Jonathan Genest-Jourdain

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

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

I sometimes ask myself the same sort of questions. When I see the legislation contemplated by the Conservatives, I wonder if their reality is the same as ours. I wonder if they do their groceries, or if they have loved ones, because their approach often seems dehumanized.

I know they have a rather hard party line that leans towards the right. It is becoming rather obvious with their proposed measures. However, they should sometimes show a bit of humanity and put themselves in the shoes of ordinary citizens, because this would make them aware of specifics and personal experiences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I submit the following distinction to the Conservatives. In our justice system, when an offence is committed by a young person under the age of 16, 17 or 18, the Youth Criminal Justice Act automatically applies. The Conservatives should nuance their approach in the case of a young person who is injured while committing an offence that would be dealt with under that legislation.

Based on my own understanding, such an exclusion should be provided. Regardless of whether a criminal activity took place or an offence was committed, the parents of the young person should not be penalized if the case comes under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. As my colleague pointed out earlier, these young people are in their formative years. Parents should not be automatically excluded when their child is injured. They deserve to be compensated. There should be an exclusion clause.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my remarks on this bill to help families in need by reiterating that I rely on my legal background every day in carrying out my duties as a member of Parliament.

Early in my career, the time I spent working for legal aid right after passing the bar was a true education. I learned so much working there. My regards to all of my colleagues at the Sept-Îles legal aid office.

Returning to the matter at hand, in 2007, six months after I joined legal aid, one of my first cases involved a young man who had been taken hostage in 1997. Given the relatively small population of Sept-Îles, the incident, which took place in a local high school, received significant media attention. Other young people, including me—I was not very old at the time—were aware of the problem because we knew the young man involved. He was taken hostage in a classroom.

Another young person, not much older than high school age, but who was in CEGEP, went off the deep end—pardon the expression—and decided to go into a high school classroom with two jerry cans of gas, a Rambo-style hunting knife and a pellet gun. He decided to take the entire class hostage and tied the students up with tape. My client decided to intervene and was stabbed and suffered a punctured lung. So it was rather serious.

I remember this event, because I was in CEGEP at the time. When word got out around Sept-Îles, I went to the hospital to see how the young man was doing. That is when I saw how distraught his parents were. They were completely shaken and without any means.

This event came back to me when I began litigating in 2007. The same young man, whom I knew, came to see me in my office. The case still had not been settled 10 years later. The case had gone to an organization in Quebec known as IVAC, which stands for indemnisation aux victimes d'actes criminels—basically an organization that processes applications for compensation for victims of crime. The case was being challenged and had gone before Quebec's administrative tribunal. It was a question of anatomicophysiological deficit, or APD. There were differences of opinion.

My first instinct was to send my client for further psychological examination, because he was suffering serious repercussions. Thus, another psychiatrist met with him in the Quebec City area. This increased his APD diagnosis by a few percentage points, so we were able to reach a settlement in the end.

I wanted to share this particular case with you because there had been a 10-year delay and when the incident happened, the parents had no resources whatsoever. I know that, because the young man's father, whom I saw that day at the hospital, was completely distraught. Very little support was offered to the parents by either the school system or the government.

I am talking about this case here today simply to illustrate that it is no secret that these terrible incidents happen on a regular basis.

What is interesting about this bill is that it is a pragmatic response to the financial difficulties experienced by vulnerable families as a result of tragic and fortuitous events. That is why my party supports the proposed measures, since they would ease the added financial burden on parents in need.

There is talk of integrity and threats to the physical integrity of a child. I say that parents are often distraught. But this is not just when a young person is the victim of a crime. When I worked in a legal aid office and in my own law firm, I saw the same type of reaction. I represented young people who were under psychiatric care. They were often children admitted into psychiatric care because they presented with symptoms of toxic psychosis. In my community, Uashat-Maliotenam, and also in the city of Sept-Îles, there is a serious problem right now with methamphetamines, commonly known as speed. Some young people are inhaling them by turning them into powder. This is commonly referred to as sniffing speed. They inhale four or five of these pills. After sniffing four or five speed pills, a person decompensates and becomes incoherent and violent. That is not always the case, but it can happen. These young people end up under psychiatric care, and the parents are distraught.

I noticed that there was a lack of resources available to them, because the health and safety of these young people as well as their physical integrity were in jeopardy.

When I was working on my speech for today, I was reminded of these things from my past experience at the itinerant court and the civil court. Often, these were prison custody cases heard in civil court. I was reminded of these things, and I make mention of them today. I believe that it is important to share this information with the Canadian public.

In passing, I would like to point out the innovative nature of the compensation for parents of missing children, a measure that addresses a deplorable reality in Canadian society.

I would like to talk about missing children. I agree that the presumption that a crime has been committed can be problematic. However, in many communities, including aboriginal communities, the disappearance of children is a fairly widespread and growing phenomenon, when we compare the number of aboriginal young people who go missing to the total number of people in the community.

This type of measure will most likely be well received by aboriginal communities across the country. When I was working on this file, I was reminded of the posters of young Maisy Odjick and other young people from aboriginal communities. A criminal investigation is most often launched if suspicious circumstances exist. Many cases of missing children involve a criminal investigation, a police investigation. This always depends on the analysis of the judge and arbitrator, the person who makes the final decision as to the moment at which suspicions of a crime or criminal activity come into play.

I hope that the members opposite agree, but in my opinion, this criterion would be easily applicable. In most cases, when a child goes missing, there is a criminal investigation and suspicions can therefore be confirmed. It remains to be seen how these proposed measures will actually be implemented.

That being said and despite the highly commendable nature of the proposed measures, we must reassess the relevance of withdrawing money from the employment insurance fund for parents of critically ill children given that this fund has a cumulative deficit of $9 billion, which is not just pocket change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech. I have a question regarding the notion of crime that my colleague spoke about. I would like to hear more on the subject.

In his own view of the proposed bill, at what point are suspicions justified and who will ultimately be called upon to address the issue?

[Aboriginal Affairs, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have visited these communities, and I can attest to the fact that the Nutrition North Canada program is not working properly.

Local food acquired through hunting is the best option for many families that live in isolated communities. However, the Nutrition North Canada program will only provide funding for meat that comes from a processing plant and has been inspected by a government inspector. There is still no federal inspector nearby to inspect food.

In the last quarter, only $218 was devoted to the funding of traditional food.

Will the minister make the changes necessary to promote the sharing of local, traditional food among communities?

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of our analysis of the bill currently before us, I would like to begin by discussing a certain angle that appears to form the basis of the Conservative media platform.

I must candidly admit that I tend to do a little cherry picking—that is, I pick and choose the files I wish to take on, depending on their legal flavour, because, I must admit, I sometimes miss practising law and arguing cases.

This file allows me to revisit my first love. It is important to understand that I am first and foremost a criminal lawyer, although I do not have a great deal of legal experience. I worked for a few years—two years—and a little more than two years for legal aid. During those years, I was called upon to handle several hundred cases, perhaps even a thousand in total. I would like to point out the elements that need to be brought to the attention of the general public, including the limited impact this kind of legislative initiative can have. I encountered this kind of situation only a couple of times in the context of my legal practice. Indeed, many Innu and Naskapi people—about 15,000—in my riding received compensation for the time they spent in residential schools. That is why these people had been detained and why they received that money. That is the only instance.

I mentioned the media platform. My experience in this House for a little over a year now has allowed me to form my own personal opinions, which tend to be reinforced every day. Often, the legislative and real-world initiatives proposed by the Conservatives are intended primarily to garner media attention. They want to win votes. These initiatives are usually designed to please a specific group of Canadians.

In this case, the Conservatives are trying to side with the victims—in a very obvious way, in my opinion—by trying to demonize the other side. They simply say that the New Democratic Party is siding with the criminals and the people who commit offences.

This is somewhat of a trend and we are seeing it again today. I would say that the legislation, as it stands right now, is rather ill-advised both factually and legally, since my argument—I will bring up some points during this speech—will show that this would contravene some well-established legal norms and principles that one learns in the early years of law school, for example, the non-seizability of money received in compensation for physical harm. That is some of what I will be discussing.

My argument will introduce the fact that this bill, which technically aims to increase the accountability of offenders—which is a valid point with a valid purpose—has little basis when it comes to Canadian reality.

I spoke about the uniqueness of my own riding. Chances are that not all ridings have a large aboriginal population. As a result, I do not think that this kind of case, the payment of money to a detainee as part of compensation for former students, is standard across the country.

A quick glance at the opinions held by a number of leading correctional experts highlights the uncertainty over the number of offenders who receive settlement funds as a result of a court ruling.

As I was saying, it is a special case. In my practice, I have handled hundreds of cases. I could perhaps recall three or four cases of clients who were detainees, including some who were serving federal sentences. They were incarcerated and only some clients received the money. That is rather marginal. I am not trying to say that the Conservatives are only focused on the recipients of this monetary amount, but I wanted to share this. I have not seen this type of situation a lot across the country, where an incarcerated individual is awarded money as a result of a ruling, regardless of where it is from—perhaps even compensation for victims of crime. This opinion is shared by a number of experts.

These are likely special cases that are few and far between. I read reports and opinions of experts in this regard. The Conservatives should have invested more time in seeking the opinions of experts in the field. Laudable goals have been mentioned by my colleagues; however, they were poorly advised in fact and in law.

Under the Civil Code or Quebec law, the type of restitution that is made to an individual is based on compensation for physical harm. I did not do comparative law, but I think that the same type of rules apply in the other provinces. Such amounts are also exempt from seizure in the other provinces. This is a principle that law students learn in the first years of their studies, and I remembered it when I was examining this bill.

To date, I have not heard any of my colleagues talk about this. Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as a lawyer, you no doubt know that it is very likely that there will be court challenges. The way I see it, there is a very strong chance that these provisions will be struck down in Quebec. In the end, this will clog up the justice system.

The lifestyle of offenders is another factor that must be taken into account. These people are often marginalized. The same is true of people who are incarcerated. They have a lot of free time. They will likely object to these types of measures and will file grievances. There are some self-styled lawyers in prison and they will give advice to their fellow inmates. It is therefore very likely that these provisions will be challenged.

Although this legislative measure may have noble goals, using this rationale, I must point out that such an initiative will very likely have its share of court challenges. The Conservatives are trying to please part of the population and improve their media image across the country. Over the past year, they have done the same thing with other bills. They had certain objectives that were not necessarily the best. Even though the objective of this bill is technically noble, this is a not a direct way of achieving it. Given the number of members who sit on the opposite side of the House, each of these opportunities can be used by the party's strategist to try to improve the party's media image.

I submit this respectfully, and I hope that my comments were relevant.

[Aboriginal Affairs, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can continue to avoid answering these questions, but it is clear that the Conservatives are refusing to take rebuilding a constructive relationship with first nations seriously. The minister made ill-considered cuts to first nations organizations across the country, and now residential school survivors have to wait while the government processes a backlog of 16,000 cases.

When will the minister start taking these first nations issues as seriously as they deserve to be taken?

[Aboriginal Affairs, September 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the problem.

The member on the other side of the House said that consultations had been carried out in the communities, and that there was also a fiduciary relationship.

I think that is pro forma because if you think about it, there is always a possibility.

When they talk about consulting the communities, there is a chance that a community says no, the equivalent of stonewalling, but that cannot be true for every project. However, it is a possibility. During a consultation, it is possible to oppose a project.

Now, they are trying to limit debate here. They simply talk about an obligation to consult our country's aboriginal communities. I would say that there is an obligation to consult all Canadians because this will ultimately have repercussions for all Canadians.

The government is trying to be divisive, to keep people in a vacuum. It says that it will look at what is going on in aboriginal communities in the country, that it will speak to them independently. It is dividing and conquering.

That is what we are seeing. In my own community, they say that we should not go talk to the people of Natuashish. They are not the same. We must not talk to the people of Mashteuiats, because they are not the same as the Innu of Uashat. The government is trying to be divisive. I would say that this is in order to prevent people from opposing and objecting. Public approval is needed to move forward with—

[Aboriginal Affairs, September 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to kick off the adjournment debate and also the return of Parliament under the banner of the incompatibility of the Conservative program with the realities of the communities in my riding.

Although the purpose of the original question put to the Minister of Indian Affairs —this minister's title has changed a number of times, but I am a traditionalist—was to expose this government's lack of respect for environmental and aboriginal socio-cultural imperatives, I must say that this attitude also extends to all of my constituents.

Like my colleagues, I was called to travel in my riding on a number of occasions during the summer to give speeches and make public appearances. Each time, I made a point of emphasizing the fact that the Conservative members were probably doing damage control. In other words, a number of concrete legislative measures that were adopted and implemented over the course of the year were received with trepidation and curtailed enthusiasm throughout the country.

I come from a riding where natural resources play an important role. We have a growing forestry industry and some mining is also taking place. The fishery, and its associated economic value, has also recently made some gains.

It is important to understand that we are seeing people throughout the world take a stand. This is not something that has been happening only in the past year; rather, it is an ongoing trend. My riding is no exception. People are taking a stand, in both word and deed, that often goes against the current government's agenda. Ordinary citizens are becoming more aware of the fact that the exploration and use of resources at all levels are likely to be harmful and to have a negative impact on their quality of life. I am going to make a distinction between corporate citizens and ordinary citizens in this speech.

That being said, I would like to point out that, any time I speak in public, I emphasize the fact that this government should invariably reconsider many of its positions, particularly in terms of the environment, if it wants to maintain the small amount of public support it has for its legislative measures and the action it is taking.

With regard to this small amount of public support, the focus of the Conservatives' agenda is first and foremost to please industry and the corporate machine. Often, these measures promote economic growth. However, social and cultural growth, as well as environmental considerations, are often left by the wayside in the measures that this government is planning and using. Now, the Conservatives will likely have to reconsider their position because, in the end, the corporate citizen has only a very small influence when it comes to exercising the right held by every ordinary citizen, and that is the right to vote.

The next general election in 2015 will be decisive; the current government will have to reposition itself and reassess its actions to ultimately respond to the expectations of ordinary citizens.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, education is not the only desperate need. According to a recent study, mould in homes is a growing problem. Over half of first nations dwellings are infested with mould, which causes serious health problems. The problem has gotten worse since the current minister has been in office. His solution is to hand out brochures.

When is the minister going to take this situation seriously?