Garnett Genuis

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, June 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I are both new members. However, my colleague for Winnipeg North is not new, so he should know even better than us the record of significant investments by our previous government in the aerospace sector. In fact, I will mention the close to $1 billion spent on the strategic aerospace defence initiative, which was a major initiative specifically supporting innovation investment in the aerospace sector. Also, of course, there are other measures that supported economic growth more generally, with things like opening up trading opportunities and lowering business taxes.

I wonder if the member can correct the record in terms of what was said incorrectly across the way, and talk about how much our previous government did for the aerospace sector, as well as the economy more generally.

[Request for Emergency Debate, June 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as per my letter to you, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I request leave to make a motion to discuss actions the government can take to address the human rights situation facing Uighur Muslims in China, specifically in light of threats to religious liberty that this community may face during Ramadan, starting June 6.

The Uighur Muslim community living in the People's Republic of China faces significant human rights abuses. During Ramadan these abuses have included forcible prevention of people from engaging in this deeply important Muslim fast.

In 2015, the Chinese government banned civil servants, students, and teachers in the Xinjiang region, where most Uighurs live, from fasting during Ramadan. It also ordered restaurants to stay open. On January 1, new “Enforcement of Religious Affairs Regulations" came into effect in the region, with the professed goal of limiting the role of religion in “marriage, funerals, culture, the arts, and sports".

Again this year, counties have posted notices forbidding students and Communist Party members from participating in the Ramadan fast.

The Chinese government is paying attention to what we in Canada say and do not say on these issues. We in this House, the government, and you, Mr. Speaker, can make a difference for these suffering people by using this opportunity to discuss the role we can play in response to this situation.

[Foreign Affairs, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is mystifying that the government wants this new office of everything but cannot answer some very simple questions about it.

I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary what this office will actually do. I would like to know why this office is not a real independent office, in the same sense as the previous office. Why is there not an ambassador who has the ability to speak and raise issues in a clear public way? Is this new money, or is this just the product of internal reallocation, potentially away from existing human rights activities?

Finally, why the absence of focus? Of course, we all recognize that human rights issues are interconnected, but if we are focused on everything then we are not focused on anything. Therefore, instead of this office of everything approach, can the government answer some of these clear questions and commit to a focus on some of these important areas of international human rights?

[Foreign Affairs, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise at this point and further challenge the government on its lack of emphasis on international human rights.

I am following up on a question that I asked in March, where I, or we, called on the government to renew the important work then being done by Canada's office of religious freedom. Of course, we know now that the government most likely did not have any plan at the time, but certainly was not prepared to renew the work of the office.

In the intervening time, the office expired in March. We spent a month and half with absolutely no plan. The government was not prepared to even extend the work of the office of religious freedom for the interim period of time until it came up with what it is notionally identifying as a replacement structure.

There was not a plan. There was not a willingness to do anything in the interim. I think that left a real problem for many of the stakeholders who are involved in this area, as well as our international partners.

Now we finally know what the government's much-promoted, at least by it, new replacement strategy is. It has come up with what it is calling an office of human rights, freedom, and inclusion, what we have dubbed an office of everything. If we look at the words of the minister and others, this office promises to do absolutely everything in this context.

In a conversation the minister had with the National Post, he talked about it being involved in promoting the rights of indigenous peoples around the world, certainly something that is important, as well as dealing with the Canadian mining industry, and dealing with how indigenous rights internationally might interact with it. Again, it is an important area, to be sure.

The minister talked as well about this office dealing with freedom of religion in the context of the subdivision of inclusion within the office. However, then he said that inclusion was not only freedom of religion; it could be sexual inclusion. I am not entirely sure what that means, but we will just move on.

It could be political exclusion, pluralism, rights of women, rights of refugees, and in the midst of aiming at dealing with almost every problem, it is not at all clear what this office will do. As we learn more, it is particularly concerning that this office is not really an independent office at all, certainly not in the sense that we once had with the office of religious freedom. This is not an independent office with an ambassador. It is in fact aligned within foreign affairs and is headed up by a director. If the government took this area seriously, it would at least appoint an ambassador to be responsible for this important area.

I will just mention as well that there is no mention in the budget of this work, of course again suggesting that the government is flying by the seat of its pants on this, but also making us wonder where the money for this is going to come from. If this comes from internal reallocation from other existing human rights activities, we are clearly no better off.

If the government was serious about international human rights, it could have maintained the existing office of religious freedom and certainly built on that existing model to explore creating other small, focused offices to deal with some of the other very worthy areas that are mentioned. I certainly think there is some value in looking at the area of international rights of indigenous peoples, but the government does not do that area or religious freedom or anything else justice by lumping it together in this ostensibly mandateless soupy office of everything.

I want to ask the government this question again. Is it willing to do the responsible thing, use the model that worked, and renew the office of religious freedom?

[National Anthem Act, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin my remarks on this important bill by paying tribute to the work done by the member for Ottawa—Vanier. Of course we can still have differences of opinion with respect to this bill. However, it is important to recognize his courage and commitment to a cause that we may not all agree with. Nonetheless, his willingness to absolutely preserve and put forward a principle that is important to him and reflects a long-term project of his is important.

I have to say that I have thought quite a bit about this bill. I know that during this debate some have taken the view that these things can never change. That is not my view. I am open to having a conversation about the wording and I believe that there is no harm in having that conversation.

In that context I will say that if we were to change the words, I would personally prefer the original version of “thou dost in us command” over “all of us command”, which I regard as somewhat awkward phrasing. This perhaps illustrates the point that ultimately this is not quite a binary choice. Members of the Canadian public might ultimately wish to make some kind of a change but have a range of different perspectives on what the best kind of change would be.

However, I have concerns about the process. I will be voting against the bill, principally because, and this is perhaps the only case wherein I would tell the government it needs to do much more consultation on this. I do not think two hours of debate on a private member's bill is the appropriate process of pushing through a change that is this consequential to our national anthem. It seems perhaps strange that I would say that, given on so many files we make the opposite criticism of the government, that it seems to be dragging out and punting down the road decisions that could be taken much more quickly. Then on other files, and particularly in this case, there is a will it seems to expedite this.

In fact, there was some criticism in the media about Conservative members who wanted to complete the first hour and continue to a second hour. There were members of the government who felt that we should just let the debate shut down and have the vote right then. I think that is fundamentally irresponsible. I understand the desire to move this along because of the health situation of the member for Ottawa—Vanier, however, I think we would give him a better tribute if we give this the thorough discussion, and engage in the necessary conversations and consultations with Canadians as part of that important process. Therefore, I would make a modest proposal. If the government wants to have this discussion, if it wants to have Canadians engaged in this discussion, why not have this as the second question on the electoral reform referendum that we think certainly needs to happen and we hope will be happening?

If members of the government are eager to have this conversation, I just do not think we should be rushing this in through the vehicle of a private member's bill. I also do not think that prescribing specific new wording is the way to go instead of having a conversation that engages Canadians and then ultimately puts the question to Canadians. I believe that a process that engages Canadians in the discussion would be more effective because it seems to me there are likely many Canadians who do not even know that we are having a conversation this consequential about changing our national anthem. I know that some members have talked, and my friend from Calgary Shepard in particular, about the significant engagements they have had with their constituents on this issue. However, I suspect all the same that there are many Canadians who are not following the debates in this place in detail. They would be surprised to find that in a few short months all of a sudden they are told that the anthem that they have been singing from childhood has been changed. I think that would be a surprise and a very unfortunate way of rushing this important conversation.

The language contained in this type of an anthem obviously is important. It has symbolic value for Canadians on both sides. It has symbolic value to those who may not feel included by the words, but on the other hand, they may not be interpreting the original connotation of those words in the correct way, but still may not feel included by them.

On the other hand, there are those who have identified with that anthem, have fought for Canada under that anthem, and would feel the opposite, would feel that moving away from wording that they have historically identified with and appreciated would be really troubling for their sense of patriotism, troubling in their desire to identify with long-standing Canadian symbols.

We can do this. If members in the government are interested in having this discussion, it could be done in a responsible way. However, in the absence of that process and in the absence of the proper engagement with Canadians, I am forced to oppose the bill.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Chair, I think the record will again show that the minister chose not to answer the question.

I wonder, though, if he wants to refer to a previous time period. I will just ask him this. Is he aware of the 2008-09 global recession, yes or no? Does he think stimulative economic policy was appropriate during the global recession, yes or no?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Chair, I think we will get through these seven minutes without hearing any answers, but I will continue in the hope we will get some.

The minister has claimed that Canada had low growth over the last 10 years. Could he name a G7 country that had higher growth than Canada over the last seven years?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Chair, if the government intends to balance the budget at some point in the future, could the minister give us a ballpark of when he intends for that to happen?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Chair, I will give the minister one more chance. To be clear, I will repeat the question. I think it was very clear.

Does he believe that the Government of Canada should ever, at some point in the future, balance the budget, yes or no?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Chair, could the minister answer at least one question tonight?

Does the minister believe that the Government of Canada should ever balance the budget at any point in the future, yes or no?