Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have no doubt that he always works hard in committee.

Counterfeit goods that do not necessarily meet the same quality standards as those manufactured according to Canadian standards can pose a risk in Canada.

I would like him to talk about the risks posed by counterfeit goods to Canadian consumers because we do not have the means to block them and to ensure that they do not enter our market.

What are the risks associated with counterfeit goods?

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He is well informed and works hard at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Naturally, we are against counterfeiting, and we must find ways to eliminate it as much as possible. However, the Canada Border Services Agency also needs the tools to detect counterfeit goods and intercept them before they cross our borders. The first step is detecting counterfeit goods, and that costs money.

Can he comment briefly on the tools available to the agency and whether it needs more tools to combat counterfeiting effectively?

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask the last question. I would like to ask the minister how this bill can be considered urgent, given that it was introduced six month ago, on December 6, 2012.

The government is just now waking up. It allowed 10 minutes for debate on a Wednesday evening a few weeks ago. After 10 minutes of debate today, it says it has to limit the time for debate. The Conservatives do not even know if the opposition opposes it. In fact, we have not even had time to announce our position. They are already thinking that everyone is going to impede the process.

Earlier the minister said that most bills are not perfect. If that is really what he thinks, why not allow an open, rigorous debate to really identify what does not work in this bill in order to try to improve it?

[First Nations Elections Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague a question in response to his speech on Bill S-6, which we are debating today. This is another bill regarding first nations.

Every time we talk about first nations, we must remember that the government has a duty to consult when it is doing anything regarding rights, reserves or anything related to first nations.

I would like to ask my colleague whether consultations on Bill S-6 were done regarding elections on aboriginal reserves. If so, were the results of those consultations taken into account in the Bill S-6 we have before us today?

[First Nations Elections Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question.

My colleague must be sick of getting up in the morning to be told by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons that he is moving a time allocation motion on a bill that relates to his portfolio. This is the fourth or fifth time this month, at least, that the minister has had to answer our questions. He should talk to his leader if he is starting to grow tired of it because he seems to be sick of answering these questions.

Based on the answers he has been giving today, we see that the minister knows very little about parliamentary procedure. He seems to find that funny. I see him laughing. That is just fine.

Does he think that a bill can be passed without a time allocation motion and, if so, would inordinate delays slow down the process to the point where it would be impossible to make progress?

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 11th, 2013]

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

The government boasts about having held consultations. Indeed, perhaps it did. However, after consulting communities, the government has to respond to their demands. In this case, most of the groups were very critical of this bill.

Does my colleague think that sound consultation involves taking into account what was said during the consultations and then incorporating all this information in a bill? Is that what the government did?

[Normandy Invasion, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today is the 69th anniversary of the Normandy invasion.

On June 6, 1944, nearly 14,000 Canadians soldiers landed on the beaches of Normandy. Of those soldiers, 359 never returned to Canada. They gave their lives to defend their country, their families and other people's families.

Last weekend I attended two ceremonies that were held in my riding. I participated in a ceremony held at the Royal Canadian Legion in Sherbrooke. There, I met Joan Thompson, the honorary president, who is 103. Then, along with a number of veterans and members of the Canadian Forces, I attended a ceremony at the cenotaph in Lennoxville, where we paid tribute to the courage of those who served our country during this historic event.

As Canadians, we all have a duty to never forget the sacrifice they made. Lest we forget.

[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.