Garnett Genuis

In response to a question from Kelly McCauley

“This bill sounds good on the surface, but it actually weakens government accountability. It creates a new commissioner who has no real power, just to take pressure off the minister. This hurts our parliamentary democracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is another excellent point from my colleague. This is precisely the issue. Through this bill, which sounds nice on the face of it, “Oh, we are creating this new commissioner,” the structure of the new position is to try to reduce the accountability, the pressure and the demands on the shoulders of the minister, while not really giving the commissioner the power to address the issues that are brought before him or her. It is kind of a diffusion and a weakening of the accountability structures that are supposed to exist within our system. Sometimes with this kind of legislation, when there is a nice-sounding top line, we have to look underneath it and ask, “What is this bill actually doing? What are the effects of it going to be?” As my colleague illustrates, this reflects a kind of preferred corporate governance-oriented model that the Prime Minister wants to apply to this country that in fact weakens the structures of our parliamentary democracy as they are supposed to exist.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 68 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “a kind of preferred corporate governance-oriented model that the Prime Minister wants to apply to this country that in…”.

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

“I do not support this bill. The new commissioner will not have the power to make the government follow treaty agreements. People can already use the courts for that, so this new job is pointless.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is true that the commissioner would not have the power to ensure that the government’s actions are consistent with its obligations. Other mechanisms already exist, such as the courts, for example, where indigenous peoples can demand that the government comply with the agreements. In my view, this is a fundamental problem with Bill C-10. How can the government justify a commissioner position? He will not have the powers needed to guarantee results. What, then, is the purpose of creating this post?”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Louis Villeneuve

“We all want to support Indigenous rights, but this bill is the wrong way to do it. We should use Parliament to hold the government accountable instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I think this makes it clear that we generally all share the same goal when it comes to advancing indigenous rights. However, we disagree on this bill. Conservatives do not believe that this is the ideal mechanism for advancing and defending the rights of indigenous peoples. Instead, we should be focusing on existing mechanisms, namely accountability within the parliamentary context.”

“I want this bill passed to hold the government accountable for our modern treaties. Parliament itself must hold ministers responsible through questions and debate. A strong Parliament helps us make better decisions and defend Canada, like pushing back against America buying potash from Belarus instead of us.”

“Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the member is a new member in the House. He is not as new as he once was. I do welcome him back. On a serious point to that member, I heard from some of his constituents about a private member’s bill that I put forward in the House. It is Bill C-290, on the theft of religious items, because I know there have been some thefts of mezuzahs. There has been real concern in the Winnipeg Jewish community about that, so I have been meaning to call him about it. I would recommend he have a look at Bill C-290. I hope that the bill, which seeks to address the issue of theft of religious items, is something that could be an area of cross-party co-operation. That definitely is not related to Bill C-10. What I am underlining in this speech is simply that, in the midst of challenging times for our country, in a context where it is important for us to come together and agree on the fundamentals of defending the Canadian national interest, the robust debate that happens in Parliament, the requests for information and the process of holding government ministers accountable are important processes of helping us collectively make better decisions. To love this country is also about loving and working through its existing institutions and recognizing the value of the heritage we have in the establishment of these institutions. As it relates to Bill C-10, it is about saying that the core of accountability is not external to Parliament; it is right here in Parliament. It is the obligation of ministers to uphold our obligations under modern treaties and other treaties. It is to come before the House to defend their actions, to respond to questions from opposition members about them, to do so here within the House and to do so before its committees. We need to have a strong Parliament, a strong Parliament for a strong Canada and a united Canada in the face of various challenges. I was thinking about these challenges just today, looking at the news and comments from the American administration about buying potash from Belarus. This was really striking to me because Belarus is systematically involved in the theft of children from Ukraine. It has been well established by human rights groups that Russia and Belarus are involved in stealing children from Ukraine. This is actually an issue that the first lady of the United States has been quite active in and vocal on, trying to get children who have been stolen from Ukrainian families returned to their families. How in the world did we get to this point where the American administration is talking about buying potash from Belarus instead of trying to restore the relationship with Canada? This is a baffling point to be at. It underlines the need for us to bring the case directly to the American people, to say that we need to have partnerships among like-minded democracies. This ridiculous economic attack on our country makes no sense from a strategic perspective for the United States. Why would we want to buy potash from a regime that is intentionally and systematically stealing children? These are the challenges we face. These are the kinds of challenges that need to be addressed in our Parliament through debate, through discussion, through collaboration and also through disagreements, but to defend the interests of Canada.”

“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—”

“I do not support this bill. The government should just follow the treaties it already signed instead of creating a new commissioner with no real power. We should spend this money to directly improve the lives of Indigenous people.”

“Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada has certain obligations in relation to the treaties it signs. It is the responsibility of the prime minister, the ministers and all our institutions to act in a way that responds to those obligations. This legislation would create an additional commissioner office with staff, without binding powers over government action. It seems to me that the core of accountability is the decisions of government in response to these obligations. What prevents the government from simply fulfilling its obligations, from listening to indigenous nations directly, from using the existing institutions we have and from putting these resources into things that actually concretely and positively impact the lives of indigenous people?”

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“We should not create a new office to oversee modern treaties. The government should just answer to Parliament instead of building another bureaucracy.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for all the work he has done over the years supporting reconciliation and economic development for indigenous peoples. There is a certain irony in the approach of the government, because we have a Prime Minister who has not shown much respect for Parliament. He ignored our calls to reconvene Parliament to discuss the crisis involving Canada-U.S. relations. He has not been forthcoming with Parliament about various issues. However, we have a bill where he is proposing an additional separate bureaucracy that would oversee the government’s action in the context of modern treaties. It strikes me that the government could and should respect the accountability mechanisms we already have in place. It could be more engaged with the work of Parliament. It could be more present in Parliament and more willing to provide information to Parliament about what it is doing as it relates to modern treaties and also about a broad range of other domains. I wonder what my colleague thinks about this: instead of the government’s creating an additional separate bureaucracy, its actually being more engaged with and more forthcoming with the mechanisms and institutions we already have that are designed to promote accountability.”

“Young people are having a hard time finding jobs and buying homes. I want the government to adopt our Conservative plans for youth jobs, job training, and parental leave.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my best wishes for the summer to all colleagues from all sides. We have fought hard for our constituents, for our convictions and to advance the common good of this country. I want to share my best wishes with all colleagues, as well as the various staff and people in this institution who support the important work that we do. In addition to thanking and wishing best wishes to all colleagues and support staff here, I want to note that this will be a very important summer in my province because we will be discussing and debating the question of Alberta’s place within Confederation. I can tell the House that I firmly believe in the importance of a strong Alberta within a united Canada. I believe that is the position held by the majority of my constituents. I look forward to talking to people and listening to them over the summer. I would encourage colleagues from all parts of the country to also listen to, respect and try to understand the concerns Albertans have. Many Albertans, including those who support a united Canada, have concerns about the way our federation has operated and want to look for opportunities to improve things for the good of the whole country. Coming back to the question I had originally asked and that I am following up on, I am deeply concerned, as we go into the summer, about the challenges facing young Canadians and young Canadian families when it comes to finding employment, starting out in life and believing they can have a better future and that they can pass a better future on to the next generation. We have a worsening employment crisis. It is getting increasingly harder for young people to find their first job, and for young families to afford their first home and be able to afford to take those critical steps forward in life. In recognition of that problem, and in an effort to be constructive, we have, as the Conservative Party, put forward constructive proposals to try to make life better for young people seeking jobs and for young families. Last fall, we announced the Conservative youth jobs plan to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. This plan, if implemented by the government, would help young people have hope that they can have jobs and opportunity going forward, afford homes and have the standard of living their parents had. We have also released a work and family life plan to support young families. This plan includes vital reforms to parental leave to make it easier for parents who are trying to start a family, maintain a connection to work and earn an income at the same time. I am very proud of the work we have done as a Conservative opposition, focusing on what matters to Canadians and on putting forward constructive proposals to make people’s lives better. We have asked the government, in a spirit of goodwill and co-operation, to take these ideas forward and adopt our Conservative youth jobs plan and the parental leave reforms we have put forward. Unfortunately, in many cases, we have seen the government choose to move in the opposite direction, for instance, by defunding grants to students at vocational institutions who are trying to gain the vital experience they need for jobs. We have always sought to be productive and constructive by putting forward these good ideas and asking the government to adopt them. Therefore, as we face these ongoing challenges, an affordability crisis and a youth unemployment crisis, will the government take a serious look at what we have put forward, including the Conservative youth jobs plan, parental leave reforms and the need to reform training to connect Canadian young people with Canadian jobs? Will the government look at our ideas, take them seriously and consider implementing them as part of the budget so we can finally reverse the trajectory that we have seen and give young people hope for jobs, homes and opportunity in the future?”

“The government wants to force this bill through without normal debate. They are skipping committee study, amendments, and the final vote. I want the minister to explain why he is shutting down debate on this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who is really eroding the foundations of our parliamentary democracy. He is never here, yet he is imposing some of the most draconian measures on parliamentary debate. The motion before the House would impose on Bill C-26 that there would be one more speaker for each party at second reading, and then after the vote at second reading, it would be deemed adopted at all stages, with no committee study, no report stage debate and no third reading debate. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Whitby is saying, “perfect”. This is what Liberals want. They want to shut down debate. This would not just be closure of debate at a stage. It would be shutting debate down at all stages, with no possibility for committee study or amendment. This is just an unconscionable attack on the processes that are supposed to defend the rights and liberties of Canadians and to defend good decision-making. How can the minister, if he really thinks this is a good bill, justify the most draconian use of shutting down a procedure that we have ever seen in the House, shutting it down not just at one stage but at all stages, with no possibility for debate, study or amendment?”

“Too many young Canadians cannot find good jobs. The Conservatives have a four-part plan to fix this: cut taxes and rules for businesses, fix the immigration system, support job-training programs, and build homes near where jobs are located. I want the government to adopt our plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of the parliamentary session for this spring, it is important to highlight the ongoing jobs crisis facing young people, and the constructive measures that Conservatives have put forward. We are here in Parliament working late, but we are blessed to have the opportunity to work on behalf of Canadians. Meanwhile, there are many talented young people with skills and passion that they want to put to work but have not been able to. There are the top‑line unemployment numbers. Underneath that, there is declining labour force participation for young people, and there is the reality that many young people are not able to work in the field they have studied in. They have been encouraged to go in one direction in terms of their studies, yet they are not able to find employment that aligns with that area of study. Over the course of the spring session and the previous fall session, as we have been highlighting the youth unemployment crisis in this country, we have always been very constructive in our approach, putting forward specific policy proposals to address that crisis and inviting the government to embrace those proposals. We have highlighted four key areas as we have advanced our youth unemployment strategy. The first is unleashing the economy, addressing major concerns that small businesses have around the cost of hiring and around red tape and regulation, by having incentives, tax cuts and reduced bureaucracy that encourages investment in Canada. Second, we need to fix the immigration system. When it comes to immigration, we hear a big focus from the government on attracting foreign talent, but not enough focus on deploying the talent that is already in this country. There are so many young people with talent, training and passion who want to get to work. We should be focused on deploying the Canadian talent to give young people opportunities. We need to fix our immigration system so that the people who come here are able to have their credentials recognized so they are not competing for entry-level jobs, and so that we are clearly identifying where the skill gaps and needs are. The first two areas are unleashing the economy and fixing immigration. Third, we need to fix training. The government is going in the opposite direction. It is pulling funding for student grants for students in vocational programs. We should be celebrating and recognizing the value of different kinds of post-secondary options, including vocational programs that provide practical, job-ready skills for young people. We need to be training young people for Canadian jobs. We know there is a desire for skilled workers. The response to that should be to train young people to be ready to fill those skilled positions, yet there is a specific attack on vocational institutions by the government. Fourth, we need to build homes where the jobs are. Conservatives are proposing constructive policies to support labour mobility so young people can take up opportunities that may exist outside the region they live in. We have very high unemployment in larger centres, and we have many opportunities in rural and remote areas to seize opportunities for young people who are able. However, when I talk to young people about whether they think they would be able to seize those opportunities, transportation and housing are major concerns if they are moving to an area that is unfamiliar. That is why we have included in our jobs plan incentives to make it easier for employers to offer workforce housing. We need to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. That is our constructive Conservative plan to address the youth unemployment crisis. It is offered in good faith. Would the government take those good ideas that we have put forward?”