Jonathan Genest-Jourdain

[Petitions, February 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit to the House a petition that attests to the need to renew the programs designed to improve public transit infrastructure in the country and to provide adequate federal funding to support those initiatives.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, February 11th, 2014]

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

I read the comments and briefs that were submitted to the committee, and it seems that the vast majority of local groups support the proposed measures. Furthermore, we must admit that these groups were involved to a certain extent. That is a step in the right direction.

However, there are nevertheless those ready-made measures, the adhesion contract measures. The Canadian government ultimately holds all the power. At present, the government has the upper hand, and that is why this type of clause is found in most agreements that have been brought to my attention, including the First Nations Land Management Act. It becomes automatic to insert this type of clause.

Instead of fulfilling its obligations towards first nations under the fiduciary relationship that must be respected, the Canadian government all too often protects its own interests, the interests of lobby groups and those of major economic powers rather than serving the interests of the people first and foremost.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, February 11th, 2014]

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

As she said, the matters addressed in this bill and in the agreement—we have to look at everything in perspective—are quite broad and cover many aspects that might be contentious. I am talking about the integrity of the waterways or natural resource extraction. This concerns a number of considerations, including economic, social and environmental considerations.

Each of these topics warranted a case-by-case in-depth study. Under the circumstances, we were unable to do so in committee, given the limited time that was allocated. For example, these matters were brought to my attention just a few months ago. With my training, I can see that a number of considerations deserved a separate and more thorough look.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, February 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I support the Northwest Territories and its effort to take over certain federal responsibilities in the north, so my speech will focus on some aspects of the devolution of environmental liabilities set out in the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement.

There is one issue I keep coming back to: environmental liability. We talked about this when the witnesses appeared before the committee. We have already spent several hours on the subject and the legislation before us, namely Bill C-15.

The stakeholders who appeared before the committee mentioned this aspect several times. It raises a red flag. I keep coming back to this issue, but it is also an issue that keeps turning up in many of the pieces of legislation put forward by this government with respect to the relationship between the Crown and the first nations.

When I talk about transferring environmental liabilities, I am, of course, referring to abandoned mine sites and sites that have been contaminated by oil and other pollutants.

There is just such a provision, not in the legislation before us, Bill C-15, but in the agreement it refers to, which is already available. Bill C-15 provides for the creation and implementation of regulations that will govern the relationship between the parties once everything is signed. The agreement mentions the transfer of environmental liabilities.

Once the bill is ratified and the measures implemented, a transfer will take place. The witnesses' versions differed, but the government was supposed to provide the parties with a comprehensive list of all of the abandoned mine sites and contaminated sites that were slated for rehabilitation, which implies a massive injection of funds. We know that rehabilitating contaminated sites and abandoned mine sites can cost millions of dollars, or at least hundreds of thousands.

This reminds me of the situations that arose from the First Nations Land Management Act, which provided for the same kind of transfer of environmental liability and responsibility upon signing.

In the case of the First Nations Land Management Act, it was hundreds of thousands of dollars for sites in Mashteuiatsh. Looking at the specific example of Mashteuiatsh from an empirical perspective, we know that rehabilitation and environmental assessment are very costly. That is why I would like to focus on the concept of transferring environmental liabilities today. Judging from my own experience and my own understanding of the situation, that is the real problem.

I always try to play devil's advocate, that is, to take the opposing position and try to find the flaws in the arguments made. That is quite healthy in a democratic process and in a process of discussion, dialogue, exchange and communication.

Consequently, as part of a strategy based on contradictory principles inherent in justice and administration—this is where my professional background comes into play—it is imperative to forge an argument that will identify elements that could be contentious or present risks that could interfere with the implementation of the planned measures in the short or medium term.

I will introduce the systematic transfer of environmental liabilities in the agreements between the Canadian government and the first nations. In this case, as I mentioned, the agreement states that the federal government retains responsibility for abandoned and contaminated mining sites that were identified prior to ratification of the agreement.

The reason I spoke out in committee was primarily to ensure that an exhaustive list is given to the parties, because I do not want this to be an injurious relationship. However, we must remain lucid and conscious of the fact that sometimes the playing field is not level in negotiations because the government has many lawyers. There is a plethora of government lawyers and, in this case, they were asked to help draft the agreement and the bill we are examining today. Thus, when advising the government, its lawyers ensured that they put the government's interests first.

To come back to that exhaustive list of mining sites and contaminated sites, as soon as that list is given to the government, it will assume the liabilities indicated on that list; in other words, all sites identified prior to ratification will continue to be the responsibility of the Canadian government. However—and this is why the list needs to be exhaustive—if other sites are discovered after the agreement is ratified, it is the parties—in this case, the local governments and band authorities—that will be held responsible for rehabilitating those sites.

I would hope—and this is probably the case—that all parties have received legal opinions as well as a substantial amount of legal advice, but given that the balance of power can sometimes be skewed and that the Canadian government is often in a position of strength and authority, it is crucial to insist on these elements in order to avoid any potentially damaging situations.

As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, when these provisions systematically reappear, often the whole thing starts to look more and more like an adhesion contract. An adhesion contract is a contract in which everything is provided and it just needs to be signed. It is a ready-made contract, you could say. It is something that comes up over and over, and lawyers always make sure to have these kinds of clauses and measures arranged. The same kind of measures can be found in the agreement associated with Bill C-15. Basically, certain aspects of the bill are strangely similar to an adhesion contract, since they can be found in other matters specific to the fiduciary relationship between the Canadian government and first nations.

The members in the House will acknowledge the preponderance of the authority exercised by the Northwest Territories regarding the use of its resources. This observation must be clarified, however, in light of the testimony gathered in committee, which tends to demonstrate the influence that the government lawyers have when it comes to drafting legislative tools submitted for our consideration.

Representatives of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, including a panel of lawyers and experts, testified at some recent committee meetings. These experts told us that government lawyers have an influence on—or at the very least, considerable involvement in—the drafting. It is quite possible that the other parties, such as provincial and regional governments, as well as aboriginal communities, may have sought informed legal advice, but we know for a fact that the Canadian government has a whole fleet of highly qualified lawyers. I also want to point out that the legislator is not an individual, but a whole group of people who are assigned to the task. There is probably also a litigation section responsible for challenges of the proposed measures.

All that to say that a fleet of government lawyers were called in to work on this. That is also why I want to put this in perspective, since there may be an imbalance with respect to strength and the prejudicial nature of this whole thing.

Canada is often in a position of strength in relation to the other parties, especially in these kinds of cases. Although I have not been to the Northwest Territories myself, I know that these are remote and isolated communities. They pay astronomical costs for lawyers and legal advisors. I have seen the same thing in my own community. It is often people from outside the community who must travel at a high cost. For example, a return plane ticket for the same day between Uashat and Montreal can easily cost over $2,000. In short, these fees can be huge, in the end. Private parties, in this case the regional governments, but also the aboriginal parties, probably had to pay out of their own pockets for this legal advice. The Canadian government would not have had to do so, since it has its own large staff to answer these questions.

I submit this respectfully.

[Democratic Reform, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of State for Democratic Reform runs in the next election, he will have to register all of his expenses and remember to include all receipts.

Why does he think this rule need not apply to the Conservative Party of Canada? What is he trying to hide and why does he want to protect his party?

[Democratic Reform, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first nations people sometimes encounter problems when they need to get official government identification cards. Having an acquaintance vouch for them or using the cards sent by Elections Canada is therefore vital. Oddly enough, these two options will disappear in the reform of the Canada Elections Act.

Why are the Conservatives using tactics to suppress the voting rights of first nations communities?

[Transparency of Payments Made by Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations to Foreign Governments Act, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for me to take a stand in this House on the principles set out in Bill C-474, which seeks to promote financial transparency, improved accountability and long-term economic sustainability through the public reporting of payments made by mining, oil and gas corporations to foreign governments.

I like to think that everything happens for a reason. This is a subject that is relevant to my own riding of Manicouagan, although the legislative measure before us today deals with the realities of developing countries overseas. The same type of reasoning could be applied to remote regions, particularly to the realities of Indian reserves and land claims negotiations, which I will be talking about in this speech.

The spirit of the proposed legislative measure shows that the expectations of Canadians and the government are changing when it comes to public disclosure and the financial considerations given to governments by proponents of the extractive sector.

This is still relevant today because the federal government directed questions at a mining development promoter in my riding. Information was recently disclosed to the public about a substantial payment that the promoter made to a body of government, a band council. It seems as though $100,000 was handed over—and that number was recorded—in order to look at land claims. This all happened anonymously and behind closed doors.

It is clear why the Bribe Payers Index ranks oil, gas and industrial companies as the 4th and 5th likeliest to pay bribes. Bribes are paid behind closed doors, and that is what is happening in my riding because it is remote and people are not well educated. Influence peddling, insider trading and embezzlement are common in many remote communities and regions.

In light of the current political narrative, which is quick to recognize government-to-government relations, the same type of reasoning can apply to aboriginal matters because the bill before us concerns Canadian promoters who give bribes to foreign governments. However, when we apply this reasoning to nation-to-nation relations and government-to-government relations involving aboriginal peoples, it is obvious that the same type of reasoning can apply locally, here in Canada. Therefore, it is a very worrisome problem at the local and regional levels.

The literature points to an emerging concept, namely, the phenomenon of the curse of resources associated with the lack of transparency in payments made to governments by extractive sector companies. It has been shown that local populations have difficulty holding their government to account when information about the sources and the revenue earned from resources are hidden and, when, from the start, there is no financial incentive for the government to be accountable.

We have talked about this in the House. Transparency within band councils is a timely issue, but too often, the entire population in Manicouagan, and not just the Innu and Naskapi, is left out of these decisions. The deals, the negotiations and the payment of financial compensation are inevitably done quietly. That is why I wanted to speak to this issue today and share everything.

Resource extraction initiatives such as the ones under way right now in Manicouagan raise some serious concerns. That is why I plan to focus on this area in the coming months and the next year. This very clear bill is a step in the right direction in order to expose any wrongdoing, as well as the ins and outs of any bribery of the authorities.

[Criminal Code, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my contribution to the debate on the assessment of the merits of Bill C-526, which has to do with sentencing based on a scheme proper to criminal proceedings, will focus on the principles that should guide the study in committee. However, I would also like to focus on the questionable practice of codifying sentencing criteria.

An assessment of merit can definitely be used in a work context and in labour relations. When we have to assess an employee, often we weigh the major advantages, the strengths and the weaknesses of that person. In my view, this type of reasoning and exercise can also be used to evaluate the bills we are asked to study. In this case, I want to emphasize the fact that this is a private member's bill. Ideals must prevail. In this case, the bill deals first and foremost with the principle of sentencing and sentencing submissions. At the risk of repeating myself, I would say that criminal law is based on practice and custom. Criminal law is rooted in common law. It differs widely from one judicial district to the next.

For example, in the judicial district around Fort McMurray, the law may be somewhat harsher given the degradation and deterioration of the social fabric. During the summer, a social worker told me that Fort McMurray has many problems related to the resurgence and reappearance of syphilis in the region. That indicates that there is criminal activity and that, in some parts of Canada, the courts have to rely on stricter sentencing principles. That explains somewhat why judicial districts are different and unique.

Until just recently—and I would like to think that it is still the case—judges and crown prosecutors were afforded considerable latitude in determining the appropriate sentence for any given offence. When I said that criminal law is based on custom, I meant that, in such a case, during submissions on sentencing, the crown prosecutors make their case based on the case law and doctrine. However, the defence lawyers also do the same. In the end, the judge is free to make the most appropriate decision. In this case, with this bill, the government is once again trying to interfere in the administration of justice. It is clear that the government is interfering in this area, but it has also interfered in other matters over the past few years. During their time in office, the Conservatives have been using backdoor schemes to try to influence or interfere in matters that, until just recently, were enshrined in law and whose fairness and transparency were above reproach.

I would like to stress that it is not necessary to add to the list of aggravating factors for various offences set out in the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code already contains a fairly substantial list of aggravating factors. During submissions on sentencing, judges and crown prosecutors point out what elements of the case should be considered aggravating factors. It is then up to the judge to make a decision in that regard.

Based on that observation, it is essential that we examine certain aspects of this bill more closely in order to assess the reach of a new category of serious aggravating factors. There is a scale. The next thing you know, we will be talking about supreme universal aggravating factors. At some point, we are going to run out of adjectives.

We are talking about serious aggravating factors, their possible interpretation by the judiciary and the specific nature of item 718.2(a)(i)(F), which provides a different definition of a criminal organization than the Criminal Code does. Bill C-526 refers to three offences, which I will quickly mention.

The first is an offence that is connected in any way to a group of three or more persons with a common purpose of facilitating or committing an offence. In my opinion, that is already covered by the Criminal Code. The second is an offence that is committed in association with a criminal organization, and the third is a terrorism offence. This is already an aggravating factor under section 718.2 of the existing Criminal Code.

I would like to mention in passing that the Conservative government's revisionist legislative initiatives have been a recurring theme throughout its time in office. I stress the word “revisionist” because it applies not only to criminal law or the practice of law but to many other areas as well, including terrorism.

I must say that it is a bit unrealistic, especially considering the reality in Canada. However, this notion seems to catch people's attention and they really focus on it. Ultimately, it is redundant, since the criteria are being added.

However, I think that this private member's bill—and other experts and lawyers agree—is primarily meant to please a voter base. We are approaching the holidays, and this government that claims to be tough on crime has some work to do, especially if you look at the latest statistics and polling data. This government tries to please its voter base and the big lobbies as much as possible.

The prison population is also part of the economy. Some people think that is appalling and controversial, but others believe that they account for a significant part of our country's economic development. This legislation clearly shows that.

I would now like to talk about sentencing submissions, since that is the crux of this issue. The criteria and aggravating circumstances come into play during sentencing submissions. Both attorneys are present for sentencing arguments. In serious cases, such as terrorism, conspiracies or organized crime, sentencing submissions are most often a separate step. When the offender is found guilty, there is another step that can last several days or several weeks, based on the severity of the case. For homicides, sentencing submissions can last several weeks. That is when jurists and lawyers—both the Crown and the defence—will make their arguments and will of course base them on legislation, but also doctrine and jurisprudence, including corresponding or similar decisions.

This is a familiar process that is rather amicable, if I can call it that. I like to think that criminal law is primarily something you learn on the job and that it reflects the particularities of a given judicial district. That is why there was so much latitude and why the judge had plenty of leeway in imposing a sentence informed by the circumstances.

The Conservatives are once again trying to impose their vision. Earlier, I heard the hon. member opposite—I remember now—minimizing the validity of plea bargaining. He said that, often, people are linked, that plea bargaining is the last resort and that people are forced to resort to it for lack of an appropriate sentence. Plea bargaining saves Canadians a substantial amount of money and greases the wheels of the justice system, speeding everything up or at least creating a more fluid legal process. That is why plea bargaining remains essential. In the end, the lawyers come to a consensus.

This is the umpteenth time the Conservatives have tried to control the administration of justice, which is utterly deplorable. They will pay the price eventually. The experts at the Canadian Bar Association also zeroed in on the compellability nature of the proposed additions. In their opinion:

...forcing judges to conclude that three people committing a crime together, as opposed to any other number, is an aggravating circumstance, does not advance the goal of protecting the public, which is the point of this bill.

On that note, I will allow the House to digest what I have just said. Good afternoon.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, November 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

The only problem is that this specific bill includes measures that are fairly invasive of people's privacy. These measures have been introduced before. Given that the Conservative government is very right-leaning, this bill could lead to government interference and people being monitored a bit too closely. The only concerns there could be are about surveillance because the Conservatives introduced these measures in the past with very little success. Now, they are trying again, despite the fact that Canadians oppose these measures.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, November 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. I agree with him that cyberbullying is serious enough to warrant being examined separately and should have its own bill. From the title, you would think that the bill before us is just about cyberbullying. However, when you look at the bill more closely, you see that it addresses many other fairly contentious issues. I wanted to point that out.

The NDP's position is that we must study many issues set out in this bill individually.