SoVote

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/7/22 4:15:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us talk about irresponsible. We hear members of the government say either we believe everything they say or we are with the conspiracy theorists. Might I suggest there is a healthy level of skepticism in between being a believer in conspiracy theories and trusting the government with everything. There are a lot of Canadians who legitimately do not trust the government. A report came out last year saying that personal information belonging to 144,000 Canadians was mishandled. This was in an official report and included thousands of Canadians whose data was improperly used by the Canada Revenue Agency. We have over 100,000 verifiable Canadian cases of the government's misuse of data. Then we have the member saying anyone who questions the government on this is wearing a tinfoil hat. What about the over 100,000 Canadians who are victims of this abuse of their data? Can the government show a little humility, apologize to the Canadians who have been affected and start being more respectful of those who are concerned?

176 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 25 - Feb/7/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/7/22 9:18:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the House tonight about the ongoing convoy protest movement that is happening across the country, as well as about the federal mandates that have spawned this response. Let me say at the outset that when people have disagreements about important public issues, I think it is so important that they take the time to talk to each other and try to understand each other's perspectives. If there is a particular challenge in doing that in Canada, it is because we are such a vast country. People in different regions with different kinds of experiences or perspectives that are informed by their region may have a harder time engaging in that dialogue with people who live very far away. This may be further challenged by the fact that we are a bilingual country, so sometimes it is harder to have those conversations across those experiential, regional or linguistic divides. However, there is something about this convoy movement that has suddenly shrunk those geographic divisions, because people have come from all across the country to be in Ottawa to express the significant concerns they have. Members of Parliament now have an opportunity to go out and talk to some of the people who are here, ask them why they are here, look at what signs and symbols they are waving or not waving and take that opportunity to engage in that dialogue. What is incredible to me is that, by all indications, there are many members of Parliament who will participate in this debate tonight who do not seem to have taken the opportunity to look around, to try to talk to people and try to understand. I would challenge any member who has not done it to go outside, tonight or tomorrow, and ask the people right in front of this building what their experiences are. Did they lose a job? Did they have family that lost a job, or did they lose a business? Was someone they care about affected by this in some way, or do they know someone who has experienced suicidal ideation for the first time because of lost opportunity or social isolation that came about as a result of the pandemic? What are the experiences in their lives that have led them to come and take this fairly drastic step? There are many people I know here who are protesting for the very first time, so let us try to understand and ask those questions. I got the call at about 6:45 from Sebastien in our lobby, who does great work for us on the Conservative side, telling me that I would have an opportunity to speak tonight, so I was thinking through what I would do to prepare. Usually I sit in my office, look things up and work in front of my computer, but instead I decided to go out and talk to people. I had done a bit of this before, but I tried to be intentional about asking people what had brought them here and what things they were maybe seeing reflected in the conversation that were not represented or were represented. I think, again, it is important for us as members of Parliament to take that opportunity to try to understand, and many people told me they came here because they were deeply concerned about mandate policies. They believe in the core principle of individual autonomy, and in individuals' ability to make choices about their own health without being threatened with job loss as a result of it. I think it is objectively the case that Canada's approach, when it comes to vaccine mandates, is far more draconian than many other countries around the world. For instance, countries in Europe have an alternative that is based on natural immunity, yet Canada does not seem to recognize that. It is interesting for me, because we could say, “This is the science. We are not including natural immunity because it is the science.” However, it is the same science in Europe, or it should be. It is the same virus, so these are legitimate questions. Why do we not have the option to consider natural immunity and rapid tests that would allow people leeway, especially truckers who are working alone and public servants who are working from home? Why are there not reasonable accommodations, when an individual wants to exercise autonomy over themselves and their own bodies? I think those are reasonable questions. I had a lot of conversations with different people when I was out talking with the people who were there. I met a young man who actually voted NDP in the last election. I do not know if he will again after some of the things that have been said. I talked to people a bit about some of the questions raised in the media about hateful symbols, because we have certainly seen some of those photos. I was told that in the very small number of instances where people put forward symbols of hate, they were actively told by other protesters to put them away, that they did not want to see those here and that they were not representative of what they were doing. Objectively, if someone walks up and down Wellington Street, what they will see is people waving Canadian flags and people with various signs expressing messages about mandates. I will tell members that my grandmother was a Holocaust survivor, so I think, particularly for my family, the fact that one person or maybe two people were walking around with swastikas is incredibly offensive, and obviously that strikes something in me that is different from other members who do not have that same family experience. The reality is that these individuals were told to leave by other protesters. They were told that they were not welcomed there and that their message was not the message that other people were trying to present. I spoke with a young man who was at the protest who told me he was gay. He told me that he brought a pride flag with him, and he was not bothered by anyone. Nobody had a critical comment about that. I spoke with many people, including visible minorities and a number of Jewish gentlemen who had come from Montreal to see the protest. There is this representation in the media and in the comments of other members that this is just a sea of people waving Confederate flags or something, and that is not happening. Whatever side one is on, that is objectively not what is happening. Let us start by looking around and listening to the objective facts on the ground and try to understand what the source of the concerns are. Maybe we could recognize the people who have lost their jobs, who are being told they cannot work alone by themselves in their truck, who cannot work from home as a public servant, who cannot travel in the context of a family emergency or whatever the case may be, who are affected by these mandates and who are prepared to take other precautions, like get a rapid test. They may have a point. I think they do have a point. I agree with them in saying that these federal mandates should end. We should end the federal mandates not because of the protests, but because it is the right thing to do. The federal mandates simply do not make sense as policies when it comes to vaccination. We talked about the impacts that these vaccinations have had on other people, and our party has consistently taken a very reasonable approach in saying that employers should take appropriate measures to secure the safety of their workplaces. If those in the public service, for example, choose to exercise their autonomy not to get vaccinated, they should take a rapid test if they are coming into the office. A lot of people are still working from home, but testing is a good alternative. In fact, we know there are many breakthrough infections even for those who are vaccinated, so getting regular rapid tests is a pretty good idea. I think it would be reasonable under the circumstances of the omicron variant, for example, to say that rather than having a vaccine mandate for air travel, everybody simply has a rapid test before they fly. Now, we have had problems with the availability of rapid tests, because the government only discovered rapid tests, it seems, about two years into this process. Now it wants to be congratulated for procuring rapid tests two years later. Two years from now we will be having better ventilation in schools. Well, folks, it is just too late. We should have been talking about rapid tests right out of the gate and deploying a system of widely available rapid tests before the vaccine was even available. Then we would be ahead. We could be where other countries are. Many other countries and many other jurisdictions around the world are now lifting their restrictions completely, yet the government is continually talking about ways to further tighten mandates, to further squeeze the very small portion of the population that is not vaccinated. The fact is, the vast majority of Canadians have been vaccinated. For the small minority who have chosen not to get vaccinated, I think it is fair to assume at this point that they will probably not get vaccinated. At this point, it is time to say that with the reality of COVID, which is going to be with us, most people are going to choose to get vaccinated but some people are going to choose not to. We believe in this principle of individual freedom of autonomy, and we cannot function very well as a country if the government continually wants to fire and otherwise penalize people who exercise their autonomy. I would say that it is time to lift the mandates and it is time to work toward getting back to normal. Of course, we can continue to take appropriate precautions in response to events that come up, but the level of restrictions on individual freedom and the level of coercion are not something that I think any of us would have thought possible in this country two years ago. These were supposed to be temporary measures, and now it very clearly is time to move on. It is time to look to the future, because continually finding new ways to squeeze that small minority of the population that is not vaccinated is not going to change anything. It is not going to move us forward and it is not going to allow us to get out of this. People who have never protested before are coming here to say that they want to be able to work. They do not want to be fired from their job for exercising personal autonomy. They do not want to be seeing empty grocery store shelves. They do not want long delays to access immigration services because people are being laid off because of these mandates. Let us end the mandates because it is the right thing to do.

1876 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 25 - Feb/7/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Feb/7/22 9:29:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think I made my views very clear in my speech. This member should take the opportunity to go out and engage in dialogue, and try to come to an understanding of what the significant concerns here are. What I really focused on in my remarks is the fact that we should be ending mandates and ending the continual squeezing of that minority who have chosen not to get vaccinated and all the impact that is having on access to services. We are seeing significant backlogs in immigration services in our offices and backlogs in accessing other services. When we put people who are working from home on unpaid leave and do not allow them to provide the services they have been providing, we cannot pretend that is not going to have an impact. When we take trucks providing essential services off the roads, that is going to have an impact. These mandates are having a severe impact on vaccinated and unvaccinated people alike, and they need to end.

171 words

Context: House Hansard - 25 - Feb/7/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Feb/7/22 9:31:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do want to be clear. I did not mention this specifically, but I think it is critically important that people are able to protest and that we minimize the negative impact on the lives of people in this city. There should be effective dialogue, between protesters and the city, that allows necessary access and transportation to occur. I think that dialogue can take place if the Prime Minister plays a constructive role in bringing down the temperature. This is the national capital and people should be able to protest here. There has to be a space, at the same time, for that to happen in a way that is respectful. There are many people who want to see those kinds of accommodations happen through dialogue. They can happen, but that is different from saying that people should not be allowed here and demonizing the importance of the message they are presenting.

154 words

Context: House Hansard - 25 - Feb/7/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Feb/7/22 9:33:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to hear that the member found my speech bizarre is a high compliment indeed. The member raised the issue of foreign money. I will take this opportunity to say to the member that I would love to see a consistent approach taken by parties opposite when it comes to foreign funding and foreign influence in our democracy. Let us have that debate. Let us see that legislation come forward. I know the member could take a bit of a stronger position when it comes to the interference of the Chinese government in Canadian affairs. I would like to see that member take a stronger position when it comes to issues like the Uighur genocide and other cases of foreign interference happening here in this country. Let us talk about addressing foreign interference. I would love to see a stronger and consistent policy on that issue.

147 words

Context: House Hansard - 25 - Feb/7/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/7/22 10:47:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would put it to the member that it is not about negotiating, but about listening. It is about listening to the fact that there are tens of thousands of people across the country who are protesting in different ways. Some of them are driving their trucks places and going home and some of them are staying put. The point is that people are concerned about losing their jobs over mandates that need to end. I want to put a specific question to the member, and it is about the discussion around foreign funding. Many members have raised this issue, saying foreigners are donating money to this rally. The Conservatives have been talking for a very long time about the need for tough new laws to address foreign interference and address foreign funding, and that is constantly dismissed by the other parties when it comes to all kinds of other causes, including election interference. Will the member's government put forward legislation to address concerns about foreign interference in our democracy across the board? We cannot complain about it in one case and then let it go in other cases. If the government is going to put forward good-faith legislation that addresses foreign dollars coming into Canadian political debates across the board, I think there would be a lot of support for that in the House. Would the member put forward that legislation?

236 words