Jonathan Genest-Jourdain

[Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this has been a rather long day. As well, some rather lively discussion is taking place at this time. If the Canadian public had access to all this shilly-shallying, it would be an excellent thing.

In line with the Conservatives’ idea of developing and adopting public policies with which they can make political and media hay, the bill under consideration will have only a tenuous connection with reality in the courts of this country.

I remind members that I am, first and foremost, a criminal lawyer. I am therefore going to substantiate my argument by using concrete, empirical examples, much as some may not like it.

In Canada, there are not many incidents associated with offenders convicted of abduction or sexual assault followed by murder. When I say “not many”, that does not mean there is not very heavy media coverage associated with the very limited number of such cases.

The Conservatives’ idea is that they are going to make political hay; they are going to try to start it all up again and engage in sensationalism, since these cases get very good coverage. They are simply going to try to polish their image by showing they are on the side of victims and they are going to do something. There is only a very tenuous connection with reality in the courts and on the incidence of this kind of case.

I handled several hundred cases when I worked for legal aid, and several hundred more when I opened my own private practice, but I have never had to handle this kind of case. In 2007, after I was called to the bar, I handled some fairly sordid homicide cases, the details of which I will spare you. Nonetheless, I have never had to take on a case involving an abduction or a sexual assault followed by a murder. That type of case is quite rare.

I would note that in this kind of case, one or two incidents a year are observed in the case reports, in the whole of Canada, and the individuals are already sentenced to imprisonment for life. We therefore cannot help but draw conclusions and make certain inferences: that this is simply publicity hype and a desire to curry favour with groups that are clearly identified in advance.

In the context of this analysis, we also need to weigh the risks associated with initiatives relating to the imposition of maximum sentences. If Canada no longer bases its rules on a 25-year maximum, people will argue that various combined offences should be treated the same way.

When I am writing my speeches, I wonder how my practice is doing. I do intend to return to my practice in the near or distant future. I wonder how thick my Criminal Code is going to be when I go back into court. What will my criminal law practice be like? Will my criminal practice, for me as defence counsel, be significantly different as a result of the very substantial amendments that have been promulgated in recent years?

Over the past little while, we have been going off on this continuous and very pronounced and deliberate march to the right. I have some acquaintances with whom I worked for years, and over the summer I am going to do some research in order to get an answer, and I am going to ask some Crown prosecutors to verify whether their practices and the measures and directives that have come their way have been altered in the last two years.

I will hold back some of my observations, given the potentially controversial nature of this subject.

I submit this respectfully.

[Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today I will continue to talk to the Canadian public about my observations on the sectarian nature of the process the government has used to enact public policy since it took power.

I wish to point out to Canadians that Bill C-478 on increasing parole ineligibility is nothing more than the Conservative government’s nth attempt to introduce measures to amend the Criminal Code by means of private member’s bills from the back benches, which are in fact very vocal at the moment.

Over the past two years, I have noticed that the government has used many different tactics to introduce programs that are first and foremost of interest to very specific social classes and segments of Canada’s population, and to influential lobby groups that have the government’s ear.

Some may find private member’s bills particularly useful, in part because there may not be public approval, and also because the government is not as involved as it would be with a formal government bill.

Private member’s bills are all too often introduced to sound out public opinion and to please a very specific segment of the population and the lobby groups, as I already mentioned. They are also used to boost the party's popularity, all with a view to electioneering and marketing.

I have noticed far too often that the Conservatives see public policy enactment and implementation as a form of commodity trading or marketing. The government views public policy as a corporation would. This has happened far too often with advertising for the 2013 and 2015 economic action plans. I do not know the exact title, but it is copyrighted. In short, the advertising campaigns and the associated hype give us a hint of how much effort has been made on the marketing front to publish, fine tune and polish their image.

However, they are not fooling anyone. People with natural curiosity can clearly see what the government is really trying to do. When the advertising shows green fields, families and streams—and people know full well that the economic action plan focuses on extracting natural resources—many are stunned.

This backbench private member’s bill does nothing to burnish the Conservatives’ image, which clearly needs a great deal of polishing and chrome, because their popularity is in free fall at the moment. I want to remind everyone of this and will continue to hammer the point home. The timing is good. The conditions are right.

I would like to reiterate one more time, even though all my colleagues already agree, that the Conservatives’ image is definitely now in decline. That is why we are trying to rally the membership base that has supported us from the outset—

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada paid more than $6.7 million over six years to private auditing companies for information that is already being provided through existing reporting mechanisms.

The Conservatives ignore these basic government reporting mechanisms and force taxpayers to pay twice as much to ensure that aboriginal peoples are accountable. There is one set of rules for the government and another for aboriginal peoples.

Can the minister explain why he hires private auditing firms to duplicate the work that his department is responsible for doing?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

I agree with her. Contrary to all the hype surrounding the television ads broadcast during prime time, the environment is not a major concern for the government. The government sees the environment as something that gets in the way of economic expansion.

In 2013, environmental and social considerations are seen as obstacles to economic expansion. This is highly reprehensible on the part of this government, because these are things people identify with. They are essential for human survival. I think we can draw our own conclusions about this.

The meagre allocations mentioned by my hon. colleague truly reflect this lack of willingness, or at least, the real importance the government places on these issues, which are in fact critically important.

This government's “extractivist” measures and its legislative initiatives and initiatives on the ground will meet the needs expressed by industry above all. They will be brought forward in order to please lobbies and special interest groups. Again, it is a question of nepotism, investment and favouritism.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member sure he wants to talk about the Senate this evening? We could talk about despots, small private clubs, partisan appointments and nepotism. I think those are some terms that will keep coming up.

The news speaks for itself. This issue is rather controversial. If I were in the hon. member's place, I would distance myself from the Senate as much as possible, especially when such a negative spotlight is shining on it. The situation is not in their best interest.

According to the news, we are right. The NDP's desire to abolish the Senate seems to be taking shape and Canadians seem to be on board.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when I last spoke in the House I made some observations about a recurring theme in the government's initiatives and announcements, and that is that the government is distancing itself from social intervention, more specifically from providing services in the country.

My last intervention focused on charities. I tried to substantiate my comments by introducing our audience to the notion of distancing, the government's desire to withdraw, a desire that has been obvious every day since it came to power. I could see that there were some controversial topics that Canadians viewed somewhat unfavourably. This government is often an easy target, both within Canada and internationally. That is the case when it comes to human rights—which I will come back to later—and access to clean drinking water. Recently in committee, we were examining Bill S-8, an initiative that once again transfers the burden of sanitation and access to clean drinking water onto first nation band councils. As everyone knows, this a fundamental right that is enshrined in the Constitution and one that is internationally recognized. Access to clean drinking water is crucial; it is a basic human right. The government is trying to step back from its obligations, to distance itself, and is transferring this burden to other bodies such as band councils, which do not necessarily have sufficient financial resources to deal with these issues.

Bill C-60 contains the same kind of blind transfer of responsibility. Some subjects are rather contentious, rather controversial. That is why the government is trying to get out of its obligations, or at least distance itself from the negative spotlight associated with certain subjects.

I will now substantiate my remarks by giving some concrete examples.

Throughout this mandate, many members in this House have joined with the auditor in exposing the obvious, chronic underfunding of education in first nation communities. The public's interest in the debate and the media coverage of the shortcomings affecting academic opportunities for a growing segment of the population helped fuel the Idle No More movement.

With respect to education, I read earlier on the CBC website that people are beginning to ask some questions about education for first nations and the general population. They are examining their own situation and their reality, a reality that is reflected in the debates in the House and in the implementation of the measures introduced in the House and sometimes in the Senate. Personally, I think too many measures are coming from the Senate.

That education works to free the people. That is why, in 2013, government agencies are instead focusing on training that meets the needs of companies involved in extracting natural resources. I am seeing that in my own riding. Those of us on the front lines can see that training programs, especially in remote areas, are designed to meet the needs expressed by a significant segment of industry. There is an attempt to push students towards programs that meet the needs of extractive companies, to the detriment of general education that encourages analytical and critical thinking regarding many of our country's contentious issues. That is basically what I wanted to say.

Now I would like to take a look at some of Canada's social statistics. It seems there is a 30% gap between the funding provided to students attending schools on reserve and other Canadians who attend provincial schools. That reflects the fact that natural resources are mainly, but not exclusively, being extracted in remote areas. My riding, where natural resources of all kinds are being extracted, is a clear example of that.

That is why this government does not necessarily have any interest in giving Indians access to post-secondary education. They will find themselves in situations that are similar to the ones they are facing now.

I am calling all of that into question and exposing it. The public has taken up this cause, and because of the advent and the growth of social media as we know them today, it does not take long for the information to get to remote communities. The Internet has become more widely available in recent years, and people have access to that information, even in remote communities. That is why the government tries so hard to restrict first nations' access to education.

Access was facilitated when I began studying law. There were programs that made it possible for aboriginal students to be admitted to law programs. There were pre-law programs, which were eliminated over time. Barring any proof to the contrary, those programs are no longer available today. Of course, it all depended on what government was in place at the time. There was a clear desire to include and extend that freedom to a segment of the population.

I was from a remote community, and that was a life-saver, if I may say so. I managed to get away from my community and its deleterious elements. Leaving did me a world of good. Now the government is trying to keep people in their communities. That explains the 30% disparity. It is the government's way of keeping Indians on reserve. There are times when the circumstances make life on reserve destructive, poisonous even. That seems to be their plan. That is my own perspective for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.

Considering the vast gulf dividing Canada's aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups in terms of academic opportunity, it is conceivable that the government is trying to delegate the implementation and funding of education programs for aboriginal clients across the country. That is why I have my doubts about the measure in Bill C-60 to transfer $5 million to a charitable organization responsible for distributing post-secondary education scholarships to students registered under the Indian Act and to Inuit students.

I am not the only one who is skeptical about this type of announcement. Some observers, both here in Canada and abroad, have their doubts. In fact, in this case, the Conservatives are blindly delegating the implementation of public policy. Instead of focusing on the real disparity in funding for the training and education of first nations youth—young people who are disadvantaged and who must face adversity on a daily basis—the Conservatives are delegating everything to an organization. The organization may be well run, but it is a non-profit organization, a para-public or charitable organization, that is not necessarily accountable. The Canadian government must set the parameters for implementing measures that foster access to higher education for first nations because, in the end, it is bound by its fiduciary obligation to them.

The delegation of this task leaves me perplexed and skeptical to say the least. In fact, we know that $5 million is not a huge amount in any event, especially when we consider the number of young people who will have access to or who are old enough to have access to quality education, higher education. This leaves me perplexed.

I submit this respectfully.

[National Charities Week, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech on the bill regarding a National Charities Week by showing how the government has gradually transferred many of its fundamental responsibilities to the private sector.

Over the years, during my brief experience in the House, I have noticed the government's trend of transferring responsibilities, as well as withdrawing and, at the very least, attempting to distance itself from its obligations to provide services to Canadians.

Strange as it may seem, the government is attempting to transfer its own responsibilities to paragovernmental bodies that are not accountable to Canadians. I will provide evidence of this in my speech. The House will therefore be in a position to draw its own conclusions.

Although we cannot but welcome efforts to increase charitable donations, we must carefully look at the impact of the proposed measures on federal revenues, on the total amount of donations and on their distribution, in light of the current political situation.

Based on my experience as deputy aboriginal affairs critic, I have noticed that the government blindly delegates the implementation parameters for public policy measures. Once again this morning, when I attended the meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, members were dealing with the issue of safe drinking water on first nations reserves.

The evidence provided by the witnesses who had been invited to appear this morning reflected the government’s barely concealed desire to transfer its obligations to agencies and bodies that are rarely accountable to the general public, even though band councils are accountable to members of the first nations.

In this case, the Canadian government is trying to transfer its own obligations to band councils, by virtue of the fiduciary relationship that the Crown has with first nations. Moreover, it is doing so without necessarily transferring the budget envelope that should go along with it.

This kind of reasoning is applicable in many other areas, not just aboriginal affairs. Over the years, we have seen the Conservatives simply trying to shift that weight and pass it on to others. Certain highly controversial issues can often be seen in a positive light by some. Ultimately, they are covered by the media and taken up by international bodies.

In this case, we are talking about safe drinking water, but in terms of charities, we are talking about the delivery of services to Canadians. This puts the government in a more or less favourable light. That is why the government is distancing itself, or at least why there is a very clear desire to do so in this case.

In this speech, I will give concrete examples that support this position and that show how the government’s desire and these distancing measures we see day after day are detrimental. I cannot speak to the past but, over the two years that I have been here, I have observed the government’s gradual withdrawal. This will have a negative impact on all Canadians.

Considering the unstable economic situation in Canada, it is important to condemn the government’s gradual withdrawal from the provision of services to Canadians. The government needs to maintain social programs and make further investments in them to reduce the visible strain on the charitable sector and prevent essential government services from being replaced by charities.

This is especially true because charities, just like first nations, do not necessarily have the budget envelope to provide services to the public. They are not always accountable; this depends on how closely they are tied to government bodies. Some charitable organizations are simply not accountable. How convenient for them.

Finally, the government has divested itself of highly controversial areas. It can simply say that it is no longer responsible for these areas since another organization has taken charge of the whole thing.

I would now like to delve into my own personal experience. I often discuss issues at the empirical level and today will be no different.

Coming back to my own practice, as a lawyer working for legal aid and also as a private counsel, when I opened my own office in August or September 2010, I occasionally worked on a voluntary basis, in order to increase the glamour and build a reputation as an ethical lawyer. In legal parlance, the Latin term pro bono is used for this. The Barreau du Québec and the other bar associations just about everywhere in the country strongly urge their members to work pro bono, that is, to work on a voluntary basis.

When I worked on criminal cases, or even more obviously, when I provided services to clients with mental health needs, it sometimes happened that the clients were not eligible for legal aid for financial or other reasons.

In some cases, the process was already under way, and as the case progressed I realized that legal aid had refused its assistance. I was still responsible for these cases. I simply decided to continue providing my services to the client. I did not do it in order to gain some financial reward or for a mercenary purpose, but because my help was needed. In addition, no other lawyer would have taken on these cases free of charge. So I provided these services for no personal benefit.

I would like to come back to one point regarding charities. When you work on a voluntary basis or pro bono, disinterest must always be kept in mind. You do not do the work with profit in mind. The primary reason for working on a voluntary basis or pro bono is to ensure that everyone benefits from one’s services and skills.

In my own case, this was quite beneficial, because my reputation grew, and I like to think this was one of the inducements or at least one of the elements that led to my election in 2011. People were already aware of my pro bono work and the fact that I provided services free of charge for people who were poor and vulnerable.

To come back to this notion of disinterest, some lawyers who call themselves “first nation specialists” often lurk around band councils with the idea of making a profit. Some lawyers will say that they are doing pro bono work on a case. Strangely enough, these are the same people who will demand $100,000 per month from Indian bands. This is not really what pro bono means. I would like to make an aside to discuss another Latin expression: obiter dictum. This means that I am saying something in passing.

In summary, when you perform work on a pro bono basis, you have to keep in mind that there will be no payment for the work. I would like to send this message to my friends the first nation specialists.

Finally, it is important to point out that the best approach to the matter under consideration is to implement a comprehensive, consistent, long-term charity policy. Beyond the ostentatious aspect of the issue, it may be worthwhile to assess the entire matter in light of the Conservatives’ double-talk.

Beneath a facade of magnanimity and compassion, supported by expensive marketing hype, the actual implementation of their policies means gaps in funding and targeted attacks on agencies that hold positions that clash with government policy.

This can be seen in bodies other than charitable organizations. The government looks down on some agencies, bodies and band councils and even certain clans that are moderately favourable or freethinking, that are able to express their own position. Strangely, they can also experience a gap in funding, and the government speaks contemptuously about them.

I will repeat my own words. At a meeting with first nations that was meant to be historic, some groups ended up on the sidewalk and were treated as undesirables. In that case and in the case of certain charitable organizations, there has been some cherry picking over the years. Some organizations have had their funding cut because they were not conspicuously favourable to the ideas expressed or at least because they took positions that came into conflict with the ideology of this government.

Clearly, in 2013, the Conservatives have a poor idea of freedom of expression and freethinkers.

I submit this respectfully.

[Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the substance of the motion before us in the House allows me to focus on concepts related to belonging to a clan as a bastion of aboriginal identity.

My speech today in this House will be consistent with what I said yesterday when I was teaching in Wendake. I am occasionally called upon to travel in order to meet with communities that are sometimes rather isolated. Although in this case Wendake is peri-urban, I was asked to go there.

The concepts I will be going over today will be consistent with what I was teaching yesterday, about the bastions of aboriginal identity and the economic growth that certain communities in the country have been enjoying. This will come into play and I will include it all in my argument.

For many generations, Indian identity had a certain negative connotation. It was not that being Indian was intrinsically bad, but members of Canada's aboriginal communities were perceived as second-class citizens for many generations, if not hundreds of years. It was only recently that economics entered into the Indian identity and way of life. When I say economics, I am referring to the results of land claims and the agreements associated with the impact and benefits of natural resource development.

In 2013, this has become a full-fledged industry. These matters are often handed over to law firms that can afford to have just one client because this generates substantial revenues. Sometimes these law firms charge both a percentage and a flat rate. This can be quite lucrative. That is why there has been such enthusiasm, such a keen interest by a segment of the Canadian public in reconnecting with its aboriginal roots in 2013. My speech here today will be from that perspective.

This was brought to my attention when I was preparing my speech, not that I want to jump to any negative conclusions. I was just asked about my position on this.

Development and opportunities related to major economic and regional issues often fuel an upsurge in assertive measures taken by citizens in relation to the specific status that members of first nations in Canada enjoy.

Economic growth and economic issues are creating somewhat of a stir in my home community. Over the past few years, a generation of Indians has appeared out of nowhere in my riding. If we take this new generation or group that has appeared in my riding and compare it with our Ekuanitshit or Unamen Shipu neighbours, it is clear that there is a fairly weak link with Mongolia, if I may say so.

In short, this new band appeared in my riding in a very specific location that was targeted for hydro development, major work sites and natural resource extraction initiatives. Once again, I am not trying to draw negative inferences, but people can make the necessary connections and figure it out for themselves.

It is conceivable that greedy people stand ready to pounce in regions where a socio-economic boom has been observed. The specific measures set out in land claims, the compensation associated with natural resource extraction and the encroachment on a band's traditional lands are incentive enough for people to claim that they have an aboriginal heritage, which is why bands need to set out principles that define and control who can be a band member.

Now, with regard to the issue at hand, the information that has been brought to my attention indicates that there are 100,000 new applicants for the band in question in today's motion.

Since there is a rather limited number of first nations members across the country, we have reason to wonder how likely it would be to suddenly have 100,000 new applicants or 100,000 people applying—or at least hoping—to be on the Indian Register.

That is why it is up to the band to define and establish criteria for membership and for determining whether a person is eligible to be a member of the band. That already happens, and customary law most often applies. In my home community and other communities, customary law is what ultimately determines who is a member.

Some decisions have been brought to my attention when the community's hands were tied and an individual's name had to be added to the list. These issues are generally dealt with within the clan, and that is unheard of. Based on my own perception and my own analysis, 100,000 new applicants is a significant number. That is why things are stalled and the Canadian government is being called on to take a stand and process each of these files fairly.

That is what this motion says. Each application must be examined on a case-by-case basis, and the supporting documentation must be taken into consideration. However, we could very well end up with a backlog in this type of situation, especially with the high number of applicants.

We agree that all applications must be treated the same way. This means that the validity of documents will be called into question and that decisions regarding enrolment will be challenged.

In light of the limited number of people in the region in question, the figure of 100,000 applicants will have to be reviewed in light of aboriginal identity, to avoid applications for purely monetary reasons. Aboriginal people in Canada share some strong values. There must be no detracting from “Indianness” or Indian identity and serious identity issues for purely political or economic reasons.

I submit this respectfully.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's aboriginal population is young, dynamic and growing, but it has been abandoned by the Conservatives.

Thirty per cent of the aboriginal population is younger than 14, but the high school graduation rate is under 40%.

Yesterday, when we asked the minister about this, he was unable to answer.

He was not able to explain why his department systematically underfunds first nations education.

Let us try again today. Can the minister explain why 48 aboriginal communities are still waiting for their schools to be built?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I will proceed in English from now on.

Why was a Federal Court order needed to implement Jordan's principle, when it passed unanimously through the House?