Matthew Dubé

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when a government member has to hide behind the bogeyman of a non-existent carbon tax, that says a lot about the quality or lack of quality of a budget and a budget implementation bill. Instead of boasting about their own measures, the member seems to have taken more time to talk about policies he attributes to us that do not exist.

However, he did talk about an award given by the Sierra Club to Prime Minister Mulroney for environmental protection. First, that was 30 years ago. Second, speaking of recognition, we should mention that this government has consistently been criticized by the international community for its poor record on environmental protection.

However, let us talk about protection and safety. My question concerns railway safety and the fact that processes, in cabinet, will no longer be transparent because of certain measures in this omnibus bill.

Does the member really believe that, with respect to railway safety, they are on the right track—no pun intended—by not being transparent about changes that are made?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 7th, 2014]

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

I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that the bill contains so many elements that have nothing to do with the budget. There is one element that affects my constituents and me, which is rail safety. There will be even less transparency under this bill, and cabinet will be able to make major regulatory decisions without disclosing any information.

In February, the member for Brossard—La Prairie came to my riding and we held a consultation on this subject with more than 100 people. The train goes through residential neighbourhoods in my riding. People were critical of the lack of transparency, but this bill makes it seem as though the government is trying to make the situation worse.

I would like to know how safety issues are relevant in a budget implementation bill. Furthermore, does the member agree that there will be less transparency on such an important issue?

[Conservative Management, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, sandwiched between the fiascos of their unfair elections act and nomination meetings—where the enterprising Dimitri is blinded by his love for his lady—we find the grain transportation debacle, the dismantling of Canada Post, the closure of service offices for our veterans, leniency towards railway companies that transport dangerous goods a stone's throw from our schools, and systematic denial of environmental issues.

However, that mismanagement sandwich would not be complete without mention of the sad existence of an unelected, undemocratic Senate, which is being asked to hastily approve an equally undemocratic reform cooked up by the party in power, for the party in power.

That is almost as scandalous as a botched car wash at an Ottawa gas station. Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government that governs for them, not just to stay in power through voter suppression tactics reminiscent of the Republicans. Luckily, Canadians can choose the NDP, a party that will consult them, represent them and put policies in place that reflect their beliefs.

[Quebec Cassoulet Appreciation Society, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last October, I had the honour of being inducted into the Confrérie du cassoulet du Québec, or the Quebec cassoulet appreciation society, by grand master and chef Daniel Pachon and André Michel from the Maison amérindienne in Mont-Saint-Hilaire.

The society was created as a result of a collaborative effort between Mr. Pachon and Mr. Michel, and a number of public figures in my riding have been inducted, including Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, Jean-François Mercier, Philippe Hamelin and Gilles Plante, just to name a few.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank André Michel and Chantal Millette for the warm welcome they always extend to me, even though this time it involved a roast with stories provided by my mother, among others. I would also like to keep my promise and sing the praises of grand master Daniel Pachon's cassoulet here in the House. I had never tried cassoulet before becoming an MP, but this culinary talent introduced me to the dish, and I love it.

I invite all my colleagues to try Mr. Pachon's cassoulet at his restaurant in Jonquière or, better yet, at the Maison amérindienne in Mont-Saint-Hilaire at the next induction, which will likely take place at the end of this year.

Here's to the Confrérie du cassoulet du Québec.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. This issue is indeed very worrisome. It seems the government is accusing people who used this system of being fraudsters when that is not at all the case. The current legislation ensures that anyone vouching for another voter must provide an address. They must provide information. The minister is claiming that this was not done.

Instead of making all these changes, why does he not ensure that this system continues to be used? Clearly, this is a very legitimate way of voting. As my colleague mentioned, many people voted in this way. In my opinion, the government is heading down a very slippery slope if it starts implying that those who used the vouching system are fraudsters. That is not the case. I would even go so far as to say that the government's own electorate used this system.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I can start off by quoting the same Mr. Neufeld who did say that the minister seems to be taking selective quotes from the report. That is one important issue here.

We are talking about all of these irregularities. The first important thing to note is that irregularities are not fraud. It seems to change daily. The government is talking about fraudsters and we are talking about potential mistakes. The problem is that none of these cases is being put forward. The government is not telling us on what it is basing these decisions. Are we, as members of Parliament, supposed to take that on blind faith and accept these huge changes to our democracy? I do not think that is the case. If the government were more forthcoming with all of these mysterious cases and statistics, we would have a better idea and a more wholesome debate.

That being said, when it comes to the comments of the leader of the official opposition, it is fair to say that all members of Parliament are always concerned with how elections take place. What we are seeing is a sledgehammer being taken to Elections Canada to solve some issues, as serious as they may be. The fact of the matter is that these widespread changes that are even being denounced by the Chief Electoral Officer would clearly go too far when it comes to fixing a few mistakes that might exist in the system. That is what is at stake here.

If the government really wants to fix the problems, it should consult with all parties, as all developed democracies do. This is clearly the only place in the world where it seems that the government is going to use its majority to force through election reforms. If the government wants to do that, then it should be more forthcoming with that and bring more sensible, common-sense modifications to the laws we already have instead of changing them wholesale to suit its own needs.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I must say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from York South—Weston.

I am pleased to be here today, although it is always strange to say such things, since we would have liked to avoid this kind of issue. We did not want it to come to this.

I am also pleased to rise to speak to this matter in the context of the opposition motion moved by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth. The motion calls on the government to remove all the problematic aspects of its bill on electoral reform, or as we like to call it, electoral deform.

We are just coming back from a two-week parliamentary break, and we have all had the chance to be in our constituencies. What is interesting about this issue is that when it comes to issues of procedure and elections, it often seems that people believe that this happens in the Ottawa bubble.

My constituents in Chambly—Borduas are very interested in this matter. For instance, I met with members of the Forum jeunesse Montérégie Est. They came to my office to talk about this issue and their concerns regarding the impact these changes will have on young people.

My colleague's motion has two key elements that will have an impact on young people. The first element has to do with identifying voters, and the second, voter education.

Before I begin, I would like to revisit what we have seen so far in this debate in the House of Commons. Let us talk about Infoman. Two weeks ago, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform gave an interview on an episode of that program. He then said that the NDP members were the big, bad guys, because they did not respect the Infoman news story. However, that is not at all true. Like everyone else, we saw what happened. Yes, it is troublesome to know that such a thing can happen.

Any time changes of this magnitude are made to our democracy, we must go even further with our research. Having a starting point is all well and good; however, if that is the only example they have, that is very troubling. The member who spoke before me even said that other examples and other statistics exist, but he could not quote them because he did not have them in front of him. He invited me to attend their committee meetings. I have already done that.

My colleagues have asked about this repeatedly, and they have yet to get a response. The leader of the official opposition asked both the Prime Minister and the Minister of State for Democratic Reform and never got an answer. We are told that there are cases; however, no one can cite them. It is very difficult for those of us on this side of the House to take this seriously when we are not seeing much proof of the scope of the issue. We are having a hard time understanding the government's decisions.

We have seen the changes that will be made in terms of voter identification. It is very disturbing. Once again, the member who spoke before me talked a lot about the Americans. In my opinion, that is a questionable comparison given the differences between our two systems.

However, let us continue with that comparison and look at what happened during the last election with all of the issues surrounding voter identification. We saw that the party in power tried to change identification requirements for its own benefit and the benefit of its supporters.

We know full well that, as a group, young people do not support this government's actions. It is understandable that this electoral deform bill worries people, because it makes life more difficult for young people who want to vote.

The minister often responded to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, who asked questions about what ID students would need to vote, by saying that it would be fine, they just need a piece of ID with an address.

In reality, when someone goes to university or CEGEP, there are very few ID cards that include an address. I went to CEGEP and university and I did not have an address on my student cards. If people do not have a student card with an address on it or a driver's licence, then they have no identification that includes their address.

Youth are often a target because they do not have a driver's licence or another piece of ID with an address. Other groups are affected as well, including seniors and aboriginal Canadians.

I would like to focus on the impact on young people, a group of voters that the Conservatives would rather push aside.

The timing is interesting. On the weekend, Nik Nanos and Kevin Page—the former parliamentary budget officer who, in turn, was also pushed aside because, as part of his job, he criticized some of the government's measures—released a study showing how the federal political landscape would change if more young people voted. This is definitely worth mentioning because young people do not have the same priorities as the government.

For example, this government does not care about environmental concerns, such as climate change. Nor does it care about youth unemployment. I have worked very hard on that issue together with my colleague from Parkdale—High Park, when she was on the finance committee, and with my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is on the committee now. I should actually say that I am working with all of my NDP colleagues.

These studies show that if more young people voted, the level of public support for the government would change dramatically. As politicians, we definitely share a responsibility to encourage young people to vote. However, we cannot do that by making changes that will make it harder for young people and students to vote. This is the opposite of what is happening all over the world, in Quebec, at the provincial level, across Canada and in other countries where students are being encouraged to vote. Other governments are trying to make that easier for them. This government wants to make their lives more difficult.

Students are young people who are often voting for the first time. That makes it even more important because this is their first experience. We know that good civic habits can be shaped during that first experience. That is why we really need to pay attention to this issue.

Beyond the issue of voter identification, the civic education of our young people is another important element. Elections Canada had a mandate to educate Canadians about the importance of voting, for example through advertising campaigns. The government wants to take this power away and argues that it is the responsibility of politicians and political parties.

That is very troubling because even if parties and politicians do have this responsibility, it is just as important for a non-partisan institution such as Elections Canada to also have that responsibility. It is all well and good to put all the power in the hands of political parties and to ask them to take on that responsibility, but we cannot expect them to reach everyone, because they have the bad habit of only targeting the people who vote for them.

That is why it is important for non-partisan people who hold important positions in civil society, such as the Chief Electoral Officer, to promote the importance of voting. That would no longer be the case if this “unfair” electoral reform were to become law.

With respect to the issue of education, the Conservative members and the minister himself often use the lower voter turnout as an argument against the opposition and as justification for taking away Elections Canada's power to promote the importance of voting. This is indicative of the government's cynicism. According to the government, since that did not work, the mandate should be taken away from Elections Canada.

To solve the problem of declining voter turnout, the NDP would do more, not less, which seems to be the government's approach. According to the government, if something is not working at Elections Canada it must be scrapped and something else must be done. The government should take a more proactive approach. It should consider whether Elections Canada could do more to show people how important it is to vote.

Young people represent only one segment of the population that will be negatively affected by this unfair election reform. However, they are a very important segment. After all, young people are the future of our country. That is why I have risen. I want to speak out against these changes and try to make this government listen to reason. We will continue to fight this bill because democracy depends on it.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave the example of the voter turnout for the 2008 presidential election in the U.S. People might say that it is absolutely crazy to compare the Canadian system with the American system because they are quite different.

For example, the way voters register is not the same. Under the American system, political party volunteers participate in the voter registration process. That is not something Canadians want. They do not want the parties to be the ones to determine how easy it is for people to vote. That is one of the problems with the bill.

Take the example concerning young people. Everyone keeps quoting Infoman. We all saw the news report, but when it comes to reasons for changing fundamental aspects of democracy, there needs to be more to it than a single report. We need to do research and find other examples. It is important to see that report, but does my colleague have other examples? Speech after speech, we keep hearing about this one and only report. Does my colleague have any other supporting examples or statistics for us?

A news report from a half-hour show that is on once a week is not enough reason to make such significant changes to our democracy. What is more, we are not the only ones to say so. The Chief Electoral Officer and all of civil society say so.

What does the member have to say to that?

[National Capital Act, March 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Hull—Aylmer for introducing this bill. The NDP has been bringing this issue forward in the House for a long time. My colleague from Ottawa Centre also introduced a bill in this regard, as did his predecessor, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, in 2005.

As a member who represents Montreal's south shore, I find it worthwhile to speak about this bill. It contains principles that are important to everyone, particularly in Quebec. The bill seeks to put Gatineau Park on the same footing as other national parks by creating a proper legislative framework to make sure the park receives the environmental and other types of protection necessary to preserve our heritage for future generations.

With all due respect for my colleagues from the Outaouais region, I am going to tell a story about my riding in order to show my constituents why the values reflected in this bill are important to us, to all Quebeckers and to all Canadians.

My riding is home to Mont Saint-Hilaire, the first biosphere reserve recognized by UNESCO in the 1970s. The biosphere extends beyond the borders of my riding. In my region, there are many orchards, and apple picking is very a popular activity. People banded together and demonstrated to protect certain borders of this green space and keep it safe from private development by various contractors. Population growth is a significant issue for a region like mine. That is what I am hearing about the national capital and Outaouais regions. This is a challenge that is becoming more and more common.

Two of the five Quebec municipalities that had the highest number of births in 2012 are in my region. In 2011, one of the municipalities in my region was among the three cities with the highest growth in Quebec. There is a lot of growth in the second tier of Montreal suburbs. Population growth results in a need for some municipalities to rezone and build more housing, for example. We accept this reality. We want to welcome people to live in our area. What is important to the NDP is to do it in a balanced way. I hope that this is also important to the other parties. We need to understand the economic, demographic and environmental realities.

From my reading of the bill and research I have done about Gatineau Park, I can see that there is a similar issue. We want to make sure that there is no confusion. Giving Parliament more power to change boundaries is one way to achieve that goal via compromise. The work needs to be done by taking everyone's opinion into account, not by decree.

I would like to go back to the example I gave earlier. A group of citizens got together to protect the orchards on and around Mont Saint-Hilaire. People managed to create what they call “the green belt”. That is interesting. The green belt is very good for the region's economy. People from all over Quebec, Canada and the United States, including Massachusetts, go there to pick apples. The orchards are protected thanks to the work of citizens in my riding. They worked to maintain the integrity of part of that land and to take a balanced approach to development going on in the region, especially in the municipality of Mont-Saint-Hilaire. That is the kind of vision we see in the bill introduced by my colleague from Hull—Aylmer.

It is a little disappointing to hear what the government has to say about it. Unfortunately, during private members' business, we do not have much of a chance to respond to the government's position.

The government seems to be rather closed-minded. I find that very difficult to understand. Especially since this bill, as I mentioned, would put Gatineau Park on an equal footing with other national parks. I believe my colleague from Ottawa Centre mentioned that in the question he asked my colleague a little earlier.

It is very surprising to see such a lack of legal protections for a park that is so important at the regional and national levels. When we take that into consideration, we realize that improvements are necessary.

The government's position seems even more curious when we consider that it introduced related bills in the past, which unfortunately died on the order paper as a result of an election or prorogation. Those bills had the same objective. At the time, we believed that the bills did not go far enough, but at least they were a step in the right direction.

I hope that the government members will think about this issue. I did hear some comments indicating that the government seems to understand the importance of protecting this legacy and this park. We shall see how the remaining MPs vote. I hope that they will realize that this is very important.

My colleague has a clear mandate to do this work on behalf of the public. After all, this was brought forward during the election. The petitions presented are indicative of the NDP's support for the bill. We all worked with my colleague from Hull—Aylmer to present petitions signed by several thousand people. They all believe that this bill is a step in the right direction and that it is needed to properly protect the park.

Even though I am not from the national capital region, I know that the National Capital Commission takes a different approach to running parks and historic institutions in the region. It is not managed like anything else. That is not a criticism; just a statement of fact.

This reality calls for some nuance, which is taken into account in the bill. I do not think that should be an argument against the bill. This bill takes into account the legal provisions that already exist in the National Capital Act. That is important to point out in the House today.

At the end of the day, the NDP thinks it is very important to consider protecting this environment and heritage.

Far too often, in matters of the environment and heritage, there is not enough consideration for future generations. It is great that we can enjoy Gatineau Park today. We must certainly take advantage of that. I have had the chance to visit the park, and it is a gem not just for the region, but for Quebec and Canada as well.

However, it is important that we be able to enjoy it beyond today. The park must be maintained for future generations to enjoy. We must not be greedy with this type of park. Of course we should enjoy it now, but we must also pass it on to the next generation. That is extremely important.

The NDP's balanced position is to promote environmental protection and understand the nuances that must be taken into account when considering the various existing laws, while moving forward in a progressive manner. After all, we are forward thinkers. That is exactly the position we advocate when it comes to the environment. These legal provisions and this bill constitute a common sense approach.

We clearly must support this bill. I join with my colleague from Ottawa Centre and my colleague from Hull—Aylmer, the bill's sponsor, in supporting this bill. I would like to congratulate her once again for her efforts.

I urge all my colleagues to follow this example and support the bill.

[Democratic Reform, March 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, completely debunked the myths that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has been trying to spread for weeks.

He could not have been more clear. The Conservatives will deny tens of thousands of voters of their right to vote and will treat every honest Canadian as a potential cheat. He explicitly spoke out against the measure that excludes fundraising from the spending limit. He spoke at length about the bill's many other flaws.

However, the Conservatives want us to ignore this expert on our democratic system and would prefer that we listen to the opinions of a few “normcore” MPs who, to make themselves more interesting, are inventing all sorts of stories about potential fraud. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform himself has been accused of making things up by none other than Harry Neufeld, the very person the minister keeps using to defend his botched reform.

Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government that takes the integrity of our electoral system seriously. They deserve a government that does not use every trick in the book to try to keep experts from testifying. They deserve an NDP government.