Garnett Genuis

[Human Rights, October 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the crisis facing Rohingya people in Burma, which we consider a genocide, continues, but action at the UN Security Council is being blocked by China. This is tragic, but not much of a surprise, given the treatment of minorities in China, be they Christian, Tibetan Buddhist, Uighur Muslim, or Falun Gong.

The government has talked about its desire to engage China. Has the minister spoken to her Chinese counterpart about the Rohingya crisis, or is this another case where they are ignoring human rights to appease the Chinese state?

[Taxation, October 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, consider two families. In one, a single income earner makes $75,000. In another, two income earners make $38,000 each. The family with a single income in this case pays more tax, even though they are making less money. That is not fair.

The government has tried to justify its unfair tax changes by claiming that the current rules give a mechanism for splitting income to some couples, a mechanism that does not exist for wage earners. However, this difference is the result of a Liberal decision to do away with income splitting for parents in the first place.

At the time of the last election, all parents could split their income, regardless of how they earned it. That was fair. The Liberals are now using a situation they created to justify their unfair changes. However, families understand that income splitting is always fair because it reflects the reality that families share their income and that families who earn the same income should pay the same rate of tax.

If the government wants a fairer tax system, then it should bring back income splitting for all parents.

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, October 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the government has said that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. It seems as though they have gone hand in hand off the cliff since the Liberals took power. We are losing ground on both fronts, as the member demonstrated in the report. He talked about the fact that we have seen this week showcase the disaster of the current government's environmental policy. The government has moved time allocation on a bill to prevent the export of energy off our west coast, and it has overseen regulatory changes that have led to the rejection of a pipeline for exporting our oil off the east coast.

The Minister of Democratic Institutions said before the election that she wanted “to landlock Alberta's tar sands.” It seems as though the government is in fact achieving that objective. It is not going help our environment, because it is simply going to mean more opportunity and expansion for foreign oil with a worse environmental record, and it does not benefit the Canadian economy. Could the member share a bit more about why the government is proceeding in this disastrous direction, which is bad for our economy and bad for the environment?

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, October 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, these pipeline projects are of critical importance to my constituency. They contribute jobs and opportunities in western Canada and, frankly, all of Canada. For example, there is a pallet factory outside Toronto. Generally speaking, everything that moves in the oil sands moves on a pallet. We are all interconnected, so when the government brings forward legislation that shuts down jobs and opportunities, it will affect not just my riding but also jobs and opportunities in that member's riding.

Why is the government moving forward with legislation that would shut down opportunities for Canada in the energy exporting market that would have created jobs and opportunities here, while opening the market to oil from countries that do not share our values and human rights record? In its entirety, it will gratuitously disadvantage Canadians and our economy.

Why is the government moving in this direction? Why does it not put jobs and opportunity ahead of its anti-energy ideology?

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, October 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the minister say on the one hand that it is a platform commitment so we barely need any debate, when on the other hand, most of the time he says it is a platform commitment so we are not going to do it.

Not only is this an assault on democracy but it is also an assault on economic development. It is clear that the government prefers foreign oil to Canadian oil in every case. Tankers bringing foreign oil from one place to another will be travelling up and down the B.C. coast, yet we will not have the opportunity to export Canadian oil and get it to markets. It is the same principle whereby the government is imposing all sorts of restrictions that limit energy infrastructure from going east while it continues not to apply those restrictions to the export of foreign oil.

Why are we seeing this assault on democracy and economic development at the same time? I would particularly like to know from the transport minister why there is a preference in every case for foreign oil over Canadian oil.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I was actually glad for that heckle by the member for Winnipeg North because it was quite revealing. He seems to think that time allocation is an assault on democracy, and yet a necessary tool. I wonder if what we are seeing in the context of these tax changes is another thing the government might acknowledge as an assault on the democratic process, but also in their view a necessary tool.

I would like my colleague to speak to some of the conversations he is having in his riding, because I have been told by business owners that they would have a hard time advising young people to start a career in small business in light of some of these attacks or proposed tax changes. They would have a hard time making the case to the next generation.

That is a big concern that I have been hearing, and I wonder if the member has been hearing the same.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that as a matter of process, when a Conservative member speaks, members of other parties normally want to pose questions of the member. It is probably a combination of the intensity and intelligence of the person who just spoke, but also the fact that government members do not want to talk about this issue, that they do not want to ask questions about it.

I wonder if the member for Calgary Nose Hill wants to reflect on the fact that government members are not even willing to stand and ask her questions on this issue.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, what I have found unfortunate in the conversations I have had with business owners in my riding is this. When I have asked them, through this process, whether they would advise a young person who is considering going into business to follow the path that he or she has followed or not to bother, many business owners have told me that in light of the piling on from the Liberal government, from other levels of government in Alberta, and the same in Ontario, the advice they would give is not to go down that path at all.

That is unfortunate. I wonder if the member could comment on whether she is hearing the same thing and how we should be responding to it.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend across the way, he is going to have to do a little better. He just told us that we cannot extend the consultation to January because that would interfere with Christmas. I do not know if that needs a response, but I will clarify.

We have the fall in between now and Christmas. This is precisely the issue, that if the only consultation is over the holidays, that limits people's ability to respond. The Conservatives do not have a problem with the consultation period including holidays, just as long as it is not exclusively during the holidays.

The member has a perspective on these changes and it is one, of course, that I am sure will be hotly debated within his riding. We are hearing from business owners and entrepreneurs that the reality of the system in place gives people the appropriate incentive to be creative and take that risk. We want to make that risk possible without having punitive measures that punish people more.

Could the member at least take this institution seriously enough to tell us why he is opposed to having the entire fall period available to people who want to contribute and put forward their serious concerns?

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, following up on the comment from my friend, the parliamentary secretary, it is so interesting that the Liberals want to completely downplay any impact of this, as if they think there is no point in the legislation in the first place.

We know that people have raised substantial and legitimate concerns. If the government is so dismissive of the substantial effect of its own legislation, does the member have any thoughts on why it is doing so in the first place?

We have an arms control system. While there are other countries that need to improve their arms control, we have a very strong arms control system in Canada. Why not just leave it at that?