Matthew Dubé

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

Madam Speaker, the issue addressed by this bill is so delicate that it is important to obtain expert legal opinions. My colleague from St. John's East spoke about the importance of studying this bill in committee to find just the right balance in order to ensure that it does not lead to the abuse of the defence of property and the person.

Could my hon. colleague tell me how we could go about finding this balance? We must protect people who want to defend themselves and the rest of the population in order to ensure that abuses do not occur and that people do not become de facto police officers.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there is a term that I quite liked in the hon. member's speech and that is “risk factors”. It is very interesting. The idea is that all of us here are in favour of virtue and reducing crime, especially violent crime, as the hon. member put it so well. In the meantime, we all have different approaches.

The Minister of Justice often cites a poll from Quebec that says that every Quebecker is in favour of harsher sentences, but there is more to it than that. This does not necessarily mean they support the measures in Bill C-10, because that bill has a number of problems.

I would like the hon. member to say a few words about the fact that when we talk about risk factors, we are talking about issues in our society such as health and education. Now, not only are those issues not being addressed in order to reduce crime, but the provinces are being asked to dig into their budgets for these programs, to pay for this bill.

I would like the hon. member to elaborate on this problem.

[Canada Labour Code, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out a rather interesting fact. Today is November 25, which means that two days from now marks the fifth anniversary of this House passing nearly unanimously a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation.

Recognizing a nation is not something that one should take lightly. Although I was not here at the time, I am sure that no one in this House made the decision lightly, and yet, about 250 members—I am sorry I do not recall the exact number—voted in favour of the motion. After supporting such a motion, one should then walk the talk. So far, however, no concrete action has been taken in that regard.

It is very interesting because yesterday, the government surprised us by revealing some lovely projects. It plans simply to launch a committee to work on the issue of official languages. In a press release, the government said it is committed to promoting and protecting the French language in Canada. That is rather interesting, because I do not really understand how it can do that, when some of the people in the highest positions of governance in this country are not even bilingual, such as the Auditor General and Supreme Court judges. That is definitely an argument for another day. The fact remains that I do not understand how, with all of that in mind, the Conservatives have the nerve to come to this House and boast about defending the French language. This really amazes me and I am having a hard time understanding it all.

At the same time, it is interesting to see that the member who spoke before me talked about the absence of a problem. He said that no complaints have been received and there is not really a problem, so we would create a law to solve a problem that does not exist. If there is no problem, why form a committee? Why talk about it? Why take the initiative to try to solve a problem if there is none? It seems to me that this is an admission that there is indeed a problem.

We have to ask ourselves another question. If we are determined to protect the French language, is the fact that complaints may or may not have been filed such a big issue? We are simply asking for the harmonization of the existing provisions of the Charter of the French Language with the Canada Labour Code.

I am going to quote a specific part in the preamble of the Charter of the French Language. It reads:

The French language, the distinctive language of a people that is in the majority French-speaking, is the instrument by which that people has articulated its identity.

In that sentence I see an idea that complements in a very concrete fashion the recognition of the Quebec nation. Yet some government members are opposed to our bill, which simply affirms this recognition through a concrete measure.

Let us get back to the committee that will look at this matter. Things are still vague. We do not really know the committee's mandate, which stakeholders will be asked to appear and what specific issues the committee will attempt to solve. The government is setting up a committee, but says that it wants to look at the issue and solve the problem.

That is very odd, because when we, on this side, want to look at problems or delve into issues raised in other bills, the government ends the debate and moves on to something else. However, when the issue is the French language, the government is in no hurry. The NDP is proposing concrete measures, but the Conservatives want to take their time and review the matter. Meanwhile, Quebeckers have clearly told us what their needs are. Complaints may not have been filed regarding the Canada Labour Code, but Quebeckers expressed their views in another way, a very important way, on May 2.

Let me explain. During the election campaign, we, the NDP candidates, and particularly our leader, Jack Layton, said clearly that if we were elected we would look at the issue to really ensure that the Charter of the French Language and the Canada Labour Code were harmonized. As we all know, Quebeckers voted massively for our party, because of the concrete initiatives that we want to take in this House. Quebeckers did not ask for a committee to look at the matter. After all, this issue has been dragging on for a long time.

We know that, among other initiatives, the hon. member for Outremont introduced an almost identical bill during the 40th Parliament, and we are simply tabling it again. This is not the first time that it has been debated. Moreover, we are well aware that, in our country, linguistic issues have been very important issues for decades.

These are in no way new issues. In fact, it is practically the opposite: these issues need to be dealt with immediately.

I know that often, when we debate bills, the best way to make government members understand is by talking about an economic aspect. So I will speak to these issues by giving an economic argument to support this bill.

This is a labour right, a right for Quebec workers. This government claims to be a great defender of people who wish to work, who wish to find a job and who wish to meet their family's needs in uncertain economic times. This is one way of helping those people.

My riding is more than 95% francophone. For these people, it is a labour right. When people work to meet their families' needs, to make ends meet or to earn a living, they have a fundamental right to work in their language. This reality should be even more concrete since Quebec has been recognized as a nation. This issue of language rights has gone on far too long. To me, that is clear. It is interesting because, none of the arguments made by the government or the Liberal Party are in opposition to the bill. They recognize that there is a problem because they want to form a committee. So do not try to tell me that there is no problem. Obviously, if they are willing to form a committee, it means that they recognize that there is a problem.

They talk about respecting both official languages, but do nothing to protect them. This is a concrete measure, an opportunity to show that we are willing to do more than just pay lip service. This is an opportunity, if I may, Mr. Speaker, for redemption from the colossal mistake of appointing unilingual officers to such important positions in our country and to much opposition. I am still trying to find a good and solid reason to oppose a measure that simply harmonizes the Canada Labour Code with existing measures in the Charter of the French Language of Quebec. We are not asking to make major changes to our society. These are measures that have existed since the 1970s. They are already in place.

The NDP thinks that it is normal for the 200,000 people working in federally regulated companies to have the same rights as their colleagues who work in companies or institutions under the umbrella of the Charter of the French Language. It is not very complicated.

I want to come back to the use of the French language and the issue of anglophone minorities. Part of my family is anglophone and I believe that the fact that they experienced the implementation of the Charter of the French Language puts me in a good position to say that it does not infringe on our rights in any way whatsoever; rather, it completes and strengthens francophone rights. Those are two very different things. Anglophones are not being prevented from speaking English. The charter simply protects the fundamental right of francophones to work in French and to receive communications and their collective agreement in French. In labour law, the language of expression, the language that allows us to work and take our place at our work, is essential. It is our identity. It is our way of expressing ourselves. We cannot do without it. I am still waiting to hear arguments to the contrary. The answer is easy. Everyone should support this bill.

I want to commend the hon. member for Trois-Rivières on his work. I know that we in the NDP are taking concrete actions and I am very proud of that.

[Canada Labour Code, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières. One very important point in this bill has to do with the rights of workers in Quebec. We are talking about people's right to speak the language of their choice at work, especially since this House has recognized the Quebec nation.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on the importance of French in the workplace in Quebec and how this bill will help improve the situation.

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there are many points to address in my colleague's comments. I will try to do so in the time available to me.

First of all, I would say that we are not talking about punishing creators. I do not see a contradiction in what I said because, in this situation, we are talking specifically about having a certain flexibility in the bill with respect to appropriate uses, as in the case of education. Naturally, if we are talking about an artist who makes music or a movie, for example, in that case we are very open to finding ways to protect creators and to ensure that they receive their fair share because they make a substantial contribution to our society. At the same time, it is very important to point out that, in this case, we really are trying to make exceptions for students for the purposes of education to improve our society.

I will quickly touch on the other point mentioned by my colleague. The bill does not specifically state that students have to burn their course notes. However, it is understood that this is implied by the bill. These are concerns expressed to us by students and professors, and not the other way around. As the elected members of this House, we must convey the concerns of the people in an environment that benefits greatly from these creations.

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and neighbour. We share a very beautiful region. That said, he raises an excellent point, because I think that is where we wanted to go with our comments and arguments about this bill.

For instance, the United States has the Copyright Act, which protects schools, libraries and their staff—including librarians, researchers, teachers and users such as students—in situations in which, as we know, the use of the information and the creations in question is meant to benefit the individual, the student in this case, in the context of his or her instruction and education. In such a context, I think any reasonable person would agree that this use does not infringe copyright. No one is trying to pirate anything or do something that goes against the interest of an author or creator; rather, they are simply trying to improve themselves and take part in a dialogue when it comes to artistic, cultural or other creations.

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to talk about this bill. In Quebec especially, we understand the importance of protecting our creators and being able to use their creations. That is the crux of the NDP's position on this bill. A balance must be struck between protecting consumers and allowing them to contribute to our culture in that way, and the creators’ right to be adequately protected.

In my speech, I am going to address a specific aspect of the bill: its impact on education, and opportunities for teachers to teach and for students to take advantage of what is provided for them during their studies.

By way of introduction, I am going to cite a few interesting statistics. Libraries are increasingly popular in Quebec. There has been an uptick in revenue and the number of items loaned by libraries since 2002. It is worth noting that in 2007 alone, there were about 300 million items loaned out by libraries in Quebec. There is a clear trend in terms of Quebeckers' desire to share and participate in this creation, in culture, in education and in teaching.

Having said that, I have had the opportunity in recent months, since the beginning of my mandate, to meet with many stakeholders on this issue, particularly from the education community. For example, the Fédération des associations étudiantes du campus de l'Université de Montréal, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, and the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations have all had an opportunity to share their opinions on this bill. Having referred to these groups, I would now like to turn to their opinion of this bill.

The major problems with this bill have been discussed on several occasions, but I would like to revisit the issue of fair dealing. The bill has a clause that pertains to “fair dealing” in an educational context. It is important to stress that other clauses in the bill contradict the concept of fair dealing. Allow me to explain.

To begin with, there is the concept of digital locks. This is the kind of proposal that requires a collaborative effort on the part of both government and opposition members. As my colleague from Vancouver East mentioned, we agree entirely that in this digital era, in 2011, it is very important to take a look at technology and its potential impact on creations and copyright. However, in the case of digital locks, there is no fair deal for students and teachers. They would be treated in exactly the same way as an individual flouting copyright.

That means that if a student or a teacher uses a creation that is available in a digital format for purposes that do not breach copyright, they would be punished in the same way as an individual engaging in piracy. It would be tantamount to breaking the law and breaching copyright. The other factor that impinges on fair dealing is the mandatory destruction after a five-day period of digital documents obtained via inter-library loans.

When you are a university student, you often have an opportunity to take part in programs for sharing between various libraries. When I was attending McGill University, I was able to borrow documents from other universities such as the Université de Montréal, Concordia University and the Université du Québec à Montréal—UQAM — and it was very helpful. Not all universities have expertise in every subject and they do not all have the same resources. So this allows a student or professor to share various resources and thus to expand their knowledge and the knowledge of the people they teach.

In this case, it is completely absurd to say that the documents should be destroyed or returned after five days. To think that in five days a student will be able to get everything they need out of the documents they have borrowed and be able to use them in their work for the purposes of education is to fail to understand what life is like for students today.

This is the kind of thing we could rework to be sure we find a happy medium, to take into account the reality of the digital era in 2011 and at the same time allow students to get the full benefit of works that have been produced precisely to contribute to their education.

And the third point that runs counter to the fair dealing aspect in this bill is the destruction of course notes 30 days after the end of a session. Once again, this presents a problem, because we are talking precisely about copyright, when the student has already paid for the copyright attached to their course notes. They contributed to that process, and they would be obliged to destroy their course notes.

This is not the only problem. First, a student who has already participated in a process and who wants to benefit from a situation and benefit, by personal use, from the education they have paid for is being prevented from doing that. That being said, we are talking here about private and personal use and not public use, which actually would infringe copyright. And second, this situation also affects professors who want precisely to adapt the material so they are better able to work with students who need special material because of a disability, for example.

This problem has been raised by the students I have had the good fortune to meet during my term, and in my opinion it is a very serious problem.

I also mentioned that we have had an opportunity to meet with professors. That is interesting, because often, at the university level, professors are not just the people who communicate the information in question, they are also the creators, the authors in this situation. I am thinking in particular of the people at the Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université, who were so kind as to share their concerns about this bill with us. Specifically, they talked about the three points I have just mentioned, which run counter to the concept of fair dealing. But they also talked, in their own way, about teaching their courses better.

That is a very important point, because not only would students have to destroy class notes, but the course instructors would also have to destroy their course plans. And that is problematic. First, course instructors have to start somewhere. They have to learn from their own mistakes or successes in doing their job. They should be able to reuse a course plan—something they created from whatever was available—to do a better job the next time or improve on a job well done.

There is another, similar problem: course instructors are often asked to come up with innovative ideas and improve how they do their job, but they are also asked to find ways to keep youth interested and make the education system and teaching interesting. If the instructors know they will be forced to destroy their work 30 days after a session ends, where is the incentive to work hard to improve the process? They will not want to put in more time than necessary, knowing full well that in a year or in four or six months, they will have to start over. Those are a few of the issues that come up.

To conclude, as my colleagues said, we are looking for a compromise. We know that we need to adapt to the digital age and that important provisions need to be implemented. However, this needs to be done for creators and consumers, not for the large corporations and big businesses that will reap the benefits to the detriment of our creators and users.

[Millennium Development Goals, November 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Charlotte Côté and Camille Desrochers-Laflamme, two individuals I greatly admire for their social involvement, came to my riding office to give me a petition asking the Government of Canada to fully participate in meeting the millennium development goals.

These young students from École d'éducation internationale de McMasterville took the initiative to start this petition and collected no less than 450 signatures as part of the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty on October 17.

By so doing, on this important day of social mobilization, they joined other students throughout Quebec in working to combat poverty and in drawing the attention of world leaders to the importance of achieving the millennium development goals.

I would therefore like to recognize the social commitment demonstrated by the students at École d'éducation internationale de McMasterville and their efforts to eliminate poverty in Quebec, in Canada and throughout the world.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to people who are being treated like criminals. Yet people will pay for licences to drive their boats and they will pay registration fees. They do the same thing for their cars. Those people do not feel like criminals. People use those things in their everyday lives.

A lot less people use firearms in their daily lives. Why is it acceptable to have to pay fees and be registered in a system for vehicles, but not for firearms?

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, October 27th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member mentioned the tragic events at the École Polytechnique. They are etched into the collective memory of Quebeckers and, for many, they are one of the reasons this registry was created in the first place. This registry is extremely important to Quebec and, mere days ago, the Prime Minister stated that his respect for the provinces is one aspect of good governance. In light of that, I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that, despite what the Government of Quebec wants, the Conservatives are going to destroy the data we paid for with our taxes.