44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 2, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit about the Alberta nation.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Garnett Genuis: This is not a joke, Mr. Speaker. We have a distinct culture, different festivals. We use the same language as some other parts of the country, just like Quebec uses the same language as some other parts of the world.
Does the member agree with me that Alberta is a nation and has the right to be recognized as such?
This is not a joke. It is very serious.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his excellent French. We have reached the point where Alberta is a nation.
British Columbia is a nation, Alberta is a nation. We can settle this right now. Why do we not all separate and form a confederation of sovereign states?
We could share an economic space, keep the same currency and each have our own country. Rather than arguing about what divides us, we could meet to talk about what unites us.
I say yes to the sovereignty of Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec with a shared economic space. Vive le Québec libre.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place and talk about the issues that are pressing to our nation. Certainly, I find it interesting that today a mechanism is being used for a motion the Bloc has brought forward to share some of the priorities of Bloc members. They have highlighted and shared what has come from their constituents.
Over the course of the next nine and a half minutes or so, I hope to discuss some of the substance of the motion and the overall realities that this place faces, in what I hope will be a productive conversation surrounding the importance of the institution that is Parliament and some of the rules and procedures that are associated with it. As will be no surprise to members who have had a chance to listen to some of my interventions in the past, I have a great deal of concern, because we are seeing what I would suggest is a decline in democracy in our nation.
I will highlight as well, when it comes to the motion, that there are questions and concerns surrounding representation for certain provinces with distinct cultures. Coming from Alberta, I know what it is like to be under-represented in this place in terms of the number of seats. It is, I believe, meant to be representation by population in Canada's lower house of our bicameral legislature. We also have a severe under-representation in our upper house. In our conversation around ensuring that our democratic infrastructure is responsive to the realities of our future, that needs to be part of the conversation.
Over the course of COVID, a massive effect has taken place that has impacted Parliament. Especially in the 43rd Parliament, I never thought I would have to fight so hard as a newly elected member of Parliament to simply do my job. There are many aspects of doing that job that have a clear relationship with the Standing Orders and rules we have, which govern the conduct of this place.
Over the course of the last number of months since the election and over the last two Parliaments, there has been a very different look and feel to Parliament. Although this is necessitated by COVID, I note that Canada lagged far behind in terms of Parliament's ability to be reactive and responsive in ensuring that democracy was an essential service in the midst of what is a global pandemic. I hope we can learn the lessons, some of which have been learned, that ensure we can get the functioning of this place back to what I would call a standard of normalcy and ensure there is clear representation. I will touch on Motion No. 11 in a moment, but I will note that over the course of the pandemic, we have seen that accountability can hide behind a computer screen. I know the House leader of the official opposition has brought forward what is an eminently reasonable series of proposals to get the functioning of this place back to normal.
I would like to highlight Motion No. 11. There are some very concerning aspects to it. As I said when discussing Motion No. 11, I can only imagine that had a Conservative prime minister, such as former prime minister Stephen Harper, even contemplated bringing forward something like Motion No. 11, there would have been an outcry by politicos and politicians from different political parties. The government eliminated quorum calls and preprogrammed the ability of a minister of the Crown to extend sittings, without consultation other than with a coalition partner, adding stress on resources. I have done a great deal of research into the matter, and I suggest that the consequences of Motion No. 11 may bring into question the constitutionality of the debate that is taking place.
As I referenced in a point of order earlier this year, the second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada says, “the courts might be effective in ensuring the observance of procedural requirements imposed by the constitution with respect to the enactment of legislation.” Quorum in this place is a constitutional requirement. I would certainly like to hear from members of the government and their partners in the NDP whether they have acknowledged that there may be some constitutional implications to the debates that take place.
Furthermore, I call into question the confidence and supply motion. Through Motion No. 11 and other methods, the government has shown that it does not really want an opposition in this place; it simply wants an audience, whether that means the Conservatives, the Bloc or even the Greens. Although the Greens do not have official standing in this Parliament as a party, they have made their stand. However, the government's confidence and supply agreement, which clearly Canadians did not vote for, and the collaboration that can take place actually circumvent the role that Parliament is supposed to play.
I would also like to talk about the vaccine mandate that exists, which I suggest violates the privileges of members of the House. There is a larger conversation about the thousands of Canadians who have been fired due to the Liberal Prime Minister. What we just learned regarding 1,600 armed forces members, at a time when there is a huge shortage of personnel in our military, is that the government fired those individuals. That is unacceptable. Leadership needs to come from the top to adjust. Let us understand that imposing these sorts of things have consequences for our country. We need to ensure that the rules and procedures we follow respect the fact that we will have disagreements. We cannot weaponize things, as we have seen the Prime Minister do. We cannot weaponize something like a vaccine mandate to silence political opponents.
I will now touch on, as the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan did before me, unanimous consent motions. We have seen a troubling divide grow between the executive government and administration and Parliament. Unanimous consent motions are one of the ways in which we see that.
We have seen unanimous consent motions pass in this place that have not been followed and have allocated or said to allocate significant funds from the treasury without consequence. I suggest that when it comes to anything other than administrative procedures or dilatory motions, the current process works fine. However, when it comes to policy or political matters, there has to be an adjustment. There has to be a change to ensure that the spirit and use of these motions do not inhibit the ability of this place to function effectively and properly.
I suggest that when it comes to a path forward for UC motions, if they are not, as I mentioned, administrative, procedural or dilatory, consent needs to be provided for a member to even present a unanimous consent motion. That would be a practical solution. Consent should have to be obtained. However, as an idea for those who will contemplate these important decisions, I suggest that if the House leaders of every registered political party were to agree, it would be perfectly reasonable for a unanimous consent motion to go forward, showing that there had been fulsome consultations. If not, they would need consent to simply proceed from there.
In my last minute, I would like to touch on a couple of additional things. I will share that one has to ensure that the role of this place holds a parallel line with the administration managed by the executive of government. The only reason that government exists is Parliament. That is how it works in a parliamentary democracy.
I hope there has been a connection between the debate at hand and the Standing Orders debate to come, and I hope I have been able to effectively bring some items of relevance that will help in the debate in this place.
1323 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague would be happy to know that there were a lot of cheers from this side of the House, in terms of seeing him again.
My colleague spoke a lot about democracy and the importance of it. Once again, we are seeing the Conservatives act as though they are champions of democracy, but then what we have here is a move to dictate and direct a committee in how it must proceed, after the House has already taken a position.
How does he feel Conservative members from Alberta might feel about this particular motion moving forward, triggering the 7/50 rule, when that would have significant consequences for proportional representation? How might Alberta members, who have not had a chance to consult with their communities, feel about the House dictating to a committee how to move forward?
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if this motion from the Bloc Québécois passes, I am wondering if my hon. colleague from Halifax would also support some of the provinces, such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, that are structurally under-represented in Canada's Parliament. Would he be open to supporting changes to Bill C-14 that would give us representation by population?
I ask the member to imagine a scenario where Quebec had 1% below the average and lost three seats. That is what we live with every day, and I would love to hear the member's comments on that reality.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is a very important subject. This particular government will allow for incremental seat increases in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia due to their growing provincial populations.
As my colleagues are aware, 10 independent provincial commissions were established in November 2021, with an exclusive role to play in the redistribution process. Under the government's proposal, this role would continue to be uninterrupted. These proposed amendments would minimize any disruption to the ongoing electoral boundary readjustment process. It is worth reviewing their work and timelines as set out in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
Before the provincial commission can begin their work, as I mentioned before, the Chief Electoral Officer is required to calculate the number of seats allocated to each province using the population estimate provided by Statistics Canada from the recent census, the last of which occurred on July 1, 2021, along with the formula set out in section 51 of the Constitution Act of 1867.
The results of the seat allocation calculation were made public on October 15, 2021, with Ontario gaining one seat, Alberta gaining three and British Columbia gaining one. With the introduction of a 2021 grandfather clause, these seat gains would not be impacted. This means that under the government's bill, which I am pleased to support, no province will have less than the number of seats they had during the 43rd Parliament, which I had the honour of serving in 2021. Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia would maintain those seat increases.
It was a pleasure speaking on this important subject.
260 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, people in Alberta are devastated by the toxic drug crisis. A record number of Albertans lost their lives to the poisoned drug supply last year. We are in the same situation as B.C. This is a national public health crisis and the federal government has an obligation to protect lives. Yesterday, the Liberals had an opportunity to follow the evidence-based advice of their own experts. Instead, they voted with the Conservatives and let Canadians die.
Why does the government think that the lives of people in British Columbia are more important than those of Albertans?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, people in Alberta are devastated by the toxic drug crisis. A record number of Albertans lost their lives to the poisoned drug supply last year. Our situation is the same as in B.C. This is a national public health crisis and the federal government has an obligation to act. Yesterday, the Liberals voted with the Conservatives, against the advice of their own experts, to let Canadians die.
I would like to know why the lives of Albertans are not seen to be as important as those in B.C.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
