Jonathan Genest-Jourdain

[First Nations Elections Act, June 17th, 2013]

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

I gave the government credit at the outset when I mentioned that it had included fraudulent election-related activities. Coming from the government, I think that is a major step forward and I therefore congratulate it today.

The current situation is also as follows: we have to be consistent with the position expressed by many stakeholders in the field, many organizations that work with aboriginal communities. They say there is too much government interference under this particular bill. However, we have suggested potential solutions that can be introduced on third reading. There could be an amendment, and everyone would be happy; I would be pleased to support it, provided certain problems are identified and certain comments that have been made are taken into account.

The problem is that the concept of consultation is being disregarded and the government is not seeking the first nations' consent before unilaterally imposing legislation on them, which is highly reprehensible. However, the government has nevertheless made progress with this bill, and I give it credit for that; it is now on the right track. It should therefore continue on this path, and I will be here to support it.

[First Nations Elections Act, June 17th, 2013]

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

I mentioned more user-friendly methods. Ultimately, our critic in this area obviously has a clearer idea than I of the form that will take.

We will really need a kind of parallel tribunal assigned exclusively to aboriginal matters, not simply election-related issues. Too often I mention the idea of puppet governments. I know perfectly well that pawns are put in power on reserves by lobbies, but also by the governments that have succeeded one another here and that always make sure they choose who they deal with. That is probably why, even though this bill addresses some essential concepts, it nevertheless transfers responsibility to the law courts.

That may be off-putting for some, particularly considering the burden of proof associated with it and all the subtleties of the legal system in this country. Some first nations members might view all this as an obstacle to the exercise of their most basic rights.

I submit all that to you.

[First Nations Elections Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor West.

We are looking at the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain first nations, with emphasis on the word “certain”. I will be speaking to my own reality at the 52nd parallel and that of the five Innu and Naskapi communities in my riding.

A debate on the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain first nations is an appropriate time for sharing realities that Canadians still know nothing about. I should say that it was honourable of the government to include the notion of corrupt practice in connection with elections when drafting this bill. It gives us an opportunity to discuss the notions of influence peddling, lobbying, conflict of interest and financial wrongdoing. I will therefore be making reference to those notions.

Over the past two years of my current term, I have shared with Canadians some realities that are far too often ignored. The truth is that the national media and the media in general have an editorial policy that means that the public does not hear about certain first nations realities. One reason is that the issues are restricted to reserves, another is that there is an agenda dictating the kind of news that is reported about Indian reserves.

In my speech today, I will make Canadians aware of the financial and political wrongdoing that is found on certain reserves. More often than not, the key players involved are off the reserves and outside the clan dynamic. As always, I will speak to my own reality.

I have mentioned this many times before, but far too often, shysters lurk around Indian reserves, including all kinds of lawyers, professionals, anthropologists and all kinds of people claiming to be “first nation specialists”. This is seen most often on Indian reserves that are rich in natural resources, because resource extraction is a very lucrative business. In fact, keeping Indian reserves at a certain cultural, social and educational level allows the work to be done in obscurity and with impunity. That is why there is political interference during the election of the chief and councillors.

As a lawyer and a member of Parliament, my services have been requested many times over the past few years. People have told me about situations involving influence peddling and wrongdoing in connection with band council elections. My reputation as a whistleblower has probably reached certain isolated communities because I have had to deal with several dozen of these cases recently, including in my own community.

It seems there was some interference by mining companies during the last tribal election at home. Currently, at the 52nd parallel, "extractivist" measures are being introduced. In other words, natural resource extraction is perceived as the only driver of economic development. The mining companies and various lobbies are putting their pawns in place in the band councils. That is why some community members have gradually distanced themselves from democratic life on reserve and even nationally.

People in the communities are disillusioned, and voter turnout for democratic elections on reserves is very low. I proved that wrong when I was elected, since 4,000 Indians voted for me. Many of them had never voted before. I had to get out there. People likely felt I had integrity because of my reputation and my youth. That is why people voted for me, and I think I represent them well here.

Although the situations I have repeatedly denounced in my speeches are not generalized, I will focus on my own reality and talk about the reserves in my riding. Because I saw these issues come up in both my legal and political experience, I would like to talk about the harmful socio-political effect they can have on tribal life.

I said that first nations members have no interest in or choose not to participate in democratic measures. The Conservatives often say that they conducted a consultation and that only 15 people showed up. I have heard that a lot. Even before the Conservatives that was often the easy answer. They would say that very few Indians showed up, so why should they invest all that money to go meet 15 people?

That is the reality. Few people show up because they are disillusioned. Some people have gradually become disinterested as a result of repeated abuse over generations, wrongdoing and the lack of transparency in tribal politics. It exists in Canada too; we preach by example.

Although this bill contains some interesting measures, we also need an independent process to investigate, challenge and question the government's tribal measures. This will require investigative powers and the necessary personnel. Since reserves tend to be tough to penetrate, this will take some specialized individuals.

When I met with Indian Affairs officials to discuss this bill, they told me that, ultimately, it would be up to the RCMP to conduct investigations on the reserves and to track down those who commit abuses. Knowing full well that the RCMP is already overstretched and that this is a rather specialized field because of the closed nature of Indian reserves, it is my humble opinion that the RCMP will have to be granted supplementary funding and that some staff will have to be assigned exclusively to this matter, not only for elections on reserves, but also for economic abuses in the broader sense, because there are some.

The succession of statutory measures drafted and unilaterally introduced by this government during the current mandate shows how important it is for people to be involved in and contribute to the democratic process in this country. I am going to talk about the importance of that. In fact, citizen assertiveness, by Indians and Canadian citizens as a whole, is viewed as a barrier to economic expansion. That is why the Conservatives are currently taking every back-door measure possible to ensure that the public is ultimately not consulted. When you consult people, they have the opportunity to agree with a project or to oppose it. I am well aware that the Conservatives fear public opposition and mobilization more than anything else. That is why no effort has been put into the census to truly seek the public's opinion.

The same type of reasoning applies to aboriginal issues because aboriginal assertiveness is also perceived as a barrier to economic expansion. That is deplorable and utterly reprehensible. The true barrier to economic expansion is not citizen assertiveness, but rather a lack of transparency. If people were transparent, there would be no reluctance to consult the public.

Although the bill before us provides for the codification of offences and penalties under which charges may be laid and penalties imposed for any fraudulent activity related to elections, it is apparent from my discussions with the various stakeholders and legal experts in this matter—and there are a lot of them—that they are unclear about what entity will have investigative authority and about the actual scope of the coercive power that will then be exercised. I was briefly told that the courts could hear this matter at trial, but more user-friendly measures that are more tailored to first nations will be necessary. More user-friendly measures will be needed so that people can finally share their opinions and speak out against the abuses, particularly given the literacy problems as I understand them and see them on a daily basis in my community.

This is a major investigative task. At the risk of repeating myself, substantial funding will have to be allocated. Staff will have to be assigned exclusively to this case if we ultimately want the RCMP to investigate it.

Lastly, although the bill addresses certain aspects in a way that suggests an improvement in the first nations electoral system, it does not directly address the Indian Act. Under the proposed provisions, the minister would be able to determine the future of a band without consultation, for a change, which violates the principle of self-government.

I will now let the House absorb all that.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, while we are commemorating the fifth anniversary of the official apology for residential schools—in which the government acknowledged the harm done to children and their families—it is distressing to see that aboriginal youth are still not a priority for the Conservatives.

The minister is still dragging his feet on completing the nominal role process. That process allows for a follow-up with aboriginal students to determine their eligibility so that schools receive adequate funding.

Can the minister explain why this process is taking so long, as it technically should have been completed in February?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is just as good at spewing nonsense as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

This week marks the fifth anniversary of the federal government's official apology for residential schools—five years to promote a reconciliation that has resulted in little more than budget cuts and legal battles against aboriginal peoples.

The minister said this weekend that the cuts would not affect essential services. Which supposedly non-essential services does the department plan to eliminate?

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. speaker, I thank my colleague once again for his question.

I am going to support my own views with facts. Once again this morning in committee, we were talking about signing a treaty that would exclude a nation in British Columbia, specifically the Sto:lo. There is a dispute over salmon and land.

I would say that Machiavellianism is still alive and well here in Canada's Parliament. This is unfortunate, but true. Aboriginal communities have an oral tradition, and have had for tens of thousands of years; everything is based on brotherly exchanges and on “emulatory” principles in accordance with which people tell the truth.

In 2013, the Conservatives and other governments before them—the blame must be placed on a single organization—successfully worked to divide and ensure that aboriginal bands, Indian bands, had disparities and claims that would ultimately bring them into conflict with one another. This mutual dislike was nurtured because it is much more profitable for some people to work with certain bands as individuals rather than as a part of a whole. When I give my own presentations and travel to reserves, I say that the solution and the future of aboriginal peoples reside in unity and a return to the values and oral cultures with which we grew up.

That is what I wanted to submit to the House.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I would go even further and say that they are trying to unburden themselves by shifting responsibility to organizations that are not accountable.

Often, the common thread binding some of these issues is that they are more or less contentious or controversial. That is why the government is attempting to distance itself and to cut ties to avoid being accountable for the negative impacts of its sometimes unreasonable decisions.

The most recent trend—which I have observed of late—is to transfer everything to NPOs or charitable organizations because it is rather difficult to point fingers at a charitable organization and say that it has made a hash of managing a project. By definition, an NPO is a non-profit organization.

In short, public policy implementation is now being delegated blindly. We need to condemn this approach.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue my speech.

We were talking about the Canadian government's desire to distance itself from highly contentious issues, such as the provision of services to Canadians, and also matters pertaining to drinking water and the upgrading of drinking water infrastructure.

That is why these clauses have been added and why a trend is emerging from this initiative and many others as well. We see that it is fragmented. The Canadian government is trying to gradually distance itself from highly contentious issues on which the national and international media have shone a rather unfavourable spotlight.

However, first and foremost, with respect to the provision of services to Canadians, we have seen that the government's priorities are clearly focused on natural resource extraction. In keeping with what my hon. colleague said, the government is pandering to its political base. That is why there will be cherry-picking and certain issues will be given priority in the Conservatives' hidden agenda.

Now, with regard to Bill S-8, the government is adding phrases such as “to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands”. This type of phrase opens the door to the unilateral violation of aboriginal rights. That is extremely shameful and questionable. We know that aboriginal, treaty and other rights exercised by aboriginal peoples in Canada are enshrined in the Constitution. The fiduciary relationship also comes into play. Simply put, a fiduciary relationship necessarily implies that the first nations' interests will be the Canadian government's primary concern when it introduces legislation or plans to impose unilateral measures, such as those before the House.

This is enshrined in the Constitution and has been reiterated by the courts, including the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court has taken a position on a specific case, it becomes immutable. In this case, the Supreme Court indicated that these obligations were associated with every initiative that could potentially interfere with the traditional and modern way of life of first nations peoples.

As a result, the moment the government considers or makes a decision, whether it is based on policy or what is actually happening on the ground, before doing anything to implement that decision, it must ensure that the decision does not in any way interfere with the traditional activities and way of life of Canada's aboriginal peoples. Therein lies the problem in most cases. The government is generally reluctant to hold consultations and seek public approval because it is a lot of work. What is more, we know that when public consultations are held, there is a good chance that people will not agree and that they will be fairly vocal about it. People will openly express their opinions. That is the concept behind direct democracy: the public is called upon to take a stand.

As the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou mentioned, when people are consulted, there is the possibility that they will not agree with what is being proposed. That is always one of the options that a person has. That person can simply say no and reject the measure that is being proposed, and that is a valid response.

Social acceptability often appears to be the desired outcome, because it confers prestige. This is not nearly as meaningful in 2013. It has been tarnished and taken over by industry. I would say that social acceptability is rather abstract and not something that ought to be pursued. It may well be that there is simply no acceptability and that people take a position against certain projects.

The Supreme Court clearly established that any infringement of aboriginal prerogatives must be seen in light of the methods preferred by aboriginal peoples to exercise their rights. It must also take into consideration the need to avoid any infringement of aboriginal rights to the greatest extent possible. There is nothing exhaustive about this list. I am just briefly listing a number of criteria. It also needs to include fair compensation in the event of expropriation and, lastly, it necessarily implies that there be consultations.

As I just mentioned, the issue of consultations is the sticking point in 2013. In the case of most, if not all of the statutes and legislative tools brought to my attention over the past two years I have sat in the House, the government has shown little desire to consult the aboriginal population in general.

The government seems content to have asked nine community leaders for their opinion. Turning to the 3,000 members of a community and being prepared to brave the storm is not exactly at the top of the Conservatives’ agenda in 2013. This is understandable, because public support is not necessarily in the cards. Some Conservative members have even been stopped from going into a Tim Hortons for a coffee in their own riding because the locals want to tear off their heads.

In short, the social and political conditions are not right for their policies, their approach and the directives coming from their backbench MPs.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I had a very quick look at my recent speeches in the House, and I noticed a common underlying thread in a large number of bills introduced in the House. I have already made at least three speeches this week that touched on the same subjects, the same common thread and the same trains of thought.

At the risk of being redundant, I want to point out that the government is gradually and stealthily trying to distance itself and step back from its obligations. This is evident with the introduction of both private members' and government bills that allow the government to gradually transfer its obligations to provide services to Canadians across the country. For example, it is delegating its obligation to deliver services to charities, which are not accountable. Bill S-8 is no different.

When I consider my brief experience here in the House and the many hours I have spent in committee, I come to the same conclusion. In reality, many initiatives that focus on “Indianness” and aboriginal issues seek to allow the government to opt out of its obligations and shift the burden it has because of the fiduciary relationship, among other things, onto the backs of third parties or band councils.

This relates to Bill S-8, which pertains to safe drinking water. I am thinking, in particular, of the First Nations Land Management Act. This initiative was brought forward to, ultimately, technically and officially, give first nations communities back a certain amount of control over land management and authorizations related to partial occupancy.

In reality, if a legal expert truly focused on the enactment and the letter of this law, he would clearly see that the burden shifts the moment an agreement is signed under the First Nations Land Management Act. The environmental liabilities—past, present and future—are then assumed by the band.

As a result, all the profiteering and negligence of successive governments over the years in relation to environmental monitoring, management and assessments just add to the negligence we are seeing in 2013. The results could be catastrophic. That is why the government is trying to opt out of these obligations. It is important to remember that the reclamation of a single parcel of land on a given reserve can easily cost $100,000. It depends on whether we are dealing with oil or other pollutants and contaminants.

The same reasoning applies in the case of Bill S-8. The government is simply shifting its obligations with regard to access to safe drinking water, infrastructure upgrades and water management and filtration onto the backs of first nations and band councils, which do not have enough funding to take on these sometimes costly responsibilities. I am just thinking about my community, which recently had to deal with contaminated water. There are huge costs associated with these types of problems.

An informed review of the proposed legislative initiative indicates that there are non-derogation clauses whose interpretation and application would open the door to the abrogation of ancestral and treaty rights.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives just lost another member of their caucus, but that has not stopped them from avoiding being held accountable.

While the Conservatives just announced new cuts to funding for aboriginal organizations, which will affect health programs in particular, a study released today on suicide risk factors in Nunavut shows that the suicide rate there is 10 times higher than the Canadian average.

How can the minister think these new cuts put him in a better position to deal with this crisis?