Matthew Dubé

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, although this is rare, I must admit that I agree with my Liberal Party colleague on the issue of resources.

However, I would not dare to comment on any potential impact, because we have not had a chance to see any concrete results. It is still a problem. I do not know what this means for the long term. However, one thing is certain: the point he raises regarding the lack of resources is the other problem.

He talked about the fact that all parties support the bill. As I have already said and I will say again and again, the bill does not represent a real gesture or a new gesture on this issue. The government must continue making updates.

The Conservatives need to stop trying to convince us that the bill is a new measure that will suddenly produce the financial and human resources needed to fight tax evasion, because that is completely false.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to share my time with my colleague from York South—Weston, who, based on what we just heard, is not up on the latest technology. However, I know that he is young at heart, so I am very happy to share my time with him.

In all seriousness, the bill before us today is very important. It is rare to see a bill that deals with such a topical issue. Just today there were a number of newspaper articles about tax evasion.

Before I talk about that, I want to clarify that the government seems to have a habit of mismanaging things. It talks about this bill as though it offered a tangible solution to the issue of tax evasion. In reality, although we support the bill, it simply contains routine measures to update different agreements with other countries.

It is important to update these agreements, maintain good relations with these countries and move forward with the process. However, at the end of the day, these routine measures, although important, are no substitute for resources, the staff and money allocated, in this case, to the Canada Revenue Agency, whose mandate includes trying to resolve this issue.

There are two things I want to talk about that have been in the news. The first is that the Canada Revenue Agency did not want to pay for a list of people who are evading taxes.

That is interesting, because on my way back to Ottawa, I listened to an interview with my party leader on 98.5. The NDP leader explained what he found so shameful about the whole process. Unlike countries such as the United States, which seized the opportunity to obtain the information, punish people and collect the money, the CRA did nothing.

These people are very wealthy. They have lots of money. They are millionaires. They have millions and billions of dollars that they can hide elsewhere.

The NDP leader focused on those two points, and I think he was right to do so. This issue is a big deal not only to people in my riding but also to all Quebeckers. We are debating this issue at the federal level here in Ottawa, but Quebec's National Assembly is debating this too. MNAs are talking about how they can put the brakes on tax evasion and collect that money.

The fact that all politicians are starting to work on this is a signal that people are saying enough is enough. They really want to see action on this issue.

Unfortunately, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that is not what we are seeing today. This is just a routine procedure to update various agreements.

The other relevant point is the one I find more interesting as I listen to my Conservative colleagues this evening. They have a different perspective on the issue. They talk about the potential benefits for free trade. The NDP understands the importance of that.

During the debate on the free trade agreement with Panama, for example, tax evasion was one of the main issues. People talked about how there was not a good system in place for exchanging financial information and how that might lead to even more tax evasion. People raised those concerns.

Government members are right when they say that fighting tax evasion and having a good information exchange system contributes to a relationship of trust that facilitates trade between countries. That is a fact. However, we have to look at other issues too, such as what is really going on right now.

The government talks about wanting to create an environment that fosters good relations with other countries, about eliminating tax evasion and facilitating free trade.

This morning a newspaper article talked about the G8 summit. There will be discussions about this, including with the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The countries that truly want to work together on fighting tax evasion will be involved in the discussions. After all, this is a matter that requires a great deal of collaboration because it is not limited to one country. We are talking about a number of countries. This collaboration is important.

This evening, we have heard Conservative members talk about the apparent willingness to create conditions that are conducive to eliminating tax evasion. Despite that, the article says that Canada will not be participating in these talks. It seems to be very reluctant, even absent, and it just does not want to work with the other countries on measures that might be put in place. We find that extremely disappointing. This goes against the message that the NDP wants to convey this evening.

If we really want to fight tax evasion and there are agreements or multilateral discussions with a view to implementing multilateral agreements, then we have a duty on an international level to take part in those discussions. This is a very significant way for us to be able to recover this money and establish good faith relationships that will also allow other countries to do the same thing. Accordingly, we hope to create an international environment that will be much more honest about tax evasion. This is a growing trend. Many of the cases we are dealing with these days require international negotiations and good faith relationships. The government is increasingly withdrawing from these processes. This trend is starting to take hold.

The Conservatives may well introduce yet another bill that is very routine. I cannot stress this word enough. We support this bill, although they are using it as an excuse to wax poetic about all their achievements on the international stage. However, the facts do not lie. This is what was in the news this morning. Among other things, the government is completely absent from the conversations taking place among countries with which Canada supposedly has good relations. These are countries like Great Britain, countries that are our allies and could easily help us create conditions that would lead to a solution.

To conclude, I would like to say that we support this bill and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this issue. Indeed, as I indicated, this issue is of great concern to my constituents. This evening I was able to answer some of the letters they have written me in recent months. The most common issues they raised related to equity between the middle class—the workers, the 98%, to use the popular term—and the very affluent people, those who have a lot of money and obviously benefit from tax evasion. This is a reminder that recovering this money can help people who work hard pay their taxes and benefit from the systems we put in place, the various democratic, social and other institutions established to help them. We recognize how important this is.

The first question has to do with fiscal fairness, but the other question the people of Chambly—Borduas often ask me has to do with Canada's actions on the international stage. That is why I focused so much on what we are seeing here this evening and in general. The government likes to talk about the grand gestures it is making internationally to fight the various negative situations, such as tax evasion, but unfortunately, it just cannot walk the talk. The people of my riding and from across Canada, I am sure, would like to see a lot more good faith on the part of the government, relationships that are much more multilateral and much more positive and constructive on the international scene. That would be good for everyone. This would largely solve the tax evasion problem and many other problems, I am sure.

I look forward to questions and comments from my colleagues.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, June 10th, 2013]

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

He spoke at length about what Canada is doing abroad to combat tax evasion. We support this bill. It is important to note that this is an administrative bill, the kind that comes up intermittently to update various conventions signed with various countries.

The morning papers reported that Canada is not working with other countries to fight tax evasion. Many initiatives are in the works to do just that.

The member talked about the economic power of countries working together, free trade, information exchange and so on.

If those things truly matter to the government, can the member explain why it will not be participating in the efforts of the rest of the international community and why it will not be going beyond the administrative measures we support in this bill?

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. He described the problem perfectly. We have asked questions in the House on other issues affecting aboriginal communities and the answer we got from the various ministers concerned was that we did not respect women. That is nothing but rhetoric and demagoguery.

Based on the consultations we held and the testimony we heard from the people affected by the changes, we see that there are problems with the bill. We therefore come to the House to tell the government that the bill does not go far enough. We want to achieve the same objective that the government says it wants to achieve, except that we know that this bill will not help us do that. We want to propose better measures that will truly make life better for aboriginal women. This government has some nerve telling us that we are against women's rights, especially aboriginal women's rights.

We have seen this government's inaction and the contempt this minister has for the communities he is supposed to represent. We have no lessons to learn from this government.

I want to thank my colleague for his comments.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, I was expecting these sorts of comments, which we have been hearing since this debate began.

We all agree on this issue. The government and the opposition parties agree that something must be done to improve the lives of aboriginal women. I find it reprehensible that the government is saying that we do not believe in women's rights simply because we want to have a debate on the complexities of changing the law. That kind of comment is completely unacceptable.

To respond to my colleague's question—for which I thank her—and to reiterate what I said in my speech, it is all well and good to change the law in theory, but the fact of the matter is that the resources are not there to allow women to benefit from these changes. It takes resources to hire a lawyer, use legal aid, go to court and make the legal challenges required to benefit from these laws—resources that these communities do not have.

That is what we heard from witnesses. It is not coming from me. That is what people from the communities and the members who represent them told us. We also heard it from the various associations that testified in committee and in public forums. That is why we have no qualms about opposing this bill.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for sharing her time with me.

I want to begin by saying that I already know what to expect as criticism from the government in terms of our position on the bill. It is easy, because we have often heard it during question period and statements by members. The government accuses us of not giving any consideration to the rights of women on reserves.

I must admit that I think expressing that view is intellectually dishonest. The issue is much more complex than one where everything is either black or white: if you are against the bill, you are against women’s rights, and if you support the bill, you support women’s rights. This is ridiculous, and I think the members of the government are intelligent enough to understand the issue. At least I hope they are. It is a question of rights and legislation. We must therefore recognize the complexity that lies behind our opposition.

I would like to go back to the debate that we had earlier with the minister when the time allocation motion was adopted. I do not even know anymore how many time allocation motions there have been over the past few days, there have been so many. The number of gag orders and time allocation motions has been particularly high.

The minister answered one of my questions, and I heard other Conservative members reiterate the point that this is the third or fourth version of the bill, given the various versions that died on the order paper because of elections and so on.

Even though this is the third or fourth draft, what puzzles me is that the government still has not managed to strike the right note and achieve a result that reflects the consultations that were actually held. There were consultations held in the early 2000s. Things have changed a great deal since then.

A variety of reports have been tabled, and consultations were held in 2003, in 2005 and more recently in 2008. In reality, the situation is constantly changing. I think we should hold consultations on a more regular basis, especially on this bill specifically.

The government is bringing in a bill. However, according to the presentations made by the first nations during the consultations, the bill falls short of its goals. It is therefore rather difficult to see it as the result of the work that was done. The people who were consulted are telling us that it is not.

Of course, this causes huge problems. In addition, it is representative of a failure to listen and a lack of rigour by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, as well as his troubling incompetence in this issue, as in so many others. We are aware of the major problems faced by first nations communities.

I would now like to come back to the issue of complexity. Frankly, I must say that I am offended, just as my colleagues must be, to be told every day, by a government that does absolutely nothing for women that we are opposed to women’s rights just because we are opposed to the bill. I have to say it, especially in this very complicated context.

We in the NDP are very proud of the record number of women sitting in the House. Our caucus is made up of women who are very dynamic and very aware of the issues. Ever since I have been involved with this party, I have had the pleasure of learning a great deal about these issues.

The idea is that the bill proposes changes that will fill the legal void in the area of matrimonial rights. We need only look at the provincial civil codes and the federal government's responsibility to the first nations to appreciate this void.

For example, an aboriginal couple who are going through a divorce will not be able to properly deal with the situation or manage it from a legal standpoint. By introducing this bill, the government is making it look like it is doing something to address the problem but, at the end of the day, the bill is nothing but a talking point for press conferences, and does almost nothing concrete to help women in difficulty.

To begin with, there is no funding attached to the changes proposed in the bill, despite the fact that funding would give these people access to the legal resources they need to benefit from the changes proposed in the bill.

If the court is located too far from a reserve, it creates an additional financial burden. People who are unable to get assistance from a lawyer, or some form of legal aid, will need money to make the trip. They will need access to resources, and the bill does nothing in that regard. That is the first problem.

The other problem, which was raised on a number of occasions, pertains to determining the symptoms of the problem. In theory, the bill changes the act. However, in addition to the lack of resources, combatting violence against women is outside intended scope of the bill.

First nations communities are experiencing poverty and shameful third world conditions. Obviously, we need to start somewhere, which is probably the intent of this bill. However, since it does nothing to achieve concrete results, provide adequate resources, or address related problems, it is difficult for us to support it.

We must not forget that the communities themselves appeared before the committee and made this observation. The Native Women's Association of Canada stressed that the problems I just listed are not going to go away and that, in certain cases, they may get worse. This bill is a way for the government to say that it has addressed the problem and that it has taken action. The government will, in all likelihood, use the bill as a pretext for taking no further action when, in fact, we know full well that there is still a great deal of work to be done, work that this government, unfortunately, does not seem prepared to do.

I would like to address another issue that I have already raised a number of times today in the House. It concerns the lack of resources and what the bill claims, in theory, to do. A number of aboriginal communities in Quebec have an important place in the Quebec nation. We are trying to work with them, and maintain a good relationship with them.

However, the Quebec Civil Code is very different from the common law system used in the other provinces. Lawyers testified in committee, and elsewhere, that the bill does not take this difference into account. In the provinces, especially in Quebec where the differences are substantial, procedures and rules already exist. The bill is a way of imposing the Conservative government's vision, and it does not take into consideration all of the issues I have mentioned. This creates a multitude of problems, and is a demonstration of bad faith.

I would like to conclude on this point. I talked about the minister's incompetence in this file. This is a common problem with this government, which has very fractious relationships with the provinces. Indeed, the Prime Minister never meets with the provincial premiers to talk about such issues as the economy.

However, this government has adopted the same attitude in its dealings with first nations. It does little things here and there so it can boast about it in front of the cameras. Yet, according to testimony and what we see on the ground, these measures actually lead to very few concrete changes. My colleagues whose ridings include reserves are in a better position to testify to this than I am.

The government then has the nerve to show contempt for the people who organize to protest this paternalistic attitude. Take for example the minister's recent comments, which I will not repeat because of his unparliamentary language. His general approach and the way he treated some of my colleagues on the committee, including the member for Churchill, when discussing this issue show a certain contempt that does nothing to encourage good relations with communities that have gone through very difficult situations. The government should be bending over backwards to work better with them, but instead it is content to engage in public relations.

This is really unfortunate. There are too many problems in this bill for us to support it. We want to see more tangible, meaningful action. The government must recognize that this issue is much more complex. We want the Conservatives to stop insulting us by saying that we do not respect women's rights. This is utterly false.

This is why we oppose this bill.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He did a good job of catching up despite the fact that we had to leave right in the middle of it.

He stated that it was the third time this bill has been introduced because of elections and minority governments. The fact remains that a number of associations that testified identified problems. For example, the bill does nothing to solve the resource shortage, which makes it difficult for women to access the legal aid provided for under this bill. Furthermore, Quebec’s Civil Code is different from the law elsewhere in Canada. This lack of consistency is a problem.

I would like the member to tell me why, despite three attempts, the bill still has major flaws that make it impossible for us to support it.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is amusing, because he is talking about the bill having been introduced in Parliament several times. Yet it seems that the Conservatives have not learned their lesson. We still hear the same comments from first nations, and the Conservatives are still using the same paternalistic approach. Since this government has a majority, it wants to impose its own way of doing things.

The problems here do not just affect the first nations. The bill also raises important issues for Quebec, which is governed by the civil code and has certain unique aspects that are not taken into consideration in this piece of legislation. By shutting down the debate, the Conservatives are preventing the members from discussing these problems. Then, they say that this does not matter, that the bill was introduced two or three times during previous sessions. Since they have had three tries before, it seems to me that the fourth should be the charm, but unfortunately this is still not the case today.

The first time the Conservatives adopted a time allocation motion, they said that it was important for the economy. Did they use the same reason for all the other bills for which they moved a time allocation motion?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was talking about the fact that the RCMP claimed to have enough money.

This is all well and good, but in the end, we heard local, municipal and provincial police forces express concern about the lack of funding to handle the growing demand for witness protection.

What does the hon. member think of the witnesses who expressed these concerns? The RCMP might be doing just fine, but the provinces and municipalities also have to be taken into account. This is where real leadership comes in.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since the topic is witness protection, I am wondering about the relevance of oil sands and bus manufacturers in Quebec.