Matthew Dubé

[Safer Railways Act, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Lambert, which whom I in fact share the railway, even though we are not immediate neighbours.

We are talking about safety, and one of the reasons why Bill S-4 and the earlier bill that was introduced in this House before the election were introduced is precisely because an advisory committee wanted to update safety measures. In fact, we have to remember that technology changes over the years, as our railway systems and trains are modernized.

To come back to the economic aspect raised by my colleague, it is very important to understand that when we talk about safety, we are talking about modernization. We must make sure at all times that our safety regulations are up to date, to reflect the new technological reality of the measures available to us and to ensure the safety of passengers and people living in the vicinity of a railway.

That said, if we want to move forward and improve the system with more eco-friendly, faster systems, as our constituents want and as our party advocates, we have to make sure that we are capable of putting safety measures in place that will in fact both facilitate that process and ensure good economic development in the future.

[Safer Railways Act, April 5th, 2012]

To Saint-Jean as well and perhaps Lachute. Many municipalities are affected by this issue.

Quite simply, in order to improve and increase service, we must first ensure that safety provisions are adequate. More regions cannot be served until we are satisfied that safety regulations are optimal. For that reason, it is very important to support this bill.

The NDP believes that these measures should have been implemented a long time ago. Unfortunately, with elections and other such things, they were not. However, we would like to see this bill pass as quickly as possible.

We must also deal with modernization, where economic considerations are of the utmost importance. Rail service must be affordable for passengers. If we want more people to travel by train, we have to deal with safety even before we deal with cost. Passengers must feel at ease with train travel, an important means of transportation all across the country, and especially in Quebec. There is a very important rail line running through the middle of my riding.

By ensuring the safety of rail service, we are reassuring passengers that there are no risks in travelling by train. I take the train myself almost every time I come to Ottawa, and it is very quick and comfortable. However, we have to ensure that it is safe.

Canada has earned a good reputation for safety. We are certainly not saying otherwise. There have been accidents, but they are the exception rather than the rule. But just one accident is one too many. Thus, we must take this opportunity to update and enhance current laws, and to give more power to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. This is one of the objectives that this bill could achieve.

By improving safety, we will ensure that people will continue to use the service and we will encourage them to use it more often. In this way we can spark public interest in modernizing rail service. Improving service gives us the opportunity to modernize and to bring our railways up to European standards, for example.

I have received some comments from my constituents and my riding's elected officials, especially at the municipal level. I had the pleasure of talking to them at a meeting in January, just before coming back to the House. We talked about the modernization of rail service, in order tone reduce travel time and make this an even greener means of transportation. We know that train travel is already a green choice, according to VIA Rail. I do not want to adopt their slogan, but we can move in the right direction.

Co-operation from the various stakeholders will improve rail service but, I cannot say it enough, safety remains the key issue. We have to implement adequate safety measures. We have to ensure that tragedies like the one in Burlington do not happen again, and that people are not afraid to take the train.

Earlier, I mentioned vibrations, which are not necessarily addressed here. There are other safety measures we might consider. I am raising these questions because this issue relates to the safety not just of passengers, but also of the areas around the railways. When we talk about trains and railways, we have to address the question of safety, which concerns both the people who use the service and the people who live nearby in residential neighbourhoods. That was the case in Burlington. I am not an expert on what happened in Burlington, but I think a residential neighbourhood was involved.

There is also the pollution caused by trains. We want to keep these things under control. We want the Department of Transport to provide sound management, and that will improve services. This is something that is very important to our constituents, particularly in Chambly—Borduas.

This issue need not be negative. If we solve the safety issue immediately, we can move forward with a vision of sustainable technological development of rail service.

This is what we in the NDP advocate, and that is why we support Bill S-4.

[Safer Railways Act, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to Bill S-4, a Senate bill.

There is a railway that cuts almost completely across my riding, and so this is a very important issue, given the urban sprawl taking place on the south shore. In the south of my riding in particular, we are seeing more and more residential neighbourhoods growing up around the railway. The issue of safety is therefore very important.

Before continuing, I would first like to thank two of my colleagues for their work on this issue: the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina and the former critic, the hon. member for Western Arctic, who did a great deal of work on this issue. This bill originated in this House, but unfortunately it died on the order paper with the last election.

Since we are talking a lot about safety, particularly because of the tragedy that happened in Burlington, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the people there and to my colleague, the hon. member for Burlington, who considers this situation to be very serious.

As well, in the budget that has just been tabled by this government, we can see that there are cuts to Via Rail’s budget.

If we want to update and improve our train services, not just for environmental reasons but for economic reasons as well, then I think reducing the budget of the company that provides the most rail services is a mistake.

I can unabashedly say that the NDP supports the bill. We would like to see additional safety measures within Transport Canada.

With regard to what is happening in my riding of Chambly—Borduas in particular, I would like to say a few words about urban sprawl.

Since I was elected, we have had a number of public consultations on the matter of the vibrations that affect the municipalities of Saint-Basile-le-Grand, McMasterville, Beloeil and Mont-Saint-Hilaire. Most of the comments made by members of the public, mayors and elected municipal officials during our meetings had to do with the vibrations. This issue has been overlooked in Bill S-4.

The vibration issue indicates to what extent trains go through residential areas. That is why railway safety is very important to the people in my riding, especially with plans to increase service to the South Shore and neighbouring regions including the Sherbrooke and Drummondville regions, where people want better service between the major centres. I am thinking about the train that connects Montreal and Ottawa. People might want to go from Ottawa to Montreal, but they might also want to get to the South Shore, Saint Lambert, Saint Basile, or as far as Sherbrooke or Drummondville. I am sure some of my colleagues agree.

[The Budget, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully to this debate for some time.

The previous occupant of the chair said that if we had procedural or other questions we should consult the desk in the lobby. That is what I did. Still, we would like you to give us some of your wisdom as speaker. Far from wanting to interrupt my colleague, because I think his comments are very relevant, I would ask you to look at Standing Order 84(4) of the House of Commons, where, concerning the budget debate, we read:

On the second of the said days, if a subamendment be under consideration at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in such sitting, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the said subamendment.

The subamendment has not been moved, and I would like a clarification. Will you permit my hon. colleague to continue until 6:30 p.m.? What will happen to the adjournment proceedings that follow?

[Standing Committee on Public Accounts, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is clear: to oversee the federal government's expenditures.

When a border infrastructure fund magically morphs into a minister's personal slush fund, change is needed.

Instead, the committee's report tabled yesterday is weak and sanitized and overlooks the serious ethical failures of this government. Important witnesses were never invited, little work was done on this subject, and all our efforts to have the Auditor General appear as a witness were nipped in the bud by the Conservative majority.

So the Conservative majority on the committee was busy avoiding the hard questions and making sure the Auditor General was blocked from appearing. This is absolutely shameful. Will this report become the new gold standard of Conservative whitewashing? Can Canadians expect the same kind of kid-gloves treatment on the next Conservative boondoggles?

If the government is unwilling to examine its mistakes, the least it could do is get out of the way while the opposition does its job to uncover the truth.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I find it hard to see why I would abandon my principles, regardless of the situation. We are talking about trade, here. I will reiterate: we are not against trade, but that always has to be qualified. We will always be prepared, in whatever case it may be, to work to ensure that the measures for implementing a bill are appropriate and meet Canadians’ expectations.

We do this not for ourselves. As I said, the people also share our concerns. We have to meet people’s expectations in our transactions. Trade is essentially a matter of making deals. When we make deals with someone, we have to make sure that both parties to the deal understand its principles and terms. I am certainly not afraid to qualify every deal we make. We are entirely prepared to examine any issue and assess it case by case. We will not abandon our principles. We do an assessment and we come back with the comments that arise on an issue. That is what we are trying to say in this debate.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I will refrain from commenting on what she seems to be saying—that a bill relating to the agreement between Canada and Jordan is of less value. As has been said, we have to explain and clarify. I hear what she is saying and it is entirely correct: the bill contains some measures, but they do not go far enough; it is not complicated. We have very serious concerns about workers’ rights. This is indeed a start, but it is not enough.

I will ask my question again: why did they oppose the amendments proposed by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster if they really have a clear, precise, strong position on standing up for workers’ rights? Why do they not work with the opposition to propose measures that will strengthen what is already in the bill, as she said, but that will help in tangible ways? What is provided in the bill as it stands is not sufficient and does not go far enough. There have to be much stronger and more serious commitments to improving existing working conditions.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak about Bill C-24, as many of my colleagues have done before me. First, I would like to thank the hon. members for Burnaby—New Westminster and Windsor West, who worked so hard on this file.

I would like to clarify the position of the government, which seems to believe that everything is black or white. From the outset, I think it is very important to point out that, often, what we hear in debate is that the NDP is against all trade and against any measure that would help our Canadian industries to grow. That is not entirely true, and these comments need some clarification. The NDP is in favour of trade, but not at any price or for any reason. As the hon. member who just spoke pointed out so eloquently, we must be sure to consider certain important factors, such as workers' rights and sustainable development, when signing free trade agreements.

I think that the best way to say it is that we want free trade agreements that are equitable and fair and that truly take into account social justice and the other factors that I just mentioned.

To this end, there is one more thing we need to consider when examining the bill before us to implement a free trade agreement between Canada and Panama. The people of Chambly—Borduas have often shared with me their fears and worries about Canada's standing and reputation. The way our native country is perceived and the way we work with other countries in the world politically or economically may not seem important when we are talking about travelling to another country. And yet it is very important because we have a responsibility as a privileged and developed country to share these values.

When we sign free trade or other agreements with different countries, it is our responsibility to share those values and to behave in a way that will lead to economic growth and enhance rights in general, workers' rights and sustainable development. This must be done not only in Canada but throughout the world. The government often neglects this responsibility, particularly when it comes to bilateral free trade agreements, which are inadequate.

I listened with interest to an earlier question put to the member for Hamilton Mountain, who was speaking about the fact that the bill and the free trade agreement could support workers' rights. However, I am finding it very difficult to understand, as she pointed out, why the Conservatives voted against the well-reasoned amendments suggested by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster in committee if this is a truly an important issue to them. If the government were truly concerned, it would have taken the time to consider the very reasonable amendments moved.

It is important to also highlight another one of our international responsibilities. Panama is considered a tax haven. And this is an economic free trade agreement. Thus, I find it very difficult to consider that we will be dealing with a country that allows money laundering and tax evasion.

As I said, my colleague has worked very hard on this, and I would like to commend him. In fact, the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster moved an amendment that would resolve the issue of fiscal transparency. We could implement measures that would require Panama to exchange tax information with Canada. This would lessen the risk of illegal money laundering activities and so forth. I have already talked about these measures.

Once again, both the Conservatives and the Liberals rejected this amendment because they believe that Panama has a satisfactory double taxation agreement. I would like to point out that this is not a very good argument because the double taxation agreement pertains to fiscal transparency for legal revenue such as taxes, and we already know the source of such revenue. This measure does not at all deal with illegal revenue, but it could if the Panama agreement included my colleague's amendment, which seeks to bring about complete fiscal transparency.

The other aspect I would like to discuss is key to our argument. Several of my colleagues and I mentioned it earlier. I am referring to the rights of workers in the manufacturing sector. These rights are at the heart of a free trade agreement such as this one.

I can already hear the counter-argument that the NDP bows down to the unions. That argument is totally ridiculous in this case, because we are talking about developing countries that are still in the process of adapting their regulations and creating a culture of labour rights and human rights, which are fundamental rights. It is important to note that, while very competent people at the Canadian Labour Congress—Ms. Healy, as my colleague mentioned—have done research, we are not talking about a simple union matter here, or the will of a union. We are truly talking about important issues regarding labour rights. It is not complicated. We are talking about the people who will be making the products that are subject to this trade agreement. Human resources are at the core of this trade agreement. They are the foundation of the transactions that will take place. The jobs are more important than the profits that will be made.

The government likes to talk a lot about the jobs that these free trade agreements will help create. If we are going to talk about job growth, let us also talk about the quality of those jobs, here in Canada and in Panama. The government should focus on creating high-quality jobs for the people of Canada and of Panama. The government says that Canadians want economic growth, but as I was saying earlier, that growth should not come at all costs. I think our constituents, the people we represent, would agree. Here and around the world, we have built a reputation, a culture of defending labour rights and creating high-quality jobs. I think we would want the same thing for another country, Panama in this case.

That is a problem that comes up quite often, not just in this free trade agreement, but in a number of others. The government blindly applies the same negotiation strategies and the same conditions as the ones used for the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1980s and 1990s. That was another time, but the government is trying to apply the same conditions today. Not only are we dealing with a country where the situation is very different from that of our neighbours to the south—the United States and Mexico—but the times are different as well. This is 2012, and the reality for workers has changed. For example, in the manufacturing sector, the tools available for workers are different. Accordingly, working conditions have changed. I think that we have to adapt to that vision going forward.

I will conclude by reiterating that the NDP opposes this bill not because we are against trade, industry and economic growth, but because we are against trade at all costs at the expense of justice and fairness. We want fair trade that is consistent with our fundamental values as they relate to human rights. Those rights are essential when we talk about trade in economic terms, because that also involves cultural exchanges with another country. We must be faithful to our reputation and our values in any agreement we sign, especially at the international level.

[Shale Gas, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate two grandmothers in my riding. All on their own, Luce Cloutier and France Mercille of Mont-Saint-Hilaire produced an excellent documentary, 20 000 puits sous les terres, l'impact sur les gens vivant près des gaz de schiste, about the impact of shale gas development on nearby residents.

This moving documentary focuses on the industry's impact on the people of Montérégie and the St. Lawrence River valley.

Ms. Cloutier and Ms. Mercille interviewed some 20 residents of my region who are living with shale gas wells in their backyards. They showed just how helpless people feel when big companies show up without warning to dig wells that are practically in people's backyards.

The filmmakers remind us that people are not powerless against the shale gas industry. Together, we can challenge the arrogant and lawless industry and raise awareness of the difficult situation people in my region are facing.

Once again, congratulations to Luce Cloutier and France Mercille on their excellent documentary. I am very proud of their work.

[Employment Insurance, March 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the minister cutting employment insurance services, but she is also closing youth employment centres when the youth unemployment rate is 14%, twice that of the general population. The minister says that it is not an issue and that young people will have access to these services online. However, that will only happen if Service Canada has no further technical problems. The Conservatives should be helping young workers, not making things harder for them.

Why cut services and make things more difficult for young people looking for work?