Discussion · Government Orders
Garnett Genuis Conservative
“I do not support this bill. We already have the Auditor General to check on modern treaties. Setting up a new commissioner will cost over ten million dollars and create more bureaucracy. Ministers should do their jobs and answer directly to Parliament instead of passing the buck to a new office.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be back in the House with my colleagues and to have the opportunity to discuss the major global issues and serious challenges that our country is currently facing. Today, we are here to discuss Bill C‑10. Bill C‑10 proposes to create a new officer of Parliament, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. Their role would be to assess whether the terms of modern treaties are being met and to report their findings to Parliament. By conducting audits and reporting their findings to Parliament, the new commissioner would be able to highlight areas where the federal government can improve its performance in modern treaty implementation. There is common ground when it comes to the core principle that treaty rights must be respected and that the process of reconciliation must move forward. The Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada’s first nations, Inuit and Métis people. They also recognize that much work remains to be done to advance those rights, including self-determination and self-government. What the Conservatives disagree with is the mechanism proposed in Bill C-10. The Conservative Party believes that, rather than creating more bureaucracy, the ministers and departments responsible for negotiating and implementing treaties should do their jobs. The Office of the Auditor General already conducts regular audits of modern treaty negotiations, self-government agreements, implementation and treaty land entitlement. The Conservatives firmly believe that the ministers and departments responsible for treaty negotiations and implementation should simply fulfill their responsibilities rather than creating a new position. The projected cost for the office of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation is $10.6 million over four years, with approximately 15 full-time employees. The debate on Bill C-10 is about how to ensure the implementation of modern treaties and hold the federal government accountable. The importance of this accountability is clear: All commitments made under modern treaties must be honoured. The Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada’s first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The disagreement is not about the goal, but rather how to achieve it. In conclusion, the Conservatives believe that the solution is not to create a new body or add a new bureaucratic structure. The Office of the Auditor General already conducts audits on modern treaties and their implementation, and several federal initiatives and offices already exist in this area. Rather, the responsibility lies with the ministers and departments already in charge of negotiating and implementing the treaties. They need to step up and do their job. That is why the Conservative position is to oppose Bill C-10. I hope that was clear. My French is a bit rusty, so I will continue a bit in English. That was not the conclusion of my speech; it was just the conclusion of the French part. I am sorry to get members’ hopes up. It is good to be back in the House, the people’s House, during what is certainly a tumultuous time for our country and for the world. We are discussing Bill C-10, which deals with modern treaties but which also speaks to the kind of architecture we use as a country to hold the government accountable and to challenge or constrain government decision-making. I think this is an important conversation to be having now in the context of broader debates about the nature of our institutions and how we use them. Of course, we are having this debate in the context of an escalating trade war between Canada and the United States. It was in the context of the further escalation of that trade war that Conservatives called for the early reconvening of Parliament so that we could come together and work through, debate and discuss the issues that were before the House and that are before the country. We would have brought what was clearly the business of the nation before the House. Unfortunately, the Liberals chose not to do that, but that underlined, I think, a difference in philosophy about the role of Parliament in response to these events. In the context of threats to our country, there are obviously the fundamentals on which all of us agree. I guess we do have, respectfully, some separatists in the House, but most of us are here out of a devotion to the strength and unity of Canada. We are here because we love Canada. We disagree about the mechanisms, the processes and the policies that are in the national interest, but most of us are here because we deeply love this country. As I think about the idea of love and of loving one’s country, I am drawn to that famous line from The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky reminds us that “love in [reality] is a harsh and dreadful thing compared with love in dreams.” There are many different things he means by that, but centrally I think he means that our love for our country requires sacrifice from us. It requires hard things. It also requires us to challenge decisions out of a desire to strengthen and to prod our country in a positive direction. The engagement of parliamentary institutions, the use of parliamentary institutions, is the tool by which we are able to draw on the ideas and experiences not just of members of Parliament but, through them, of all of their constituents. We spend time in our ridings hearing from Canadians about their priorities, their concerns and how they would like to see us respond to the issues of the day. Then we come together here in the central chamber of Canadian democracy to propose constructive ideas, to challenge each other and to hold each other accountable, especially to hold the government accountable, for the decisions we make, all with the goal of positively prodding our country in a constructive direction. Socrates used to describe himself as the gadfly of Athenian democracy. Canadian democracy needs its share of gadflies to— An hon. member: Let’s go for the hemlock. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, some members across the way say they would like me to meet an end similar to that which Socrates met, but I know that is meant in good humour. He saw himself as a gadfly at the hindquarters of Athenian democracy, which meant he was biting away, annoying the great beast that was Athenian democracy, in hopes of prodding it in a constructive direction. Sometimes during times of national crisis the role of the opposition is challenged. People ask why it does not just agree with everything the government says, but it is out of love for this country and out of loyalty to this country that those who have been directed by the voters into this role of opposition challenge the government in a positive, constructive direction, at least as they see it. Of course, there are going to be different views about what that positive, constructive direction is, but we deeply revere in our tradition this idea of a loyal opposition. This is why I think it would have been the right decision for Parliament to come back early, to identify the many areas that we agree on in terms of Canada’s national interest and also to ask the government questions about its strategy, about its priorities and about the choices and trade-offs it is considering. It is also why we have asked for more information about the nature of negotiations, about the things that were on the table and about the costs associated with countertariffs. When more parliamentarians have that information, when the public has that information, it allows for constructive deliberations about the choices and trade-offs that are involved. It is not because we do not share an ultimate objective. Of course, in many respects we do share an ultimate objective. However, this institution exists so that we can challenge each other based on our shared love for this country. In the face of these challenges, I would encourage the government to recognize the importance of Parliament, to share information with Parliament and to bring these issues to Parliament for a thorough discussion and debate, because this is how and where the best decisions get made. I say this because I think there is some evidence to suggest that the Prime Minister would prefer a kind of corporate governance model to a parliamentary democratic model for shaping the direction of the country. He would prefer to tell parliamentarians in his own caucus, as well as in other parties, to just trust him about the decisions he is making because, as chairman of the board, he is going to make those decisions and why not let him do it. Our parliamentary democracy exists for a reason. It exists because the prodding, directing, encouraging, challenging and accountability are part of the process of getting to good decisions. Parliamentarians are not just individuals putting our own ideas forward. We are reflections of the values, objectives and ideas of our constituents. That is why Parliament matters. That is why it is important. That is why we should resist efforts by the Prime Minister to shift us from a parliamentary democracy model to a model of corporate governance. I would remind the House that parliamentary democracy is also essential during times of crisis. We have a record of many of Winston Churchill’s great interventions in the House of Commons. He felt the importance of coming to the House, even during Britain’s darkest hour. In the face of these challenges, again, this institution is important. Members across the way are eager to hear about how these points relate to Bill C-10. Bill C-10 is actually another example of the government trying to alter the structure and directions of our institutions in ways that move us away from the focus on parliamentary and ministerial accountability. It wants to see this proliferation of external new bodies that do not really have any powers. They would have the power to criticize or commend the actions of the government in relation to modern treaties, but this obscures the fact that the responsibility for implementing these treaties, for acting in accordance with the treaties, is the responsibility of the government and of the ministers charged with implementing them. The House of Commons, as well as its committees, is the place where members of Parliament can and should challenge the government on its actions with respect to our adherence to those treaty obligations. Therefore, the best thing for accountability and for ensuring that action is taken in accordance with these treaties is not the proliferation of external bureaucracy with, frankly, limited tools and a limited capacity to hold the ministers accountable, but for the government to actually take Parliament more seriously, for ministers to provide substantive responses to substantive questions, for ministers to make themselves more available at committee, and for the Prime Minister to address the Canadian House of Commons as soon as possible after a breakdown in negotiations with the United States, not to address the European Parliament before addressing the Canadian Parliament. I think it is great for the Prime Minister to be engaging internationally, but the fact that he addressed these issues at a foreign parliament before addressing them at the Canadian Parliament demonstrates why it would have been so much better if the Canadian Parliament had been convened—”
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be back in the House with my colleagues and to have the opportunity to discuss the major global issues and serious challenges that our country is currently facing. Today, we are here to discuss Bill C‑10. Bill C‑10 proposes to create a new officer of Parliament, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. Their role would be to assess whether the terms of modern treaties are being met and to report their findings to Parliament. By conducting audits and reporting their findings to Parliament, the new commissioner would be able to highlight areas where the federal government can improve its performance in modern treaty implementation. There is common ground when it comes to the core principle that treaty rights must be respected and that the process of reconciliation must move forward. The Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada’s first nations, Inuit and Métis people. They also recognize that much work remains to be done to advance those rights, including self-determination and self-government. What the Conservatives disagree with is the mechanism proposed in Bill C-10. The Conservative Party believes that, rather than creating more bureaucracy, the ministers and departments responsible for negotiating and implementing treaties should do their jobs. The Office of the Auditor General already conducts regular audits of modern treaty negotiations, self-government agreements, implementation and treaty land entitlement. The Conservatives firmly believe that the ministers and departments responsible for treaty negotiations and implementation should simply fulfill their responsibilities rather than creating a new position. The projected cost for the office of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation is $10.6 million over four years, with approximately 15 full-time employees. The debate on Bill C-10 is about how to ensure the implementation of modern treaties and hold the federal government accountable. The importance of this accountability is clear: All commitments made under modern treaties must be honoured. The Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada’s first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The disagreement is not about the goal, but rather how to achieve it. In conclusion, the Conservatives believe that the solution is not to create a new body or add a new bureaucratic structure. The Office of the Auditor General already conducts audits on modern treaties and their implementation, and several federal initiatives and offices already exist in this area. Rather, the responsibility lies with the ministers and departments already in charge of negotiating and implementing the treaties. They need to step up and do their job. That is why the Conservative position is to oppose Bill C-10. I hope that was clear. My French is a bit rusty, so I will continue a bit in English. That was not the conclusion of my speech; it was just the conclusion of the French part. I am sorry to get members’ hopes up. It is good to be back in the House, the people’s House, during what is certainly a tumultuous time for our country and for the world. We are discussing Bill C-10, which deals with modern treaties but which also speaks to the kind of architecture we use as a country to hold the government accountable and to challenge or constrain government decision-making. I think this is an important conversation to be having now in the context of broader debates about the nature of our institutions and how we use them. Of course, we are having this debate in the context of an escalating trade war between Canada and the United States. It was in the context of the further escalation of that trade war that Conservatives called for the early reconvening of Parliament so that we could come together and work through, debate and discuss the issues that were before the House and that are before the country. We would have brought what was clearly the business of the nation before the House. Unfortunately, the Liberals chose not to do that, but that underlined, I think, a difference in philosophy about the role of Parliament in response to these events. In the context of threats to our country, there are obviously the fundamentals on which all of us agree. I guess we do have, respectfully, some separatists in the House, but most of us are here out of a devotion to the strength and unity of Canada. We are here because we love Canada. We disagree about the mechanisms, the processes and the policies that are in the national interest, but most of us are here because we deeply love this country. As I think about the idea of love and of loving one’s country, I am drawn to that famous line from The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky reminds us that “love in [reality] is a harsh and dreadful thing compared with love in dreams.” There are many different things he means by that, but centrally I think he means that our love for our country requires sacrifice from us. It requires hard things. It also requires us to challenge decisions out of a desire to strengthen and to prod our country in a positive direction. The engagement of parliamentary institutions, the use of parliamentary institutions, is the tool by which we are able to draw on the ideas and experiences not just of members of Parliament but, through them, of all of their constituents. We spend time in our ridings hearing from Canadians about their priorities, their concerns and how they would like to see us respond to the issues of the day. Then we come together here in the central chamber of Canadian democracy to propose constructive ideas, to challenge each other and to hold each other accountable, especially to hold the government accountable, for the decisions we make, all with the goal of positively prodding our country in a constructive direction. Socrates used to describe himself as the gadfly of Athenian democracy. Canadian democracy needs its share of gadflies to— An hon. member: Let’s go for the hemlock. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, some members across the way say they would like me to meet an end similar to that which Socrates met, but I know that is meant in good humour. He saw himself as a gadfly at the hindquarters of Athenian democracy, which meant he was biting away, annoying the great beast that was Athenian democracy, in hopes of prodding it in a constructive direction. Sometimes during times of national crisis the role of the opposition is challenged. People ask why it does not just agree with everything the government says, but it is out of love for this country and out of loyalty to this country that those who have been directed by the voters into this role of opposition challenge the government in a positive, constructive direction, at least as they see it. Of course, there are going to be different views about what that positive, constructive direction is, but we deeply revere in our tradition this idea of a loyal opposition. This is why I think it would have been the right decision for Parliament to come back early, to identify the many areas that we agree on in terms of Canada’s national interest and also to ask the government questions about its strategy, about its priorities and about the choices and trade-offs it is considering. It is also why we have asked for more information about the nature of negotiations, about the things that were on the table and about the costs associated with countertariffs. When more parliamentarians have that information, when the public has that information, it allows for constructive deliberations about the choices and trade-offs that are involved. It is not because we do not share an ultimate objective. Of course, in many respects we do share an ultimate objective. However, this institution exists so that we can challenge each other based on our shared love for this country. In the face of these challenges, I would encourage the government to recognize the importance of Parliament, to share information with Parliament and to bring these issues to Parliament for a thorough discussion and debate, because this is how and where the best decisions get made. I say this because I think there is some evidence to suggest that the Prime Minister would prefer a kind of corporate governance model to a parliamentary democratic model for shaping the direction of the country. He would prefer to tell parliamentarians in his own caucus, as well as in other parties, to just trust him about the decisions he is making because, as chairman of the board, he is going to make those decisions and why not let him do it. Our parliamentary democracy exists for a reason. It exists because the prodding, directing, encouraging, challenging and accountability are part of the process of getting to good decisions. Parliamentarians are not just individuals putting our own ideas forward. We are reflections of the values, objectives and ideas of our constituents. That is why Parliament matters. That is why it is important. That is why we should resist efforts by the Prime Minister to shift us from a parliamentary democracy model to a model of corporate governance. I would remind the House that parliamentary democracy is also essential during times of crisis. We have a record of many of Winston Churchill’s great interventions in the House of Commons. He felt the importance of coming to the House, even during Britain’s darkest hour. In the face of these challenges, again, this institution is important. Members across the way are eager to hear about how these points relate to Bill C-10. Bill C-10 is actually another example of the government trying to alter the structure and directions of our institutions in ways that move us away from the focus on parliamentary and ministerial accountability. It wants to see this proliferation of external new bodies that do not really have any powers. They would have the power to criticize or commend the actions of the government in relation to modern treaties, but this obscures the fact that the responsibility for implementing these treaties, for acting in accordance with the treaties, is the responsibility of the government and of the ministers charged with implementing them. The House of Commons, as well as its committees, is the place where members of Parliament can and should challenge the government on its actions with respect to our adherence to those treaty obligations. Therefore, the best thing for accountability and for ensuring that action is taken in accordance with these treaties is not the proliferation of external bureaucracy with, frankly, limited tools and a limited capacity to hold the ministers accountable, but for the government to actually take Parliament more seriously, for ministers to provide substantive responses to substantive questions, for ministers to make themselves more available at committee, and for the Prime Minister to address the Canadian House of Commons as soon as possible after a breakdown in negotiations with the United States, not to address the European Parliament before addressing the Canadian Parliament. I think it is great for the Prime Minister to be engaging internationally, but the fact that he addressed these issues at a foreign parliament before addressing them at the Canadian Parliament demonstrates why it would have been so much better if the Canadian Parliament had been convened—