Yvon Lévesque

[Indian Act, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to express my opinion on Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Indian Act (matrimonial real property and immovables).

As we debate Bill C-289, we are also debating government bill C-44. The latter proposes to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The adoption of these two bills could be prejudicial because they run counter to commitments made by the government in May 2005.

In May 2005, the government promised to renew and strengthen the collaboration of the government and first nations, specifically by consulting the first nations before developing policies that impact them. This principle of collaboration constitutes the cornerstone of the new partnership. The private member's bill of the Conservative member for Portage—Lisgar directly affects this government commitment made to native peoples.

I have the statement made by the Prime Minister on April 19, 2004, and reiterated by the government on May 31, 2005. It states:

It is now time for us to renew and strengthen the covenant between us...No longer will we in Ottawa develop policies first and discuss them with you later. The principle of collaboration will be the cornerstone of our new partnership.

To strengthen policy development, the minister and the Assembly of First Nations commit to undertake discussions: on processes to enhance the involvement of the Assembly of First Nations, mandated by the Chiefs in Assembly, in the development of federal policies which focus on, or have a significant specific impact on the First Nations, particularly policies in the areas of health, lifelong learning, housing, negotiations, economic opportunities, and accountability; and, on the financial and human resources and accountability mechanisms necessary to sustain the proposed enhanced involvement of the Assembly of First Nations in policy development.

The government did not receive the support of the First Nations for the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, nor has it received the support of the native women's association for this bill tabled by the member for Portage—Lisgar, as it was introduced without consultation.

Is it unreasonable to believe, in the modern context, that to consult also implies the consideration of at least some recommendations based on cultural values and specific lifestyles?

Subsection 89(1) of the Indian Act exempts personal or real property of a band member located on-reserve from seizure or attachment by a non-Indian or a non-band member.

The provisions of the Indian Act on the rights of surviving spouses to property may be affected by approaches taken to address the issue of on-reserve matrimonial real property, and this would need to be considered.

Is this not good reason to take a closer look at the difficulties encountered in resolving certain situations that may at first appear very straightforward?

It is important to consider the opinions of the people experiencing the problems that need to be resolved or those who are involved in the conflict, in order to examine the necessary corrective action and, as needed, ensure the creation of legislation or regulations.

It seems to me to be a little early—perhaps even much too early—to present such a bill, given that a joint task force was only formed in February 2006 to carefully examine the issue of on-reserve matrimonial property. To pursue this, we would have needed recommendations from both Houses.

The joint task force was set up when the Bloc Québécois demanded that the government consult the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations by acting on the following recommendation made by the Senate Committee on Human Rights in its November 2003 report:

—the Committee recommends that appropriate funding be given to national, provincial/territorial and regional Aboriginal women’s associations so that they can undertake thorough consultations with First Nations women on the issue of division of matrimonial property on reserve. These consultations should be the first step in a larger consultation process with First Nations governments and Band councils with a view to finding permanent solutions which would be culturally sensitive—

The joint task force's mandate included drafting joint consultation documents, touring to consult aboriginal communities in Quebec, Canada and the provinces, and reporting aboriginal recommendations with a view to drafting a bill on the division of matrimonial real property and immovables on reserve.

Unless the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar can announce to us that he is withholding privileged information, more complete than that of the native women's association—which says it has not completed its research—we have to consider this bill as an insult to everyone doing research on this file. Accordingly, we have to recommend that this bill be defeated.

We find that through his bill introduced on May 17, 2006, the Conservative member for Portage—Lisgar has demonstrated political opportunism and lack of knowledge of the process already launched by his government. His persistence to achieve this could hinder the democratic process of the joint committee which, for the first time in 30 years, could have or propose a viable solution to an awkward situation for any democratic country. Furthermore, what are people to think when this involves the “very best country in the world”?

This private member's bill is an affront to the Quebec Native Women Inc., which is a major stakeholder in this working group. This ridiculous, thoughtless and disrespectful initiative undermines the credibility of this association's initiative and its chances for success.

This bill prematurely calls on Parliament to take a position at the very moment when the working group recommended by this House has not concluded its research, the results of which are needed in order to improve the living conditions of aboriginals.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada has noble intentions: to undertake consultations to find a solution to the issue of matrimonial real property on reserves in order to improve the rights of aboriginal women and provide them with the same legal protection enjoyed by non-aboriginal women with respect to divorce.

It is critical that aboriginal women be consulted with the utmost respect for their culture. To ensure that the consultations are worthwhile, native women's associations in Quebec, Canada and the provinces must be given the funding and the time they need to meet with all of the communities.

Aboriginal women deserve to have all of the information about the subject of the consultations: the Indian Act (matrimonial real property and immovables). It is even more important that the entire aboriginal population be informed of the impact of a law on the division of matrimonial real property on their everyday lives and in the case of separation.

Quebec Native Women Inc. believes that consultations in aboriginal communities require the expertise of family law and legal rights specialists. The officials conducting the consultations must be accompanied by specialists who can answer all of the people's questions.

Governments change with the tide, yet they stay the same. Whether Liberal or Conservative, their vision and their avoidance tactics are similar.

The member for Portage—Lisgar's Bill C-289, which was drafted without any consultation, is not what we need to make change happen now.

In conclusion, I feel it is premature to debate this bill because of the lack of consultation with the affected population and the lack of essential but currently unavailable information, a lack of information that could cause problems that will be even harder to fix than those these various bills seek to correct.

[Committees of the House, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her presentation. This government is obsessed with decreasing taxes. When deciding to close a regional office, did the committee determine the additional costs incurred by women who need a service and will now have to go and find this service on their own?

To what extent can we consider this a real increase in taxation of these women?

[PaperWeek International, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, with PaperWeek International underway, I cannot help but remind this Conservative government that the forest industry is in the midst of a major crisis and it is the government's duty to take action. As a result of its failure to act, more than 10,000 jobs in Quebec have disappeared since the beginning of the crisis. This government's inaction is appalling. It is time for the government to change tactics and do something to help the softwood lumber industry.

The Bloc Québécois has long been proposing possible solutions, such as accelerated amortization of equipment, measures to promote innovation and transformation, accessible programs to diversify lumber markets, and loans or tax credits for additional operating and innovation costs.

This government's next budget must include concrete measures to help the forest industry and to demonstrate to Quebeckers that this industry remains a priority for this government.

[Criminal Code, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I just referred to the government by the name of its leader, but I meant the Conservative government, if you prefer that view of things.

So it arrogated unto itself the override power in section 347, which has now led to the Bloc Québécois opposing this bill.

[Criminal Code, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I wish to remind her that she is well aware of what is preventing Bloc Québécois members from supporting this bill. It is because the Quebec legislation is far better.

I remind hon. members that it is now my turn to speak and they should listen.

I also want to stress the centralizing attitude of both the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party of Canada. I understand her decision to belong to a national party that feels compelled to support each province, even though it may be against its voters' best interests. The Bloc Québécois has the advantage of representing only the interests of Quebec.

So, the bill now before us goes against the interests of Quebec.

The hon. member talked about petty politics. She should look at herself, instead of accusing Bloc Québécois members of engaging in partisan rhetoric.

We had a fine example last weekend. Indeed, we saw two government ministers go so low as to betray their voters by signing a contract that deprives Quebec of huge revenues and that is evidence of yielding to Canada. Such is the vision of major national parties. This is why the Bloc Québécois will never support a bill that will downgrade what already exists in Quebec.

Remember during the election campaign, when the Conservatives were going on about being open and respectful. Today, we can only conclude that the Harper government is pursuing the federal objective of infringing on—

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am not from Gaspé, but near there. When this colossal mistake was made, I was a student in Quebec City. I knew students from Lac Saint-Jean and Quebec City. The Matapedia valley was part of Gaspé, although it is no longer considered to be today. People felt terrible when the court handed down its verdict and when the hanging took place. This feeling lasted for many years.

My colleague gave a very good presentation and has done a huge amount of work on this case. I have a great deal of admiration for him and for the family, which has demanded justice for Mr. Coffin. This event was a major factor in the government's decision to abolish the death penalty, because there was a feeling that a terrible miscarriage of justice had occurred.

I would like to ask my colleague—even though he is a little younger than I am—whether this is still true and whether the Coffin affair weighed heavily in the government's decision to do away with the death penalty.

[Food Prices, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a recently released study comparing the cost of food in northern and southern Quebec found that there is a dramatic difference: a $1 food item in the south costs $1.57 in the north.

Costs are too high for the Inuit. Foods that are part of a healthy diet, such as milk, flour and potatoes, cost twice as much as they do in the south.

The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is currently financing a pilot project in conjunction with the food mail program. This pilot project reduces the cost of mailing healthful perishable foods from 80¢ to 30¢ per kilo. However, only three northern communities currently benefit from this pilot project.

This program has proven its worth because, in addition to reducing the cost of food, it improves the quality and variety of food available.

The Conservative government must make the necessary resources available to make this pilot project permanent and offer it to all 145 northern communities. The Inuit have the right to a healthy diet, which is essential for good health.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1950s and the 1970s, members of the RCMP, posted in the Far North, slaughtered a number of sled dogs. Following credible complaints from the Inuit communities, an investigation was entrusted to another member of the RCMP. The apparent conflict of interest by the RCMP, obviously, calls for a new investigation.

Does the Minister of Justice intend to respond to the request by the Inuit, who are calling for the appointment of an independent superior court justice to resume the investigation objectively?

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the allegations of our Liberal Party colleague correctly, the federal government is introducing a bill that would allow it to go to the provinces to regulate usurious loans, while admitting that this is a sector in which the federal government has interfered in years past and which it has promised to leave to the provinces to deal with. He is talking about a complementary approach by the federal government for provinces where rules were nonexistent or inadequate.

Could my colleague assure us that, in the committee that considers this bill, he would be prepared to work on limiting the federal government's ability to intervene in provinces that do not have such a bill or such protection legislation?

[Inuit Children, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission has sounded the alarm. Inuit children in Nunavik live in terror. They are victims of physical violence, incest, repeated sexual assault and substance abuse.

The worsening shortage in housing and specialized facilities as well as promiscuity often force youth to return to live with their aggressors.

Canada is a signatory of the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child. Why is it not providing Inuit children with the protection to which they are entitled? It is possible to tackle this violence, to provide security and to assist in the development of Inuit children by providing them with safe homes, among other things.

The Bloc Québécois urges the government to take concrete action to improve the living conditions of Inuit youth by making a serious investment in the construction of housing in Nunavik.