Matthew Dubé

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the start of my colleague’s comment and his question.

I did not have a chance to raise that point since I was mainly talking about international negotiations. When we think about these weapons in detail and the fact that they are left in people’s yards, we realize that some very dangerous weapons have been left behind.

Earlier this evening, one of my colleagues cited the example of a young child running in the street who might think he has found a trinket that he can pick up as one would pick up a rock or a branch. Since it is a very dangerous weapon, it could cause a problem. My colleague also mentioned the bill’s flaws. That goes back to the comments I made to the effect that we have a responsibility. When we start negotiations, we have a reason. This type of weapon no longer has any place in international society.

Whether in or outside Canada, it is important that we go all the way when we make a commitment to solve a problem, regardless of what some of our allies may decide.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. As one of my colleagues just pointed out, the amendment fixed the problem and prevents the use of cluster munitions.

In the original version of the bill, cluster munitions were allowed during joint operations with countries that had not ratified the convention. The error was fixed and I acknowledge that. I misspoke. I was going back in time. I had the chance to speak to this bill at the beginning of the debate a few months ago.

That said, I would like to answer my colleague's question about endangering Canadian soldiers. That is not at all the case. It is important to note that what we want is to set an example by fixing the flaws in this bill to show that Canada does not accept this. We are not telling other countries what they should do. We are simply trying to show them the right thing to do. Setting an example in the world does not put anyone in danger.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I am always pleased to speak about foreign affairs issues.

As federal legislators, we often deal with issues that do not always have a direct impact on our constituents. Like many of my colleagues, I am sure, I have the honour of representing a riding where people are very concerned about what is happening with regard to different issues and the way Canada works on the international stage. Even though these issues do not affect them directly, the reputation that Canada has and the way we work are still very important to them. That is the main reason why I am rising today.

I have been listening to this evening's debate, and one of the arguments the Conservative government is using is that it cannot guarantee that the Americans will not use cluster munitions given that they have not signed on to this convention. That is not the issue. To say that we could never stop them—and that there is therefore no problem having a bill ratify a convention, even if the bill is full of flaws that will undermine that same convention—is to miss the point.

The point is to show leadership on the world stage. That is, or I should say was—past tense—Canada's reputation on the world stage. Unfortunately, that is a problem with the Conservative government. We are hearing that again in the arguments this evening. They are saying that it is idealistic and there is nothing they can do about it. That is an excuse for not seeing things through and having a more complete bill that would be supported by the various stakeholders we heard in committee.

There is a term for that in international relations. It is called the tragedy of the commons. The example often used to illustrate the tragedy of the commons in international relations is the environment. If we look at environmental issues, when the different players negotiate on the world stage, they often say that they do not want to make efforts to reduce greenhouse gases because developing countries such as China, for example, will not adhere to the same restrictions that we do and this will put us at a competitive disadvantage. At the end of the day, if we always fall back on those arguments, then that is the tragedy of the commons. In other words, no one does anything.

That is precisely the problem with this bill and with the Conservative government's arguments. The United States is a big and powerful country and we are allies. No one is saying that we will stop working with the U.S. when the government ratifies the convention and working sometimes with the U.S. in military interventions. That being said, that does not stop us from seeing things through and truly supporting what is in the convention with a more complete bill.

I will elaborate a bit for those who may not have followed the entire debate. We are talking about the famous clause 11, which has come up often in the debate. A number of my colleagues have talked about it. Clause 11 would allow Canadian soldiers to use these munitions even though we signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions. If our soldiers were on a mission with countries that have not ratified the convention, we would refer to the concept of interoperability.

It was at Canada's insistence that this concept was included in the convention despite opposition from several countries that participated in the negotiations. This concept is a little strange and very contradictory. One of my colleagues talked about contradiction earlier.This is an extremely important term. In principle, Canada sits around a table and says that it agrees with principles and that it wants to ratify a convention. Then the government comes back to the House of Commons with a bill that puts all this in place and makes our laws conform to the undertakings of this international agreement. However, we cannot really support these principles.

If we took this matter seriously, the bill would instead state that if we were to participate in a military mission with allies such as the Americans, who continue to use these weapons, the Americans could do whatever they wanted, but we would prohibit the use of these weapons by Canadian soldiers. In that way, we would fully honour the principles set out in this convention.

Unfortunately, that is not what this bill proposes, and that is what we are speaking out against. The members opposite do not seem to understand that.

For example, I have listened to my colleague from Ottawa Centre ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs many questions about the Arms Trade Treaty, among other things. The minister talks about not wanting to punish so-called law-abiding citizens, as though we were debating the long gun registry when we are talking about an international treaty. It is really interesting, because we realize that the government's commitment to our obligations is dwindling, and this bill is an unfortunate example of that.

I listened to the hon. member for Newton—North Delta talk about a time when Americans felt safe and comfortable when they put a Canadian flag on their backpack and travelled in certain regions and countries because of the respect the international community had for Canada. I found that interesting.

All is not lost, but I dare say we can do better. That is what we are asking of the government today, as we did in committee. This afternoon the minister repeatedly said that an amendment had been accepted; however, the basic issue has not been corrected. That is why we cannot support this bill.

That is very disappointing because Canada built a reputation for itself through hard work and compromise, and that reputation brought together various countries that were not always on the same wavelength. Now, instead of continuing with that same work, Canada is taking a very strong stand. That is important, but the problem is that Canada is not standing firm on the right things. We need to take a firm stand by showing leadership and initiative, not by being closed-minded.

In other words, the Conservatives show up in the House, raise their hands and say this is too idealistic. I heard the hon. member for Edmonton Centre say that it is like Alice in Wonderland. For many Canadians—in fact, the vast majority—showing leadership on the international stage is not idealistic; it is part of our Canadian identity.

Showing leadership means leading by example. Sometimes, that means making difficult decisions and working with allies who do not work the way we do. It also means, as my colleague said, that we may sometimes have to put some of our soldiers in a difficult position, knowing that their American counterparts are using weapons we prohibit.

However, I think that the people we represent, the international community and our military personnel would be very proud to see us take a firm stand and deliver on the commitments made during negotiations with other countries.

To bring this full circle, I would like to come back to the idea of the tragedy of the commons, or waiting for others to act, which unfortunately is far too often the case on the international stage. Countries are often too afraid to be at the forefront, making difficult decisions and what could be seen as forward-thinking commitments. That is not how Canada acted in the past, and that is not how it should be acting today.

We hope that the government will come to its senses as a result of the speeches that have been made today. When we debated this bill after it was introduced, the media and stakeholders like the Red Cross raised the same concerns as the NDP.

It has to be serious, because the Red Cross generally stays out of this kind of political debate. That speaks volumes.

I know that my time is up, but I think that I got our idea across. I hope that this will enlighten some government members.

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, because I am hearing about what the Senate's purpose was and why it was created. The whole reason it exists is because of all of these archaic notions of lords and property owners and things that are far outdated. There is a reason why every time I have spoken in this House on issues concerning the Senate I have referred to it as institutional arthritis, because that is essentially what the Senate is at this point.

My colleague talked about the NDP wanting to disable part of the legislative branch and to disable part of Parliament. In that vein, does the member feel that it is appropriate that at the end of the day, the Senate is disabling elected members of Parliament in passing legislation, as it did on Jack Layton's bill on climate change, for example? There are plenty of great examples in this place. We talk about sober second thought all the time, but at the end of the day, there does not seem to be much thought in there.

Does the member feel that it is appropriate for these folks to be disabling the work that we, as duly elected members of Parliament, are doing in this place?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

The government is trying to hide different measures in its omnibus bills in all sorts of ways. The last time, it tried to change the judicial appointment process, because of the fiasco with the appointment of Justice Nadon. This time, it is trying to change the rules of the game regarding public consultation about tolls on the Champlain Bridge. There is also the issue of railway safety, that we have just been talking about. There are all kinds of other things that are hidden.

This is really a shame, because it could be said that the government is using the bill to hide measures that are not consistent with the pretty picture of the perfect manager that it is trying to build for itself or with the spirit of good governance that it boasts about and that obviously does not exist. This bill is a good example of that.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

As I mentioned in my speech, this shows the extent to which the lack of transparency is at the heart of the demands of Canadians, municipal officials and the people who live in municipalities like mine where there is a railway.

With regard to information provided to the municipalities, the fact that there is such a long delay before they can receive up-to-date information really does nothing to help them properly prepare in terms of their emergency plans and their prevention plans.

Beyond this, however, and at the heart of this issue, we are dealing with the residents’ feeling of security. The primary duty of the government is to ensure the safety of its people. If people do not feel they are safe, the government is not really doing its job.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments and his question.

True, it is not just the size of the bill that is problematic. In 2012, the government introduced Bill C-38 and a number of other omnibus bills totalling thousands of pages. The following year, the government was practically boasting about how the omnibus bill was smaller and contained only a few hundred pages.

It is not so much the size of the bill that we are concerned about, but rather its content. It is absurd that I should be making a 10-minute speech about transportation in my riding as part of our consideration of a budget implementation bill. There is a major problem here.

The members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities discussed the Champlain Bridge, among other issues. Even though the various elements of the bill are considered by the committees responsible for them, the process will not be as comprehensive as it would be if they were studied as separate bills. This is very unfortunate.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I have had the opportunity to speak to another omnibus bill. What most concerned me the first time was the famous Champlain Bridge, an issue on which little progress has been made.

Believe it or not, this bill contains some provisions that are very important to the greater Montreal area, especially to the people in my riding of Chambly—Borduas.

Having said that, the last time I spoke to Bill C-31, we focused on the fact that the bill was eliminating the government's responsibility to comply with the User Fees Act, consult Canadians and ensure that a future toll follows the guidelines in order not to create problems or put further pressure on the economy. At present, this is the problem we see: people living on the south shore and in Montreal are being asked to pay for infrastructure that already exists.

At the end of the day, the major issue with the bridge in this bill and in the changes made is the toll being imposed, as my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie often says. All the elected officials, business people and residents feel that the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs was either unable to consult the public or simply did not want to do so. This still has not been done.

Since I last spoke to Bill C-31, we have been able to mobilize hundreds of volunteers on the south shore and collect thousands of signatures from people who are against this toll. A day of action was held on May 3. That was really an opportunity for us to see the extent to which people in the region, like many Quebeckers in fact, feel that they are being treated with contempt by the Conservative government. This is a very good example of the government's contempt.

The Prime Minister rises in the House to say that it is a local bridge and it is too bad if there are no consultations. In reality, I believe that over 14% of Quebec's GDP is based on the ability to cross the Champlain Bridge. Billions of dollars of economic activity are at stake. This bridge is by no means a local bridge. When we consider the economic issue and the importance of the greater Montreal area, I think it is very important to show respect to the public, the elected officials and the business community.

It is no coincidence that the mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, the mayor of Longueuil, Caroline St-Hilaire, and the mayor of Chambly, in my riding, Denis Lavoie, have spoken out against this bill, together with chambers of commerce and the public.

We feel that this problem is symptomatic of the Conservative government's contempt for Quebec, but often also for various jurisdictions, in its discussions with the provinces and its dealings with the municipalities.

That being said, the government is demonstrating a clear lack of vision when it comes to the Champlain Bridge. I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. When we heard from witnesses from Transport Canada, namely those responsible for the project, we asked them questions about the terms and conditions set out in Bill C-31 because that was the topic on the agenda that day. They told us that the terms and conditions served to speed up the process. They did not want the Champlain Bridge to be subject to the User Fees Act because they wanted to speed up the process.

As we know the minister postponed the deadline, which is somewhat problematic given that the government does not seem to have done much and seems incapable of proposing a real business plan.

I have family friends and constituents who use the bridge every day. Given the safety issues at play here, everyone in the House would agree that a new bridge is needed ASAP, as we say.

The government is neglecting its obligation to consult in order to speed up the process, but it is unable to say how much time that will buy and what difference it will make. The government claims to be eliminating legal uncertainty in order to make the process faster, but how much faster? Will this buy us days, weeks, months? The government cannot tell us. This shows once again the government's lack of transparency, rigour and consultation in this matter.

The government's lack of consultation or failure to do its homework is another problem. Take for example, the regional impact study that was conducted by the Government of Quebec's department of transport. It is extremely important to determine what impact the new bridge will have on the other bridges, which do not fall under federal jurisdiction, and on traffic in the greater Montreal area, whether it be on the island itself or on the south shore. After all, if there is a toll on one bridge but not on the others, it is safe to assume that this will have an impact on which bridges people use. The report published by the Government of Quebec makes that very clear.

In committee, we asked the witnesses whether the federal government had carried out such a study. The federal government has been talking about this issue and working on it for a long time, since before the 2011 election. After all, this bridge is under federal jurisdiction. However, the federal government does not seem to be as aware as the Government of Quebec about the repercussions of a toll on the region. Once again, that says a lot about the government's failings and sloppiness. We will continue to oppose a toll, and we will do so in an accountable and transparent way by consulting the people, of course.

I would like to touch on another important aspect of Bill C-31. This is yet another issue that does not really belong in a budget implementation bill, but it is very important to my constituents. I am talking about rail safety. Bill C-31 contains provisions relating to rail safety that give even more discretionary power to the Governor in Council, the cabinet, and the minister. That really worries me.

In the wake of tragedies such as the one at Lac-Mégantic, people have been demanding more transparency and more information about the dangerous goods being transported through their regions. What regulations is the government making, and how will they affect our communities? A railway goes right through the heart of my riding, through residential neighbourhoods, and past several schools, including Otterburn Park, where my mother teaches. We know how important transparency is to reassuring people. People want to feel safe. That should be the government's primary concern. Giving cabinet, the Governor in Council, and the minister more discretionary powers and letting them make decisions without informing the public in a transparent way goes against that principle and does little to reassure people.

There is much more I could say. This budget implementation bill includes two transportation files, and that speaks volumes about the shortcomings in the process. The government has used this bogus process many times since it came to power. There are many other components that will affect the people of Chambly—Borduas, but those are two key concerns for my constituents. We will continue with our demands on these issues.

That is why we are opposing omnibus Bill C-31, which is also known as an “omnibrick” bill. As the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard said, it is 400 pages long. We are wondering how many hundreds of pages it will be next year and the year after that. We hope that this will be the last time but, unfortunately, the government is not giving us many reasons to trust its approach. We will continue to oppose the way this government does business.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the minister saying that this has been discussed since the 1990s. This is something that seems to have been on the table for a long time. He talks about the fact that we are one of only two developed countries that have not yet adopted such regulations. Now it is 2014 and suddenly this is urgent. Suddenly, Parliament has to be choked with a time allocation motion.

I would like the minister to explain to me why, once again, we are in a situation where another bill dealing with another issue has been dragging on for decades. After almost a decade in power, suddenly, in 2014, a year away from an election and a month away from the summer, the Conservative government feels obliged to shut down debate and adopt time allocation motions. This seems inconsistent and illogical. Can the minister enlighten me?

[Eugenie Bouchard, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the French Open, Canadians across the country learned a valuable lesson about how to react in the face of adversity, a little like what we saw with the Montreal Canadiens earlier this spring.

Young Montreal prodigy Eugenie Bouchard once again dazzled the world by qualifying for the semifinals of one of the most prestigious international tennis tournaments.

It was not a guaranteed victory. She was up against a tough opponent, but she held her ground and triumphed.

As we have just seen on the floor of the House, Canada has many athletes who know what it is like to face such adversity.

We are particularly excited about the incredible success of this young Quebecker, who has a promising future on the world circuit.

As a proud member of the Genie Army, I wish Eugenie the greatest success at the French Open, and I join with millions of fans and Canadians, particularly my colleagues in the House, to say, “Go, Eugenie, go!”