Matthew Dubé

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their warm welcome. I will share my speaking time with the member for Drummond.

I am very happy today to make my maiden speech in this Parliament, to be back in the House, and to represent once again the people of Beloeil—Chambly. I want to take the time to thank them for placing their trust in me once again.

Since this is my first speech, I would like to take a moment to say what a great honour it was to represent the people of Saint-Basile-le-Grand and Saint-Mathieu-de-Beloeil, the two municipalities that were removed from my constituency in the last redistribution process. Since Saint-Basile is where I live, I am heartsick when I walk around the town and talk with people. However, I always reassure them that I will ensure that the new member does his job well, because it seems he is my member too, now.

Even though those two municipalities are no longer in my riding, the issues are the same. I will come back to this, but first I would like to thank a few people, including my team. In federal politics, it is rare to keep the same team for four years. When MPs are re-elected, it is mainly because they represented their constituents well, but MPs cannot do the work alone. I would therefore like to thank Francine, Cédric, Suzanne and Sébastien, who have been with me from the beginning of this adventure and who have accomplished the herculean task of representing me in the community and ensuring that people received the services they were entitled to. The work they do is the reason that I am still here today and that some of them are still working for me.

I would also like to thank the team that supported me during the campaign. We knock on plenty of doors, but there are people, candidates and outgoing MPs, who spend a lot of time with us and who give us lots of great ideas. I would especially like to thank Jacques, Guillaume and Francine, who spent so much time with me on the streets of my riding.

I want to talk now about the throne speech, which is the subject of today's debate. Although we are pleased with the change in tone, I must say that the previous government set the bar rather low. Although we have noticed greater openness and a change in tone, that is not enough. We also need to see new measures, and that is unfortunately where I see certain shortcomings.

Consider for example the issue of climate change and the environment, an issue that was raised over and over during the election campaign. I would even say that that will be one of the most urgent issues in the coming years, not only for Quebec and Canada, but for the entire world. To tackle this issue, we need to set targets. However, despite the work done in Paris, those targets are a far cry from what we are hearing from this government. The Liberals have not set any specific targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is very disappointing, especially since the throne speech would have been the perfect opportunity to begin a real shift away from what the Conservatives did.

When we talk about the environment, we are not just talking about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We are also talking about environmental assessments, which is another hot topic. We are being forced to accept the government's position on this, and that is to uphold the system that was dismantled by the Conservative government over the past few years, especially the past four years. This is unacceptable. That system does not work. It has to be reviewed and modernized. It did not even take into consideration the impact various resource extraction projects would have on climate change.

Change is needed if we really want our country to have a 21st-century system that satisfies Canadians and truly assesses the impact of projects on our environment in order to protect it. Despite the government's fine words, that change does not seem to be on the horizon. We will continue to push the government on this, because it is an urgent matter.

Speaking of urgent matters that were not mentioned in the throne speech, there was nothing about agriculture, despite the fact that supply management was a major campaign issue.

The government is prepared to sign an agreement that the Conservative government negotiated at the eleventh hour, in the middle of an election campaign. That agreement poses a serious threat to the supply management system, which guarantees the prosperity of our communities and our farmers, who provide us with healthy food and drive our local economy. That is very worrisome.

It is especially worrisome because farmers have lived with uncertainty for 10 years. They were constantly told by MPs that they should not worry and that the MPs would protect the supply management system. However, during the negotiations, it seemed that everything was on the table. The Liberal government must put a stop to such action, but that does not seem to be its intention.

Once again, this file was not mentioned in the throne speech. We must continue to push the government to ensure that it immediately changes direction. It is very urgent, and we must do so in the coming days, weeks and months, especially in light of the trans-Pacific Partnership agreement before us.

I want to talk about other things that were missing from the throne speech or other disappointments. Bill C-51 is another file on which the Liberals followed the Conservatives' lead in the previous Parliament. That was one of the greatest debates in the House in the 41st Parliament, and may have been the greatest one I ever I participated in. The topic itself was very troubling.

As the Conservatives spread fear, our rights and freedoms were being rolled back, which we thought was unacceptable. Despite the Liberals' rhetoric and their claims that they were against Bill C-51, they voted in favour of the bill and committed to making changes that would address a lot of their concerns. However, despite those promises, once again, we did not hear a single word about this bill in the throne speech.

The process so far has not been very comforting. For example, the government has not been open to the idea of having opposition parties participate in the parliamentary committee that will ensure that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, will be transparent enough to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

In closing, I would like to say that the Liberals' supposed openness to the middle class about the income tax rate is yet another disappointment. People who earn less than $45,000 will not see a penny of the Liberal Party's tax cuts. Those who will benefit the most are the ones who probably need it the least. That is very worrisome.

The NDP put forward a very simple proposal, but unfortunately, the government rejected our amendment, which would have broadened those measures to truly help the middle class.

When the government cuts taxes, it has to make sure that those who are not paying their fair share start doing so. I am thinking of big corporations whose taxes went down for years under one Liberal or Conservative government after another. The tax rate for big corporations is now among the lowest in the world.

We see no economic benefit from that. No jobs are being created. Some companies whose tax rates went down even left Canada, and people were left to pick up the pieces. That is very disappointing.

In closing, the throne speech is an opportunity for the government to state its priorities, and I would simply like to reiterate my short-term priorities.

I should mention that the Liberal candidate in my riding shared these same priorities during the election campaign. I therefore hope to have the government's support for these measures.

We want to resolve the conflict between the federal government and the City of Chambly regarding the payments in lieu of taxes once and for all. The federal government owes the City of Chambly $500,000. We also want to resolve the issue of boating safety once and for all by protecting the shores of the Richelieu River and keeping boaters safe. We also want to talk about rail safety.

We asked a question during question period today, and we have yet to see the transparency we were promised.

There is a lot of work to do, and I am more than happy to continue doing it. I know that my colleagues and I will do everything we can to hold the government accountable and ensure that it acts in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Canada Post, December 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, let us review the the commitments.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister met with the mayor of Montreal to talk about Canada Post. Standing by the mayor's side he clearly said, and I quote, “We are committed to restoring home mail delivery.” The message could not have been clearer. It was even recorded if the government needs help jogging its memory.

However, now that the Liberals are in power, the government is singing a different tune and fuelling cynicism.

Will the Prime Minister honour his commitment and restore home mail delivery?

[Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, December 9th, 2015]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-201, An Act to amend the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act (independent assessment).

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to spend too much time on this, since we have a vote coming up. However, I made an election commitment to reintroduce this bill at the first opportunity in order to ensure that the City of Chambly gets its fair share of payments in lieu of taxes.

I would also like to quickly thank the former MP for Halifax, Megan Leslie, who worked so hard on this issue and who seconded my bill in the last Parliament. Thanks to her good work, if we get the bill adopted Halifax will have a lot more money in its coffers and will get its fair share from the federal government as well.

I am looking forward to getting support, as the Liberal candidate in my riding promised in the last election.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to ask my colleague a question. After my own riding, of course, his is probably my favourite riding. It is where my wife is from. She is also Franco-Ontarian, from Hawkesbury in fact.

Knowing his region, I also know that many farmers took part in the demonstration on Parliament Hill. Some of the farmers there were from his region, but many were also from Quebec, including my region. The demonstration was about the trans-Pacific partnership and the fact that supply management will be gutted if that agreement is adopted in its current form.

Since farmers are at the core of the economy in the member's riding, is he not worried that not only did his government fail to mention agriculture in the throne speech, but it is also prepared to ratify that agreement without adapting it to our reality and that it basically plans to adopt it as it was presented by the Conservatives?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. Much has been said about what the previous government did away with, such as environmental assessments and protections. The fact that climate change was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne is in itself an improvement. However, I must say that the bar was not set very high from the outset.

I would like my colleague to tell us whether there will be news about a real target that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the last election campaign, the Green Party and the NDP were the only parties to propose a target, and an ambitious one at that. Representatives of the new government are in Paris right now, and the targets are virtually the same as those of the previous government. As my colleague so clearly pointed out in her speech, they are not very ambitious targets.

In view of the fact that climate change is an urgent matter, does this government intend to have not just any target, but an ambitious target, one that is meaningful for our country and future generations, who will be affected by climate change?

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, June 18th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Yes, this is something that could be very dangerous. This affects numerous regulations and statutory instruments. These are in fact matters that concern the safety of the public.

I am going to talk about the example my colleague gave of a company that might say the information was not accessible enough. While I am not a lawyer, and I may be mistaken, my best understanding of the bill is that this shows there really is a concrete relationship between regulations and the laws that we examine and vote on, as parliamentarians. My understanding is that the bill seems to weaken that relationship in a relatively significant way, including by reducing parliamentarians’ ability to exercise enhanced oversight of changes. I think there is a committee in place. Earlier, a question was put to my colleague from Sherbrooke by a Conservative member. He was asked whether there was not a need to improve what is already in place. We are not saying there are no problems to be solved; the problem is that the bill makes things worse.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, June 18th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the last part of my colleague’s question, this is an unfortunate trend we have seen in the last four years, in the 41st Parliament. The government dismisses the amendments proposed by the opposition parties and does not listen to the very qualified witnesses who appear before the committees. That has really reduced the power associated with the committee process, as this bill also does.

A good and very concrete example of how this bill could affect people in their everyday lives is the issue of concussions that I have been working on for several years. In looking at that issue, we have examined the regulations concerning the manufacture of hockey helmets, for example. These are the kinds of regulations affected by this bill that would be less accessible to the public. If we, as legislators, make changes to the standards proposed by the Canadian Standards Association, we will find that there will be information missing, particularly when it involves other jurisdictions, such as helmets that might be manufactured in another country. The bill has serious flaws that the government refuses to correct.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, June 18th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for so generously sharing his time with me. I would particularly like to thank the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who did an extraordinary job on a file that—let us be honest—is not the most exciting file that we could study in Parliament. We are talking about the issue of statutory instruments, which is nonetheless a cornerstone of democracy.

We vote on laws, but we sometimes forget that those laws affect all sorts of statutory instruments, which often come from third parties or other countries. Take for example free trade agreements. These are fundamental issues.

Such information can sometimes be extremely complicated and require a lot of work and study, even by MPs. This information is not always easily accessible to Canadians or easy for them to understand. That is why it is important that we debate Bill S-2 and that we oppose it.

First of all, I would like to point out that the trend continues. The government is still not accepting any amendments in committee and it keeps imposing time allocation and closure. This government managed to impose such measures to limit debate in the House a record number of 100 times. That is a shameful record.

Nonetheless, one would have thought that we could find some common ground on Bill S-2. We are talking about procedures that have existed for 174 years, since before Confederation, if I understood correctly what my colleague from Gatineau said in her speech. However, although very important changes are being made, the government is unwilling to agree to amendments to obtain the support of the opposition parties. That is unfortunate, and it is becoming an increasingly frequent occurrence.

We are nearing the end of the 41st Parliament, and this has been the trend throughout this Parliament, from beginning to end. Unfortunately, we cannot expect otherwise from this government.

Let us talk about the substance of the bill. It contains procedures for incorporating statutory instruments. The parliamentary secretaries of the Minister of Justice and the President of the Treasury Board have explained that the government intended to facilitate the incorporation by reference of statutory instruments.

One issue that keeps coming up is that facilitating trade transactions seems to be the focus of the government’s efforts. There has been a lot of talk about streamlining regulations. There are legislative aspects to this, of course, but many things are based and rely on statutory instruments.

In talking about statutory instruments, we can also talk about legislation in other countries. For instance, when we sign a free trade agreement, the other country’s legislation affects the way in which we draft our legislation. However, then we have to determine the extent to which we commit to proceeding with these changes to the legislation.

For example, if we agree to sign a free trade agreement according to the provisions on labour protection in another country, the laws of that country may change in the meantime. If these changes are made, pursuant to Bill S-2, we would not be compelled to follow up, publish these changes in the Gazette and follow a process of heightened parliamentary oversight, as is done by the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. This committee, composed as it is of members of the House of Commons and senators, brings together both Houses of Parliament.

When we look into this matter, we note that the government tends to put forward legislation that is poorly crafted in order to reduce paperwork and facilitate different types of transactions, especially trade transactions. This is a goal that is shared by all members and all parties in the House.

We certainly understand that it is important to reduce paperwork. In a digital era marked by heavy reliance on the Internet, we understand that improvements must be made in order to share this information more effectively with Canadians and to make certain changes to regulations and to statutory instruments as effectively as possible.

However, this should not be done to the detriment of either parliamentary oversight or the intent of legislation already in place. I will use an example from the past: the red tape reduction bill. This initiative was put forward by the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, Agriculture and the President of the Treasury Board. We were opposed to this bill, even though we supported its intent. We noted that the desire to reduce red tape also reduced protection for workers, for instance. In trying to reduce red tape in certain work environments, the government also reduced the obligations of some employers to ensure that they had protections in place for their workers and workplace protections. This is a good example of cases where the government’s intention to make things easier for private enterprise took it in a legislative direction that was neither adequate nor appropriate.

The same problem faces us today with Bill S-2. As I said earlier, there may well be changes, and not only in other countries, but also in third-party codes. We as legislators do not necessarily have the power to legislate on these codes, but the legislation must take them into account. As parliamentarians' power is more limited in this respect, having a committee that oversees the regulatory process and regulations takes on even greater significance. However, the government appears to want to get these regulations through more easily, without their being published in the Canada Gazette, which is highly problematic.

We only have to look at the readjustment of electoral boundaries to see the importance of the Canada Gazette in informing Canadians about regulatory changes, or changes that, without necessarily being legislative changes, affect our work and the way in which Canadians relate to their democracy. My riding was drastically changed in the initial proposal put forward by the federal electoral boundaries commissions. The process was very important and I took part in it. With my participation and the participation of other stakeholders, we managed to have changes made to the initial proposal. People were extremely concerned and became very involved in the electoral boundaries redistribution process. Articles in our local newspapers often mentioned that the final result would be published in the Canada Gazette. It was very interesting because it enabled people to know where they could find this information. The same philosophy applies here. Unfortunately, none of our amendments aimed at facilitating access to and transmitting information were accepted.

In conclusion, I would like to talk about official languages. When a trade agreement with another country or another legislature is under consideration, we must remember that not all countries are required to draft documents in English or French, our two official languages. It is therefore important to add requirements in this regard to the draft legislation.

In closing, as this is the last time I will rise in the 41st Parliament, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the constituents of Chambly—Borduas who put their trust in me in 2011. I would particularly like to thank the team around me: Francine, Cédric, Suzanne and Sébastien. They have given me a great deal of support over the past four years. I also want to thank my family and my friends, of course, who have always been there for me in my work, which has not always been easy. I hope I have been equal to the task. I think that we have accomplished a great deal together over the past four years. I hope to again win the confidence of the people of Chambly—Borduas, which is going to become Beloeil—Chambly in the next election, and to be able to continue this great adventure with them. I hope to continue representing the community where I grew up, the community I have the honour of representing here in Ottawa.

[42nd General Election, June 17th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as this government's last day approaches, the Conservatives are shamelessly using taxpayers' money for partisan purposes. They are wasting money on advertising, partisan polls and photo ops for infrastructure projects too long in the making.

Ten years ago, the Conservatives promised to clean house after the Liberal corruption scandals; today, the Conservatives are in the same boat. Ten years ago, the Conservatives promised to clean up the Senate; today, after having appointed 59 senators, the Conservatives are defending the status quo and Senate corruption. Ten years ago, the Conservatives came to change Ottawa; today, we see that Ottawa has changed them.

Fortunately, there is a great deal of optimism in the air. The winds of change are blowing, and on October 19, Canadians will finally be able to vote for a party that will represent them and be representative of them, through good times and bad. That party is the NDP.

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent comments. In fact, we do see that the bill would simply reinforce the secrecy surrounding forced marriages.

As the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard said earlier today, this also relates to conditional permanent residence. We know that people from various cultural communities fight tooth and nail to come and make a life in Canada. We are very proud to have a welcoming country, even if it has perhaps become a little less so in recent years, under this government. However, when these people are at risk of being deported or losing their permanent resident status, among other things, we are not encouraging them to report these problems. We are not really protecting the victims.

We have to protect victims against these acts, but we also have to empower them to safely report the practices that victimize them and ensure that they do not suffer more consequences.