Garnett Genuis

[Committees of the House, December 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the concurrence debate on the report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

Canadians want us to do our best to ensure that all MPs and all parties in the House are working together. If possible, we should work to find solutions that will satisfy more than one party. Obviously, the Conservative Party, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party have very different views on most subjects. However, after a lot of hard work, the opposition parties managed to come up with a common report.

We recognize that Canadians want a referendum so that they can choose between the existing system and a proportional system. It is absolutely vital that we hold a referendum so that the government only act according to the wishes of Canadians.

It is clear that the members on this committee did very good work, that they heard from many different Canadians, and that they did their job. I include in that Liberal members who worked very hard and, at times it seems, whose contribution is not appreciated by their own government. All members of that committee worked hard, had important discussions, and listened to what was before them. Although there was not unanimous agreement among members on the committee, four of the five parties came to this conclusion: that it was a majority of the witnesses who favoured electoral reform who were looking for reform in a particular direction, very clearly, but also that there was a need to consult Canadians in a clear, transparent way through a referendum. I again commend all the members of the committee for their important work.

The government, having seen this detailed process happen, initially tried to delegitimize it, then apologized for that delegitimization but, really, has not actually stepped back from its response, which was to try to undertake a completely different so-called consultation, hoping that if it consults more times and maybe if it jimmies the questions one way or another, it can somehow produce a different result.

However, I would say, aside from the minister's comments, that really is where the profound disrespect is toward this committee and this process. It is in trying to put aside their work through this clearly much less open, much less effective process.

I want to share with the House that, before being elected, I was the VP of an opinion research company, so I have been very much involved in this whole area of opinion research. The first thing we have to recognize is that we may have someone coming in, wanting to do a particular research study, hoping that the results will be one thing or another, but we have to always be very clear that the purpose of research is to get good information. It is to ask the public its opinion, to get a sense of its values, and also to understand what exactly the public wants.

If we try to skew our research in one way or another, there is just no point in doing it, because we would not be able to rely on the results we get. This point, I suppose, should be fairly obvious.

Our lead critic on this, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, who has done excellent work on this, asked the parliamentary secretary this morning if this research design and the questions fully reflected the work of independent experts or if it was actually the government taking an initial draft and really setting it up exactly the way it wanted. The parliamentary secretary did not answer the question at all, and we are still wondering what the answer is. It is important that we actually have a proper research design.

Members have, I think, made some good and worthwhile jokes about just how absurd the design of these questions is. They are clearly not designed to ask the obvious specific questions.

In my riding, we had very robust consultations around this issue. I noted, as other members have noted, that it is more difficult to get people out to town hall or round table type meetings during the summer. Therefore, in September, still within the window of the time available for the committee, we did multiple round table type meetings within my constituency.

This is something we do in Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on a regular basis on a wide range of issues. We said we would make sure we did enough round tables so that everyone who was interested in participating could participate, but we wanted to have each individual round table small enough that we could have a free-flowing conversation. Therefore, we had multiple round tables with about 10 people to 12 people, and we did them throughout a particular Saturday. We had great participation from people who I know to be from a wide variety of different political backgrounds: those who have been active with our party, as well as those active with the Liberal, the NDP, and the Green parties, all from within my own constituency. We had very good discussion, and very insightful points were raised, and I provided feedback to the committee.

What was identified throughout was that virtually nobody, with the exception of one gentleman, would speak in favour of the Prime Minister's preferred system, because that is a less proportional system. There were those who defended the status quo and those who advocated for a more proportional system. Clearly, that was the shape of the debate that occurred not just in the round table events I held but also in the wider discussions that were taking place across the country.

I also joined with my colleagues in doing a mail-out survey. This was very important as well. Round table or town hall events are great opportunities for hearing from those who are most active or most invested in particular issues. However, there are other ways of engaging perhaps a more representative sample. That is why many members of our Conservative caucus sent a mailer out to their constituents. The overwhelming feedback on that was that people wanted a referendum. That was the feedback in my constituency, as well as in the various constituencies that were polled by other Conservative members. It is clear that Canadians are looking for a referendum. It is also clear, from the discussions that were happening, that it is a referendum between the current system, which has many advantages, and a proportional system, which has other kinds of potential advantages. Obviously, every electoral system has advantages and disadvantages.

This was the series of consultations that we undertook within our own constituencies, consultations that we were asked to do by the government, but that I do, and we do, on a regular basis, regardless of what the government asks us to do or not do. My constituents will now get another piece of mail from the government, at huge expense, asking them to fill out a survey that will not provide any kind of useful data.

It's baffling in one sense, but on the other hand it is clear that the government's approach is to re-ask questions in different ways because it does not like the feedback it received. We have been through this process. We had four out of five parties in this place endorse a report that emphasizes the importance of a referendum and also explains exactly where the debate is and therefore the kind of referendum we should have.

In listening to this debate, I am amazed how the government members are avoiding the question, by all means necessary. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader made a strong point about how this has to be open to people who are not Canadian citizens so that people who are permanent residents or future Canadian citizens living here could fill out the survey, while missing the fact that there was nothing in the survey they have created to prevent somebody from participating in this survey who neither is a Canadian citizen, nor is a Canadian resident, nor has any interest in becoming either. There is nothing to prevent somebody who lives somewhere far away, who has never been to Canada and has no interest in coming to Canada, from not only filling out the survey once but filling it out multiple times. I was incredulous to find that I could actually fill out the survey twice on the same device.

It is hard to understand where the government is coming from if it really is trying to justify this process as a credible consultation exercise. We need to do so much better.

I again commend the committee for its work. It gave us a clear path forward. The government should listen to the committee rather than try to do it all over again just because it does not like the result.

[Committees of the House, December 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government wants to avoid this discussion by all means necessary.

The member spoke about some of the substantive problems. I want to just probe further this issue of the technical problems, because of course we and anyone who has filled out online polls know that often a poll will leave some kind of cookies on our computer, so we at least cannot fill out the same survey multiple times with the same device.

I wanted to test this out. I filled out the survey twice and got different responses both times, incidentally, in terms of whether I am a guardian or whatever it is, but the government did not even put in place basic security mechanisms in order to ensure that we could not fill out the same survey multiple times on the same device.

There would have been a variety of ways of protecting people's privacy while still ensuring that there are not multiple responses, and of course there is the issue of people out of the country.

I want to ask this in the spirit of the survey. Does the member think the questionnaire should seek to prevent people from filling out the survey multiple times, or would he prefer a plague of locusts?

[Petitions, December 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There is just a bit of background chat that translation is picking up through the audio. Maybe you could provide that information back to them.

[Points of Order, December 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order about a breach of the rules of the House.

We recognize, Mr. Speaker, that you have a challenging job, and it is made particularly challenging when a member breaks the rules of the House in a way that is designed to play to the camera and escape the Speaker's notice. This is something that I do not think came to the attention of members until it appeared in the news.

The rules of the House clearly forbid the use of props. In fact, the Speaker recently reminded members specifically of this rule. However, what happened within the House last week is that a minister of the government, during questions, was holding up her notes as if pretending to use her notes. However, by all indications intentionally, on the backside of those notes was a very large icon. The minister was positioned such that the icon was clearly visible to the cameras, even though it was not visible to the Speaker.

We know that this is a flagrant violation of the rules of the House. It involves the use of props. This was taken by the Minister of Democratic Institutions, who is supposed to be defending our institutions. In fact, it was done in a way designed to escape notice, showing a complete disregard for them.

I do not know if this was her idea or something she was asked to do by the Prime Minister's Office, but this is clearly unacceptable, clearly a violation of the rules of the House, and the member needs to be brought to order.

[Burma, December 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Canada needs to be a leader when it comes to promoting universal human rights around the world. We have an opportunity to share our domestic experience of human rights and to give voice to those who are voiceless.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Burma is edging toward ethnic cleansing in its treatment of Muslim Rohingya people. The New York Times reports villages being burned to the ground, allegations of the slaughter of children by the military, the denial of access to aid workers, and thousands of people fleeing to Bangladesh.

Despite praise heaped on Aung San Suu Kyi over the years, the treatment of the Muslim Rohingya has continued to get worse under her government. In recent weeks alone, hundreds of Rohingya people have been killed and tens of thousands displaced.

Successive Canadian governments have provided significant development assistance to Burma, and we have a moral obligation to use our position to respond to this crisis. It is time the government sounded the alarm and spoke out clearly and forcefully about this troubling and worsening situation.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague represents a constituency that includes a significant rural component, as do I. It is important that we have a government that understands the infrastructure needs that exist across the country, not just in our big cities. There is a lot of concern in my constituency, and I suspect in my colleague's as well, that the way the government is acting does not show much regard for the needs and the importance of rural Canada.

When we are talking about deficits, I appreciate that there are certain cases where it makes sense to run a deficit, but there is a need for sustainability. The Conservatives and the NDP have different philosophies about certain things, but we recognize the need to have balanced budgets, to have sustainability. If the government is going to make a commitment, whether it is to increase transfers, to lower taxes, to increase spending on a social program, that commitment has to be costed; it has to be paid for. If the government makes a commitment without any kind of plan for fiscal sustainability, then people need to know it is not going to happen over the long term.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the member's question directly about where I was when the previous government racked up debt for nine consecutive years, I was clearly reading completely different newspapers than he was at the time, and perhaps looking at a different Finance Canada website.

I laid out the numbers clearly. It is breathtaking how willing government members are to completely misstate the fiscal record when it is very clearly laid out on their own government website. I gave that information: timely, temporary, and targeted deficits during the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression, which simulated the economy. Over the Harper years, there was a reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio from 34.1% to 31%. The member needs to check his facts, because he is shouting incorrect numbers across the floor. The debt-to-GDP ratio went from 34.1% to 31% over the Harper years. The finance minister's plan calls for an increase from 31% to 38%, according to TD Bank forecasts, in terms of the debt-to-GDP ratio, and this is at a time when we are not in the midst of a global financial crisis. These are just the basic numbers.

Just because government members say it, does not make it true; Canadians can check the record. Canadians can check the facts.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join this debate, which I know now be a very brief debate because of the notice of motion the government has brought forward. I appreciate the opportunity to address it nonetheless.

We hear the government speak often about the issue of sustainability. Sustainability is a very important concept. It is about maintaining the things we are enjoying and have created into the future so our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy the same quality of an environment, the same standard of living, the same standard in social programs that we enjoy today.

What needs to be underlined with the fiscal policy of the government is that it is very clearly unsustainable. There are certain instances where it makes sense to run timely, targeted, and temporary deficits. However, it does not make sense to have an intentionally unsustainable fiscal policy, one in which promises are made that cannot be maintained over the long term, and programs are created that will have to be cut in the future.

Commitments are made with regard to spending on infrastructure, spending on social programs, and taxes that the government knows cannot possibly last. It is setting people up for disappointment, just as it did on the electoral reform file, by the way. However, on fiscal policy and social programs as well, the government is setting people up for disappointment with its unsustainable fiscal approach.

Let us be very clear about contrasting the approach of the Liberal government with that of the previous Conservative government. I would never accuse members of the government of lying, certainly that is unparliamentary. However, there is a clear dissonance between the reality and the things government members have said.

Let us be very clear about the record in this respect. We heard the parliamentary secretary again claim that Stephen Harper added over $150 billion to the national debt. That is a clear instance of dissonance between the realities and the comments made by the parliamentary secretary.

The reality of the record is that managing Canada's finances through the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, the previous Conservative government, over the course of its tenured office, reduced the overall debt-to-GDP ratio. The numbers are very clear. When former prime minister Stephen Harper took power, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio was 34.1%. When he left office, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio was at 31%. Very clearly, there was a lowering of the federal debt-to-GDP ratio during the time in which the previous Conservative government was in power.

Yes, stimulative deficits were undertaken during a very significant global economic crisis, but they were done in a way such that not only did we return to balanced budgets, but the overall debt-to-GDP ratio went down.

In terms of raw, nominal numbers, a total over $128.5 billion was added to the national debt, much lower than $150 billion. What is the significance of the difference in numbers? It simply illustrates that there is a clear dissonance between the talking points being cited by the various government members and what Canadians can find if they look at the government's own website with respect to the numbers. Again, it was a lower number than was quoted in terms of additions to the national deficit and a reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio.

It is worth adding in this context that if we try to figure out what the government is talking about when it comes up with this $150 billion, some have speculated that maybe it is only counting the amount that was added to the national debt during deficit years, not including the amount that was subtracted during the various Conservative surpluses.

Then we wonder whether it was only those years that the government was counting and not the other years. Even if we only count those years, it adds up to $145 billion. The government is still off. Again, it is certainly not misleading the House but creating a situation of dissonance between what is actually happening, according to the finance minister's website, and what the words are that are coming from the government. Again, I encourage Canadians to verify those facts. They are very clearly in black and white, and can be found on the Finance Canada website.

That is the current reality. The plan from this finance minister involves not only a dramatic increase in the national debt, a greater increase over the one term, hopefully, of the current government, but a greater increase in debt than has happened during the worst global financial crisis. That is happening while we are not in a time of global financial crisis. Also, the Minister of Finance's plan involves increasing significantly the debt-to-GDP ratio. According to TD forecasts, the Liberals' spending will take the debt-to-GDP ratio to 38%. Again, the debt-to-GDP ratio went down from 34.1%, when the previous prime minister Stephen Harper took office, to 31% when he left office. Now, according to these estimates, it will go up to 38% under the current Liberal government.

The question here is not whether there are certain situations where we can run a deficit; the question is whether we have a sustainable fiscal policy. The finance minister has been asked before if it is his view that the government should ever balance the budget. He has repeatedly declined to answer that question. We have had the suggestion that Liberal governments clean up the budgets in the long term, in the fullness of time. However, it is right for us as the opposition, and for Canadians, to ask what is the fullness of time in this context, because the budget projections do not show any return to a balanced budget at any point.

We have not had any kind of estimate in that respect at all. We simply know that the Liberals intend to dramatically increase the debt levels at a time when we are not in the midst of a global financial crisis. They will significantly increase the federal debt-to-GDP ratio, and that creates an unsustainable situation, one in which all of their glorious promises, whether on social policy, on infrastructure, on spending on the environment, will unfortunately lead to painful cuts in the future, unless we get back on to a track of real fiscal sustainability.

Let us underline, as well, that when we talk about the federal debt-to-GDP ratio, people like to compare Canada to other countries and say we have a much lower federal debt-to-GDP ratio than those other countries. However, Canada is different, insofar as we have provincial and municipal governments that provide a much greater share of public services than are provided at the subnational level in other states. When we are doing international comparisons in terms of the challenges we face in debt in this country, we should look at total government debt, not just federal debt to GDP. We have the Province of Ontario led by a Liberal government. The Province of Ontario is the most indebted sub-sovereign borrower on the planet. Our total government debt-to-GDP ratio is quite high. It is similar to levels in the United States, the U.K., and other countries.

We cannot, at all, take our position for granted. It is important that we have a real plan for fiscal sustainability over the long term, and we are not seeing this from the government. Not only are we seeing a misstatement of the record, but we are seeing a complete absence of a plan when it comes to the long term.

There is an important question that the government needs to answer, and hopefully it will have time to answer in the much-shortened debate that the Liberals have given us. That is, at what point will the Liberals be prepared to learn from what is happening in the real economy?

They have undertaken a dangerous experiment, one that I would argue we have every reason to already know the results of. They claim that this massively unsustainable fiscal policy they have undertaken will somehow stimulate the economy. Let us be very clear that this is not at all the traditional economics of stimulus. John Maynard Keynes would be rolling in his grave by the extent to which he has been misused by the current government. He believed that we should run targeted temporary deficits, that it was acceptable to run deficits during years of relative struggle, and that it would create a counter-circular push, but then the savings had to come on the other side. The current government's plan is long-term, constant deficits.

When will the Liberals learn the lesson? It has been a year, and they are still talking about slow growth. Unemployment is where it was a year ago.

I would like to know at what point the government will change its course if its plan does not work. Will it take two years, three years? Will it at some point realize it is not working and that it needs to go back to the policy of the previous Conservative government? I hope the Liberals will do that sooner rather than later.

[Foreign Affairs, December 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, very clearly the government is changing its story on foreign and defence policy all the time. In a desperate bid to get a UN Security Council seat, the Liberals are preparing to send the Canadian military to fight in a place where troops will almost certainly encounter child soldiers. While the Liberals scramble to figure out their policy on shooting child soldiers, many Canadians are wondering why this was not considered before a commitment was made.

Why are the Liberals, without a plan and without a vote in the House of Commons, sending our troops into a situation that clearly looks more disastrous every day, again simply to get approval of the UN Security Council?

[National Sickle Cell Awareness Day Act, December 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to debate this very important bill before the House today. I suspect I will breathe a little less fire in this speech than I did in the one I gave earlier this afternoon.

Oftentimes, we deal with issues that are relatively uncontroversial, on which we agree. All of us in the House are generally united, if not on means, certainly on where we want to go, which is to make life better for Canadians within our constituencies and across the country. It is nice when we can unite around certain common objectives that are important and that are transparently in the best interests of the country.

To say that this bill is not controversial does not mean it is not important. Even before we pass the bill, the fact of debating of it and putting some of the conversation around the issues of sickle disease onto the record is going to have a positive impact in awareness. I want to congratulate the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour on bringing it forward. This bill was originally brought forward in the Senate. I want to recognize the good work done by the senators. I had a chance to review some of the debate that took place there as well.

Why is this important? Awareness in general is good, but awareness of sickle cell disorders is particularly important because we know there is often a lack of awareness out there, that someone may be suffering from a sickle cell disorder and not be aware it. They may seek help in responding to it, and not receive appropriate care because of that lack of awareness.

Identifying June 19 as awareness day helps to move us in the direction of more people being aware when they experience what may be symptoms and to ask their physicians if they are related to the sickle cell issue. It helps to ensure that health providers are more aware of this issue as well. It gives us the opportunity in the House to have the debate and raise awareness of this issue. It also creates a focal point on efforts throughout the country to raise awareness around this.

Some of my colleagues have mentioned that June 19 was not picked at random. This is an awareness recognized in different parts of the world, and it aligns us with those broader international efforts around sickle cell disease.

Various colleagues have talked about some of the medical background on this, but it is worth revisiting and underlining it.

Over 5,000 Canadians live with sickle cell disease in some form. Estimates are that about one out of every 2,500 children born in our country has some sort of this condition. I am told that in the United States sickle cell disease is the most common genetic disease, as far as that country goes.

There are three predominant forms of it in this part of the world: sickle cell anemia, which is the one people may have heard the most about; hemoglobin SC disease; and then hemoglobin sickle beta plus thalassemia.

Essentially what sickle cell disease involves is a deformity of a part of the red blood cells, which makes those red blood cells not last as long. Therefore, people with sickle cell disease often suffer from reduced red blood cell count and other things that are associated with that.

These different kinds of diseases can be associated with a lot of pain. The associated misdiagnosis of that pain can be an exacerbating problem for people who are experiencing this. In some cases, we know of instances where people have been seeking treatment for their pain and have been dismissed because the assumption is made that they are just seeking painkillers not related to pain but for inappropriate purposes. That is one thing that can happen to people legitimately seeking help for this. Another issue may be that people are simply being given painkillers that do not actually deal with the underlying problem they are facing.

These are some of the things we know have happened to Canadians who are experiencing this underlying problem, but there is not a sufficient awareness about where this is coming from.

It is really important that people who have one of these disorders know about it so that they can get the proper support. Although there currently is not a treatment, and I appreciate the comments made by various colleagues about the need for more research to be gathered, there are mechanisms for managing symptoms that exist, things like blood transfusions and various drugs.

These are challenges that are genetic. We know that some people are carriers and others have the disease. It is passed on genetically; it is not something that is contagious.

However, emerging research suggests that there is a positive impact associated with things like lifestyle and diet. Those things can have a positive impact on a patient's quality of life. While we are dealing with a problem that is genetic in its origin, it does not mean that lifestyle cannot have a positive impact for that person. A person's health status, generally, is the result of the interaction between their genetics and the environment that they are in, in the broad sense of it.

The other important aspect of awareness is that in children especially, but also adults, who are dealing with sickle cell disorders, it can influence their level of fatigue and their ability to concentrate. There can be a relationship between these challenges and memory lapses. Having that awareness helps a person navigate school or work environments. It helps with the awareness of those they are working with, perhaps a teacher, in the case of a student, in terms of helping accommodate the specific issues that a person has.

Having that awareness significantly helps with the accommodation and the ability to succeed and thrive in light of a challenge that a person faces.

This is why I think it is particularly important that, as we talk about awareness, we also move the discussion toward screening and how having newborns go through a screening process and being aware of a sickle cell disorder they may have and be able to plan and respond to it makes a very significant difference.

We know that in every state in the United States sickle cell screening occurs. In Canada, it is available in some places, but not everywhere. There is a good opportunity, I think, to discuss what the benefits of expanding screening would be.

We know, of course, as with any health service, there is a cost to it. However, when we look at the availability of specific health services, one of the metrics we can look at, although it is not the only one or the be-all end-all, is what are the dollars per life saved? In other words, with an investment in a particular kind of screening or treatment, what is the positive impact going to be, in terms of lives saved?

I have looked at some of the research on this, with respect to sickle cell screening. I think the evidence pretty clearly points to the fact that, on efficiency grounds, investments in this area really do pay quite substantial dividends, in terms of lives saved. There is a pretty direct relationship there and, in terms of a dollars-per-life-saved metric, the impact is pretty good. The benefits there are clear, from advanced screening.

Sometimes when we talk about health care, we are more likely to put the dollars into the sort of end-stage treatments as opposed to the things in advance, the preventative, the screening things, but often investments in preventative-type of health care can pay, actually, the most dividends. This is one of those examples.

Just to add to the context, in terms of awareness, many of my colleagues have already pointed out that there is a disproportionate impact of this within certain cultural communities. I know others have listed them and I am running out of time, so I will just say that there is a disproportionate impact. It is important, especially as our country becomes more diverse, that we not ignore those diseases that particularly impact certain communities that may include more newer Canadians.

Also, it is important to be aware that it is not just those communities that are affected, but that all different kinds of cultural communities can theoretically have sickle cell disorder.

That basically covers it. June 19 would be an important day for us to mark this, as we continue the efforts in this House and beyond to raise awareness about sickle cell disorder and to look for solutions to it.