Jonathan Genest-Jourdain

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2013]

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

Now, again this is just my opinion, but I think the problem is that the consent of first nations is seen as a sort of stamp or seal or approval. In other words, people think if aboriginal populations are with them, they can go ahead. This is very problematic. All too often, when resource extraction initiatives are presented to a community, they are already a done deal—that is, all the actors in place have already made a deal and the last people to hear about the ready-made package are aboriginal communities. This is also truly reprehensible because the relationship is a utilitarian one that does not benefit the entire population.

That is why there is no impact, no redistribution. This is not to mention the fact that the concept of building up capital, of pooling resources within communities, is not necessarily stressed. Furthermore, no training is provided to the communities that technically should benefit from these resource extraction initiatives, but do not necessarily have the workforce, knowledge and expertise required to maximize these own-source revenues.

Now, it is also important to understand that the Canadian government—with the fiduciary relationship that is its responsibility—has a duty to ensure that first nations communities are in the best possible position to get the most out of these initiatives. However, that willingness is just not there. Native poverty is a lucrative business. Outside experts make a fortune by keeping first nations at the same level of knowledge and at the same social and cultural level. This is not true for all communities, but it is for some, especially the more isolated communities. I am thinking of my own reality at the 52nd parallel. People are getting richer by keeping these communities at a certain level.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, taking into account the scope and familiar nature of the motion before the House, it is my duty to support the explicit and underlying concepts it contains.

As a result, in my speech today, I will provide some perspective on the realities addressed by the motion by focusing on the confrontational approach that characterizes the modern relationship between the Canadian government and aboriginal people across the country. I would like to read from the motion before us, which states:

That this House call on the government to: (a) abandon its confrontational approach to First Nations, Métis and Inuit in favour of a nation-to-nation dialogue...

First, I will talk about the confrontational approach. At the risk of repeating myself, over the Christmas break, when I was deeply inspired by the Idle No More movement, I was asked to prepare a course and to travel throughout Canada and the United States. I had to do a detour through the United States to get to certain parts of Quebec. In short, I travelled to many aboriginal communities across the country to give a course on the modernization and amendment of the Indian Act, which is related to bills such as Bill C-27, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45.

In the course introduction, I made a point of indicating that the comments made by a number of ministers and stakeholders suggest that they see the affirmation of the identity of first nations in Canada as a barrier to economic expansion. This view is shared by many other stakeholders and is due, in part, to various speeches made in the House. Some ministers and others have been quoted on this issue.

If we look closer, it is true that there is some correlation between the assertive measures that have been taken by aboriginal communities across Canada in affirmation of their identity and the dramatic drop in the stock market value of some corporate entities.

One might assume that this is a fairly simple relationship when, in reality, it is very complex. If there has been a dramatic drop in the stock value, it is because the entity in question was lax and failed to shoulder its corporate social responsibility. That is why this affirmation of identity is undermining the stock market value of these entities. In a way, this premise is flawed because it is not the affirmation of aboriginal identity itself that is creating a barrier to economic expansion; rather, it is the lack of transparency and the financial wrongdoing observed in remote areas.

Successive Canadian governments and all of the other parties have tried over the years to put Indians in a box, if I may say so. In other words, they have tried to restrict the jurisdiction, the affirmation of identity, the social, cultural and economic affirmation of first nations, in order to give economic entities more peace of mind. This government has been even more obvious about it than its predecessors and is moving forward with a corporatist agenda, primarily promoting natural resources extraction as an economic engine and key component of economic development across the country.

I simply wanted to point that out. I should technically be talking about how shocked nationalists are in Quebec right now, because they are also dealing with a conflict situation that can lead to confrontation. However, that is a different story, and I will discuss the situation with the appropriate stakeholders in due course. There you go.

This situation reveals the selective and preferential nature of the relationships between aboriginal communities and the Canadian government in 2013. The motion before us refers to a comprehensive land claim that has not been addressed since 1991, and it is not the only one. I will give some concrete examples in a few seconds. Unfortunately, this lack of dialogue between stakeholders is a reflection of the reality of a number of contentious aboriginal cases across the country.

Successive governments, and this government in particular, could be criticized for cherry-picking. In other words, the Conservatives are choosing which stakeholders they want to talk to. In some respects, although this situation is not so widespread, I find it problematic enough to bring it to the attention of the House.

There are some community management organizations and band councils that are essentially puppet governments. The Conservatives hand-picked, cherry-picked some pawns. These people were put in place in strategic communities to speak out in favour of proposed policies. This is not necessarily widespread, but it is common enough that I wanted to mention it today.

The government is trying to interfere in tribal politics. It chooses representatives. That is why some communities have really spoken out. They have such strong social, economic and cultural foundations that federal transfers and support seem marginal. These people are more autonomous.

Strangely enough, as in the case of the situation that has been going on since 1991, the current government will simply choose to ignore remote communities because they are too strong and they have developed energy policies that the government is unhappy with.

What this government wants are good, servile, submissive, accommodating and easily manipulated Indians. It is as though the government is a puppeteer making its marionettes dance.

I say this because in recent years, I have found that I often end up out on the sidewalk, strangely enough, during big community meetings.

I would like to share an example that I will continue to come back to until the end of my term. A supposedly historic meeting was held in January 2012. A number of community representatives were invited. However, the invitation was not extended to all communities, even though the government claimed to be inclusive. The government wanted to develop a new relationship with first nations peoples. I was personally escorted by intelligence officers. I was essentially kicked to the curb. As I was on the sidewalk, I realized that I was in good company. There were other representatives from several nations who were deemed unwelcome.

So much for the inclusive aspect of this new relationship.

I think that is quite deplorable. Things like that should not be happening in 2013.

Cherry-picking and choosing pawns and representatives for community management organizations is highly objectionable. That is why, in 2013, the Conservatives are seeing a huge amount of opposition from the first nations. That is also why their economic development plan has stalled and is really struggling.

Our international reputation is plummeting, just like the stock market value of some companies that are ignoring their social, environmental and other responsibilities.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, April 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain just what he means by extensive consultation? Those affected by this issue were not consulted, community members were kept in the dark about what this entails, and this bill was enacted behind closed doors.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question.

As he said, cuts have been made to service delivery and services to the public, and also to environmental assessment.

The Conservatives claim to be tough on crime.

I would say that adding these new provisions to the Criminal Code will cause problems. I am speaking from the point of view of a criminal lawyer. I still like to think of myself as one, even though I do not currently practice law. I know that some of my clients who were not in full control of their faculties would utter threats left and right without necessarily being in a position—especially physically—to carry out those threats. A number of those clients, who had mental health issues, might threaten to use nuclear devices even though such devices are not available to the average citizen.

Canada's complacency towards environmental assessment might please the mining lobby and very specific individuals, but it exposes Canadians to serious threats, including in the nuclear industry in terms of monitoring waste storage sites. This is currently a serious problem.

The potential for nuclear terrorism is right under our noses, here in Canada.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 28th, 2013]

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

Here are my thoughts. I am aware of and have seen the pernicious effects of lobbies and how they presently have the ear of this Conservative government. I would say that there are very powerful lobbies behind the nuclear movement. I would also say that there is a very strong likelihood that the hands of some people are definitely tied because there is great interest in growing the economy at any cost. This growth is always based on the exploitation of natural resources as the sole agent and driver of Canada's economy.

Once this bill is adopted, there will be waffling: people will pussyfoot around, take a step back and then take a step forward. I guarantee that over the next few years, there will be backpedalling and pussyfooting around because of the undue influence of a number of lobbies and special interest groups in Canada.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 28th, 2013]

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

My position on the Senate is shared by a number of my colleagues. We know that an almost air-tight seal surrounds all the discussions there. We also know that partisan behaviour is behind all of it. I am not saying that I have studied all these ideas specifically, but I know quite well that these individuals are not elected and are, in fact, appointed. This is about political capital and these are, first and foremost, partisan positions.

I am highly dubious of the relevance in 2013 of submitting such bills that could have a major impact to a House—in this case, the Senate—made up of people who, at the end of the day, benefited from favouritism.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 28th, 2013]

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

I will start with an international perspective and a familiar example. If Canada extracts uranium from the soil and exports it, Canada must bring the radioactive and nuclear waste back in the end. This is a real problem, especially if we take into account the lax approach and other problems we are seeing right now, as I mentioned in my speech.

Currently, it is almost impossible for humans to contain this waste. This is a really hot topic in Quebec right now that senior officials in Quebec are discussing, perhaps at this very moment.

It remains a highly controversial industry, and governments must make significant efforts in this respect. We are left with some real questions here.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the House, there is no political will to establish a respectful relationship with aboriginal peoples. The new minister's rhetoric does not compensate for the budget's silence on aboriginal affairs. The Assembly of First Nations is holding a forum on treaties right now as a follow-up to the January 11 meeting. However, we still do not know which of the Conservatives is responsible for following up.

Who is responsible for following up on the commitments made at the January 11 meeting, and what will be the final result?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, more money will be spent on administrative costs to impose the training program for aboriginal youth on reserve than on the actual training of these young people. Unfortunately, we are no longer surprised to see the paternalistic attitude of the Conservatives in budget 2013. Young aboriginals on reserve already receive an average of 30% less funding for education than what the provinces provide off reserve.

Why are the Conservatives not investing enough in education and why are they not treating aboriginal peoples as equal partners?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives promised to make aboriginal issues a priority in the 2013 budget.

Although the word “aboriginal” is used a lot, there is no real commitment. Once again, these are broken promises.

The money announced for the first nations infrastructure fund will not be enough to address the housing crisis and the lack of drinking water in the communities.

When will the Conservatives keep the promises they made to aboriginal peoples and treat them as equal partners?