Matthew Dubé

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about this at the beginning of his speech, but I would like to give him the opportunity to speak some more about the fact that the government seems to want to make this issue a priority.

Yet, the minister did not feel it was necessary to introduce the bill himself; he left it to the Senate. What is more, it was tabled a week after the events in Boston.

Is my colleague disappointed that the government is not taking this more seriously given the many times it has invoked closure since the start of the 41st Parliament and given the fact that this issue seems urgent because of what we saw yesterday and what happened in Boston a week ago? Instead, it introduces bills in the Senate and waits so that it can use them to score political points.

[Taxation, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as always, we are proud to vote against a budget that only increases Canadians' cost of living.

Fishing, a proud Quebec and Canadian tradition, is another sport being squeezed by the Conservatives. The price of fishing rods, reels and line will all go up. Millions of Canadians preparing to go trout fishing in a month's time will have to pay more thanks to the Conservatives.

Why do the Conservatives want to impose such a high tax on fishing?

[Taxation, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, NDP MPs rose not to take away Canadian jobs, and that is what the Conservatives' mismanagement is doing. They should look at themselves in the mirror.

Speaking of mismanagement, it is still costing Canadians dearly. The Conservatives have raised tariffs on almost everything while trying to distract people by claiming to reduce tariffs on hockey equipment, but hockey helmets, essential safety equipment, are still subject to tariffs. Budget 2013 will likely raise the price of hockey helmets.

Why are Conservatives raising prices and taxing hockey players' safety equipment?

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that the member continues to focus on the eight letters written by NDP members. He does not seem to understand one thing, however. It is not that we do not want foreign workers; we do not want a repeat of what happened with pilots, for example.

I am talking about the Sunwing pilots, some of whom live in my riding. They are laid off during the so-called off-season. Then, the company hires foreign pilots and pays them less. The company saves money and gives discounts to customers who want to travel south during the off-season. In the end, the company comes out ahead. It is incredibly dishonest.

We want to see improvements to the program, but it is not true that these people are making the same amount of money. I do not know how else to put it. And basing arguments on letters written by members, without understanding the context in which they were written, is obvious intellectual dishonesty.

I think that, first, the member should apologize for using this argument. Second, I would ask him to explain why a company such as Sunwing behaves the way it does, laying off Canadians and then turning around and hiring foreign workers, on the pretext that it is the off-season.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I missed my colleague's speech because of the House schedule.

I would still like to ask him a question, which I believe gets to the heart of what we are trying to do with this bill.

While this issue is a challenge for our country, it still involves international treaties and commitments we have made regarding those treaties.

I would ask him to speak about how we hope that this bill is a signal that Canada will begin to do more to honour its international commitments.

I would also like him to demonstrate how our international reputation is waning and how the NDP's vision is quite different.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

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

To those who are saying that there were no tax increases, I think that Mouvement Desjardins in Quebec might have something to say about that. This budget does increase taxes on this important economic engine.

Let us talk about infrastructure, one of the points my colleague focused on. I find it intriguing that the government is investing $53 billion in a supposedly new fund, the building Canada fund, even though the country's infrastructure deficit is $123 billion. I think it will be hard to get this deficit under control with so little money, over the course of 10 years, no less.

The Fédération québécoise des municipalités, whose board of directors includes mayors from my riding, opposed this budget for exactly those reasons. Urban sprawl is a significant issue where I come from. People are leaving Montreal and moving to the suburbs. We are desperately in need here, and the budget does not do enough.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about this issue. How will the government try to eliminate the deficit with so little investment?

[Petitions, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition that was sent to me by a Saint-Basile-le-Grand resident concerning this government's botched and unacceptable employment insurance reform. She works in the academic community at a Montreal university. There has been very little discussion about that particular community in the context of this reform, but people in the academic environment, teachers, staff, and so on, will be greatly affected by it.

It is my pleasure to table this petition that she signed and circulated among her colleagues in Montreal and on Montreal's south shore. This highlights just how much Quebeckers have mobilized against this reform, as have many other Canadians. I am very proud to table this petition in the hopes that the government will acknowledge it and cancel this unacceptable reform.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time.

As mentioned a number of times, Bill S-9 deals with nuclear terrorism.

I acknowledge the importance of this threat, but I would like to analyze the issue from another angle and emphasize diplomacy and international collaboration. This bill will change our domestic policy so that Canada can ratify two very important treaties.

I rarely rely on notes, but as I am not an expert, I will consult them for the names of these treaties. We are talking about the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

The objective of these two conventions is to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and, as we are discussing, nuclear terrorism. The work is carried out within the United Nations and through multilateral relations.

I will focus on this aspect because when I communicate with the people of my riding, Chambly—Borduas, we often discuss Canada's international reputation, which is losing its lustre. Some decisions made by CIDA and the Department of Foreign Affairs are not in keeping with the expectations of the international community.

The very significant threat of nuclear terrorism is not the only reason why the NDP is pleased to support this bill. We are also encouraged by the fact that this bill appears to be a step towards ratifying multilateral conventions.

My colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie and my colleague from Ottawa Centre, our international relations and foreign affairs critics, often say that the NDP attaches great importance to multilateral relations. That has always been true. We could even say that about free trade, for example.

We are very pleased to see that Bill S-9 takes a step towards ratifying these multilateral conventions.

There is still one problem, and the member for St. John's East alluded to it earlier in his speech. Canada did not get a seat on the United Nations Security Council, which was a first. That clearly demonstrates just how much respect the international community has lost for Canada. It is a serious issue. A lot of work needs to be done to rebuild our reputation and continue moving in the right direction. Passing measures to ratify these types of conventions is one way we can do that.

A number of countries have not yet ratified these conventions, and a certain number must ratify before they can be implemented. That is why Canada's work is so important. Despite the fact that the respect the international community once had for Canada is plummeting, our counterparts from other countries who sit with us at the United Nations or other organizations still have a great deal of respect for Canada. If we ratify these conventions quickly, we can encourage other countries to do the same, in the hopes of reaching the required minimum.

In 2014, the Netherlands will host a summit to discuss this issue. It will be a wonderful opportunity to talk with other countries, explain the steps we have taken and use the respect other countries have for us in order to encourage them to follow our lead.

Hopefully we can move forward with these important measures.

I must explain that the notion of nuclear terrorism has changed quite a bit. Long before I was born, we had the cold war, as my colleague from St. John's East explained. Now, nuclear terrorism is changing a lot, and the international community has to adapt.

Take, for example, one of the conventions I mentioned that applies to this discussion. This convention was signed in 1980. It was then amended in 2005 because the reality of nuclear terrorism around the world has drastically changed in the past 25 years. so this is something we need to look at. If Canada can play a role in addressing this multilateral issue, we would be very happy to support any domestic measures necessary to move forward with Bill S-9.

As many of my colleagues have mentioned, it is important to note that Bill S-9 addresses a pressing issue. If the topic is so important, if the Minister of Justice thinks that this issue is so important and he is so proud of the outcome, as he said in the Senate committee, why was this bill not introduced in the House? Not to mention that it took a long time. This issue has been dragging on since 2005. The fact that the Senate finally decided to act on something so important is a huge problem.

Last evening, we voted on our motion to abolish the Senate. The Liberals and the Conservatives unfortunately continued to support the institution, which is suffering from institutional arthritis. The fact remains that we must refocus on what we have to do here in this House. If we want to continue to make progress on international affairs, it should not be done in the Senate. It should be done here, in the House, with the elected members who are in the best position to do so.

Since I have this opportunity to discuss diplomatic relations issues, I would like to refer to my own relevant personal experience. I studied political science at McGill University not so long ago. Many people say that political science is not very applicable to actual politics. I do not quite agree with that and I would like to explain why. Even though we are talking specifically about nuclear materials, I believe in the importance of multilateral relations as a general philosophy.

This has to do with the tragedy of the commons, a very important concept in international relations. Allow me to explain. When several countries come together to try to solve a problem, such as climate change, and when all of them expect some other country to make the first move, that is the tragedy of the commons. Nobody does anything because everybody expects somebody else to do something.

Families may experience the same thing. Everybody wants the house to be clean. Everybody expects the little brother or the mother to do the cleaning, but in the end nobody does it. The same concept applies to international relations. Good, strong multilateral relations are critical to preventing these problems. That is true of the issue before us today, nuclear terrorism, and of all other issues.

That is why we are happy to support this bill. This gives us hope that the government will fall into line and continue in this direction. Let us hope that this is a sign of things to come. For the time being, we will support this bill, in the hope that this government will take further measures to restore and reassert Canada's once-excellent reputation on the international stage, a reputation that has suffered so much lately.

I will say in closing that, in 2015, the New Democratic government will work very hard to restore Canada's excellent international reputation. The member for Ottawa Centre and my esteemed colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie have a lot to offer in that respect.

[Public Works and Government Services, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the third time is the charm, so I will try again.

On June 15, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the City of Halifax. The court stated that the federal government was undervaluing historic sites and had to compensate municipalities for lost tax revenues.

The government valued Fort Chambly at five times less than the municipality did. That is a loss of $500,000 in property tax revenues for the City of Chambly.

When will the government comply with the Supreme Court's ruling and compensate the municipalities?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He made some good arguments, even if we do not agree, but there is a major problem with what he said.

The Americans had the courage to consult the states and to proceed with constitutional amendments to improve their Senate. That is exactly what we are proposing that we do with the provinces. We are being criticized for trying to revisit the Constitution. It takes courage to change an institution that is suffering from institutional arthritis—if I can call it that.

He then talked about concentrating power in the executive branch of government, but it is very different in the United States. First, the executive branch is separate. In Canada, our biggest problem is that backbench government members refuse to hold ministers accountable, in committee, for example. So when debates in parliamentary committee are shut down, it can be difficult.

He can talk all he wants about responsible reform and having a debate on Bill C-7, but the Minister of State for Democratic Reform just criticized us for having too many speakers and for wanting to debate too much. The government needs to be consistent.