Garnett Genuis

[Food and Drugs Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that the NDP will be supporting the bill at this stage. I think it is an important bill for facilitating trade for Canada and in Canada's interest.

I want to ask the member about the trans-Pacific partnership.

President Obama has championed the trans-Pacific partnership as a progressive trade deal with important protections for the environment and workers' rights. Clearly, the member disagrees with him. Therefore, I would ask her who she thinks should be setting the rules of trade in the Asia-Pacific region. Should it be like-minded nations, western democracies, or should it be China?

If we do not move forward with the TPP, we put ourselves in a situation where much more likely the rules of trade are going to be shaped to a greater extent by China. I would be concerned with that. I think we are better off with the TPP negotiated by President Obama and others, which protects environmental issues and workers' rights. Does the member not agree that is in fact a better way to go?

[Income Tax Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the excellent speech by my friend in terms of our fiscal situation.

However, hearing the ridiculousness coming from the other side makes one's head spin. They completely ignore the existence of the financial crisis, and they forget that it was their party that every step of the way said we should be spending more. We made timely, targeted, and temporary investments in the economy, and it was their side, every step of the way, that said we should spend more. Now that they are in government, they are spending far more. They eliminated the balanced budget that we had, and now they are somehow presenting themselves as fiscal savers.

Would my friend please correct the record in terms of what was said about that?

[Income Tax Act, June 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I always so enjoy asking questions of my friend from Regina—Lewvan.

We heard his perspective on economic policy, but I would encourage him to look not just at economic theory but at economic history. He is from Saskatchewan, and I am from Alberta. I think both of us suffer from provincial government envy, to some extent. For decades, under NDP governments in Saskatchewan that pursued policies that he advocates of bigger government and bigger spending, capital, and more importantly, people left Saskatchewan for Alberta, but now, under the Wall government, the exodus of young people from Saskatchewan has stopped.

Does the member not have to agree that the policies of free enterprise that are now being pursued in Saskatchewan are better and have led to more young people staying in Saskatchewan and being able to get employment there?

[Income Tax Act, June 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there were one and a half minutes left in questions and comments.

[Income Tax Act, June 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to probe my colleague's comments about the minimum wage. He sees that a higher minimum wage would provide benefits. Many economists believe that a higher minimum wage leads to increased unemployment and it is not hard to understand intuitively why that would be. If the cost of something is increased, people will purchase less of it. If the cost of labour is increased, people will hire fewer people.

There are things the government could do that would help people in that same situation. It could raise the base exemption people can earn before paying tax, like we did. It could lower the lowest marginal tax rate, not the middle rate, which is also something that we did when we were in government.

Would the member not agree that those types of measures would have more of a benefit and less of an economic cost because they would not increase unemployment?

[Income Tax Act, June 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague did a very good job of pointing out that we have a policy choice. On the one hand, we can allow individuals to save more of their own money or on the other hand, we can have the government take that money and put it into this new, expanded pension concept the government has.

Maybe the member could talk a little bit more about the benefits of giving individuals choice and control over their own money versus giving government control of that money.

[Human Rights, June 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, let me be clear. There are cases where it makes sense to work through back channels. Also there are cases where speaking clearly and publicly is necessary. I happen to think that the case of the Rohingya is a case where strong public action and public identification of these issues is necessary. After all, if we cannot be clear and public about our convictions with a country to whom we are giving tens of millions of dollars, then what exactly are we afraid of?

Maybe the parliamentary secretary could correct me, but the issue with the minister is that I cannot think of a single case in which he has spoken clearly, specifically, and directly to another country in a public way about the abuse of international human rights. If the government wanted to do something concrete, it could support the Magnitsky sanctions. It could find some case where it could speak publicly.

What is happening in Burma is a political choice by the government. We need our government to speak clearly to the Burmese government and say that the treatment of Rohingya Muslims is totally unacceptable.

Will the parliamentary secretary accept that some cases at least require strong leadership from the—

[Human Rights, June 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, earlier I had an opportunity to raise the situation facing the Rohingya Muslim community in Burma. I have not received a response at all with respect to the conditions of the Rohingya people in Burma. I hope I will be able to get more information about what the government is doing with respect to leadership on human rights in that country.

I have asked questions before about process, about my concerns, about changes that have been made with respect to the public service around human rights, specifically the elimination of the Office of Religious Freedom. However, this question is about what the foreign affairs minister has done, and is doing, to raise the very concerning human rights situation facing the Rohingya Muslim community.

At the time that I asked the question, the minister had been in Burma, making a major announcement about spending on democratic development. Yet we did not hear any public mention at all with respect to the Rohingya. It is important to not just have the capacity within foreign affairs working on these issues, but to have real leadership, leadership that we have not seen at all at a public level from the minister when it comes to international human rights. He was present at a press conference where the Chinese foreign minister berated a journalist for asking a human rights question, and we did not see leadership from the foreign affairs minister on that. He opposed a motion to recognize the genocide faced by the Syrian Christians, other Christians in other communities, as well as the Yazidis in the Middle East, which is very disappointing.

Specifically with respect to the situation of the Rohingya Muslim community, the issue with Rohingyas in Burma is that Burma is at this democratic moment. It very recently transitioned from a military rule dictatorial situation toward a democracy. Yet it is a democracy in which the very large Muslim community within Burma is significantly disenfranchised. The very citizenship and the right to participate in basic democratic activities within the new state of Burma are denied to them. This is tragic.

As Canada and other western countries are building their relationship with Burma, as we provide the kind of support for democratic development that the minister announced, it is so important that we have clear public leadership from the minister confronting this issue. The funding that was provided was for strengthening institutions, which is always important. However, the issue here is not about the strength of the institution, but about a political choice that has been made to disenfranchise this community in violation of the international human rights obligations, which Burma and all countries have.

It is concerning the kinds of things that have been done and said by the leadership. When Aung San Suu Kyi took over, when her party came to power, she announced the release of political prisoners but did not include in that Rohingya and other Burmese Muslim political prisoners. There is this ongoing issue of lack of citizenship. The government claims that the Rohingya people are not really properly Burmese. It calls them Bengalis, to suggest that they are not citizens but are actually from somewhere else. Therefore, the removal of citizenship from this community has created the largest stateless community of people anywhere. I could go through and list all of the human rights abuses, but I do not have time.

The core issue is leadership. Is this minister and the government prepared to stand up, lead, and advocate for the rights of the Rohingya? I hope they will say yes.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), June 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the government's alleged commitment to palliative care. Of course, we saw nothing in the budget. It seems to be a bit of an afterthought.

The expert panel was very clear in its report that if someone does not have access to palliative care, a decision for physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia cannot be seen as truly voluntary. If they have no other option, it cannot be seen as truly voluntary. I wonder if the member acknowledges that.

Also, the government talks about money for palliative care and home care. I would like to know what part of that is specifically for palliative care, when the Liberals finally get around to honouring this promise.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), June 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his speech and for the work he did as chair of the justice committee. Of course we do not always agree, but I thought he was a very fair-minded and very effective chair of that committee. I want to commend him for the work he did.

Now, listening to his speech, it sounded as if he was motivating the idea of a terminal requirement within the legislation, or a requirement for imminent natural death, and yet the provisions that the government is defending, the language “reasonably foreseeable” is not at all clearly pointing us to terminal or to some kind of imminent situation.

I proposed an amendment at report stage, as he knows, that inserted the word “imminent”, and I believe he and all of his colleagues on that side of that House voted against adding that kind of clarity to the bill.

It seems to me that there is a bit of a disconnect between some of the very real issues and concerns he raises with there not being an imminent requirement, and yet the government's opposition to in any way clarifying that imminence is what reasonably foreseeable means. Without that clarification, that is not what it means.