Matthew Dubé

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the minister is calling this a stunt and saying that we are trying to distract people from the real issues. The Senate is the one pulling stunts here, as Senators spend their time running from journalists instead of being accountable, as they should be.

To get back to the point that my colleague from Toronto—Danforth raised, these people are not accountable to anyone. If we were to tell people in our ridings to go visit their senator, they would not be able to find them, because senators do not have riding offices and do not provide any services to the public. I have to wonder how they maintain contact with the people they are supposed to represent, when they are never at home, never in their riding.

I would like to ask the minister what he thinks about the fact that these Senators are not accountable to anyone and cannot properly represent people. I would also like to hear what he thinks about the fact that it is the Senate that is pulling stunts and not the NDP with its motion, which is designed to do away with all these stunts and focus on the real issues that are important to Canadians.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, since it gives me an opportunity to talk about something I neglected to mention in my speech.

There are RCMP members living in my riding and the surrounding ridings, and that is exactly what they are feeling. I pointed that out because this is not an attack against individuals, who do an excellent job within the RCMP. This is about combatting the attitudes that are institutionalized within this police force.

I believe that they want a change. When structures like the complaints system are inadequate and dated people want to see changes. That is where our role as legislators becomes very important. That is why we are so disappointed that there are so many flaws in this bill. That is also why we are opposed to it.

Furthermore, we would be happy to propose something concrete and much better to bring about real results. We will certainly have the opportunity to do so soon.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

The commissioner expressed his opinion, but despite the respect he deserves for the important work he does, he is just one piece of the puzzle. During my speech, I pointed out that, according to testimony heard in committee, this bill has significant flaws.

In response to the member's question I would say that we often support a bill if it is a step in the right direction. The NDP has often supported bills even though our amendments were rejected and the government could have gone much further or even taken an entirely different tack. The difference here is that there are very significant systemic problems. The bill has far too many flaws for us to be able to support it in its present form.

If there were fewer flaws, we would be more willing to support it, but the issues are far too serious. They were clearly identified in committee. When we are dealing with police forces and sensitive issues, as in the recommendations in the O'Connor report, it is very important that we implement far more tangible and fair measures.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to follow a speech like the one given by the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

He spoke about his own personal experiences, and I think that, in so doing, he attacked the very heart of this bill. We are talking about the impact that this can have on individuals and what can happen to people who have problems in the workplace, particularly those involving sexual harassment.

When a debate is held on this type of issue, it is very important to point out that criticizing those who put their heart and soul into serving their community, for example police or RCMP officers, will not advance the debate.

When we talk about matters pertaining to National Defence, Veterans Affairs or the RCMP, our opinions are often criticized and simplistic arguments are often made. Some would say that it is only natural for us to say such things since we do not support our police officers or our armed forces. It is very important to point out that nothing could be further from the truth.

Contrary to what the Conservatives believe, when we engage in a debate and have the courage to take a stand and say that the bill does not go far enough, it is because we have a great deal of respect for the work that is done and we think that it is important to implement measures that will allow RCMP officers to operate in a healthy work environment and that will improve the working relationship between the police and the people they have the duty to serve and protect.

Of course, we will oppose the bill at third reading. As always, we optimistically tried to make amendments to the bill based on the testimony given in committee, but as always, our attempts were in vain.

I would particularly like to acknowledge the work done by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, our public safety critic, and the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan, the deputy critic. They certainly worked very hard to put forward these amendments.

I want to point out that these amendments were not based on some radical ideology, as the government claims. They were based on testimony from experts in committee. These experts have been involved with this issue for a very long time. It is not a new thing.

The first version of this bill, Bill C-38, was introduced during the 40th Parliament. It is not to be confused with the omnibus Bill C-38, which was introduced last spring.

The amendments came out of the testimony, but they were unfortunately all rejected, as usual. I think that is very disappointing. When we hear the points raised by witnesses and propose changes that do not necessarily change the spirit of the bill, but instead help make the measures in it more precise, effective and transparent, I think that the government should be more receptive to the proposed amendments. However, true to form, the government rejected all of the amendments outright.

The member who spoke before me talked about his experience with unions. With respect to the harassment within the RCMP, it is the only police force in Canada that does not have a collective agreement.

People will say that other measures will be put in place to ensure that workers' rights are respected. They are workers, because they work for us. However, when there are no appropriate measures in place, it becomes hard to defend their rights in cases of harassment. This is not the only workplace where harassment is a problem, but as my colleague pointed out, harassment is quite prevalent.

RCMP members have to deal with certain cases and, as one may well imagine, with a very heavy psychological burden in some situations. Sometimes that means that relations between the various individuals involved may be tense and negative behaviour may result. When you take all that into consideration, you realize how important it is to establish ways to manage those problems more effectively.

Continuing on the subject of harassment, when we say sexual harassment, we are talking about an issue that mainly affects women. That may seem to be a prejudicial view, but it is unfortunately true. From the standpoint of gender equality, it is even more important to address the problem of harassment when you want to encourage women to consider taking on any role in our society.

Government members will no doubt tell us that this bill would put in place a system that will solve that problem. We do not believe that is the case, particularly given the structure that would be introduced to do so. That is really our biggest concern in relation to this bill.

To put the matter simply, the government wants the police to investigate the police and the commission to be accountable to the minister, not to Parliament. The lack of political will that this minister has shown for some time now is becoming a problem. After all, when discretionary or decision-making authority lies solely in the hands of one minister, we have to rely on his political will, and he seems to have no such will at the present time.

On the contrary, if we asked the commission to report directly to Parliament, there would be more transparency, more answers and a structure more accountable to the public, which the RCMP is supposed to serve. That would also be good for people on the force, RCMP members, particularly those who are victims of harassment.

To put it simply once again, when we talk about the police investigating the police, this is really the problem that emerged from Justice O'Connor's report in the Maher Arar case. I am very interested in that case. At the risk of making myself seem very young, I was just a student when that report was issued in 2006, but I was very much involved and very interested in politics and current affairs, and I supported various causes.

I remember seeing the report at the time. One of the issues of great interest to me was the way in which our police forces and our armed forces acted, even though we were still in the post-September 11 phase five years after the fact. People in Canada, the United States and Europe were trying to adjust to this new reality as a society and give our police forces powers while protecting citizens' rights.

That report was an attempt to balance those two realities. However, this bill does not take its recommendations into account. Justice O'Connor recommended establishing an independent commission that would actually have been able to go further in changing the RCMP's culture and solving the harassment problem in particular.

We in the NDP want to see more concrete measures. That is why we oppose this bill, which is far too flawed. We want something much more concrete, and these are precisely the kinds of measures we will put in place in 2015 if we have the opportunity to form the government, in order to change this culture, protect RCMP members and ensure there is a better relationship between them and our communities.

I await your questions and comments.

[Public Works and Government Services, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on February 8, when I asked a question about the government's chronic undervaluation of historic sites, I was told that I would be given an answer in a week. It has now been two weeks.

I would like to remind hon. members that, on June 15, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the City of Halifax. The government has to compensate the municipalities for the loss of tax revenue. With regard to Fort Chambly in my riding, this problem is depriving the city of half a million dollars a year.

When will the government comply with this ruling and how is it going to do so?

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I am glad that she brought up rural areas, because I live in a funny riding that serves as a kind of bridge between the big city and the rural region.

My riding has a few rural areas, but there are not as many as in my colleague's riding. I think I am pretty familiar with my colleague's riding, but I would not presume to speak to her situation. She is right, though, that we must unite our regions. Making it easier to travel from region to region would be good for everyone, not just for the people who have to commute, but also for producers.

A few weeks ago we were discussing a railway bill about the need to have proper contracts between CN and the people shipping our local products. This kind of issue is exactly why today's motion is so important.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I do agree with him that good cooperation and a show of leadership are essential in this matter because transport and infrastructure involve a lot of shared jurisdictions.

My colleague also mentioned past governments. I will respond to him by saying that the Champlain Bridge, to name one example, was not built yesterday. The Conservatives have been in power since 2006, but some work could have been done before that to avoid an infrastructure deficit such as the one we now have. We could have hoped for a little more work in that area.

However, we are pleased with the Liberals' support, and I agree on the points he has raised.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which covers several points.

I will try to address each of those points briefly. On the first point, we voted against it because, when you have an omnibus bill, it is hard to say that we support one aspect and not another, particularly when the government refuses to divide its omnibus bills into various parts. However, the Conservatives were able to use their majority to put those measures in place, but the mayors in our ridings tell us that this is not working and that something else is needed.

The member also said this was not all about dollars. We agree with him. That is why I pointed out that we were not just talking about amounts of money here, but also about stable, predictable, long-term funding. Elected municipal members often request this because it enables them to plan and make good use of the money the government gives them.

Lastly, the member mentioned navigable waters. I believe the debate on that matter was quite clear. He mentioned the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. However, it supports our motion because we are on the right track.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to the motion of my colleague from Trinity—Spadina concerning infrastructure and the forthcoming budget. Every member of the House will have something to say because it is one of the few issues that demonstrates local and regional impacts in the field.

I am going to use this opportunity to discuss the problems being experienced in my riding, which have led me to support this motion. I am, moreover, very pleased with our efforts as a political party to ensure predictable and long-term infrastructure funding that is viable and stable.

First of all, people often say that transport is a provincial jurisdiction or that the NDP has its priorities wrong. In fact, what we are asking for in the House today as duly elected representatives was suggested by people who really know what they are talking about because they are experts in the field. I am talking about our elected municipal officials, including mayors, chambers of commerce and the federations under which they operate. I am a member of two chambers of commerce in my area. I also meet regularly with 12 mayors from my riding.

I would like to share a few of their concerns. First of all, a loss in productivity can have a major impact on a region’s economic viability. One example that comes to mind is from the keynote address given by the Mayor of Chambly, Denis Lavoie, at a luncheon held at the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie du bassin de Chambly. He remarked that an effective public transit system is important because it encourages local businesses and producers to remain in the region because they can run successful operations. If people are unable to get around efficiently and quickly, they will want to move elsewhere. If they do, then companies and businesses will follow.

It is therefore not only in our interest as elected representatives to encourage people to move to our region, and to provide services for them, but also in the interest of the chamber of commerce, because they will increase their membership and build a strong local economy.

Loss of productivity and public transit are very important subjects. We have only to look at suburban municipalities in the greater Montreal area, in particular those in the CMM, which includes most of the municipalities in my riding as well. They are equally important in the GTA, the Greater Toronto Area, and also in suburban municipalities surrounding Vancouver, Winnipeg and all the major cities of Canada. I would rather not comment too much on these regions, and focus instead on my own region.

As it happens, my region is currently experiencing urban sprawl, a topic I raise frequently in the House. People are leaving the downtown core to live in suburbs, start a family and live in a neighbourhood that is perhaps more peaceful, with all due respect to my big-city colleagues. There are other factors to be considered as well, like population growth in the regions.

I am relatively young, but I can remember when some of the more rural municipalities in my riding were much less urban than they are now. They have become suburban municipalities. The change is remarkable. In Beloeil, for example, there is development along Highway 20. Many of our Quebec companies, like Rona, are locating stores there for the local residents.

I mentioned urban sprawl because the people who live there frequently work downtown. In my case, the people work in Montreal. People who commute have great expectations about the infrastructure they would like to have.

However, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities tends unfortunately to always want to shift responsibility back to the provinces and municipalities, thereby increasing pressure on provincial and municipal elected representatives who come to see us for help.

Ultimately, teamwork is required if we are to provide better results for the citizens we represent. To be sure, we need to respect areas of provincial jurisdiction. Public transit is one example. We are not about to tell the provinces what to do or how to do it. However, the federal government has an important responsibility with respect to funding programs. It must also establish certain standards for these areas of jurisdiction.

I would like now to return to the topic of urban sprawl. It is very important in terms of highways and public transit, and sprawl also affects bridges like the Champlain Bridge. We naturally heard a great deal of talk during the election and again today. It is an issue that is very problematic for us, the people of the south shore and Montérégie, including my constituents who live in Chambly, Richelieu, Saint-Mathias-sur-Richelieu, Carignan and Marieville, and who travel along highway 30 or highway 10 to the Champlain Bridge. Keeping this bridge viable, particularly in view of the public transit strategy that will be adopted, is essential for people who need to commute.

It is essential for all the usual reasons, such as the fact that public transit is good for the environment and all that, but urban sprawl is moving people farther away from downtown cores. The people of Marieville, for example, need to travel along highway 10 and then cross the Champlain Bridge to work in Montreal. They have a 35 to 40 minute commute when there is no traffic, but this can of course be much longer if traffic is heavy. And the traffic is increasing steadily because of population growth. Building a new bridge would be a good way to address not only these problems, but also to come up with a plan that would be viable over the long term.

At the moment, the government is providing very few details or information about this matter, except for what the minister said in the House yesterday, "If there are no tolls, there will be no bridge". We are not given any more details other than the people of the south shore will have to pay tolls.

My colleague from Brossard—La Prairie recently made a request for a more detailed report about the financial planning and the projects that will be undertaken by the federal government, in collaboration with the provincial government, of course. We are still waiting for that information, which is very important to the people in our ridings.

Let us come back to another subject concerning our motion. It also talks about predictable, long-term funding. That is very important. It is something we often hear from the mayors of municipalities in my riding. The problem is not limited to infrastructure; it is the same everywhere. Our community organizations tell us the same thing, but that is unfortunately another subject. In any event, the problem of unpredictable, short-term funding makes it very difficult to make long-term commitments, and consequently to put plans in place that make sense in the long term.

I put myself in the shoes of a municipal representative. It is a bit difficult when residents come to see me to ask me to do something about our roads, our highways, our bridges, and so on. As a municipal representative, the very little information I have about funding and where it comes from makes the job rather difficult. That is a reminder of why these collaborative efforts are important.

I am being told that my speaking time is up. That is unfortunate, because I could talk about this longer and offer more examples of what we see in our ridings.

I will conclude by saying that we could talk more about the Internet, for example, and the digital infrastructure that really has to be put in place. That is very important for us, on the outskirts of the city. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to say more about that when I answer questions and comments.

It will certainly be clear from what I have said that this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of problems in our ridings to do with these issues. That is why I am very pleased to see the work done by my colleagues from Trinity—Spadina and Trois-Rivières. I am very pleased to support this motion, and hope to see a New Democrat government take office in 2015.

[Public Works and Government Services, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on June 15, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the City of Halifax in its dispute with the Government of Canada concerning the federal government's chronic undervaluation of historic sites. This ruling will have significant implications for municipal finances.

For example, Public Works and Government Services Canada valued Fort Chambly at five time less than the municipality did. That is a loss of $500,000 in property tax revenues for the City of Chambly.

When will the Conservatives comply with this ruling and give municipalities their fair share?