Matthew Dubé

[Committees of the House, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when you called resuming debate, I believe I saw my good friend and colleague from Churchill trying to catch your attention. Perhaps she is too close to your chair to get that attention. I do not know how it looks from up there, but I would like to move a motion.

Seconded by my colleague from Saint-Lambert, I would like to move that the hon. member for Churchill be heard now.

[Navigation Restrictions, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief, but there are several points I would like to address in my speech, since I have been working on this issue in my riding since I was first elected.

I wish to thank my hon. colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for moving this motion, which aims to improve the regulation process for setting speed limits on the water. In my riding, there are several aspects to consider.

First of all, there is the matter of safety. For instance, in the summer, the Otterburn Boating Club has to stop all activities at 1 p.m. for safety reasons, because the power boats go so fast. That club is very concerned about this issue.

There are also some environmental concerns. I am sure that many of my colleagues have talked about this. That is also the reality in my region. For instance, the excessive speed of some boats can cause erosion of the shores of the Richelieu River.

There are also economic considerations. Certain facilities, such as wharfs, can be damaged. This can include public wharfs, which are funded by the federal, provincial and municipal governments, as well as private wharfs. In my riding, there are a few hundred if not thousands of residences on the shores of the Richelieu River, extending from the Chambly basin to Mont-Saint-Hilaire and Beloeil. These residences have private wharfs. When people purchase a property on the waterfront, they often see that the facilities are damaged.

The nuisance factor must also be taken into account. Power boats are very noisy, especially in residential neighbourhoods. In fact, I have received a number of emails, letters and phone calls from constituents who wanted to tell me about this problem.

Every time I work on this issue, I tell my constituents that we are trying to find a solution that will serve as a compromise, one that respects everyone. I would also like to point out that I live in that region myself, and I also enjoy the use of those boats.

I have friends who wakeboard. There is nothing better than having a beer with friends before boating to Vieux-Beloeil and going to a restaurant such as Le Jozéphil or Restaurant Janick. When you see the number of boats there, you realize that this is about tourism. We do not want to stop people, including myself, from enjoying these types of leisure activities. I understand the importance of having fun.

However, when you live in a community, you have to share the natural resources. In this case, we are talking about the river. We want to find an amicable solution that everyone can agree on.

When I talk about this issue with people in my riding, I like to compare it to how fast people drive on the highway. For example, if people go 200 km/hour, we set a speed limit of 100 km/hour. We do not want people to drive slowly; we just want the speed to be appropriate for the different sections of the river.

There are different kinds of places along the river, and we would like the speed to vary accordingly. For example, where there are many residences, the maximum speed should be different than where there are no residences and where only the highway is located alongside the river.

Furthermore, some boats drive away from the wharf at high speed. That causes a lot of damage compared to a boat that is in the middle of the river. That is a very important point. In our community, everyone understands both sides of the argument and we want to find the middle ground. For that reason, I made a commitment that, one day, our section of the Richelieu River would have a speed limit.

I would like to talk about the current process, which is at the heart of this motion. The process is all over the place and creates a major burden for municipalities. Transport Canada's process is all about making it easier for municipalities where there are four or five cottages around a lake. It is easy to consult with four or five cottage owners on one lake.

However, it is much more difficult to consult, or to come to a conclusion that can be considered adequate, when you have a river like ours. That river, after all, flows out of Lake Champlain and ends in Quebec City.

Elected municipal officials and I have talked about this issue. We have also raised it with Transport Canada, unfortunately without receiving a satisfactory response. For example, do we have to consult with people from Laval because they come into my constituency with their boats? Do we have to consult the Americans who come visit us? Transport Canada had no answer to those questions. As I see it, that highlights the problems we see in this process.

About a year ago, we held a meeting with elected municipal officials and we invited Transport Canada officials to come and explain the process to us. A number of the municipal officials had a hard time finding answers and explanations that would enable them to start the process. It has been quite difficult.

I do not want to go after officials who are doing their jobs because I do not think that they are the problem. The regulations are making the process bureaucratic, and that is not necessary. Ultimately, decisions are being made by people who do not come to see us and who unfortunately do not understand the reality of our situation.

I can guarantee that every summer, on the front page of the Oeil régional or the Journal de Chambly, there will be a picture of a boat going top speed with a headline such as, “The Cowboys are Back”. I saw that headline last year. There are countless articles about my constituents who, although they respect boaters, believe that we need to take the right steps to protect our environment; protect the safety of other types of watercraft, such as kayaks and canoes; and protect various types of public and private facilities, such as docks.

We started this process before my colleague moved his motion, and we have seen resolutions in six of the twelve municipalities in my riding. Most of the municipalities are part of the RCM of La Vallée-du-Richelieu, and there was also the Fédération québécoise des municipalités and the Montreal metropolitan area, to which many of these municipalities belong. They all adopted resolutions supporting a clear speed limit all along the Richelieu River, especially in my riding.

I am sure that some of my neighbours will talk about the situation in their own ridings. Perhaps they already have, since we are nearing the end of this debate.

We also had the opportunity to meet with the president of the union for the Régie intermunicipale de police Richelieu-Saint-Laurent, which serves our area, as well as representatives from Sûreté du Québec. They feel that the problem is that they are not able to fine people who they believe are behaving dangerously on the river. However, the majority of people pose no problem; it is a very small minority.

In my riding, the towns of Saint-Basile-le-Grand, McMasterville, Mont-Saint-Hilaire, Chambly, Carignan and Saint-Mathias-sur-Richelieu have all passed resolutions in favour of Motion No. 441, which was moved by the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle and which we are discussing today.

At a convention, COVABAR, an organization that works to protect the St. Lawrence and Richelieu rivers, also passed a resolution in support of my colleague's motion. That organization works mainly in my riding.

All of the municipalities that make up the La Vallée-du-Richelieu RCM have unanimously supported this motion. They recognize that there is a serious problem with the process.

We do not know if the consultations will be honoured. As I said, we keep hearing about a consultation process, but we cannot know in advance if we are consulting the right people or if Transport Canada will think the consultation was adequate. We are putting not only an administrative burden on municipalities, but also a financial burden. Furthermore, municipalities have to pay to advertise the consultation even though there are no clear criteria. They also have to pay all the other costs associated with such a consultation.

In conclusion, I hope that my own experience in my riding will encourage my colleagues to support Motion No. 441.

I would like to reiterate my commitment to the people of Chambly—Borduas: if not now, someday we will have a speed limit in place to protect our community.

[Veterans, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has already earned a spot in the Conservatives' hall of sheer incompetence for his handling of the F-35 fiasco and for believing that Haiti's problem is the garbage in the streets. Even though his incompetence is legendary, he continues to be rewarded by the Prime Minister for who knows what reason.

This minister's most recent exploits are the closure of veterans' service offices and the insults he hurled at the men and women who fought for our country. After shedding crocodile tears last week, the minister still believes that veterans' complaints are all a union ploy. For heaven's sake. He still believes that closing these offices will not result in cuts to services. The reality is that there have been massive cuts in his department.

Veterans deserve better than the minister's wishful thinking. After everything they have done for us, they deserve much better than Conservative MPs who are trying to save money at their expense.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, December 5th, 2013]

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

The fact that we are asking ourselves questions and examining the bill to determine if there are any potential problems does not mean that we do not support it. As I said, we support the bill.

We are acknowledging that, like the Government of the Northwest Territories, we want to move forward and deal with this issue, which is somewhat urgent. We are even saying that this has gone on too long and that it could have been dealt with sooner. With that in mind, we certainly do want to move forward. The two matters go hand in hand. It is possible to act quickly, while addressing some of our concerns.

This bill is obviously important, and we do support it. That being said, we have concerns about some ill-considered measures that could give more power to the minister rather than to the Northwest Territories. My colleague said that they want less Ottawa and more Northwest Territories. That is exactly our philosophy, and that is why it is important to study this bill. We will also have to consider this morning's evidence, which is extremely important in this matter. They go hand in hand.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, a member who represents a northern riding. He will certainly bring an interesting perspective to this debate.

I think it is important to commend my colleague from Western Arctic, the member for the Northwest Territories, who works very hard and does an extraordinary job. It is a huge territory and a big riding. When I compare the size to my own riding to his, I realize how impressive it is to represent such a vast territory and to do it so well. I wanted to say that, because this is a very important bill for him and for all of us.

Before I get into the details, I want to take a step back and look at the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

A number of my colleagues, both Conservatives and members of my own party, have spoken about the constitutional nature of this situation.

In Canada, natural resources are an interesting issue. Powers are shared, but provinces also have power over their resources. This has created an interesting situation, since over the years—and now in 2013—energy and natural resources have become very important issues, not just for us, but for the entire world.

There is a lot of talk about pipelines and developing different resources. Quebec is having some important, interesting and essential debates on issues such as shale gas and pipelines.

We are very concerned about the division of powers for natural resource management. Although the constitutional powers were divided a certain way at the time, I think it is very important to move in this direction and devolve more powers to the Northwest Territories. That is something we support, obviously.

This is the first time since 1980, if I remember correctly, that the federal government has devolved additional powers to the Northwest Territories. We are very happy to see that.

That being said, I think that there are some major concerns to keep in mind. I talked about energy-related concerns. Bill C-38 made a lot of changes to environmental assessments for various projects.

Under the circumstances, I think it will be important to arrive at a better understanding of the bill during the committee's study and to know which powers will belong to the Northwest Territories and which to the federal government, directly and indirectly.

At first blush, this bill seems to have some tricky parts, but it is not quite clear. That is why the committee work will be so important. I feel optimistic; I think that the government has good intentions with this bill.

When the bill goes to committee, there will be questions about exactly how powers will be divided and how to ensure that there are no loopholes enabling the federal government to retain control over matters related to selection of projects, specifically regarding natural resource development and royalties.

These are very complicated issues. Many of my colleagues are better equipped to discuss them than I. My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, talked about how it is important for people in Toronto and Montreal not to impose their way of doing things on the Northwest Territories. Even though I am an MP from suburban Montreal, I completely agree with him. As an MP from Quebec, I have a pretty good understanding of the relationship between the federal government and our communities, the division of powers, the importance of a respectful relationship and the desire to be in a position where we are not being told what to do.

That being said, I can understand the concern. I think it is important that each one of us talks about managing natural resources, no matter where we come from, because there are fewer and fewer borders when it comes to this issue.

However, that does not mean that we should set aside the principle that the provinces—or territories in this case—must have some input and are responsible for managing natural resources. We understand that the federal government has a role to play because these issues affect everyone.

Take pipelines, for example. In my riding, the Portland-Montreal pipeline goes under the Richelieu River. This issue is of great concern to the people of my riding, but we all know that it extends beyond the boundaries of my riding.

With that in mind, we need to rigorously debate this issue in order to fully understand the bill. We also need to have a rigorous, in-depth review of the bill in committee, one that takes into account the concerns of the witnesses. They will likely have an interesting perspective to share.

Speaking of interesting perspectives, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the work being done by our caucus with regard to northern development and protecting the rights of the people in those communities.

For example, yesterday, I listened to the speech given by the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou during the debate on Bill C-15. His views are extremely relevant and interesting, given the role he played in the negotiations between the Cree government, the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada on the treaties that have been signed over the past few decades.

At home in Quebec, we set aside political differences and accomplished an historic work in James Bay. When we think about the work that the Government of Quebec accomplished in the early 2000s, we understand the importance of a nation-to-nation dialogue or even a dialogue among three nations, if we count the Quebec nation as a third player.

There is hope for this bill. The government has made a good start by engaging in a dialogue with the first nations and with the people of the Northwest Territories. In my opinion, that is extremely important. This is a complex, worthwhile and important constitutional issue.

Earlier, I mentioned my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, but the NDP also has other members. I am thinking of the members for Sudbury, Nickel Belt and Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing in northern Ontario and all my other colleagues from that area. They know the importance of these issues, and I know that they will bring an extremely relevant and interesting perspective to this debate.

We have a great deal of respect for the people who live in these areas. My colleague from Western Arctic does an outstanding job when it comes to these issues. Out of respect for these people, it is important that we all participate in this debate, because issues related to energy and natural resources are of the utmost importance to all Canadians and Quebeckers. I am also thinking about the people who live in my riding. It is essential that we participate in this debate.

I hope that the government will take into account what is said in committee. To date, the debate seems very healthy. I hope that this will continue in committee and that we can make amendments, if such is deemed necessary by the witnesses, who will conduct an assessment of the bill that will no doubt be very interesting.

I look forward questions from my colleagues and I thank them for their attention.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

That is exactly the problem. Earlier, I heard a Conservative member talk about the FCN delegates who were on Parliament Hill last week. Those people said that the Conservatives are taking steps in the right direction, but that there is still a lot of work to be done.

I have a good relationship with municipal officials in my riding. They have criticized the lack of infrastructure funding for their towns, and also for the entire region, on many occasions.

Just look at the Champlain Bridge. Today the Minister of Infrastructure patted himself on the back for cutting three years off the construction time. What took him so long to get to that point? Why are we facing this crisis?

This government, which calls itself a good manager, has shown no leadership and is a poor manager. Trying to hide all these things in an omnibus bill just makes the situation worse and prevents us from properly debating the issues.

Nevertheless, we will continue to raise these issues, as did my colleague to some extent, because this is unacceptable. The Champlain Bridge situation is completely unacceptable to my constituents.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

That is what I have been trying to say, eloquently or not. This is the third time I have spoken out against this method, so it is becoming harder to find ways to say the same thing without repeating myself.

As my colleague mentioned, this bill contains all kinds of things that have nothing to do with the budget. This seems to be a way for some Conservative ministers to find solutions to problems without truly addressing the challenges.

For example, the Minister of Justice wants to make changes to how Supreme Court justices from Quebec are appointed. Instead of addressing the issue properly and fixing a botched process, the government chose to hide it in an omnibus bill.

We are seeing the same sort of thing from the President of the Treasury Board. He lacks respect for public sector workers. So many negotiations were not conducted in good faith. For example, the negotiations with the diplomats were very difficult.

Even though there are problems with the process, rather than sitting down with these people, having a serious conversation and proposing solutions in a bill, the government is trying to hide these measures in an omnibus bill. That is the problem with this process, and the NDP opposes this way of doing things.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am pleased to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents.

What is less pleasant is the fact that in just two and a half years, this is the third time I have spoken to an omnibus bill. It has been a different bill each time, unfortunately. I think this situation illustrates the recurring problem that keeps resurfacing with this government.

It is also difficult, as the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre said earlier this afternoon, to choose a topic to discuss. I will try my best because my constituents have concerns about many of the provisions in the bill.

The first, and the most interesting, is the issue of Supreme Court justices. Of all the things that have nothing to do with a budget implementation bill, I think that the easiest one to focus on is the proposed changes to the process for selecting Supreme Court justices.

It is even more problematic in this case because it seems to be a response to a process that the government bungled from the outset. We saw how difficult this process was, particularly after Justice Nadon appeared before the committee. Then we have the Minister of Justice saying that he wants to propose these changes.

I think that it is important to take this opportunity to point out that the hon. member for Gatineau sought the unanimous consent of the House—which was obviously refused—to move a motion outlining the federal government's legal and constitutional requirements regarding the selection of Supreme Court judges and, in this case in particular, justices from Quebec. The process must be followed and the criteria must be met, but it does not seem that that was the case.

Not only did the Conservatives fail to abide by these criteria, but now they are proposing changes to them. What is more, the Conservatives decided to include these changes in a budget implementation bill, which is completely ridiculous and absurd.

All of the points I just made show a blatant lack of respect for Quebeckers, particularly the people in my riding. This is something that we strongly disagree with. It is one of the main problems with the bill. It is an issue that many of my constituents have raised since Bill C-4 was introduced in this House.

Another problem that affects Quebec in particular, since it is something unique to Quebec, is the labour-sponsored funds and the elimination of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit. The Conservatives plan to do away with the tax credit in this budget implementation bill.

Let me be clear. Although these funds are called workers' funds, they are an important economic driver not just for workers but also for businesses and the community.

I would like to speak about a very relevant example in my riding of Chambly—Borduas. This summer, as usual, I attended the launch of entrepreneurial projects by young people from the Maison des jeunes des quatre fenêtres youth centre in Mont-Saint-Hilaire.

Throughout the summer, these young people start and run a business. They sign contracts, manage budgets and look for work within the community, whether it be mowing lawns, working in seniors' residences or painting fences. These young people do all sorts of work for the community and clearly all of that costs money.

I was intrigued—if that is the right term—to see labour-sponsored funds listed as sponsors. I told the chair of the youth centre's board of directors that this was a good example of how labour-sponsored funds give back to our communities and to Quebec society.

This is another example that shows that the Conservative government is not taking into account Quebec realities and does not understand how important these measures are to Quebec communities.

They make a positive and important contribution.

We must therefore condemn this budget measure and the budget implementation bill. That is very important for Quebeckers. We sent postcards to the people in my riding inviting them to comment on and express their opposition to this measure. We received hundreds of responses, maybe even a thousand. In the last budget bill, people also opposed the botched EI reform. Again, the people of Quebec protested to express their opposition to this measure. This is a misguided measure that has been imposed on Quebeckers. Obviously, Quebec is not the only province that has been harmed, but I am focusing first and foremost on my community, which was also affected.

There are many other measures, but we also have to address the question of process. A number of my colleagues have also raised this issue. I spoke about the procedure for appointing judges to the Supreme Court. This shows how this bill includes everything but the kitchen sink. The same thing happened with Bill C-38 and the omnibus bill introduced last fall. All these elements are extremely problematic. Instead of having a healthy debate and addressing all the items in the bill, we can only speak for 10 minutes—20 minutes, if we are lucky . We can debate the bill at the second reading and third reading stages. Obviously, there is also an issue with the committees. The time available for committees to study bills has been severely restricted. We are starting to get used to this, although we certainly do not want to. The members' speaking time is rather limited, which makes it rather difficult to address every item.

I would like to talk about something else along the same lines. In fact, I am running out of time—which illustrates my point—and that is exactly what we take issue with. Before I run out of time, I would like to criticize the changes made to the Canada Labour Code. It is absolutely unacceptable that the government is making changes to the working conditions of so many people, including in the public sector, through a budget implementation bill. This is an unhealthy way to operate, and workers have been critical of this approach. Last week, I met with several young people from the Canadian Labour Congress who were representing a number of different labour bodies. Those young representatives commented on the measures. The omnibus nature of the bill limits our ability in committee to hear testimony from people like these young representatives. It is tough for legislators. Unfortunately, things do not change. The members across the way say they want to focus on the economy, but when we read the bill, it is clear that it is not just about the economy. In fact, there is little mention of the economy. The bill is mainly about changing the foundation of our social systems. I think it is important to speak out against this. Unfortunately, since the beginning of the debate, the government has been turning a deaf ear.

In closing, I would like to say that even when it comes to the economy, the government clearly lacks judgment. It is making cuts and reducing services. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that even though the government is cutting services, including services to Canadians, it is still spending just as much money. I think that says it all when it comes to how this government is managing the economy. Instead of talking about the economy, the government has chosen to talk about other things.

Unfortunately, we will not be supporting Bill C-4.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 2nd, 2013]

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

I could not help but think it was odd when he mentioned that the NDP was complicit in Justice Nadon's appointment process, since that meeting was held in camera. The details of the process were confidential, so we do not know what kind of debate was going on or what our representative, the member for Gatineau, said.

On October 31, the member for Gatineau once again asked for the unanimous consent of the House to respect Quebec's place at the Supreme Court and in the Supreme Court Act. In light of what I just said, it is clear that we took this lack of respect for Quebec in our constitutional structure very seriously, and we have frequently spoken out in defence of this.

I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to step back and to acknowledge the work that the NDP has done on this issue.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to ask my colleague a question, since she is chair of our women's caucus.

Since members, like me, who are younger than what we normally see in this House were elected, people have often wondered if age could lead to prejudice about behaviour. I often explain that it is not a question of age, but rather a question of gender, unfortunately.

When we look at the cases of cyberbullying that have appeared in the news in recent years, particularly those my colleague and some other members have mentioned, it seems to me that girls and young women are unfortunately more often the victims.

Given that my colleague cares so much about this issue, I wonder if she could comment on this aspect and the importance of defending gender equality in the fight against cyberbullying.