Garnett Genuis

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, there are two specific issues I want to ask the member about. He just referred to the idea of improper bombing. Of course, Canada is no longer participating in the fighting, but it is supporting the bombing.

If his concern is that the bombing is improper in some sense, then why are the Liberals still playing a supporting role but are not willing to participate in the fighting? I want to give him an opportunity to clarify that.

We have also heard from a number of members on the government side about the idea of comparative advantage and Canada not having a comparative advantage when it comes to doing the fighting.

I am of the opinion that we have some of the best bombers and airmen in the world. Let us take advantage of that. Let us recognize that we have a comparative advantage, not a comparative disadvantage. Will the member comment on that as well?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her speech. Obviously, all members of this House agree on the importance of a humanitarian response.

We need to think about this situation at different levels: in the immediate term, in the medium term, and in the long term. Of course, training and humanitarian assistance are all important, especially for the medium and the long terms.

In the short term we have what I would argue, and what we have said on this side, is a genocide. It has been recognized as a genocide by Daesh and recognized as such by figures like Hillary Clinton and by a resolution of the European parliament.

I wonder if the member is of the view that what is happening right now in Syria and Iraq does in fact constitute genocide. If so, does she think that we need to address that in the immediate term, as well as taking into account these longer-term considerations?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech, and to the speech of the member before him.

It seems like we are getting a false choice from both the Liberals and the NDP. They say that we should not do one thing because we should be doing another.

On our side of the House, we see value in many different kinds of ways of being engaged in the region, such as humanitarian assistance; anti-radicalization, and I gave a speech on that earlier; addressing terrorist financing and maybe some other good ideas coming from the other parties on that.

Could we not also include a military response? We have an imminent threat to vulnerable populations in the region. Why, in addition to this suite of other very important activities, can we not be acting in a military way to protect the vulnerable?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member began his speech by criticizing Canada's record over the past 10 years; for example, citing the fact that we were not elected to a seat on the UN Security Council.

I have to say to the member that I am fiercely proud of our principled record in our foreign policy over the past 10 years. The Liberal approach historically was to underfund our military and to go along to get along. Our approach was reared in Canadian values.

Of course, our strong opposition to Iran and Russia, and our support for Israel and persecuted religious minorities, did not always win friends for us at the United Nations. We did not do those things because they were popular. We did them because they were right.

That is our record when it comes to a principled foreign policy, so why are the Liberals backing away from that record? Are they doing it again to simply go along to get along with the United Nations?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, all sides of the House agree about the importance of Canada playing a humanitarian role, but it does not make much sense to me to only contribute to the humanitarian side of it while there is ongoing violence against the innocent. Why not stop the violence, as well as attend to the humanitarian considerations? We are addressing the humanitarian part, but, at the same time, people are continuing to be victims of violence by Daesh. Could we not do both?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs earlier in this debate if he was willing to use the word “genocide” to describe the actions of ISIS. Unfortunately, he was not, because using that word would imply a responsibility to respond militarily, a responsibility to protect.

I wonder if the member can comment on the use of the word “genocide” in the context of what Daesh or ISIS is doing, and perhaps why the government is unwilling to use that terminology.

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, one of the arguments we have heard against this motion was from those who claimed that somehow it would limit freedom of speech. Yet, in the House in 2006 and 2010, we had motions where the House strongly expressed a disagreement with things that were published, in one case in a newspaper and another case in a magazine.

We know there is a difference between limiting freedom of speech on the one hand, but on the other hand, the House expressing itself strongly on behalf of shared values.

Could the member share a bit about why the motion does not actually violate freedom of speech and really highlight that distinction between something that limits freedom of speech on the one hand but something else, such that this motion is, which is the House expressing itself in a collective way about the problems of the BDS movement?

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on what I thought was an excellent speech, the best speech I have heard from a Liberal in a very long time.

I dare say he got much more applause on this side of the House than he did on his own. We have heard some very concerning things from the government benches about this motion. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said this was a divisive motion. While I congratulate the member for acknowledging how important and necessary this motion it is, it should unite us.

I wonder, just in light of some of the things that members of the government have said about this, their equivocation on this issue, and their effort to establish new relations with Iran, how he feels about the actions of his government in that regard, and why Canadians should have confidence in the government when it comes to Israel.

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. What we are talking about in the BDS movement is discrimination on the basis of national origin, not about the convictions of the entities involved. Surely that is a matter on which the House can and should express its opinion. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms talks specifically about not discriminating on the basis of national origin. If our Constitution can express an opinion on such matters, surely the House can as well.

In this context, does the member believe that Hamas is a terrorist organization?

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, it is disappointing to hear the hon. member say he is not interested in engaging in this conversation with those of us over here. Of course, we have a very different world view, but I respect the member and think he should respect us and see the value, at the very least, of having this conversation. This is not about a wedge issue. Conservatives want members in other parties to support this motion. Frankly, I think this should be a consensus issue. If there are those who wish to vote against it, they have to account for that decision.

It is very inconsistent, though, for members of the New Democratic Party, because I remember in 2010 the leader of the New Democratic Party, in particular, taking great umbrage with a cover of Maclean's magazine about Quebec. The House subsequently passed a unanimous motion expressing its opinion about that cover. The member should explain why it is okay for the House to express its opinion on issues like that, but somehow, when it comes to Israel, the House should not express its opinion.

When we see things that go directly against our collective values, we have to take a strong position. The House should not limit freedom of speech but should express strongly its opposition to this racist—