Matthew Dubé

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that our committee indeed works well together. I have a lot of respect for the member opposite, and I think we get a lot of good things done.

That being said, unfortunately, I have issues with the legislation before us, not least of which is that members on the other side continue to talk about ending the practice of solitary confinement, or administrative segregation, to use the legal jargon. The concern the NDP has is that we are going to continue creating these Band-Aid solutions to an issue that is obviously important enough that two courts have ruled that the abuses we see in the current system infringe on Canadians' constitutional rights.

Let us look at the amendments that were proposed. As one example, the member referred to some of the definitions used with respect to indigenous communities. That is interesting, because she referred to working with departmental officials. I proposed an amendment regarding a definition crafted in collaboration with the witnesses we heard, not least of which was the Native Women's Association.

I have a hard time understanding why, after talking about the importance of consultation so many times in the House, we have a bill that was panned by the witnesses. Now we have one amendment at report stage that is 2,000 words long. Does this not demonstrate that we have a patchwork solution for a practice that has been so abused that two courts in the country have found it to be unconstitutional?

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The improvisation he is talking about is real. We have seen many examples of it.

In all my time as an MP, this is the first time I have seen a bill get rejected by every witness except for departmental officials. That speaks volumes about how effective these measures are.

One of the main reasons the witnesses rejected this bill is that it does not go far enough to eliminate the scourge of solitary confinement in penitentiaries. Solitary confinement has an impact on inmates' mental health. Two courts, one in British Columbia and the other in Ontario, found that it violates the charter. There have also been high-profile cases of deaths, suicides, of people whose mental health suffered as a result of being placed in solitary confinement, both in prisons and in penitentiaries.

I have two questions for my colleague.

Does he subscribe to the social consensus that the use of solitary confinement must be reduced?

Does he agree that our prisons need to be given more resources to deal with serious mental health problems, in terms of both rehabilitation and the safety of inmates, our communities, and guards working in prisons?

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his support for our motion.

As a member from Quebec, I am keenly interested in the issue of jobs. There seems to be some suggestion that the Prime Minister's bad behaviour can be forgiven because he was standing up for jobs. We all want to protect jobs and the flagship companies of Canada or Quebec. What we take issue with is corporate corruption, of course, but also the fact that the Prime Minister is using workers to justify unacceptable behaviour in a society founded on the rules of justice and law. Let me elaborate.

Why did the Liberals change the law so that Air Canada would no longer have to meet its legal obligations with regard to jobs at Aveos?

Why did they decide to force Canada Post workers back to work when all they wanted was pay equity and a pension system that was not two-tiered?

Why did they reject the NDP's proposals to update the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to protect retirees who worked at companies like Sears or Nortel?

The Prime Minister tends to support companies, not workers. Can my colleague tell us why it is suddenly so important for the Prime Minister to help his friends? Why can he simply not state that this was unacceptable behaviour? Why not shed light on this controversy?

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I would like to try moving a motion again. There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for Timmins—James Bay, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, February 20, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Telecommunications, January 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, disappointed and frustrated by this Liberal government's failure to listen, the mayor of Otterburn Park presented me with a petition opposing the building of a Telus tower in a protected area, which was signed by thousands of people. Worse still, we have obtained e-mails in which a senior bureaucrat specifies my political affiliation as well as my election results in a briefing note to the minister.

My question to this government is this: does the minister believe that it is appropriate to have this kind of political interference in a decision that has such a significant impact on our community?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to the taxation of businesses, since November 2015: (a) how many Canadian businesses have not paid tax for each of the following fiscal years (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017, (iv) 2018; and (b) how much tax was deferred by the businesses in (a) in fiscal years (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017, (iv) 2018?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to Health Canada’s re-evaluation decisions, including RVD2017-01, Glyphosate, and the “Monsanto Papers”: (a) how many and which studies are currently being re-evaluated by Health Canada; (b) for each of the studies in (a), when did Health Canada make the decision to re-evaluate it; (c) has Health Canada verified the independence of the studies in (a); (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what was the detailed process for verifying the independence of the studies; and (e) does Health Canada have information that approved independent studies were written by Monsanto and, if so, since what date, broken down by study?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to the pensions of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of federal agencies or other federal organizations, since November 2015: (a) how many CEOs are deemed not to be part of the public service for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act; (b) how many times did a minister or any other public office holder order that a CEO be deemed to be part of the public service for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act, broken down by (i) name of CEO, (ii) federal organization, (iii) minister or public office holder responsible for the order, (vi) the rationale behind the order; and (c) what is the estimated total pension income, broken down for each case where a CEO has been deemed part of the public service for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act further to an order?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to applications for grants and contributions to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Canada Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, the Northern Ontario Economic Development Initiative and Western Economic Diversification Canada, since November 2015: (a) what applications were first approved by officials within the agencies and organizations listed above, but then rejected by the Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, broken down by agency and organization; and (b) what applications were first refused by officials within the agencies and organizations listed above, but then approved by the Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, broken down by agency and organization?

[Employment, December 10th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, business is good at the Montreal airport: profits are up, traffic is increasing and there are plans for an expansion.

Nevertheless, the CEO is asking 93 employees to agree to a pay cut of 27% to 33%. Otherwise, they will be laid off and the work will be outsourced, all with Christmas a few weeks away. No one would agree to such an offer.

Will the Liberals stand up for the workers or will they once again side with the bosses?