Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak about Bill C-27.

This bill is of particular interest to me, not because there are a lot of aboriginal communities in my riding, but because I put myself in the shoes of everyday Canadians who are concerned about the problems faced by the first nations, as described by my colleague, and consider the bill from that perspective.

Once again, the government foisted legislation on us without any consultative process. There is nothing new about what we are seeing today: it is common practice for the Conservative government to fail to consult those affected by its bills.

This bill is testament to the government's inability to engage in a consultative process before imposing measures. The bill will most certainly have an impact on those concerned— people who could have brought something positive to the debate. These people are better informed than we are as legislators. A consultative process enables us to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are directly affected, who work and are active in the field on a daily basis. That is why consultations are important. The government has never bothered to hold consultations before drafting legislation.

As I said earlier, this government is often driven by a populist approach. It responds to certain specific events. In this particular case, newspapers reported that a few first nations chiefs had extremely high salaries. As usual, the Conservatives are reacting to very specific issues and introducing legislation accordingly. In my opinion, that way of legislating is not good for our country and does not help us to move forward. The government is simply reacting to small-scale events that have no broad application in Canada.

In our opinion, it is unprecedented that a federal statute would prescribe the disclosure of an independent source of income. I think this will hurt the first nations. The government claims that the bill is designed to help them and that its intentions are good, but the bill could have the opposite effect.

If that much information is disclosed, a number of businesses and companies working on reserve will have to make public more information than their counterparts. These companies will have to disclose this information to the public at large. This means posting information on a website for the whole world to see. Anybody who has access to the Internet, in Canada or elsewhere, will have access to the information. It will obviously give companies that have access to privileged information regarding other companies an unfair advantage. Businesses that are forced to publish more information will lose their competitive edge.

We believe that this will actually achieve the opposite of what the Conservatives want. This will not help the communities in any way, because those businesses will not want to remain associated with first nations, since that would put them at a disadvantage in Canadian markets. We think the opposite will occur: businesses will steer clear of first nations and the money will disappear. This means even fewer resources for first nations, which is definitely not a good thing.

Judith Sayers, who holds the national aboriginal economic development chair at the University of Victoria, gives an interesting explanation:

The fallout of this is that in an effort to remove a First Nation business from the need to publish its financial statements publicly, the business is too far removed from the First Nation and has no connection or accountability to the members of the First Nation. This whole provision needs to be seriously rethought with a business perspective as well as one of equality of other companies and businesses out there that do not need to publish their financial statements for the world to see.

We are talking about entrepreneurship, which sometimes gets the Conservatives' attention. Fairness for all companies in Canada is diminishing. Some companies will be subject to certain requirements, while others will not. It is simply unfair to those businesses.

The other point I wanted to address is the fact that accountability should exist among local governments, first nations and the population. We do not understand why this information should be made public. The goal of the bill was to make this information available to the members of aboriginal communities, not to the entire world.

This measure will disadvantage these first nations. How can the goal of this bill be achieved when countless aboriginal communities simply do not have access to the Internet? The government is missing the point here. It says the information will be posted on a website, but there are people who do not even have access to the Internet. I do not have the exact figures, but a large proportion of aboriginal communities, which are often in remote areas, do not even have access to the Internet. The government is not solving a problem. It is creating a false problem and appears to be trying to solve it in order to satisfy special interests.

I would add that accountability between the first nations and their members is already covered by section 69 of the Indian Act. Measures are already in place whereby the first nations must produce reports for the department and share the information with their members. This is already included in provisions, in laws. This bill does nothing but satisfy some lobby group, probably. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation often comes up. As I was saying earlier, because of one specific incident, the government seems to be trying to change the legislation in order to satisfy a particular group that took exception to some figures a few years ago.

In my view, this bill goes against two rulings by the Federal Court. As I was saying, it has already been said that there needs to be accountability. Two rulings mention it, including the ruling in Montana Band of Indians v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), where the court found that first nations' financial statements were confidential information within the meaning of paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act and, accordingly, were not required to be disclosed. This bill contradicts federal legislation, namely the Access to Information Act.

We have a number of questions about access to information legislation. Will this be protected? The Privacy Act might be affected as well.

There was also Sawridge Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs). The court ruled that these financial statements are not confidential vis-à-vis the members of a first nations band, since the members of a band can have access to the financial statements of their own band under the Indian Bands Revenue Moneys Regulations.

This Federal Court ruling explained that these documents were already accessible to band members. In theory, Bill C-27 is not needed to gain access to this information. Laws and court rulings have already granted this access.

The government of a first nation must be accountable to its members. This bill is merely a reaction to newspaper articles. As I said earlier, the Conservatives like to react to specific incidents in this manner.

Members spoke about the salaries of first nations leaders, lumping them all together. However, as mentioned earlier, the reality is that the average salary of chiefs is $60,000 and the average salary of councillors is $31,000. It is important to note that 50% of chiefs earn less than $60,000 and that only 5% of them earn more than $100,000. I mentioned that the government was reacting to specific incidents that do not reflect the general reality in Canada. Only 5% of chiefs earn over $100,000. Here in the House, we all know our salary: we earn over $150,000. Should these chiefs, who are responsible for their bands, be making less than $60,000 or $30,000? This raises some questions.

Of course, the NDP supports transparency and accountability at all levels of government. We oppose useless measures that will serve only to increase red tape for first nations. I spoke about red tape a little earlier when I asked my colleague a question. The government says that all red tape must be eliminated because it costs too much and it is not good. However, there are two bills before the House that will increase red tape for unions and first nations: private member's Bill C-377 and Bill C-27, respectively. A government that prides itself on eliminating red tape in this country is thus doing the exact opposite, and creating red tape for specific target groups in Canada.

Unfortunately, the government did not work with us in committee at all. I said earlier that the government never consulted the first nations. When it comes to consulting the opposition, the government is even worse. The government always refuses to work with us.

We proposed 18 amendments that the Conservatives never considered. As a result, we are going to vote against this bill. I welcome any questions.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague a question.

The government is asking the first nations to provide information to their own members. It should be noted that sometimes it is difficult for some members to get certain information. However, is the solution really to make that information public and available to everyone? When information is posted on a website, everyone in the world has access to it.

Is a website that everyone has access to really the solution for ensuring that every member has access to this information? Businesses on the reserves could take advantage of that information.

Is this really the solution?

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to put a question to my colleague, whom I congratulate on her speech.

The Conservatives often talk about red tape. They say they have to eliminate it as much as possible, but when the time comes for action, they do exactly the opposite. Bill C-377 generates even more red tape for the unions. And now the government is generating even more red tape for aboriginal people as well.

What can my colleague tell us about the Conservatives' doublespeak? When the time comes to take action, it does exactly the opposite and generates more red tape for communities.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives often play populist politics. They react to specific incidents and then introduce legislation. This is no way to manage a country and create laws.

What does the hon. member think about the approach the Conservatives are taking by reacting to incidents reported in the newspapers and then creating legislation that applies to all aboriginal communities in Canada? Does he think this is the right way to legislate?

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question on a point that has been mentioned several times, specifically, that some businesses with ties to first nations will be forced to share some very sensitive information.

In the business and finance community, certain information cannot be disclosed to the public, because it could prove to be a disadvantage from a competitive standpoint. Does the member think this measure could put those businesses at a disadvantage? Could this measure deprive aboriginal communities of certain sums of money because businesses do not want some information to be shared?

The government is calling for improved conditions for aboriginals, but this measure will do exactly the opposite, since it could scare businesses away. What does the member think of the fact that this could reduce the amount of money available to these communities?

[Financial Literacy Leader Act, November 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask another question on this issue.

I have to say that the committee did a fine job. I was not there, but I heard about it. The NDP proposed six amendments in all, while the Liberals and the Conservatives did not suggest one single amendment.

One of the amendments put forward by the NDP was that the legislation should express explicitly that the incumbent of this position should be bilingual. As we have seen in the case of the Auditor General of Canada, a unilingual anglophone holds this position. However, right now, it seems he is making an effort at least to learn the second official language.

As I did not attend the committee, I would like to know whether the Liberals supported this amendment to ensure that the legislation states explicitly that the position should be filled by someone who is bilingual.

[Financial Literacy Leader Act, November 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.

As a party, the NDP has always worked towards eliminating poverty in Canada. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. If people were better informed of their financial rights and if they had more answers and clearer information on finance in general, would that reduce poverty?

[Canada Elections Act, November 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-424, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (contestation of election and punishment). I want to thank and congratulate the hon. member for Beauséjour, who is the sponsor of this commendable private member's bill.

Bill C-424 has to do with a fundamental pillar of our democracy: the electoral process. As legislators, we have a duty to preserve the integrity of our democratic system. We must cherish and appreciate the good fortune we have of living in a country where fair and free elections are held on a regular basis. Unfortunately, as with everything, some people abuse our system and try to get around the rules that are in place. These malicious people have to be punished in a way that fits their crimes. That is what Bill C-424 tries to do, in part.

Some unfortunate events presumably took place during the last general election on May 2, 2011. I am talking about what is commonly referred to as the robocall scandal. This bill seems to me to have been motivated by this disgraceful incident. This type of fraudulent tactic undermines the public's trust in the electoral system. Something must be done to regain that trust. This bill will help to do that. I would like to talk about the specifics of Bill C-424, so that those watching at home can understand what we are talking about today.

First, Bill C-424 amends paragraphs 500(5)(a) and 500(5)(b) of the Canada Elections Act to multiply the fines for some offences by 10. The fines will thus increase from $2,000 to $20,000 for summary convictions and from $5,000 to $50,000 for indictments.

The type of offences covered by paragraphs 500(5)(a) and 500(5)(b) include delaying or obstructing the electoral process; offering or accepting a bribe; compelling or intimidating a person to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate; acting as an election officer without being one; wilfully making a false declaration; exceeding or evading election advertising expense limits; disclosing the vote of a voter one has helped; intentionally and prematurely spoiling an advance ballot; wilfully failing to declare a candidate elected; and wilfully conducting election advertising using government means of transmission. There are thus a number of offences.

This bill affects individuals, voters, election officers—including returning officers—polling companies, candidates, registered associations, party leaders and political parties in general. The types of offences covered by the harsher penalties generally have to do with wrongdoing that could seriously undermine the legitimacy of the democratic process in Canada.

This bill imposes harsher penalties for intentional offences, when a political party, association, voter, election officer, candidate, party leader or individual intentionally breaks the law. Here, the emphasis is on the word “intentionally”. Anyone who intentionally interferes with the electoral process deserves a harsh sentence.

We are not talking about minor mistakes committed accidentally by a campaign volunteer, for I would not want to dissuade anyone who might want to get involved in volunteer work for a political party, but who might fear getting slapped with a $20,000 fine. That would be unacceptable. Rather, we are talking about premeditated fraud committed by organized individuals using sophisticated means to break the law.

At the same time, these offences seriously undermine not only the legitimacy of the democratic process, but also our own legitimacy as the elected representatives of the Canadian public. It is important to note that Bill C-424 does not create any new offences. It merely increases fines. Admittedly, monetary penalties ranging from $2,000 to $5,000, as they currently stand, are pretty minimal.

As a result of the uncertainty caused by the robocall scandal, it is crucial that individuals who want to violate the Canada Elections Act for partisan purposes be punished severely. The NDP believes that, given the offences targeted by the bill and the importance of maintaining the integrity of our electoral system, it is in the public interest to impose fines that reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed. Fines that are increased tenfold would be a good way to discourage anyone who might consider deliberately breaking the law for partisan purposes.

Second, the bill seeks to increase the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer. The NDP supports this initiative to give the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to contest an election if he or she notes any irregularities. We do believe, however, that this needs to be explored further in committee. As my hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth just mentioned, we do have some concerns regarding this measure to increase the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer.

At present, only an elector who is eligible to vote in a given riding or a candidate in that same riding can file a complaint with the Commissioner of Canada Elections if he or she feels there are any irregularities.

When there are reasonable grounds to believe that the law has been broken, the Commissioner of Canada Elections can refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who decides whether or not to prosecute. Generally, a lengthy process ensues and can last several months or several years.

By allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to act alone, we are simplifying the process a bit. Our support for granting the power of contestation to the Chief Electoral Officer complements the motion we moved last winter on enhancing the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada. We believe that this measure is good because such legal processes take a lot of time and money. My two colleagues mentioned this earlier, but just look at Etobicoke Centre, where it took a very lengthy process before a decision could be made. The average person probably would not get involved in such lengthy legal wrangling.

However, the Chief Electoral Officer has the necessary resources for such processes. What is more, it would be easier to contest elections in a greater number of ridings, in the event of widespread electoral fraud, as in the case of the robocalls, which affected several ridings. It would be difficult to have a voter or a candidate from every riding contest the election. Contestation would be easier if only one agency could contest several ridings at a time, in cases of widespread fraud.

Some government members have expressed concern over the Chief Electoral Officer's partiality if he had such contestation powers. That is why we believe that it would be worth asking him the question in committee. That is one of the reasons why we support the bill at second reading. We will have to see how this bill can be improved in committee.

As my colleague mentioned, we also have some concerns. If the Chief Electoral Officer had more powers, then things would have to be regulated a little more. Under specific circumstances, where there is clear evidence of irregularities, contestation could be possible, but only after the implementation of a specific process whereby the Chief Electoral Officer would show that he has tangible evidence related to a fraudulent situation.

My colleague from Beauséjour pointed this out in his opening speech on October 3:

This approach is entirely consistent with other electoral systems in Canada such as in British Columbia, Ontario and Nunavut, where the chief electoral officers are able to contest the election result in a particular electoral district.

Therefore, the precedent for such power has already been set in two provinces and one territory. As I mentioned earlier, we must ask the Chief Electoral Officer this question when the bill is at committee stage. I hope he will attend with the support of the government.

In the interests of thoroughness, Bill C-424, which was introduced by the member for Beauséjour, deserves to be examined in more detail in committee. The bill is a good starting point, but we must continue to improve it.

The NDP supports sending this bill to committee. I hope that the Conservatives will also support it, which would allow for more in-depth study. It speaks to the integrity of our democratic system. I would be shocked if the Conservatives were to vote against the bill.

We anxiously await the committee's findings. This is a matter of public interest. The many allegations of wrongdoing during the last election clearly illustrate that this harms democracy in Canada. In light of the recent election scandals, we must take immediate steps to improve the Canada Elections Act and to regain the trust of Canadian voters. It is our duty, and this bill is a good start.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the same question I asked earlier, but I will be more precise. I would appreciate a yes or no answer.

Putting specific countries aside, does the member think that Canada should sign a free trade agreement with a known tax haven? I am not asking for information about Panama specifically. Yes or no?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 7th, 2012]

I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I will ask her what is probably the easiest question she has had to answer in the House: does she approve of trade with a country that is considered to be a tax haven?