Matthew Dubé

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

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

I would like to reassure him: the Liberals are not destroying the Conservatives' work, they are continuing it. At least, that is what producers believe, because the trade agreements are undermining supply management. It is not just the Liberals who are doing this. After all, it was the Conservatives who negotiated the trans-Pacific partnership.

Quite frankly, the Liberals really need to step up to the plate. To date, they have not done their job. However, the NDP and the Liberal Party agree that many of these problems were created by the Conservatives.

How can my colleague claim to be defending supply management when for 10 years his government made every effort to undermine this system?

[Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by thanking my colleagues who worked so hard on this bill.

I would like to start by thanking the member for Windsor West for the work he has done on this bill, not only in this Parliament but in the previous Parliament, and also my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh, and her predecessor, Joe Comartin, who worked very hard on this bill as well in the previous Parliament.

This bill is very important because it seeks to modernize the situation. Gambling is currently a provincial jurisdiction. We know that and this bill does not take away from that. However, the regulations need to be modernized. I appreciate this bill because it essentially seeks to establish regulations to help reduce, if not eliminate, the influence of organized crime.

This is not necessarily an issue that affects my riding. We do not have a casino. However, I know that my colleagues in Windsor have experienced this situation. Their expertise and that of the stakeholders who support our position illustrate the need to adopt new regulations and update the statutes governing gambling in Canada, in order to eliminate the influence of organized crime. That is the most important thing.

However, I cannot talk about this bill without raising an absurd situation that affects the work of parliamentarians here in Ottawa. I am referring to the fact that the Senate again delayed the study of a bill that then died on the order paper when the election was called. That is what happened to the bill we are debating today.

We believe that the Senate's undemocratic action impacted a private member's bill. The same thing happened to Jack Layton's bill on climate change. The House passed the bill, but the Senate failed to pass it by one vote.

No matter what an MP may think of the bill put forward by my colleague from Windsor West, it is absurd that in the 21st century, in a democracy, some senators can delay the study in committee of a bill passed by the House of Commons to the point where it would die on the order paper. They did not even get around to the vote.

That is why my colleague from Windsor West has to once again introduce the same bill after a federal election. Furthermore, it seems that government members are going to oppose it. The work done by a previous Parliament has unfortunately been undone by an undemocratic institution.

Many stakeholders in the sports community are interested in this issue. When the various sports leagues express their views, we need to understand their interests and their motivations. Of course, they like the existing regulations. However, the regulation proposed by my colleague in this new bill does not seek to make an existing problem worse. This is not a new bill. Once again, it could have been passed before if the Senate had done its job during the 41st Parliament.

Under the existing law, a person can bet only on a single sport event. The bill proposes to increase that number to three, which would reduce the influence of organized crime on gaming in Canada. If this was not the right approach, we would not have stakeholders' support on this.

When we got to the Senate, we encountered a problem. We appeared before the committee and nothing was certain. Senators were asking questions. I will admit that that is understandable and that those questions needed to be asked. Senators had to be given the opportunity to understand where we stood on this issue and what action needed to be taken. They wanted to understand the existing regulations and how the bill would change them.

That is a problem because we had stakeholders who supported the bill. Members passed the bill, and we tried to present an informed position on the subject. I commend my colleague from Windsor for trying again and pushing ahead on this issue, which is supported by the municipality of Windsor. The municipality indicated that it was in favour of the bill, as did the various gaming commissions, and not just in Ontario. Other provinces, such as Saskatchewan, were on board. My colleague just talked about it. It is very important to keep all that in mind when we are considering the situation that is currently before us.

I am really disappointed that the government is now saying it will oppose this bill. Maybe it is just me, but I did not hear a lot of opposition to this from the Liberal Party during the previous Parliament. Now the Liberals seem to have changed their mind, but they cannot really explain why.

Members from a region have put forward a bill that has the support of the municipality they represent and various provincial gaming commissions that regulate gaming. As I said at the outset, this is ultimately a provincial responsibility. When all of these stakeholders have reached a consensus on the bill and understand that we need legislation to make a necessary change, we are entitled to ask some questions.

The Senate took its sweet time, and then the election was called and the bill disappeared from the order paper. The Senate did its job, and now my colleague has to introduce the same bill all over again. During the previous Parliament, the government's party did not have a lot to say. Actually, it said nothing against this bill. Now it says it will oppose the bill. I find that so disappointing.

I must admit, I am getting to know the Windsor area. I do not know as much about it as I would like, but I have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with my colleague from Windsor West discussing this bill. I really understand the positive impact this bill can have in terms of eliminating the influence of organized crime on gambling in Canada. For that reason alone, the bill deserves our support.

I hope that the government will have the chance to reconsider its position. Finally, I would remind backbenchers that they are free to vote their conscience on private members' bills. I hope that this plea will reassure them, and that when the time comes to vote on this bill, they will not tow the party line but adopt the common sense approach proposed by my colleague from Windsor West.

I see that I am out of time. I will end there.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

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

I will not waste too much time recalling the bogus process that led to the partisan accusations against NDP members. I will remind my colleague of the Conservative majority on the Board of Internal Economy at the time. However, as I said, that is a debate for another day. Today, it is about the problems that ministers face.

It is about a code that the Prime Minister himself established for the ministers. With regard to the question my colleague raised, the fact remains that ministers, including the Minister of Justice, have more responsibilities than an ordinary member, if I can use that term, because ultimately, they represent not only their constituents but also a government department and institutions.

That is especially true for the Minister of Justice, and that is what makes this situation even more problematic.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of the conversations with her husband and given the circumstances, I think we need better answers about this situation.

I hope my colleague listened carefully to my speech. I even said that I did not question the minister’s integrity regarding her ability to listen to people. The fact remains that even if it is not illegal, we can certainly wonder whether it is ethical. That is the distinction that must be made.

The situation is as follows: People are giving the Liberal Party of Canada $500 or $600, whatever the amount is, which gives them the impression that they have preferential access to a minister, when the code that the Prime Minister himself gave his ministers prohibits precisely that kind of situation.

I will not say outside that this is illegal, because it is not. However, it is certainly unethical, and it is certainly a breach of the promises that were made over and over by this party during the election campaign on the subject of openness and transparency.

You can put “openness” and “transparency” in quotation marks, because that has not materialized, far from it.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a notice of closure motion. That is timely because I was going to start my speech by saying that this is a fine debate that reminds us of the old saying, “Liberal, Tory, same old story”. That is what we have here.

Today's debate is on political fundraising issues, which often come up in the news and never for good reasons, unfortunately. We are in a situation where the Conservative Party opposition motion calls on the Minister of Justice to apologize and return the money.

She is being asked to follow the example of a Conservative Party minister, Shelly Glover, who, in a similar situation, returned all the money she collected. If we are setting the bar to meet a standard created by the Conservatives, then that bar is not very high and easy to jump over. I would hope that the Minister of Justice will be able to do so.

I want to talk about a number of points raised in this debate. First, with regard to political fundraising, I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons answer questions in question period by saying that every member participates in political fundraising, that there is nothing unusual about doing so, and that we should not worry about it. We are talking here about ministers, and their responsibilities and requirements differ from those of ordinary members.

I am not trying to minimize the responsibilities of individual members. However, there is a big difference between a minister responsible for justice sitting down with lawyers and me being given $20 by a woman in my riding because she thinks that I do a good job and she wants me to have the resources I need to get re-elected. It seems likely that, in the case of the minister, she and the lawyers will be talking almost exclusively about subjects related to her portfolio and her department. There is a very big difference there. That is where we get into the matter of appearances.

The code of conduct that the Prime Minister himself imposed on his ministers, for lack of a better way to say it, indicates that they cannot engage in partisan or fundraising activities that give the appearance of preferential access, the appearance of conflict of interest, or the impression that one can pay to obtain access to a minister. That is the problem. Perhaps it is the eternal optimist in me who is talking, but I would like to believe that the minister does not just lend an attentive ear to people who are prepared to pay to attend fundraisers. Once again, the problem is the way it is perceived. People see that and wonder whether someone has to be able to pay $500 or $600 to meet with the minister.

I almost forgot. Before I continue, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. I was so outraged to hear the government House leader move a motion to invoke closure after only six months in office that I completely forgot. I hope I will be forgiven.

I will come back to the matter before us. We now find ourselves in a situation where Canadians have doubts and questions. There is already too much cynicism about politics and the political system. The problem is now being exacerbated by this type of fundraising, which gives the impression that one can pay to obtain preferential access. I find that absolutely unacceptable.

When going door-to-door during and even before the election campaign, we inevitably meet people who say they could not care less about politics. I dare say this is the experience of all MPs from all parties. When you ask these people to explain why they feel that way and you try to talk about the files you are working on, the good work that MPs can do, the difference one can make as an MP, and the difference one can make in the community, quite often they will say that politicians are all dishonest and that only people with power and money have access to elected officials. It seems that the average person cannot get this type of access, nor make a difference and communicate with an elected official, an MP or even a minister, as in the situation we find ourselves in today.

This is what happens in situations like this. Although I make no assumptions about what the minister will do and what access she will provide, she has nevertheless created the impression that she will give her attention and her time more readily to those who are prepared to donate to the Liberal Party of Canada. That is unacceptable and it creates a problem for all of us. It is a big black cloud that will settle over Parliament and the political system, and it will follow us everywhere.

I am not a member of the Liberal Party, but when I knock on doors in my riding, citizens inevitably talk to me about this situation or that situation. I reply that it is the good old Liberal Party that we all know, and I personally promise to do politics differently. However, that does not change anything, because people say that it does not matter, since politicians are all alike. As elected representatives, we have a responsibility to do better, and ministers have 10 times as much responsibility. After all, they are not just representatives of their constituencies, because they also represent institutions. Ministerial responsibility is even greater for the Minister of Justice.

What is happening is, unfortunately, the current trend. That is not limited to the Minister of Justice. We are dealing with another case involving privileged access; just consider the case of the Minister of National Revenue. We are right in the middle of income tax season. Some people are quite happy, because they will be getting a tax refund. Others will have to write a cheque to the government. It is a happy or unhappy time of year, depending on whom you ask. Ultimately, it does not matter how those people feel; they pay their fair share, with the exception, of course, of the millionaires and the people who do business with KPMG, because they can have nice agreements with the government and benefit from tax evasion. That would not be a problem if we had not learned this week that there are cocktail buffets for senior public servants and managers who oversee investigations to combat tax evasion. Here we are again in a situation that feeds public cynicism. We are creating the perception that preferential access is possible.

The Minister of National Revenue, much like the leader of the government when he was defending the Minister of Justice, stood in the House and said that the people who work in the department are members of the same professional association as the people facilitating tax evasion. Therefore this was not about tax evasion; it was an opportunity to attend an event with fellow accountants.

The problem is still one of perception. Who knows what happens at those meetings? Who knows what is discussed? Essentially, the members of the public who pay their fair share of taxes think that we have enough money to attend a little cocktail party or pay the big fee of an accountant at KPMG, which has a nice network that includes a manager or maybe even an elected representative. We hope not, but this type of situation creates a very problematic perception, because it undermines people’s confidence in their public institutions and their elected representatives. It is a completely unacceptable situation.

In the end, this is why we will support the Conservative Party’s motion.

In conclusion, I would like to say that although we support the motion, I would hope that we will find more urgent situations to discuss. Yes, what happened is scandalous and appalling on the part of a minister. However, when I think about the people who are losing their jobs, the debate on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, and the hypocrisy of the Liberals on this issue, and when I think of the people who do not have access to employment insurance, despite the government’s lovely words about changing the system, and of the issue of tax evasion, I firmly believe that despite the ethical problems that are eating away at both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, which have succeeded one another in power, when all is said and done, there are real people who need us to stand up in the House. People need us to hold debates on the issues that affect them personally. That is what we should be doing. We will support the motion, but we have to get back to real business and tackle those issues. It is very important to do so.

I would like to tell everyone listening not to throw up their hands at such behaviour. They must not let cynicism control their relationship with politics. If they consider it a deplorable act, that is one more reason for them to get involved in changing the attitudes of elected representatives.

In 2019, a government that does not keep its promises of transparency and openness, not to mention all the other broken promises, may well be replaced. That is what we are hoping and aiming for.

[Rail Transportation, April 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her response. I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's and the minister's good intentions. I have no doubt that when the minister goes to visit Lac-Mégantic, he will have a heavy heart when he thinks about the tragedy that happened there.

The problem with all of this is that despite good intentions and the measures that have been taken since the tragedy occurred, urgent action is still needed. When I go home on the weekend and during our break weeks, and when my constituents reach out to me, everyone says the same thing: the trains are still too long, they are still going too fast, and they still pose a danger because they are carrying hazardous materials.

Lastly, if we look at the needs of municipalities, they still cannot get the information they need in time, for instance, to find out what kind of dangerous goods are passing through their area. That is extremely important to the municipalities, especially for fire services, for prevention purposes.

Once again, I thank my colleague, and I want to reassure my constituents. I will continue standing up for them on this issue.

[Rail Transportation, April 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, today, I am pleased to follow up on the question that the Minister of Transport was asked a few weeks ago about rail safety.

I am pleased to be able to bring this issue up again in the House because it is something my community has been concerned about for a long time.

The deadliest accident in the history of Canada occurred in 1864, three years before Confederation. Ninety people lost their lives in the accident, which occurred on the black bridge between Beloeil and Mont-Saint-Hilaire.

Looking at more recent history, members will recall what happened in Mont-Saint-Hilaire. On December 30, 1990, an accident happened that looked a lot like the tragic incident in Lac-Mégantic. A train transporting petroleum products collided with another train because of a problem with the railway, and that caused an explosion involving chemicals that the fire department was unable to identify. The fire burned fiercely for days, giving off multicoloured smoke. It was terrifying. That was in 1990, which is really not that long ago. When the Lac-Mégantic tragedy happened, the people in my riding, particularly those in Mont-Saint-Hilaire, were very worried. Like the Richelieu River, the railway goes right through the heart of my riding.

My former riding was Saint-Basile-le-Grand. This issue affects a number of municipalities, including McMasterville, Beloeil, Mont-Saint-Hilaire, and Otterburn Park. That is why we asked the minister our question. He said that rail safety is a priority for him. Why has he not yet done anything? I read the budget because I know that is the answer I will get again tonight, and I know that it is full of nice ideas. It talks about how important it is to retire the DOT-111 tank cars and increase the number of inspections, but unfortunately, there is no money to do those things.

As we learned from testimony at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the budget allocates 21% less money for inspections and rail safety. That is very worrisome. My colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, who is also our transport critic, and I raised this issue with the minister again last week. Once again, he was not able to give us an answer. He simply said that he would consult with municipalities and acknowledged that this was urgent. He said this was his top priority.

However, six months have gone by since the election campaign, and words are no longer enough. We need action. I agree that it is important to consult the municipalities. They have spoken out since the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic and were even speaking out before. We know what they need. They need information before hazardous materials pass through their communities, not after. They need to be informed so they can take preventive measures instead of simply reacting. We need to remove the outdated DOT-111 cars. We need more human resources to conduct proper inspections. There are too many hazardous materials passing through our communities, and my constituents are very concerned.

I want to assure the people of Beloeil—Chambly that I will continue to stand up for them and their concerns in the House of Commons.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 18th, 2016]

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

The two opposition parties are both opposed to the bill, but not for exactly the same reasons. I would like my colleague to talk briefly about the Liberals' about-face on this file.

I had an opportunity to read a quote before. I would like to read another one. Let us keep going and digging through the archives of the transport committee.

One member stated:

I do believe in the rule of law. I do believe that whether an individual or a corporation breaks the law, there should be some justice that comes out of it....The workers of Aveos, who were formerly Air Canada employees, feel that there has not been any justice, that their government has let them down.

He then reads the law as it currently exists, before Bill C-10 of course.

He then goes on to accuse Air Canada of wanting to privatize. He states:

...as someone who is concerned about the worker, we read that and interpret it as meaning that Air Canada is obligated to maintain those overhaul centres. Then Air Canada kind of privatizes and pushes that responsibility over to Aveos. A court then makes a decision that because Aveos is now there, Air Canada is indirectly keeping those jobs.

Who said that? Once again, the member for Winnipeg North, who is showing us how the Liberal government opposes one way and governs another.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 18th, 2016]

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

I want to read the member something that a Liberal member said in the transport committee in 2012 when this issue was before it. He can try to guess who said this at the time. The member stated:

What interests me...is it's important for us to note that there must have been some form of a fairly strong relationship between Aveos and Air Canada. I talked with numerous employees of Air Canada, who were ultimately shifted over to Aveos. I can recall very clearly that many of the employees who made that shift indicated they were concerned that this was just a shell game Air Canada was playing, and Aveos was just executing what Air Canada wanted: to be able to ultimately facilitate the demise of those very important jobs.

Who said that? It was the member for Winnipeg North, who stood in this place and presented petition after petition. In committee, the member, in the excerpt I just read, was fighting for a motion to get Aveos in front of the committee to stand up for workers, workers who I assume live in his riding—my colleague will be able to tell us that—workers he has now betrayed.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on that.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 15th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party has nothing to teach me about how to treat Quebec or other provinces that have definitely been impacted by the Liberal Party's lack of respect. We need only think of the cuts to transfers in the 1990s, not to mention all the other consequences that have been felt over the years.

Let us be clear about Quebec's decision with respect to the dispute. It asked that the suit be suspended until the two parties reach an agreement. Air Canada agreed to purchase C Series planes, but that does not give the Liberal government carte blanche to completely flout the law, change it, and betray the government's previous positions. Nor does it give the government blanket authority to remove legal protections for workers who currently have good jobs that are protected under the law.

I would like to reassure my colleague. We will always listen to the Government of Quebec. There is no doubt about that. However, we are here listening to Quebec workers who will lose their jobs. Why? Rather than singing Kumbaya and chanting “So-so-so-solidarity”, the Prime Minister has simply decided to slap them in the face, change the law and remove these protections. That is a disgrace and we will never be ashamed to say it.