Matthew Dubé

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for all the hard work he has done over the past five years to defend the workers of Bombardier, Aveos, and Quebec, when the Conservative government turned its back on them. Unfortunately, if we continue down this path, the new government will end up doing the same thing.

I would like to come back to the work that my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is doing regarding the Saint-Hubert airport. He mentioned it in passing. I am originally from Saint-Bruno, so I am very familiar with this issue. People have voiced concerns regarding the development of this airport. I think that a parallel can be drawn here. We need to respect what residents in Saint-Hubert and Toronto, for example, think about what is being done or what should be done. Unfortunately, that was not the approach taken by the Conservatives. The Saint-Hubert airport is close to where I live. It is located in a neighbouring riding, or what used to be a neighbouring riding in any case. I am mentioning this because it relates to a point that I raised in my speech. Too often, the argument used by people who do not want to support Quebec industry is that the assistance is just a bailout for Bombardier. We are not talking about just one company. It is important to understand that. Perhaps my colleague can talk a little more about it. A number of companies depend on the aerospace industry. We are not just talking about workers at Bombardier. Thousands of workers in Quebec depend on this industry.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion for the history of Canadair and Bombardier. Indeed, there have been highs and lows. My grandfather experienced that. At one point, he was one of the only workers left at plant 1. Then there was a wind of change. We acknowledge the history of the industry, especially in Quebec, and it is part of our collective history.

I understand the hon. member's question and his concern. My problem is that we know that Porter is currently having financial difficulties. We also know that the Conservatives are promising us that this will not cost the taxpayers anything. However, we have questions about the hidden costs. We have all sorts of questions. Is this something that will truly not cost the taxpayers anything? I am not convinced. After all, we know that this could cause traffic and nuisance problems, which could result in hidden costs. Costs are not always financial, of course. At the end of the day, what we take issue with here is that this is not the perfect solution. It takes a government that is ready to show some leadership, ready to propose a real strategy for this industry and finally tell us whether or not it is going to help Bombardier.

My colleague alluded to what was done in Quebec. We are very aware that it is in the taxpayers' interest that we respect their money. That is why we want any agreement between the federal government and Bombardier to have all the necessary criteria to ensure the proper use of taxpayers' money.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, if the government cares so much about the industry, why did it have nothing to say during the election campaign about helping the industry? The Liberals were completely silent on this issue.

That is why I have questions about files like Bombardier. On the day the new government was sworn in, one of the first questions addressed to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, as the portfolio is now known, was about Bombardier. That was one of the first questions addressed to several ministers who paraded before the media. That was in November, and we still have not gotten any real answers. In the meantime, people are losing their jobs and looking for help.

I also want to mention the Aveos workers, who are also living with uncertainty. They remember a Prime Minister who was eager to demonstrate with them and show the so-called good faith that the member mentioned, but who is nowhere to be found now that the Liberals are in power.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I am very pleased to speak to today's Conservative opposition motion. The Bombardier file is very important to me not only because I represent a riding that is home to many workers affected by the unfortunate news we have heard over the past few weeks, but also because this is part of my family history. My grandfather spent his life working in one of the Canadair plants in Saint-Laurent, which is where many members of my mother's family were raised. Some of them still live there.

For those who may not know this, Canadair is now an essential part of Bombardier. It was a crown corporation that, when privatized, became a key component of Bombardier. I am very familiar with this file. My family is from a neighbourhood where many people work for Bombardier. I have family members, friends, and especially constituents who work there. I recognize that the aerospace industry is critical to Quebec's economy and to Canada's, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk about it today.

I want to start by addressing the issue raised by the Conservatives regarding the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. The Conservatives are saying that the C Series will reduce noise and pollution because the aircraft is more efficient and makes less noise. The problem is that the increase in air traffic will cancel out those benefits. If we take 10 away from 30 but then add 15, we are left with a higher number than we started with. That is the situation we are in now. Furthermore, proper procedures were not followed. Some of the proposals that were made did not go through the appropriate channels. The wishes of Toronto residents who will be affected by this also need to be respected.

The problem is bigger than the details of a file that specifically affects the City of Toronto and the people living near Spadina Avenue. This situation shows how ridiculous the Conservatives can be because, in 2008, that party did not hesitate to help the automotive industry in Ontario. We understand how important that sector is. The point is not to pit one sector against another. It is to show how now, all of a sudden, they seem more reluctant to help a company, an industry, that is so important to Quebec's economy and the Canadian economy in general, and that is aerospace industry. It is unfortunate that that willingness does not seem to exist today. Saying that an airport will solve a very complex and difficult issue shows how the Conservatives propose simplistic solutions to very serious and complicated problems. I find that unfortunate because we are now in a situation where many people are paying the price. People are going to lose their jobs. Why? Because the government that was in office for 10 years did absolutely nothing for the aerospace industry or the manufacturing industry in general.

This type of motion seems very hypocritical to me. It talks about wanting to support Bombardier, wanting to support an entire industry, but wanting to address just one issue that has to do with an airport is not the answer. Our criticism of the Conservatives does not let the current government off the hook. We are in a situation where, once again, given that this industry is so important to the economy of Quebec and Canada, it was no secret that these issues would land on the new government's desk from the get-go.

The NDP was proactive on this very important issue. During the last election campaign, we proposed an aerospace strategy. This industry does not depend on Bombardier alone, in spite of how big it is. There are also related businesses. We are talking about businesses that do research and development. Many of those businesses are located in my riding and neighbouring ridings. It is an industry that supports other businesses, not just Bombardier. That is why there needs to be a long-term vision, a strategy. The NDP was prepared to make investments. Unfortunately, the Liberals have not made any commitments on this. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

When we heard that people would lose well-paying, good-quality jobs and that families would be struggling, I participated in a number of panels and conducted numerous interviews. I had the chance to talk with some Liberal members, who gave me the same old story we hear for every issue. They tell us that they need some time because they just started. Then they say that they have made commitments and they give us the same lip service we heard during the election campaign.

In the United States, people often say that if the American president has not accomplished anything after 100 days, he will not accomplish anything in his term. I realize that American politics and Canadian politics are different. However, the first 100 days are crucial. At some point, the government needs to start helping people and taking real action.

Employment insurance is another good example. Some workers lose their jobs and do not receive any government assistance. With all due respect to the Minister of Transport, who has accomplished a lot and is a great Canadian, when he tells the House that he has been in a C Series aircraft, he is showing how out of touch he is with the people who are losing their jobs. It is ridiculous. They are going to have to get over themselves eventually. The election campaign is over and these people need help. Now is not the time for them to repeat what they said during the election campaign. Now is the time for the government to govern and come up with a proposal.

The simplest proposal is to subsidize the company. We need to sit down at the table and get to work. Any financial assistance provided to a company like Bombardier must come with conditions. Taxpayers have the right to be concerned and ask questions. We are spending their money after all.

That is why the NDP firmly believes that the government must provide assistance, but that there must be conditions attached. There have to be loan guarantees. Furthermore, talks must be held to determine how the company will restructure and how the C Series will be deployed after it receives federal government assistance. It is not complicated: we can help, but there must be strings attached.

During the last election campaign, I went door to door and met people working at Bombardier in plants, in research and development, and in administration. They did not feel that people were ready to govern and make proposals that would help workers. Fortunately, the NDP had a strategy to help this industry.

As I already said, the election campaign is over. The government needs to wake up, take responsibility, and help these people. It is unfortunate, but we will have to vote against the motion. The Conservatives decided to move a motion that is written in such a way as to divide people. They want to leave the House saying that we voted against a motion that recognizes the importance of Bombardier. However, we must talk facts, not semantics.

If the Conservatives strongly believe that increasing airport traffic and creating an environmental nuisance and traffic problems in the largest city in the country will really help an industry that is so important to Quebec and Canada, they are dreaming in technicolour. We wonder why, in 10 years, they did not do something to avoid the current situation.

In conclusion, I will take advantage of this opportunity to say that workers in my riding and all over Quebec who are affected by this unfortunate news can count on me and the NDP caucus. Fortunately, the NDP will stand up, and not just with respect to Bombardier. We have also reviewed the Aveos file and other files that are just not getting the attention they deserve from the Liberals and the Conservatives.

I am very proud to belong to a team of MPs who will stand up and put forward a real plan to help a major industry. I have a personal interest in the industry because it affects my constituents, my friends, and my family. I know that.

I am very proud to have shared this with the House and to offer my support to my constituents.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that he does not want to subsidize corporations and industries.

As a Quebec member who is from a riding where Bombardier employees are going to lose their jobs, I want to understand why it was all right for the Conservatives to subsidize Ontario's automotive sector and why now, all of a sudden, the Conservatives have decided that it is not a good idea to help Bombardier during a difficult time and protect these Quebec jobs.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we are talking about deradicalization.

The Conservatives think that dropping bombs is the best deradicalization program. However, we should be working with local authorities and religious communities. When the Conservatives were in power they did not do anything in that respect. We had to wait for the municipalities to start taking action.

Canada has a lot of work to do in that respect. People from Canada are going abroad and fighting for ISIL.

With regard to the other part of his question, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we need to stop talking about the atrocities committed by ISIL. We all agree that ISIL is committing atrocities, that we are all disgusted by them, and that this organization must be wiped off the face of the earth. That is not the right way to say it, but we no longer want to see such acts of violence. That is exactly why we need to do this work.

When we talk about a responsibility to protect, we are talking about the United Nations. Their position on this is in line with what the NDP is proposing. We are talking about the principles of the United Nations, so let us work with the UN so that Canada can do what it is best suited to do in Iraq and put an end to this violence.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague shares our sense of urgency about the treaty. I hope he will share his feelings with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

When the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister talk about the mission, it sometimes seems as though they consider it to be a combat mission. This uncertainty is extremely worrisome, especially when we recall the Afghanistan mission. We cannot support this mission without clear parameters and conditions of victory.

We need to have clear, specific parameters when we are asking our women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces to put their lives in danger in these regions for such missions. However, the government has not given us any parameters.

My colleague asked a very good question about deradicalization. I would be lying if I claimed to have all the answers about program specifics. However, that is a good reason for the government to support a study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, with a view to inviting stakeholders who can answer these questions, working with local authorities such as those in Montreal, and looking at what has worked and not worked to deradicalize young people.

We must also work with young people, especially on mental health issues. My colleague from Salaberry—Suroît spoke about how joblessness and racism can exacerbate this problem. We must find solutions.

My colleague asked a very good question. We would love to examine the issue with the government members.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in the House today, even if it is to speak about such a complex and troubling issue. We must admit that these are very complicated and ongoing geopolitical situations. This violence has existed, in different forms, for many years now.

I think it is important to point out that what we are talking about today is the role that Canada should play. When we talk about the fight against the so-called Islamic State, we often talk about all of the efforts being made. However, our responsibility as parliamentarians is to focus on what we can do better and determine how we can better contribute to the efforts being made in the region.

Before I get into the questions that we have for the government and the solutions that the NDP is proposing, I would like to point out two very important things. The first is that no matter where we come from or what party we belong to, we all support the men and women in our Canadian Armed Forces 100%, before, during and after any missions they participate in. That is very important.

No matter where we come from or what party we belong to, we are all disgusted by the atrocities being committed by the so-called Islamic State. Videos of the atrocities circulate online and cause us to all feel the same horror and indignation. That is also important to note.

Where we unfortunately disagree is on how to proceed, but the two points I mentioned are very important, and I think they should not unfairly taint the debate.

I will start by talking about the questions we have for the government about what is in the motion. Many of our questions show that, unfortunately, history is repeating itself. I am very proud to be a member of the New Democratic Party of Canada, a political party that, in the past 15 years, has been there to ask questions about topics such as our intervention in Afghanistan.

These questions were difficult and unfortunately generated some nastiness. Jack Layton was called Taliban Jack in the House of Commons. Why? Because he dared to ask questions about the length of the mission, the parameters and conditions of victory, and our specific objectives. The ideas were laudable, but unfortunately, we cannot ask the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces to go overseas to defend and accomplish a military mission simply on the basis of ideas. There must be clear objectives. We are asking them to put their lives in danger, so we must ask ourselves these questions.

I remember reading an article in La Presse a few years ago that described the lamentable state of a school in Afghanistan. There was no stairway to the second floor of the school. Schools were falling apart, the very schools that we were supposed to protect and help rebuild. That mission lasted over 10 years and cost many Canadian lives. We did some good, but we did not achieve the objectives we set out to achieve, vague as they were, to a degree that we, as parliamentarians, and the Canadian people deemed satisfactory, not to mention the men and women who gave so much in their attempts to accomplish something in those chaotic regions.

So here we are asking the same questions today. What exactly is the government's objective? How will it define success? How much time should we expect this to take?

As my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît just pointed out in her speech, at least the Conservatives had a timeline in the motions they moved in the previous Parliament. They came back to the House every six to 12 months to discuss the mission again with a new motion. In this case, the government moved a motion even though it had already started changing the parameters of the mission without even consulting parliamentarians, and its answers in question period leave a lot to be desired.

We will therefore continue to ask these questions because the answers have been unsatisfactory so far. This is very troubling. That is one reason why we oppose this motion.

Here is another question we would like to ask the government: is this a combat mission, yes or no?

The Liberals here in the House, in this very place where I stand today, asked a number of questions and voted against a Conservative motion, because they said they did not want to support a combat mission. During the election campaign, they also promised to end the combat mission.

Even though the government is withdrawing our CF-18s today, it is putting more men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces in danger, without being able to say why or whether this is actually a combat mission or not. We have gotten no answers on this.

Furthermore, in one of his answers today, the Prime Minister used the term “combat mission”. He finally realized that perhaps he called it what it really is. Then he backpedalled and started talking again about the fight against ISIL. We know, however, from comments made by the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister that the government recognizes that this is a combat mission, even though it does not want to call it that. Let us tell it like it is. That would be a good place to start.

We are raising all these questions, but what is the NDP proposing? Since we do not support this government's or the previous government's approach, we should at least come up with our own proposal and possible solutions. How does the NDP think Canada should contribute to this very dangerous and very important situation in the Middle East, specifically in Iraq?

Before we even go to the region, we need to examine what we are doing here at home. Efforts to combat radicalization and extremism are crucial. That begins here, because after all, we have heard many stories, including some about young people who are going overseas to fight with those terrorist groups. I am grateful that my colleague addressed this issue in her speech.

It is crucial that we take action here at home. Unfortunately, the previous government did not do so, despite Bill C-51, and the current government does not seem ready to do so either.

We are seeing some extraordinary efforts being made, in Montreal for example, and it is quite commendable. However, it is not just up to local authorities to do this work. We expect leadership from the federal government. We expect it to work with religious, local, and police authorities to ensure that young people are not influenced by ISIL's propaganda. This would reduce the number of fighters contributing to the violence in these regions. That is extremely important.

Unfortunately, despite good intentions and fine speeches, there is still no tangible plan to address radicalization here at home. That is what the NDP would like to see.

There are two other important aspects: money and weapons. As far as weapons are concerned, the solution is so simple. The government just has to sign a treaty that was negotiated, but that the Conservatives did not sign. The Liberal government says it wants to sign the treaty, but it has yet to do so.

In the past few days, during this debate, I heard one of the parliamentary secretaries say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was seized of the matter. If so, I do not believe he sees the urgency because it would be so easy to resolve this problem.

The government already indicated that it intends to sign this treaty, so it should do so. The government should sign it and then we can start doing what we must in order to reduce the influx of arms in the region.

This is especially troubling, as my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît and several of my other colleagues pointed out in their speeches, because we know that some of these weapons originated in Canada.

We are asking for more than just transparency. We are asking the government to take real action to ensure that we stop the flow of weapons in this region. We must reduce the influx and take action in true Canadian fashion. In other words, we need to work with our international partners to reduce the arms trade.

With respect to money, we can conduct negotiations together with our allies, the United Nations and other stakeholders and authorities to ensure that we cut off funding for these groups.

This week, we learned that ISIL sustained a serious financial setback. It had such an impact that it reduced ISIL's ability to commit terrible and violent acts in the region. Money is crucial.

Let us continue our efforts. That is the type of role that Canada can have and the one envisaged by the NDP. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be what the Liberal government plans on doing. For that reason, we are going to oppose the motion.

We will continue to ask questions and make specific proposals concerning the positive role that Canada can have.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. However, I am having difficulty reconciling two things.

During the election campaign, the Liberals talked about ending the combat mission. In his speech, my colleague said that the proposed mission is more dangerous. That is a comment, and not my question.

My question is about this famous Arms Trade Treaty. We know that the Conservative Party did not want to sign it.

Today, I heard one of the parliamentary secretaries say that the minister was seized of the matter. I do not believe there is much to consider because I would think that an agreement is better. It is a quick and easy solution that the government could implement to slow down arms sales in the region, and it would also have a positive effect in the region. That is the type of solution that the NDP is proposing.

Could my colleague give me a timeline and tell me, if the minister is so seized of the matter, when will we finally have a decision?

[Rail Transportation, February 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, more and more oil is being transported by rail through our communities, but the government has not created a safe and appropriate framework.

There are new projects on the table, and the status quo the Conservatives left us is not good enough. Municipalities and Canadians are worried. Nearly three years after the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, we are still waiting for more stringent safety rules, improved inspections, the removal of dangerous cars, and increased monitoring.

When will the government show that this is a priority and present a real rail safety plan?