SoVote

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Mar/29/22 11:41:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's speech was very much on point. The Liberals always claim that other people are being partisan when they do not want to support an obviously good idea that has the support of the rest of the House and the support of Canadians. It is important that we being forward a substantive issue at a critical time and it is too bad that it sounds like the government is not going to support it. I was struck by the last question from the member for Winnipeg North, in that he implied that more support should be offered by provinces and by universities when in fact the federal government has been criticized for not stepping up to provide basic assistance for those coming from Ukraine. Those who are coming are not technically considered refugees under the refugee category, which means they do not have access to federal programs that normally exist for people in that situation. I wonder if the member from the Bloc wants to comment on the fact that the government has been heavily criticized by the Canadian Ukrainian Congress and others for not offering support to those who come from Ukraine, and then the member is using the needs for support as an excuse for not allowing visa-free travel. The government should be offering that support, but why not let people come through the visa-free travel channel since the government is not currently offering that support as it is?

247 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 48 - Mar/29/22

Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 2:31:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite and the plan is as follows: We will have continuous engagement with the U.S. administration at the highest levels. That means the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade. Second, we will have a team-Canada approach, which involves the member opposite who just asked the question. He was included in a recent trade mission with the Minister of International Trade.. We are taking a full and comprehensive non-partisan approach. Third, we will emphasize to all actors on both sides of the border that the economic interests at stake are both on this side of the 49th parallel and in the United States itself. Trade irritants hurt constituents of both of our countries, and we are determined to address this issue.

134 words

Context: House Hansard - 48 - Mar/29/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Mar/29/22 7:00:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been working on a private member's bill initiative for the past six years. People were working on the same initiative for 10 years before that, and it has not passed yet. It is something everyone agrees on. That just shows that, when the government has the regulatory power to solve a problem, saying one should wait 15 years for a private member's bill is not very helpful. I think members could reasonably draw the conclusion, from the statement of the parliamentary secretary and from the statements of ministers, that the Russian Federation is not considered a friendly foreign state, and I think some Canadians will take some comfort in that. However, it is a little frustrating that the parliamentary secretary could not provide a clear response to a clear question, and it is not a partisan question at all. It is simply saying that it is up to the government, in a sense, to define in the context of its foreign policy what states it considers friendly and not friendly, for the purposes of the act. Presumably, courts would refer to statements and opinions of the government, when considering what is a friendly foreign state. Why will the parliamentary secretary not simply and clearly state that, for the purposes of the act, the Russian Federation is not considered a friendly foreign state?

228 words

All Topics