want to take out memberships. Worse still, some say they do not even want to vote because of the cynical mood fuelled by stories in the news and legislative half-measures. We will support the changes anyway because one step in the right direction is better than nothing, but everyone needs to understand where this is coming from.

Bill C-50 is a first step. Unfortunately, although I have a lot of respect for the minister, it will probably be the only step. The Liberal government is unlikely to leave behind anything else that qualifies as a legacy of democratic reform.

I have to wonder if it is mere coincidence that this bill was introduced right after the Prime Minister broke his lofty electoral reform promise, right after the dismal failure on that front. This is a big problem for our political system as a whole, not just party financing.

We recognize that some of the changes have made things more difficult. My Bloc Québécois colleague and others spoke earlier about the per-subsidy vote, which is money allocated for each vote received by a party or a candidate.

The member for Beaches—East York spoke about similar issues. He even went so far as to speak about making changes to tax credits for donations. I am raising all these issues to point out that it is possible to be open-minded in this type of debate and to find ways to improve political financing.

We can study all the important changes made in Quebec following revelations about the corruption that occurred over several years, as well as all the changes in political financing and the lowering of contribution limits.

These are all legitimate ideas and we could have a healthy debate about how to provide the financing needed, for better or for worse, to run an election campaign. It takes money to print brochures, inform voters about our positions and important issues, obtain telecommunications equipment for campaign offices, communicate with voters, hear their concerns, and share our positions. We recognize that this is the reality, whether we like it or not.

In that sense, it is very important to find a way to work together in a non-partisan manner to fix this system or at least create a system that instills confidence in Canadians. There are many reasons why that is currently not the case. Sometimes it is because of changes that have nothing to do with political donations as such, but have more to do with the electoral system itself and how it works. I am talking about Bill C-23 from the last Parliament, which had to do with electoral reform, or deform, as people jokingly used to refer to it. That is the type of thing that fuels cynicism and makes all of this that much more challenging.

However, we also have to consider the optics of a minister receiving the maximum donation allowed by law to attend an event with people who have a direct stake in his or her portfolio. What we need to understand is that ministers and regular MPs wield a very different level of power. I agree with the Conservatives on that. I would add that we keep reminding the Liberal government of that fact with each new conflict of interest scandal. Everyone knows that party leaders aspire to be Prime Minister one day and that members of the official opposition or another opposition party could easily end up in cabinet with decision-making power within two or three years. Nonetheless, ministers have the power to make extremely important decisions, hire people, award contracts, spend money, and so on. As such, their ear is much more valuable to have than that of a regular MP.

This does not mean that all members of the House are not prepared to follow the conflict of interest rules—political financing rules, specifically. However, when the government denies that things are different when it comes to ministers and claims in the House that everyone should be on a level playing field, it is insulting the intelligence of those who want to participate in this debate and make real change, so that we can have a political financing system that allows us, among other things, to run political campaigns. People want to see candidates on the ground, which costs money, whether we like it or not, but people also want to have confidence in the financing system.

This morning, the member for Beaches—East York talked about how things work south of the border, and he is right. In other countries, such as the United States, money plays such a dominant role in politics that it has become a problem. For example, my campaign spending cap for my riding would buy about one ad for a U.S. Senate hopeful. We have to acknowledge that our system does have merit. Seeing how bad things are elsewhere makes us feel better about how we do things here, but that does not mean we can rest on our laurels.

Whenever a journalist digs up another scandal, we can pretty much count on the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Minister of Democratic Institutions to say that our system is a good one, spending is in check, and there are strict caps on how much an individual can donate. That is not enough, though. We cannot compare ourselves to the worst of the bunch, places like the United States, where a Supreme Court ruling made the who and how much of election spending a free-for-all. Corporations, unions, anybody can spend as much as they want. Even so, alarming situations that are bad for democracies elsewhere are no excuse for us to be content with the status quo here.

In closing, as I said earlier, there are too many situations in the House that remind me of the cynicism I have seen among too many voters as I have gone door to door as an MP for almost seven years now, and I know that my colleagues have seen the same thing. If we really want to make Canadians less cynical and put an end to political financing scandals, we need to engage in a real debate. The government needs to do more than introduce a bill that is merely a smokescreen designed to hide its broken promises on electoral reform and to try to make people forget about the scandals it has been caught up in. Let us stop pointing fingers and arguing over which political party was worse than the other when in office. Let us seriously consider this reform and the measures that we could change or even those that we could bring back, in the case of public financing.

There are all kinds of interesting questions. Of course, the NDP's main goal when it comes to bringing in true electoral reform is the implementation of a mixed member proportional system. There are also many other issues that need to be seriously considered. That is not at all what we are seeing from this government, and it is not what we saw from the previous government, either.

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his welcome. It is interesting to see that in the House, because the exchanges that were taking place during my speech—

[Automated External Defibrillators, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, who was a fellow member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for a little while. It feels like he was first elected ages ago. We talked about the kind of public safety issue today's motion addresses. Of course I support the motion. We fully agree that RCMP vehicles need to be equipped with defibrillators. This is an important public health issue that comes up a lot.

One of the good things the previous government did was make defibrillators available in arenas across Canada. That made a big difference. People vastly underestimate the number of lives lost, the number of human beings who die of heart attacks for no good reason other than the lack of an AED. Without these life-saving devices, every passing minute reduces a heart attack victim's chance of survival by 6% to 10%. That is huge.

An hon. member talked about the importance of ensuring that these devices are available in public buildings. That is great, but the problem is that 85% of cardiac arrests happen in people's homes. I do not think anyone would suggest putting defibrillators in every home in Canada, but we can take a step in the right direction by ensuring that all first responders have them. Paramedics might be the first group that comes to mind, but according to Éric Turcotte, a paramedic from the Arthabaska RCM, the home region of the motion's sponsor, the police are usually the first to arrive on scene in an emergency, which is why it is so important that the police be equipped with these devices.

In Ontario and Quebec, which have provincial police forces, it may not be quite as important for all RCMP vehicles to be equipped with this device. In the other Canadian provinces, however, especially in rural areas where the RCMP is the only police force, this is critically important.

Although I support the substance of the motion, I am not sure what direction the study could take. I know the motion mentions respect for the jurisdiction of other levels of government, but I have some qualms about asking our committee to start evaluating the way other governments equip their police officers. For example, I do not think it is a good idea for a committee in Ottawa to look into what equipment the Sûreté du Québec, the Quebec government, or municipalities put in their vehicles.

I should make it clear that I do not mean to criticize the intent of the motion. I simply wonder how we will proceed and what kind of conclusion we will draw. This is a public safety file, and when it comes to ensuring Canadians' health and safety, it is vital to avoid disputes over jurisdiction. However, it is also important to move forward in an appropriate and intelligent manner. Again, I am not questioning the intent of the motion. I am simply wondering out loud how we will go about doing this. This is certainly something the committee can do.

However, even though the Liberals support the motion, I have some concerns about their take on it. I do not want to make this a partisan issue, but much attention has been given to the part of the motion concerning the study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Let us not overlook the first part of the motion, which would have the government equipping all RCMP vehicles with automated external defibrillators within 12 months of the adoption of this motion. I am trying to figure out why there seems to be a lack of willingness to move this process along more quickly, rather than having the committee study, mainly because the Minister of Public Safety himself moved a motion in 2013 that was all but identical to this one, with an even broader scope. The minister clearly recognizes the need. He himself moved a similar motion as a private member.

I do not understand why we should delay the implementation of this measure. If this measure has the support of the House, I do not understand why we could not move forward according to the proposed timeline.

I will give a few examples pertaining to what I said about remote areas. The importance of providing this equipment to first responders in remote areas is pretty much self-evident. They are not close to major centres and public buildings that have such equipment.

Take, for example, a major centre like Ottawa. All police vehicles have been equipped with defibrillators since 2005. In Ontario, the heart attack survival rate is less than 6%. Since this equipment was installed in Ottawa, the survival rate has increased to 12%, or double the provincial average. Of course, we have to look at the other factors that also contributed to this telling statistic. However, we should not understate the impact this measure could have, especially if we consider the number of heart attacks that occur in people's homes and the importance of police responses.

I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the member for Richmond—Arthabaska for the work he accomplished when he was mayor of Victoriaville. I believe that is what primarily drove him to move his motion today. There was a significant increase in the availability of this equipment in the city and in the region. It became quite clear that it was important to set an example.

When we debate policies at the federal level, here in Ottawa, we often criticize how a policy may not have much of an impact. In the last election campaign, for example, the NDP proposed reinstating a federal minimum wage. Some said that it would not apply to all that many people. When the federal government establishes policies, it might set an example for other levels of government, once the effectiveness of certain measures is recognized. That is exactly what is at issue today.

As I said, the RCMP has a very broad scope of operations in the provinces, particularly in remote regions where it provides police services. However, municipal and provincial police forces do not yet have this sort of equipment. If we can prove that having this equipment has a significant impact on the survival rate in the event of cardiac arrest, then I think that we will have set an important example that could lead to positive and critical public policies. That is one reason why it is essential to put this measure in place. Let us not spend too much time studying the motion, even though that is also important.

I would like to talk about a less positive aspect of this issue, and that is the increase in the use of tasers by police officers. We know that the use of tasers is not always appropriate, that there is a lack of training, and that the use of tasers often raises public health and safety issues. There has been a lot of media coverage of various tragic incidents involving tasers that resulted in the death of certain individuals. The main cause of death in those cases was cardiac arrest.

We understand that the police are trying to find equipment that limits the use of firearms and other lethal weapons. The problem is that tasers can also be dangerous. That is just one more reason to equip police vehicles with defibrillators.

We could have a debate on the use of tasers, but that is not our goal here today. Since tasers are used, we think that equipping police vehicles with the device that could save the lives of those who go into cardiac arrest would reduce the number of tragic deaths.

In closing, I would like to commend my colleague. He did a tremendous amount of work on this issue in his previous political life, and he is continuing to build on that here in the House. I am pleased to support the motion. As I said, I have some questions regarding the implementation of the study. As a member of the committee in question, I am pleased to know that I will be actively involved in planning the study.

In the meantime, even though the motion mentions a study, it is important for everyone to recognize that we need to focus on the next 12 months and take concrete action.

[Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, December 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today, I want to celebrate the success of Mont-Saint-Hilaire native Laurent Duvernay-Tardif. Earlier this year, he became the highest-paid Canadian in the history of the NFL after signing a contract with Kansas City.

That contract is not the only reason I want to pay tribute to this son of Mont-Saint-Hilaire; I also want to recognize him for his qualities as a person and his contributions to the community.

Mr. Duvernay-Tardif is studying medicine at McGill University, in addition to pursuing a successful career in football. He has even committed to practising medicine in Montreal once his football playing days are over. He has also started his own foundation to promote healthy living habits and physical activity among young people.

We have one last wish for the man being called the most interesting man in the NFL: a Super Bowl title.

[Privacy, December 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our worst fears about Bill C-23 have been realized. A Canadian citizen has been subjected to profiling at the Ottawa airport. She faced intense questioning and had her smart phone searched without reasonable grounds by American border guards. Bill C-23 has not even passed yet, and already Canadians are being discriminated against on Canadian soil.

With President Trump's disregard for rights and privacy, how can the Liberals go ahead with giving more powers to American agents on Canadian soil?

[Business of Supply, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, from the work my colleague has done on the justice file and on that committee, he will recognize, as I do, that on many of these public safety and justice issues there is one thing that bears repeating which is too often forgotten in these types of debates. That is, the fact that respect for due process and disgust of abhorrent things that have been done by certain people are not mutually exclusive. It is about time we repeat that over and over again, because it is so important to recognize that respecting due process is, as far as I am concerned, one of the pillars of our democracy. Saying that we respect it and want it to happen properly, as well as looking at ways we can improve it to make certain things perhaps easier, does not necessarily take away from the fact that we find absolutely abhorrent the things we see happening with regard to terrorism and other forms of violence.

That is a key point. If we continue to dismiss the importance of due process and go into this type of thinking where somehow what happens in places like Guantanamo Bay is acceptable, then that is when radicalization wins. It is up to us to stand against that, recognize that we all want the same thing, public safety for Canadians, but also realize that there is a proper way to go about it. That is what we are committed to do. If the government has good ideas, we are certainly going to support that. If the ideas are not as good, we will certainly be critical of that. However, we all need to have that debate in a specific context. We all recognize the importance of these issues.

[Business of Supply, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my riding neighbour for his question. Just because I am not rending my shirt and fearmongering does not mean that I do not recognize the fundamental importance of addressing this issue. Obviously, there is work to be done. We are committed to fully participating in any effort we feel is valid to address the scourge of radicalization and bring criminal charges, where appropriate.

However, we also have a responsibility to assess the situation and understand the reasons behind it. The goal here is not to write a thesis on the issue, but if we really want to protect public safety, we need to deal with the scourge of radicalization. We are duty bound. We must also find the best ways to keep the public safe. Incarceration is one of them, of course, but if we only focus on that, our approach will fail just like the previous government's.

[Business of Supply, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, once again it is worth repeating in our other official language that there is no doubt in my mind that no one in this House is saying that, should law enforcement agencies have sufficient evidence, they should not lay charges and prosecute anyone who should be prosecuted. There is no debate about that, despite what we seem to be hearing.

However, the issue here is that simply prosecuting and incarcerating is not the end of the story and that is what is at play here. Even as I said in my question for the parliamentary secretary, no one is saying that someone who is found guilty in a court of law should not go to prison. What we are saying, as the experts are saying, is that prisons are some of the worst places to become radicalized for some of the violent ideologies.

Therefore, we should be making sure that there are programs in place so that we are attacking the horrifying notion that is radicalization in the system, while ensuring public safety. If the Conservatives do not understand that ignoring the fight against radicalization for 10 years was not the right approach, then I do not know what to tell them, because everyone agrees that terrorism is horrible and if we have enough proof we need to prosecute, but we also need to attack the root of this, which is radicalization, something that they choose to ignore.

[Business of Supply, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in reading the motion, I do not see anything about the issues my colleague just raised, such as the number of fighters and what has been done. The motion is written in general terms.

It is this type of discourse and vagueness that spreads fear without really tackling the problem. That is why today's motion misses the mark.

My colleague says he does not want to hear about the fight against radicalization. It was the previous government's refusal to talk about it that caused its abysmal failure on this file. That is the problem.

I said it in my speech, and I will repeat it for my colleague and for the parliamentary secretary. This is serious. I am now having to defend the government. We said the same thing: if there is enough evidence for the police to lay charges, they should do so. We would be very pleased to see that because it contributes to public safety. In some cases, however, criminal proceedings are not successful because the complexities of the law as regards the admissibility in court of certain evidence must be reviewed. The Conservatives' problem is that they ignored that fact as well as the fight against radicalization. That is exactly why we find ourselves in this situation.

We must stop ignoring the real problem and deal with this to ensure public safety.