Garnett Genuis

[Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there is something quite perverse about the discussion of Motion No. 103. Effectively, Canadians have been divided on a motion when there seems to me to be very little substantive disagreement on the underlying topic.

Canadians and all parliamentarians agree that discrimination against anyone is unacceptable. We agree, in particular, that there is a problem of discrimination against the Muslim community in certain quarters. This is not to deny, of course, the existence of other kinds of discrimination and that it can range in type and form. For myself at least, I would quite happily vote in favour of a motion condemning discrimination against Muslims, even if Muslims were the only faith community mentioned.

Why, then, are we divided? It is because the word “Islamophobia” can be used to mean both discrimination against Muslims and criticism of Islamic doctrine or practice. It is important that we not conflate the two. Religious people deserve legal protection, but religions do not. People should not discriminate against individuals, but should feel quite free to criticize the doctrine, history, or practice of any religion. This distinction between discrimination against religious people and criticism of religion is not at all a trivial point. It is the point that separates societies like Canada, which seek to protect people from bigotry, from other societies that impose violent sentences on people who blaspheme or apostatize in the name of protecting religion itself.

The Liberals and some in the media want us to simply shrug off this point and vote in favour of this motion because it is just symbolic anyway, but even a symbolic motion should have clear definitions and say what it means. As members of Parliament, our principal tool is the words we use. The suggestion that we should shrug about the meanings of words, about the definitions of things we are being asked to condemn, is clearly wrong. We are in the words business here. We should not, therefore, shrug about the meanings of words. This is my sole basis for objecting to the text of the current motion. This is a problem that should have been easy to solve.

I have spoken to many people about Motion No. 103, both supporters and opponents. Those who support this motion, though, almost uniformly agree with me that the government should entertain amendments that strengthen the motion by providing definition and clarity. Why not simply define Islamophobia? Members have provided definitions of lslamophobia verbally in their speeches. Why not take the verbal clarifications and add them to the text of the motion itself?

I asked the mover of the motion this direct question during debate on February 16. I said the following:

I have a very specific question that would be worth the member answering. Why does she insist on characterizing the ask for clarity as a watering down? It is not a watering down to amend a motion to provide a definition. It is not a watering down for Canadians with legitimate concerns about knowing what we mean when we use this word to ask the member to provide a clear definition, not just verbally but in the context of the motion.

The member responded:

Mr. Speaker, this has been a great debate on issues that the Muslim community really tackles on a daily basis, and has tackled for a number of years. However, it is not just about the Muslim community; it is about all Canadians.

In October of last year, I was happy to see the House unanimously condemn Islamophobia. Since then, nothing has shifted to what “Islamophobia” means. I find it very interesting that the members across the way are now using the definition of Islamophobia as the reason why they cannot stand up for the Muslim community, recognize the issue as it is today, and do the right thing.

However true or false any of that may be, it is quite obviously not an answer to the question posed. Why are Liberals so allergic to a clear definition? Why will they not answer that question?

What is perplexing about all this is that, if the government or the member were serious about their stated objectives, then they would have every reason to work with us on amendments. The rules of the House do not even allow me to move an amendment without the member's permission, but an amendment that provides a definition would cut off all this unnecessary disagreement and would strengthen the motion.

Liberals might claim that Conservatives are failing to stand up for the Muslim community when we oppose this motion, but the fact is that they failed to stand up for the Muslim community a month ago when we presented a motion that explicitly condemned discrimination against Muslims and that they voted against. When they voted against our motion, they put politics ahead of the fight against bigotry. When they refuse amendments today, they are again putting politics ahead of the fight against bigotry. I sincerely hope that this will be the last time they do that.

Following these points about the motion in front of us, I would like to take a step back and talk about the global climate in which we find ourselves and how we as legislators ought to respond to it. Specifically, I believe we can understand the western political environment in which we find ourselves as being characterized by different kinds of anxieties, anxieties that are real and legitimate and need to be responded to as opposed to dismissed. We see the emergence of economic anxieties, security anxieties, and political anxieties.

On the economic front, many middle and low-income workers, especially in certain sectors, feel they have been left behind and are being ignored by economic and policy change. In Canada, this anxiety is being driven by dramatic tax increases across the board and by the disdain with which ordinary workers are being treated, particularly in the natural resources sector. It is all well and good to talk about the jobs of the future, but nobody today is putting food on the table with jobs of the future. The erosion of present natural resource and manufacturing sectors with policies that are supposed to lead to jobs of the future is a recipe for present discord and discontent, and we have seen the effects of that elsewhere. Policies of higher taxes and increased regulation and other changes are contributing to broader economic anxiety.

An increase in terrorist attacks in the western world as well as the increasing accessibility of information and images about terrible violence in other parts of the world are contributing to anxiety about our security situation. Anxiety is increased by fears of uncontrolled migration. Western societies have been built and strengthened by the entry of legal immigrants who come to contribute to our countries, but fears about uncontrolled, unregulated migration are legitimate and sensible. Societies with successful immigration systems do not have open borders. Societies with open borders invariably invoke a backlash. They cannot even sustain the policies they intend to have in place.

Finally, political anxieties emerge when the public feels that politicians are focused on symbolic issues as opposed to on their substantive and legitimate concerns. When people with real economic and security concerns are called deplorables, sewer rats, racist, and whatever it is, they are unlikely to respond well to political elites, and they should not.

Anxieties about the economy, about security, and about disconnected political elitism are all legitimate, but these anxieties can also lead to dark, dangerous, and even violent responses. Recognizing these anxieties and their potential sequelae, we need to do two things. We certainly need to call out and condemn bigotry and violence in clear terms. However, we cannot treat all of those people with legitimate anxieties like they are violent bigots. Instead, we need to recognize and respond to the legitimate anxieties of the wider public.

What is the relationship between this and Motion No. 103? Motion No. 103 would not in any way advance toward its supposed objectives. What genuine bigot was ever dissuaded in his or her bigotry by a motion of the House of Commons? Does the government really think that there is even one person who will repent of his or her bigotry as a result of the outcome of this vote?

The failure of the government to work collaboratively on this has clearly had the effect of accentuating public anxiety among those who fear that the government or people who support it have some dark and hidden agenda, which is their reason for not seeking an amendment. I do not think this motion is the result of any kind of secret conspiracy. It is really just cynical politics. However, surely the experience of this motion should by now have taught them the lesson about the need to have a clearer and more serious response to bigotry that actually deals with the underlying anxieties that give rise to it.

To conclude, I would like to share with the House some words written by Shimon Fogel, CEO of CIJA. He has some good advice for all of us as we go forward. He recently wrote:

I was pleased to engage with the sponsor of M-103...in advance of her motion being debated on the floor of the House of Commons. We had an open and frank conversation at her invitation, which included discussion of the need to define Islamophobia.

We support the motion's intended objective of combating anti-Muslim hate in Canada, which should be unanimously endorsed. However, we are concerned with the potential validation of any restriction placed on criticizing those manifestations of Islam that drive hatred and violence against Jews, Muslims and other Canadians...

Following the anticipated adoption of the motion, critics and proponents alike must set their disagreement aside and ensure that any parliamentary initiative that follows is unifying.

It is not too late for the mover of the motion to do the right thing and amend it so we can have unanimous support. However, regardless of the outcome of the vote, I hope that going forward, the government will be willing to work with us in good faith on these issues. They are simply too important to do otherwise.

[Operation UNIFIER, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I have asked this question of a number of members and I am going to ask it again, because it is important and I do not think we have received a clear answer on it.

RADARSAT satellite images were provided under the previous government and withdrawn under the current government. These are images that Ukrainian authorities tell us they want. Various explanations have been developed, such as they may not be as useful as they once were. It is certainly true that Ukraine's military technology has improved significantly, and that is a great credit to the resilience of the Ukrainian state, but all of our information is that Ukraine still wants these satellite images.

We are sending brave Canadian men and women into the situation. Why would we not provide them, as well as Ukraine, with the greatest possible support and share satellite images that we have, that they want, and which they say would make a difference?

[Operation UNIFIER, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from a nearby riding in the Edmonton area for his great work on behalf of the Ukrainian community. I know this is a cause that is very close to his heart and he does a great deal of work on it.

I would ask him to comment specifically on the issue of the RADARSAT images, the satellite images that Canada was providing, that Ukrainians want, and that would significantly benefit the Ukrainian military. It is good and right that Canada is committing soldiers to this important mission, but we could be augmenting the effectiveness of our support if we simply shared these satellite images. It has yet to be clearly explained why the government pulled the sharing of these images, but it could simply step up tonight and say it is going to restore them. This would be the right thing to do and would provide added support to our allies.

I wonder if the member, who I know has a great deal of expertise on this, could share with us what he thinks is going on and recognize the importance of restoring those images.

[Operation UNIFIER, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I would be happy to comment on this, because the current government has been in place for a year and a half now and the individuals the member mentioned have yet to be added to the sanctions list. I would throw it back to the hon. member. If he is of the view that these individuals need to be on the list, I would encourage him to bring that case to members on his own front bench. I know they could do better at listening to the back benches in general, and perhaps they will this time around.

The reality is that, of course, throughout the international community, sanctions are coordinated in order to achieve the maximal impact on Russia with the least possible economic impact on the countries imposing those sanctions. Does that mean they were necessarily done perfectly? No, but this is the way in which the sanctions are done. Again, it is in a coordinated way for maximal impact on Russia.

However, none of this actually addresses what I spoke about, which was Magnitsky sanctions. This is something that all parties had committed to before the election and which the government seemed to be backing away from, at least under the last foreign affairs minister.

Maybe we will see the Liberals revisit this issue. I hope we do. Magnitsky sanctions are an important way of specifically sanctioning human rights abusers and addressing those human rights issues. This is something that is important to the Ukrainian community, because it addresses human rights inside Russia where these problems clearly are emanating from.

[Operation UNIFIER, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.”

The conflict in Ukraine has been a clear case of right makes might. At the start of the Russian invasion, Ukraine was relatively weak, but since then, Ukrainians of all ethnic, religious, and linguistic backgrounds, the proud and generous Ukrainian diaspora, and the community of free, peace-loving nations have rallied together to help strengthen Ukrainian institutions and to give Ukraine the fighting capacity to resist foreign occupation and foreign-engineered disorder.

The sheer and evident rightness of the Ukrainian cause furnished it with support from every part of the globe, but Canada was first among those providing moral and practical support. Canada showed great leadership and insight during the Maidan and during the period that followed. We showed a proper appreciation for the role Canada can and needs to play in the world.

Let us be clear about Canada's role in the world. We are not a superpower, and it is not within our capacity or responsibility, at least at this stage in our history, to be the primary framers of great Metternichian bargains.

Canada has a different, but in many ways even more important, role in global affairs: as a nation with membership in the vast majority of important multilateral organizations; as a nation without major border conflicts, without a colonial history beyond our borders, and without the baggage that comes with present or past superpower status; and as a nation that has made and is making a good faith effort in building a diverse yet unified society through tolerance, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and genuine reconciliation. As a nation with these characteristics, we are uniquely placed to be the conscience of the international community and to use our relationships and our history to challenge the rest of the world to follow the path we have chosen.

There are some, even in this place, who want Canada to remain true to its values at home but to downplay them on the world stage, to play nice with other countries to increase our favour among them in the councils of the world. I believe that this path would be a betrayal of our values and of our responsibilities. We must be the gadfly at the hindquarters of global institutions, principled and personally disinterested, always prodding our partners to do better.

This is what we have done on the Ukraine file, speaking the truth about the current Russian regime with a frankness our American and European partners are sometimes unwilling or unable to match, but in the process driving a consensus that defends international human rights and the rule of law.

There are also those who believe that Canada can speak without acting. We do not have unlimited capacity, but if we are to be a leader in the world, then we must put our money where our mouth is. We must show that right makes might and play a role in delivering that might.

The government has spoken in the past about having a leaner military. In this time of global danger and uncertainty, the world needs more Canada, not less. We cannot be there for Ukraine and for our other allies over the long term unless we are making investments in our military today that will ensure that we have the capacity to play a role over the long term. We cannot make commitments if we are not prepared to make commitments. I hope that Wednesday's budget will see the government change course and start to invest in the defence of Canada and Canadian values.

Now, in the opposition, we will always take a responsible approach to these issues, standing four-square behind Ukraine and behind our military, supporting the government when it is doing the right thing and challenging it to do more. Let me be clear, as well, as the grandson of a Holocaust survivor and as a member of the opposition, that we will never countenance Putin's efforts to use disinformation to discredit Canadian politicians, even if they happen to be members of a different political party. In this country, we do not subject each other to genealogical purity tests. We debate ideas. This kind of thing will not work in Canada; it will, if anything, serve to deepen our resolve.

As an opposition, we ask the government to do more. Every time I have spoken about Ukraine in this House, I have made the same three points about what the government needs to do to improve.

Number one, do more for human rights inside Russia by passing Magnitsky sanctions. This was a Liberal election commitment.

Number two, strengthen military co-operation with Ukraine. This renewal is a good step, but we must return to providing RADARSAT satellite images, which is something Ukrainians want and which the government has yet to give a good reason for stopping.

Number three, we need to reinstate international initiatives on communal harmony, which were making an important difference in Ukraine.

Again, the renewal of this mission is a good step, but there is more that needs to be done, so let us do that together.

[Operation UNIFIER, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, could the member speak to the withdrawal of support for Ukraine via the sharing of RADARSAT images? This began under the previous government. It was very useful to Ukraine in being able to use those images, which we gather anyway, for security purposes. Why did the government make the decision to withdraw that support, and will the government restore it?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as I have outlined, we have concerns about the legislative framework that has been set up here. It does not provide the committee with the effective tools to do its job, and that comes in many different forms. I have spoken principally about this issue of the independence of the committee and the control the Prime Minister would have over the flow of information in and out, as well as who sits on the committee. It may well be sensible and there may well be an argument for excluding certain information from the purview of the committee, but for all of the power in terms of the control of that flow of information to be in the hands of the government does not create the kind of independence one would expect to see in oversight.

Again, if there are concerns about information leaking out, we have made the suggestion that we have an expectation that those on the committee would have experience in handling classified information, but that was not a suggestion that was accepted by the government. We have a number of these problems because the government is unwilling to accept the constructive feedback we have provided. It speaks to the underlying reality that the government does not want to hand over control. It just wants to make it look like it is.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to go through the points that the member made. He said that it was about the overall principle of parliamentary oversight. We are at report stage. We are not just talking about the principle of the bill, we have to get into the details. I think it is important for members to analyze, think about, and understand some of the problems with the details. It is not good enough that in principle the government has said that it wants to move in a certain direction, because, as I have argued, the details point in a very different direction.

With respect to parliamentary oversight, as I said clearly during my speech, I see advantages to the expert oversight model and advantages to the parliamentary oversight model. However, the legislation we have in front of us does not create a genuine system of parliamentary oversight because the Prime Minister still holds all the cards. We are not talking about a parliamentary committee, we are talking about a committee of parliamentarians.

On the member's point about Liberal MPs forming a minority, I think that is clear sleight of hand, because the government appoints all the members and it gets to appoint some senators. Therefore, if it appoints quasi-independent senators, who we all know are perhaps not as independent as the claim might be, we are obviously still in a position of the Prime Minister holding the cards. If there were advice sought from the Senate about how to appoint if Senate caucuses had input, if Senate appointments were reflective of the distribution of the Senate, then we would not have that problem. However, this is not a typically structured joint committee of the two Houses. It is a committee of parliamentarians chosen entirely by the Prime Minister and serving at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. I think we need to dig into those details and discuss those details.

In terms of amendments, we have amendments coming forward tonight. I think some of the amendments that we are proposing are very good, and some of the government House leader's amendments are not so good. Therefore, if the member wants to know what we are proposing, I would encourage him to vote with us this evening.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join this very important debate about the structures we have in place for oversight of our intelligence and law enforcement activities. Unfortunately, we are doing so again under the gun of closure. This is at a time when the government is contemplating changes to our parliamentary rules that it would like to move forward without even working with other parties. It would in effect make closure automatic on bills that it brings forward. This is some of the context in which we see a limiting of discussion here today. At the same time, this is an important discussion that I am very glad to be able to participate in.

In general, when we think about the oversight mechanisms that exist for our intelligence agencies, we can have expert oversight, oversight by externally appointed experts who have specific knowledge in this area, and parliamentary oversight, which is oversight by elected officials. There are pros and cons to both of these options, and certainly they can exist in tandem with one another.

For a long time in Canada, we have had a strong system of expert oversight. What the government is doing with the legislation is bringing in something that Liberals are calling parliamentary oversight. However, in effect, and I will get into the details, this is not meaningful parliamentary oversight. It does not achieve many of the advantages of expert oversight, but it also does not achieve the advantages that might be associated with a more genuine parliamentary oversight model. This is the objection that I have to the legislation.

If we were going to bring in a more genuine parliamentary oversight structure similar to some of the private members' bills that Liberal MPs, such as the member for Malpeque, have at different times proposed, we would find our caucus more sympathetic to those kinds of arguments. However, we are seeing something that does not at all capitalize on those advantages, because it leaves control in the hands of the Prime Minister. At the same time, it does not entail some of the advantages that exist in the structure of an executive oversight system.

Would it not be perverse if in a bill that was supposed to be about strengthening Parliament, we actually saw a bill that created all the tools for strengthening and deepening the grasp of the Prime Minister over the direction of Parliament? That is exactly what we see here. It is legislation that tightens the control and the power of the Prime Minister's Office, nominally about parliamentary oversight, but that actually has many of the opposite effects.

Let us review what was committed to by the party in government. The Liberals' election commitment was, “We will create an all-party committee to monitor and oversee the operations of every government department and agency with national security responsibilities.” What we had in this election commitment was the implication of all-party inclusion, meaningful review of past operations, and oversight of present operations. It would be ongoing oversight as well as a review of past operations.

What we have, though, is nothing in the legislation to guarantee that all parties would be represented, because we do not have a committee that takes on the traditional form of a parliamentary committee. The way our committees normally function is that the leaders of parties nominate members of their parties to be members of those committees, and the committee is laid out in proportion to representation in the House. Since we are talking about a joint committee, it is probably in proportion to representation in this and the other place.

In fact what we have is the government creating a committee where the Prime Minister gets to choose all of the members. Yes, it says that only a certain number can be members of the government, but it does not prescribe the distribution of opposition members. It does not say that the distribution should be reflective of the House.

It is conceivable that the government could appoint independents who have recently departed from the Liberal caucus to this committee. I do not know how likely that is, but there are no protections in the legislation to ensure there is meaningful representation of all party perspectives. Even when members of opposition parties are appointed, again, those appointments are fundamentally at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, who designates the chair. In fact, long before this legislation has been passed, the Prime Minister had already publicly designated the person he is going to select as chair, which I think shows a great lack of respect for this institution.

In terms of the appointment process, in terms of the distribution process, in terms of the lack of formal consultation requirement for the Senate or any clear definition of what consultation with other parties would look like in the process of those appointments, we see legislation that is about strengthening the power of the Prime Minister over the process of intelligence review. That is not at all in keeping with what many would have thought was the spirit of that Liberal election commitment. It is, in many ways, moving in the opposite direction of what it purports to be doing.

There are not only limitations that ensure the control of the Prime Minister in the process of appointing members of the committee, but there are also significant problems with the way in which the information is handled. Ministers, as per one of the amendments that is going to be reintroduced, as well as the Prime Minister, can choose to exclude certain information on a variety of different bases.

What jumped out at me when I read the legislation initially, and members can look at it, is subclause 21(5), which states:

If, after consulting the Chair of the Committee, the Prime Minister is of the opinion that information in an annual or special report is information the disclosure of which would be injurious to national security, national defence or international relations or is information that is protected by litigation privilege or solicitor-client privilege or, in civil law, by immunity from disclosure or the professional secrecy of advocates and notaries, the Prime Minister may direct the Committee to submit to the Prime Minister a revised version of the annual or special report that does not contain that information.

In principle, I think members would be supportive of the idea that information which would be injurious for national security should be excluded from public release. However, when the section is so general as to include the possible exclusion for information that would be injurious to international relations, I would submit that almost anything that would come out of this committee could potentially be injurious to international relations. However, the adjudication of that process is not independent. It is not subject to the knowledge and expertise of the committee. It is simply up to the Prime Minister . If he says he does not want that section included because it could be injurious to international relations, perhaps this might be more an issue of “injurious to the reputation of the government”, and that would be a motivating basis for excluding that information.

I posed this question to the House leader when we initially debated the bill at second reading. The House leader asserted at the time that the committee report would be provided to the Prime Minister for the sole purpose of ensuring that it does not contain classified information. In reality, though, the subclause is very clear, in black and white, that it allows exclusions on the basis of international relations as well as a range of other criteria, and that the determination of what would be included and excluded is solely at the discretion of the government.

We had a concern raised today about disclosing certain information to the committee. It was raised by the Minister of Public Safety, who effectively said that there is more risk of this information leaking out if more people have access to this information, and that is why certain information should be excluded from being shown to the committee. At the same time as saying that, there is nothing in this legislation that requires the individuals appointed to the committee, or even the individual who is appointed chair, to have experience handling and dealing with classified information.

This comes back to the central point, which is that we have a choice between expert oversight or parliamentary oversight, or some combination thereof. However, effectively this bill would not provide the advantages of either. It would not require that those appointed to the committee have some experience with the handling of classified information, which would build some expertise and experience into the question of the handling of that classified information. It would not give the committee the level of independence that it should have by leaving aspects of the appointments as well as the management of information to the Prime Minister. Effectively, it would tighten the control of the Prime Minister's Office over what really should be a parliamentary function.

It is for these reasons that I will be disagreeing with the government on amendments coming forward, and likely, unless we see what we want in the amendments, voting against the bill.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this bill has more holes in it than a jar of olives. If we look at the provisions, there are so many things that are distant from the spirit about which the member talked. He talked about this providing genuine oversight, but he should know that all the power remains in the hands of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister appoints all the members of the committee and the Prime Minister has complete control over the information that goes forward.

The bill is very clear that it is not a parliamentary committee. It is, as it happens, a committee of parliamentarians, but it is not a parliamentary committee in any of the senses in which we understand that.

I wonder if the member could comment on some of those holes and whether he is really satisfied that this satisfies the Liberals' election commitment. I do not think it does at all.