Randy Boissonnault

[Infrastructure, April 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes that strategic investments in public infrastructure play a key role in supporting dynamic communities while creating good jobs that help grow the middle class.

Budget 2017 commits new funding for investment in public transit, water and waste water, culture and recreation, and rural infrastructure. These are all much-needed projects in Alberta.

Can the minister tell the House how our government is supporting infrastructure investments across Alberta?

[Winter Festivals in Edmonton, March 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to talk about Edmonton's winter city initiative. Thanks to the City of Edmonton's winter city initiative, Edmontonians are finding creative ways to embrace the winter months with community-wide light-ups, sparkling ice castles, and winter festivals, such as Ice on Whyte, Bright Lights Festival, and Candy Cane Lane. There is always something to do in Edmonton, even in winter.

Having lived most of my life in Alberta, I know one thing is certain.

As sure as radiant blue skies will fill our summer, and as sure as the green and gold of Edmonton's river valley will announce the arrival of autumn, the winter winds will howl once again. The energetic, enthusiastic Edmonton response will be to spin that wicked winter weather into festival gold for all to enjoy.

Thank you, winter festivals, for getting us through this past winter. We look forward to seeing you again soon, but not that soon.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we want all Canadians to feel safe and to live their lives in the way they want to in our pluralistic society. It is critical that we take this opportunity and that we demonstrate leadership as a government for people in our society who feel the most marginalized. Right now members of the Muslim community, from coast to coast to coast, need this attention on this issue.

In my riding of Edmonton Centre, I am ashamed to share with the House public information about a man at an LRT station who approached two women in hijabs and took out a piece of rope, tied it in a noose and said, “This is for the two of you”. Fortunately, security was there, the man was detained, and charges will be pending.

That is the kind of fear, that is the kind of racism, that is the kind of Islamophobia that Motion No. 103 seeks to address, and the political gamesmanship on the other side seeks to dilute.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work, and his commitment to human rights as well.

What is important to know in this country is that, when we face a problem, we must call out that problem. The problem and the challenge we face as a Canadian society is to call out the fear and vilification that the Muslim communities are facing. The term that we are using is “Islamophobia”. We take into full account the advice from the Hon. Irwin Cotler that terms can be clarified. In this case, we are naming the situation for what it is. How else do we name the fact that hatred and hate crimes against Muslims have more than doubled since 2012, while hate crimes in Canada have been going down? The term “Islamophobia” needs to be used and needs to be addressed.

I say this for my hon. colleague. Why can we not use the term? Why do we use a term like “homophobia”? We do not tolerate the intolerance of gay, lesbian, trans, and queer people, yet somehow members in this House seem fully prepared to tolerate Islamophobia?

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to this opposition motion regarding religious discrimination. I will start by noting that I do not specifically oppose the content of the motion. The motion recognizes senseless acts of violence perpetrated several weeks ago at a mosque in Quebec City. The horror and sense of loss of this attack is shared by all members of the House, as is the condemnation of this violence. Also all members of the House take heart in the outpouring of support for the Muslim community that has come from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We have seen images of Canadians of all faiths locking arms around mosques to create a safe space for prayer. It is truly an inspiring sight.

These are serious issues that continue to face our Muslim community. While hate crimes in Canada are on the decline, hate crimes against Muslim Canadians have more than doubled since 2012. That is why this is a community that our government believes is sincerely in need of support and protection.

The second piece of today's motion condemns all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination against Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities. Again, I support such condemnation. There is no place in this country for discrimination against individuals for their deeply held religious beliefs. We are truly blessed to live in a pluralistic society where people of all faiths and people of no faith at all are welcome to live their lives in a manner that they choose and where we respect each other's sincerely held beliefs. Our customs and beliefs may differ, but we can celebrate those differences together as one community.

Lastly, this motion calls for a study by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to focus on developing a whole-of-government approach to combat discrimination.

However it is important, for those watching at home and for the record, to expand on the context in which this motion has come before the House and my reflections on the arguments we have heard surrounding this discussion.

Last night, the House debated Motion No. 103, brought forward by the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills. It is a motion that members will, no doubt, notice is very similar to the one we see before us today. Like today's motion, it noted and expressed concern for recent religious-motivated violence. Like today's motion, it condemned all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination. Like today's motion, it called for a study of how to combat discrimination in a whole-of-government approach. The two motions are, in fact, almost identical, except for one detail.

Motion No. 103 called particular attention to the issue of Islamophobia. That one word rendered Motion No. 103 anathema to the official opposition. We cannot, the House was told by members opposite, support a motion that singles out one faith. We were told by candidates for the leadership of the official opposition that Motion No. 103 would undermine the freedom of speech in this country and that it is unacceptable to name one faith without naming others.

The member for Simcoe—Grey told us that Motion No. 103 would afford “special privileges” to one religion, because it brought attention to one form of discrimination, and yet the list we see in today's motion is hardly exhaustive. I see no reference to the Druze community, the Mormon community, the Buddhist community, or any reference whatsoever to the traditional spiritual teachings of indigenous peoples. If the opposition is to be believed, then surely singling out only five religions and not others is no better than putting emphasis on just one.

I also find it curious that no member who has expressed a concern about singling out seemed the least bit concerned about supporting a 2015 motion about anti-Semitism, a motion by the Hon. Irwin Cotler that received the unanimous support of the House. It is perplexing that my colleagues opposite seemed so opposed to casting light on just one form of discrimination and yet they supported that motion. Let me be clear: so would I have done, had I been in the House at that time.

Members of the LGBTQ2 community will never forget the courage and solidarity of Jewish Canadians, whose national organization was the first civil society organization, other than LGBTQ2 organizations, to intervene with us in court to pursue equal marriage. When asked why, the response was that, unless all of us share human rights equally, then we are not equal before the law; equal we are and equal we must be.

We have been told that Motion No. 103 would threaten freedom of speech. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle told us that Motion No. 103 would be “a step towards stifling free speech and legitimate criticism”, and yet somehow this nearly identical motion is no threat at all. I wish I could say that I am surprised by these double standards and empty arguments. However, they are nothing new at all.

It is the same argument used by the Conservative Party to oppose protections or support for the LGBTQ2 community. It is the same argument that told our community that they could not get married because somehow it would harm other people's marriages. It is the same argument that told our community that they could not be protected from being fired or kicked out of our homes because that would create “special” privileges. It is the same argument that says we cannot single out murdered or missing indigenous women and girls for investigation. It is the same argument that continues to oppose needed protections for the trans and non-binary community, because to prevent discrimination is to threaten others' freedom.

It is little surprise that we see these kinds of arguments brought out yet again to demean our Muslim community. They come from the same party that proposed the shameful barbaric cultural practices hotline, inciting neighbours to spy on neighbours, and rather than apologize to Canadians, its members continued to double down on fomenting division and distrust between communities in Canada.

Whether it is cultural values from the member for Simcoe—Grey, or family values from the member for Saskatoon—University, whether it is promises to assimilate first nations reserves from the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, or opportunistic flip-flops on LGBTQ2 rights from the member for Beauce, there is no minority too vulnerable for this opposition to not villainize or vilify to attract headlines. It is very easy to use buzz words, double standards, and alternative facts to try to scare people into thinking that defending one group will hurt another. However, when we look at the facts, when we call out the falsehoods, it becomes very easy to see why these arguments have failed again and again, and why the long arc of history inevitably bends toward justice, equality, and progress.

Today's motion is nothing more than a watering down, and a gutting, of the motion proposed by my esteemed colleague from Mississauga—Erin Mills. It is a mean-spirited attempt to demean and erase the hard work of my colleague, designed solely to deny our Muslim brothers, sisters, and friends an expression of solidarity and support from this House. I will have nothing to do with it.

Human rights are not pieces of pie. We do not run out of pieces by serving them to everyone equally. We do not run out of human rights when they are extended to and enjoyed by everyone. In fact, we strengthen them for all. Human rights are fundamental, inalienable, indivisible, and universal. That means they apply to everyone. When a particular group has been made vulnerable and fearful because of hatred toward it, that is when we can and must shine light on that community, that is when we must stand up and be counted, and that is when we must lead and support each other. In this case, it is the Muslim community that is being targeted and being made to fear because of intolerance, hatred, and violence. That is why today we say that enough is enough. That is why we are standing up to be counted. That is why we are speaking and acting in solidarity.

That is why we are standing by our fellow Muslim Canadians who feel targeted and who are afraid of their neighbours and people in society who are driven by hate, violence, and intolerance.

This is why our government and I will vote against this spurious opposition motion and will enthusiastically be supporting Motion No. 103. It is the right thing to do.

[Health, February 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Jordan's principle was established in response to the death of Jordan River Anderson, a five-year-old member of Norway House First Nation in Manitoba.

This principle seeks to resolve jurisdictional disputes so that first nations children can receive the care they need, when the need it. For a renewed nation-to-nation relationship, we must ensure that there is timely access to care in my province of Alberta and across Canada.

Can the Minister of Health inform this chamber on the measures she is taking to ensure that our government fully implements Jordan's principle?

[Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, February 14th, 2017]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill S-201 be amended by deleting the short title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill S-201 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill S-201 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 4

That Bill S-201 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 5

That Bill S-201 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill S-201 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 7

That Bill S-201 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 8

That Bill S-201 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Mr. Speaker, I will use my time to address Bill S-201, an act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination, and the amendments that were tabled yesterday, which propose to delete clauses 1 through 8 of the bill.

I will begin by noting that the proposed amendments were neither the subject of discussion nor debate before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during its consideration of the bill. It is important to take this opportunity to address some critical concerns arising from the proposed legislation.

I will first clarify that I fully support the intent of Bill S-201, which is to protect Canadians from being discriminated against on the basis of their genetic characteristics. I agree wholeheartedly that no one should be singled out solely on the basis of a genetic predisposition to a particular disease or condition. That is why I believe fundamentally that the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act should remain in this bill as a matter falling squarely within the federal jurisdiction.

As all members of this House are aware, it is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that we fundamentally respect the Constitution before passing any laws. Part of that duty means that we must remain vigilant of the constitutional division of powers between the federal Parliament and our provincial counterparts. In particular, clauses one through seven of Bill S-201, which would enact the genetic non-discrimination act, or GNDA, intrude into provincial jurisdiction over contracts and the provision of goods and services.

This is not about abstract or academic concerns, nor is it about solely co-operative and respectful federalism, which forms the bedrock of democracy in this country. This is a matter of our fundamental obligation, as members of Parliament, to ensure that legislation complies with our Constitution.

I share the concerns previously expressed by the government. Cabinet is certainly not alone in this view, as a number of the provinces have written to the government in opposition to the GNDA portion of Bill S-201. I will return to these letters shortly, but first I will offer some background on the constitutional responsibilities we have with respect to our provincial partners.

The Constitution Act of Canada calls for a separation of powers between the federal Parliament and the provincial and territorial legislative assemblies by theme. Based on these shared jurisdictions, the Parliament of Canada can only legislate on the powers included in the Constitution and residual powers, while provincial legislatures have their own areas of jurisdiction.

To determine whether the federal legislation respects this division of powers, the courts look to whether the law's “pith and substance”, what the law is really about, relates to a federal area of power.

The act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination prohibits any person from requiring an individual to undergo a genetic test or disclose the results of a genetic test as a condition of offering or maintaining specific conditions in a contract or agreement, and of providing goods or services.

When we look at this context, it is clear that the legislation in question, in its wording and substance, regulates contracts and the provision of goods and services. These things fall fully under provincial legislative jurisdictions over property and civil rights.

The Constitution engages concerns that are bigger than any one piece of legislation, no matter how laudable its intent. As written, the GNDA impedes on a critical set of powers which belongs exclusively to the provinces.

I will now focus my attention to the responses from the provincial governments. Over the past few weeks, our government has received a series of letters from the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, and Manitoba on the matter of Bill S-201. Every one of these letters suggest that the act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination would encroach on an exclusively provincial jurisdiction.

In one letter co-signed by three Quebec ministers, the Hon. Stéphanie Vallée, minister of justice and attorney general of Quebec, the Hon. Carlos Leitão, minister of finance, and the Hon. Jean-Marc Fournier, minister responsible for Canadian relations and the Canadian francophonie, opposed the act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination.

They said that by virtue of the subject matter of the bill, it constitutes a clear intrusion in exclusively provincial jurisdictions. They add that the regulation of contracts and the provision of goods and services are in fact matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction. They say that, like us, they refer to the jurisdiction of the provinces and the Supreme Court's position in Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, whereby the extent of Parliament's power to legislate criminal law must not upset the balance of the division of powers.

The ministers concluded by suggesting that there should be a more collaborative and respectful approach to the federal-provincial division of powers in order to address the issue of genetic discrimination.

Next is a letter from the Hon. Cameron Friesen, the Minister of Finance in Manitoba. Minister Friesen expresses similar concerns to those of his Quebec colleagues, stating, “We have consulted with other governments and among my staff, and we agree that there is considerable potential for this act to stray into areas of provincial jurisdiction over insurance. As you might expect, provinces are not inclined to relinquish our constitutional authority, and certainly not without discussion. Provinces will likely be forced to seek judicial review on the validity of this legislation if it receives royal assent.”

Minister Friesen also draws attention to the broader policy discussion regarding disclosure of genetic information that ought to occur between the federal and provincial governments before comprehensive legislation is passed.

The third letter comes from the Hon. Suzanne Anton, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia. Minister Anton begins by noting that the B.C. government is “very supportive” of the intention behind Bill S-201. She underscores her government's commitment to the protection of basic human rights, and raises significant concerns with Bill S-201.

Minister Anton states, “However, we share the view...that the proposed Act may go beyond Parliament's legislative jurisdiction. In fact, we would identify the following considerations relative to the issues raised by this Bill: 1...the proposed Bill has the potential to encroach in a number of areas of provincial jurisdiction, and as such, would benefit from a more comprehensive review and amendment prior to passage; and 2. Proportionality: In reviewing the potential consequences for an act of prohibited discrimination under the Bill relative to a comparable discrimination under human rights legislation, it appears that the consequences of this Bill would be significantly greater and arguably disproportionate relative to the consequences of actual discrimination.” The minister concludes by stating that as a result of these concerns, the Government of British Columbia opposes Bill S-201 in its current form.

In reviewing these letters, there is no doubt that as a government we are running the risk of provoking and impeding upon the jurisdiction of our provincial partners. That is why we have proposed the deletion of clauses 1 through 7 of Bill S-201. It is not because of disagreement with the stated goal of the bill. In fact, the contrary is true. It is because of a sincere belief in upholding the fundamental balance of federalism, without which our country cannot function. This issue is too important to not get right.

In my remaining time, I will briefly address reasons for proposing the deletion of clause 8 of Bill S-201, which contains the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, CLC. Employment-related discrimination in Canada is typically addressed by human rights legislation like the Canadian Human Rights Act, not by labour legislation. There is concern about singling out one specific form of discrimination for protection in the CLC, and about establishing a separate complaints mechanism under the CLC that would only consider complaints of genetic discrimination. By amending both the CLC and the Canadian Human Rights Act, we would be creating two parallel and overlapping avenues for redress. This would be confusing for employers and employees, and could result in conflicting decisions and an inefficient use of public resources. In Canada, addressing discrimination falls squarely under the purview of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and that is where it must remain.

Bill S-201 also departs from the traditional and respectful approach to labour law reform, which involves consultation and consensus building between employers, labour unions, and the federal government. For these reasons, clause 8 of this bill should be deleted.

While recognizing the tremendous work that has gone into the development of Bill S-201, only the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act should be supported by the House.

In closing, I wish to emphasize that all Canadians should be protected from genetic discrimination, a matter that requires ongoing co-operation between federal and provincial governments. Such important intergovernmental co-operation must and will continue to protect the rights of all Canadians.

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the last year of the Harper administration, Statistics Canada demonstrates a net loss of 26,000 jobs to the Canadian economy.

What was the strategy that was leading your government to lead that kind of economic performance? What were you planning to do to help Alberta jobs and Alberta workers during that kind of lacklustre economic performance?

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, regardless of what the last government might have done, I know what our government is doing. Our government has reached out to indigenous Canadians with leadership. We have reached out to members of environment groups. We have reached out to industry leaders. We have, as government, shown the very best of innovation in the energy sector, combined with protecting our environment, and making sure that all Canadians across any development lines benefit.

It is that kind of dialogue, that kind of constructive working together, and making sure that we have a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, that we can meet our COP22 commitments. We can then actually transition to a carbon-neutral future, understanding that 20% of our economy right now comes from fossil fuels and will continue for the future.

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, the government is moving on all of these files on a regular weekly basis. Most recently, we had a strategic partnership, creating an investment fund at the University of Alberta, which is in the hon. member's riding, for the exact purpose of greening the Alberta economy. The same investment is being made at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has been very clear about our green agenda, so has the Minister of Science. I am very proud of the record we are standing on, and the progress we are making every week and every month to greening Canada's economy.