Rob Nicholson

[Justice, February 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, under our Conservative government, we always made judicial appointments a priority. The Liberals have been in office for over a year, and there are now judicial vacancies everywhere in this country. As a result, there are more than 800 criminal cases that are in jeopardy. These are cases that include attempted murder, manslaughter, and murder. This is exactly the kind of thing that destroys people's confidence in the criminal justice system.

What will it take to get the government to make judicial appointments a priority?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised, quite frankly, at the comments by my colleague.

When this was before committee, those who testified generally agreed that it was within the Constitution of this country. We heard evidence completely on that. The hon. member said he is completely supportive of all the efforts behind this, but when the bill has been gutted, that gets called into question. I am very disappointed on that, quite frankly. I would have been interested in hearing what they heard from the Province of Ontario. I am sure, when those members were out soliciting legal opinions, the Province of Ontario told them it was okay. Did it? I can imagine that is what it said.

Despite that, I am pleased to support this bill because it is important. It would prohibit requiring any individual to take a genetic test or to disclose the results of that genetic test.

The time has come for us to do something about genetic discrimination. It can take many forms, all of which are unjust and feed the Orwellian mentality, which can be destructive to the welfare of a free and open society.

Genetic testing is routinely used as a tool for medical diagnosis, which is a positive thing. As the science of genetic testing has evolved into a multi-billion dollar industry, so too has the possible misuse of this information in ways that are contrary to patients' best interests. Canada, unlike most other western nations, has not kept pace with the rapid growth of the genetic field and thus has no laws provincially or federally that protect Canadians from having their own genetic information used against them.

This bill would ensure that Canadians are fully protected against employers or insurance companies that would deny employment or ensure coverage.

Studies indicate that there are also grave social consequences to the misuse of genetic testing. It is a dangerous precedent, as certain groups may encounter discrimination based on their race. For instance, people could be evaluated not on the basis of their merit and abilities, but on predictions of future health and/or their performance based on ethnicity. For instance, in the United States, African Americans statistically do not live as long as Americans of European descent, even when there are no socio-economic factors present. Scientists have also discovered that Jewish people can have a propensity for Huntington's disease. They too could be denied insurance.

Increasingly, and rightly so, patients are reluctant to agree to have their medical genetic testing done for fear the results may be used against them, thereby putting their own health at risk even when such testing might prevent disease and give the patient the opportunity to adopt lifestyle choices to avoid medical complications.

Recently, The Globe and Mail reported on a case of a 24-year-old professional who was dismissed after sharing with his employer that he had tested positive for Huntington's disease, although his symptoms would not manifest for approximately 20 years. Canada is the only G7 nation not to have protections in place for citizens like him.

Currently, there are 38,000 genome tests that can be done, and that number is growing exponentially, daily indeed. Canada has not kept pace with the science, and it is imperative that we do so now. It is our duty.

Bill S-201 would prohibit service providers from demanding or requiring a person to disclose past results of genetic testing in order to exercise prejudice. Insurance companies and employers are not the only ones in this area that can be affected by forced disclosure.

If we do not pass this bill, it will become exponentially harder to pass in the future, in my opinion, but it would do the right thing in protecting people from possible discrimination.

We have to get involved with this. There are legal opinions. The bill fits perfectly within federal jurisdiction. I am sure the hon. member and others in the government in their solicitations were looking for reasons to defeat this legislation. As I pointed out to them, the provincial jurisdiction with the largest justice department in Canada happens to be in Ontario. What did Ontario say? Ontario said it is okay with this. It does not have any particular objections to this bill.

This is an opportunity for all members of Parliament, regardless of which political party they are a part of, to stand up and do the right thing. I hope this gets passed by all members of the House.

[Justice, February 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the justice minister said her problem with mandatory sentences was the charter. I should not have to point out to her that the most serious mandatory sentence is for murder, and that has been upheld by the courts for the last 35 years. Taking away mandatory sentences is about giving breaks to murderers, rapists, child abusers, drunk drivers, and drug dealers.

When will the Liberals change their tune and start standing up for victims and their families?

[Justice, February 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not want to be specific, because the Liberals have a problem with prison sentences.

I am proud of the fact that under our Conservative government, anyone who brought drugs into the country for the purpose of selling to our children would go to jail. I am proud of that.

Why would the Liberals not concentrate on filling judicial appointments and not worry about mandatory sentences?

[Justice, February 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have a problem with mandatory jail sentences for criminals. Is it the mandatory jail time for selling drugs around a school, or for child pornography, or for kidnapping a child, or maybe it is the mandatory jail time for drive-by shootings or for premeditated murder? What criminals does the Minister of Justice believe need a break?

[Justice, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today the Liberals introduced a bill that would give a break to human traffickers who committed multiple crimes. This is unbelievable. The bill says that people convicted of human trafficking would not have to serve consecutive sentences when they committed additional unspeakable crimes against victims.

Why are the Liberals always so worried about giving a break to criminals? Why do they not start sticking up for victims for a change?

[Retirement Congratulations, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a hard-working and dedicated individual who has served this chamber with distinction for more than 32 years and is preparing for a well-deserved retirement.

Lynn Legault has acted as a supervisor of the parliamentary page program for over three decades, where she has witnessed Canada's history in the making.

Over the years, she has facilitated the operations of the House of Commons and ensured that we, as MPs, are able to do our job and represent Canadians.

Lynn has always been an inspiration to those whom she has worked alongside and a role model and mentor to our pages.

Her constant smile, compassion, and positive outlook on life has had a significant effect on the lives of all those she has supervised throughout her exceptional career.

On behalf of all my colleagues and from me personally, I would like to thank Lynn for her dedication and loyalty in her over 32 years of continuous hard work. We wish Lynn all the best as she enters this new chapter of her life. I thank Lynn for her service to our country.

[National Strategy for Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias Act, February 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my colleagues in the House of Commons for their support for this bill. The support is across the aisle and throughout the chamber, and one that I very much appreciate.

As a cabinet minister for about 10 years, I was not able to introduce private member's bills. Even though I have been here for close to 22 years, this is the first bill that I have had pass. Even when I was not in cabinet, back in the eighties, one had to have unanimous consent of the House of Commons to proceed with a private member's bill. My private member's bill was to have a national holiday for Sir John A. Macdonald at around this time of year, and I could not get unanimous consent on that. Nonetheless, I was proud to have the opportunity.

One of my colleagues around that time, the Hon. Pauline Browes, introduced a private member's bill for a statue of John Diefenbaker. She gave me the honour of seconding that bill. Much to our surprise, to a certain extent it was supported by all members of the chamber, and the statue of John Diefenbaker is outside here. I remember that Prime Minister Mulroney was so pleased and excited, he said, “Make sure you let everybody know and we'll put one up to Lester Pearson as well.” It is appropriate to have the statutes of those two prime ministers.

My colleague from Don Valley West, a member of the Liberal Party, was good enough to support this. He had a look at it and was in favour of it. I very much appreciate that. This is a great example that, on many occasions, this chamber can work together in the best interests of all Canadians.

[National Strategy for Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias Act, February 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that is actually a very good point. I will start off with the Alzheimer Society. It has been very supportive and encouraging. I recognize the effort it has made to get information out about this particular piece of legislation. It has acknowledged, as well, how important it is that we move forward on this. It is important for individuals and groups to make sure that these issues are not buried or lost here in Ottawa. I, for one, have been very appreciative of groups like the Alzheimer Society and others.

I am quite appreciative as well of the many people who have contacted me, or even stopped me on the street, to raise this issue with me. As I indicated in my opening remarks, three-quarters of Canadians know or have a family member, a neighbour, or someone they know who has suffered from Alzheimer's or other types of dementia. They know what a toll it can take.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the House how appreciative I have been that so many people have reached out and supported what we are doing here today. I particularly wanted to mention the Alzheimer Society and other groups for their support on this.

[National Strategy for Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias Act, February 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of changes in this. I was very careful to make sure that the bill did not require a royal recommendation, which in effect would kill the bill here in the House of Commons. As well, I wanted to ensure that it did not in any way restrict the jurisdiction that applies to health care issues. There are provincial jurisdiction issues here, and we wanted to be very careful.

That is why I sat down with my colleague across the aisle. I let him have a look at it and told him the reasons there were some challenges with the previous bill, which was well-intentioned. He had a chance to look at that. He spent a couple of days with it. He agreed with me that with the new wording, we would not have the worry about a royal recommendation. We would also make sure that there was nothing too restrictive with respect to the health ministers across the country.