SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Garnett Genuis

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Conservative
  • Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
  • Alberta
  • Voting Attendance: 67%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20

  • Government Page
  • May/27/24 10:55:02 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do have concerns that this bill, among other problems, gives too much arbitrary power to the government with respect to the designation of areas without proper consultation. I share what I think are the concerns raised by the Bloc in that regard.
45 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill C-293 from my friend across the way. I think the last time I spoke to this bill, I was suggesting some slogans for his leadership campaign, but I continue to wish him very well in all of his personal endeavours. He did very well, although he did not take my advice to go with the slogan I suggested at the time. I do, more seriously, want to recall and build on some comments I made in my last intervention on this bill regarding the impact the pandemic has had on our communities and the need to seriously reckon with some of the challenges that have resulted from that. The last time I spoke in the House on this bill, I said that I wanted to conclude by saying that I am very concerned about some of the social and cultural impacts of this pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, we were already seeing trends where there was a breakdown of traditional community and greater political polarization. People were less likely to be involved in neighbourhood and community organizations, community leagues, faith organizations and those kinds of things, which were becoming more polarized along political lines. Those existing trends were dramatically accelerated through the pandemic, when the restrictions made it difficult for people to gather together in the kind of traditional community structures that had existed previously, and we have seen a heightened political polarization with people being divided on the basis of their views on masks and their vaccination status. As we evaluate what happened during the pandemic, and this is more of a cultural work than a political work, we need to think about how we can bring our communities back together, reconcile people across these kinds of divides and try to rebuild the kinds of communities we had previously where people would put aside politics and were willing to get together and focus on what united them. Over the last two weeks, with the exception of some arrive scam hearings that brought us to Ottawa, most of us were in our constituencies connecting with our constituents. I had a number of round tables and discussions with my constituents. It has really come to the fore again and again, as I have talked to people since the pandemic, how the failures of government during the pandemic impacted trust in government decision-making and, indeed, trust in our institutions. It would be desirable for people to be able to trust our institutions, but that trust has to be earned. Government policy-makers and public institutions cannot demand trust simply by virtue of the positions they hold. They have to earn that trust by demonstrating themselves to be trustworthy. For many Canadians, the pandemic was a demonstration that institutions they had trusted were not as effective as they had thought they would be and were not defending their concerns or their interests. People were affected by the pandemic in various ways. They were, of course, forced apart from each other. They were also impacted by draconian policies that demonized people and punished people for personal health choices. This has not just affected that moment in time. It is not just something that happened in the past during the pandemic and is now over. There have been profound consequences in social trust as a result of those events, and it was a result of the fact that the government was not prepared for this. In the years before the pandemic started, in the years leading up to it, the government was not attending to the appropriate stockpiles of materials. Then the government madly thrashed around, giving different advice, such as saying one should not mask and then that one should mask. Initially, the public health authority said that masking was counterproductive and then reversed that recommendation. Initially, we were told to take any available vaccine, and then we were told to actually take these ones as opposed to those ones. There was inconsistency, and I think a lack of humility, in the kinds of pronouncements that were made by governing authorities. This has affected social trust in significant ways, and understandably so. We had an exchange on this specific point recently, during the break, at the public accounts committee, where, in the process of Conservatives criticizing aspects of government decisions, a Liberal member said we should not do that because that is impacting social trust. Our view is that government institutions have to earn trust, and it is our job as the opposition to hold them accountable for their failures. Therefore, it is through accountability, through honest reckoning with the failures of government and other public institutions, that we are able to come to the kind of reconciliation that is required. I do think there is a stock-taking required. Although Conservatives do not support this bill because there are some significant problems in the way the proposed reviews are structured, as my colleagues have pointed out, there is a need for a fulsome and independent reckoning. The government failed in so many different ways in the course of its management of the pandemic and the kinds of decisions it made throughout. In my own constituency, from conversations I have, people now struggle to believe anything they hear from the government or any other kind of official institution because of how badly betrayed they felt by the inconsistencies and the demonization that happened during the pandemic. We need to have a government that does its job, that plans for crises effectively and that understands its responsibility to earn the trust of Canadians rather than demand the trust of Canadians. Governments ought to try to earn people's trust through the work they do. At the same time I think about the kinds of processes that should happen for investigations of this nature, and they require authentic independence. We see over and over again with the government that, when it wants us to be looking at or investigating some kind of issue, it always wants that investigation to be something where it can control the outcome. We are dealing with this issue, for instance, in the government's approach to the arrive scam scandal. Every independent investigation has been extremely critical of government procurement. The government has now said it is going to have an internal investigation within CBSA by an investigator who is within and reports to the chain of command within CBSA. Inevitably, that is a process that can be controlled by the government, and the people who should be held accountable through that process actually cannot be held accountable effectively because the investigator is part of that internal structure. Again, we see a process proposed in this private member's bill that has similar obvious kinds of flaws. To review the key points, the government failed profoundly during the pandemic. It contradicted itself and spent a great deal of money on matters that were not pandemic related. We saw it, in the early days of the pandemic, pursue this horrifying power grab, trying to seize on the worry that existed at the beginning of the pandemic, saying it wanted to have the power to effectively make law without Parliament. Conservatives pushed back and put a stop to that. Then we saw how it tried to use the circumstances of the pandemic to create division and conflict within this country at the expense of certain Canadians who were making certain choices. There is a need for a reckoning, but it has to be an honest reckoning. We need a government that is prepared to do the work to rebuild trust, not a government, like the Liberals, that continually fails Canadians yet demands their faith and trust in spite of all these failures. We need a government that is honest with Canadians and works to get things done for their good.
1323 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/13/24 11:38:30 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the position of the government when it comes euthanasia is so disconnected from the reality and the concerns many Canadians have. The Liberals constantly want to have a conversation about further expansion. However, I hear concerns from constituents and from people across the country about the abuses under the existing system; about how people with disabilities have been pressured and told that they are selfish for not wanting to go down this road; about how, in the absence of proper support, life and dignity affirming support, we have individuals who are at risk of giving up. Instead of being affirmed in their pursuit of meaning and purpose, they are being told “Sure, go ahead and give up.” This is the reality in Canada. When I talk to legislators in other parts of the world, including legislators from the so-called progressive left, they are horrified by what is happening in Canada. Canada is presented as a counter-example of what can go wrong when we go down this road. Why are we not having more conversations about addressing the existing abuses in the system instead of this fanatical push by the government to always look for the next expansion. Why not stop and look at how we got here and how we can address these significant problems that have emerged in the current system?
228 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/23/23 12:16:39 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, in her previous comments attacking the Conservatives, the member for Edmonton Strathcona tried to pretend that she supports Ukraine. Here is what she told the committee in February 2022, the same month as the invasion. She said the following: Some people in this committee and some members of our Parliament have been calling on the government to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine. I have some concerns about that, obviously. Do you believe there are risks to providing those lethal weapons to Ukraine? This applies in terms of keeping track of those weapons, but more importantly, I'd like some information on how Russia would perceive that. Would they perceive that as an escalation instead of a de-escalation? That is an unbelievable statement by the member for Edmonton Strathcona, the foreign affairs critic for the NDP. She was expressing an unwillingness to transfer lethal weapons to Ukraine because of fear of how Russia would perceive it. That is what the NDP was saying in February 2022. Does the member think the NDP should apologize for those pro-Russia statements?
181 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/23 9:39:29 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to briefly, while I have chance, raise concerns about the response I received to Order Paper Question No. 1398. I think that I did not receive a response to this question, so I wonder if the Chair could review the matter and return to the House about it. It was a question regarding gender parity among staff. The question identifies a number of specific areas where I am looking for information about the gender parity among chiefs of staff, directors of policy, directors of communications and other political exempt staff. The response I received does not provide any of that information. It says that the government is steadfast in its commitment on the—
118 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/6/23 3:42:54 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, certainly on this side of the House, we are prepared to work with any individuals and any parties that want to help us get to the bottom of these scandals that we have seen under the current government. There has been a ceding of control by Liberals to outside consultants. There has been a waste of money in duplication of efforts. There have been conflicts of interest. There are significant concerns about what McKinsey is up to around the world and the conflicts of interest that exist where they are working for both sides of the same issue. For instance, they are working for the Canadian Department of National Defence while working for hostile interests around the world. These are all issues that we need to get to the bottom of. I hope that this House will support the value-for-money audit that we need to see happen from the Auditor General, as well as some of the other ongoing work that is required to get to the bottom of this Liberal-McKinsey scandal.
177 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jan/30/23 1:16:07 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Madam Speaker, one of the trends we are seeing, which has really been accelerated by the pandemic, is flexible work. People are working from home and looking to be able to combine family life with work in different ways. Therefore, they are still very much needing child care, but they are looking for more creative options, which may be in their neighbourhood, may be at odd hours and may reflect the particulars of their work situation. One of the concerns I have with the government's one-size-fits-all approach to child care is that it would fund a particular kind of child care model that is not consistent with the way many families live. As technology changes, the government's program is not keeping up with this evolution and how people are trying to combine work with family life. I wonder if the member could talk about whether she agrees that the government's approach is failing to be flexible to accommodate all families with the way the program is structured.
173 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/18/22 11:21:37 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a follow-up question for my colleague on something he was discussing earlier. He was speaking about diplomacy and dialogue. At the same time, we know there are security threats to Canada that are associated with the presence of the Russian embassy here in Ottawa. There was an incident, for instance, where a bike painted with Ukrainian colours was in front of the Russian embassy and was destroyed by what appeared to be people with links to the Russian embassy. There are concerns about cybersecurity issues. There are concerns about other kinds of foreign influence operations that are likely being run out of that embassy. There is always a tension that I think we have to navigate: Are we open for potential discussion, or are we, at the same time, opening ourselves up to potential security threats when there is the presence of hostile actors in this country? I wonder what the hon. member's reaction—
161 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/19/22 8:38:54 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Chair, if the U.S. and the British governments had discontinued purchases, and the minister says the Government of Canada was not even aware that there were allegations, how is it that we are so far behind our allies in terms of being aware of these concerns?
48 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/19/22 8:37:15 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Chair, the minister said that the government first heard about these concerns in December 2020. Did the government immediately end shipments in December 2020?
25 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/19/22 8:36:12 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Chair, according to British solicitor Nusrat Uddin's comments to CBC earlier this year, Canadian government officials were briefed on concerns about Supermax prior to 2015. Is that accurate?
30 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/4/22 9:03:07 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate to hear the member from the Green Party try to single out one particular sector. We know there are problems of violence against women from people in all different sectors and all different parts of the economy. It is a problem we need to address more broadly. To single out workers in one sector is very unfair and reflects another agenda. I want to ask the member a follow-up question from the speech given by the minister with respect to human trafficking. We know that human trafficking disproportionately affects indigenous women. There were concerns raised by members of our caucus with respect to Bill C-5 and the fact that amendments to Bill C-5 opened the door for possible house arrest for people involved in human trafficking. It is our contention that tough sentencing in response to human trafficking is part of the solution to combatting this. I wonder if the member has a comment on that.
164 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/5/22 4:19:38 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite clearly understands the importance of making vital investments in our national defence to get up to our NATO commitments. It is also clear from the debate today that the government's partners in the NDP simply do not. They have an ideological opposition to making the investments that are required in defence and they do not understand that investing in our security is fundamental to anything else that we want to do as a country. I asked the foreign affairs minister at committee whether the agreement with the NDP involved any commitments with respect to foreign policy or security policy, and she said no. That is good news, I think. It also shows that the NDP is not as engaged in these issues as it should be. However, then I asked the minister if she was confident that the agreement between the government and the NDP would hold if the government chose to increase defence spending, and she could not answer that question. I am concerned that the NDP agreement with the government will limit our capacity to invest in defence spending and will hold the government back in doing the things that it needs to do. Does the member share my concerns that the partners that the government has in the NDP are going to put those required investments at risk?
227 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/28/22 5:09:50 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for giving the calibre of speech that members of the House have come to expect from him, with many trumped-up comments. As a Conservative, I am not at all ashamed or embarrassed about the fact that our party champions freedom, freedom of speech and the freedom of individuals to make their own choices. I want to ask the member a specific question about misinformation. We have heard a lot in this House today about RT and the problems with it, and I share those concerns. However, I have similar concerns about state-backed misinformation coming from news channels that are controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. We should not forget that the issue of state-backed misinformation, even of torture and forced confession happening on air, is not just an issue coming out of Russia. It is also an issue in China. Should we not be dealing with that as well?
160 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/17/22 11:58:34 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member a question about civil liberties. There are many Canadians who will have donated to the convoy before recent developments, certainly without any criminal intent. They maybe donated as an expression of their concerns about mandates, before any of the blockades had started. Based on the justice minister's comments to Evan Solomon, it appears that the government is contemplating freezing the bank accounts of people who have donated as a response to, allegedly, what their views are with respect to Donald Trump or something else. Is the member concerned that this is a serious civil liberties issue? People without criminal intent, who may have donated in good faith without knowing some of the things that have gone on since, could lose—
130 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border