Randall Garrison

[Canadian Human Rights Act, October 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to split my time in the opening round of debate with the member for Hochelaga.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, October 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, first, the member for Kitchener—Conestoga has always treated me with great respect, despite his reservations about my own identity as a gay man. However, he is error when he says that faith communities and their majority reject transgender people. In fact, the vast majority of faith communities in our country have made clear expressions of their support for this bill. That was made very evident in the last Parliament.

Raising the question of religious freedom and freedom of speech could be raised in every context. The bill would do nothing to restrict people's freedom to their own beliefs or to teach their own children. What it would do is try to protect the expression of hatred and the kind of discrimination in public that takes place each and every day against transgender Canadians.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, October 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech and support of the bill in principle, and I respect the sincerity with which he has offered his comments.

He has made the argument that the bill is really unnecessary, which we have heard each time it has come before the House. I wonder whether he is familiar with the position of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which have both said repeatedly that there are gaps in the current legislation and that there are good legal reasons for amending the Criminal Code hate crimes section and the Canadian Human Rights Act to make sure that transgendered Canadians are explicitly covered. Those are the legal arguments they have both made.

He also said that doing things symbolically in the Criminal Code is not a good idea. However, the previous Conservative government spent a lot of time saying it is important for the Criminal Code to denounce unacceptable behaviour in our society. I submit that the bill is very similar to lots of legislation introduced by the previous government, which sought to label certain behaviour as not acceptable in our society.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, October 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I understand that there are concerns about the impact of this legislation, but I am more concerned about the impact of the lack of legislation. I know that the minister is familiar with the situation of trans people, who often end up homeless, and in particular, of aboriginal transgender people, who are some of the most discriminated-against people in our entire society.

I would again ask the minister if she would join with me in suggesting to people in the House who are concerned that there are very real concerns on a daily basis for the most marginalized in our society.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, October 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for leading off the debate on this government bill to protect transgender Canadians, and I thank her for acknowledging the work others did in the House before, in particular MP Bill Siksay, who really started this debate.

I know she would join me in congratulating the trans community across the country, those very brave trans people who stepped forward to demand that they receive the same rights and dignity that all other Canadians already enjoy.

Will the government join with me and others on this side of the House in moving the bill expeditiously? The bill first passed the House of Commons six and a half years ago. My own bill passed more than three years ago, and it is really time for us to act.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, October 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable more.

My constituents do not get to decide to take Fridays off, and I do not think we should decide to take Fridays off. I think actually that it is deceptive to say it is more family friendly. I totally agree with him that lengthening the day is not just not family friendly for MPs. Think of the hundreds of staff who work for us in this institution and what it would do to their family lives to extend those sittings to midnight every night during the week.

Extending a Thursday night sitting for me, from Vancouver Island, means I would be here on Friday anyway. If I have to stay until midnight on Thursday night, I would be stuck in Ottawa on Friday without a sitting of the House, and I would lose a significant amount of my time as an individual member to contribute to debate and questions.

[Paris Agreement, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little frustrated by the debate in this chamber between Liberals and Conservatives who are arguing about different ways to get to the same inadequate targets.

We know that the Harper targets that have now been adopted by the Liberals will not save us from the disasters that are looming in our economy, not just in society. I am not talking in general terms about loss of species and all those things that are very important, but we have had the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy advising us that the economic impact on Canada of climate change will be between $21 billion and $43 billion per year by 2050.

When the Conservatives talk about the impact of this tax that should be neutral on households, what about the extra insurance premiums they will have to pay? What about all the other costs that climate change will drive into their homes?

I think both sides need to get serious about some targets, some levels of carbon pricing that are real, not $10, which is half of what the provinces are already doing, and take some real action, because carbon pricing alone will not meet this challenge.

We will also have to have some very serious investments in the public projects we need in transportation to meet the challenge of climate change.

[Public Safety, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, on Monday, I introduced my bill to repeal Bill C-51. The New Democrats are still saying today what we said from the beginning: Bill C-51 infringes on our civil liberties without doing anything to make us safer.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness now calls Bill C-22 the centrepiece of Liberal national security policy. During the campaign, of course, the Liberals' centrepiece was fixing Bill C-51.

What we have in Bill C-22 is a necessary but flawed review committee, a case of bait and switch, plus more consultation. Yet, more consultation is cold comfort to Canadians whose rights are under threat, including those engaged in legitimate dissent, like first nations leaders and environmentalists, or even ordinary citizens who value their privacy.

We all know what works when it comes to combatting terrorism. We need to devote adequate resources to de-radicalization and to traditional intelligence and enforcement work. Neither restricting our rights nor collecting so much information on all of us that we lose focus on the real threats will help keep us safe. That is why it is time to repeal Bill C-51.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, my question goes back to the previous Parliament. With what the member has described as being needed as an oversight committee, I share some of the same reservations about what the Liberals are proposing and would probably support what she is talking about. However, my question is, when her previous government introduced Bill C-51, why did it not include an oversight committee? Why did you not do what you are talking about today at the time that Bill C-51 was introduced?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist saying that I find that a hysterical reaction to what we are proposing. If there is an issue of concern, I will support creating a standing committee to deal with that issue of concern. I see no reason why we cannot have committees dealing with things that this Parliament wants to deal with in detail.

When we had the Special Committee on Pay Equity, it was not a standing committee. Rather, it was a special committee charged with doing a task. To me, the difference is that, in terms of pay equity, the government could get busy and solve that problem. The responsibility for examining arms exports is an ongoing responsibility of the House of Commons. That is why a standing committee would be the right vehicle to do this.