Garnett Genuis

[Petitions, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, over the last several months, I have had a chance to travel across the country and speak to many people about the importance of the Office of Religious Freedom. I have a petition signed by literally hundreds of Canadians, predominantly from the greater Toronto area, calling on the government to renew the office to continue to do its good work.

[Citizenship Act, March 9th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke very eloquently and passionately, but I did not hear much discussion of the substantive content of the bill.

The effects of the bill, as we know and as we have heard in the House, is that if a person with a Canadian passport travels to another country and is involved in genocide or is involved in terrorism, things that are clearly at odds with our values, we do not have a way of revoking that citizenship. We do not have a way of telling people that we do not have to rescue them anymore if they get into trouble, that they have severed that bond with Canadians.

It is all well and good to say that people like that should be in prison, but if they are in a different country and the only option we have is revoking their citizenship, surely at some point they have severed that connection.

In her response would the member address this and perhaps other substantive components of the bill? We agree that we live in a great country and all that, but what is in the bill that is actually worth supporting? That is what we need to hear.

[Citizenship Act, March 9th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the member for Scarborough—Agincourt always speaks eloquently, even when I do not agree with him. He is so good at making bad ideas sound good.

When it comes to this idea of fundamental principles, he gets at something important. When people choose to reject all the things that characterize Canadian values, when they do not buy in by trying to use the good name of Canadian citizenship to engage in violent terrorism against Canadians, against innocent people, against our values, is there not some point at which people can effectively take themselves out of that citizenship by their own convictions and actions against Canada, against Canadian values, against innocent people?

Let us make this concrete. What would happen when individuals who have the benefit of a Canadian passport travel around the world, use the access a Canadian passport gives them, undertake violence against civilians, plan terrorist activities, continue to use the good name of Canada, and have to be bailed out by us in certain situations? Is there not some point where individuals by their own actions take themselves out of the Canadian family by choosing to be involved in this kind of violence?

[Citizenship Act, March 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is striking how the government caucus is so keen to spread absolute misinformation about the existing bill that is being changed. Liberals gloss over the fact that this bill strips citizenship from convicted terrorists, that nobody needs to worry about this bill unless they plan on committing an act of terrorism. Those are the people who are liable to lose their citizenship. The Conservatives' position is that convicted terrorists do not have a right to be part of the Canadian family if they are not going to accept our fundamental values.

The bill leaves in place, though, the option of stripping citizenship from those who obtain their citizenship fraudulently. I wonder if the member could comment.

Does she see this as an inconsistency? The government says people can lose their citizenship, in fact, dual citizens can be stripped of their citizenship, if they obtain their citizenship fraudulently, but not if they were involved in terrorism.

Does this not seem to suggest the opposite of the Liberals' rhetoric and that they regard fraud as a more serious matter than terrorism?

[Citizenship Act, March 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech and her excellent work in general on this very important file.

I believe, and I think our caucus believes deeply, that citizenship needs to have value. In fact, it is many new Canadians who particularly appreciate the value of that citizenship, perhaps in some cases because they have had experience in other countries with more challenging environments.

What this bill would do, in my view, is reduce the value of citizenship by allowing someone to be involved in terrorism, which completely goes against Canadian values, and also to not have the intention of living in Canada at all. This potentially toxic combination would reduce the value of our citizenship. The changes we brought in helped to increase the value of citizenship, and that is why so many new Canadians supported those changes.

I wonder if the member could comment specifically on the value of citizenship and why our approach emphasizes that key concept more.

[Foreign Affairs, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there is a paradox in the way the government is responding to these questions because, on the one hand, it is clear that Liberals recognize that Ambassador Bennett and the office have done very good work since the office was created.

Some of the original critics said all kinds of things about this office being a partisan thing or about political pandering, but clearly those who observed the record, and clearly the government observing the record and the experience of this office, know that in fact that is not the case and the office has done very good work.

Why is it so difficult, then, for the Liberals to just come out and assure Canadians, assure communities that are particularly invested in this office, that the office will be able to continue to do its work? Why is it so difficult for them to simply commit to renewing the mandate of the office?

We know it is doing excellent work. We continue to need to have this centre of excellence; so is the parliamentary secretary willing to simply provide Canadians with the assurance today that the mandate of the office will in fact be renewed?

[Foreign Affairs, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to again ask the government what it is going to do with the Office of Religious Freedom.

We and others have been asking it to put ideology aside, to recognize the good work the office has done and to simply renew its mandate. The office is working, is doing good work, and should continue doing that work. When it comes to this office and its mandate, it is worth referencing the old saying, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”.

Unfortunately, with many important issues hanging in the balance, the government has yet to answer our simple questions about its plans for this office. Has it still not decided, or is it simply not ready to tell us yet?

Canadians, and especially the growing number of Canadians with personal and family connections to hard-pressed religious minority communities around the world, really want to know what the government is going to do with this office. The government has been sending mixed signals and is trying to buy itself time with a short-term extension. Still, Canadians and people around the world want to know what is happening with this office.

We have spoken before in the House about the good work of this office, in Africa, in the Middle East, in Pakistan, and in Ukraine.

In fact, I was recently in India and had an opportunity to speak to students at Indian universities about human rights and religious freedom. I was asked, specifically, about the Office of Religious Freedom.

It is not just something that Canadians are paying attention to. People around the world, students, the elderly, and everyone in between, are listening and asking if Canada is still going to be involved in fighting for human rights and human dignity in this vital way.

This past Sunday, I was speaking about this issue at a major gurdwara in Mississauga. I was pleased to highlight the co-operation between faith leaders in Canada calling for the renewal of this office. Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian leaders have spoken out together in support of this office. The office advocates for all people. It was officially launched in a mosque, and its advocacy includes for non-believers who have specific representation on the office's external advisory committee.

The government has not answered the central question. All it has said on this subject is, “human rights are universal, interdependent and indivisible”. Absolutely, they are. We are also well-served by centres of excellence within government and within the Department of Global Affairs, which focus on specific areas.

To name another example, we have a department for the Status of Women. Certainly, human rights are interdependent and indivisible, but we still have, and we should have, a department that focuses specifically upon the status of women.

Why is it important that we have these types of centres of excellence? Because to have all types of rights lumped together risks a situation in which no one is focused upon individual specific areas of rights and rights violations. Without specific centres of excellence, individual areas that need attention can risk getting lost in one murky interdependent and indivisible soup.

What is the downside in keeping this office open? The total budget of the office is $5 million. I am all for cutting costs when it makes sense to do so, but $5 million is 1/180th of the cost of the government's changes to public sector sick leave. The vast majority of that $5 million is used directly to help suffering people caught in regions of conflict.

Will the government just go ahead and say yes already? While we cannot solve every problem, it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. The Office of Religious Freedom is the candle that is burning bright far beyond its size would suggest it could. I ask the government to please not snuff this candle out.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a great point that our party helps to strengthen our federation by respecting jurisdictions. We did not push agendas that were outside of federal jurisdiction. We sought to listen to and collaborate with people at other levels of government and respect their decision-making authority.

In the case of the city of Toronto, we are listening to what is coming out of Toronto and not trying to have members from Toronto micromanage what happens in Toronto. This is about land use. This is about development and the future of the city. Obviously, many Torontonians see great opportunities in the expansion of the airport. Certainly the federal government should not get in the way, but we need to work with other levels of government. The most important way of doing that is to respect their jurisdiction and respect the ability of the private sector to be involved in investments that benefit our whole economy.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member clearly did not listen to the point I was making. With respect to his point about local control, it is very clear that there are certain responsibilities that are more effectively handled at some levels of government than others. Of course, I am not saying that absolutely everything should be done by the municipality.

Something like interprovincial transportation is constitutionally a federal government power, and it makes sense that it is because it involves and goes across the whole country. But specifically, this is a decision about an airport inside the city of Toronto and something that the people of Toronto have the primary stake in, and it is quite sensible to have their involvement in the decision.

The principle of local control is that as much as possible, decisions should be made at the level that is closest to the people. That is the principle behind our convictions of local control, which might be called subsidiarity, which we value.

In terms of past decisions at Toronto city council, again, that is exactly the point. It should be to the greatest possible extent their decision to make. If the people of Toronto decide they do not want this, so be it, but what has happened is that the federal government has sought to put the kibosh on this.

In terms of the cost of federal spending, again I want to be very clear about what I said. It is not that all federal spending is bad. The member is completely misconstruing what I said, intentionally or not. My point is that we should seek to leverage investment by the private sector for the benefit of the economy as much as possible. We should not ignore the possibility of private sector investment. We should use that to our advantage. There is a role for the public sector as well, but we should seek to leverage the private sector involvement as much as possible.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to discuss this important issue.

We are talking about the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport in Toronto and the benefits that such an expansion would have for Toronto. We are talking today about Bombardier and the benefits that the airport expansion would have for Bombardier and more broadly the province of Quebec, but we are also talking about a fundamental principle, and that is the importance of stimulating the economy and how we do so.

I think there is broad agreement in this House not only about the importance of having a strong economy but also about the role for government in looking for ways to strengthen our economy, in looking for policies or structures that can be put in place to facilitate stimulation of the economy.

We have a different approach on this side of the House. Our view is that as much as possible, the first action is to seek to work with and leverage opportunities for investment for stimulus from within the private sector. If there are opportunities to encourage private sector investments that lead to economic stimulus and economic growth, that is a very good thing. We should prioritize these types of initiatives as much as possible. We should look first to stimulating private sector investment before looking for big injections of public dollars.

That approach is different from the government's approach. The Liberals jump automatically from wishing to have a strong, stimulated economy to saying that means the government has to put in a whole bunch of new spending.

Again, we know of the government's plan to run very large deficits, but I think what is behind that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way we stimulate the economy. We want to see strong private sector-driven economic growth, and this motion is an example of how we go about doing that. We want private sector-driven economic stimulus. We want policies that make it easier for the private sector to make investments, and that is exactly what the motion is all about.

Our strategy prioritizes private sector investment, and that is where we start. We did a number of things that encouraged that kind of investment. One of the ways to encourage private sector-oriented stimulus is to have open trade and efforts to attract international investments, and of course we did that over the last 10 years. A strong transportation network, frankly, is part of that. It is part of facilitating international trade and the people-to-people interactions that make trade possible.

Of course, a stable but relatively limited regulatory environment is important as well. This encourages new investment. A regulatory environment that is predictable and limited but that is always oriented to encouraging new investment is important. This is what we need to stimulate our economy. This is what we need to encourage private sector-driven stimulus.

The third thing, and the focus of our discussion today, is how important transportation and infrastructure links are for having private sector-driven economic stimulus. In the history of our country, which is such a large country, transportation and infrastructure links have always been very important. There is a role for the government to be involved in those things, but whenever there is an opportunity to encourage private sector investment in transportation and infrastructure links, I would argue that we need to work as hard as possible to make that happen.

One of the things we have talked about in this House is the importance of pipelines. Pipelines are the nation-building infrastructure of the 21st century, and another part of that is strengthening our airports and the airport connections in the country. This is what this is all about: having pipelines, having airports. These things interconnect our country economically to facilitate trade and help to create jobs.

I am sure other members have talked specifically about the economic benefits of the Billy Bishop airport, but let me just go over this again. Annual direct impacts are close to 2,000 jobs, $100 million in wages, $220 million in GDP, and $980 million in economic output. A study found that the impact of non-local visitors' spending on air services at the airport amounted to approximately $150 million a year, so we know that significant economic benefits are facilitated by having that transportation infrastructure in place.

We need to do this. We need to see the value of this. We need to get this done. It is just unfortunate that we are dealing with a government right now in this country that really only sees one tool in the tool box when it comes to stimulating the economy. When the Liberals want to have a strong economy, they think the solution is always more government spending. During good times, bad times, and in-between times, all they want is more government spending. The reality is that when they have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

As a result, instead of simulating the economy by identifying opportunities in the private sector by working with the private sector to facilitate investment from other places, they just want the government to spend more money.

Our approach on this side of the House is different. Recognizing a multiplicity of tools in the toolbox for stimulating and strengthening the economy is necessary, but generally speaking, public expenditure should be a last resort. If we can stimulate the economy without having significant injections of taxpayer dollars, that is obviously preferable, because any major government spending does cost taxpayers.

I want to talk a bit about the issue in the context of local control and who is involved in making decisions with respect to the airport. There is a tripartite agreement in place that gives the federal government theoretical authority to make decisions about this airport, but because this is a development decision, a decision about what happens inside Toronto, we see it as something that the people of Toronto should ultimately make the fundamental decision about. Even though we encourage development, we want to see local control in this context.

Proceeding with development projects can always be difficult, whether we are talking about building a building, expanding an airport, or doing natural resource development. It can be difficult enough without having the involvement of many different levels of government where everyone feels like they have to be onside before something can move forward. Let us let the people most directly involved and most directly impacted have the biggest role in this. The City of Toronto has put a lot of money into studying this. It has effectively been limited now in its ability to proceed because of the Liberal government's desire to interfere, which it technically and legally does have the authority to do, but which most properly should be decided by the people of Toronto.

These are really the central points here that the government is missing. When the government is stimulating the economy, it is not all about putting a whole bunch of money into the economy if there are opportunities instead to leverage private sector investment. This is something that has huge economic benefits for Ontario and Quebec. There is an opportunity to leverage the involvement of the private sector, and that is a better way to go, a better way to stimulate the economy, than the alternative, which is simply the government putting a bunch of money into things.

Then there is also the issue of local control. The challenges with development are enough that we do not need everyone trying to control the process. We should leave the process as much as possible to the people of Toronto, to the people directly affected, and to their representatives in the City of Toronto.

I think that on that basis, understanding the proper place of economic stimulus and the need for local control, this is an important motion. I look forward to voting in favour of it.