Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2016

Business of the House

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, House Leader of the Official Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first Thursday question as House opposition leader, I want to congratulate the new government House leader, although I want to say maybe the former one got out just in the nick of time. I congratulate her and very much look forward to working with the new House leader.

Could the minister advise the House what business the government intends to call for the remainder of this week and next week?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the member as well and congratulate her on her new role.

This afternoon, we will continue with the Conservative Party motion. Tomorrow, we will proceed with Bill C-4, the union bill.

I have had discussions with opposition House leaders to find agreement on the handling of the debate at report stage and the third reading of this bill. I would like to thank them for their co-operation. We will continue this debate on Monday as well, in the hope of concluding third reading debate at the end of the day.

On Tuesday, we shall commence second reading debate of Bill C-22, which establishes a national committee of parliamentarians. I expect that debate to carry over to Wednesday and I hope we can conclude the debate on Friday so that we can get the bill to committee early next week.

Lastly, next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Standing Committee on Health

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order today with respect to Standing Order 108(2).

Today at the health committee, I attempted to move a motion that was tabled with the committee's clerk in June. The motion stated “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee immediately undertake a study into the government’s rejection of an expert-panel’s decision to locate the future Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus on federal land across the street from the existing Hospital; and that the Committee call the Ministers of Environment, Heritage, and Agriculture and Dr. Mark Kristmanson, CEO of the National Capital Commission (NCC), to discuss the matter.”

Normally, a local hospital issue would not be in federal jurisdiction, but this arises because the government has now inserted a federal agency into the decision of where to locate the hospital and the federal Minister of Environment has interfered and blocked the hospital's construction in her own riding. Thus, there is a federal connection to the future construction of this hospital location. However, the chair of the committee ruled that the subject material was outside the jurisdiction of the committee, meaning that a hospital is out of the jurisdiction of the health committee. The chair then ruled the debate out of order and prevented even a vote on the motion, which was moved before the committee.

In accordance with Standing Orders 108(1) and 108(2), committees are masters of their own domain, and they can study any topics they choose and that are referred to them by the House. As well, the health committee's own website states that it may also study matters the committee itself chooses to examine. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason for the motion to have been ruled out of order. The committee, being master of its domain, ought to have been allowed to debate and then vote on the substance of the motion itself rather than having the chair arbitrarily shut down the debate before it even occurred.

This matter is of immense importance to the people of the national capital region. The existing Civic campus, which represents the amalgamation of three hospital sites, is now almost 100 years old. It is falling apart. It is desperately in need of replacement. After a nine-year process, a site for its future construction was selected immediately across the street on federal land. There was a broad consensus among hospital board and management members that this was the right place to put the hospital. It was a decision accepted by the previous government. There were no objections made to that site by the now-governing party during the last election; yet suddenly and arbitrarily the member of Parliament for the riding in question and minister for the region slammed on the brakes and blocked the hospital's construction.

Now I am asking for that member to come before a parliamentary committee and be accountable for her decision to delay the provision of health care in her own riding. Unfortunately, the Liberal majority is shutting down the debate and preventing any transparency in regard to that decision-making, by banning this motion from even being voted upon.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a violation of Standing Orders 108(1) and 108(2). It falls to the Speaker to intervene when Standing Orders of the House are violated by chairs of committees, which are of course creatures of Parliament. This city needs a new hospital, and it is not the role of the federal government to stop the construction of that hospital. That is precisely what is happening and it is time that the Liberal Minister of Environment came before a committee and explained why she has done this to her community.

Every day that goes by, Ottawa moves further down the list of priority sites for a future hospital. With dwindling provincial health care resources available for the construction of hospitals, we in Ottawa are losing our place on that list and putting the health care of our people in some jeopardy. All I am asking for is that there be a debate and a vote on the motion and that the Minister of Environment come before the committee to explain her decision to block the hospital and that we have clear answers so that the residents of Ottawa can have accountability for the decisions that affect the health of the next generation of local residents.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Carleton for his point of order and his rather thorough research of the matter.

The member will know that matters that are dealt with at the standing committee level, as he pointed out rightly himself, are matters that are taken up by the committee itself.

He may also know there is a mechanism by which committees can refer business to the House for debate and or consideration when the committee in fact makes a report of such disagreements that may occur in the course of its deliberations.

Normally, the chair is reluctant to adjudicate matters here in the House that pertain to committee business until such time as a report has come from that committee to the House for its consideration.

I take the matter under advisement and we will get back to the member if necessary, but he may want to go back and consider in committee itself whether such a report could be provided, and then the House would have a mechanism by which to consider the matter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Appointments to the Supreme Court

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up consideration of the question, the hon. member for Long Range Mountains had five minutes remaining in her time for her remarks and, of course, the usual five minutes for questions and comments.

We will go now to the hon. member, the parliamentary secretary for small business and tourism.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Supreme Court has a direct effect on every part of our country, but there are very few areas in the country where federal government decisions can have such an impact on people's daily lives. People from Atlantic Canada understand this reality.

One of the largest industries in the Long Range Mountains is the fishery, and because of that, when I speak with my constituents, as I did this summer and last year on the docks, wharfs, and stages, one thing has always been important to them, the decisions being made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I raise this because I find it interesting that the members opposite have suddenly developed an interest in Atlantic Canada. They have suddenly decided that Atlantic Canada is important to them.

I find it ironic that this recognition was missing for 10 years while they were in government. It was clear that the previous government did not recognize the importance of the Long Range Mountains of Newfoundland and Labrador, or of Atlantic Canada. For 10 years we felt ignored by the previous government, whether it was cutting federal government jobs from Atlantic Canada—our province of Newfoundland and Labrador lost over 1,000—or gutting, pardon the pun, investments in fisheries, science, and research, which had terrible impacts on all our fisheries and hard-working harvesters and plant workers throughout our Atlantic coast; or pitting the four Atlantic provinces against each other for its own political gain.

I also find it interesting that the members opposite like to point out that our party won all 32 seats in the last election. Following their drive-by this past summer, they seem to think that all of a sudden Atlantic Canadians will be fooled by their fleeting politically motivated interests. Those of us on this side of the House who are so fortunate and blessed to represent our ridings in Atlantic Canada will still be working hard for all of our constituents long after the members opposite have gone back to ignoring Atlantic Canada.

The Minister of Justice stood this morning to tell the House that our government is supporting this motion. She stood to confirm that there will be candidates from Atlantic Canada provided by the independent advisory board. As someone from Atlantic Canada, I am confident in the calibre of our judges and that in any national search Atlantic Canadians can hold their own. That includes candidates from Newfoundland and Labrador.

This new process to appoint judges to the Supreme Court will allow all Canadians to feel comfortable that the selections to be made will represent everyone in the country. For the very first time in Canadian history any qualified judge or lawyer will be able to apply for an appointment, and Canadians can feel confident that the seven member advisory board will work tirelessly to select only the best candidates.

An Atlantic Canadian on the bench of the Supreme Court would not only give Atlantic Canada a fair role but would also help Canadians, and especially Atlantic Canadians, to feel confident in the system and in all rulings handed down by the highest court.

What this does show all Atlantic Canadians is that we are an equal member of Confederation in our magnificent country. We have a smaller population that is spread out over some of the largest regions of our country, like my riding of the Long Range Mountains where we only have a population of 87,000 people, but one that is spread out over an area of 41,000 square kilometres. Our entire region is an equal partner in our country.

I am pleased that the minister has reiterated the importance of an Atlantic Canadian voice on the court. It is so important in our country to know that we were all treated fairly and judged solely on merit. I am very glad that we will be supporting the motion. I look forward to meeting our future nominee.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member opposite can enlighten us as to any conversations she may have had with members within the provincial government. As she may very well know, the minister of justice for Newfoundland and Labrador wrote her government in April of 2016, on the understanding that it was Atlantic Canada's turn to appoint to the bench.

I thought Newfoundland and Labrador made a very strong case to say that it was its time to have a justice on the Supreme Court bench. They both put out a press release. They had the law society come and talk about the importance of a jurist from Newfoundland and Labrador being appointed to that bench.

Why did she not stand up to assert that this must happen as oppose to waiting until this very moment when we pushed the question upon the Liberals to make her stand up and represent Atlantic Canadians?

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the minister of justice in Newfoundland and Labrador. He is in my riding and we speak often. What he is pleased of now, as are all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as well as all Atlantic Canadians, is that there is a system in place that will be fair for all. It will be fair for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Atlantic Canadians, indigenous people, and those of other minorities. What is great about this new system is that they will be able to apply every time after.

Therefore, we are excited that there is a system that is all-inclusive for any appointment that is coming up in the judicial system down the road. They can apply whenever.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada appointments process must be transparent and credible. There exists an obligation to ensure regional and official language representation. There is also another very important issue: aboriginal communities' lack of confidence in provincial and federal courts.

How will the government commit to earning aboriginal communities' trust in the Supreme Court?

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that aboriginal and indigenous issues are important to my colleague opposite, as well as many of us on this side of the House.

Again, I would like to reiterate what the Minister of Justice said this morning. She said that this new process was fair for all groups, especially indigenous people, those from Atlantic Canada, from Newfoundland and Labrador, and from the Northwest Territories, who have never had representation before. Therefore, we are confident this process is fair and just for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend from Long Range Mountains for her excellent speech. One of the things that I have heard so far today in the debate from the Conservatives in particular is that on this side of the House the Liberal Atlantic Canadian members of Parliament, which includes all 32 of them, are not standing up for Atlantic Canada. I would ask my friend if she would agree with that comment in particular. Would she also suggest some of the things that she has experienced in her time as a member of Parliament, working with her other colleagues in Atlantic Canada, to stand up for our constituents?

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Atlantic Canada is blessed. We have 32 seats that are represented by 32 passionate people from the four Atlantic provinces. We work as our own Atlantic caucus, which is unique because all of the members of the Atlantic caucus are from Atlantic Canada. Therefore, we work on Atlantic Canadian issues.

Weekly, we work on Atlantic Canadian issues in our caucuses. We have come together with respect to the Atlantic accord, which is the Atlantic innovation process being done through the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. It is incredible. It had input from all 32 MPs, and is a way forward for us to ensure that Atlantic Canada can grow. We can discover the many challenges out there and deal with the opportunities that are coming forward to ensure Atlantic Canada does grow and strive and be a vital part of our Canadian economy.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on an issue that has caught my attention since the first announcement was made in the heat of this year's summer.

I grew up in Cape Breton Island. I went to law school. I am very proud to come from the same street as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Michael MacDonald. Why I am proud of that is because it showed me growing up that people could do whatever they put their mind to. That was a very important principle for me.

Having the knowledge that a Supreme Court Justice was possibility from Atlantic Canada, as a lawyer, was very personal to me and very important. I can recall that when I would be reading law at Osgoode Hall, I would be looking to see what the various justices from the Atlantic provinces would say, because oftentimes it reflected what I thought and what I felt.

The ironic part was that it really did not have to do with whether they were Scottish, and I was Scottish, or if they were a man and I was a woman. What really came through was the geographic sensibilities associated with the thought process in taking decisions. We are, at the end of the day, nothing but a product of the environment in which we are brought up. Indeed, geography is incredibly important. When we think of it, every member in the House self-identifies as being from a certain geography. I am the member from Milton. Some would say I am the member from Cape Breton, sometimes. I am not, that goes to the members opposite who were here earlier.

Geography has been an incredibly important part of our country. As members have probably heard from many of the members already on our side here today, the reality is that this was reflected in the bargain for Confederation. That was the precept upon which we came together. Indeed, as an Atlantic Canadian, I I do not know if we got a great bargain. We only got one out of the total, instead of asking for more at the table.

Today we find ourselves in a situation where we are being told that we do not even get that one. After 140-some years we are not guaranteed that position. I do believe it is a guarantee. I believe that was a term that was a precedent condition, a condition precedent for us joining Confederation and continuing along.

Throughout the history of the Atlantic provinces, specifically Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, we often say that the best times we had was when we first joined Confederation. We were at the height. We were the fishers, we had the forestry, and we were the ones who made the money and riches. The minute we became part of Confederation, perhaps we did not do as well, and perhaps that is the situation we find ourselves in today.

I have a more precise dissertation and a disagreement with the process being put forward. The process is important, because what I understood from the Minister of Justice this morning was that the reason why we were in the situation today regarding no geographic confirmation for Atlantic Canada was because we had come up with a new process.

The Liberals said that they had an election promise for transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability, and I accept that. That is what they ran on, and those are good principles to ensure we get the right jurist to sit on the Supreme Court bench.

However, to utilize the example and the excuse that there is a process that has been set out which may not yield a jurist from Atlantic Canada is not an excuse for not doing it. It is kind of like we heard in question period today. Just because the rules are there that allow us to do something, does not necessarily mean that thou shalt do it. However, it is reversed. The rules are in place and thou shalt do it.

From what I understand, the process is that the Minister of Justice has set up an advisory committee that will develop a short list. We know the mandate is that the jurist must be fluently bilingual and reflect diversity in the country. The end result is that this long-standing convention of geographical representation has been deemed non-necessary. I do not think that is a proper outcome of the process that has been put in. The Liberals could very well have made it mandatory within their process to ensure that this precept was respected in the advisory committee.

Our motion today would restore the notion that having a qualified jurist from the Atlantic provinces would be a constitutional requirement and should respect it as such.

I want to thank the official opposition House leader for reminding me that I am actually splitting my time today with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. That s why she is doing such a good job in her new role. Quite frankly, I will take up everybody's time here to talk about Cape Breton and Atlantic Canada, which are so dear to my heart.

Let me talk about what Peter Hogg said with respect to the notion of setting up an advisory committee process. As many may know, Peter Hogg is an incredible jurist who I have the utmost respect for and indeed he is the foremost person who understands constitutional law in our country. When he talks in terms of what the appointment process is and where we should go in that process, he says the following with respect to an advisory committee at the end of his dissertation.

He basically has two objections to an advisory committee process. The reason why he has an objection in the first case is that when we create one of these smaller kinds of advisory committees, we end up with a situation where the advisory committee is so insular, it is afraid to go outside and find someone who may be a little controversial. He recognizes there have been some controversial appointments to the Supreme Court in the past. Specifically he cites a particular one where was decided to appoint someone of the Jewish faith to the Supreme Court of Canada who may not have come out of a closed advisory committee. Indeed, I agree with Professor Hogg that this problem can happen when we utilize an advisory committee.

The reality is that we may not end up with a process as robust. Indeed, I believe the Minister of Justice indicated that the Prime Minister would choose from the list provided by this advisory committee. Therefore, in a sense we are handing this over to seven individuals, who are probably all fine individuals, and I do not in the least indicate that I do not have confidence in their abilities. However, in that kind of group-think we may end with a result that does not yield the best jurists.

That is in general. I believe we cannot hide behind the notion that this advisory committee will make all of the decisions. Some discretion has to be left for the Prime Minister to make the choice of nominating and indeed appointing and approving a Supreme Court candidate. The flip side of that is ministers in his government cannot hide behind an advisory committee and say that it is the one that chose the individual because he or she should and he and she has the ability to retain it all.

One part of the mandate that was mentioned already was that the individual to be appointed must be fluently bilingual. Indeed today Senator Murray Sinclair and Chief Perry Bellegarde expressed their concerns about the mandate, much like I am expressing my concern today about the fact that it is excluded in the definition of inclusivity the notion of geographical designation.

Mr. Allan Hutchinson is a professor. I had the pleasure of being in one of his classes a long time ago. This is what he said with respect to Supreme Court appointments. I find it telling and I find it important. He said this far before the notion of the Prime Minister determining that no longer did we have to cite and abide by this constitutional rule. He said:

...the prime minister both nominates and approves a candidate.... While he might well seek input from others, the only formal constraint is that of geographical representation—three from Quebec, one from Eastern Canada, three from Ontario and two from the West.

This is what the highest jurist in the land, what the highest level of legal theory in the land are saying, that it is definitely a part of the Constitution. It is mandatory to seek out and include geographical representation, that an advisory committee is flawed in the beginning and that we need to ensure we leave some room to pick bold candidates who actually will bring that court to where it needs to be.

At the end of the day, judges are the arbiters of what is reasonable in a free and democratic society. As the Charter of Rights and Freedoms phrases it, the appointment of these judges and the validation of the process should also be reasonable and it should be democratic. Neither is true in the process that the minister has put forward today.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Milton, originally from Cape Breton, for her contribution to the debate today. There were a couple of things she said in error, and if I may, I am going to point them out. She can feel free to respond.

She suggested that a criterion for the next Supreme Court of Canada judge is that the person be fluently bilingual. That is not the case. The requirement is that the person be functionally bilingual, and the definition of “functionally bilingual” is set out. She may also wish to be aware that 13 of the last 15 judges appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada have been functionally bilingual.

The motion that has been presented by her party does not refer to the Constitution. It does not refer to a convention. It refers to a custom. Liberals support the motion and agree with the custom and will respect the custom. She suggested that this has risen to the level of, as she said, a constitutional requirement, a constitutional rule, or part of the Constitution. I would be interested in her authority for that and in why it is not included in the motion.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary knows full well that the Atlantic Provinces Trial Lawyers Association is going to be seeking clarification with respect to the level. I quoted Allan Hutchinson. I did not hear the hon. member quote anyone in asserting that this was not anything more than a constitutional obligation. I would very much like to see what his reference points are as well, because I provided mine on this one.

I would like to point out, with respect to the definition of bilingualism, that I take his point. It is true that it says very clearly in the mandate “functionally bilingual”. That is not my issue. I was pointing out the fact that two other people have come forward who have an issue with respect to this mandate. This is not a process that is embraced glowingly across the country, by any means. As a former Atlantic Canadian, and one whose heart is still there, I very much have a problem with the geographical exclusion, and I understand that Senator Sinclair and Chief Perry Bellegarde have a problem with the bilingual part of this.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have to get used to such new distinctions. I would first like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. I always recognize how honest and frank she is when she talks to an issue and expresses her views.

My colleague referred to Cape Breton, and I can say that, as Quebeckers, the people of Longueuil—Saint-Hubert empathize and grieve with them because they constantly feel that their fundamental rights are ignored. There is still a pervasive feeling that there is often no respect for the differences that define us.

Obviously, the Liberals opposite will have some difficulty seeing the logic in this motion. We know that with respect to the famous appointment of Justice Nadon in 2014, it took 50 years for Quebec's views and the recommendations on this position to be considered. Then, this summer, the government decided to deploy the troops and appoint this judge.

Does my colleague not agree that the Conservatives were sincere, although we did not often see eye to eye, while the Liberals made lot of big promises but ultimately ended up centralizing the power here on their side?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the sentiment. On this point, I absolutely have a commitment to ensuring that we get to the right place on it.

I would say this with respect to the reason we brought the motion, and it is important. When Mr. Justice Cromwell left, he spoke about this in an interview. The importance of having this debate in the House now about how to go about ensuring that the jurist who will be appointed to the Supreme Court has all the attributes we want, including one from Atlantic Canada, is that the minute the government indicates who its preferred candidate is, the debate becomes about the candidate.

We wanted to make the point that this is not about an individual. It may be a great person who comes out of this process, but the process is flawed. It takes into consideration things that should not be taken into consideration. As Peter Hogg said, “For a single, occasional, high-profile appointment, I do not think the government should be restricted to a short list developed by an advisory committee”.

I think the full list should be available. I think it should be an Atlantic Canadian appointment, and I think we should have this discussion and a promise from the government before someone with a great name and a great background in this country is thrown into a complete mess.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and contribute to the debate on this important motion. I want to congratulate my colleagues, our justice critic and deputy critic, for bringing this motion forward.

By way of context, I think it is worth reflecting on what an interesting day it has been here for our discussion on our national institutions.

We began our day with tributes to the member for Calgary Midnapore. I want to join members in paying tribute to his remarkable career thus far as a defender of the Conservative tradition and liberty and as an ambassador for that tradition to those who share our fundamental beliefs who have yet to join the Conservative family. Of course, he is also a passionate Canadian nationalist, and of particular importance to our discussion on this issue, a defender of our institutions.

During his speech today, the member for Calgary Midnapore spoke about the importance of our institutions and about Parliament in particular. He spoke of Edmund Burke, indisputably one of the greatest parliamentarians and philosophers in the history of the English-speaking world.

Burke's political philosophy, and our Conservative tradition that flows from it, centres on two interrelated ideas: intergenerational obligation and the fragility of civilizational goods.

On intergenerational obligation, I have quoted these words in the House before. Burke says, in Reflections on the Revolution in France, that:

...a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society...

It is because of our obligations to the next generation that we must preserve the integrity of our well-functioning institutions.

The second point, on the fragility of civilizational goods, reminds us that the goods of civilization cannot easily be restored once they are lost. We cannot so easily reach into our past and place our traditions back on the shelf if they have been broken and thrown down. Civilization in general, and our institutions in particular, are fragile things that are much easier to keep together than to put back together once they are broken.

It is with this understanding that we, as Conservatives, seek to conserve our best traditions. It is not to oppose change in all its forms. Indeed, Burke himself was sympathetic to the grievances of the American colonists, and he supported Wilberforce's efforts to abolish slavery. Some would have called these things radical in their own time, but they were much better understood as reforms that at the same time sought to preserve existing institutions and traditions. We can be reformers without being radicals.

The member for Calgary Midnapore earlier today passionately defended the value and integrity of Parliament as a genuinely deliberative body, a body that talks about things that matter and where words and votes actually mean something. I will come back to that.

Today we are debating a motion about the integrity of another institution, our Supreme Court, and especially of the traditions and customs that surround it. Here is what the motion says:

That the House call on the government to respect the custom of regional representation when making appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada and, in particular, when replacing the retiring Justice Thomas Cromwell, who is Atlantic Canada’s representative on the Supreme Court.

This motion could not be more clear. It refers specifically to the custom of regional representation and the need to respect it. Surely, in any plausible interpretation, it could not mean anything other than appointing someone from Atlantic Canada to replace the retiring justice on the Supreme Court. I think any Canadian who read the motion and listened to our deliberations today would clearly understand what the motion is referring to.

We have a tradition of regional representation on our Supreme Court, but it is more than just something we have done in the past. I think it was a tradition developed with a specific understanding, with good reason, and with reasons that remain valid today. I will talk about what I see as four reasons why regional representation on the Supreme Court is important.

First of all, diversity of representation is important. I think the government at least pays lip service to this principle and understands it in theory. I am going to talk about it a little as well and about the breadth of diversity it ought to entail.

When people are in an institution that is responsible for making or interpreting laws, be it here in Parliament or be it the Supreme Court, they are going to draw on elements of their experience. Their understanding of the way the world works is going to be shaped by what their lived experience is. I think that is fairly obvious.

A diverse body is therefore more able to draw on the diversity of human experience. It is able to draw on the different experiences people from different kinds of backgrounds have to understand what the social realities actually are and what the application of a particular law or the interpretation of the law will have.

That is why it is important to have diversity of representation, one of probably several reasons. Given the importance of our Supreme Court, that is why it exists on the Supreme Court. Again, I think at least some members of the government understand the value of this diversity, in theory. Certainly we hear it talked about quite a bit.

Second, I want to underline that regional representation in no way precludes other forms of diversity. We hear the government talk, as well, about a range of other kinds of diversity. There is absolutely no reason we cannot respect this tradition while also ensuring the diversity of our court along other dimensions. I think that includes cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity as well as regional diversity and intellectual diversity.

Intellectual diversity is a key element of diversity. It means people who have different kinds of opinions and different kinds of foundational world views. Again, regional representation does not preclude other kinds of diversity.

Third, regional representation is a particularly critical dimension of diversity. If there is a group of people who may be diverse in a range of different ways but are part of the same geographic community, they have opportunities, in spite of their differences, to learn from each other's differences frequently, one would hope, being in the same geographic area.

Those who are from different regions may not have the opportunity to develop an understanding of each other's different experiences, because not being in the same geographic location, they would not have the regular opportunity to brush up against each other and to learn from and hear about others' experiences. That is why regional representation is a particularly critical dimension of diversity.

Although people in a city in Ontario or western Canada may have an opportunity to learn from others within their community who are in some ways different, they may never have an opportunity to fully understand the lived experienced of those who are from Atlantic Canada.

Fourth, and I will touch on this point briefly, because I think it was explained very eloquently by my colleague from Milton, regional representation is part of the founding bargain of our country. Its specific application, and the broader principle of regional representation, was part of Canada coming together as different constituent parts to say that we will respect each region and each region's role in this country.

Disrespect for our traditions with respect to the court is clear in the approach being taken by the government in not respecting regional representation. We also see in their approach to this motion disrespect for Parliament. The Liberals said that they will vote for this motion, that they will “respect the custom”, but that they will not necessarily appoint an Atlantic Canadian to the court, which is precisely what this motion says. That is obviously a contradiction in terms.

It is almost as ridiculous as saying that they will sign an extradiction treaty with China while respecting human rights. It is a contradiction in terms. It is like saying they will create jobs while eliminating the small business hiring credit. It is a contradiction in terms.

We have spoken today about respect for this institution and all of our institutions, yet there is something clearly Orwellian about the way the government is approaching this conversation.

The government should have the courage of its convictions. If it believes in our traditions, then it should vote for them. If it does not, then it should vote against them. However, this is precisely the kind of thing that makes Canadians cynical about our politics, and they deserve better.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the very last couple of comments made by my colleague opposite, in which he accused the government of being disrespectful of Parliament and of the court. I would ask him to hark back maybe a year or two with respect to the public spat between his former boss, Stephen Harper, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court and ask whether we should take direction from his side of the aisle with regard to respect for the court.

When the member talks about respect for Parliament, perhaps I could also ask him to hark back to the time during the office of Stephen Harper and tell us about the value of parliamentarians in this process, as set out for this appointment, as compared to the last one.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this really is real change from the member across the way, is it not? However, more seriously, we have heard the Liberals try to use this argument before. In question period, we essentially heard the Duffy defence from the government House leader, who said that the government was acting within the rules. However, I think Canadians expect respect for our institutions. That is what we have consistently provided as an opposition and what we are calling for in the context of this motion.

I will not say that the previous government was perfect in every respect, but in the last year we have seen things like Motion No. 6, which went far beyond anything that was ever contemplated under the previous government. We have seen things like the invocation of closure on Bill C-14, on euthanasia, which is a deeply sensitive issue. There was no history under the previous government of bringing in closure on fundamental issues of conscience. That is very clear. In a very short time, the current government has come in promising so-called real change and has delivered—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I am watchful of the time here. We only have five minutes.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been absolutely fascinating. It is like looking at one of those funhouse mirrors. It starts out looking like a coherent picture and then gets more distorted as we look at the record.

The former government had a justice minister, former member Peter MacKay, who had more recalls than the Ford Pinto. He fought and gnashed his teeth at the Supreme Court. The mandatory minimums got struck down. Prostitution got struck down. The Tsilhqot'in First Nation, which it fought all the way, got struck down. Senate reform got struck down. Then there was its attempt to interfere on the nomination for the Quebec seat, Marc Nadon, who was not even technically eligible to sit, and Stephen Harper decided to pick a public fight with a Supreme Court justice.

Therefore, when I hear my hon. colleague say that it is about respect for the institutions, I am a little flabbergasted. I am sure people are having a great laugh at the Tim Hortons back home. However, as a credible line of argument, my friend has to give us a little more to work with.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for going over time before, and I regret that I will not have nearly enough time to correct all of the errors in my hon. friend's question. I could go through some of the examples he mentioned. For instance, he mentioned the prostitution case and some of the other cases that were overturned by the Supreme Court when we were in government. He knows full well that those were not laws that were created by the Harper Conservative government. As an example, the prostitution law was hardly a law created by the Harper government and overturned. The issue of the Senate was a reference we had asked of the Supreme Court. Proactively seeking the input of the Supreme Court on an issue and getting an answer back can hardly be described as lack of respect for the institution in any plausible account of things.

Therefore, I would ask the member, if he takes these institutions seriously, to defend the institutions rather than poking these sorts of misleading political cheap shots.

We have an important job to do here on behalf of Canadians. We have an important job to do on behalf of those who send us here, which is to defend Parliament and its role as a legitimate deliberative body, to have serious arguments, and to respect Atlantic Canada and its role on the Supreme Court. That is what we are doing. I hope the NDP and the government are prepared to do the same.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.