Matthew Dubé

[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.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 26th, 2013]

With regard to the funds allocated by the government for the Toronto 2015 Pan/Parapan American Games, and the 2012-2016 Host Program Contribution Agreement between Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) and the Organizing Committee of the Toronto 2015 Pan/Parapan American Games: (a) how much has been allocated to all the sports venues, including but not limited to the CIBC Athletes’ Village, the CIBC Pan Am and Parapan Am Games Athletics Centre and Field House, the Markham Pan Am and Parapan Am Centre, the Welland Flatwater Centre, the Caledon Equestrian Park, and the Hamilton Soccer Stadium; (b) what are the specific details of the amounts allocated to construct new sports infrastructures and those allocated to renovate existing sports infrastructures; (c) for each of the capital projects (especially the sites for test events, training, competitions and support services), what are the specifics of all the interim quarterly activity/results reports describing the status of each project as stipulated in Annex E, Interim and Final Results Reporting Requirements, of the 2012-2016 Hosting Program Contribution Agreement; and (d) the amount allocated to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Contribution Agreement related to official languages and related services provided by the government for the Games?

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the same questions keep coming up. When we talk about public safety, we always get the same old simplistic platitudes to try to describe our position on this file, which we believe is the responsible one. I can certainly address several points that are often raised by our Conservative colleagues.

Before getting deep into this discussion on Bill C-12, I would like to tell a story.

I had just recently been elected. This was in January 2012, if I am not mistaken, so almost a year after the election. We were taking part in an activity that we organize every year and that takes place in Chambly. It is an informal reception organized by community organizations that gathers all MNAs and MPs from the region to discuss issues of concern for the coming year. Often the issues are smaller and more local and involve funding for the organizations and their goals. However, there are many organizations working on prevention with young offenders. At that time, the omnibus Bill C-10 was a significant source of concern for some of these organizations.

I would venture to say that the points that were raised still apply today. Those involved are proud of the position that I took. It is also the position of all of my colleagues and of our party, which is responsible, despite what the members opposite may say. Public safety is certainly not an easy issue. We must create a society in which people feel safe, a society where they not only feel safe but truly are safe. We need to do this in a responsible manner. For example, people who are ill must be treated, whether they are dealing with a mental illness or an alcohol or drug addiction, which is what we are talking about today. This requires some compassion. I hesitate to use the word compassion because the members opposite practically consider it to be a bad word. It is difficult to balance compassion and safety, but we are trying to do just that. It is not easy, but we did not choose to go into politics to face easy challenges. We are prepared to take on that challenge. I believe that our public safety critics, my colleagues from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and Alfred-Pellan, and our justice critic, the hon. member for Gatineau, who sometimes works with them, do an admirable job in this area.

They do their work responsibly, rather than boiling these very complex issues down into catchy phrases such as the title of the bill, which has been referred to many times today as a bumper sticker policy. The title is dishonest by the way.

Saying that the bill will help to do away with drugs in the prison system is dishonest because the bill basically legislates to implement a practice that is already used by the parole board. That practice will now be enshrined in law. Of course we support this bill. We do not have a problem with enshrining an existing practice into the law or with doing away with inappropriate actions associated with this practice. However, when we talk about getting rid of drugs, we have to keep in mind that drug addiction is an illness and treat it as such.

I spoke about the approach that my constituents shared with me in forums, such as the informal reception that I mentioned, and in the letters they write to me, because every time we talk about justice or public safety, the government always accuses us of being against public safety, and that is not true.

Interestingly, the people in my riding are very proud of our approach. Given how the government is handling this issue, it seems to be suggesting that the people in our communities, the ones who elected NDP MPs, are less concerned about safety in their communities, but that is absolutely wrong. The difference is that, in addition to advocating for safety, we also advocate for solutions to social problems everywhere, including in the prison system.

As I have said before, the problem is that this is a disease. I have said it before and I will say it again. What do we do with people who are sick? We try to make them well. This is a public health problem. I really want to emphasize that because in the end, we are not doing this just for the individuals, but for the community. By the time these people come back into our communities, back into society, we want to have done our part as citizens and as legislators by creating an environment that will support their reintegration and help them get better. People around them will feel safe knowing that we have stepped up to help these people. I see no shame in that. It is a balanced approach that people are very proud of; at least the people in my riding are.

Since this debate started today, whenever we talked about treatment and the fact that these are diseases and that we should do more to protect public health, others have talked about all the funds invested in various programs. That is not enough. We hear about waiting lists, and a Conservative member claims that those lists are a sign the program is working, but the opposite is true. Those people are not there because they want to stand in line for treatment. We have to take this problem more seriously, and we will not solve it by cutting resources, which is what has been going on for a long time. When the government says that it has invested a certain amount, once again, it has to specify that it is covering only one small aspect, among many, of drug treatment. It is not a priority. It is an amount invested in the prison system—not to mention all of the cuts—and only a small percentage is actually allocated to this major problem.

If we do not take this problem seriously, we would be sending the wrong message to the communities that might reintegrate these people after their release. In addition, this problem also affects the employees of the corrections system. In prison environments, the same phenomenon is seen when it comes to double-bunking: a government that does not care about the details, and when we try to point them out, it accuses us of standing up for criminals, although that is not the case.

We want to create a safe environment for people who work there, such as the prison guards, but also an environment where these problems do not spread any further. For instance, it is important to help people who enter the system with substance abuse problems, which will also prevent the spread of such problems. If that is not done, substance abuse will continue despite our best efforts, and will spread to other people. We will have done nothing to solve the problem. I do not believe that such a bill solves the problem. Once again, we will be supporting this bill, but the fact remains that it is not nearly enough.

It is as though we have travelled only half a kilometre on a journey that is 100 kilometres long. Much more is needed, although that is not what this government is doing.

If we do not help these people and if we do not take this scourge seriously, we will do nothing to eliminate the problem of drugs in our prisons.

Coming back to the bill's title, it talks about making our prisons drug free, but that is not what this bill does. The Conservative Party is not addressing the real problems. Even worse, it is going to try to get itself re-elected based on a bill's title that gives the impression that it actually does something. As an MP, I find that unacceptable, and my constituents share that opinion.

I would not be surprised to see a fundraising letter from the Conservative Party boasting about what it did to eliminate the problem of drug use in prisons, saying that this is how it got drugs out of our prisons.

What happens then? The voters and even the members of the Conservative Party who want to fix this problem as much as we do will get the impression that something was done, when in fact, the government simply adopted a band-aid solution. The issue is much more serious than this bill and the Conservative Party's rhetoric would have us believe. It is not just a matter of safety, but also a matter of health.

I think that putting on rose-coloured glasses and ignoring the problem shows a lack of respect. Earlier I mentioned addressing this issue responsibly, and it is not as though the government is not trying to solve the problem. It is interesting that a Conservative member who sits on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security told my colleague from Beaches—East York during his speech, that the NDP was acting as though the sky was falling.

I know our public safety critic very well and I know that he would never resort to exaggeration. He is very thoughtful and insightful. I know from experience that he makes fair and sensible proposals in committee to fix public safety problems.

In conclusion, we will support this bill, but we urge the Conservative government to take this issue as well as public safety more seriously. We are calling on the government to stop taking intellectual shortcuts and accusing us of supporting the criminals. That is ridiculous and it needs to stop.

We need to start acting responsibly, to fix public safety problems and also to create an environment in which our constituents feel safe. Furthermore, when people get out of prison and reintegrate into our communities, we will have taken a step in the right direction to try to combat their illness.

It is time to stop insulting the NDP and claiming that we do not take this seriously. We do take this seriously. The Conservatives need to stop telling me that I do not take my constituents' safety seriously. That is untrue. I also take public health problems seriously. This is the balanced approach that my constituents support. I hope that they are proud to see that the NDP supports this, and this is certainly the responsible approach we will take to form an NDP government.

We must stop using a black or white approach to public safety. We must stop causing division in our communities. It is time we realize that we can both help the people who are seriously ill and keep communities safe. Any rhetoric that encourages disdain or cynicism is no use when it comes to this issue. We must keep this in mind as we debate this bill.

We will support this bill. I am fully confident in my colleagues who will discuss these issues further in committee.

[Champlain Bridge, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary will need a super beam because his argument does not hold up. This shows a lack of leadership.

The Conservatives do not have a plan B in case the Champlain Bridge needs to be completely shut down before 2021, whether it be for a short or extended period of time. The Government of Quebec cannot confirm whether the bridge will hold up until it is replaced eight years from now.

Can the Conservatives explain how it is that, on their watch, lanes have to be closed on the bridge just to ensure that it does not collapse?