Jonathan Genest-Jourdain

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his response. Just as I feared, it was replete with detailed facts and figures. It is the type of response we usually get from the Conservatives.

Since he likes figures, I would like him to know that the community of Manawan has 300 housing units for 3,000 people. I chose to study law because I am pretty hopeless at math, but even I know that this means that there are 10 people per housing unit. That is a real concern right now.

I would like to reiterate what I said before. According to the figures that I was given today, billions of dollars have technically been invested. It remains to be seen whether the Conservatives have been cherry-picking who to give this money to, in other words, whether they have been redistributing the money to communities as rewards—in the extreme—or as incentives for good behaviour and for supporting the existing Conservative policies. That is the most disgraceful thing in 2012.

I do not have much experience in the House. I was not very involved in politics before I came to Ottawa. Over the past year, I have seen how the Conservatives work. The amounts that are invested for Indians across the country are invested to pay them back for behaving the right way or adopting the right positions according to—

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to participate in the adjournment debate today to speak about the right to housing, and more specifically, access to quality housing in remote northern communities. This is relevant because it ties into something that I initiated several months ago.

In fact, some of my colleagues and I did a tour of different communities in Quebec. I started this series of visits with my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. We visited the Algonquin communities, including Long Point in Abitibi, where there are some obvious shortcomings in terms of investment in infrastructure.

Just recently, I travelled with my colleague from Joliette to the community of Manawan, near Joliette. It is about 1 hour and 30 minutes from here by helicopter. You have to go by helicopter, which means you fly over the forests and can see the flora and fauna.

We arrived in Manawan about four days ago to meet with the people who live there. There are approximately 3,000 people in this community. We visited with Chief Paul-Émile Ottawa. We visited the various organizations in the community, including the elementary school.

Today, we are talking about quality of housing. However, I will focus on the quality of and significant problems with infrastructure in general in remote communities.

The community of Manawan is cut off from the rest of the world. The village has road access, but the road is a logging road. The community is several hours away from Joliette.

A visit to the elementary school revealed some serious problems with hygiene and the dilapidated state of the facility. The school was first built in the late 1960s or early 1970s. Construction happened in stages until recently.

My colleague and I and other stakeholders who were there noted the presence of mould, which we have also seen in homes in various places. There were also problems with access to toilets for the children. They had to take a card or a number to go to the toilet because there was a limited number of toilets available.

Today I would like to talk about the obvious infrastructure problems in these remote communities.

The community of Manawan went to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada offices last year. The community also demonstrated in front of offices in Quebec City. I feel that the demonstration was not well received. When we talked to community representatives, they told us that their education budget was slashed by $430,000 over the past year.

In my opinion, which is a well-informed one, these are repressive measures meant to punish communities that are a bit too feisty, that speak up in public.

This logical connection was brought to my attention and derives from my own observations over the past year. The Conservatives sometimes punish communities that do not support them, communities that are less docile, and they are generous toward communities that support their policies. That is what I have observed. I wanted to put that before the House today.

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government cares so much about the quality of the foods that will be distributed to remote communities that it allocated only a few hundred dollars for country foods in the latest budget. This was mentioned here. I am sure that its airtime is worth more than the money it actually invested.

If the mining and industry programs move forward, the caribou population will suffer and we will see a noticeable decline.

People are in charge of distributing country meat, which I should point out is happening less and less.

When the person in charge of distribution has to take care of staffing and distribution in remote communities, all they will be able to say is aputukut shuniau, meaning that there was no money invested and there was only about a hundred dollars for the whole country. That is not nearly enough for country food, which is essential and is part of the traditional diet in remote northern communities.

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to begin the adjournment debate by discussing the selection of foods to subsidize for communities in the far north. I am very pleased because it will give me an opportunity to talk about my meeting with the UN rapporteur, Mr. De Schutter. If my memory serves me well, we met with him last April. I had the opportunity to speak to him for a few minutes. I gave him first-hand information. In fact, I had some photographs and privileged information about the real impact of the food subsidy program in Canada's far north and especially about the quality of food in remote communities.

By way of information, I would like to repeat that I come from a community located not far from the 52nd parallel. The quality of the food on my home reserve of Uashat is not always the best. What I told Mr. De Schutter from the outset is that junk food is available very cheaply in my community. For example, I provided the UN rapporteur with a photograph that showed that two litres of pop costs 99¢ in my community, while a carton of milk costs $4 or $5. The decision is obvious for families with fairly limited incomes. This is one of the subjects I discussed with the UN rapporteur. Even though, strictly speaking, my community has access to inexpensive food, the quality is not necessarily the best.

It is also important to understand that Mr. De Schutter's visit and the report he issued caused quite an outcry from the Conservatives. They tried to demonize the UN rapporteur, which I humbly submit does not bode very well for international relations. However, the report is worthy of note and of interest. By the way, I would like to say hello to Mr. De Schutter. Perhaps he is in Europe watching me right now.

While he was here, I emphasized the fact that the quality of food is sometimes questionable, that products for mass consumption, whether it be chips or pop, are far too widely available, and that children have direct access to these foods at corner stores and grocery stores in the community.

I also stressed another point that, until now, has been overlooked, and that is alcoholic beverages with a very high alcohol content, which are only available in remote communities and possibly in some of the poorer areas of Montreal. People are being targeted so specifically that when representatives of the Brewers Association of Canada came to meet with me and I spoke to them about these beverages with an alcohol content of 10% and 11% that are sold in 1.2 litre quantities, even they did not have any knowledge of them.

I mentioned this to Mr. De Schutter. In such remote communities, near the 52nd parallel, when you can buy 1.2 litres of 10% or 11% alcohol for $5, but a quart of milk costs $4 or $5, there is a real problem. It is a real problem. These products are targeted. That is what I wanted to say today: these poor-quality products are targeted at this country's remote and aboriginal communities. The same thing is going on in ghettos, inner cities and poor communities across the country.

That is all, Mr. Speaker.

[First Nations, October 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, since the issues we are studying in this rather odd bill are quite philosophical in nature, the arguments I will make in this House will be very much inspired by the clan dynamic of my community of origin.

For the past year or so, members of Parliament—especially the Conservatives—have told me a number of times that they have a hard time understanding my reasoning and that they have tried to see where I was going with my arguments and speeches. I will say the following: I come from Uashat, a community not far from the 52nd parallel in northern Quebec. When people come to visit my community for the first time, I tell them that it is a whole other galaxy and that the way the rest of the country thinks does not necessarily apply in isolated communities. That is why my speech today will seem similar to many others I have made, in that it will be a bit outside the box and will be empirical.

There is obviously a reason why the communities seem galaxies apart. Even their cosmogonic concepts are different, their views on creation and relationships between individuals, nature, animals—are all different. There is no comparison between European concepts and concepts that can be found around the country and around the planet. That is why, sometimes, it is good to be empirical and philosophical, which I will do today.

Right now, aboriginals across the country are questioning the very idea of community management organizations—band councils. The fact that members of these communities are rejecting a number of management institutions has resulted in individuals disassociating from the measures endorsed by band councils.

We are seeing aboriginal communities becoming more politically, economically and culturally assertive. This is first and foremost an individual affirmation. I do not want to generalize, but I am going to base my remarks on the experiences of the Mamit Innuat and the people in my riding. There are approximately 15,000 Indians in my riding. The members of these communities are using their personal strengths to assert their rights, and sometimes this assertiveness goes against the band councils' agenda.

It is important to understand that the band councils were a joint creation. We like to think that they were created jointly with the Government of Canada back in the days when the legislation referred to aboriginal people as savages. The band councils were created because the Canadian government needed a designated spokesperson within the communities. That is why a very similar regime, namely a chief and a certain number of councillors depending on the size of the population, was imposed on each community. In my riding, the Innu Takuaikan Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam nation has nine councillors and a band chief. This model was imposed almost universally; however, it was inconsistent with the existence and traditional way of life of the Innu people living in the forest. They lived in small families made up of a maximum of 10 people and met just twice a year when they gathered near the river in the summer to get away from the mosquitoes or on other very specific occasions.

The decisions that are made and implemented by the band councils in 2012 are sometimes coloured by the agendas of individuals outside the communities. It is important to understand that anything to do with the development of natural resources in the territories generates hundreds of millions of dollars. That is a huge amount and it can be enticing for individuals outside the communities with different agendas. These individuals may want to interfere in the band councils' administrative decisions. Thus, there is interference.

The fairly low level of literacy in aboriginal communities can also affect our decision-makers. Often, they lack the wherewithal and do not necessarily have the training to manage files worth hundreds of millions of dollars. For that reason, they call upon external experts and, too often, blindly delegate the management of these files, which results in interference and a wait-and-see approach. Then, people outside the community take control. That is why, in 2012, many members of aboriginal communities are disavowing and dissociating themselves from the decisions made by the band councils.

I will now make the connection and talk about the matter before us today: replacing the Indian Act with new agreements, which I think is desirable. However, any innovation must arise from and effect change within the communities first. I know that, ultimately, the Canadian government will be involved in writing the legislation, obtaining royal assent and so on, but change must begin within the communities.

There is a troubled history, and we must revive the process of emulation traditionally used within bands, when people spoke candidly to one another. This approach must prevail in 2012 if we truly seek to change and improve the lives of first nations people. If we want to help communities achieve more intellectually, economically and socially, these truths must be spoken, but they must be spoken first within the communities. The Canadian government's role is therefore limited in that regard.

Beyond that, I feel it is important to point out to the House that initiatives intended to modernize the Indian Act must be set in motion by individual first nations members themselves. Given the tremendous burden that would fall on the government as a result of the proposal before us today—that is, change driven primarily by the Canadian Parliament—that burden would be better left to the communities, which will be responsible for managing it in the end. One member mentioned that there are millions of Indians in Canada. I could never pass judgment on actual compliance rates with each band council's policies. However, with respect to my community, the Canadian government would be wise to allow aboriginal peoples and individuals to take responsibility for change to ensure that it comes from within.

According to traditional conflict resolution models, members of aboriginal communities in Canada should tackle problems within their own clan structures directly, which means bringing to light financial wrongdoing—which does occur—and abuses of power committed by prominent individuals who have benefited personally from social dysfunction fomented by the unhealthy relationship between the Canadian government and their communities. I am not necessarily talking about our leaders, but about the individuals who wield significant power in our communities.

I will now introduce a concept that will be quite new here, after 500 years of cohabitation. In the Innu language, we say menashtau when referring to individuals who mainly live in our own communities and who have adopted a self-centred lifestyle. We use the term menashtau. This can apply to individuals who, more often than not, have access to financial resources and who establish businesses. They carry the burden of ensuring the economic development of each of the communities. They have key positions.

The problem is that, in 2012, many of these people are menashtau. They put their own well-being first because they know that their term of office or political life may not last long, because it tends to be short-lived in these communities. They definitely know that they have about two, three or four years. So they decide to raid the kitty when the opportunity presents itself.

I would say that the first step in effecting change is to ensure that we raise the bar. These issues must be dealt with directly. The communities themselves will have to air their dirty laundry. Menashtau individuals will have to be held accountable for their actions, by the communities, Indian to Indian, and then they will be able to find common ground.

[Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act, October 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my speech in this House is consistent with my previously expressed positions on the Conservatives’ thinly veiled attempts to offload the Canadian government's responsibility toward the First Nations communities. When I use the term responsibility, I am referring to its social responsibility, but there is also an economic responsibility, one that is easily quantifiable.

Last year, I met the Toronto Six Nations. At the time I was meeting with them, they were demanding that the Canadian government pay a claim amounting to several billion dollars. In some ways, it is quantifiable.

My focus will be on creep in the spirit of the legislation rather than the actual letter of the amendments and modifications to the Indian Act being considered here.

My experience in this House, over the past year and a half, and the countless sessions of the aboriginal affairs committee, make it possible for me to say today that, all too often, the Conservatives' legislative initiatives and actions are meant to shift the burden and enable them to shirk their obligations toward the first nations peoples and communities throughout the country, to distance themselves from the fiduciary burden that the Canadian government has to the first nations.

I would not be able to comment on whether past governments have shown the same tendency, but this is a tendency that I have observed to date. They are trying to distance themselves and take a step back from the first nations.

Now I have some very bad news for them: these matters are entrenched in the Constitution and they are not going to be able to distance themselves and dissociate themselves from their obligations merely by passing a private member’s bill.

There is no doubt that the numerous international reports exposing the disparities in the government's treatment of aboriginal peoples in Canada contribute greatly to the malaise underlying the drafting of such unilateral legislative initiatives.

That international exposure is part of the reason we know that the government is stepping back and trying to distance itself.

Over the past year, I have met two United Nations representatives who were especially interested in the status of the first nations people and communities here in Canada because, even though the Conservatives keep hammering away about the economic boom and Canada's enviable economic situation, benefits have not trickled down to first nations communities, which are getting poorer as the rest of Canada gets richer. We know that, more often than not, resource development initiatives target these communities’ traditional territories. Communities here in the north are typically remote. The Canadian government has now been unmasked on the international stage. On two occasions, two UN rapporteurs have come to Canada in order to shed light on the living conditions in first nations communities and to find out why these communities live in third-world conditions even though Canada is experiencing an economic boom and we are cited as an example of economic development and progress.

This is probably the reason why the Canadian government is doing its best to create this gap between the communities and to distance itself from its obligations, but its efforts will be in vain.

It should be noted that the proposed innovation is overdue, particularly in sensitive areas, such as trade relations. When I refer to sensitive areas, I mean, for example, indianness. Such areas are also entrenched in the Constitution.

Now, I have noticed another trend here in the House of Commons. The Conservatives frequently try to use private members' bills in order to test the waters with the Canadian public, and to introduce policies that enjoy scant support among Canadians. These bills are intended, therefore, to take the pulse of Canadian public opinion. In my opinion, the objective of the bill before us today is, first and foremost, to assess and gauge how the communities will respond to this legislation. The Conservatives are checking to see whether the members of the first nations communities across Canada are going to look favourably upon this legislation, or be unsympathetic to the idea.

It is highly likely that the Conservatives are trying to see whether the first nations will be able to come up with legal arguments to oppose the proposed measures. The Conservatives are trying to test the waters and determine whether there will, in fact, be a court challenge.

As a lawyer, I can safely say that the matters relating to first nations funds that the bill addresses will be the subject of a court challenge and that there is a very strong likelihood that any such court challenge would be won by the communities since this is an attempt to substantially alter the fiduciary relationship between the communities and the Crown. I repeat that it is entrenched in the Constitution and, consequently, it is impossible to remove one brick, or the whole thing will come tumbling down.

It should be noted that the unilateral manner in which the proposed measures were introduced violates the spirit of the state's commitment to the self-determination of the first nations. I am of course referring to commitments made internationally to recognize the self-determination of the first nations. I am also referring to undertakings given and promises made.

Last January, a supposedly historic meeting took place here in Ottawa. The meeting was intended to be inclusive, but I was escorted to the exit. I was not able to attend because I was an outcast. I ended up on the sidewalk with other aboriginals who were also treated as outcasts. So, inclusive was perhaps not the best way to describe the meeting.

At the meeting, billed as historic, the focus was on the need to work closely, as a team, and show a real willingness to co-operate with the communities. It was all for show, if I may say so. It was a big media extravaganza. There is evidence of this today: there was no real desire to have the first nations contribute.

As my colleague stated earlier, what happened is none too clear since it is uncertain how many communities were actually consulted before the private member's bill was drafted. The bill smacks of other private members' bills that have been introduced in the past. Bills are being systematically foisted upon us.

Paternalistic is an adjective that comes to mind. There are copycats on the other side of the House. My colleagues opposite are being rather paternalistic to these communities by unilaterally foisting legislation on them. There is a problem here, and my colleague opposite mentioned it earlier. There has been little transparency regarding the authenticity of any efforts to consult the communities to determine whether the legislation was relevant to them and whether the communities wanted it.

[Petitions, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on the need to continue the Experimental Lakes Area program. The petition, signed by Albertans, is a testament to the spiritual and cultural connection that Canadians have to our country's drinking water supply.

[Drinking Water, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the resilience and patience of the people of Murray Park in Pointe-Lebel, near Baie-Comeau. This community is facing one of the worst cases of contaminated drinking water to be seen in recent years in Quebec.

Testing of the drinking water in this mobile home park found not only the E. coli bacteria, but also cancer-causing chemical components, including haloacetic acids, at levels that were 16 times higher than the Canadian standard.

In recent months, some remedial action was taken to allow the 51 families living in the park to continue their daily hygiene routine: communal showers were installed because of a water advisory issued for both cooking and personal hygiene.

When I met with some residents of Murray Park, I saw first-hand the distress they are feeling and the need for immediate action. The next day, my team set about checking records to identify the various stakeholders involved and the recourse available to residents under the circumstances. Furthermore, my office is awaiting a response from the Minister of Health, who was alerted of the situation in a letter dated September 14, 2012.

I would like to reiterate my support for the residents of Murray Park, who must now face the harsh north shore climate without basic amenities.

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative cuts hurt first nations children. First, there were cuts to health care. Public health programs to prevent suicide among youth, HIV-AIDS and violence against women were hard hit. Now, because of cuts to band councils, there will be no technical assistance for the construction of schools on reserves.

How can the minister justify cuts to such essential services?

[Helping Families In Need Act, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. That criminal nature is, of course, included to please a specific segment of the population. Over the past year, I noticed that the Conservatives try to paint themselves as the ultimate source of righteousness and impunity. Once again, they are merely trying to convey the idea that they represent the victims, and not the criminals. However, in this case, they are going after children. There are limits to trying to please a specific segment of the population.