SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 272

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 31, 2024 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 272 - Jan/31/24
Mr. Garnett Genuis
  • Jan/31/24 7:52:10 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I wanted to raise a point of order at the earliest possible opportunity regarding the response I received to Question No. 2155, if you would allow me to briefly explain my concern about its accuracy and completeness. My question was respecting development assistance projects in Israel and Palestinian territories and projects aimed at supporting Palestinian refugees in other countries. I asked for information about all projects since 2016. That includes all the organizations involved in delivering a project, with the clear implication of both implementing and sub-implementing partners. The initial response describes the fact that there are implementing and sub-implementing partners, which are screened. It says that all funding goes through trusted partner organizations. Subsequently, in reviewing the list of projects, I found that none of the projects mentioned identify sub-implementing partners. They speak about the large organizations; for instance, they speak about $100 million going to UNRWA. However, they do not identify sub-implementing partners. The implication is that either there are none or the government did not wish to provide that information, despite the clear ordering of that information as part of Question No. 2155. That makes the response inaccurate and incomplete. I do not know if the government is intentionally trying to hide information about the development assistance in this regard. However, in accordance with the Standing Orders, the government needs to provide a complete and accurate response.
236 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 272 - Jan/31/24
Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)
  • Jan/31/24 8:52:56 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, what a striking piece of legislation we have in front of us from a Liberal member of Parliament. In the same period here that the government has had its hand slapped by the court for the way it acted during the pandemic, we have a Liberal member who wants us to be aware and have an awareness day for the pandemic. By the way, it is sort of a running joke here that the Liberals' solution to every problem, the go-to for every issue, is an awareness day. It is very rare that members of Parliament have an opportunity to actually bring forward a private member's bill for debate and a vote. However, instead of putting forward substantive changes to the law, things that would impact people's lives, the member across the way, who is not a new member and who has had a long time to think about what kind of private member's bill to put forward, chose an awareness day, as if anybody was not aware of the pandemic. However, let us be aware of the pandemic while we are here and while the member opposite said that her biggest idea for a private member's bill is a day dedicated to awareness about the pandemic. Let us be aware of what happened during the pandemic, and let us be aware of what the Federal Court said about what this government did during the pandemic. We have a ruling from the Federal Court that the decision of the government to use the Emergencies Act during the pandemic was unconstitutional and was a violation of the charter. It is interesting because this government has, for a long time, tried to wrap itself in the charter. However, it has shown complete disdain for the charter when it gets in the way of its desire to demonize people who disagree with it and to divide Canadians. This has become clear. What typifies the value system of the Prime Minister is not the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but his admiration for the basic dictatorships that he sees in other countries. That has been clear from what he said, and that has been clear from what he did during the pandemic. During the pandemic, we had very difficult situations. Governments around the world tried to grapple with how they could respond to the challenges and how they could adjust quickly to those realities. I recall standing here in this place and making a simple recommendation. I said that we should look to and learn from the countries that were the most successful at reducing transmission, and those tended to be our East Asian democratic partners, countries that put in place effective border measures at the beginning and that built up a stockpile of necessary equipment and that took a collaborative approach around things like masking and contact tracing. I said very clearly at the beginning that we should be learning from countries like Taiwan and South Korea. Unfortunately, the World Health Organization failed to engage with Taiwan, in particular, and learn from what Taiwan was doing well. I asked questions in the House as well about the failure of the Liberal government to engage with Taiwan and to push the World Health Organization to engage with Taiwan. If we look at those early months, when the government said that any limitations on what happens at the border would be unacceptable. Representatives of the government said that masks did not work. All kinds of things were said in the early weeks and months of the pandemic, on which the government subsequently reversed itself. On some level, I think Canadians would have some sympathy for leaders who made mistakes in the early days of the pandemic if they had the humility to acknowledge that they did not know everything, that they understood the challenges and that they were doing their best to learn as things went along. However, the government showed a complete lack of humility in relation to the differences of perspective that existed in the context of the pandemic. In fact, this government tried to marginalize and demonize those who had a different point of view. That demonization escalated as the process went along. When vaccines became available, of course Canadians were reading what they could, trying to understand, trying to learn about the approach they wanted to take and evaluate personal health choices in the context of the information that was coming out. However, the Prime Minister tried to discriminate against and demonize people who chose not to get the vaccine. Particularly bizarrely, the Prime Minister tried to enforce a requirement where, for people who were working alone in the cab of their truck and did not have interactions with other people, for the most part, in the course of their work, as their nature of their work was to sit behind the wheel by themselves and drive, the effect of the policy he imposed was that they could not engage in cross-border trucking if they were not vaccinated. That provoked a strong response from Canadians; it was not just the policy but also the rhetoric, the name-calling against Canadians who had made different choices. I think there was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to try to show leadership and say, “Look, here is my view. Here is the approach we feel we have to take, but I understand this is difficult and I want to bring Canadians together.” He did not take that approach. He wanted to try to divide Canadians for political reasons. He had an opportunity again, when protesters came to Ottawa, to try to defuse the situation and to try to listen to the conversations that were happening, but he persisted in trying to use the events politically, including through the draconian imposition of the Emergencies Act, measures, or measures like them, that had not been used since another Trudeau was prime minister. These draconian measures have since been determined by the court to be unconstitutional.
1010 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border