Matthew Dubé

[National Volunteer Week, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this being National Volunteer Week, as the NDP's sport critic, I have the honour of recognizing the importance of volunteer work in amateur sport in Canada.

It is undeniable: millions of Canadians give freely of their time in order to ensure that our young people have opportunities to participate in affordable, high-quality sporting activities.

Without them, our sport system would be in bad shape. Volunteer work plays just as big a role in our young people's participation in sports as it does in the incredible performance of our Olympic champions.

From coast to coast to coast, in small towns or big cities, volunteers in sport are making a difference. They not only make our kids stay active and healthy, they teach them the values of respect, equality, friendship and the joy of giving. They are an example for all of us.

A week to underline their importance is not enough. Each day we must celebrate their hard work.

I would like to tell all of the volunteers in my community and across the country that this is their week. I would like to thank them for all that they do for their communities.

[Business of Supply, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are seeing today.

We have seen many examples of refusal to act and failure to protect the environment over the past several years.

That is my conclusion as a young MP. In my riding, the people who are most concerned about the issue and the government's failure to act are often older people who talk about their grandchildren and their children. There is a kind of domino effect, and this is not a new problem. Suggesting that this all started in 2006 would be intellectual dishonesty. This problem is anything but new. On the contrary, it has been around for a long time.

That is what we are denouncing today, and that is what the motion would address. An NDP government will address it in 2015.

[Business of Supply, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her excellent question. I would like to address the issue of adaptation from my point of view. I am in no way a scientific expert, but I believe that the proposal being put forward is to evaluate what kind of plan could be put in place.

The problem now is that our scientific resources are being eroded—including at Environment Canada—which takes away our ability to really answer those questions.

I am not a scientist or an expert in the potential consequences, but as a legislator, I have a responsibility to work with strong scientific communities at the government's disposal. Unfortunately, the current Conservative government is gutting that community.

[Business of Supply, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy for the current government to brag about setting records when expectations have been lowered and targets reduced by 90% since it came to power in 2006.

Aim low and you will always reach your goal. Luckily, the NDP is more ambitious in the fight against climate change and in protecting the environment.

I would simply say to my colleague that if the government's measures were effective, we would not be seeing the increase in the negative effects on the environment that we are seeing today, and the government would not be getting criticized by the international community for its irresponsible actions, such as pulling out of the Kyoto protocol.

[Business of Supply, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my voice. I am not a smoker. This is not a smoker's voice, but I do have a cold. I will, however, fight through this cold because I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by my colleague from Halifax, who does an excellent job working on the environment, an issue that is very important to our present and especially our future. Today's motion has to do with climate change.

When we hear the Minister of Natural Resources call climate change into question, and when he is referred to as “Canada's oil minister” in The Guardian or The New York Times—both prestigious newspapers—we realize that this rhetoric is irresponsible and shows that the government lacks leadership on environmental protection.

Based on my own experience in political science, more specifically in international development, I have seen that the fight against climate change has often been referred to as the tragedy of the commons.

In matters such as these, people need to have the courage to take the first step. That is never easy to do. We are comfortable with the way we are currently using our natural resources. Change is never easy, but we must always consider the long term. Although they are often afraid to do so, the countries of the world must be prepared to show leadership in order to prevent the “tragedy of the commons” and must not wait for others to act.

We have heard this rhetoric a lot over the past 10 and even 15 years. At one point, countries like Canada and even the United States were often heard saying that the onus was on countries such as Brazil, India and China. These developing countries are currently producing large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions because of their significant growth and natural resources development. People are always trying to put the ball in someone else's court.

Today, it is important to recognize that this inaction has gone on for far too long. The motion refers to the lack of effective action of successive federal Liberal and Conservative governments. We must have the courage to act and to rise on the international stage and face the challenges related to climate change.

Let us review the history of this subject. My Liberal colleague criticized the Conservative government. We agree with those criticisms, but I do not agree that anything good has been done. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Like the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin said, the most the Liberal Party did in this regard when it was in power was to name a dog Kyoto. At the end of the day, although the government promised in 1993 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, this objective was not met and we even took a step backward by increasing our emissions by about 30%, if I am not mistaken.

This shows that there has been and still is a lack of leadership. The government will talk about its various programs, which have clearly not done enough to meet the challenges before us. If they had, recent reports would not be indicating that there has been an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. If these measures were effective, this would not be the case. Clearly, not enough is being done. That is why I am proud to be a part of the NDP team, which is proposing practical measures.

A few years ago, Jack Layton, our former leader, introduced a bill to put in place a real strategy to fight climate change. However, true to form, the unelected and unaccountable Senate pushed aside the bill, even though it was passed by the House of Commons, whose members are elected.

However, we know that this is a priority for Canadians. We have to wonder why the Senate did not think it was a good idea to take a step in the right direction to fight climate change. Unfortunately, we have no answer to that.

This is another fine, if not the most obvious, example in favour of abolishing the Senate, but I will save that debate for another day.

We have some very critical and overwhelming examples in Chambly—Borduas that show the effects of climate change. Members will recall the flooding in 2011.

Some people, especially people like the Minister of Natural Resources, do not believe in the impact of climate change. They tell us that climate change was not the cause.

However, a significant number of people in my riding live along the shore, around the Chambly basin or along the Richelieu River in towns like Saint-Mathias-sur-Richelieu, Saint-Basile-le-Grand, Beloeil and Otterburn Park, and the list goes on. These people say that the flooding was caused by climate change.

Moreover, homebuyers are seeing a decline in the real estate market because the river's ecosystem is changing. We are seeing physical proof at home.

The flooding in 2011 received a lot of media coverage, and people know exactly what happened. The same thing happened in Saint-Paul-de-l'Île-aux-Noix and Venise-en-Québec, in my colleague's riding, Saint-Jean. It was not a one-off. It was not an isolated incident. The impact is still being felt today.

Take, for example, La grenouille en fête, an event held by the organization Bassin en fête. A former minister in the Quebec government, Louise Beaudoin, has participated in this event, where people go diving in the Richelieu River and the rapids near Chambly. However, there has been such a change in the rapids that this event has been cancelled four times in the past eight years because the ecosystem is changing. The Quebec Lifesaving Society has said repeatedly that it is no longer safe to dive in these rapids. That adversely affects the region.

The economy is another aspect we often hear about and it is an interesting topic. La grenouille en fête is an economic and recreational tourist activity in the region. It is being adversely affected by climate change. We could also talk about the maple syrup season, which is different in some years because the temperature is rising and the seasons are mixed up. Some of my colleagues could provide similar examples I am sure.

The government often talks about the economic side of things. This morning, the Minister of the Environment said that his government is implementing measures that protect the environment and are also good for the economy.

I would say the opposite is true. In fact, chambers of commerce are awarding prizes to organizations and businesses that support a green economy and green jobs and that focus on protecting the environment.

We could talk about this all night long. I will close by saying that the NDP strategy would encourage the development of a green economy. This would protect current jobs and tackle the transition towards green energy and a green economy. It is important for the future of our country and the world.

I welcome questions and comments.

[Employment, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is easier for the government to replace Canadian workers with foreign workers than it is to help young people. That seems to be what is going on.

According to TD Bank:

Being unemployed at a young age can have a long-lasting impact on an individual's career prospects.

When will the Conservatives stop their self-congratulations and start offering real solutions for Canada's youth?

Young people who do not currently have jobs will continue to feel the devastating effects of the Conservatives' failure to act for decades to come.

Does the minister realize that by twiddling her thumbs on this issue, she is putting the economic future of an entire generation at risk?

[Employment, April 24th, 2013]

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism will not be laughing when he considers that out of the 280,000 young people who lost their jobs during the recession, only 40,000 actually got new jobs.

The Conservatives do nothing to help with student loans, but they complain about household debt. They refuse to properly fund apprenticeship programs but complain about the lack of skilled workers. Canada's youth are saddled with record debt and fewer job prospects because Conservatives designed it that way.

When will the government finally act to fix this growing job crisis?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, these nuances are problematic, especially in light of the decisions that the court has previously made. I will come back to what needs to be done in terms of the court's decisions.

It is extremely disappointing that the Liberal Party supports the bill. We want to hear what the court has to say, but we also believe that, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to address the problem before it reaches that point.

I will repeat exactly what my colleagues have already said concerning the lawyer at the Department of Justice. Fortunately, he spoke publicly about the fact that the government was not conducting any prior verification. We are demonstrating due diligence to ensure that things do not reach that point. We have responsibilities as legislators.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, they are two separate issues.

I do not want to put myself forward as an expert in the law, but what is important here is the issue of detention and the definition. I am referring, for example, to the fact that there is a definition under which it is possible to arrest people who have not necessarily been accused of an act of terrorism.

Without wanting to get involved in another debate, I would like to make a distinction between what I understood of the issue and the member's comments. There are two different issues at play.

I will stick to the debate on Bill S-7. When we talk about civil liberties, the key issue is the way in which people are defined when it comes to detention. That is what is important here, today. Once again, I stress that I am not an expert in the law. However, this nuance is extremely important.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for this warm welcome.

Considering what we are dealing with, what happened yesterday and what happened in Boston a week ago, I want to begin by offering my condolences to the families and loved ones of the Boston bombing victims. I am speaking on behalf of all my constituents, regardless of their political allegiance, and I also want to thank all those who helped foil the plot that we were informed about yesterday.

I travel regularly on VIA Rail, and I am pleased to see that people whom we do not always see in action, are doing an exceptional job, and I thank them for that.

Having said that, it is important to reflect on this issue, even though it is always a bit awkward to ask political questions after such incidents, because it may be interpreted as partisanship. However, that is precisely what we are seeing here today.

Since the beginning of the 41st Parliament, the government keeps resorting to gag orders and closure motions. We have to ask ourselves if this is really a priority for the government, considering that it has so often tried to ram bills through, under the pretext that they are important for the economy or for public safety. The reasons given by the government are sometimes trivial and are sometimes made up. We must ask ourselves that very important question. We must ask ourselves whether it is truly appropriate to suddenly bring this debate back in order to score political points.

We must also ask ourselves another question. If the minister is serious about improving legal actions relating to terrorism, why did he not present the bill himself in the House of Commons? Why delegate such an important task to the Senate, which is unelected and unaccountable to the public?

We were elected by the public as part of their civil rights to represent them. Given his numerous responsibilities, rising in the House to introduce a bill is the least a minister of State can do. This was another concern we had about this bill, and again it makes us wonder how serious the government is about this issue.

The Conservatives claim to be the great defenders of public safety and like to spit on the work of the opposition parties, particularly the work of the NDP. We have good reason to wonder whether they are serious about this matter, when they send bills to the Senate and impose gag orders.

I am very interested in this issue. At the risk of sounding young to some of my colleagues, the events of September 11, 2001, had a tremendous impact on me and affected a lot of people. Those events marked the beginning of my interest in politics. I was a teenager then. It is actually a big deal for me to admit that in a debate in the House. However, it is true, because I find it very interesting to look at it from that angle. As I result, I followed all the debates around those events and they sparked my interest in politics. We are all familiar with the debates that were held in the U.S. on the infamous patriot act and all those debates on civil rights and civil liberties, as well as constitutional issues.

In Canada, we have not been immune to those issues. A lawyer once said that just because unfortunate events take place and we do not support certain legal decisions, does not mean we automatically have to change the law. It is important to keep that in mind for debates like this.

After all, we cannot say that we want events like that to occur. Those attacks are clearly tragic events. It is shameful that members of our society think about doing such things, but we have to be very careful before we make any changes. The fact that a tragedy takes place does not mean that we must automatically change things. We must really take the time to look at existing measures. Before we change the law, we must look at what we can do for the people who are already doing this work.

Yesterday, members of the RCMP and various public security forces thwarted a plot despite the budget cuts imposed by a government that claims to be the champion of public safety.

In recent months, the NDP has raised a number of questions in the House. The members for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and Alfred-Pellan, our public safety critics, and the member for Gatineau, our justice critic, have asked questions about why the government has been talking up public safety while cutting staff at organizations that are working very hard to maintain this safety.

Before making major changes that will violate civil liberties, we must ensure that people already on the ground who are using existing measures are well equipped to continue doing what members of every political persuasion recognize as excellent work. This is a fundamental issue in this debate, given the major changes being proposed.

My colleague, the member for Brossard—La Prairie, and all my colleagues who spoke before me, talked about the debates on public safety that have taken place in the House over the past 10 years, since 9/11. The issue was whether or not a person should be detained for 72 hours.

Is it appropriate for Bill S-7 to be so broad in scope that it allows people who are not even suspected of committing terrorist acts to be detained? In committee, we saw that this was deliberate on the part of the government.

In my opinion, it is very disturbing to know, as my colleague from Gatineau said, that the government wants to keep things vague when an amendment is suggested. That is very problematic. We must be very careful when introducing bills about safety that could violate civil liberties. We have to be as clear as possible, no matter what our political leanings. We have to protect people's safety while ensuring that we continue to live in a free society that protects fundamental rights and civil liberties, which are extremely important.

The Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision along those same lines. Since it pertains to the subject of debate, I would like to tell the House that I had a conversation with my hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth. He already mentioned this to the House. He told me that despite the Supreme Court decision, there are some good points in the existing legislation and that it is very important for us to keep in mind that, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to make our own decisions.

I think it is important that we not view the Supreme Court as a body that decides for Parliament, but rather one that works in co-operation with Parliament to ensure that our laws properly reflect the values of our society.

For this reason, if the court has a problem with a bill, it can simply return it to Parliament. It does not always prescribe corrections, if I remember correctly from my courses on political and constitutional issues. It is important to have this dialogue. This debate has been going on for many years.

In 2007, about five years ago, it was noted that legislation proposed in the past had not changed anything in terms of people's safety and that the existing legislation was more than adequate.

I would therefore ask the government to reconsider its proposed legislation. We cannot support this bill because it infringes on civil liberties.

The government needs to take a good look in the mirror and decide to continue to give the necessary resources to the people we saw hard at work yesterday. That proves that they are doing an excellent job. The tools are already available to them. We need to continue to work with what we have. We should not be trying to make any major changes like the ones proposed in this bill. Those changes will achieve nothing and will only violate our civil liberties.

In closing, I want to point out once again that regardless of the political debates we might have, I think we all agree that we need to fight terrorism and protect Canadians. Let us do so responsibly. That is crucial to protecting the values of our society.