Matthew Dubé

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. That is one of the troubling aspects that I raised. I would like to stay on the topic of reasonable amendments. We proposed another reasonable amendment. As my hon. colleague put it so well, the other side of the House acknowledged that the situation was not ideal. Hoping for it to improve is not enough. Problems need to be resolved before we sign free trade agreements. That is what we are advocating for.

I would like to come back to a point I raised during my speech. We are in favour of free trade agreements, but everything needs to be in order before they are ratified. That is precisely what we are advocating for here. Many of the proposed measures require some political will. It is not clear that that political will exists on the part of either the Canadian or the Panamanian government. We want these measures to be in place before the agreement is ratified.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his compliment. It is greatly appreciated. It is also a good reminder that, even though the atmosphere in the House can sometimes get tense, we all have a common goal, and that is to serve our constituents.

To go back to concerns about the bill, although Panama is no longer on the grey list, some concerns remain. This was made obvious when the U.S. Congress chose to delay the signing of its free trade agreement. I am well aware that the minister has worked hard to negotiate an agreement with Panama and introduce measures to facilitate the release of financial information.

Nevertheless, some reasonable suggestions were made in committee. We suggested that Canada delay signing the agreement until we see how the governments of Canada and Panama deal with the issue of tax havens. Once we have more information, we can make a better decision, so we asked that the bill be delayed until that time. Unfortunately, the government disagreed, and that is why we oppose this bill.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

The fact that we are debating this bill this week is timely, if members follow the excellent and tireless work my friend and colleague from Brossard—La Prairie is doing on tax havens. He has been called a radical for the work he has done, as have the groups he chooses to associate with.

Bill C-24 would implement a free trade agreement with Panama, a country known for this problem. It is not known as such by groups that members on the other side would call radical, but by the OECD, which has a well-deserved reputation and is very respected—by my colleagues opposite as well, I hope.

In trying to combat these tax havens, we are trying to create an environment where all citizens—particularly those in the middle class, whom we have the honour to represent, and those who may be tempted to avoid paying their fair share by using a tax haven—are treated equally in how they pay their taxes.

Tax havens are one of the reasons we are opposed to this bill.

In committee, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who is our critic on this issue, asked that we not ratify this agreement until Panama and our government have signed a tax information exchange agreement, which would enable us to tighten our surveillance on the abuses of tax havens.

The minister, in his comments this morning, said that work had begun and that such an agreement is being negotiated. Nevertheless, the agreement he referred to has not yet been signed. I think it is entirely reasonable to ask them to wait until it has been signed, in order to thoroughly evaluate the measures that would be instituted.

I am also basing my opinion on the actions of the U.S. Congress, which decided not to ratify the free trade agreement with Panama until a tax information exchange agreement—that fights tax havens—was signed.

I would like us to follow the example of our American counterparts on this; we must be very careful.

My colleague’s request was not accepted by other members of the committee, neither Liberals nor Conservatives, but I believe we must support such proposals. That is one of the problems with this bill.

In his comments earlier, a Liberal member said that we appeared to be denigrating Panama. That is not the case, not at all.

The Conservative member who spoke before me said that a free trade agreement could promote peace. But a free trade agreement is not only about the exchange of goods, but about the exchange of best practices. It is a cultural exchange, and an exchange in many fields. We must be aware of the standards we propose when we sign a free trade agreement. We also must be aware of the values we project.

Some developing countries such as China are having great economic success and are even becoming economic powerhouses. Thus, it is increasingly important that more than goods are exchanged, including what I call best practices. We live in a democratic country where, in general, the will of the public is respected. This ought to be reciprocal.

In this case, we really are talking about a tax haven. The core of my argument is that some housekeeping needs to be done before we can support this bill.

We do not support this agreement in its present state, but perhaps we will later. In committee, some extremely reasonable amendments were proposed. I already mentioned one of them, and now I will talk about some others.

There were amendments proposed concerning the minister’s obligation to consult stakeholders in Panama, both workers and employers. Whoever we are discussing, we believe that, even after signing an agreement, that should not be the end. We must continue to watch what is happening in the countries with whom we have free trade agreements. On the contrary, once the agreement has been signed, it is our duty to follow up and ensure that current practices are respected—concerning workers’ rights, sustainable development or tax havens. It is a matter of respect and completely in line with the principles of free trade, I firmly believe.

Sustainable development should also be the subject of amendments. They would deal with environmental standards. In political science, we talk about the “tragedy of the commons”, which is the same challenge we are facing in terms of climate change. Everyone must do their fair share. Signing a free trade agreement is a perfect opportunity to establish measures to fight climate change and protect our shared environment, not only in Quebec and Canada, but all over the world.

That opportunity is being missed here because this agreement does not address sustainable development seriously. That is another extremely essential point.

It would be useful to remind the members opposite of one point that has not yet been mentioned very much, and that is the work of the committee. All the members of our NDP caucus are aware of the criticism. We are ready to support agreements that are drafted conscientiously, are fair to both parties and encourage best practices. Once again, the proposals made by my colleagues on the Standing Committee on International Trade have been very reasonable.

That is a relevant comment, given the remarks by the Minister of International Trade this morning. There has been a lot of talk about exports and about keeping our Canadian industries competitive. Yesterday in committee, we heard a witness representing a business that has been affected by this problem. The video game industry, for example, is having problems because the dollar’s value is high, and it is certainly not the only one. This problem will not disappear because of a free trade agreement.

When I was studying political science, I looked closely at monetary and economic policy. Anyone who believes that a free trade agreement will automatically solve all economic problems and create jobs does not have a good understanding of the importance of the economic responsibility and the management role of a country such as ours, with such a vast economy.

Still, it is important to consider all the factors. The government has a lot of housekeeping to do and many problems to solve before it can say it has created a favourable environment for our exporters and investors.

I will end on a lighter note, but one that is serious nonetheless. If we want to create an investment climate that favours industry around the world, we cannot do it by making decisions at the very last minute. That is what we say now, and what we will say when we form the government in 2015.

[Prostate Cancer, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today I had the immense pleasure of shaving the famous moustache off of my hon. colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore to launch our Movember campaign. The goal of Movember is to raise awareness about prostate cancer and other men's health issues, as well as to raise money for research in the fight against this terrible disease.

As we know, prostate cancer will afflict one in seven men, making it the most common cancer among men in Canada. However, thanks largely to research, recovery rates are improving. And funding for this research relies heavily on generous donations from Canadians.

The Movember campaign contributes to raising awareness and providing financial support to researchers. I invite all Canadians and colleagues in the House to put away their razors and shaving cream and proudly wear a moustache for the month of Movember.

I cannot help but think about our dear friend Jack Layton, who lost his life after a courageous battle with this terrible disease. Like Jack, I believe that, together, we can change the world.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting to hear the Minister of State say that members of Parliament are not necessarily experts and that we must hear from experts in committee.

What does he think about the fact that we speak on behalf of our constituents? We are experts on conveying the wishes of the people we represent. Our constituents deserve to have us speak on their behalf here in the House.

When the budget was tabled, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster read numerous emails, tweets and Facebook messages, among other things. That is how he shared the opinions of the public. I do not want to take anything away from the experts who testify in committee, but that is just one part of the parliamentary process. As my colleague pointed out, the most important part of this process is when we have the opportunity to do what we are doing now: rise in the House to represent the wishes of the people who elected us. I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-38, and I was able to share what my constituents thought. No, these people are not experts, but we are accountable to them and we are here to represent them.

The Minister of State is dismissing the parliamentary process, when it is very important here. What is the purpose of Parliament if there is no parliamentary process? Is it a dictatorship? This process is the very essence of democracy, legislation and fundamental rights in a society. If the Minister of State thinks that this process is not important, I suggest that he find another profession, because I do not think he is in the right field.

When will the members opposite respect the parliamentary process? When will they recognize that we are here to speak on behalf of other experts—the people we represent?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny to hear that speeches made during a debate are obstructing a bill. The fact that we were elected as members of Parliament and our very presence in the House are not an obstruction in and of themselves, but that is a whole other issue.

The situation is interesting. I would like to ask Conservative members why they did not include all the amendments in the bill. However, I cannot ask them that question, unfortunately, since none of them deemed that issue important to present a speech on it today. The one exception is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, who always asks the same questions and says we lack a good understanding of the issue. Based on what I know, some amendments were adopted at committee, a committee composed of members from all parties. Unfortunately, it is obvious today that the Conservatives will do anything to keep committees from doing their work. There was a time when committees were able to do that work.

Although my colleague cannot answer that question, I would like her to speculate on why the Conservatives did not keep bill C-41 just the way it was.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, those comments are far from being empty words. The reason we oppose this measure is because we think we need to do more. The choices made by the government are not choices that, in our opinion, are in the best interests of the armed forces.

The hon. member's comments raise a number of issues, and I thank him for his questions. I may not be able to deal with each point.

He talked about referring the bill to committee and duplicating the process followed with Bill C-41. Why do we need to repeat this process? Why did the government not include these points from the outset? That work has already been done. Why redo it when there already seemed to be a consensus?

We are not opposed to modernizing the military justice system. We are opposed to the bill in its current form. We find it deplorable to redo something that has already been done. I cannot say it enough.

A parliamentary committee is supposed to be a crucial element of the legislative process. During the last Parliament, all parties and all members did an excellent job. Now, the government wants to redo that work when it could easily have included these measures in the bill.

I will close by repeating that the reason why we will vote against these measures is because they are not appropriate for our Canadian Forces. We do not have to justify ourselves in that respect. Our work speaks for itself.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague raised a very important point. Since we expect service from our armed forces, we owe them a proper system in exchange. As we saw in the 2003 report, the system needs some reforms.

Even now, eight years later, we unfortunately have yet to take the necessary action. We thought this was achieved with Bill C-41, but we unfortunately took another step backwards.

When my colleague talks about transparency, he is referring to all of the very important principles of a justice system. These principles are no less important in the military justice system. I think that is the crux of this debate.

I would hate to make judgments about anyone's competence, but I think that we owe members of our military a transparent and rigorous system, so we can ensure that people are well represented and that we punish the people who deserve to be punished. However, we must do so fairly and equitably. The system must have more respect for the principles that society has adopted for everyone.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-15.

By way of introduction, it is worth noting that, as members of the House of Commons, we not only have the great honour of representing Canadians, we also have the opportunity to learn a little more about matters under federal jurisdiction that were perhaps addressed in previous parliaments, but that, for one reason or another, we are not familiar with.

For me, military justice is one such matter. I am no expert when it comes to this issue. However, since I now have the opportunity to discuss it, I did my research. I tried to look at what other Parliaments have done. It became clear to me, when reading the 2003 Lamer report, that reform is necessary. Anyone who has studied the recommendations therein can see that a lot of work was done and that much progress was made in the context of the previous Bill C-41. It is apparent now, however, when considering Bill C-15, that a lot of work was unfortunately done for nought. There is no other way of putting it.

I will speak about this work and the reason why a lot of it has gone by the wayside. To begin with, one of the best opportunities for a member of Parliament to speak about a bill or an issue is to take part in the work of committees. It gives us an opportunity to discuss issues with witnesses, who are often experts in their respective subject areas. At the end of the day, we cannot be experts in everything. Asking witnesses questions and listening to their testimony is an extremely important exercise in our legislative and democratic process. We also have the opportunity to carry out clause-by-clause consideration of different bills and to propose amendments.

Clearly, the party in power enjoys a majority in the House. When there was a minority government, however, the work of committees held more sway. That is certainly what we are increasingly witnessing today as we see the government attempt to take away committees’ power. But that is another debate for another day.

Having said that, several amendments were proposed at the time—in February 2011, unless I am mistaken—at the Standing Committee on National Defence. These amendments were passed by all parties. It must be understood that committees represent all elected representatives and parties. The committee, therefore, made amendments that were in line with the most important recommendations in the Lamer report. This was done in an effort to reform the military justice system.

Some of the amendments to Bill C-15, which is before us today, have been scrapped and others retained. I am asking myself the same question that I just asked of my colleague, the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. Unfortunately, given the dearth of speakers on the government side, I will not have an opportunity to ask the government this question. I nevertheless wonder why—after being proposed democratically in committee, where the bulk of the work in our parliament was done on this—certain amendments to the bill were retained and others scrapped.

After a bill legally dies on the order paper, there is no obligation to keep the previously adopted amendments when the same bill is presented in another form. Nevertheless, as a democratic and moral principle, and as matter of principle in general, one wonders why the government did not decide to keep these amendments in place, especially since they were not of a partisan nature, and were in line with the ideas put forward in the recommendations of the 2003 Lamer report.

Allow me to speak to a number of these recommendations. After all, the amendments that were not included in the bill in its current form are, unfortunately, reason enough for the NDP to oppose this bill. One of the most important questions concerns summary trials. All citizens of law-based societies such as ours want a balanced system of justice that affords citizens protection.

That said, it is important to understand that the system that exists within the military is not exactly the same. That is precisely why the necessary reforms are meant to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. We want to bring these systems more in line with one another to ensure that the members of our armed forces enjoy adequate legal protection, since they deserve our utmost respect, for reasons that I do not need to repeat here. We know the importance of the sacrifices they make. They do incredible work for our society. It is important that they have adequate legal protection.

When we look at summary trials, one particular aspect is extremely problematic. A number of my colleagues have talked about this aspect, the fact that people can be saddled with a criminal record for violating military regulations. In normal proceedings, such behaviour, while certainly unacceptable, would not be sufficient reason to burden someone with a criminal record.

It is important to maintain discipline within the armed forces. We understand that it is important for commanders who make the decisions in these cases to maintain discipline. We are not saying that any of the regulations themselves should change. The penalties must be strict enough to ensure that offenders understand the seriousness of their mistakes. At the same time, however, we must not saddle them with judicial baggage that will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

All of the members of this House understand how careful we need to be about burdening people with a criminal record, because it will stay with them forever. It will follow them everywhere—when looking for a job, when signing a lease, basically, it affects all aspects of everyday life. Such measures could force someone into a precarious situation.

I am being very careful. I really want to be clear that we are talking about minor transgressions. We know that people who commit serious crimes deserve a criminal record. We realize this and we obey the laws of our society. We respect the fact that the punishment should fit the crime. However, we really are talking about transgressions that do not warrant a criminal record. When we take a look at this process, what is really problematic is that summary trials are often overseen by a commanding officer who, for understandable reasons that I mentioned earlier, wants to instil discipline in the armed forces. This sense of discipline is so very important in our traditions and also in the work of the men and women of our Canadian Forces.

When we realize that the commanding officer, understandably, may not really be interested in the concerns pertaining to criminal records, we have to bring clarity to the regulations. I believe that this must be one of the reforms we have to make. One of the amendments that we proposed was establishing a more complete list of the circumstances where a criminal record is, or is not, warranted.

In closing, I would like to make one last very important point. One thing dropped from this bill is the composition of the grievance committee.

I would like to make a comparison. In the United States, the founding fathers ensured that the commander in chief, or the U.S. president, is a civilian, not a member of the army. The objective was to balance the importance of a hierarchy within the armed forces and also within civilian society. Another recommendation we hoped would be adopted was that civilians make up 60% of the committee membership. That is another important measure that is unfortunately not in this bill.

Unfortunately, my time has expired and I will not be able to go through the list. However, I am certain that I will have the opportunity to do so during questions and comments.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech. I want to touch on what the member just said about committees. When we look at the former version of the bill, Bill C-41, we can see that a number of amendments were not only proposed, but were also passed by the committee representing members from all parties.

Although there was no legal obligation to retain these amendments once the bill died on the order paper as a result of the election, the government retained some amendments and got rid of others. I wonder why. Did the government change its mind all of a sudden? Did it decide to make fewer changes to the system because it now has a majority? Was it just appeasing the opposition at the time? We have a hard time understanding why the government would do this, especially since almost all of these amendments were in the report.

I would like my colleague to speak more to this lack of respect for the importance of committees.