Jonathan Genest-Jourdain

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, and I agree with him. Indeed, there can be some problems. Given the overcrowding that exists in these communities, tensions can mount. I agree with that point.

Here, however, it is not a question of accountability to community members. The Conservatives are using an underhanded tactic to make this information available to the broader Canadian public. That is the problem.

I fully support the idea of sharing financial information with community members, in order to show that everyone's hands are clean. That is the bill's objective. However, ultimately, this is an underhanded way to please certain small, specific groups of Canadians, by allowing financial information on the corporate activities of private enterprises to be released to the public, in order to reinforce a negative image and demonstrate that aboriginal communities in Canada are guilty of poor management. That is more or less how this will be interpreted.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Some ideas were shared at a supposedly historic meeting in January—a meeting to which I was not invited; I ended up out on the sidewalk. Ideas were shared at this meeting, but it was all rhetoric to put on a show for the cameras.

As the member mentioned, there has been little consultation with the first nations on this very specific piece of legislation, the proposed amendments. Long before a consultation is planned, it is important to inform the community. There must be public information sessions, since the literacy rate is rather low. In the communities near me, the literacy rate is around 48% for adults.

It takes a grassroots effort. People must be informed of the ins and outs of these measures before a consultation can be planned. But in this case, there was no public information session or consultation. It is a unilateral initiative. We are starting to get used to this, since it seems to be the Conservatives' overall strategy. But it is a bit more obvious when it comes to “Indianness” issues.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my speech in this House is a continuation of my previous speeches, which have been gradually bringing to light the government's interference in first nations' socio-economic issues. I say “gradually” because I sometimes talk about fairly obscure notions, and I understand that Canadians, in general, sometimes have difficulty following what I am saying. That is why I am bringing these issues to light gradually.

Based on my short experience here in the House and my experience with community management organizations and my band council, it is clear to me that the Conservatives are allowing a major problem to go unresolved. Despite the adversity that communities face, which is often fuelled by government initiatives that have been implemented over the past 200 years, the first nations have shown resilience and ingenuity. They have found ingenious ways of rising to the challenge and establishing an underground economy. I am not using the term “underground” in the sense of “hidden” or “secret” but in the sense of “unconventional” in that the communities have tried to penetrate markets and have developed tactics that are significantly different from the economic expansion observed throughout the country. It is a slightly different way of doing things, and that is also my approach. The whole context is different. As a result, the Conservatives and previous governments have often tried to underhandedly eradicate these innovative initiatives.

We are facing the same type of scenario here. The proposed legislative initiative and amendments are trying to underhandedly eradicate innovative initiatives, even if the interests of first nations members are technically being put first. I would like to address this issue in more depth later. Although we are trying to put beneficiaries—community members who will benefit from the availability of financial information—first, given what is happening, we see that the true beneficiaries are not first nations members but certain other groups here in Canada. These groups have even positioned themselves within the committee. When this subject was addressed in committee, some lobby groups spoke up. I still have doubts in this regard since it seems as though the Conservatives are trying to please a very specific segment of the Canadian population.

Much like the comments made during committee hearings about the disclosure of First Nations' financial statements, this type of legislative initiative appeals to the lowest common denominator and fuels the reactionary fringe groups that exist in Canada.

I will give a very concrete example of a reactionary fringe group. I often tend to rely on the empirical. When this issue was studied in committee, we heard from a number of witnesses, including the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. In a rather direct, even abrupt manner, as that is my style, I questioned the witness who had quite simply been proactive and decided to appear as a witness with the consent of the Conservatives on this committee. He came to tell us that his organization would be supporting and backing this bill because there should be public disclosure throughout Canada of the financial statements and documents of corporate entities that are jointly operated by band councils. I questioned this witness and simply told him that the last time the terms “taxpayers” and “Indians” had been used in the same sentence, they had been uttered by a white supremacist in my riding. Such people do exist in Canada. We cannot ignore this reality.

This discussion could easily be hijacked. For that reason I asked the witness how he proposed to ensure that the discussion and the interest he was showing that day would not be hijacked by one of these fringe groups. I am not saying that these groups are in the majority across Canada; however, they do exist. The last time I heard about taxpayers and Indians was when a white supremacist asked me why Indians do not pay taxes. That was confrontational. What I was asking was how can we ensure that this discussion will not be hijacked because it could fuel rather extremist arguments.

What I am trying to prove is that the Conservatives are attempting to please a very specific segment of the population, not necessarily the extremist groups. However, it is a widely held view.

People who are perhaps only minimally informed about the ins and outs of the taxes paid by aboriginal peoples may justify themselves and justify the energy devoted to this kind of initiative by saying that everyone will benefit from this information. But in fact, and officially, the Conservatives announced that it was the members of the first nations who were trying to lighten the burden that ultimately rests on the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when the members of the communities decided simply to circumvent their band council and go directly to the department. It is laudable to want to shift the responsibility for being accountable to the community leaders. However, doing it in a roundabout way is not. This pretext has been used to require disclosure of financial statements of a sort that does not apply Canada-wide.

Let us take the example of a private economic entity, a clearly defined corporate entity in Canada. It does not have to disclose its financial statements. However, with the initiative as it is proposed here, a corporate entity or a company that was operated jointly, or as a joint venture, with a band council would have to make its financial statements available to the public, and this would be a first.

I would note that the rule in Canada is that all laws and bills have to apply generally, uniformly and without distinction all across Canada. In this case, some companies in the communities will be forced to disclose their financial statements, and this is pretty deplorable and subject to challenge from a strictly legal point of view. Personally, I would challenge it, and there is a very good chance that will be done in the near future.

What has been called the aggressive challenge by outsiders to the communal dynamic, in support of the disclosure of the consolidated financial statements and independent revenue sources of the first nations, is enough in itself to call into question the goals and the intended beneficiaries of this bill.

Although the bill is officially an attempt to shift the burden on band councils of transmitting financial information to the members of the communities, what is really happening, and what I am afraid of after hearing what the groups who expressed an interest in this said in committee, is that this information is being hijacked by or directed to very narrow, very specific lobbies here in Canada. The disclosure is intended to make a segment of the public happy, for very partisan purposes. We have seen this in the past, and it has become the trademark of the Conservatives. Bills and initiatives are often hijacked in order to advance an agenda, a hidden agenda in this case, since there are very specific groups that will ultimately benefit from the disclosure of this information, which was initially intended to be communal and limited to the members of the communities, that certainly being a laudable goal.

And that is my submission.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 19th, 2012]

With regard to funding for First Nations, Inuit and Métis, for each department and program in the last five years, how much funding was spent on: (a) operating costs, broken down by (i) salaries and benefits for government employees, (ii) salaries and fees for consultants hired by the government, (iii) other enumerated costs; and (b) transfers to First Nations, Inuit and Métis, broken down by (i) payments made to First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations, (ii) payments made to First Nations bands on-reserve, (iii) other enumerated transfer payments?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 19th, 2012]

With regard to the Aboriginal Women’s Program under Canadian Heritage: (a) for each year from 2004 to 2012, which organizations received funding, and how much did they receive annually; (b) what are the criteria for receiving funding; (c) what changes have been made to the criteria for receiving funding in the past six years; (d) what kinds of consultations were held before the changes were implemented, including (i) a list of those consulted, (ii) dates and formats of consultations; and (e) what kind of accommodations were made based on those consultations?

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 19th, 2012]

With regard to court cases between the government and Aboriginal communities and organizations: (a) how many court cases is the government currently engaged in with First Nations, Métis or Inuit communities or organizations as either an appellant, respondent or intervenor, and what are these cases; (b) how many court cases is the government currently engaged in with First Nations, Métis or Inuit communities or organizations in which the government is the respondent; (c) how much is the government paying to engage in court cases with First Nations, Métis or Inuit communities or organizations as either an appellant, respondent or intervenor, broken down by (i) year, (ii) case; and (d) how many lawyers does the Department of Justice employ to work on Aboriginal court cases?

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, November 1st, 2012]

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

On the face of it, the government is going to say all the right things. It will say that it is crucial that first nations have access to clean drinking water, just as every other Canadian does. However, it will be their actions in 2012 that will be lacking, given that really fixing the problem would be extremely costly, not to mention the human resources that would be needed, often in very remote regions. Common sense must prevail, and the Conservatives will have to give in and listen to the fact that fixing the situation is crucial and that access to clean drinking water is a fundamental right that belongs to all Canadians.

It is an enormous undertaking, and even with the best intentions in the world, so it will remain until fundamental changes take place in industrial practices and in social intervention, and until water quality is monitored in these communities, which are often remote.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, November 1st, 2012]

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

There are always numbers to be cited regarding massive investments, but I would say that what is being done at present is damage control. That money could have been invested differently people’s quality of life had come first, rather than mining and industry agendas. We might not have needed to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in filtration systems for remediation and to ensure that people are drinking clean water in those areas.

If there had been better oversight of resource development initiatives, perhaps we would not be in the situation we are in today. If there had been better oversight of the impact of illegal occupation of the land for decades, we would not be where we are today. The negligence of the Conservatives today is cited as the problem, but the negligence of many others, before that, has also contributed.

The negligence has piled up over the years, and today we have this utterly deplorable result. If efforts had been made from the outset, there would be no need to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in water remediation and treatment in 2012.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I will tell her now that the cost, in both financial and human terms, for remediating many surface water sources and water tables, is enormous at the present time. I think the Conservatives are starting to realize this today. There are analyses that have been brought to their attention.

Most often, these water sources, water tables and surface water sources, are located on traditional lands. The Conservatives know very well that their fiduciary duties mean that at this time, it is the people in power who have to make sure that services are delivered to the public and that the public has access to that water.

I know of communities very close to here, in Pontiac county, that simply cannot drink the water in their homes because the level of radioactivity exceeds all relevant standards. These are heavy costs, and they are the result of negligence that has gone on for decades, and today we can see the result. That is why the Conservatives are trying to distance themselves and shift the burden onto someone else.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will split my speaking time with my colleague, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

My speech will concern the bill respecting the safety of drinking water on first nation lands. And I would emphasize “first nation lands”. The French version of the bill is quite ambiguous about this. Does the expression “terres des premières nations” also include traditional lands? I will come back to that later.

This bill is an opportunity for me to expand on certain concepts outlined in my previous speeches that deserve to be explained in clearer terms for all Canadian citizens as a whole.

I will apply the principles of feedback here. Some of my colleagues, constituents and employees have told me that my way of speaking may seem arcane at times. This is something of an occupational hazard since I spent two years working for my band council on consultations about private cottage leases with Quebec's department of natural resources and wildlife. I subsequently taught at the college level and gave a course on legal and administrative aspects of aboriginal organizations. That has necessarily had an effect on the way I speak. Sometimes people may feel a bit lost as result of the terms I use, including “Indianness”, “fiduciary relationship” and “fiduciary obligation”. Today I will take stock and try to express those ideas in simpler terms. This is where we stand as a society. The general public must understand that, if we have to deal with legal texts that aim to circumvent those obligations by indirect means, that has something to do with all these subtleties surrounding the aboriginal question.

Certain concepts of aboriginal law should be explained since the bill before us is worded in a roundabout way that suggests there has been some recurring intrigue in the study of recent Conservative legislative initiatives respecting first nations.

Over the past year and a half, I have observed that a number of initiatives to amend the Indian Act, or matters specific to aboriginal identity in this country, have been designed to divide up the crown's current obligations toward aboriginal communities. This is quite distressing since, in many cases, those matters are entrenched in the Constitution. From the moment they concern identity issues, they are “Indianness” issues and issues that fall under the fiduciary relationship that must exist between the crown and aboriginal people. These are matters for the courts. The Supreme Court has staked it all out, through case law in particular; it is not codified. The ins and outs of this fiduciary obligation, of the fiduciary relationship, are not codified. However, they are clearly marked out. Many judges have adopted positions on these matters. We must examine the case law in order really to take stock of the scope of this fiduciary obligation.

Today I will try to explain it all in simple terms. From the moment an initiative, whether a legislative or a field initiative, is brought forward by the government and can interfere with title, traditional activities and aboriginal identity issues, it becomes an obligation issue, a fiduciary relationship issue. The government has a duty to adopt a rigorous principle of precaution and avoid affecting or unduly altering that relationship and matters that are entrenched in the Constitution. “Indianness” issues are all identity issues of the communities and of the Canadian government.

Coming back to matters specifically pertaining to drinking water, surface water and groundwater, I see from this bill that the Conservatives are trying to distance themselves somewhat from that obligation. This obligation falls, first and foremost, to the government. As is the case for Canadians as a whole, access to drinking water is a government obligation.

The aim of this specific bill is to make regulations that will ultimately transfer the entire burden to the communities, without—and this is worth noting—granting the necessary management budget and without any concern for water quality or damage to the water table.

Ironically, in 2012, the Conservatives are in the spotlight for approving a number of mining and forestry sector initiatives. Inevitably, those initiatives most often involve traditional first nations lands across the country. In communities that live in remote regions and in most cases return to those traditional lands, which have been theirs for more than 20,000 years—they have visited every square centimetre of them—there is a special relationship with drinking water sources on the land.

If the water table is damaged and the quality of surface water sources is no longer good, that is often related to this development, to these explorations. From the moment you carry on mining exploration—you drill and remove and analyze an ore sample—there is a real chance the water table will be affected.

If the Conservative government is trying to distance itself today, that is no doubt because it knows perfectly well that the intrigues involving the communities' traditional lands are linked to the lack of quality, to a damaged water table and to the often fair or debatable quality of surface water.

That is why I suspect the government, today, of trying to offload the responsibility onto the communities which, at the end of the day, have to deal with the radon gas contaminated water. It is just an example, but it is a relevant example that concerns my own riding.

In this particular case, it is clear that the relationship with the freshwater sources located on traditional lands is one of the first nations' bastions of identity.

This unilateral initiative violates the principles of the Crown's fiduciary responsibility, which describes the contribution of aboriginal peoples to the development of measures that have a major impact on the ancestral rights, titles and interests of the first nations. When I refer to fiduciary relationships, and fiduciary obligations, I should point out that this, too, is tied to this notion.

It means that governments, before considering and instituting measures that may hamper the traditional activities of communities and violate their identity and their rights—both treaty rights and ancestral rights—must, first and foremost, ensure that communities are involved, which is not the case here. Once again, this is a unilateral initiative. It has been decried internationally. Canada has been exposed in this matter.

I humbly submit that all of these initiatives are destined to fail as long as the first nations are not on the front lines, because these decisions must, ultimately, be the fruit of their reflection, and must be implemented by them.

In this instance, the government is trying to shirk its responsibility and distance itself from negative perceptions associated with its failure to take charge of issues that are its exclusive responsibility.