- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join the debate tonight and follow my friend from Saskatoon—Grasswood, who gave an excellent speech. He mentioned that the police would be coming to the Saskatchewan Conservative caucus meeting tomorrow, which is great news. I wonder if the police will be going to the Liberal caucus meeting tomorrow as well after all the ethical scandals that we have been seeing, but that is to be determined.
I have been listening to the debate tonight and want to start by delving into some of the exchanges that have taken place so far, some more substantive ones and less substantive ones that perhaps should be commented on. Earlier in the evening, I had the opportunity to have a good exchange with my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach. In his speech, he highlighted, importantly, instances of injustice, abuse and violence through the actions of members of the police. We need to draw attention to those instances of violence, injustice and racism, call them out and put in place the actions to combat them.
I also think it is important to establish a positive discourse about the work being done by police and the positive role that police officers play within our society. That is important because, of course, without a positive message around the contributions that police officers are making in our society, we will struggle to recruit, which other members have commented on the importance of. Moreover, we should be grateful to the vast majority of police officers, who sacrifice and risk their lives and safety every day when they go to work, not knowing what they will encounter or what the outcomes will be and nonetheless working hard to protect their communities.
Are there instances where people in those sorts of positions betray that trust? Absolutely those instances exist. Are there more than just individual instances? Are there cases that we might be able to identify where there are histories or mentalities that contribute to wrong action? Those are legitimate things to discuss and certainly explore, but we need to recognize that, overwhelmingly, police play a positive role in our society, particularly when we have proper oversight, as advanced by this bill. As I and my colleagues have said, we support Bill C-20, but in the context of proper oversight, the commitment and sacrifice of police officers can be harnessed for them to play a dramatic, productive role in our society.
I worry that a discourse that emphasizes the negatives without the positives has led to bad policy outcomes, which are very dangerous for marginalized communities. All the evidence shows us that when we do not have a properly funded, effective police force in place, it is the most vulnerable who suffer. In certain contexts, there may be weaker state institutions, which we see in certain places around the world where the state does not have the capacity to provide the kind of protection from law enforcement that we take for granted generally here in Canada. There, wealthier people are still able to provide for their own protection through other kinds of private means for protecting their security, whereas those who cannot afford these mechanisms are the most vulnerable.
If we push the “defund the police” movement forward, the result is that those who are not able to protect themselves are more vulnerable to violence, while those who have more power and resources within a society are, to a greater extent, able to invest in their own protection. This is why the demonization of police and the movements to defund the police are ultimately deeply destructive, especially to the most vulnerable and marginalized. I would affirm the importance of recognizing injustice, of holding people accountable and of proper oversight, but I would also challenge all members in all parties of this House to recognize the positive contribution of police officers and police forces and establish a discourse that is affirming of their efforts and sacrifices.
I also believe in the importance of individual responsibility. I think when we see bad actions take place, the primary response should be holding the individuals who commit those actions responsible, recognizing that individual action is never rendered inevitable by institutional context, and that regardless of the context in which an individual is, the organization they are a member of, etc., they still bear responsibility for their own choices to act or not to act in a certain way.
Now, I want to respond as well to the exchange that I had with the member for Winnipeg Centre, and this was a perplexing exchange. I rose in response to her speech about violence against indigenous communities to ask a specific question about violence against indigenous communities and the destruction of churches and other cultural property that we have seen. It is a highly pertinent question at this time in Canada when dozens of churches have been not just vandalized but burned to the ground, many historic churches in indigenous communities, and where indigenous leaders have spoken out against these attacks on their communities. I think it is important when we see this rampage of violence against indigenous cultural property, against churches in particular, that leaders at all levels speak out against that violence. Strikingly, there has been a lack of response to these attacks on churches, in particular, on churches in indigenous communities. There has been a stark silence from so many leaders who should be condemning these acts of violence, and who would be quick to condemn acts of violence against other kinds of religious institutions.
The reason I have persisted in asking the member for Winnipeg Centre these questions is because I had asked the questions before and she had refused to condemn these acts of violence against churches. I have now asked the member the same question four times, and her response has been to attack me personally and to make all kinds of absurd, obviously verifiably bizarre allegations and accusations, which she has been told by the Speaker to withdraw. She has refused to withdraw, and I have no doubt that there will be follow-up on that matter. However, the point is that these were serious questions that were ignored. I think we should be clear and consistent in condemning all forms of abuse, all forms of violence against all communities. It is a glaring hole in that pattern of general condemnation to see the lack of response from many politicians to the rampage of destruction that has targeted Christian churches.
Further to the debate that has happened tonight, I want to agree with the comments that have been made by many of my Conservative colleagues about the increase in crime being an important part of the context of this legislation, and about how there was, leading up to 2015, during the tenure of the previous Conservative government, a decline in the rates of violent crime, and there has been a spike in violent crime since this Prime Minister took office. As they say, elections have consequences. When we elect a political party that has an ideology and implements that ideology, we see the results of it. I think we have seen, over the last nine years, the ideological experimentation of this Prime Minister, and we have seen the results: higher rent, higher cost of living, declining reputation in the world and increasing violent crime. The Prime Minister, over the last nine years, has experimented with putting one of the furthest left ideologies we have ever seen in this country into action, and we have seen, over the last nine years, the results of that extreme ideology.
There has also been some discussion tonight of scheduling issues. I think it is clear that this government has wildly mismanaged its legislative agenda, and every time the member for Winnipeg North stands up to speak for 20 minutes about how the opposition should stop talking about bills, yes, I do just shake my head.
We support Bill C-20. We think there are some important provisions in it, and I appreciate the chance to participate in the debate and engage in dialogue with various members about various issues.
1368 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 9:46:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, this is not a dispassionate expert. This is someone who went from the public health world into selling heroin. Twelve meetings in two years is not normal even for an expert. Again I will ask, what is being discussed in these meetings? What is Fair Price Pharma asking the Liberal government for?
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 9:45:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I am splitting three ways, and my questions will be for the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.
My colleagues have asked about a company called Fair Price Pharma, which is run by former B.C. public health officer Perry Kendall and a partner. Its business is selling heroin. The results of an Order Paper question show that in a two-year period leading up to December 13 of last year, the minister met with Fair Price Pharma on September 15, her predecessor met personally with Fair Price Pharma four times and that health officials met with it an additional seven times. That is a dozen meetings in two years, which is a lot of meetings for a minister and officials with one company in the heroin business.
What is being discussed in these 12 meetings between Liberals and this heroin company?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 5:25:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, did he discuss new contracts? Since he claims to be unable to answer that question, will he respond to it in writing as well?
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:40:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are here debating an important motion about human rights in Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover. A couple of members have said we should not be debating this. We do not need to be debating this for the full three hours. Those members have proceeded to give lengthy speeches on the subject. Of course, those members know the process is if they think it should maybe collapse on an item, then the most effective way they bring about that result is by not speaking to it. I am referring in particular to my friend across the way from Winnipeg North.
My friend from the Bloc, of course, found ways of connecting all kinds of other issues into the discussion, as sometimes happens in this place, but I do want to ask him a question about Afghanistan. I would like to hear his views on what we in Canada can do to concretely promote democratic development in Afghanistan. I think some people look at the situation and they feel a certain kind of fatalism. I believe there are still things we can do and we need to do to stand with the people of Afghanistan, that we cannot give up on the cause of freedom and democracy.
What does he think that Canada can concretely do to support the people of Afghanistan in their desire to realize democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law?
237 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 10:38:13 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House this evening, as well as the various people who are watching at home. I know my kids are watching. They wanted to watch the hockey game, but I told them no, as it was important for them to be watching their dad on CPAC instead. Given the score, though, they will be glad of the choice that has been made for them.
I want to assure members I will not be splitting my time, by the way.
The bill we are debating tonight is Bill S-6. This is a bill dealing with the issue of regulatory modernization. I have to say we have heard some complaints from the member for Kingston and the Islands, who does a lot of speaking and does a lot of complaining about other people speaking in this place. He has been asking why people are interested in speaking to this bill. Why are people interested in speaking on behalf of their constituents about the important policy issues that are raised by this bill?
It is clear in the substantive, important speeches that have been given by various members that there is a lot to say. To distill the essence of why this debate is important is that, on so many fronts, there is the government's failure to take seriously the need to modernize regulations; consider the competitiveness of our economy; and consider, broadly speaking, the environment in which businesses operate. The failure of the government to understand what is important for our businesses to succeed is at the heart of so many challenges facing this country.
It is important to remind people of something that I think Conservatives understand. That is that we want to have strong social programs and those strong social programs must be built on a foundation of economic prosperity. If we ignore the economic prosperity side of the equation and then talk about how we want to be giving more money to people, that is not going to add up at a certain point. That is why we need to have a strong economy driven by a strong private sector that is able to create jobs and deliver opportunity.
A strong economy provides the platform on which we can then do more for each other and more for the most vulnerable. It has to be on that foundation of prosperity. It is something that the government and the parties of the left in general, I think, very much fail to understand. We need to have a strong economy built on a strong private sector, and that requires the kind of regulatory modernization we are talking about.
We have had various bills over the last number of weeks that have dealt, broadly speaking, with questions of the economy. We have had regulatory modernization proposals, and we have this bill, Bill S-6. We also had the budget implementation act. I have to say that, in the midst of all of it, and I would never refer to the presence or absence of members in this place, but let us just say that, in terms of the statements that are on the record, the questions that are answered, we have heard very little from the finance minister.
We now have a discussion going on at the finance committee about the budget implementation act and there is a simple ask from Conservative. On issues around the state of our regulations, the state of our economy and what is in the budget, it is a reasonable ask to say that Canada's finance minister should come to speak to the budget for, let us say, at least two hours. Not only has the finance minister not answered questions in the House very frequently for quite some time, but also the government is not willing to agree to a simple amendment to the programming motion from Conservatives saying that the finance minister should come for two hours to answer questions on the budget implementation act because the finance minister is the person setting the economic agenda in this country. I know that Bill Morneau, the previous finance minister, has said since leaving office that most of the decisions about the economic direction of the country are made in the Prime Minister's office, but if we believe that it is the finance minister who is setting the tone, surely we should expect that the finance minister would be available to answer questions on these important topics.
As it relates to the strength of our economy, and as it relates to regulatory modernization, I think there are many questions to be answered. Here is what I see in the approach of the government. The approach of the government is kind of a retread of this old left-wing, government-knows-best idea of the economy, but it expresses itself now in a very different way.
At one time, parties of the left were more explicit in calling for draconian state regulations, state control, picking winners and losers, interfering in the economy, and controlling the means of production, as at least perhaps one member is still willing to say. That is the kind of explicit interventionist language we used to hear from parties of the left in this place and elsewhere.
Now the government is taking a new approach to the justification of its agenda, but it is still a retread of the same basic philosophical idea, which is that, fundamentally, the government knows best which sectors are going to succeed in the future, where new technologies are going to come from and which sectors are no longer required. Therefore, its budget has this policy of significant subsidies toward certain sectors, piling regulatory burdens on other sectors and saying which kinds of things are going to be the sectors, the companies and the investments of the future, while these other things are just not.
The government is still trying to make these decisions, but it is trying to implement these decisions with a greater level of subtlety. It is the long arm of the state trying to mask itself in velvet gloves, but the interventionism inherent in the government's industrial policy is still very evident.
The government's efforts to undertake regulatory reform are actually very selective. It would like to talk about regulatory reform but be selective in its implementation of it for selective subsidies and tax advantages to certain kinds of companies, certain companies in certain regions, and leave in place a significant regulatory burden in other areas.
Conservatives will support Bill S-6 because it is better than nothing, but we also see it as lacking in ambition. It is lacking in ambition for truly making this the kind of country where, as I think we used to be, we are a great magnet for investment, not just in particular sectors where the government is trying to subsidize what it thinks the winners of the future will be, but to be the kind of country where anybody with a good and profitable idea can come here to invest, and those regulatory burdens would be removed.
By the way, one area where we really need regulatory reform is in the area of getting critical natural resource projects, especially in the oil and gas sector, approved. The need for this was put in sharp focus by the horrific genocidal Russian invasion of Ukraine.
In the context of this invasion, it became clear what a mistake it had been for various European countries to become so dependent on gas imports from Russia. The need for a rapid transition away from that dependency became very clear. There was an opportunity for Canada to say we have a unique vocation in the democratic world and that is to supply the world with secure and stable access to energy.
At the time, Conservatives were saying that. If we look at the democratic world, most of the world's democracies are geographically small, densely populated nations. In Europe, but also in east Asia, there are many democracies that look like that, geographically small and densely populated.
Canada is relatively unique in the democratic world as being a geographically vast, sparsely populated nation that is very rich in natural resources. We could be that critical source of energy security for our friends, allies and partners throughout the democratic world so they do not need to be reliant on hostile powers that do not share our values and do not have the same security interests.
I would like to see Canada step up to fill that vital need. To do that, we will need to modernize, update and improve our regulations when it comes to getting projects approved. It is clear Liberals do not want us to fulfill that role. They talk a good talk sometimes about supporting Ukraine, but they do not see this vital strategic opportunity for Canada stepping up to fill this gap and be a supplier of the energy security our allies need.
The gas association was saying, right away, that we need to improve the regulatory environment to make it easier for projects to move forward. I think there were mixed messages sent on that, from various members of the Liberal cabinet, but no action on it. The Prime Minister said that there was no business case for these projects. Then European countries have gone and signed deals, and found sources of energy elsewhere.
Canada still has such immense potential. Why would we not seize that opportunity to now expand the development of oil and gas, creating wealth here in Canada, and supplying our allies and partners with energy security?
I know some members would say that the regulatory burdens that are imposed on energy companies are in service of the environment. However, if we look globally, if we look at the alternatives, we could see that that is not at all the case. In fact, in so many cases, in particular, gas exports from Canada, it could displace not only the conflict energy sources and save lives by reducing European dependence on Russia, but also the less environmentally friendly sources of energy. Some countries in Europe made the mistake of being reliant on Russian gas. Other countries in Europe are still using coal, because their response to the threat posed by the Putin regime has been to say that they do not want to be reliant on Russian gas so they will take whatever alternatives they have available to them, which may mean coal.
Canadian energy exports, the fact that we are a free democracy exporting energy and that we could displace coal with Canadian gas, could be good for global security and good for the environment. However, that requires regulatory modernization. That requires a willingness to go much further than Bill S-6 has done, to have a greater level of ambition, in terms of what we could be as a country and what we could accomplish. That would require us to broaden the range of the kind of regulatory changes that we are prepared to make. I think this would be the right approach, and it is the one that Conservatives have been championing.
In general, I will say, in terms of the gaps and the need for regulatory modernization, we have bureaucracy out of control in this country. We have a government that has massively expanded the public service, but at the same time has dramatically increased its spending on outside consultants. Go figure that one out. The government is spending more on the public service and substantially more on contracting out. One would expect that if it is spending more on the public service, it would contract out less, or if there was a smaller public service then it would contract out more. Aside from the sort of underlying arguments about contracting out or not, one would expect those things to be somewhat inversely proportional.
However, the Liberal government is spending more on bureaucracy, is spending more on contracting out and, in the midst of all this, is not actually able to achieve any kind of labour peace. We have this strike, right in the midst of the time when Canadians are filing their taxes, so they cannot get answers. Talking about the regulatory burden, the red tape people face, it is hard enough trying to figure out how to file taxes, and then when we do not have the people there who are supposed to be available to answer questions, it underlines the impression that so many Canadians have, that everything is broken, that the government just is not working.
Again, Bill S-6 does a little but it does not solve the fundamental problem. What is the alternative? What could we propose as an alternative in terms of regulatory modernization?
We have seen that the previous Conservative government, and other Conservative parties around the world, have taken the one-for-one approach, that if a new regulation is brought in, an old regulation has to be repealed. That recognizes the fact that there are likely plenty of regulations out there that are outdated, that no longer apply. It creates an impetus for government to always be looking to repeal old regulations that are no longer necessary, if a particular minister or department wants to bring in a new regulation.
This approach has been used successfully in the past and has created an impetus for government to go further when it comes to removing gatekeepers, streamlining processes and making this the kind of country where it is easy to invest and create jobs and opportunity.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: That was the best part of his speech.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands enjoyed the pause, so I will take another drink and let him reflect on the things being said.
I would never suggest there are very few Liberals here in the House to hear my speech, but I know many will be watching at home and some might be online as well.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I think your kids are asleep.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, the member suggests my kids might be asleep. If my kids have trouble sleeping, we usually find clips of the member for Kingston and the Islands and play them. It is true. Actually, that is the punishment. When the kids are misbehaving, we tell them, “If you don't stop fighting, you have to watch Mark Gerretsen's speech.”
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, pardon me. I apologize and withdraw that. What I meant to say—
2449 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/23 10:16:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly think it is important to constructively use the debate time that we have in this House. One way to constructively use that debate time is to discuss the recommendations that committees bring forward.
Our committees do a lot of important work in this House. Committees study issues. They bring forward recommendations, and any recommendation that comes from a committee already has the support of a majority of members of that committee, naturally. They bring it to the House, and then the House has an opportunity to look at these committee reports, study them and debate them. The debate is limited; it is only a three-hour debate.
I think the implication from the member's comments is that there is something illegitimate about the House of Commons responding to the important work that committees do. I do not agree with that. I think part of what drives the agenda of the House is opposition motions, private members' motions, government bills, government motions and also committee work. Unlike a government bill or an opposition motion, committee motions already have the support of a majority of members of the committee before coming here.
I would happily spar with anyone who claims that the Iran freedom movement is not an important issue to discuss. I think it is a very important issue to discuss.
225 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 11:53:20 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's sincerity. I do not always agree with the particulars he notes, but I think highly of his motivations and intentions.
I want to ask a question about this particular concurrence debate. This concurrence debate came up at this time as a result of conversation and negotiation among House leaders. It seems that some members were not fully briefed on those discussions, but there were discussions among House leaders. This was not brought forward as a surprise.
This report could have been adopted by unanimous consent. In fact, it was a member of the Bloc who sought unanimous consent to adopt this same motion in the previous Parliament. At the time, it was a member of the Liberal Party who refused unanimous consent, so clearly we have seen some progress given the consensus here. However, this could have been adopted by unanimous consent. An attempt by his colleague was made to do that and it was not done. That is part of the context for the debate we are having today.
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 7:05:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there were discussions among parties beforehand. There was an agreement to adjourn this debate to the evening, so it would not take place during Government Orders' time in the hope that we could have a substantive conversation about the fact that, in the world's second-largest economy, the government is committing an ongoing genocide.
Instead of addressing those very real issues, the member chased all kinds of rabbit tracks, asking why we were not talking about other issues. However, when we talk about those other issues, such as the last time we had a concurrence debate on Ukraine, the member said we should not have been talking about that either. Every time we try to raise these human rights debates, this member has some reason to suggest why we should not be talking about them. Meanwhile, we have an agreement among parties to discuss this in the evening, and then he comes in the evening after the time normally set aside for Government Orders and he still complains about the fact that we have a concurrence motion going on.
This is an extremely serious issue. We have people from the Uighur community in Ottawa advocating this week. This is an issue that requires urgent discussion. Could the member find it in his heart to spend some time learning about the issue and actually speaking about the issue, instead of all this gobbledegook nonsense?
236 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I expect better when it comes to ruling on the rules. You know that there is broad latitude. I have a 20-minute speech. I spent the first half of the speech discussing financial benefits, and I said that I would spend the second half of the speech discussing—
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/22 11:25:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I was pleased to hear the member speak about the issue of racism in the Indian Act. I had asked a member of the government questions about that and the government member, in response, spoke about UNDRIP. That is an important question to discuss given the government's legislation around it, but it is a different question from the question about the Indian Act.
I was very struck by a comment made by the member for Edmonton Griesbach about how, in effect, culture is more important than politics. We are here discussing what politicians can do in our political response, but it is ultimately the underlying culture in Canada of how we treat and see each other that is of primary importance.
I wonder if the member could comment on both of those issues: on the need to address racism in the Indian Act and on the importance of cultural change in reconciliation being foundational.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
