Matthew Dubé

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for that warm welcome.

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?

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Naturally, we are very pleased to hear that the government will repeal these two ill-conceived laws brought in by the previous government.

My colleague spoke about good faith. Indeed, it is very important for workers to be able to bargain in good faith.

However, although this bill shows some openness towards workers and unions, the Liberals committed to repealing the law regarding sick leave for the public service, but now they are joining the bargaining table with the same agreement and the same negotiator as the Conservatives. Why? This seems like a smokescreen to me. There is no real change in approach.

How does my colleague explain his government's actions?

[Rail Transportation, February 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, let us move on to another difficult subject. The Lac-Mégantic disaster, which took place on that fateful day, July 6, 2013, and took the lives of 47 people, remains embedded in our collective consciousness.

More than two years later, the community is still reliving the disaster, as two out of three residents have symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. The residents need relief and, above all, they do not want any more trains to run through downtown Lac-Mégantic.

Will the minister commit today to building a bypass, yes or no?

[Infrastructure, February 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, empty rhetoric is not going to address this urgent need that the minister referred to.

Housing is not the only challenge that municipalities are facing. After years of downloading costs under the previous government, communities are facing crumbling bridges, roads, and water systems. The mayors are here in Ottawa and they are asking for help.

Now is the time for action, not more rhetoric and empty platitudes. There is $9 billion that has been promised but not spent. Will the government remove all of the Conservative restrictions on funding and finally get these investments into our communities and get us some action?

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, considering how much we heard about these tax cuts over the campaign, it is a pretty bad sell when the government is pitching a budget that has not even been presented yet to justify the tax cuts. That is what the member has been doing for the past 20 minutes.

The fact is that the member has asked to hear criticisms of the substance of the bill. That is what the New Democrats have been doing all morning, since the debate started. We have been asking the government why it will not make a simple modification to the change to the tax code to make sure that people earning less than $45,000 actually get something, and that includes medium-income earners of $31,000. Right now they are getting nothing at all.

Is the member perhaps embarrassed by that? Is that why he spent all his time talking about a budget that has not even been tabled?

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments about the people in her community who need this. She keeps going on and on about how the rich will pay more, but despite the Liberals' promises, the people who need it the most—those who earn less than $45,000 per year—will not see a penny.

During the election campaign, the Liberal Party accused us of dishonesty and said that a federal minimum wage would not help many people. That same Liberal Party promised middle-class tax cuts and more cash in middle-class pockets. The truth is that a vast majority of Canadians identify as middle class and yet will not get a penny because they earn less than $45,000 per year. The median income is around $33,000 or $36,000 per year.

Can my colleague tell me why her party is not supporting the NDP proposal to put a little more cash in those people's pockets, not just the pockets of those who earn between $90,000 and $150,000 per year?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague when he says that strengthening the middle class is a good way to boost the economy. It is certainly true that a strong middle class will help the economy. The problem here is that he is talking about priorities and urgent matters.

I am thinking about how the government is dragging its feet when it comes to employment insurance. EI would help people who need it. At the risk of repeating myself, I am thinking about people who earn less than $45,000 and will not get one cent of the Liberal government's tax cut. I am thinking about people who need to have their mail delivered at home and saw this government go back on its word. As far as infrastructure is concerned, I see a party that spent the entire election campaign promising to restore the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds in Quebec, when it said nothing about it for four years while the NDP was championing this issue in the House of Commons. Here too the government is dragging its feet, which ends up delaying projects and investments. I think the government still has a lot to learn about setting priorities and the urgency to act. We would be prepared to give it some advice.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we can give Canadians all the money we want, but if day care is too expensive, what good will the money do? That is why the NDP proposed affordable child care.

Now I want to talk about the middle class and how best to help them. The parliamentary budget officer is the one who said that the tax cuts will not help the people who truly need it. People need more than tax cuts. How many times have we heard about the need to the bolster the health transfers that were slashed by the Conservative government? That topic comes up often. People are very concerned about the viability of the public health care system. Unfortunately, that topic was also missing from the throne speech.

I heard some comments and heckling from a Conservative colleague, but as a member from Quebec, I can say that the NDP proposed a transfer for Quebec's child care system. With the rising costs in this province, a transfer would have been greatly appreciated by the middle class.