Matthew Dubé

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I can assure her that there will be no impact on safety regulations. We are just telling the government to start from scratch. We are telling the government that Bill C-10 does not work and will not protect the jobs currently protected by the law. Questions about safety will surely come up when we are talking about air transport and workers. However, all the NDP is saying today with our position and our amendment is that this bill is harmful to the sustainability of the aeronautics and aerospace industry in Quebec and Canada. It is also clearly harmful to the workers we are defending here today.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and the work he does on this file.

At the end of the day, that is precisely the problem. This is a situation where we have a Prime Minister who was not shy about demonstrating with the Aveos workers in 2012. What is more, the re-elected Liberal members, including the hon. member who asked me the question, expressed their indignation during the previous Parliament. This is a betrayal that is absolutely unacceptable to us. We have legislation to protect these jobs.

To get back to what my colleague was saying, I would say that in changing the law, we might assume that some of the workers we are trying to defend will manage to hang on to their jobs. However, the problem with the way the bill is drafted is that we are creating uncertainty. We are allowing Air Canada to provide no guarantees, to outsource these jobs, and to create completely unacceptable instability. Furthermore, we will be creating problems for the aerospace and aeronautics sectors in Quebec and Canada. We are going to end up losing our expertise because these jobs are unstable and they could potentially be lost, although with this bill, I should probably say they will inevitably be lost. It will be very difficult to regain this expertise and rebuild our industry in Quebec and Canada. The government may not have thought about these consequences. That is why we are rising today to oppose this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, as far as Quebec is concerned, the lawsuit was dropped until an agreement could be reached between the parties.

However, the workers are also part of the lawsuit.

To the member coming from Winnipeg who stands up and asks who we are standing with, we are standing with the workers who are going to lose their jobs because the Liberal government has decided to make legal what is now illegal.

I have a hard time wondering how that member goes back to his home city in Winnipeg and tells the workers in that city that their jobs that were guaranteed by the law are no longer guaranteed. Not only that, even if they do manage to hang onto their jobs, there is no guarantee there anymore because of the bill drafted by the government.

To the NDP, it is very clear. We are not standing up to pit one region against another, but to protect the workers whose jobs are protected by law.