Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Committees of the House, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics concerning Bill C-461, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (disclosure of information).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question.

During my speech, I did not have time to get to this very important point. This legislative measure will take effect in 12 months. Through an amendment, which was rejected, we tried to change this time period to three years in order to allow first nations to have their own measures in their respective bands and decide for themselves how to proceed.

Unfortunately, most of the witnesses said that these places did not have any resources to implement internal measures within the various bands in order to improve the situation.

In my opinion, this is inconsistent with our current laws, which call for consultation first and for aboriginal reserves to be masters of their own laws. Bill S-2 would come into effect on all the reserves after one year, and they will not have made any decisions on their own internal measures.

There are serious constitutional problems, according to one of the witnesses that the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi alluded to.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Perhaps he misunderstood what I said. I stated that the government had indeed held consultations and that I gave it due credit. However, if it had conducted them properly and then understood what was said during those consultations, the bill would never have taken its current form. Aboriginal groups are criticizing the current bill.

Even though the Conservatives held consultations, they did not listen to what was said in these consultations. We listened. We listened to what the groups said, and that is why we are taking this stand today.

In fact, the bill is well intentioned. I am for equal rights for all women in the country, no matter where they are. However, in reality, the current bill does not address this concern properly.

The NDP proposed four amendments in committee to try to improve this situation. Regrettably, the Conservatives refused to listen. Much as the NDP wanted to change the bill for the better and maybe then support it, the Conservatives did not listen. The government consistently opposes anything that comes from the opposition parties.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to say that I will be sharing my time with the brilliant, the incomparable and the irreplaceable member for Nickel Belt. He will have half of my speaking time.

Bill S-2 comes from the Senate, hence the “S” before the bill number. This means that the process was started in the Senate. I will not be spending too much time talking about the Senate and whether or not it has a role to play here. I think everybody already knows the NDP's position on this issue.

I think that it is the elected officials in the House of Commons who should put forward bills as often as possible. This bill has already appeared in other forms in previous Parliaments. The Senate took it up again, probably at the request of the government, for reasons that I have not yet figured out. In my view, it is the right of elected officials to introduce bills.

Unfortunately, there is an additional process. We always have to send our bills to the Senate, which spends thousands—if not millions—of dollars to do just about the same job as we do here, that is, to study bills.

Frequently, the other chamber hears the same witnesses and conducts the same studies as we do. I will not elaborate much on this, because I know it is not the point today. However, I would simply like to point out that every time we consider a bill that starts with the letter “S”, it means that it was introduced in the Senate.

As I was saying earlier, this is the fourth version of a piece of legislation that the Conservatives have been trying to get through Parliament since 2008. The NDP has opposed each one of these bills when they have come up for debate. This is nothing new.

The Conservatives are showing their ideological blindness. They seem to hide behind their ideology and they do not seem to understand common sense, the truth or the arguments that we put forward. They seem to be caught in their own ideology and cannot get out of it, unfortunately, even though we try to make them see reason with our speeches.

Today, the point of my speech is to show the government the many flaws in the bill and help the government understand why parliamentarians should not vote in favour of the bill in its current form.

A number of people have already spoken about the bill, primarily in committee or here in the House of Commons. As I said earlier, these are essentially the same people who go to the Senate to present their point of view.

Opinion on the bill is far from unanimous. It seems that the objective of the bill is a good and laudable one. All members in the House are in favour of equal rights for women, whether they live on reserves or elsewhere. No one opposes that laudable objective. However, since the present bill is flawed, it will improve the situation only slightly, if at all. That is why a number of people, a number of experts who live in these aboriginal communities every day, made presentations and came out against the bill.

When the government wants to propose legislation and make decisions, it absolutely has to initiate negotiations or hold consultations. The government did hold a few consultations regarding earlier bills, but unfortunately, no consultations were held regarding Bill S-2, which we are discussing today, although it is very similar to the earlier bills.

In spite of all the consultations, it seems that the testimony of the people who expressed their views has not been taken into consideration. In committee, they said the bill had problems and they therefore could not support it. I will come back to the more specific positions taken by certain witnesses later.

Another somewhat more technical thing caught my attention. In this version, the bill concerning first nations matrimonial real property has a lower ratification threshold. In the previous bills that tried to do the same thing as Bill S-2, a majority of band members had to vote for the law, that is, 50% plus one. In the present version, Bill S-2, the law must be approved by a simple majority of those who voted, with a participation rate of at least 25% of eligible voters. This is a slight change and is relatively difficult to find, but it is rather important. The ratification threshold has been lowered from 50% to 25%. That is really quite surprising. Is it because the Conservatives are afraid of the results? Are they afraid of what the first nations will be deciding in their own democratic bodies? I offer that as a possibility.

There are other reasons why the NDP opposes this bill. In fact, all of the leading first nations organizations, whose members will be affected by this bill, do not support it because they do not think it will succeed in protecting women against violence. It also infringes on the inherent rights of female first nations members. I am not the one saying that; first nations organizations are saying it.

Those organizations oppose this bill for several reasons. We could mention the lack of financial resources to help first nations governments implement the law or the lack of funding for lawyers or to take into account limited access to provincial courts, for geographic reasons. That is an important point, because aboriginal communities are often in remote areas and what the bill is trying to do is not as simple as the government might think. Sometimes, it seems to be a simplistic solution to a much more complex problem, particularly for aboriginal communities in very remote areas.

We could also talk about the lack of housing on the reserves and the lack of the land that would be needed to provide both spouses with separate houses on the reserves. We could talk about the lack of capacity to implement the law, particularly in remote areas, as I was saying. We can also see the lack of provincial courts that are capable of managing the complexity of the reserves’ land codes and the lack of funding to help women who have to buy their shares back from their partners when they are given access to the house. There is also the lack of resources for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the lack of extra housing on the reserves.

I have listed several reasons why first nations organizations have criticized Bill S-2. They are also reasons why we, as a party and as the official opposition in the House of Commons, have to oppose this bill.

Once again, the Conservatives are taking a paternalistic, confrontational approach to impose their legislative agenda. That is why the NDP will not support any bill concerning matrimonial real property unless it is accompanied by non-legislative measures to solve these serious problems. What needs to be done includes providing speedy access to remedies; ending violence against aboriginal women by developing a national action plan; managing the housing crisis on reserves and funding shelters for women; providing better access to justice, including increased funding for legal aid; increasing financial resources to help first nations governments enforce the law; and providing better access to alternative dispute resolution methods.

These are all reasons why we cannot support this bill. Legislation alone is not what is needed; measures that go beyond legislation, meaningful measures to help all first nations with their everyday reality, are also called for.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and the national aboriginal women’s summit are all organizations that have very strongly criticized the bill brought in by this Conservative government, which is congratulating itself today on listening to the first nations when we can clearly see that the responses show the opposite to be true.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for her excellent speech. I wanted to ask her more or less the same question that I just asked the Minister for Status of Women, who did not provide a specific answer to my question regarding the consultations.

Many aboriginal groups, such as the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the national aboriginal women's summit, have been very critical of the Conservative government's consultation process and the manner in which it passes bills.

Had the government held serious and effective consultations and had it listened to and respected what aboriginal stakeholders had to say, would we still be dealing with the bill in its current form?

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech. She mentioned that consultations were held. It is therefore surprising that the government then introduced a bill that does not have the unanimous support of aboriginal communities.

The Native Women's Association of Canada severely criticized the bill for a number of reasons, including the lack of funding to support first nations governments and the additional obstacles this could create for first nations members who are seeking justice. The association also criticized the 12-month transition period.

The Assembly of First Nations and the national aboriginal women's summit also expressed a number of criticisms of this bill.

If the government really held consultations, why are members of aboriginal communities who truly understand the situation criticizing the bill? Why did the government not listen to them and why were these criticisms not taken into account when the current bill was drafted?

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am very disappointed to rise to speak to a time allocation motion.

This is the 40th time the government has moved a time allocation motion to limit debate on a bill. What is more, this bill does not have the unanimous support of the House, civil society or aboriginal communities.

My question is quite simple. I am not going to get into a discussion of the minister's competence today. Did the minister consult with first nations, including women's groups that were opposed to the bill and still are? If so, why did he decide to introduce the bill in its current form, which does not have the unanimous support of aboriginal communities?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to talk about a topic that he did not address himself. Perhaps he had a good reason, since this was not good news for Canadians, and more particularly for Quebeckers.

I am talking about the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, including the FTQ and CSN funds in Quebec. Eliminating this tax credit will save the government $350 million, including $312 million in Quebec.

Clearly this is a direct attack on the Quebec economy. These labour funds enabled people to get an additional tax credit while investing in local businesses that sustained the economy of most regions in Quebec.

Could he talk about the government's decision to eliminate this tax credit and explain why he has attacked the economy of Quebec's regions?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech.

I am pleased to ask him a question today about an issue that I raised earlier in my speech, namely the tariffs on hundreds, if not thousands, of goods entering Canada. Tariffs are going up.

My question is simple: when a company increases its tariffs, whom does that affect? Who will absorb those costs, the consumers or the company? Does he think that consumers should pay the extra $8 billion that these tariff increases will cost?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg North for his question, which gives me an opportunity to talk about a point I did not have time to elaborate on.

I mentioned them, but I did not go into detail about credit unions, which, as the member said, are found in almost every riding in this country. They are also economic instruments that fund numerous local projects. Credit unions are important because they are located in small communities and they help those communities by providing funding, by giving back. They are not ordinary banks.

As a Desjardins credit union customer, I wonder why people would opt for a bank when they can use a credit union. We are lucky to have these businesses, which do not put profit first, but also look to help the community. Unfortunately, they are being attacked by the Conservatives.

We were invited to a breakfast meeting with credit unions just last week. We talked, and they were clearly disappointed in the government's attitude and lack of co-operation. They would have liked to maintain their advantage. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. The Conservatives do not believe that credit unions are important. However, the NDP believes they are very important, and we will support them when we form the government in 2015.