Garnett Genuis

[Supreme Court Act, March 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and address Bill C-203. I understand that the government is going to be opposing the bill, which means it will likely pass, given tonight's precedent. Nonetheless, I will be speaking against the bill. I have a number of concerns about the bill that I would like to discuss, and I will go through them one by one.

First, I do not see the necessity of this legislation. Of course, it is desirable to have Supreme Court judges and public officials who can speak in both official languages, but in places like the House of Commons, the Supreme Court, and elsewhere, we do have access to translation. This ensures that whatever arguments are being made can be heard and responded to and that those who are participating in those discussions can hear as well. We have not heard complaints about things that are happening at the court, given the availability of these kinds of facilities.

It is not clear to me what problem the bill seeks to solve. Again, in this age, with the availability of the technology for that, it is not necessary to impose this additional requirement. However, as I will discuss, I think there are some definite downsides associated with the imposition of those requirements.

Right out of the gate, I do not see the argument for the necessity of the bill, in part because of the availability of translation and also because there is certainly an availability of training and intensive training. I think it would be important and valuable for those who are appointed to the court, as well as members of Parliament, to take the opportunities that are available to improve our proficiency in the language that we may not have grown up with. Many of my colleagues take advantage of the opportunities to learn French while we are here. There are many members of Parliament who may come here not knowing another language at all but after a few years are very proficient in it.

I speak a little French and I believe that I have improved my French in the year that I have been an MP. Obviously, it is not perfect, but it is good to have an opportunity to speak French in this place. It is the same for the court. There are opportunities for judges to practice and improve their language skills by putting them to use.

Given those opportunities and given the availability of translation, I do not see the necessity to introduce this additional requirement. There are some real practical problems with it.

Of course, it is no secret that the use of language varies widely, depending on where we are. There are some regions of the country which are more bilingual. There are other regions of the country where there may be languages other than French or English that we hear used quite commonly and more commonly than one of Canada's official languages. I come from the province of Alberta. There is a great deal of use of other languages other than English and French, and that is part of our history of having settlement by people from all over the world.

There might be a person who had mastered a number of languages, who had not yet mastered French but was open to learning it, who was an appropriate person to be appointed. This provision would prevent that person from being appointed as a Supreme Court judge.

If there were a vast pool of available people, and we were excluding a few of them on the basis of this requirement, that would be one thing. However, the reality is that from some regions of the country, there would not be a very large pool of people available who would also meet the other kinds of requirements that we would like to see from a Supreme Court judge.

We would really be narrowing that pool and forcing the government to make an appointment. Putting that emphasis on language would make it much more difficult to weigh out a full range of other criteria. Perhaps proficiency in both languages should be part of that criteria, but it should not be a deal breaking criteria that would prevent the appointment of the most eminent legal scholar who was also prepared to undertake the necessary studies after appointment in order to improve his or her knowledge of a different language.

I just do not think that would make sense. What, after all, are we aiming for? We are aiming for an effective justice system, the best possible judges, and certainly that to exist in an environment where discourse can occur in both languages. That can be facilitated through translation. However, this requirement really limits the ability to appoint the person any particular government may view as the best applicant, the most appropriate applicant to put in place.

There is another point I want to make around this as we consider the weighing of different criteria, which is that inadvertently the ability to create a more diverse Supreme Court may be restricted through this legislation. When we are talking about diversity, there is a range of different criteria that might be looked at. If we are looking to have a more ethnically, culturally, and regionally diverse Supreme Court, there might be a very strong applicant who had been an immigrant or who had studied what was for them the language of their parents or grandparents, or had focused their efforts on learning other languages that were perhaps more likely to be used in the region in which they find themselves.

To exclude that kind of a person from a Supreme Court appointment on the basis of this criteria actually limits the diversity of our court. It actually means that we could not have a person who had that kind of experience. That is not to say there are not people who come from the full range of possible countries to this country who do become bilingual, but it is a matter of how this bill effectively narrows the pool. It means choosing from a much smaller group of available applicants, which makes it that much more difficult to look for that kind of diversity that I think a lot of people here would like to see reflected on our court.

Again, this just speaks to different regional realities. In Vancouver, we are probably much more likely to hear Cantonese or Mandarin spoken than to hear French spoken, although of course there are French speakers there. That reality varies depending on where we are in the country. While there may be a great deal of available people who are appropriate to a point and who are bilingual, in some regions of the country, we are looking at a much smaller pool of people where French is less likely to be used.

Certainly, it is important that we encourage the use of both official languages, that we encourage people to learn both official languages, if they are able to. I think my daughter Gianna is watching, and we are already trying to teach her French, even though she is only four, and she is doing a great job, but this is not necessarily reflective of everybody's experience, that everybody has had the opportunity to learn to speak both official languages.

I congratulate the member on bringing this bill forward, but I have to be frank about these concerns that we need to think about as we proceed with this discussion. The reality, again, that we have the availability of translation, that it is certainly possible to have the discourse proceed, as it proceeds in this House, with translation, and as well the availability of training opportunities makes it easier for judges to learn French or English, whatever language they may be less proficient in after their appointment. These opportunities exist. Certainly, members of Parliament take advantage of them, and judges can take advantage of them and I am sure do, as well.

Also, the limiting of the pool of available appointees that comes with this proposal is particularly concerning. It raises significant questions in specific regions of the country where there just may not be that many people available to appoint who have the kinds of qualifications we want to see and also meet the language test that this bill would establish.

Those are some concerns I have. I look forward to following the rest of the debate.

[Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to debate the bill.

This is an important bill substantively, but I think it also signals an important moment in the life of this Parliament. It speaks to the opportunity that we have as individual members either to stand up for a cause that is important, and indeed to stand up for the importance of the role of members of Parliament, of the work we do in committee and elsewhere, or perhaps it will be a moment when too many members roll over to pressure from the front bench. I want to talk a bit about that context and then speak about the substantive portion of the bill.

This is a bill that was approved unanimously in this place at second reading on October 26. All members of all parties supported it at that time. Of course, it is fair for members to support in principle legislation which they then want to see amendments to and then to subsequently vote against it at third reading. However, it is worth noting that at the time, this reflected a very strong consensus of members.

The bill was studied in detail at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights under the very able chairmanship of my friend from Mount Royal. All of the clauses of the bill were approved in committee. I understand the committee heard from many different witnesses, did a detailed analysis of the bill, and reported it back recommending support. Then, much to the surprise of members here, we had the government, the member for Edmonton Centre, notably the former parliamentary secretary for Canadian heritage, not even somebody responsible ostensibly for anything related to this file, put forward amendments which gut the bill. These amendments were to delete every single clause. When he moved these amendments, he noted that they had not been considered at committee.

Of course, as other members have pointed out already, committees do not consider amendments to delete clauses. They vote on clauses in whole. That is the time when members of the committee can consider whether or not to include a particular clause in the bill. Every one of those clauses was approved by the members of the committee, which of course includes Liberal members of the committee.

This eleventh hour amendment coming from the government was not simply a matter of the parliamentary secretary showing disregard for the work of the opposition. He was showing disregard for the work of all members of the House, including government members who had worked very hard on this piece of legislation. This bill was moved by a Liberal member, the member for Don Valley West, who has worked very hard on this issue. Many other members of the government have spoken passionately, and I think very effectively, about the merits of this bill.

I say to members who are considering how they will vote when this comes up that this is really an important opportunity to send a signal about the role of members of Parliament in this place and where we stand when it comes to what our responsibilities are. We are not here as delegates of a political party, at least not principally. We are not here as members of some electoral college that simply chooses the prime minister, who then chooses the cabinet. We are here to speak on behalf of our individual constituents and to articulate our convictions which reflect their convictions. We have a responsibility to the people who sent us here and to this institution to exercise our considered judgment in the votes we take.

I know it is not always easy to vote against a recommendation that comes from one's party, but especially on matters of grave importance such as this that deal with fundamental human rights and discrimination, we have a responsibility to exercise our considered judgment here and vote on behalf of our constituents. I know there are some members of the government who are prepared to do this.

I hope that we will see this very good legislation pass. It is legislation that was recognized to be constitutional, the value of which was recognized by the committee, and was recognized here at second reading. I hope we will proceed with it again as a recognition of the importance of this legislation, but also as a recognition of the importance of members of Parliament and the value of the work that was done.

The committee study process and the debates that have happened in this place, these are not mere matters of form. These are important venues and opportunities for actual discussion and consideration. When all of those discussions point to the importance of the bill and the value of approving it, surely we have a responsibility as members to consider that, take it on board and support it, not to sanction this eleventh hour gutting attempt by the government, moved by a member not even given specific responsibility, as far as we know, for this file.

That said, recognizing the importance of where we are procedurally, I would like to speak as well about the substantive aspects of the bill. The bill addresses genetic discrimination. There are genetic tests that individuals can have. They give them information about themselves, and their predisposition, perhaps, to contract certain health problems later in life. However, it is currently legal for employers, for insurers, for others, to use that information to discriminate against individuals.

This is a form of discrimination like any other. We do not accept discrimination in this country and we should not accept it in the case of genetic discrimination. It is a basic extension of our well-established norms of human rights protection. However, there are additional points about genetic discrimination that should underline the importance of passing this legislation, because not only is this a form of discrimination at a basic simple level, but this kind of discrimination discourages research and it discourages people from getting tested.

Right now, if a person receives more information about their genetic makeup that may help them understand what they might experience in the future, that information could be used against them, which creates perhaps a disincentive for them to gather that information. It also creates a disincentive for those who might be looking to help people with a particular genetic ailment, a disincentive to do research, knowing that their research might be used to discriminate against the people they are actually trying to help.

This reality, that the current law allows this kind of discrimination, could well, as the science advances, put a disincentive in place for people who want to get tested and for people who want to do research. Yes, we recognize that this is a form of discrimination, but it is also particularly pernicious insofar as it can put a chill on that research, a chill on people getting information that would be useful to them.

There is a simple response to this. We can pass well-drafted legislation that experts at the committee recognize because it is in the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. We can address this discrimination and we can at the same time remove these chilling elements.

I should also underline that for those who think there is some fundamental, unforeseen problem to moving forward with this, Canada is an outlier. We are the only G7 nation that does not have laws with respect to genetic discrimination, and usually we think of Canada as a leader in combatting discrimination. In fact in this case, we are an outlier and it is Canada that needs to catch up, and unfortunately, some members of the government do not seem to want to see that happen.

We have a common-sense bill before us that addresses discrimination, that helps us to catch up with the rest of the world, and that also opens the door for expanded research and makes it easier to choose to get tested.

We will have a vote on the bill tomorrow, and I hope every member of Parliament will vote in favour, but at least I hope that every member of Parliament will actually take the time to study the legislation, to consider what was said at committee, to consult the members of their party who were on the committee and who were a part of that study. We all have that responsibility, not just to look at the recommendation we get and sail in that direction, but to really think through the impact of this.

I think what the government has tried to do is wrong, trying to, at the 11th hour, undercut the important work that was done by the committee and done by this House is not the right way to proceed. This is the right bill to move forward and this is an opportunity for members of Parliament to emphasize the importance of our role as delegates on behalf of our constituents and as people responsible to exercise our own considered judgment. I would encourage all members to vote in favour of the bill.

[Preclearance Act, 2016, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that the House is not the place to be waging a by-election campaign, as she referred to at the beginning of her remarks.

I have a question, though, for the member with respect to the issue of U.S. border guards. Of course, Canadians who choose to travel to the U.S. are well aware of the questions that may exist, but a person who makes a choice to travel to the United States is making that choice and will either be screened in the United States or through pre-clearance in Canada. A person involved in pre-clearance does have the opportunity to leave eventually. This legislation would provide for limited detainment of that person for a period of time.

It is important for the NDP to acknowledge as well that although there are legitimate concerns, and I have expressed some of those concerns myself, about actions taken by the Trump administration, at the end of the day, the United States is a country with rule of law and strong institutions where people can bring those issues up through the American system. Those who choose to go to the United States are, in some sense, putting their faith in that system.

Does the member not acknowledge that, therefore, there is some degree of perspective needed, perhaps, and that again, pre-clearance is a better option compared to some of the alternatives?

[Preclearance Act, 2016, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, of course we agree with the general position on the bill, although it was interesting that the member chose to spend a substantial amount of time refuting a specific NDP candidate's comments in a by-election as opposed to focusing on debate among members here. Of course, I would have thought he would have been more worried about the Conservative candidate in that by-election, but perhaps there are other places to make those points.

With respect to the issue itself, the bill deals with pre-clearance of individuals. It does not speak to the issue of pre-clearance of goods. He spoke about this, so I wonder if he could talk about the importance of moving on that front and share what the government's timetable might be for moving forward on pre-clearance of goods as well.

[Preclearance Act, 2016, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my friend talked about long lineups, and I guess some of our friends on the left are consistent in their support for long lineups. However, I want to ask about American institutions.

The member made the point quite well that American institutions were designed to check against the power of an authoritarian executive. What we see is a strong system of institutions, a strong judiciary, and so forth. When we talk about the relationship with the United States, I think we can have confidence regardless of the administration. We can have confidence in the strength of those institutions, and we should move forward with co-operation. Whether it is enhancing and addressing loopholes in the safe third country agreement, it is pre-clearance, whether it is trades or others, we should move forward with confidence in those institutions. I think the member made that point very well, but perhaps he would like to expand on it.

[Preclearance Act, 2016, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker,we agree on the substance of this legislation, but I want to take this opportunity to ask the member about the use of time allocation. Members of the government lit their hair on fire every time this was used previously, and now we see the increasing use of time allocation by the government. I know that the member was not a member in any previous Parliament, but does she not see some irony in the repeated use of time allocation by the same people who used to decry it as sort of marking the end of democracy as we know it?

[Preclearance Act, 2016, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard some concerns about the bill with respect to the protections that might exist, and about the way in which screening happens in the United States. However, it is important to underline that we are supporting the bill because the screening that takes place will be on Canadian soil and is subject to Canadian laws and human rights protections. Also, it provides people with better opportunities to leave that situation if they do not like what is going on, opportunities that would not exist if they were being screened on the other side of the border. Therefore, the bill not only facilitates commerce and travel, but also provides for effective protection of human rights.

I wonder if the member could comment on the advantages that come with this legislation, and how it continues the good work that began under former prime minister Stephen Harper.

[Preclearance Act, 2016, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief follow-up to my previous question. I asked the minister what is the operating principle for distinguishing between the kind of time allocation that he thinks is acceptable and the kind that he thinks is not, and effectively he said it is a subjective evaluation of reasonableness under the circumstances.

The way that this process normally works is that the House leaders discuss the time required for the debate. That evaluation of reasonableness is subjective; it is dependent on the circumstances and the issues. However, that happens through a conversation among the parties. It is not just one party, the government alone deciding what it thinks is reasonable, probably much of the time being what is in its interest.

I want to ask the minister if it is about this genuine evaluation of what makes sense under the circumstances, why not work collaboratively with the other House leaders rather than imposing this? Does this not seem a lot like what they railed against, which was the government making determinations on its own about how much time should be allowed for debate?

[Preclearance Act, 2016, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about time allocation. I hear the minister making some arguments in favour of time allocation in this case, arguments I do not think many members are finding convincing. Of course, many of those same arguments could have applied to other cases of time allocation that were undertaken under the previous government and that this member and others positively railed against as signalling the end of democracy.

I want to ask a very specific question of the minister. Could he articulate what the operating principle is for distinguishing between the kind of time allocation that he thinks is okay and the kind of time allocation that he thinks is not okay? It seems to me that it is a purely partisan filter, but if there is some operating principle, the House would be very interested in hearing it.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to help victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide. By finally agreeing to bring Yazidi refugees to Canada, the government has accepted in principle the need to focus on the most vulnerable. At the same time, Assyrian Christians and Rohingya Muslims are also the victims of ethnic cleansing. Canadians are generous and they want to help those who are actually most vulnerable. Will the Liberals help and prioritize vulnerable Assyrians and Rohingya?