Jonathan Genest-Jourdain

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Churchill.

I have the distinct honour of speaking against the bill on first nations financial transparency at third reading. This is a privilege for me because it allows me to put things in perspective.

My comments on this bill last week garnered some media attention. National and regional media outlets asked me for interviews. I also listened to some of my colleagues express their views on the subject. I have to wonder whether some of them are mechanical puppets—simply install updates using a USB key. Some of my colleagues expressed themselves in a machine-like, cold, inhuman and dehumanized way with no facial expression, not even a blink.

I carried out an analysis of what people said in the House and in the media. My background as a criminal defence lawyer served me well. I pinpointed a number of flaws that the government clearly finds irksome because it keeps trying to calm people down and smooth things over. When Conservatives talk to the media, those flaws come up right away and then the Conservatives immediately try to paper over them, downplay them and even mislead people.

What I am doing today is attacking. This is a principle that was instilled in me very early on. At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to say that, in 2007, when I joined the legal aid office, I worked on criminal cases. I travelled with the itinerant court. In 2007 alone, I dealt with close to 400 criminal cases and a few psychiatric cases. Since I was working for the defence, I learned very early on to find the flaws in the arguments of my opponents, the north shore crown prosecutors, who are very good. Sept-Îles has a team of six or seven, and they do very good work. This gave me the opportunity to practise over the years.

Since the prosecutor introduced the case and spoke first, I had the opportunity to take notes and analyze both the prosecutor's arguments and the testimony of the witness in order to find any flaws that I could bring up during cross-examination.

Here, there are clearly flaws. As is my habit and as I was taught by my employer at the time, François Wuellart from the legal aid office that is today located in Baie-Comeau—hello Mr. Wuellart—I am going to apply the principles that have been a great help to me to date and echo what has been said.

In the House, members can feel the tension gradually building when the accountability of first nations is discussed. The disorganization of the government's official statements in this regard and the questionable choice of messengers, who mechanically deliver talking points dictated by senior Conservative officials, have allowed me to see certain flaws that are clearly affecting the bill before us.

As I indicated earlier, my first instinct is to identify flaws. And I have identified them. I got a bit ahead of myself when I asked my colleague a question a few minutes ago. The flaw here is in our communities' economic bodies and in corporate vehicles.

The rules that apply to corporations must be the same across the country, if only for reasons of competitiveness. My colleagues should agree since they have repeatedly said that economic growth is key in Canada. They must therefore know that the rules that apply to corporations must be the same across the country. Otherwise, we are leaving ourselves open to major lawsuits, which are quite likely to be successful. That is what I want to talk about today.

I am fairly certain that communities across the country, and especially their lawyers, are taking notes as we speak. I am quite convinced that the talented lawyers working for some of these communities have already discovered this and, consequently, are already preparing their case, in the event that these measures are adopted.

We cannot extrapolate. However, I know very well that legal arguments are taking shape. I am just providing the ammunition.

I do not know if this was first done behind closed doors. However, having talked to some journalists, we know that when the Conservatives went before the media, they tried to assure the journalists that this bill, this legislative initiative, would not have any impact, and that there would not be any disclosure of the financial statements of entities in which a band council may have a stake. The Conservatives assured them that this would not happen and that the enterprises, that are the property of or in which community leaders may have an interest, would not be affected.

If we carefully examine the wording of the bill as introduced, we realize—and I want to emphasize this—that first nations are being held to account not necessarily just to their communities, but to the people of Canada. I will present arguments to prove this. We are talking about the transparency of first nations. But, the truth is that these measures will, in a roundabout way, expose entities within the communities.

Circumstances forced communities to develop their own rules and procedures all by themselves because they were isolated from the rest of the world. Aboriginal nations in Canada were left to their own devices for a very long time. That is why some communities adopted innovative and alternative initiatives to meet the needs of their people, measures tailored to the adversarial nature and subtleties of life on reserves.

That is why the rules for businesses and organizations on reserves differ significantly from the rules applied elsewhere in Canada. These businesses and organizations have their own particular dynamics. That is good for us because it is an example of economic diversity as it should be in Canada.

However, the Conservatives find this frustrating, as did their predecessors, because ultimately, few government agents can make inroads on reserves. There is a lot of resistance to clumsy, heavy-handed government interference. That is why reserves are observed from afar. There is evidence that, over the past year, government agents infiltrated communities to glean bits of information. That paints a pretty clear picture of the prevailing climate and the impenetrable nature of life on reserves.

I believe I have a properly substantiated opinion about what the government is trying to do with this bill: it wants to give groups in Canada with vested interests a close-up view of the economic dynamics of these communities. That is appalling and reprehensible because it suggests that, for all types of organizations across Canada, the government is bound by this financial information and must be accountable in terms of its crown corporations and others.

Things are not as easy on the ground as some think. Auditors deployed by the government cannot even get this financial information. I have just one minute left, which is a first for me, since I only ever speak for eight minutes.

I would like to focus on the issue that, according to my analysis, is the most problematic from a legal standpoint. I would like to comment briefly on a point that was mentioned before.

During the two years that I spent working as legal counsel for my own band council, Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-Utenam, I observed repeated attempts by provincial and federal authorities to interfere in the day-to-day life and economic systems of communities. That is truly reprehensible. That is why the government is at risk of being involved in major litigation, which I would support.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my hon. colleague's speech, which seemed to have been hastily prepared in advance. I have a question for him. I particularly appreciated the part about the Canadian government's obligation when it comes to financial reporting in relation to its own Crown corporations.

I would like to know on what grounds he is basing his insistence that first nations communities and Indian bands in Canada have an obligation to disclose to all Canadians information regarding companies that could have interests throughout the country. I would like to know on what grounds he thinks he can justify requiring band councils to disclose potentially sensitive financial information to the entire Canadian population.

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this speech will depart from a series of speeches linked by a common thread, in order to highlight a matter before this House that, I must say, is in my area of practice.

Now I am going to make amends. Some of my constituents have pointed out that, in most of my speeches in this House, there is a recurring theme. I have spoken for a number of hours in this House—many hours—at a rate of four or five speeches every week. Over the months, they add up.

Far be it from me to present myself as some obtuse academic, or to be narrow-minded like some of my colleagues who are told to toe the party line and how to act, and whose speeches are even written for them. I must admit that there is a recurring theme in each of my speeches.

I still have an ace up my sleeve, and that is what I am doing right now: I am going to use my ace and continue talking about a recurring theme: the law. I am going to talk about the philosophy of law and ethics in the fields that I studied, about 10 years ago, when I began studying law at Université Laval.

I will continue in this vein. I will take a look at comparative law and transpose some of these principles because I think that, rather like the recurring themes in each of my speeches, these are subjects that deserve to be examined and presented to all Canadians. This is why I sometimes emphasize these notions. I am going to speak further to these issues today.

In this speech, I am going to draw on concepts I was taught during my training at Université Laval. It is a very good university. I want to emphasize that. The tangent I am going to take will be influenced by concepts relating to the ethical issues that fuel the social debate about prize fighting.

As I said earlier, I began studying the law in 2001. I started here first, at the University of Ottawa, and then I continued at Université Laval in Quebec City. Over time, I saw that it was a very good university. The quality of education there is excellent.

In my first year, I was asked to select courses, and I turned of course toward the philosophy of law. I had one professor, Bjarne Melkevik, a Norwegian who had taught at Laval University for a number of years, who was in charge of the courses, who went into things in depth, who investigated and decided to explore issues that at the time were rather less accessible and rather less popular. As part of the program, we discussed the social costs of self-mutilating behaviour. This is just one example that is not necessarily in line with the focus of this speech. We discussed the social costs of hospitalizing people who self-harm. I remember vaguely that we also discussed ultimate fighting, back then. That was about a decade ago. It was already on the map, it was already a trend, and we had to look into it. I remember this vaguely. It was not something that came up in many classes. However, it was one subject. Mr. Melkevik, who is European, was a bit ahead of his time. I would like to send my greetings out to him, by the way, in the hope that he is watching me right now.

At that time, the subject was a bit avant-garde. It is a little less so today. We are talking about it here, in the House of Commons. Later on, I will be discussing how the Criminal Code is a document, a tool that must be innovative and that must be updated on a regular basis. This is what we are doing right now. Canadian society has come to this point. In a broader sense, we have to take a look at these concepts that deserve to be dealt with for Canadians as a whole.

The mere fact that the issues involved in mixed martial arts are now included in the university law curriculum is evidence of the social changes that support revisiting the provisions in the Criminal Code covering the risks inherent in prize fighting.

As I have mentioned on a number of occasions—I am repeating myself while hoping I am not being redundant—in my practice I focused on representing clients in the criminal sphere.

When I went to work at the legal aid office after I was called to the bar in 2006 or 2007, I was assigned duties related to criminal law right away. That is why I was asked to focus on the Criminal Code and related laws.

Over the years and during my time in the House, I have seen that this law is constantly evolving. It is fairly long. In fact, the bound annotated version is a very large document. It is a document that is constantly evolving and adapting to changes in society. We have examined it. We have discussed it here and have had fairly animated debates regarding offences, particularly those related to technology and cyberbullying.

The Criminal Code must be updated on a regular basis, and that is what we are doing right now. What is being proposed here is simply an addition to the law, which can be summarized in a few words, particularly if we take into consideration the innovations and amendments that the Conservatives have conceived and ruthlessly applied to the principles of the Criminal Code over the past year and a half. These changes are very small.

By way of example, I will quote the bill:

“prize fight” means an encounter or fight with fists, hands or feet...

The word “feet” is simply being added. That is not a huge change. However, it is required to prevent a legal void or grey area.

Several provinces, including Quebec, already have regulations that enjoy wide support. That is why ultimate fighting contests already take place in Quebec. However, this is not the case in all parts of the country. That is why the Criminal Code must be revised. This addition will allow athletes to legally practise this sport. Ultimately, the addition will eliminate grey areas.

As is my custom, I have taken eight instead of 10 minutes. I submit this respectfully.

[Points of Order, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I extend my most sincere apologies. It was an inappropriate reaction to the interjections of the members opposite, and I wish to apologize.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while the Assembly of First Nations is preparing for the chiefs meeting about the promise in section 35 that has been broken, today, we learned that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is preparing to cut close to $56 million from first nations infrastructure. How ironic. Infrastructure for first nations communities is already chronically underfunded. This is not the time to make more cuts.

Is the minister actually going to cut $56 million from the first nations infrastructure budget?

[Addiction Prevention, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec’s drug awareness week continues until November 25. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to commend the efforts of those who are struggling with problems of this nature, as well as the families and volunteers who are supporting them on their journey.

The Centre de protection et de réadaptation de la Côte-Nord provides services to teens and adults, as well as free, confidential support services to families. An important clinical issue identified in the centre's latest annual report involves watching for new clienteles to emerge in relation to intensive economic development projects, such as those in the mining and natural resources sectors, which have a significant presence in Manicouagan.

In 2011-12, some 1,351 north shore users sought help from the addictions program. I am proud to support and represent those who are struggling with such problems, as well as the families, employees and volunteers who are supporting and helping them.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, November 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question. I am not aware of any real consultation with the provinces. However, if provincial standards are imported across the country, this will cause a great deal of upheaval.

I would like to address this because I read somewhere that provincial standards do not apply on reserves. That is not true. Almost all provincial standards, provided they do not violate the principles set out in the Indian Act, also apply on reserves.

When I say it is another galaxy, that is more or less what I mean. That is the image, the idea in terms of mentality and lifestyle. Provincial standards do indeed apply to all Indian reserves, provided they do not violate the Indian Act.

No, I have no idea whether there were any discussions with the provinces in this particular case.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, November 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

Generally speaking, it would be nice to see some real involvement in Canada's political scene. There are seven Indians here in this House and some of them have never or almost never given a speech in public. I suggest that we forget about having token representatives and stop keeping Indian MPs around just for show. Instead, we should really get them involved in the decision-making process. I also suggest inviting first nations community members to get involved and really listening to them.

The Conservatives will say that they held consultations with the first nations in this particular case, but there is no point if they are holding those consultations just for show and they do not take into account any of their comments or concerns. That is what happened in January. The Conservatives put on a big show complete with fireworks, but in the end, it was meaningless. There are still problems with education, and living conditions in first nations communities are still deplorable. That is because the Conservatives are all about smoke and mirrors and make-believe.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, November 22nd, 2012]

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

It is important to pay close attention and to make a distinction. Criminal cases and civil cases are two separate things. Sometimes there is interference between the two, meaning that, in the end, decisions will be rendered in the civil court.

It is a shame, but nearly half my caseload involved cases of domestic violence. I am not proud of it, but that is the reality in our communities. Often this element comes into play.

When the criminal court delivers a ruling, when these cases are dealt with and a person is charged, the court imposes a restraining order and the offender is prohibited from contacting certain individuals. What we see most often is that, when judges—not civil court judges but criminal court judges—sentence an offender, that person is forbidden from contacting their family and from returning to the family home, even if the offender is technically a tenant or even the owner of the home. I have seen it before. If the woman stays with the children, the offender has to find another place to live.

Everything changes when the case is dealt with by the criminal court.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, November 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

In a continued effort to raise the cultural subtleties that should be weighed and examined during the review of a given legislative initiative, I think it is important to emphasize the highly questionable nature of importing statutory measures that are incompatible with parallel tribal mechanisms that better respond to the uncertainties associated with life on reserve. I stress the word “importing” because I would like to use comparative law to illustrate that sometimes transposing into another reality certain rules of law that apply indiscriminately across the country can become a problem. That is what I want to illustrate here.

As I have indicated in many of my previous speeches in the House, life on reserve—and I mean no disrespect—is like living in another galaxy. I spent some of my formative years in my native community on the Uashat reserve. I often tell new visitors that life on reserve is like living in another galaxy. I say this so that people are not surprised at what they see and are prepared for this type of reality. When I say that it is another reality or another galaxy, I mean that life is different there. I will explain what I mean.

I am a lawyer. I am a criminal lawyer first, and I deal with psychiatric cases, but I have also taken on a few civil law cases having to do with, among other things, the division of property and the division of acquests in aboriginal communities. This was extraordinarily complicated.

Under Quebec civil law, in the event of divorce or the dissolving of a civil union, there are required steps that are outlined in the Quebec Civil Code and related statutes. Certain rules apply, particularly to the family home. Often a declaration of family residence is filed. The declaration is meant to protect the rights of the former spouses and their children and, ultimately, the occupancy rights concerning a given home. I would remind the House that the bill currently before us has to do with real property.

These provisions and rules apply equally to everyone across Quebec. However, they can be contentious; there is a reason these matters often wind up before the courts. Courts dealing with matters of family law can spend days hearing a single divorce case. In Quebec, these are big civil law cases.

In aboriginal communities and on reserves, things are different, because the very concept of property is regarded from a different angle. I would point out first of all that, in the vast majority of cases, the houses belong to the band council. At least, that is the case in my situation and in Innu communities on the north shore. People's houses usually belong to the band council, because it is often difficult for family units to obtain credit on native reserves. It is a question of the possibility of seizure. More often than not, ownership of all residences on the reserve lies with the band council.

Let us look at a very personal example: my own family unit. A deduction for the mortgage is taken every month from the allowance that my father receives. Let us say that the mortgage on the home is worth $175,000. For 25 years, a monthly deduction is taken to pay that mortgage or to pay the band council for the house. The band council retains ownership of the house until the final payment is made.

The band council also makes decisions about and coordinates who occupies homes on the reserve. I worked for my own band council for two years and I was often called upon to go to court. The band council gave a directive that it would recognize all civil judgments made regarding custody and child support. As a result, when a judgment is made and grants custody of a child or children to one former partner or spouse, that individual has the right to occupy the house.

That is why it is rather ill-advised and uncalled-for to try to import external principles into a reserve.

People are already coming to their own arrangements. They have gotten together and have come to an understanding. The entire community comes to a consensus. I think that there is some friction related to that. I have seen it when someone dies and it is time to find out which family members will ultimately live in the house. However, we must also consider that our culture is a fundamentally oral one. People have come to a consensus and agreed on something that satisfies each of the interested parties.

I must also point out that although the problems related to sharing real property and the occupation of the family residence following a separation must be considered directly, it is up to this country's aboriginal communities to come up with measures that are culturally adapted to their own particular circumstances.

I will insist on the fact that imposing provincial laws on first nations without their consent is problematic ethically and practically, and it also disregards their inherent rights and their sovereignty. However, that is nothing new. In fact, in the past year and a half, the Conservatives have imposed measures unilaterally, especially in aboriginal affairs.

I am an expert in this area and, as the critic, I often talk about such matters. In this case, the Conservatives are just trying to prove that they have brought forward measures— albeit in a hasty, uninspired and rather disorganized manner—simply to take some credit and to say that they have dealt with the matter head-on.

I submit that it would be preferable to take a reasoned and slow approach, and one coming from and implemented first and foremost by the communities. Then government input could perhaps be added into the mix. However, above all else, these measures must originate with the members, the grassroots, the people in the communities, if we do not want this to be a stillborn initiative.

The government will have to realize that the people who live in these communities, in these sometimes contradictory conditions, are in the best position to evaluate which legislative measures could be implemented.

I submit this respectfully.