Garnett Genuis

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by presenting a number of petitions on the real horror that the so-called medical assistance in dying regime in this country has become. We have seen how this is really a matter of national shame. In debates in parliaments around the world, Canada has been identified as a cautionary tale of what can happen when things go wrong in the health care system as a result of an out-of-control, poorly managed and poorly regulated system of so-called medically facilitated death. I am thinking in the context of this petition on MAID coercion, particularly the story of Brigitte Stegemann, an 83-year-old woman who was killed under very suspicious circumstances. The Belleville police are investigating. This story has not been covered in any mainstream media in Canada. People have to go to British newspapers to read about it. This is the horror that the system has become, and it is not being discussed nearly enough in this country, but I am pleased to be able to bring the voice of petitioners to the House on this issue through a number of petitions that draw attention to this problem. The first petition highlights, in particular, the situation of the disability community in this country and how choosing so-called MAID due to a lack of available services or treatments is not a real choice, that allowing facilitated death for those with disabilities or chronic illnesses who are not dying devalues their lives and tacitly endorses the notion that life with disability is optional. Petitioners call on the government to make incremental reforms to this regime to protect all Canadians whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable by prohibiting medical assistance in dying for those whose prognosis for a natural death is more than six months. We have also, incredibly, heard proposals even in the House to extend facilitated death to children. I have a second petition that calls on the government to not ever legalize the killing of children within our medical system. There was a proposal made by Louis Roy of the Quebec College of Physicians, incredibly, to legalize the killing of infants with so-called severe deformities and very serious syndromes. With these kinds of proposals, it is no wonder that the British Parliament, on all sides, has called Canada a cautionary tale—

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in the People's Republic of China at the hands of the CCP. It notes that the CCP has been engaged in a multidecades' long campaign to promote the eradication of this peaceful spiritual movement, a movement that is simply focused on truthfulness, compassion and forbearance. At a time of so-called strategic partnership between Canada and the government of China, petitioners want to see the government publicly call on the Chinese regime to end its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, to impose sanctions on and pursue accountability for CCP officials and proxies responsible for these human rights violations, and to take stronger measures to protect the community from foreign interference.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate. Members are studying a very lengthy piece of legislation. I want to ask the member about the messages the government is sending now, relative to messages the government has sent in the past. Under the Liberal government, there was the passage of Bill C-69 and C-48, which are government bills that really obstructed the development of anything in this country, certainly the export of natural resources. Now we hear the government at least saying some good things. It is saying that we should be selling our resources to the world and that we should be developing and building things. I wonder if the member will acknowledge there is some change. Is there some recognition that big mistakes were made in the last 10 years in this regard?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that affordability is the best it has been in over a decade. He could not be more out of touch. The latest National Payroll Institute survey shows that more than a quarter of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque and more than half of Canadians are spending all of or more than their net pay every single month. Liberals are just not delivering results for everyday Canadians. Will the Liberals adopt our Conservative economic action plan so Canadians can save money and afford to live again?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are so out of touch. Let me tell members about a Canadian named Mark. Mark has made promises to his employer that he just cannot keep. He has had to compromise all of his beliefs in order to keep his job. Mark has so little faith in the Canadian economy that he has put almost all of his investments in the United States. Mark is focused on his European retirement plans, which now seem in jeopardy. How can Canadians like Mark actually deliver the changes they promised?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House tonight. I want to start my remarks by talking about the kind of society we have been and the kind of society I would like us to be. I recall that when I was elected in the 2015 election, which was right on the tail of the Harper years, various indicators showed that our country was doing well. At the time, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had won the election on the promise of “Well, maybe things are good, but we think we can do even better.” At the time, I recall making an argument in the House about the strength of our society being shaped so much by our commitment to equality of opportunity and by the fact of Canada's combination of the policies we had and being a society where taxes were low, development was encouraged and economic activity could be pursued. It was also a society where there was a baseline of social programs in areas such as health and education that were available to everybody. This combination of a baseline of social supports and an environment in which new ideas, new investments and new businesses could start and grow was the right combination for facilitating a high degree of social mobility. Somebody who came from a less privileged background could still reasonably aspire to be among the most successful in our country. This potential, this hope, could animate the dreams and imaginations of the next generation. This was a source of strength for our country, of prosperity, of opportunity and also of social cohesion. People saw themselves as having a kind of equal opportunity, an equal ability to pursue the Canadian dream, regardless of the background they came from. I believe it is so important that we be, and restore our commitment to being, an opportunity society where people of all backgrounds and of all ages, particularly young Canadians, regardless of the family they came from and regardless of the circumstances, can have big dreams and can make those dreams a reality. However, what I hear today when I talk to young Canadians is a great deal of frustration, loss of hope, and a sense that we have become divided as a society. We have become on the one hand a nation of people who already own their home, and on the other hand a nation of people who have no hope that they will ever own their home. We have become a nation of, in some cases, people who are doing well and who respond to our social media posts about people struggling by saying, “Well, I'm not struggling”, but then there are many Canadians who are struggling and who do not see the hope or the possibility of getting ahead anymore. This is because 11 years of government policy has favoured elites and favoured incumbent holders of power at the expense of the people striving to get ahead. It has also pushed jobs and home ownership out of reach for more and more young people. We have become less of an opportunity society, and as a result, we have become more divided between those who are already at a certain level or position economically and those who struggle to even imagine that they could achieve the basic things that we associate with being able to achieve the Canadian dream. The basic things that a young person seeks from a material perspective starting out are to be able to have a good job and to be able to afford a home. That foundation of job and home is the basis on which people are able to start a family and achieve those not just material but also critical personal goals in terms of having the children they want to have, building the life and setting up the future they want to be able to provide for the next generation. However, more and more young people struggle to find a job, cannot afford a home and are delaying family formation. Now we see that this is leading to a failure, in many cases, for people to achieve the family goals they want. If we look at this statistically, the number of children people say they want on average compared to the number of children people are having on average demonstrates that many young Canadian families are not reaching the goals they have identified as wanting to pursue, which is much more than a material tragedy. It is something much deeper and more profound that is being lost. We see frustration, anger, hopelessness and increasing division as a result of the way we have declined in being an opportunity society. The hope of the Conservative Party is to fight for those who are struggling and give voice to their concerns, but also to propose constructive policies that will restore the sense of hope and opportunity that has defined our country. We are shaped in every region of the country by a certain frontier spirit, a sense that through struggle and striving, an individual should be able to get ahead, have a home, have a job and provide the beautiful and simple things that their family is seeking. While saying that there is so much more to do to restore that opportunity society, I note that the debate tonight highlights some areas in which Conservatives are winning the debate about key issues facing this country. Conservatives have for 10 years made arguments about the need to build nation-building infrastructure and about the destructive implications of the carbon tax, and we have won those debates. It does not mean that our proposals about repealing unjust taxation or building nation-building infrastructure have been fully implemented in government policy. We are still seeing many failures in terms of government action, but it is clear from the conversation, from the things being said back and forth, that we have won those debates. We have also won important cultural debates. It was not that long ago that Liberals were constantly running down our heritage and history, attacking figures like our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. Stephen Harper's celebration of the Canadian victory in the War of 1812 was criticized by the Liberal establishment as promoting extreme militarism or some nonsense like that. Today, the government is saying more that recognizes the positive legacy of people like Isaac Brock and Sir John A. Macdonald. We can see that on some cultural issues and economic issues, Conservatives have been winning debates and advancing arguments. I welcome that. Sometimes Liberals talk as if it is some big political win that they have conceded major arguments that Conservatives have been making, but I am proud of the fact that on economic and cultural issues, Conservatives have been making the arguments and moving the ball forward. We are doing it on the affordability issue as well. Conservatives have put forward proposals for tax relief for Canadians in terms of gas taxes, and tonight we are debating government legislation through which the government is saying, although not quite directly but by implication, that Conservatives were right. These are the kinds of measures they are putting forward because we have won those debates. Conservatives can take pride in the fact that we are winning these arguments, but also recognize that there is more work to do, because the government, although piecemeal in conceding certain arguments, continues to have a broadly statist agenda when it comes to development. The Liberals continue to think that the big ideas, the big initiatives, the big push to get things done must be controlled through the centralizing power of government, whereas Conservatives believe in unleashing opportunity for everyone. We believe in rebuilding the opportunity society. For instance, we supported the idea of having some exceptional circumstances for major projects to be able to move forward. However, what we proposed as a better path was reforming the impact assessment process in general so that proponents of projects large and small did not have to come cap in hand to government, and anyone with a big idea could see a path to getting it done. While we are seeing some Conservative victories in terms of winning these arguments, there is so much more work that needs to be done to undo 11 years of damage under the Liberal government and to restore the opportunity society that all Canadians, particularly Canadian young people, are seeking.

Mr. Speaker, I will just point out to the member that our job in this House is to have substantive conversations about substantive issues. He may take pride in particular by-election results. In my 11 years in this place, I can say that those are the kinds of results that we see ebbs and flows in. What Canadians will ultimately judge members of Parliament on are the results they see. It will not, in the final analysis, be on the big speeches, the promises, the meetings and the summits. Those things can be steps towards the implementation of concrete policy changes, but in the final analysis, Canadians will ask, am I better off or worse off as a result of the decisions of the government? That is the question.

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a great point in terms of debates that Conservatives have won, which I was talking about in my speech. When Stephen Harper took office, we were very limited in our free trade agreements. We had free trade in North America and were very limited beyond that. Stephen Harper subsequently negotiated trade deals with countries representing over 60% of the world's GDP with a massive expansion of our trading relations with like-minded democracies in Europe and in the Asia-Pacific. That was a huge step forward in terms of diversification and reducing our dependence on the United States. However, in 11 years of Liberal government, we did not seize on that opportunity because roadblocks were put in the way of infrastructure projects and of other kinds of developments that would have allowed us to seize the opportunities presented by these new trade deals. Diversification in terms of strengthening partnerships with like-minded democracies is a great concept. It is not new. It is just that we have lost 11 years of what could have been progress.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of who is going to be there or not there, I want to respectfully say to this member that I know she was an NDP member of a provincial parliament previously, and that she referred to the Liberals as being “untrustworthy”, “conniving” and “the surest path to greater evil”. I wonder if this member would speak openly about some of the policy decisions of the government now and whether she is comfortable with them. It is amazing to see how so many Liberals have swallowed themselves whole. I am glad we are winning the debates on things like cutting taxes, but it is hard to understand how those members reconcile—

Mr. Speaker, August job numbers delivered more challenging news for the Canadian economy. Some 42,000 jobs were lost, and there was a further increase to the youth unemployment rate. The youth unemployment rate now sits at 12.9%. Job numbers for August are calculated for the reference week of August 9 to 15, before trade talks broke down with the United States. While tariffs and countertariffs will impose costs, Canada lost 42,000 jobs before these talks broke down. That is the result of domestic policy choices that are making it harder for all Canadians, particularly young people, to find jobs. For a year, Conservatives have been promoting our constructive jobs plan: unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. We need an economic action plan to strengthen our country and restore jobs and opportunity for the next generation. We cannot control what happens beyond our borders, but we can reverse the policies that have been hurting jobs in our economy here at home for the last 11 years. Let us get to work so Canadians can as well.

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.

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?

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—

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—

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.

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.

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?

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.

Mr. Speaker, objectively, Conservatives have a much stronger record when it comes to signing modern treaties in government than the Liberal government does. The numbers are very clear on that. The failure of the government on many fronts has led to pressure for other accountability mechanisms and has led to the government trying to diffuse accountability mechanisms. Again, our view is that the response to these failures of the government should be holding ministers accountable for their decisions and for their failure to make decisions in certain cases, and that the government has a responsibility to expose itself to debate in Parliament and to questions at committee, so that we can work through these crucial issues of the national interest, of nation-building and reconciliation, so that we can do that as the leaders who are responsible here in Parliament for making the decisions that shape the future of our country.