Garnett Genuis

[Situation in Lebanon and Israel, October 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the member who spoke is a parliamentary secretary. Can we assume the positions she took in her speech are positions of the Government of Canada, or are the positions she took in her speech different from the positions of the Government of Canada?

[Situation in Lebanon and Israel, October 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, as leaders in this Parliament, it is critically important that we speak for universal human solidarity and empathy. Clearly, we believe that the dignity of the human person is universal and not dependent on any factor, such as citizenship, national origin place, age, degree of vulnerability, etc. From that basic moral ground, we have to think about policy actions that will concretely make a difference.

I asked the previous NDP speaker a serious question and did not get an answer at all. I just got personal insults. The previous member said that Hezbollah and its leaders should be brought to justice. The question is, how would the NDP propose to bring Hezbollah and its leaders to justice?

[Situation in Lebanon and Israel, October 1st, 2024]

It is not debate at all.

[Situation in Lebanon and Israel, October 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the aspersions the member just cast are clearly inaccurate and unparliamentary. I ask that the Speaker call her to order on that.

[Situation in Lebanon and Israel, October 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I have a sincere question for the member. She said in her speech, “Hezbollah and its leaders should be brought to justice”, and that is good. I agree that Hezbollah and its leaders should be brought to justice. However, how would she propose that we go about achieving that objective? What process would she suggest be followed that would be effective in bringing Hezbollah and its leaders to justice?

[Privilege, October 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with many different Liberal scandals right now, but this is, in many ways, the most ridiculous. We have a person testifying before committee with text messages that suggest a minister of the Crown was actually involved in the operation of a company he was not supposed to be involved in.

The defence of that apparent involvement of the minister of Crown in the operation of a company, that was, in fact, also getting government contracts, was to say the person referred to in the text messages was a different Randy. This is a tiny company where the partner happens to have that same name, and yet the claim was made that this was a different Randy.

We then have a partner come back to the same committee and say that he lied about it being a different Randy. He admitted that it was all made up. He then said the references to Randy in the text messages were the result of autocorrect. There were multiple different text messages, I think, over nine times. It is just the repeated tragedy of autocorrect causing so many problems. Members should know to disable autocorrect on their phones.

More seriously, this is obviously adding to a litany of Liberal scandals, but it is the most absurd, most comical and most ridiculous. If one were writing a story, one would not put these details in because they are so obviously absurd. No one would believe them.

Does the member have any explanation for why the Liberal government would have tried to cover itself in such an obvious way?

[Privilege, October 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, since the Speaker affirmed that no rules have been broken, I am happy to continue with my statement.

We are dealing with potentially the third time in the life of the current government when an official could be brought before the bar. Before 2021, that had not happened since 1913. Twice, since then, during the life of the current government, emerging from scandals, lack of disclosure and various investigations at committee, officials have been called before the bar. This could be the third time.

When we talk about respect for this institution, I think we need to notice how common it has become for elites, whether well-connected lobbyists, friends of ministers or public officials, to think that they do not have to take the directives of this Parliament and its committees seriously. This has been happening at committee when documents are ordered and this has been happening in the House when there are requests, which is why we are dealing with multiple questions of privilege at the same time.

I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc can comment on just how many problems of lack of respect for this institution we have seen under the government, a dramatic escalation in this problem and what can be done to resolve it.

[Privilege, October 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, out of deference to the authority of the Chair, I withdraw the remarks. I appreciate how the Chair acknowledged that I did nothing wrong and there was no ill intention, but the Chair invited me to withdraw my remarks; out of deference to the Chair, I have done so.

Mr. Speaker, may I now proceed to pose my question—

[Privilege, October 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for raising this important question of privilege.

An important context beyond the particulars of this case is that, in 2021, we had someone brought before the bar under this—

[Points of Order, September 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a few words said in the House about bullying. I am trying to provide an explanation with context and to answer false allegations that have been made against me. I will persist in doing that.

The Leader of the Opposition asked questions about a $9-million luxury condo purchased by the government, identifying a luxury bathtub as one of its particular features. In what followed, the Prime Minister ignored reference to those features and instead spoke about the engagement done by the government internationally. Hansard shows the exchange.

Many of the comments made on Twitter about what was allegedly said do not reflect what is in Hansard, which is this: “Does he engage with them in the bathtub?” The point of that comment is to illustrate that, of course, meetings do not take place in a bathtub. A luxurious bathtub has nothing to do with meetings; the Prime Minister's answer had nothing to do with the questions. However, the comment was not about sex. I was not thinking about sex at all.