Jonathan Genest-Jourdain

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

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

As she said in her question, this is an omnibus bill, similar to what we have seen in the past; in other words, many items have been quietly slipped in.

The Conservatives are well aware that certain items that they sought public approval for simply did not pass that test. I am referring to specific measures aimed at limiting certain users' access to the Internet, and monitoring them as well. In short, some of these ideas now appear in this bill. From my admittedly brief study of the bill, I see that some rather unpopular and controversial ideas were rehashed and reintroduced in this very specific bill; that is highly objectionable.

Otherwise, in terms of the form and content of the bill, we will agree on the basic and key aspects of its wording. However, it would be advisable to review it carefully and split up certain components in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

In order to support an empirical assessment of this bill on online crime, my speech will focus on identifying how the notions we are examining apply to the work of a criminal defence lawyer.

I want to emphasize the concept of empiricism, because the practice of criminal law is primarily something you learn on the job. Although there is theory associated with it, criminal law is primarily something that you learn on the job. In fact, that is one of the first things you learn, that criminal lawyers learn on the job. These are the principles that I applied and that were taught to me when I trained as a legal aid lawyer in Sept-Îles.

My speech will focus on those notions that pertain to common practice and the considerable latitude that judges and crown prosecutors have when it comes to judgments and sentencing. We will see that this has an effect and that this bill encompasses notions pertaining to the practice of criminal law.

I will also talk about the gradual rise in computer crime.

Cyberbullying already existed in 2005 or 2006, if I am not mistaken, when I started working as a legal aid lawyer. I think it was even called cyberbullying at the time. The term was already starting to be used and the phenomenon was growing.

It was highly specialized at one time. In one specific case, a young woman told me that her photo had been taken by a webcam and ended up on other computers and that people were blackmailing her. When I was defending this case before the crown attorneys, they told me that the people best equipped to investigate and act on this were in the RCMP computer crime unit. I would say that in 2006, this type of thing was systematically handed over to the RCMP, who were best equipped to deal with it.

Over the years, I noticed that many incidents were called cyberbullying. Incidents included complaints made in cyberspace and in chat rooms or in the media about people who were making threats on the Internet. Some cases had to do with child prostitution. These things happened more frequently over the years.

I also noted that the judge had the discretion to impose conditions of release, which made reference to the use of means of communication or, at least, means of connecting to the Internet.

In some cases, I even saw judges impose conditions of release on individuals charged with cybercrime or transmitting pornographic photographs involving minors. The conditions of release imposed on these individuals might include banning them from being in possession of a cellphone that could give them access to the Internet.

I mention this experience and practice on the ground to point out that the courts, the judges and the crown attorneys were already introducing ways to limit the use of the Internet for unsavoury purposes.

This specific bill codifies practices that were already being used, depending on the judicial district, since practices can differ from one district to another. These practices were already being used by a number of legal practitioners and judges provincially and nationally too, I am sure.

New offences are being created because we have been seeing new types of crimes against the person as a result of the rise of social media. As I said, those crimes have gradually become more frequent with the increasing popularity of Facebook and other social media.

Legislation is adaptable and that, in combination with public opinion, has allowed for the development of a wide variety of sanctions and limitations designed to reduce the range of virtual threats to an individual's moral integrity.

When I say virtual threats, I am talking about online threats, or cyberbullying, not hypothetical threats.

It is important to understand that cyberbullying is a crime against the person. If you physically hurt someone by breaking his nose, you can be charged with assault and bodily harm. It is a crime against the person. In my opinion, cyberbullying also fits into that category because it is a question of a person's moral and psychological integrity. That is my point.

The media has paid close attention to certain issues in recent years. That is why we are here in the House today, to talk about cybercrime and how it is getting worse, and about cyberbullying.

I want to talk about adjusting orders in order to respond to new illegal practices such as cyberbullying. We have seen people use the Internet for good and for evil.

The issues I used to work on were usually related to death threats targeting specific ethnic groups. Orders and parole conditions have been developed over the years.

Given that practising criminal law requires ongoing exchanges with crown prosecutors, quite often, judges and crown prosecutors develop their own code of practice. That is how relatively flexible sanctions and measures have come to be imposed.

I will repeat an example from earlier. When it comes to conditions of release at the bail hearing stage, when a client decides to exercise his right to a bail hearing and wants to be released, the judge can always issue personalized conditions of release that do not appear in other cases.

These conditions can limit an individual's access to cyberspace if he has shown certain kinds of deviant behaviour, even if it is a question of charges only and the individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Any time there are allegations of inappropriate use of cyberspace, the judge usually limits the person's ability to use the Internet. I believe that is entirely commendable, although that is another debate. If we were to look at the advantages and disadvantages, one could raise arguments related to human rights and individual freedoms set out in the Canadian charter.

However, based on my rather informed opinion as a lawyer regarding the advantages and disadvantages, there is a very good chance that a court would stipulate that the rights and integrity of the victim are much more important than an individual's access to cyberspace. This will be debated by lawyers in due course.

Based on the evolving nature of measures aimed at restricting access to cyberspace, special attention must be paid to the clauses of the bill before us that have to do with preservation or production orders, in order to ensure respect for charter principles regarding privacy. That is what I was saying.

There are even some groups advocating for unrestricted Internet access who will challenge the measures proposed in the bill. However, I believe that if you weigh the pros and cons, there is a good chance that a court would conclude that it is reasonable for our society to limit Internet access for individuals who demonstrate a lack of good judgment in their comments or use cyberspace for dubious or criminal purposes.

I will also argue for the need to divide and reread Bill C-13 to conduct separate reviews of its stated objectives. It should be noted in passing that most of this bill has nothing to do with the protection of psychological integrity and should be placed in a separate bill.

True to form, the Conservatives decided to make this a catch-all bill, if I may say so, and to sneak highly contentious issues into a bill whose stated purpose and title would have unanimous support. This is a reprehensible practice and I want to make sure everyone knows that.

The New Democratic Party feels that—

[Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech on the bill to amend the Indian Act by addressing some central themes in the presentations that have allowed me to reach thousands of aboriginal people in the country over the last two years.

At the risk of repeating myself, during the first two years of my term in office, I made it a personal mission to reach as many people as possible in remote communities across the country. That is why I travelled to Saskatchewan, among other places, over the summer.

I abide by the principles of realpolitik and direct democracy—in other words, I will meet with the people, not just a few band council officials, but the general population at large. The same concept also applies to the aboriginal people I have met with over the past few years.

I will now go back to Bill C-428, specifically the study of the amendment and ultimately the measures intended to dump the Indian Act. It should be noted from the outset that this is a private member's bill. Ensuring inclusive measures and seeking the consent of Canadians were not necessarily considerations in the development and drafting of this bill.

This is the kind of information that came up again when, for several months—and I must emphasize this point—we examined this private member's bill in committee. For several months, almost all of the stakeholders and various witnesses who appeared before the committee talked about the lack of consultative and inclusive measures that should take precedence when a member puts forward legislation that significantly changes the relationship between the Canadian government and aboriginal peoples.

However, we already know that the Conservatives are always rather reluctant to propose any inclusive measures and that the concept of consultation tends to be avoided or reduced to a bare minimum. We have already seen this during the current mandate of this majority government. The concept of consultation is diminished, and the government seeks public approval as little as possible.

I have noticed that in the current mandate, when it comes to aboriginal matters, the government will often just consult the nine elected officials, or the elected representatives of a community. Looking at my own experience and my own reality, in the case of Uashat-Maliotenam, there are 3,000 people and nine elected representatives. Inevitably, if the government wants people's approval and if it really wants to introduce measures that are culturally relevant, it should be consulting the entire population.

Of course this will involve some costs and staff will have to be hired to poll and meet with the population. However, this is crucial and will help prevent a public outcry later on, like the one that is building right now and has been reported in the media. We already know that aboriginal communities tend to be rather assertive, that measures have been proposed and that there is an outcry. Real inclusion could mitigate, or at least limit, this public revolt.

Based on that observation, it is important to emphasize that the government's failure to seek the approval of the people involved before proposing these measures is reason enough for the lack of support expressed by a wide variety of Canada's political players.

I mentioned that there is a wide variety of players. We spent at least two months in committee studying this particular private member's bill. A number of stakeholders were called to testify. They spoke about the lack of inclusive measures and the basic lack of support for this reform and for revisiting the Indian Act.

I want to stress that this study took several months. I would ask my colleagues to question the motives an individual MP would have for introducing a bill that amends the Indian Act and, in particular, the government's need and willingness to spend hours looking at a private member's bill, given the significant cost to do so in committee.

Were my colleagues given the same preferential treatment when they introduced private members' bills? I am simply asking the question. In this instance, logic and reasoning would suggest that the Conservatives are trying to use a private member's bill for electioneering and publicity purposes, nothing more. They claim to be focusing on the issue and the Indian Act, citing the fact that their colleague introduced a private member's bill to amend the Indian Act. I would ask Canadians, those listening this morning and my colleagues to pay attention: when the member sponsoring the bill speaks, chances are that he will stick to his notes and will not seem overly comfortable with the subject matter. We should be concerned.

Various stakeholders, including a number of top-notch legal experts and members of the bar across Canada, appeared before the committee and raised this problem, which will very likely arise with regard to the shift in provincial regulations governing succession and gifts, for example. The proposed bill will make significant changes to the Indian Act, thereby causing a shift in the provincial regulations governing succession, that is to say, wills and gifts.

I cannot speak for the rest of Canada, but this is going to cause a major problem for Quebec. It is going to be a real problem because it will cause a shift in the provincial regulations governing succession—regulations that fall under the Civil Code of Quebec. It will also cause problems in matters pertaining to succession and gifts on Indian reserves, which until now have been governed by the Indian Act.

In short, the testimony that was given in committee showed that this bill was ill-advised in fact and in law and that there was a very good chance that a significant amount of money would be spent defending the objectives of this bill in court.

It is understandable for a private member's bill to be flawed and problematic in terms of its adaptation, practical application and implementation. However, in this case, given the effort the government is making and the support it is giving this bill, I would say that it would have been extremely advantageous to spend more time talking to experienced legal experts. I am not trying to knock the government's legal experts, but a more in-depth examination of the practical application and implementation of this bill should have been conducted.

The Indian Act must gradually be changed so that it exerts less control over aboriginal governing bodies. That is inevitable. However, as witnesses in committee told us, the proposed initiative violates the existing principles of self-determination. Too little effort was made in seeking public approval and getting all community members on board. Therein lies the problem, since the modernization of the Indian Act is a very contentious and identity-based issue. As I said, the modernization of this act is inevitable, but it should not be done at any cost and in just any way, particularly not through the highly questionable means of a private member's bill.

I submit this respectfully.

[Employment, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my support for the 90 workers in Baie-Comeau who lost their jobs, as well as the members of the Unifor local who were forced to accept the cuts imposed by their employer, Resolute Forest Products.

The Conservatives can boast all they like about how they have championed job creation and economic growth, but all evidence points to the contrary. More and more jobs are being lost, and workers like those at the Baie-Comeau paper mill are being forced to accept inferior working conditions.

Over the past five years, over 1,000 high-quality jobs have been lost at the two largest private employers in Baie-Comeau alone. Furthermore, this morning we learned that Alcoa, the city's largest employer, is threatening to shut down its plant and lay off 1,000 workers as early as November 2014.

I would also like to reiterate the NDP's commitment to helping businesses across Canada remain competitive and to ensuring high-paying, sustainable, high-quality jobs for Canadian workers, including young Canadians. The very survival of our regions is at stake.

[Petitions, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to officially present a petition signed by some of the citizens in my riding, Manicouagan, who are worried about the amalgamation of CIDA with the Department of Foreign Affairs. These people want to ensure that the principle of development assistance as defined in the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act is not lost in the shuffle of that amalgamation. At the same time, they are urging the new department not to put development assistance on the back burner. In closing, I wish to commend the work and the efforts of the Baie-Comeau chapter of the organization Development and Peace, which initiated this petition.

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to spout nonsense.

The minister wants to link funding for schools with performance. However, as everyone knows, the problem is that the schools on reserve are currently underfunded. Given that situation, we cannot expect very high performance levels. The problem with the performance of aboriginal schools is underfunding.

When will the minister address the root of the problem and provide adequate funding for schools rather than continue to decrease—

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today the Conservatives will present their most recent version of the first nations education bill in a climate of utter distrust and widespread concern with respect to this government.

We should remember that the UN rapporteur asked the government not to rush forward with this bill. It is not too late to change course and fix an education system that is handicapped by chronic underfunding.

Will the minister choose confrontation or collaboration?

[Natural Resources, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, recent events in Elsipogtog, New Brunswick, clearly show the need for consultation of the people affected by natural resource extraction initiatives and the related problems.

Now that they have used their omnibus bill to dismantle our environmental protection measures, how do the Conservatives intend to fulfill their obligation to consult the peoples concerned and thus avoid other conflicts?

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this Speech from the Throne is a terrible way to start this session. It contains absolutely nothing of substance for aboriginal peoples. There is nothing about a national inquiry into missing and murdered women, the chronic underfunding of schools on reserve, or the lack of consultation about resource extraction projects.

The UN rapporteur is using the word “crisis“ and saying that the situation in New Brunswick is worsening. Can the government explain why aboriginal peoples' cries are falling on deaf ears?

[Obesity, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honour to embark on this delayed return to the House in keeping with the guiding principles that have directed my interventions since I first entered federal politics.

There is an underlying theme to my interventions in the House. I make a point of lifting the veil of secrecy that shrouds the lifestyle and realities of Canada's northern communities. Since I myself hail from a community north of the 52nd parallel, I am in a position to make known a host of variables and realities that are too often hidden from public view.

Given all that, in the context of this motion on preventing obesity, I will shed light on many issues related to the overabundance of processed foods in northern regions.

It takes me 14 hours to get home from Ottawa. Powerful lobby groups can afford to sell products at a loss in communities. The distance means that extra costs are associated with transportation, hence the loss. I am thinking of pop and chips, which are abundant in communities that are otherwise quite poor both economically and nutritionally.

In other words, people in many of these communities, such as Pakuashipi and Saint-Augustin, have no choice but to buy their food at convenience stores. There are aboriginal communities, but the same is true for the coasters and non-aboriginals who live in these communities. Often the convenience store is the only store in the community.

Most of us have been in convenience stores, and we have probably noticed that processed foods are usually displayed at children's eye level. Three-year-olds who go to convenience stores or bigger stores with their parents get an eyeful of chips, pop and chocolate bars. That is marketing. That is all business. Future consumers are being trained early. Companies make sure that children develop addictions to sugar and processed foods.

The motion before us focuses on the social costs of Canada's alarming obesity rate. One of my colleagues mentioned that health care costs amount to $7 billion per year. Obesity costs us billions of dollars—$7 billion according to my colleague.

Obesity increases the risk of developing a number of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular, liver and gall bladder disease. Liver and gall bladder disease are very prevalent among northerners.

I will speak to this point right away. Many children in these communities are confronted by this reality at a very young age. The number of people who die as a result of cirrhosis of the liver, which is a rather violent and slow death, is ongoing, visible and part of daily life. Cirrhosis of the liver is often related to the over-consumption of alcoholic products. I spoke about the processed foods lobby, but the alcoholic beverage lobby is very present in these communities. In short, when we talk about the cost of obesity, we must not overlook this aspect.

For members' information, when a person dies of cirrhosis of the liver, the mattress is collected along with the body. Children are exposed to adversity at a very young age and it becomes routine. I do not want to use the word “mundane”, but that is what it boils down to. It is part of the reality of these remote communities, which are in a vacuum.

Obesity can result in cardiovascular, liver and gall bladder diseases, strokes, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers—such as endometrial, breast and colon cancer—sleep apnea and respiratory difficulties.

Diabetes is another very worrisome problem in these communities. It results in a gradual and slow death. I often talk about children because they are confronted by this reality. For example, they may have a family member who has a number of amputations, starting first with a leg. We know once amputation is required, death soon follows. In fact, I have not seen many cases where a person with diabetes undergoes an amputation and then lives for many years afterwards.

It is a matter of months after the amputation. In short, this is related to products high in sodium, sugar and carbohydrates, as well as processed foods.

When I was talking about overabundance, these lobbies and the processed food industry, the junk food industry, all make sure they are everywhere in remote communities. In fact, this is clearly reflected in the garbage and empty chip bags in these communities.

Children enjoy considerable freedom in some communities. When they have a few dollars, their first impulse is obviously to get a bag of chips. We can easily calculate the sodium and calories involved. Just as an alcoholic can simply drink to live and give up solid food, it is also possible to live almost exclusively on chips and soft drinks and have an almost balanced diet. This is not quite the case, but some children with little or no supervision can turn to a diet based almost exclusively on fast food.

When I talk about fast food, I am also including TV dinners, which can be put in the microwave for 3.3 minutes and are very high in sodium and trans fats.

Given these facts, we can only welcome any initiative aiming to educate Canadians on this issue, while at the same time encouraging a dialogue to curb obesity in our country.

For the members' information, I will provide the ugly statistics. In Canada, obesity rates are particularly high among aboriginal populations. It is estimated that 26.4% of aboriginal youth and 36% of aboriginal adults living on reserve are obese. These figures are applicable to all the people in Canada's far north, or at least north of the 50th parallel. As I mentioned earlier, for example among coasters, the convenience store is often the only place to buy food for the family. However, what they find is an overabundance of chips and soft drinks.

This is a shame. When I was going door to door during the summer, my experience and my life in remote communities taught me that the two-litre Pepsi or two-litre bottle of pop, not to name any companies, is still on every table. The choice is very simple. A community at the 52nd parallel has to choose between paying sometimes $6 for a two-litre carton of milk—it must be much more expensive at the 55th—or 99 cents for a two-litre bottle of pop in July. That is a problem.

When the UN rapporteur, Mr. De Schutter, came here to Ottawa last year, I made sure I gave him a certain photograph. For any of my colleagues who wish to see it, I still have it on my phone. The photograph shows that in July, in Uashat, a community that is very far away, two litres of pop cost 99¢. Other products, like two litres of Perrier, are a lot more expensive, so the choice is pretty simple.

This brings about certain questions and some very legitimate concerns regarding the pervasive nature and real power of those lobby groups. This government also needs to examine its conscience. Clearly, some of these powerful lobby groups have an attentive ear, and it is appalling that the Canadian government is willing to put economic interests first rather than improve the health and well-being of all Canadians, especially considering the social costs associated with poor nutrition.

Implementing the Conservative corporatist agenda and the government's gradual withdrawal of programs promoting access to adequate housing, social inclusion and education have exacerbated the risk factors that lead to obesity.

Now, there is a lack of political will to regulate industrial practices. I am talking about industrial practices in the broad sense, but it is more obvious in the case of prepared foods. The government has a laissez-faire attitude. The entire industry pretty much has free will, but the costs associated with our health care system having to take care of people with serious health problems related to poor nutrition must be reassessed and that requires a collective awareness.

I submit this respectfully.