Matthew Dubé

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. As she mentioned, she has been an MP for 15 years. She has seen more than one government do things that are harmful to Canadians.

What is interesting is the argument about the number of hours of debate and the number of witnesses that have been heard in committee. It is somewhat difficult to make a comparison because there is nothing comparable. In fact, this is the first time that we have seen a bill of this scope, that would make so many changes to such unrelated aspects of society. As the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said, it would require months and years of work to implement this bill and to put in place the institutions that are such a part of our identity and of the work we want to do.

What we all need to remember here is that it is not because we are not willing to work. However, we are wondering why the government is extending the hours of the House to ram through this bill, when we could be out there listening to the comments that are still being made about how this bill is bad for society.

I would just like to allow my colleague to speak a bit more about this in order to show the extent to which the NDP, unlike the government, has consulted the people who will be affected by the changes.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her remarks.

In her opening comments, she claimed that members on this side of the House do not respect democracy. I must point out to her that democracy is not about passing a bill in haste or about saying to other hon. members, “Too bad—we have a majority”.

But let us talk about the economy. They claim that Bill C-38 will help the economy. Tourism is very important where I come from. Not only will it be affected by the changes to employment insurance, but Parks Canada services are also going to be cut. That will prevent Fort Chambly from providing the same level of service that it previously provided. Fort Chambly is one of the most frequently visited Parks Canada sites in Quebec. In spite of that, services are going to be cut, and the quality of tourism services in the region is going to be lowered, which in turn will have a negative impact on the region.

How will this contribute to economic prosperity and job creation?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I would like him to say a little more about how we can protect pensions. He gave the example of an individual who invests in RRSPs for 10 years and loses money when the value of the RRSPs then falls. So we lose money we invest for our retirement. He also said the measures proposed in the bill do nothing to provide better protection.

In addition, we might think of examples like Nortel, where the corporation came ahead of the employees. My colleague is certainly aware of that case. When we talk about retirement security for people who have worked hard all their lives and who invested their money, it is extremely important to protect their retirement pension. I would like to let my colleague talk some more about how we can better protect that, so it is better than what is proposed in this bill.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the hon. member is very knowledgeable on this matter, as the former science and technology critic and current industry critic.

It is interesting that, on the one hand, we are talking about reducing the number of scientists, muzzling them and preventing them from speaking, and, on the other hand, we often hear arguments about how much it costs the public to keep these “bureaucrats”. In reality, these scientists provide us with data that can help us create good laws and govern properly, which will reduce the costs of environmental damage in the long term.

Keeping these scientists on the job will permit us to introduce legislation to ensure that the next generation can count on a healthy environment with all the benefits that go with it. Could the hon. member expand on that?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and neighbour for his question.

He raised an excellent point. Several factors have had a negative impact in my region. Obviously, the floods were unavoidable. I am still impressed by the people in my community who rallied even when they did not get the help they expected. Fortunately, our region and our communities are strong.

That being said, as the member mentioned, in addition to the cuts included in this Trojan Horse bill, the government will cause even more problems in the tourism sector. Parks Canada is not the only tourism stakeholder in the region. All of the local businesses offer more services during the busy season. There are even seasonal restaurants because that time of the year is so much busier. Things are much quieter at other times of the year.

Clearly, several factors will have negative repercussions in the long term, as my colleague said. That is why we have to oppose this measure.

The government is missing the big picture because all of the changes will really have a negative impact on people in my region.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I have the honour of sharing my time with the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

Today we are discussing the motion regarding the proposed changes to the employment insurance system. This motion is a wonderful initiative from my colleague from Hamilton Mountain. This issue is very important to the people in my riding of Chambly—Borduas, who are concerned for many reasons that I will list today.

The first reason is that the changes will require daily proof of job searches. At the same time, job seekers will receive job offers via email. I addressed this issue earlier by asking a question to my colleague, but I would like to discuss it a little more.

In my riding, one of the municipalities, Marieville, is experiencing a problem that many citizens and even the mayor, Alain Ménard, have had the opportunity to tell us about. It is a matter of access to the Internet. This is not a rural municipality; it borders the greater Montreal metropolitan area, on the south shore. People have noticed a big problem. They have tried to get help from the CRTC to improve digital Internet services in the region. Increasingly, different types of Internet services are being required, and people in rural areas have a hard time accessing them. This is particularly true in Marieville, which is in my riding.

The reason why this is relevant here is that, as I said, we are talking about sending job offers by email, but not everyone has access to the Internet. It goes without saying that, often, people who have lower-paying, less stable jobs—which is often the case for people who are receiving employment insurance benefits—cannot necessarily afford Internet access, even if they live in urban areas where Internet access is easy to obtain. It is therefore hard to see how these job offers will help people.

It is said that people who cannot afford to pay for Internet access can go to the municipal library, for example. However, this presents another problem that was again pointed out to me by the people of my riding and that has to do with the municipal library in Saint-Basile-le-Grand, where I live and where my office is located.

The municipal library offers excellent services, but, unfortunately, it is going to have to reduce the services and Internet access it provides as a result of cuts to the community access program. This was an excellent program that was renewed every year in the budget. It did not just help community organizations, but also municipal libraries. These are very important tools for young people and people with low incomes who cannot always afford such luxuries.

When cuts were made to this program and this service was reduced, once again, people found themselves in a situation where they have one less way of accessing the Internet. This is one of the problems. When we look at the problems this is creating in my riding, we can see why these changes are of such great cause for concern.

The other situation, which my colleagues have addressed many times today in the House, and which I will address again to discuss how it applies to my riding, is seasonal work in tourism, agriculture and other areas. Workers in these sectors have to rely on employment insurance during the off season, especially in tourism, which is very significant in my riding. I am thinking about the city of Chambly, where one attraction is Fort Chambly, a Heritage Canada-recognized site run by Parks Canada. Many tourists from across Canada come to see it. From what we heard in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage a few weeks ago, it is one of the most visited Parks Canada sites in the region and in Quebec during the summer.

Jobs there are filled by seasonal workers, who work in tourism of course because many of the tourism programs do not operate during the winter.

These people will not only have to look for another job, but they will have to accept a job that pays less than Parks Canada has been paying them at Fort Chambly.

What is more, in the same bill, the Trojan Horse that is Bill C-38, the government also proposes cuts to Parks Canada that will cause even more problems at Fort Chambly. They knew for weeks that there would be significant cuts to this heritage site in my riding.

This heritage site is suffering a double whammy, not to mention the negative impact on the employees who work at this site during the summer season.

Aside from tourism, there is also agriculture. Although my riding is located between urban and rural regions, on the south shore of Montreal, there are still some farmers in my riding. The work they do is extremely important. This work is very interesting, because it is focusing on sustainable development. These people will have to cut back on their work in this extremely important field for environmental reasons. Their system will have to be completely transformed in light of the proposed changes. I am thinking in particular of wine producers and all kinds of agricultural producers who are not necessarily in my riding but who are in the greater Montérégie area. This will have a negative impact on them.

Incidentally, up until now, I have focused mainly on employers—people who provide services. We often hear that workers have contributed to this system and that they are entitled to use it, but the employers have also contributed to this system and have the right to be defended.

Therefore, it is important to point out that employers will also be punished by the proposed changes. Some will have to close their doors or points of service because the people they depend on to do the work will not return to their former jobs if they are forced to look for other seasonal jobs. At some point, workers will want a certain amount of stability.

If I leave my seasonal job for minimum wage work that is more regular, as required by these changes, it is hard for me to see why I would jump from job to job. This will also punish employers. I believe that it is very important to point this out.

Many business people came to my office to see me this past week, after these changes were announced. Before I am told that it is not true, I would like to give a specific example. I had the opportunity to speak with Ms. Larose, whose husband, Mr. Bélisle, owns a company in Mont-Saint-Hilaire, in my riding, and employs six seasonal workers. The company is called Irrigation Pro-Jet and it will have to close if the proposed changes are introduced. That is the perspective of one businessman.

Small and medium-sized businesses will be adversely affected, and workers will also be negatively impacted.

It is extremely important to point out the negative impact this will have on small and medium-sized businesses and on employers. I hope I have refuted the specious argument that we do not defend employers' interests. It is in their interests as well to prevent these changes.

That is why I am proud to support the motion of my colleague from Hamilton Mountain and to oppose these illogical changes that are harmful to our society.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I am not familiar with his riding, but if I am not mistaken, it does include some rural communities.

Our rural communities have trouble accessing the Internet. The government is doing very little to improve digital Internet access. It eliminated the Community Access Program. It took away people's options for accessing the Internet. Obviously, some people cannot afford to pay for Internet service. Yet the government expects people to receive job offers via email. That makes no sense.

I would like my colleague to comment further on that.

[Health, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister could not even answer if he was worried about childhood activity. Once again, he could not answer if he agreed with the report. Now he cannot even say clearly if he even read the report. The minister has fumbled his portfolio.

Childhood obesity rates are rising. It is important for Canadian families to get kids moving. The minister thinks the Conservative approach is working despite all the evidence that the problem is getting worse.

Will the government pledge to do more than exercise its talking points to get Canadian families and children active?

[Health, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to health, the Conservatives do not know what they are talking about.

Yesterday, a report gave troubling statistics about children's physical activity. Half of all children get only three hours of exercise per week and are sedentary for 63% of their free time.

However, when asked about this, the Minister of State for Sport said, “More and more kids are getting involved in sports.” However, that is clearly not the case.

Does the Minister of State for Sport agree with the report and is he aware of the extent of the problem?

[POOLED REGISTERED PENSION PLANS ACT, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for a speech that was up to her usual standards of excellence.

I would like to go back to a comment by a member opposite and give her an opportunity to respond.

He said that he was proud of the fact that the Conservative government is not taking any risks, but the real threat is not an NDP government; the real threat is a government that does nothing to fix the problem. For example, one issue that comes up often when I talk to my constituents is Nortel. In that situation, there were no measures in place to protect what people had saved for their retirement. The government did nothing to punish a corporation that really put people in a difficult position.

My colleague talked about the NDP's proposal for putting an end to that kind of injustice and ensuring people's financial security. Contrary to what the member opposite said, the NDP's agenda is retirement security, not risk-taking.

I would like my colleague to expand further on that idea.