Matthew Dubé

[Privilege, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that clarity, because we are actually talking about the criminal conviction here and not a political conviction by a kangaroo court.

The member for Peterborough has been criminally charged by a court. Let us face it, I completely agree with my colleague when he says that the law should apply. I know he is getting very upset, and I understand why it can be frustrating, because with the cheap political antics of the other two parties in these kangaroo courts, they seem to think this is some kind of counterweight to criminal convictions.

When I go door to door in my riding, as I said in my comments, I do not get constituents who are concerned about these kinds of political actions. I get constituents who are concerned about criminal actions. That is why we need to suspend this member and study this in the procedure and House affairs committee.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my esteemed colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.

This is an interesting debate. I am a young member of Parliament—not only in terms of age, but also in terms of the number of years I have served my constituents here in Parliament. I say that because journalists were so fascinated by the unprecedented number of young members in the House, and they would often ask us questions about cynicism to find out what was the most pleasant surprise we experienced in our work and what we found most disappointing.

We have obviously had a lot of pleasant surprises in our ridings. However, I want to focus on the disappointments, since today we are debating a disappointing and extremely problematic situation.

When I was asked this question, I said that one thing I found disappointing was going door to door in my riding—and I am sure many of my colleagues experience the same thing—and hearing from constituents that they are proud of our good work and how we represent people, but that they are not interested in politics and do not follow it.

Despite the hard work of every member of Parliament, there is a certain cynicism that is fuelled by actions like those of the member for Peterborough and by the elections fraud convictions. This type of thing contributes to growing cynicism.

Given the public nature of our work, it is easy to fuel this cynicism. In other workplaces, you do not hear about a crime that was committed over and over again in the news. Of course, there are some exceptions. However, since we serve the public and, moreover, this issue is a matter of public interest, it is widely talked about, which breeds more cynicism.

I am not saying that we should not talk about this issue. It is crucial that we talk about it. However, this demonstrates to what degree the actions of one MP, particularly given the history of a political party, or even several political parties, can taint the work of an entire institution and all of its members.

That is why it is really important to take action, as we are doing today by supporting the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, to suspend the member for Peterborough and refer his case to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Let us be very clear. If the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs examines this issue, this means that the member for Peterborough may be called to appear as a witness, if that is what the committee wants.

The government is claiming that the member did not have the chance to plead his case. However, let us look at how many times a question of privilege was raised, the many questions that were asked in question period, and all of the other opportunities he had to speak up.

What about the fact that he is a member of Parliament and that he has a public forum available to him by way of the media, for example? Did he not have many opportunities to speak out and share his point of view, not to mention the opportunity to be heard in court? He had plenty of opportunities to share his side of the story and he may even have more.

It is completely ridiculous to make him out to be a victim who did not have the opportunity to share his side of the story. This only serves to fuel public cynicism. The actions of the member in question created a perfect storm of cynicism.

It is very unfortunate that we are here debating the suspension of an MP, even though we agree with it. We agree that he should be suspended and that his salary, benefits, MP budget and so on should be cut off.

However, if I am not mistaken, a year ago the Senate was also debating the possibility of suspending Conservative senators and a former Liberal senator.

The fact that we are once again debating the possibility of suspending a parliamentarian demonstrates how prevalent the extremely problematic culture of entitlement has become. There is also a lack of responsibility.

Even though the government seems to be announcing its intention to support our motion, this seeming desire to prove that the member for Peterborough is somehow a victim will only serve to fuel cynicism, as I have said many times before, and entrench this culture that exists in Ottawa and that must change.

That is why I appreciate how this debate was brought forward, the position that we have taken and my colleague's motion. This was all done very responsibly. That means that this case requires some study and that there are a certain nuances to consider. These are complicated issues. He was found guilty, but the House nevertheless has its own will and must determine how far it is willing to go. It is also about managing the future, because this is not the first time we have seen a Conservative member being convicted of such things. There was also the former minister and member for Labrador, Mr. Penashue. Then there is the current heritage minister and the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. There were the in and out and the robocall scandals. There are all sorts of examples, to say nothing of the party that supported them. We have seen situations that tainted the good work of this institution.

It is important to study the situation so that we can proceed responsibly, but not suspending the member in the meantime would be irresponsible. If that happened, we would go on seeing our constituents, who would tell us that we are doing good work but that things like this make them wonder if they can trust politicians and their work. We must make this decision immediately so as not to stoke that cynicism.

I would like to go back to the example I was talking about earlier, about the fact that this is the second time in a year we are having this debate—once in the Senate and now in the House of Commons. I think this demonstrates the need for major change.

The Minister of State (Democratic Reform) introduced the unfair elections act. We called it that in the nicest way possible considering it was such a mess of a bill. There have been attempts to use that to make political hay, to try to change things, to stack the deck even more, but in the end, it is not just the laws but the culture that must change. I am sure that my colleagues agree.

I think it is interesting to see that even the Conservatives, who seem to support my colleague's motion, are unable to take ownership of the actions of a member who was, as we all know, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.

In this case, the Prime Minister himself trusted the member. When the Leader of the Opposition read him some of his own words during question period today, the Prime Minister rose in the House and defended the member. Not only did he defend him, but he also made statements that contradicted the court's ruling. The judge said that documents were missing, but the Prime Minister said that all of the documents had been provided. The best answer the Prime Minister could come up with in question period today was that it was not a problem because they removed him from their caucus and he was no longer a Conservative. We heard the same argument with respect to the senators. Unfortunately, we are likely to hear the same argument in the future.

What is also troubling about this argument, as it was in the case of Senators Brazeau, Duffy, Wallin and company, and in the case of the member for Peterborough, is that they were found guilty of actions committed while they enjoyed the trust of the Prime Minister, who appointed the first individuals to the Senate and made the member his parliamentary secretary. That is completely unacceptable.

Today, we must suspend this member and refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Contrary to what the chair of the committee said, we will be pleased to do the work and to show due diligence in studying this case. Let us not fuel cynicism; let us take a small step and suspend the member.

It will take a lot of these small steps, but it will be a step in the right direction for democracy and to rekindle Canadians' optimism.

[Poverty, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we will try to get the minister back on track. Last year, 850,000 Canadians used food banks. That is unacceptable. That is a 25% increase over 2008, which is not something the government should be bragging about. What is more, 37% of clients are children, and the majority of those who use food banks are renters who have a job. Why do they need to go to a food bank?

The real issue behind those numbers is the government's disastrous economic development record when it comes to youth and young families.

How do the Conservatives explain their failure to create jobs, particularly for young people?

[YOUth in Office Day, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of marking YOUth in Office Day in the House today. This event is organized by the Boys and Girls Club of Canada and Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada.

By shadowing parliamentarians, young participants have the opportunity to spend an entire day at the heart of Canadian democracy and experience political life.

Today, a number of my colleagues and I have welcomed young people who are passionate about politics. I would like to congratulate them on their interest in public affairs and the debates here in this Parliament.

This day is as important for us as parliamentarians as it is for them. The YOUth in Office Day is a great opportunity for us to share our own experiences as members of the House, and as representatives of our riding, with the next generation of young leaders, telling them how important and gratifying it is to be involved in our communities.

As parliamentarians, we have an important role to play in helping youth fulfill their own potential and become the leaders not only of tomorrow, but also of today.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was very interesting.

Yesterday I listened to the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. He wondered whether some of the members opposite actually knew what was in their omnibus bill, because they did not seem to have an answer to the more specific questions we were asking them.

I think that my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley even said that not a single government member showed up to the technical briefing that was offered. Only opposition members did.

Does my colleague have the same concerns as I do regarding the government introducing an omnibus bill without seeming to grasp the seriousness of the situation?

For example, it was clear that some aspects of the last omnibus bill had nothing to do with a budget. Take, for example, the issue of appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court. I heard a Conservative member say that the Conservatives had talked about it eight months ago. No, eight months ago was when the budget was tabled.

As my colleague just mentioned in her speech, there are some things in this bill that were not in the budget speech. Could she talk about these concerns?

[Alain Gervais, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when Alain Gervais used his body to block the door to our caucus room during the gunfire last week, he showed incredible courage and composure.

When we met with him this week to thank him, our caucus chair, the hon. member for Sudbury, aptly described how we all felt.

He said that we just need to constantly make sure that person never has to pay for a beer at any pub in the country for the rest of his life.

This wish did not fall on deaf ears. People began talking and laughing about it on Twitter, and Mr. Gervais's wife, Kerry, tweeted that her husband really likes Rickard's White. That is all it took for Molson Coors to decide to send dozens of cases of beer to Mr. Gervais's home.

Although the NDP's wish was to ensure that Mr. Gervais would never again have to pay for a beer, there is no real way to express our gratitude to this hero and all the heroes that dark day on the Hill.

Thank you once again, Alain, and thank you to the entire House of Commons security team. I raise my glass to all of you.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 30th, 2014]

With regard to the Fryer Island Dam, located on the Richelieu River in Quebec and forming part of the Chambly Canal National Historic Site: (a) how much has been spent, per year, on maintaining and repairing this dam since it was built; (b) what is the number of dam inspection reports since 2005, what are their titles, and what is the inspection policy for this dam; (c) what are the longer term plans of the government or Parks Canada for the dam’s repair and modernization; and (d) how much money has been set aside to repair and modernize the Fryer Island Dam in the coming years?

[Bernadette Laflamme, October 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this summer our community lost a great woman, Bernadette Laflamme, the founder and first president of the historical society of the seigneury of Chambly.

Today I would like to tell the House about her important contribution. After a wonderful teaching career, she founded the Société d'histoire de la seigneurie de Chambly in 1979 and served as its president for the next 18 years.

Her great devotion to promoting our region's history led to the publication of important works such as the Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la seigneurie de Chambly, 1609-1950 and helped people learn more about Fort Chambly and its historical significance to Quebec and Canada. Ms. Laflamme was honoured by the federal government in 2002 for her volunteer work and by the Quebec federation of historical societies for her commitment to promoting our region's history.

I was sad to learn of the passing of this great woman who did so much for our community. As a history lover myself, I certainly recognize her important contribution. I would like to offer my sincerest condolences to her family members and loved ones and to our beloved historical society.

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, October 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it does indeed prompt some concerns about the auto industry, and I thank my colleague for her question.

It is these concerns that we tried to resolve with the amendments we proposed in committee, which were unfortunately rejected. However, in spite of those concerns, we support the agreement, but there is still work to be done apart from this specific agreement.

In question period today, we heard questions from my colleague from Parkdale—High Park and my colleague from Windsor West about a strategy to genuinely support the auto industry. These issues are bigger than simply an agreement. This does concern us.

We will nonetheless support the agreement, but as I said in my speech, we will continue to ask that the government do more to support the industries affected, as is being done with the Canada-European Union agreement with respect to our dairy producers. This goes beyond a mere agreement. It concerns us, but we will continue to do the work that is needed so that these shortcomings do not have a negative impact in various communities.

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, October 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to quickly correct all the errors in the comments made by my colleague.

First, the shiny speaking notes he refers to are absolutely not notes shoved down our throats by our leader’s office. Rather, this is a policy that we developed as a team, one that is somewhat more exacting than the blank cheque the Liberals always seem to want to give the government when it comes to free trade, without reading the agreements.

Second, he talks about agreements in the last 10 years and asks whether we would like to change certain votes. I will talk about my votes as a member of Parliament. Each time I have voted in the House on motions relating to free trade, obviously I have done so with the points I raised in my speech in mind. I am therefore very comfortable with what is in the records of the House.

Third, he said that only one party opposed free trade. I do not want to get into a debate about who is against and who is for free trade. Everyone is for measures that will be good for the economy. In the NDP, we want to apply a little scrutiny to assess the various agreements, as we would assess any budget measure proposed by a government. That is what is central to this debate.

Rather than trying to see everything in black and white, let us see the grey a little, do our job and do what is good for the economy.