Matthew Dubé

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since the debate began, I have heard a number of government members talking about employment and the economy. This always leads me to the same question, and I still have not managed to get an answer.

I am trying to understand why this omnibus bill contains a provision regarding the appointment of Supreme Court judges. My own theory, which many of my colleagues on this side of the House share, is that the process was bungled for the most recent appointment in Quebec. The problem is ongoing and still has not been resolved.

With that in mind, it seems the government tried to create a catch-all budget implementation bill by including provisions concerning the Supreme Court. I still do not see how that is relevant.

Can my colleague tell us why these measures were included? If not, can he tell me whether the government will support a motion that we plan to introduce to separate this aspect from the rest of the omnibus bill?

[Conservative Members, October 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it must be fun to be a Conservative member these days, tucking yourself in each night saying that it was another good day and pretending that it was not your crew that appointed Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau to the Senate.

It is also a good day for them to be reminded that the Conservative Party has broken all of its promises about the Senate, to face the fact that the Conservative leader put the country in the hands of rogues like Nigel Wright and Ray Novak, and to applaud like trained seals when the Prime Minister invents his latest version of the facts and treats Canadians like nincompoops.

I imagine that the Conservatives dreamed of a more wholesome political career before they were corrupted by power, but we will let them live with their consciences.

Meanwhile, we are going to hound them until they stop their pitiful excuses, admit to their failings and start telling the truth. In 2015, we will deal with the Senate.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. He spoke at length about the importance of creating jobs for young people. However, we know that the youth unemployment rate is double the national average for other age groups.

Could the hon. member explain his government's really depressing record? In addition, could he tell us what he thinks of measures such as the one that the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park and I proposed a few weeks ago? This was a tax credit for small and medium businesses to train and hire young employees. I feel that this is a great way to help businesses, and especially young people, whom this government seems to overlook.

Given the importance he attributed to the issue, especially at the end of his speech, I wonder if he might be ready to help us get such an important initiative passed.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I note with interest that this supposed budget implementation bill is, in fact, a grab bag of things totally unrelated to the budget. One very obvious example is the section about Supreme Court judges.

I find it interesting to see what is happening in Quebec these days. The federal government did a poor job of handling issues raised by the latest Supreme Court appointment. It is now attempting to make some changes, as we can see. However, the catch-all nature of the bill makes it impossible to properly handle such an important issue as Supreme Court appointments, a constitutional issue. This really deserves a separate bill, apart from the omnibus bill.

Could my colleague comment on the grab bag style of the bill? It is even more of a catch-all than the previous ones. It mixes together things that are not connected in any way.

[Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of the bill introduced by the member for Terrebonne—Blainville. Earlier, I congratulated her on her work, because we all agree that this is a very complex issue, as I said when I asked her a question.

It is rather amazing to realize that the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act has not been updated since 2000. At the risk of showing my youth, which I really do not need to do here, the last time this bill was updated I was at the ripe old age of 12. We can see how much the technology has changed, particularly in relation to the legislation as a whole.

In my view, it is completely absurd to claim that we can keep going as we are with Facebook, Twitter and iPhones. We could stay here all night just listing all the changes in technology.

Indeed, all we had to do was listen to the news this morning, not to point fingers. Of course, there are all kinds of practices, but there was one news item about what Bell does with the personal information of its customers. I am not necessarily blaming the company. I think it falls to us, the elected politicians, to assume our responsibilities—but more particularly to the government to assume its own—and implement legislation that will provide better protection of our personal information in the digital age, which is also an age of uncertainty.

What I have found in discussing this issue with my constituents is that there is a lot of confusion. There is a lack of knowledge, and it is not because my constituents are uninformed on the subject. On the contrary. It is difficult to keep the legislation in line with what the Privacy Commissioner, among others, has already said about what should be done. There is quite a hodge-podge of information.

My colleague is proposing we update the law and bring it in line with recommendations from the Privacy Commissioner, for one. I know that this is not the only element, but it is a striking one because we often see the commissioner's proposals in the news. Obviously, this one jumps out at people who are following this issue.

I really appreciate an important component of this bill, which addresses the idea of coordinating our legislation with that of other countries to ensure that we are keeping up with what is happening around the world. In the digital age, privacy knows no boundaries.

Consider this scenario: someone could subscribe to an Internet service that is based in the United Kingdom. Imagine that the individual's information is compromised; questions are raised about the Canadian government's power to protect that individual's private information. We need to recognize that borders are disappearing in the digital world. We need to take that into account when we update our laws. That goes without saying.

In the question I asked my colleague earlier, I spoke about another aspect that I want to touch on in my speech, and that is the fact that this issue is not bound by age. It is not limited to a single generation.

There is a tendency to think that Facebook is for young people. Similarly, we think that seniors are the ones maliciously targeted by fraudsters. However, it is not that cut and dried. Just as there are no borders—as I said when I was talking about the international component—fraud and privacy breaches are not limited to one generation more than any other.

I want to come back to the example that I gave in my earlier question. While discussing various suggestions with students, for example, we often ask them what they can do to better protect themselves on the Internet.

Canadians can and must have proactive habits, both on the Internet and elsewhere. However, the federal government must also enact legislation that has more teeth in order to allow for more appropriate punishments for businesses that do not perform their due diligence. We put our trust in them when we give them our personal information, which is vulnerable to fraud. Unfortunately, for a few years now, people are realizing that trust and good faith are not enough. The federal government has a duty to legislate in this regard, which is what this bill does.

In my speeches, I often give examples of all kinds of issues raised at the seniors' forum in Chambly, which I attend every year. This event really captures a wide range of issues that matter to seniors. For me, as a member of Parliament, it is an excellent way of knowing what is going on with seniors and of understanding their concerns. Every year, there is always a portion of the event that addresses fraud and elder abuse.

Considering the world they grew up in, seniors do not always know how to protect themselves online, despite their best efforts. I do not think it is unkind to say so. As I said, seniors recognize this themselves and are demanding that the government do something in order to ensure that, when they hand over their personal information to a website or company, it will be protected.

This also applies to cellphones. More and more seniors are using this technology, which is a good thing, because we want them to be able to participate in this technological aspect of our society. We need to do our duty, as elected representatives, to ensure that they can do so safely, while recognizing that they need to be proactive, just as younger people need to be. The need for citizens to be proactive does not relieve legislators of their responsibility to do their part to ensure that laws are in place and that companies cannot run around with people's personal information, since this could lead to bad situations.

I would even say that this issue has been one of the government's weak points. I would also like to point out that privacy is a very hot topic at the moment. Many of my constituents really care about privacy. My colleague for Terrebonne—Blainville has often raised other issues related to the digital age. Clearly, the government has not done enough when it comes to improving the legislation or acting proactively as federal MPs to take advantage of the digital age.

Consider the lack of information about the lost student loan data and other situations at Service Canada. These situations show that the government is not proactive enough and is not making necessary improvements.

Luckily, my colleague is being proactive by introducing her bill as digital affairs critic for the NDP. She is also working on our digital strategy. I commend her on her work and I am proud to support her. I know my constituents will feel much better knowing that at least one party is taking a firm stand on this issue.

[Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned déjà vu. Because of prorogation, she has to start that hour of debate over again. I would still like to congratulate her, as I was not here the first time around. I am happy to be able to second and support her bill.

The member touched on many points. The file she is working on is very complex. Specifically, only in the very last sentence of her speech did she mention youth and seniors. That is what makes this issue so interesting.

When I tour the schools in my riding, I hear young people and their parents express concern about their privacy on the Internet. When I attend the seniors' forum in Chambly, for example, the police always make a presentation on the dangers of breaches of information and its many consequences, like fraud.

I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to expand on the consultations she held. She mentioned several prominent people in the field, like Michael Geist. I know she consulted widely. Along with my colleagues, I would like to hear more about the kind of comments she heard because, as we all know, people are losing confidence. I can feel it in my riding and I am sure several of my colleagues feel it in theirs. I would like to hear more from the member on that subject.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I can state such a thing because the Senate's goal, its purpose, is to analyze bills and provide sober second thought, as the saying goes. It is really difficult for me to believe that senators can conduct a thorough and non-partisan analysis, without being influenced by hearing the strategy of a party in power discussed at caucus meetings.

In caucus, we sit down and talk about our approach to legislation. We talk about our legislative objectives as a political unit. If I am a Liberal or Conservative senator, and I attend those meetings, I might ask myself why I should be thorough in my work, because I have just heard exactly what I should do; I am going to follow the party line. Senators are supposed to consider what the House of Commons does.

Everyone makes mistakes. The Senate is supposed to be there to correct mistakes. I have a lot of difficulty understanding how they are going to be able to correct mistakes when they were part of making the mistakes in the first place.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is confusing us with the other opposition party. The only party proposing the status quo is the Liberal Party.

The NDP's position is clear: abolition, pure and simple. Meanwhile, the hon. member has mentioned how difficult it will be to achieve that goal. That is correct. We do not get involved in politics in order to achieve simple goals.

At the end of the day, as aware as we are of the challenge before us in achieving what we firmly believe in, what we hear on the doorsteps in our constituencies is that it is a priority for Canadians to get rid of the Senate.

In the meantime—as we are doing today with the opposition motion that the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth has introduced—we are proposing changes that will require senators to at least live up to the ethics and the mandate that they have as lawmakers for as long as the Senate continues to exist.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am now sitting closer to you than I was when we parted in June. I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Trois-Rivières.

This is my first speech this fall, and the topic is particularly relevant given the feedback we received all summer about senators' scandals. This is not just about senators. It is about the mindset and attitudes that surround that institution. During today's question period, we witnessed a clear lack of courage and thoroughness. Today's opposition motion, put forward by the NDP and especially the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, seeks to solve all these problems.

Everyone knows that the NDP wants to abolish the Senate, but we know that it will take a lot of work to get that done. We are not blind to that fact, and I believe we can be proud of that, if I say so myself. After all, as politicians, whether we work in the Senate or elsewhere, we need to show the will and courage to do the work if we really want to make things better, which is our aim in seeking to abolish the Senate. In the meantime, we are looking for concrete ways to solve some of the problems that have plagued that institution throughout its history, especially during the last few months.

The sponsor of the motion proposes two specific measures. First, he wants to end senators' participation in caucus meetings, the partisan gatherings in which we participate in the House. It is an important measure given that, originally, when it was created under the Constitution, the Senate was meant to be a chamber of sober second thought. I very much like that expression. It is a chamber whose members are almost supposed to be better, intellectually speaking, than the members of the House of Commons. They are not supposed to stoop to populist tendencies like MPs do because they need to be re-elected every few years. Senators are not supposed to have such tendencies.

When they participate in the partisan process and attend caucus meetings, they become virtually indistinguishable from MPs. It then becomes harder to distinguish between the two chambers which, in turn, leads us to wonder why the Senate exists in the first place. Indeed, if senators perform the same functions as MPs while remaining unelected and unaccountable to Canadians, their very purpose is called into question.

That said, until we can abolish the Senate, this is a worthwhile measure inasmuch as it will compel senators to work strictly as legislators. They should not concern themselves with the somewhat more partisan activities we participate in as MPs, given that we are elected under the banner of a political party—there is no denying it.

The second measure goes to the core of the scandals we have been dealing with in the House, specifically these past few months, regarding travel expenses and secondary residences. Unfortunately, the questions we have asked on these issues remain unanswered. The motion speaks specifically to expenses related to partisan activities.

It is clear that the Senate absenteeism rate is extremely high. This is nothing new; it has always been like that. My first political science teacher at CEGEP described the Senate as a “glorified retirement home”. In this instance, it is a place for friends of certain political parties in power. Those were the words of my teacher. I do not wish to show any disrespect.

In view of the circumstances, he added that senators rarely showed up for work. For an institution whose role is supposed to be to rigorously analyze legislative work done by members of Parliament, one might well ask why senators should be allowed to travel around the country engaging in partisan activities when their role is to be in the Senate and in committee doing careful legislative work in connection with our tasks in the House of Commons as elected members.

These are the two measures we are proposing.

I feel that they are extremely important measures.

I will now return to the points I raised at the outset. I spoke about what I heard over the summer. Several of the members here, particularly those of us who were newly elected in 2011 and were about halfway through our term, based on the date that was set for the next elections, took advantage of the summer to try to find out what people thought about our work, given that we had reached the halfway point in our term.

In my riding of Chambly—Borduas, I was frequently told us that we should not give up, that we were doing good work, but that we were surrounded by corrupt people.

It hurts to hear things like that. I can understand how people feel, particularly my fellow Quebeckers, because the messy situations that frequently arise tar all politicians with the same brush.

I am a young 25-year-old member of Parliament who has been in politics for only two and a half years, not counting my previous time as a party member. Even we, the young MPs who definitely have no skeletons in the closet, are tainted by the poor behaviour of the people next door. How nice.

I am speaking about—alluding to—my own experience because the Senate, according to the Constitution, as well as academic and even philosophical definitions, is supposed to be an institution, as I mentioned at the outset, that is above all that.

We, as elected representatives, come here to make a difference. Early on, people legitimately wondered how hard the young members would work. If I may make a very humble suggestion, it is that we have done good work. However, when people who have been appointed to the Senate because they are supposedly important and have accomplished great things in life behave in this manner, that is shameful.

It is embarrassing to go door to door and be told about the poor opinion people have of our work. Rather than doing their Senate work properly and rigorously in accordance with their mission, in order to help us better understand our own work, senators have played a detrimental role by forcing us to waste our time on issues like the Senate scandal.

A government member might well say that if I consider this to be a waste of time, why then am I asking questions? Well, because this is about taxpayers’ dollars. Parliament is a democratic institution and it is therefore critically important, as I see it, to ask questions.

Despite the fine job that the leader of the Leader of the Opposition is doing by putting questions to the Prime Minister, we would much rather be discussing other concerns. However, I feel we have a duty to tackle these issues head on, because ultimately it is our democracy that is on the line. The legislative work of both houses is at stake.

Many people have asked about the constitutionality of the changes that need to be made. I am thinking in particular about the Conservative member who spoke before me. If we look closely at the changes that are being recommended here, I do not believe that the two measures being proposed require major changes.

Of course, as we move forward, some proposed changes such as Senate abolition, which the NDP favours, will require some major changes. There is no need to be afraid of that.

It is interesting to note that the government often raises this point. In truth, the changes that the government is itself proposing will require some constitutional amendments.

So then, the question is this: do we have the courage to address these problems and resolve them?

The NDP has, I believe, been very clear. It has even acted very responsibly. One need only consider the motion before us today to see that.

I am going to repeat myself, but this is extremely important. We are mindful of the fact that change is something that will happen over the long term. In the meantime, however, if we can act responsibly to bring about the changes that will help limit the damage, so to speak, then we can only support such action.

The two parties represented in the Senate, namely the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, have no strong desire for change. The Liberal Party advocates the status quo, whereas the Conservative Party insists on our supporting its reform proposals. However, it is hard to debate reform measures that have yet to be tabled. Even measures that were put forward have been withdrawn.

Instead of twisting in the wind and doing nothing, we are putting forward some concrete measures to minimize the damage done by the various scandals that have plagued the Senate. We want to give senators the tools they need to concentrate on their real job, which is to participate in the legislative process.

I hope that by proposing changes like these, I can continue to knock on doors in municipalities in Chambly—Borduas and feel somewhat less embarrassed to belong to a political class whose members unfortunately show very little respect for their mandate and the task at hand.

I truly believe that members of all parties, not merely NDP members, have good intentions where their constituents are concerned. So then, let us show our good intentions and take concrete steps to attempt to resolve once and for all the problems plaguing the Senate.

I welcome my colleagues' questions and comments.

[Financial Institutions, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are the 21st century. I think it is pretty easy to get a text to members of Parliament to know what is actually in the agreement.

I want to talk about our businesses. Businesses have had to face increasing credit card fees, which are then passed on to the consumer. There was nothing about that in the Speech from the Throne, just an acknowledgement that Canadians are getting gouged.

When will the minister offer up a real solution instead of opting for voluntary measures that are clearly not working?