Matthew Dubé

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is in fact a very good one. In the time I have, I am going to try to discuss several points that I consider relevant.

First of all, I find it interesting that some people are saying that limiting the terms of senators will make them more accountable. However, as my colleague said so well, they will not have any election promises to keep. So this will not make them more accountable to the public.

In addition, there is another problem we do not hear much about, which is that setting term limits will mean that when the party in power changes, the new party will simply have another opportunity to appoint senators who will support it.

For instance, there used to be a Liberal majority in the Senate. When the Conservative government came to power, as soon as it could do so it took the opportunity of appointing Conservative senators. Shorter terms would simply have facilitated what happened, and appointing senators from his own party would be easier for the Prime Minister to do. In the Senate, this is very problematic. All of the points my colleague mentioned, including the related costs, are indeed shameful and are yet more reasons to abolish the Senate.

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, like my colleagues who rose before me, I am very proud to speak to this bill, which interests me greatly. We care about our democracy, which is what is at stake here today, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre so eloquently pointed out.

A lot is being said about the purpose of the Senate, and what it seeks to achieve. I was a political science student, so I will take this opportunity to provide an overview of the governing bodies of other nations, particularly the United States. Their experience, as it compares to ours, serves as a justification as to why the Senate must be abolished.

One of the things that the Founding Fathers said about the Senate in the United States was that it was important to have a division in government to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Like us, they have a system where the person with the majority of votes is elected. And yet, we know all too well from our experience here in Canada that there is a percentage of the population that votes for other parties. This is the case in the current Parliament, where 60% of Canadians voted for parties other than the governing party. The principle is, therefore, that with a Senate, the executive—the President, in the case of the United States—and the Supreme Court, it becomes possible to protect against what is known as the tyranny of the majority.

In the United States, they determined that the best way of using the Senate in this instance was to provide regional protection. We are well aware of our history here in Canada and the same principle applies. Essentially, the Senate was created to protect the distinctive features of the regions. Of course, certain provinces are huge, such as Ontario—not necessarily in terms of land mass, but population—contrary to territories or provinces such as Prince Edward Island, which may be smaller, but which, like any other province or territory, are entitled to be democratically protected, in the sense that the opinions of their people are expressed through elected representatives—in an ideal world of course.

The same thing is apparent here. It was true of the United States, where the states, which vary enormously as far as size is concerned—in terms of both population and land mass—each had two senators. And yet the United States learned something far quicker than we did. Unless I am mistaken, it was in the 1950s that the U.S. decided that in order to benefit from this equitable regional representation, and to fulfill the mandate of the Senate, senators had to be elected. The U.S. moved forward by overhauling the constitution, which led to an elected Senate. That was 60 years ago and, of course, we are terrible laggards in this area.

The difference, however, with Canada is that in the United States it was the governors of the states who appointed senators and not the President. The comparison can therefore be drawn with Canada, where the Prime Minister appoints senators, which is very different. How do you achieve regional representation when the Prime Minister of the federal government chooses the senators? It is quite difficult and, in some ways, is a conflict of interest.

So we see that this is the first lesson that has not been learned, and this is something that is still going on today in spite of the intentions of this Prime Minister, who stated that he would never appoint senators. And yet we have people who were defeated in elections who have been appointed to the Senate. This is a huge problem. They are talking about electing senators; they say it will be democratic, that they will respect democracy. It is one thing not to elect senators, but what is worse is to appoint someone whom the public refused to elect. Appointing someone who was not elected is a problem, but it is a more serious problem when the people have said no to those representatives. They have flatly refused to be represented by those individuals, and yet they are appointed nonetheless, and they expect that those individuals will provide the same representation as a person who was elected. That is essentially very illogical logic.

I recall a Liberal member who was just saying that we had a very simplistic position.

I take that as a compliment, because what we are saying is very simple: abolish the Senate. There is nothing complicated about that. There is no point in embarking on debates about very complex bills with huge flaws, like the main flaw that allows the Prime Minister to choose not to appoint elected senators, which is completely contrary to what is supposed to be the nub of this bill. Our position is very simple, and I agree that it is a simplistic proposal, but in the positive sense of the word. It is a solution that will enable us to solve all these problems of patronage and lack of representation, particularly as they relate to the various regions, once and for all.

I also want to talk about a few points that have already been raised by my colleagues, but I want to say more about Bill C-311 in particular, which my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and other colleagues have addressed, and which deals with climate change. We introduced an opposition motion concerning climate change earlier this week. It refers to the withdrawal from Kyoto and this government's lack of vision in that regard. In fact, this House, by a vote of all parties, had passed a bill that was going to strengthen our principles and our fundamental values in that regard, so we could take concrete action on climate change. But that bill was killed by the Senate. The very problematic thing here is that we are not just talking about a bill passed by the House of Commons, a chamber composed of elected representatives, we are also talking about a bill that many ordinary people worked hard to get passed.

I was an activist at the time myself and I worked hard to communicate with members of Parliament about the importance of that bill, and I was by no means alone. People from all across the country worked to make members of Parliament understand the inherent merits of that bill. The organization was very successful because the House passed the bill. The Senate, unfortunately, disregarding the will of the people entirely and with no justification, killed the bill. That is one of the basic problems that Bill C-7, which we have before us today, is not going to solve. The problem will be solved by abolishing the Senate. It is not complicated.

I am going to make an important connection with a debate we had earlier this week on democratic representation. The connection is important because we are talking about democracy again. I am referring to Bill C-20, which deals with redistributing the seats in this House. We know that the Liberal Party's concern was about the costs that would be incurred. But I spoke on the bill and I raised the same point today. Let us talk about reducing costs and about how to pay for that bill so that we can have more democratically elected representation. I repeat once more: it is not complicated. Let us abolish the Senate; we will save millions of dollars that we can use to pay not only for better representation for all provinces, Quebec included, but representation that will take its place in this elected House.

Since I am running out of time, I will conclude my remarks by saying that the Senate was conceived as a way to represent and protect the unique regional features of our country. I can state, specifically as a representative of Quebec, a province that is very aware of the importance of protecting those unique features, such as our language and culture, that I have seen no evidence, especially in recent years, that the Senate is doing its job of protecting that uniqueness. That is one more reason for abolishing it, and one more reason for us, as true elected members of this House, to protect the unique features of our various regions with our actions and our legislation.

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments.

One of the arguments that we have heard about the Senate pertains to how it was conceived. I think one of the reasons, in theory, that the Senate exists is to represent the different regions more fairly, given that some provinces are bigger than others.

Recently, we debated Bill C-10. Despite the very clear will of the Quebec National Assembly and Quebeckers, one senator became the government's puppet to a certain extent. He said that Quebeckers and the National Assembly were wrong not to support the bill. So, clearly, the Senate does not really represent the regions. Would the hon. member care to comment further on this issue?

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it will be somewhat difficult to ask a question after all that, but still I am going to try. I would like to thank my colleague for his comments.

Under the other opposition party’s plan, we would see a reduction in Quebec's seats. And yet they often quote the prime minister who said, at the time, that Canada was a country where people were overrepresented. I do not know whether it is the government that did it, but someone mentioned the example of the United States Congress. As a colleague pointed out, members of the U.S. Congress are often away from home and have large teams of staff.

Is it really a problem to have the chance to represent people well? Why do the people in the other party think it is a problem for people to be well represented by their elected members?

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak about this bill since there are several issues that I would like to address.

The first is the issue of Quebec. I may not be as eloquent as the hon. member for Hamilton Centre was this morning, but I would still like to give it a try.

A little over a week ago was the fifth anniversary of the date the House recognized Quebec as a nation. As I said before in a debate on another bill, no member took this decision lightly. The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques also pointed out, when we spoke about the way humanities defines a nation and what that means, that this is not the type of thing we should support without taking into account the resulting commitments and considerations, particularly in the House of Commons.

These commitments involve more than just respecting the French language. They also involve respecting democratic representation. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform asked what concrete measures we have. It is simple: we have the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead's Bill C-312, which seeks to protect Quebec's political weight.

In this case, we are talking specifically about 24.35% of the seats in the House. The Conservative members often argue that, although the percentage will decrease under their bill, the number of seats that Quebec has in the House will increase.

Unfortunately, although there may be an increase in the gross number of seats, there will also be a decrease in Quebec's political weight in the House. I would like to do a little math. For example, if there were 100 members and 24.35% of them were members from Quebec, then if the number of members were increased to 200, 48.70% of them would be from Quebec. There would therefore be a relative increase in Quebec's political weight. I think that is very important.

In 2006, as has been indicated a number of times, this government recognized the Quebec nation. There needs to be an understanding, however, of what equity means in relation to fairness. In his speech, the member that rose before me said that it was not a question of equal representation but of fair representation. I could not agree more because I think that that is very much in line with what we are proposing. We are not talking about equity purely in terms of population—five representatives for every five representatives, six for every six—we are talking about what is truly fair, we are talking about a province that has been recognized as a nation, and we are talking about a concentrated francophone population that is a minority in North America. It is very important therefore to ensure that we have significant political weight.

The upshot of having a francophone minority is that the issues are often different. Therefore, we need different representation, and in this case, greater representation. We are not asking for major change, just that our political weight in relation to the rest of the House remain the same. I think this request is quite reasonable.

The other issue that I wish to raise is the proposal made by the other opposition parties regarding the cost of the bill. It would increase the number of seats in the House, which would cost more money in a period of economic uncertainty. And yet, we are asking all our fellow citizens to tighten their belts. It would not be fair to increase the number of politicians while services are being slashed.

In principle, I agree that it is not appropriate to have more government spending at a time of budget cutbacks. I do not agree with the current cuts. I do not want to start debating other bills that will be discussed in the upcoming days, but there is a very simple solution to getting the resources needed to fund appropriate elected representation, representation that is accountable to the public: the abolition of the other place, the Senate. We would then have sufficient additional resources to fund an increase in the number of elected representatives in this House, who would be transparent and accountable to the Canadian public. That would be a very simple solution and it would kill several birds with one stone: the problem we are discussing today and the problem that will be discussed in the upcoming days.

I would now like to talk about the issue of Quebec's representation. It is crucial that we respond to an argument that may be made by our colleagues opposite regarding what this means as far as the representation of the other provinces is concerned. I have already answered that question in part by saying that we are not calling for an increase in the number of seats; we just want Quebec's political weight to be maintained.

Moreover, the increased political weight of other provinces with growing populations does not necessarily go against the interests of Quebec in this instance. We completely understand that in certain provinces, particularly in British Columbia and Alberta, the population is growing and requires increased representation in the House.

It is quite correct to say that Quebeckers—a very reasonable people who are well acquainted with how political representation works—will understand why other provinces' representation is being increased. The NDP members in particular are working very hard and campaigned on this issue. Our late leader, Mr. Layton, said on several occasions during the election campaign that we were working on maintaining Quebec's political weight while giving the other provinces their due. These two notions are not in conflict and need not be considered separately.

The other problem with this bill, which specifically affects my riding, has to do with boundary changes and the readjustment of ridings. This issue will be addressed at the start of next year, in 2012. I represent Chambly—Borduas, which is the third-largest riding in Quebec in terms of population. This means that we will certainly see a change in our electoral boundaries. This past year, provincial ridings were changed, including my own riding. These changes were not easy. A number of municipal, provincial and community bodies worked very hard to ensure that these changes were fair and that they did not harm the public interest or representation.

That is why I was so proud to second the motion by my colleague from Hamilton Centre this morning. This motion aims to delete the government's clause that would reduce the time period for notices in the Canada Gazette and would enable people to sign up to participate in redoing the electoral map.

It is very important to give all community bodies the chance to speak up in order to maintain some regional equality, as was the case with municipalities in the Richelieu valley and the Chambly basin, in the provincial riding of Chambly, and as will certainly be the case with this region's federal riding.

This is something we will examine. I think it will be very important to look at this issue very carefully in the coming months and to allow all stakeholders to speak. That is why I support the opposition's work plans.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. That is the kind of issue we need to examine in the legislative process. There are so many factors to consider. Each case must be looked at individually, because the needs vary.

Like other members here, I talked about the police's ability to respond in my speech. That must be taken into account, because it will have an impact on what people decide to do. Knowing that help is not coming right away could push them to act, as in the well-documented case of Mr. Chen. However, knowing that help is on the way soon might prevent people from doing anything, even in a case where it might have been better to act. No one can know. In situations like that, adrenalin takes over. It would be really hard to come up with a perfect law that takes all these factors into account.

Our responsibility is to come up with the best thing to do in order to give the best possible tools to ordinary Canadians, to police officers and to judges so that they can deal with these situations. After that, whatever happens happens. Things will never be perfect. These situations are often dangerous, but we can at least try to come up with a compromise that will be acceptable to all communities and everyone involved.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comments. Thanks to him, I am going to put off the members of this House even more with the term “reasonable”.

As my colleague from St. John's East said earlier today in his speech, when we want to make changes to the Criminal Code, one of the challenges we face is this idea that once the law has been changed, we cannot refer to the jurisprudence to the same extent. That is a risk. It is for that reason that this word can be very specific in certain contexts and very broad in others. It is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to ensure that the legislation is flexible enough for the legal sense of the word to be clearly understood.

As for the sections that my colleague quoted, there is a slight imbalance in some cases. We could be more specific about some things and broaden certain provisions. That is the sort of work we hope to do in committee. We could really fine-tune this aspect by hearing from experts, which we all seem to want to do.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 1st, 2011]

I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments, which are very fair. If the issue the bill addresses is so complex, it is because there seem to be nuances in every case. Each case has a certain complexity. No two cases are identical. If every member of the House were given the opportunity to speak about this bill, we could hear hundreds and even thousands of different stories.

That is why it is very important to hear from as many people as possible within the specified time period. It is very important to hear from all the parties, to hear the comments of both academic legal experts and ordinary citizens, and to give the people we represent here in the House a chance to be heard.

In this way, Bill C-26 will enable us to live in a society where we are safe, and where we can protect ourselves but do not take the law into our own hands by deciding to act like police officers. The goal is to make our communities safe and we want to work together to achieve that goal.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and comments. I completely agree that we must hear from people with a variety of perspectives. In my speech, I talked a lot about hearing from legal experts but we could also hear from victims who took action. As the hon. member pointed out, we could also hear from victims who did not take action because they were afraid of breaking the law, which is why it is important to carefully examine the nuances and how they are perceived by the public. That is very important.

If we find ourselves in the same situation as certain victims have, we should not have to think about the law. The law should be designed to protect everyone: victims who choose to act and those who choose not to. It is an excellent idea to gather all these comments. That is exactly how we on this side of the House would like to proceed, and I am certain that the members opposite will agree.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Lucky Moose case is interesting and shocking; however, I must admit that, quite frankly, this bill is the first opportunity I have had to really understand what happened and the problems that Mr. Chen had with the law. Mr. Chen lives in my colleague's riding of Trinity—Spadina. I think that the intentions of the bill that she introduced during the 40th Parliament are more or less identical to those found in Bill C-26, which we are discussing today.

I think there are two important factors to consider. We are talking about the power to make citizen's arrests, as in Mr. Chen's case, but I also think that we have to qualify that. Mr. Chen is the owner of a local business that does not necessarily have the money for insurance or security the way a big business such as McDonald's does.

The members of the NDP—and I am sure the members opposite will agree—believe that this is one very important aspect. We want to give ordinary citizens, particularly entrepreneurs who are at risk of becoming the victims of such crimes, the ability to defend themselves. That is very important. However, there is also another factor to consider, and that is the fact that we all live in a community, we all have the right to protect ourselves—at least we should have it—and we all have the right to help and protect each other.

The hypothetical example that came to mind as I read this bill and thought about it was that of seniors in my riding. There are many seniors in my riding and we know that they need help with many aspects of their daily lives. This is the perfect example because, if a person wants to help someone in need but is not certain of the provisions of the Criminal Code, it becomes very difficult and worrisome for that person to help. We should not have to worry when we find ourselves in a situation where we want to help someone in a reasonable manner, as mentioned in the bill. Once again, the word is “reasonable”, and it is used again and again; I will come back to this point a little later.

I think that is what is important. To go back to what the hon. members for St. John's East and Mount Royal said, we have to truly find a way to create clear legislation when we are talking about citizen's arrest, defence of property and self-defence. As the hon. member for Welland said—it seems we are all essentially in agreement—we want to have clear legislation to ensure that the defender acts swiftly in an urgent and critical situation. We have to avoid the situation where the person wonders what is in subsection 494.2 and how it will affect them. People should have the power to react.

That being said, I think we have been quite clear on this side of the House, that this has to be done within reason. I am not a legal expert, but it is common knowledge that the term “reasonable” is well defined in the legal field. It is everything considered reasonable by any reasonable person. That is usually what it means. Hon. members with law degrees will correct me if I am wrong or add clarification. With a bill like this one, we want to be certain that it not only includes these terms, but that they are understood by the public.

We have a perfect example when we look at the self-defence or defence of property provisions.

I would like to take this opportunity to quote the Supreme Court ruling in R. v. McIntosh, where Chief Justice Lamer said:

...ss. 34 and 35...are highly technical, excessively detailed provisions deserving of much criticism. These provisions overlap, and are internally inconsistent in certain respects.

This is very important because it shows us that even the Supreme Court of Canada justices are unable to fully understand the Criminal Code. Hence, it would certainly not be clear to an individual who is not necessarily a legal expert, especially, as I mentioned, if they were to find themselves in a dire or urgent situation where their life was potentially in danger.

What is being proposed is fairly straightforward and clear. This has been said many times and I will repeat it. We must allow experts, victims and lawyers to thoroughly examine this in committee. I know that most of my hon. colleagues who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice are lawyers or are quite knowledgeable about the law. Like my colleague from Welland, I am very pleased to see that our colleagues opposite feel the same way.

We also want to study this bill because we want to ensure that the bill is clear, not just so we have the right to defend ourselves, as I already mentioned, but also so that we do not get caught up in what I call the “Clint Eastwood phenomenon”, where we all become cowboys acting in self-defence. By defending ourselves, we end up causing more harm than good. We all assume the role of police officers. That would go against what we believe to be the purpose of this bill. Once again, we come back to the term “reasonable”. I believe this concept will be very important.

A few years ago, there were some cases of home invasions in Quebec—in Brossard and Montreal's West Island—that received a great deal of media coverage. In these highly documented and very revolting cases—which sometimes had tragic consequences—there was a great deal of reporting and commentary, by both the media and the public, as to the fact that it was not clear. We must be in a position to fully understand our rights and the restrictions in order not to have to think in such circumstances and to be able to defend ourselves. We also have to agree that, in some cases, we must use some judgment.

Let us take the hypothetical example of a couple. The man pushes the woman and she attacks him very violently, in a way that could be classified as too violent, excessive or unreasonable—to use that term again. However, we do not know the history between them.

We must really take the time to study the bill to ensure that in specific situations, such as ones where there is a known history, measures are in place to ensure that police officers and judges can take adequate and appropriate action.

The work we do in committee is very important. We are talking about experts. I am not a legal expert and many of my colleagues are not, either. That is where our responsibilities as parliamentarians become very important, both during debate in the House and in committee. We must make good use of the resources available to us. Those include not only legal experts, but also victims and people who have experienced serious situations, like Mr. Chen. Although this was a very high profile and surprising case, there must certainly be other circumstances that are similar.

I must talk about another aspect. I mentioned seniors, but there are other groups too.

I am not entirely familiar with Mr. Chen's case, so I will be careful about what I say. In his case, there was some racial profiling, as happens in other ethnic communities.

Mr. Chen belongs to an ethnic community and he was charged with kidnapping, when in reality, he was simply defending his business. Making the bill more specific gives police officers tools so that they will be less likely to judge or accuse people who act in this manner.

I find it unfortunate to have to raise the next point, but since my colleague from Welland already did, I would like to take the opportunity to do so now. Since the beginning of this parliamentary session, work in committee has been very rushed, as have our debates in the House of Commons. That is too bad, since we talk about the bills.

Let us take the example of Bill C-10, which has to do with the Criminal Code. There is no doubt that this is a very complex issue.

We should have been taking advantage of these opportunities, both in the House and in committee, and deferring to the expertise and wisdom of our colleagues. As we all know, the hon. member for Mount Royal is very knowledgeable in this area, as are many other members. We should be taking advantage of our colleague's knowledge in order to fine-tune this very complex matter. Indeed, the Criminal Code is very complex. It is full of nuances that we need to pay attention to. That is what we are looking for.

The NDP's position is very clear: we want to find the nuances. We want to defend victims, but we also want to ensure that the measures are reasonable in that regard. That is where the nuances become important.

In the clauses of the bill, some examples talk about timeframes. In the case of Mr. Chen, the time that passed between when the crime was committed and the citizen's arrest was too long.

We need to have some degree of flexibility. However, we must also ensure that if a business owner thinks he or she recognizes someone who committed a crime 10 years ago—someone who stole candy in a corner store, for instance—that individual cannot be arrested. Business owners are vital to the local economy and must be able to defend themselves.

As MPs, we all go through these kinds of situations. My colleague's riding of Welland is half urban and half rural. Earlier he talked about cuts to police services. We have to remember that rural areas are not the only areas with more limited services. My riding is considered to be located primarily in the suburbs, and we are experience the same thing. In some cases, different municipalities are even sharing police officers. The municipalities do not necessarily have the same resources, so they are sharing them in order to provide better services.

That happens in some cases, but in others, when something is considered more urgent, the police forces focus on that, and rightly so.

At other times, there is no chance to benefit from these advantages. I can think of a few examples, such as petty thefts committed in small, local businesses.

In those cases, the response time can be quite long, at least in my experience and in others' experiences. That is where the problem lies.

Given that our police officers work very hard and do not necessarily have the resources to do everything they would like to do, we all have to help each other.

I also mentioned that we have to be careful that we do not all become police officers. We have to consider other aspects, including students who work part-time at a store to pay for school.

If a thief enters the store, public pressure—if I can use that expression—should not make the clerk feel forced to intervene.

Although we have the right to make a citizen's arrest, we also have the right to protect ourselves and to not necessarily intervene in a potentially dangerous situation.

To come back to this example, pressure might come from colleagues who feel pressured by the boss. The legislation should not be drafted in a way that a person feels pressured by his or her boss, a store owner for example, to intervene at all costs. That would not be appropriate.

As I was saying earlier, this would cause more harm than good in some circumstances. It is not worth risking one's life for a petty theft. Everyone agrees that life is priceless.

What is more, we must not lose sight of the fact that many situations are hypothetical. That is the problem. Not all of us have experienced what Mr. Chen went through, but the important thing is peace of mind, as I was saying earlier. We all share the desire to live free from such concerns in our communities.

I want to mention the Supreme Court's decision once again. There was also a problem in that case. However, cases involving a citizen's arrest are usually much more straightforward. If someone is caught in the act of stealing from a corner store, the case is fairly black and white. The person was apprehended while actually committing a crime.

Cases involving self-defence are harder to judge. Earlier, I mentioned cases in which we are less aware of the previous history.

The way in which the incident is reported to the police is also important. To use an example that is something of a cliché, a person who is in a dangerous neighbourhood or an area that is less safe gets attacked. That person would then exercise his right to self-defence.

He may defend himself and then run away. He calls the police because, clearly, he would not wait there with the attacker against whom he just defended himself. Clearly, he had to run away and think about his own safety.

Later, depending on how the facts are reported, the police will have to use a certain amount of judgment, and they are very qualified to do just that.

However, our responsibility as parliamentarians is to provide the tools need by both the police and judges—when the time comes—to exercise that judgment.

It is thus very important to work together to ensure that all the nuances are clearly understood. Together, we can come up with a very good bill.