Matthew Dubé

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the importance of promoting free trade with partners like Europe that have similar laws on human rights, environmental regulation, and more specifically labour rights. I would like to draw his attention to the matter of environmental regulation and the investor-state provisions.

Let us look at a specific example of the use of chapter 11 of NAFTA. In 2011, Quebec refused to issue a fracking permit to Lone Pine Resources, a Calgary-based company with subsidiaries in the United States. That company took advantage of the loophole to take the Government of Canada to court and seek $230 million in restitution.

Under the investor-state provisions, a European company could do the same, so although I believe that the European countries are acting in good faith when it comes to their relationship with Canada, unfortunately, I do not have the same trust in their corporations.

Is my colleague not worried about this type of provision and that fact that it puts the federal government and other levels of government in Canada at risk?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He is right in saying that Quebec and Europe already have strong ties. This is worth pointing out. Just think of our ties to our French cousins, for instance.

That being said, another important aspect of the agreement affects Quebec in particular. Of course I am referring to its impact on our dairy farmers.

In the previous Parliament, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé moved a motion that passed unanimously. The motion was to the effect that if Canada accepted this agreement, dairy farmers would have to be financially compensated. The Conservative government promised $4.3 billion in compensation. Now, that amount has been reduced to $300 million. As my colleague's party put it so well, that is nothing but peanuts for the industry.

I am wondering whether they plan to support the bill at second reading. How can they reconcile that support with the considerable harm this is going to cause our farmers in our regions?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 22nd, 2016]

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

I would like to go back to the last point he mentioned in response to the question from our colleague concerning Canadian cheese producers, who are very worried about this agreement. This raises an interesting point. It is fine to support free trade. However, there has to be give and take in the negotiations, as my colleague said so well. Inevitably there will be winners and there will be losers. However, when the divide is too great, that is a problem. There still has to be respect for what we do in Canada when we negotiate on behalf of Canadians.

For example, cheese makers in France are the most highly subsidized in the world. We are going to let them bring in their products and give our producers peanuts in compensation, as my colleague said so well.

According to my colleague, why does the government believe that this is a fair and good agreement for our producers, when we are making so many sacrifices and receiving very little in return?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to talk some more about transparency and how the debate process works because I really want to explain this for the people listening at home. Preventing witnesses and even experts from providing written submissions to the committee is an unprecedented decision. This is deeply troubling.

When a bill goes to committee, we often do not have enough time to hear witnesses because of our schedules and the different bills before us. Typically, the chair tells the committee members that we will ask for written submissions from experts who cannot attend the meetings, who are not available, or whom we do not have time to hear. That way, the committee can get a sense of all views on a particular subject.

We are not talking about radicals who send us wild and crazy submissions. We are talking about experts, such as university professors, lawyers, and pharmacists, who can tell us about the impact of this agreement on the price of pharmaceuticals.

Can my colleague describe to us how the Liberals are stifling debate with this kind of measure and tell us about how they are doing it even more than the Conservatives used to?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the outrage expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons yesterday. As he said, he wanted to work. One of the most important components of our work here happens in parliamentary committees.

Time allocation is inherently undemocratic. The government is currently preventing parliamentary committees from doing their job. This affects more than just parliamentarians; we also have to think about the witnesses who have been invited.

I will give some examples of witnesses who have come to Ottawa, who have come to committees to testify, who now either will not be able to testify or will testify for a shorter period of time because of this kind of action. At the agriculture committee, we have the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, Soy Canada, Food and Beverage Ontario, and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. At the health committee, we have Alzheimer's Disease International, the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, and the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations of British Columbia.

If the Liberals are not going to respect Parliament, can they at least respect those witnesses?

[Points of Order, November 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I know time is tight, so I will make this quick. I just want to draw your attention to statements made on social networks concerning an accredited Canadian parliamentary press gallery journalist being denied access to a committee.

I know that committees are masters of their own destiny, but given your responsibility toward the precinct, as well as our relationship with the parliamentary press gallery, without the ability to verify the veracity of this claim, I would certainly hope that you would take note of it and investigate further and make sure that journalists' rights have not been impeded in this particular situation.

[Public Safety, November 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, first it was journalists, now indigenous activists are under surveillance.

We have learned that indigenous peoples who exercised their rights as citizens at protests on issues ranging from environmental protection to the denunciation of the far too many cases of missing or murdered indigenous women have been under RCMP surveillance since 2014. We can all agree that Bill C-51 will only make matters worse.

Can the minister explain to us why the RCMP is spying on indigenous activists?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, November 14th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the member just eloquently explained why we must invest in infrastructure. That is something we agree on.

What we do not support is the plan to privatize our public infrastructure. That is exactly what the government is proposing to do with the infrastructure bank. Today, no less than eight ministers and the Prime Minister were asked to attend a meeting of multibillionaires in Toronto. The purpose of the meeting was to explain how they were going to charge us twice, once by taxing us and the second time by charging tolls to finance our public infrastructure.

It is all well and good to speak of who campaigned to the left or to the right. However, can my colleague now admit that after all the big progressive promises to invest in public infrastructure, they will dare to go even further than the Conservatives by selling off our public infrastructure and making taxpayers pay twice rather than once?

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague about the importance of volunteers and the fact that Canada's fundraising laws are stricter than in other jurisdictions.

However, if that is why he opposes the motion, I have to wonder whether he actually read the motion. What the motion says is that the Ethics Commissioner should be granted the authority to investigate in connection with the mandate the Prime Minister himself gave to all members of cabinet.

The things we have been hearing since this morning are enough to make us want to tear our hair out. I actually find it irritating now. The Liberals keep saying they followed the law. We are not debating the law. We are debating ethics and the mandate the Prime Minister gave all members of cabinet in their mandate letters.

Does my colleague see the difference? Will he reconsider his vote knowing that all we want is to give the mandate from the Prime Minister real teeth? Will he walk the talk?

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

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

I would particularly like to thank him for also speaking out against the fact that the Liberals seem to be criticizing everyone and saying that it is no big deal, that everyone fundraises, without realizing that ministers are held to a higher standard than ordinary MPs. That is very important, and the Prime Minister himself has acknowledged it in the things he has said and in the mandate letters he wrote to his ministers. Obviously, the ministers' actions show that they do not understand how important this is.

If we want to speak out against all those who have broken the law, we could also talk about Jacques Corriveau. That story finally came to its rightful end this week when Mr. Corriveau was found guilty. What is more, charges are being brought against some people who work in Queen's Park for Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. That is a scandal that is costing the people of Sudbury since their MPP is affected by all of these allegations.

We can sling mud left and right. However, perhaps, for the benefit of our Liberal colleagues, the hon. member could explain the difference between what is legal and what is ethical.