Garnett Genuis

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to hear members of the NDP as well as of the government talk a lot about other jurisdictions. Yet, when I asked the parliamentary secretary if he could name a single jurisdiction where decriminalization or legalization led to a decrease in use, he was not able to name that jurisdiction. I wonder if the NDP, given that they are advocating this course, can do better. All the evidence I have read suggest that, for better or worse, there is an increase in use when we make the law more permissive, and that is only logical.

As well, with respect to the Conservative position, some members have said that we support decriminalization, which we certainly do not. We instead passed a motion, and I supported it, to have a ticketing option, to continue to have marijuana be a criminal offence, but to allow police to use a ticketing option. I would consider that a middle way that would allow for effective enforcement in a range of different kinds of situations.

I would like to know, in addition to this question about jurisdiction, if the member has thoughts on that as an option for addressing the situation we face, but also continuing to have that strong sense that marijuana really is associated with significant health problems.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about two issues which, as far as I know, have not been brought thus far in the debate. I want to ask her what she thinks the effect of this motion would be on marijuana use in driving and how that would affect road safety and what concerns she might have around that.

The second issue I want to raise is that some law enforcement people have told me that having marijuana be illegal makes it easier for them to access drug dealers, because if they stop someone who is smoking a joint and they have a small amount of marijuana in their possession, it allows them to conduct a search and they may well find substantial amounts of other drugs.

I want to hear the hon. member's comments on those two issues: how maintaining the criminal element around marijuana may well improve public safety, at least in those specific ways.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I might gently remind the member that it is against the Standing Orders to mention the presence or absence of members in the gallery.

Moving on from that, the member said that we should learn from the experience of other jurisdictions. I very much agree with that. Use has gone up significantly in every case where we have seen the legalization of marijuana. I asked the parliamentary secretary if he could name a jurisdiction where that did not happen and he was unable to.

I agree that there are certainly problems with the current system. That is why our party is advocating for an alternative, which is to allow police a ticketing option while maintaining that the possession of marijuana is a criminal offence. That allows police officers that middle option in the many cases where it might not be practical or proportionate to prosecute and that I think is part of the problem.

From my perspective, allowing a ticketing option while maintaining criminality would give us the best of both worlds. If the member thinks differently, perhaps he could point to a single jurisdiction in the world where we did see a reduction in the use associated with legalization. I do not think that he can name one.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the NDP insofar as there is any ambiguity here. The Liberals said they would change the law, but the Liberals have broken many of their other promises, so we have no reason to assume that they will follow through in this case. For now, marijuana use remains illegal.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he is aware of any jurisdiction in the world where legalization has led to reduced use. If he cannot name that jurisdiction, I wonder why he thinks Canada's experience of legislation would be any different.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the negative health effects of marijuana. We have heard members of the NDP quote studies and information from the 1970s, seemingly not appreciating the way THC content in marijuana has gone up significantly over the intervening years. I wonder if the member could comment on the health effects, emerging concerns, and links between schizophrenia and marijuana use, especially in the young, even with relatively occasional use.

Would he agree with me that we need a strong response that recognizes the risks and does not treat this as though it is something simple, small, or not a big deal and acknowledges that it is a very serious issue and a serious health risk when people use marijuana?

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is important to underline that the motion passed at the Conservative convention was not a decriminalization motion. It was one that I was pleased to speak in favour of, in fact. The motion did not remove criminal penalties, but did give police a ticketing option. It expanded the range of available options.

We are dealing with this debate in a particular context, the context in which unfortunately many young Canadians just do not understand the risks associated with marijuana. The Prime Minister admitted to smoking marijuana while being an elected member of Parliament with nary an apology.

Could the member comment specifically on what information we can get to young people to help them understand the real risks associated with marijuana use?

[Canadian Organ Donor Registry Act, June 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address this very important bill proposed by my colleague from Edmonton Manning. I want to commend him at the outset. This is a great initiative, the kind of substantive initiative we would hope to see coming forward in private member's bills. The member is drawing from his own experience and knowledge of a particular area but is also bringing forward a proposal that is meaningful and that would have a positive impact for many Canadians.

This bill would create a national organ donation registry. When we look at the solution, it is important to start with what the problem is we are trying to solve. Some of the speeches that have been made on this bill have suggested that everything is fine. We have a current system in place, so let us just leave the current system in place. However, that is not good enough, because in 2014, almost 300 Canadians—278, to be precise—died waiting for organ transplants. Almost 300 families were affected by someone dying in their families simply because they were waiting for organ transplants. Perhaps not enough people had signed their donor cards, or perhaps there was not an effective system in place to ensure that they got the organs they needed. In 2013, the year before that, 246 people died.

Canada ranks relatively poorly when it comes to this area. In 2012, Canada ranked 20th in deceased organ donor rates. Many countries that are, generally speaking, similar to us, including Spain, the U.S., France, and the U.K., do better than Canada does in this respect. This is not because Canadians are less generous or less concerned about the health and well-being of themselves, their families, or their neighbours.

We need to recognize that we have a problem here. We are under-performing when it comes to supporting those who need to receive organ donations. Let us recognize that problem. I hope this bill will move forward as part of that solution and will also stimulate further discussion about how we can move forward and make this decision better. Maybe, as well, this debate will stimulate awareness among Canadians about the importance of being an organ donor.

The solution my colleague from Edmonton Manning has proposed is to have a national organ donation registry. As much as health care is predominantly a provincial jurisdiction, the bill proposes that there could be more effective national coordination. We could work together as a country to make sure that we are implementing best practices and getting the best use of organs and the best donations we could. This is a great initiative. This is the kind of area on which we should be working together as a country.

As a Conservative, I believe deeply in the principle of subsidiarity, that we should allow provinces and municipalities to operate in their own areas of jurisdiction without undue influence. However, this bill would create a mechanism for collaboration between different jurisdictions. It is an area where collaboration makes sense, where the sharing of information and working together, such that different regions help meet needs in other regions, is just transparently better for everyone. It is the kind of initiative that other levels of government would respond to very well.

It is a simple solution, one that would not tread on anyone's toes, so to speak. It would confront this very real problem, which is that people in Canada are dying because they are not getting access to the organs they need. Perhaps those people could get them under a better developed, better worked out, and better constructed system, as my colleague is proposing.

I hope that members will take their responsibilities seriously as they study this bill and consider how they vote. We have heard from the parliamentary secretary an indication that the members of the government will not be supporting this bill. However, I encourage all members, whatever party they are part of, to reflect on the potential of this initiative to save the lives of many Canadians and the potential to make an actual, substantial difference. That is our job here, after all. It is not to line up along party lines but to think about how an initiative like this could have a positive impact and really matter for people who are suffering and need the help.

My colleague from Calgary, who spoke before me, did an excellent job outlining this.

The objections we have heard are just not substantive. Yes, this is something new. There is a sense that there are existing initiatives and that we should just leave them in place.

Sometimes there is a tendency in government to want to just leave things the way they are. The old way may not be perfect, but we should just leave it the way it is. However, when there is a real need to move forward, because there is a definable negative impact from the current system and there are improvements needed that could and should be made, I think it behooves us to look for those solutions and not just say that we have an old system that is working and that we should just stick with it. I think we should be prepared to do more than we are doing.

There was some discussion about the issue of jurisdiction. This is one of those areas where, while respecting provincial jurisdiction, we should be open to the idea of national leadership and national coordination and co-operation. When there are clear economies of scale, because everyone has the same organs, whether they are in B.C., Quebec, or the Maritimes, there is no reason not to work together to achieve the kind of positive outcomes we can.

I would add that there is an opportunity to see the bill not as the end of a discussion but as the start of an important discussion. I think there are many other options we should explore, building on the leadership of the member for Edmonton Manning, to say how we could do more to encourage organ donations.

We could build on this through enhanced public education, working with provinces on education in schools so that young people growing up are aware of the impact of organ donation and what it can do to help the quality of life of those in their communities. We could be looking at other kinds of programs that have been tried. One option might be a reverse-onus type of program where instead of people opting in as organ donors, people who do not want to be organ donors have to opt out. There would be a presumption of being opted in until an individual opts out.

These are models that have been explored and tried in other places. They are not part of the bill, but recognizing the challenge we face, which the member has brought forward, I think there is an opportunity for us to explore that conversation.

I would emphasize again, for the government and for all members as they think about how they vote on the legislation before us, that the current system is not good enough. When we have a large number of Canadians dying because of a lack of access to organs, and we have Canada under-performing compared to other countries, there is a problem and there is a need to respond in some way.

We are one country, and we can and should work together. We should not hide behind jurisdictional arguments to say that there should not be some kind of national coordination. Yes, of course we have to be respectful of provincial jurisdiction in this area, but that does not mean there cannot be collaboration across the board.

Yes, this is something new. This is a new idea that is different from the system we are using right now. However, that is not sufficient reason not to move forward.

If members have doubts about the bill, this is a vote at second reading that would allow it to go to committee. It would create an opportunity for further study, for Canadians who have been affected by this issue to come forward and tell their stories and for experts, legal and others, to propose modifications and improvements to the bill.

Let us not end it now. Let us move the bill forward to second reading. If members have doubts about it, I encourage them to vote for it at this stage, at least, because it will make a difference. It will make a difference to Canadians who are affected by this issue. It will make a difference as we start a conversation about how we can build on this to save more lives and have a positive impact on the health and well-being of Canadians.

I will be voting for the bill. I am pleased to do so, and I encourage all other members to do so as well.

[Impaired Driving Act, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for this excellent bill.

I am pleased to be speaking in favour of it.

I have appreciated the opportunity to hear from the different members speaking to the bill already. It sounds like there is substantial consensus in this House to move the bill forward to the committee stage. I look forward to the continuing debate at that stage.

There are many provisions in the bill that address the significant problem of impaired driving in this country. I want to focus on one of the provisions, in particular, in my remarks today, one of the provisions that I think is the most transformative about the bill. It is the introduction of mandatory screening.

I know there has been some debate back and forth that I have had informally with members around what the provision means, in terms of public safety, as well as in terms of civil liberties. I am going to argue, today, that a policy of mandatory screening does not violate civil liberties. Frankly, even if it did, it would be justified on the basis of the lives that would be saved by requiring mandatory screening.

Just by way of brief introduction right now, of course, the way the law works is that people can be pulled over, they can be asked if they have been drinking, and they can be asked to take a Breathalyzer if an officer feels that there is some basis to believe that they have been drinking or may be impaired.

There are concerns that this requirement for there to be some kind of an indication of impairment beforehand reduces the deterrence factor, reduces the chances that someone will be caught. There are a number of bills that have been proposed to try to address this. There is a bill before Parliament that I think is an interesting measure, as well, that I am inclined to support if it goes part way, in terms of allowing the use of a passive detection device to determine if there is alcohol in the car and, on that basis, to conduct screening.

However, the simplest way of ensuring the greatest possible deterrence, of catching impaired drivers, is through a system of mandatory screening, which says that anybody who is pulled over can be asked to take a breath test and, on that basis, then an assessment can be made as to whether or not they are impaired.

This is clear, it is simple but, yes, it raises some debate around the question of civil liberties. I want to talk about the issues of civil liberties in the context of mandatory screening and, specifically, make three distinct arguments about the value of mandatory screening.

The first argument I want to highlight is that driving is not a right. The definition of civil liberties, and I looked this up on dictionary.com and I think it is pretty good, is that civil liberties are:

the freedom of a citizen to exercise customary rights, as of speech or assembly, without unwarranted or arbitrary interference by the government.

Civil liberties only exist when they are applied to activities that individuals have a fundamental right to.

Inferring some violation of civil liberties in the context of mandatory screening would be to infer that individuals have a right to drive, which, of course, they do not. I think other colleagues have already made the point that there are many requirements we have associated with driving already that would not be permissible if we inferred that there was some kind of a right to drive.

The argument that brings civil liberties into this particular discussion, the implied idea that there is a right to drive, actually has very dangerous implications for various other aspects of the way our public safety system works around driving.

There is not a right to drive. Inferring a right to drive creates problems and, insofar as there is not a right to drive, then it is reasonable to require, as a condition of driving, that individuals be willing to provide a breath sample. That is not a violation of their civil liberties, again, insofar as there is not a right to drive.

The second point I want to make is that the current system presents greater potential inconveniences to drivers than mandatory screening.

Mandatory screening is very clear. It is very predictable. Individuals know that they can be expected to blow and that at a check-stop, individuals will all then presumably be asked to blow, and it is a quick, it is a clear, it is a predictable process.

The current system is more unpredictable, where individuals are asked questions first and it varies depending on what inference the police officer may draw in that particular case. As much as some individuals may not want to have to blow, the inconvenience factor is, I would argue, lessened in a system of mandatory screening because there is a certainty, there is a predictability, there is a process in place that individuals can rely on, and it really maximizes the deterrence factor. Nobody is going to think they can talk their way out of it or that they can avoid being tested in this way, because there is a certainty there. Therefore, it maximizes deterrence and of course public safety.

The third point that I want to emphasize is that lives are very much at stake in this debate. In the last Parliament, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights studied this issue and recommended the implementation of mandatory screening. The reason it did so, in large part, is that countries which have implemented mandatory screening have witnessed a significant decrease in the number of recorded road deaths every year. Since impaired driving is, in fact, the leading cause of criminal death in Canada, this is particularly important.

We are talking about real lives saved and real lives affected. Part of why I wanted to speak to the bill, in particular, is that, while I was door knocking, I had a lengthy conversation with a family in my riding whose daughter was permanently disabled as a result of the actions of a drunk driver. Of course, we all know these things happen, but it brings it home to all of us in a particular way when we have the opportunity to speak to constituents who have had these kinds of experiences.

Simply knowing that a system of mandatory screening could prevent that kind of suffering, not in every case, perhaps, but for some families in the future, makes me feel very strongly about the importance of having a system of mandatory screening. To balance the potential theoretical concerns, but not really concerns, about civil liberties against the concrete idea of human life and happiness at stake here, we should err on the side of protecting human life and reducing suffering instead of this incorrect assertion of a procedural civil liberty.

In general, when we look at the balance of human life and protection of society versus rights, we have to think about the origin of rights. Rights have, in my view, two possible origins. One origin would be nature and the other would be custom. There are certain rights that come from the very nature of who and what we are, but there are other rights that are the result of custom and social agreement. We agree to accord certain rights to others on the basis of what is conducive to the happiness and good function of society, and generally speaking, though not in every case, our concept of civil liberties would fall into the concept of having their origins in custom as opposed to in nature.

We have the opportunity to describe and define the contours of these customary rights and I would argue that we should not seek to extend the ambit of customary rights in a way that leads to an increase in human suffering. The way we think about and describe rights that emanate not so much from nature but from custom should be with a view to what is good for society, what is good for human happiness and human flourishing. It would be perverse to come up with a doctrine of rights that we knew led to more human suffering, more loss of life, since the very purpose of rights should be with an orientation toward human flourishing.

These are what I see as the substantive arguments in favour of a system of mandatory screening. There is no such thing as a right to drive. Further, the creation of a right to drive creates additional risks to human life and human happiness. A system of mandatory screening provides additional benefits in terms of convenience and predictability for drivers. Also, fundamentally, lives are at stake. By understanding civil liberties as not precluding mandatory screening, Parliament can make a choice to significantly reduce the number of deaths associated with drunk driving.

That is our job first and foremost. Our job is to think about how we can save and protect lives, and the happiness and well-being of Canadians.

I congratulate my colleague on this excellent legislation. I look forward to supporting it.

[Foreign Affairs, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, today's genocide debate reminds us that the Liberals are just not that interested in international human rights. That is becoming very obvious as we learn about another Liberal smoke-and-mirrors show. Their new office of everything to replace the Office of Religious Freedom is not actually a separate office at all. It is just a line within the Department of Foreign Affairs, without an ambassador.

How about an actual office, with an actual ambassador, with an actual mandate and actual responsibilities?

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I strongly share the member's concerns, specifically with respect to human rights issues in Brunei. There are issues of discrimination toward gays and lesbians as well as significant religious freedom issues.

How we may be able to bring about improvements to human rights issues through trade agreements is a separate question. We have a bit of a disagreement with the NDP in terms of the potential positive effects of certain kinds of engagement on human rights. However, it is important that we have clear and consistent all through that process in communicating about human rights. We need to do that with respect to Brunei and a range of other countries.

I thank the member for raising the issue of Brunei because it is one of those countries that does not get the attention it deserves. However, there are significant human rights issues—