TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-06-04 Sitting 129 Showing 1–4 of 4

A debate about Canada's economic problems and government measures. The Conservative criticizes the current government's handling of the economy, noting rising food insecurity and unemployment. The Liberal defends the government's actions, citing collaboration between governments and the potential economic impact of more Canadians entering the workforce. The debate mostly stuck to the topic at hand without excessive tangents or self-congratulations.

Official Hansard ↗

Garnett Genuis

Conservative 6:50 p.m.

“Canada has serious economic problems. The government should spend less and cut taxes to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training, and build homes for jobs. The government cut grants for trades students then brought them back and pretended it was something new. We need to create conditions for small businesses to hire young people. I want the government to cut payroll taxes to make hiring easier. Businesses are closing faster than they're starting. We presented specific ideas. When will you implement them?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, we face serious economic problems now as a country. We are the only G20 nation in a recession. One in four Canadians is living food-insecure. We have seen a doubling of food bank use since 2020, and we are in the midst of a worsening unemployment crisis, particularly affecting Canada's young people. We have been repeatedly calling on the government to implement a plan to respond to this youth unemployment crisis. In the fall, Conservatives put forward our plan with a series of constructive suggestions focused on unleashing the economy, fixing immigration, fixing training and building homes where the jobs are. We have not seen a willingness on the part of the government to implement these constructive proposals. In fact, we have seen the government choose to move in the opposite direction. We saw, for instance, with changes the Liberals made, the cutting of grants to students who are studying at vocational institutions. The Liberals ended completion grants for students in the trades. They brought them back eventually, following strong advocacy from unions, as well as from Conservatives, but they have now trumpeted them as if they were something new when they were, in fact, the restoration of grants that had previously been cut by this particular government under the Prime Minister. We are seeing some instances in which our advocacy has made a difference, but generally speaking, there is an unwillingness of the government to meet this moment. I will also draw the attention of members, in the context of this unemployment crisis, to a great report recently done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business highlighting the challenges small businesses are facing when it comes to hiring young people and some of the disconnect that has existed between small businesses and young people. Its proposal, very much aligning with what we have talked about, focuses on creating the conditions in which small businesses can afford to hire young people. It proposed, for instance, payroll tax relief. Payroll tax relief would be a clear and simple way of making it easier for small businesses to hire young people. Small business owners report that a lot of the programming that exists right now can be difficult and onerous for small businesses to use and take advantage of. The CFIB proposed broad-based changes that would reduce the cost of hiring, taking into consideration the costs of training and making it easier for people to start and grow businesses. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has also highlighted big gaps in terms of entrepreneurship in this country. It is talking about an entrepreneurial drought and saying that far more businesses are closing than are being started. Obviously, this affects the unemployment situation for young people. As I have led this file over the last year, and as Conservatives have been working on confronting this youth unemployment crisis, we have always sought to be constructive. That is, we have sought to put forward specific, concrete suggestions to the government on how these challenges can be addressed. We have put those forward in the form of the Conservative youth jobs plan. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has put forward its ideas, which are very similar to ours, but really emphasizes payroll tax relief. We have called on the government to adopt these suggestions. What we saw in the last fiscal update is a plan on the part of the government to increase EI premiums, which is again going in the opposite direction from what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business wants. My question tonight for the parliamentary secretary is this: When will we see a concrete plan to address the youth unemployment crisis that responds to these realities and recommendations by different stakeholders?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Leslie Church

Liberal 6:50 p.m.

“The economy is struggling so the government must control more of it. We are spending billions on job training programs with the provinces that help people find work and help businesses hire faster. We are also spending more money to protect some industries and train skilled trades workers. I want the opposition to cheer for these programs because they spend a lot of money.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, allow me to focus on the positive measures the government is continuing to pursue as we work to mitigate the impact of these uncertain times. As the Prime Minister has said, as we cope with economic uncertainty, our most powerful recourse, our most powerful tool is to control what is within our power to control, and that is what we are doing. Let me focus on the government's uncompromising commitment to build a stronger, more inclusive economy. Nothing represents the power of that commitment more than our labour market development agreements and workforce development agreements. These agreements forged between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments are engines of opportunity, resilience and growth. They provide $2.9 billion annually in training and employment assistance services delivered through provincial and territorial employment assistance offices. This approach empowers Canadians with the skills they need to succeed in a rapidly changing labour market. They offer targeted training programs. They offer career services. They offer all manner of employment supports. They are boosting the employment opportunities of Canadian workers, whether they are new graduates, mid-career professionals, or individuals facing barriers to employment. Through these programs, Canadian workers can adapt and thrive. The results speak for themselves. Each year, more Canadians are able to access skills training that leads directly to a career in a field where workers are needed. Job seekers are not only finding work faster but also securing more stable and higher-quality jobs. However, there are no jobs without employers, and this is why we are ensuring that employers also benefit. They get a more skilled and job-ready workforce and an ability to hire more quickly. Both of these advantages foster a boost in productivity. This alignment between worker skills and employers is crucial. It has the power to strengthen entire industries. A well-trained workforce drives innovation, attracts investment and enhances Canada's global competitiveness. This is why our government's workforce tariff response, for example, is providing a further $570 million until 2027-28 under the labour market development agreements. This is funding that will support tariff-impacted employers and workers in the steel and softwood lumber sectors and in other tariff-impacted industries. Global economies have shifted, and tariff tensions are high, but as Canadians, we do not stand idly by. We build, and our skilled trades workers are the ones who will build our future, but we are facing a serious shortage in the trades. This is why we have made a historic five-year, $6-billion investment to help workers and young people gain the skills, experience and support they need in order to thrive. This is where team Canada strong comes in. It is the basis of our spring economic update, and it is our plan to train, recruit and hire up to 100,000 new Red Seal trades workers to meet the demand. It is a plan that will help apprentices learn and train, and to access meaningful and well-paid careers. I can assure the House that the Government of Canada will always have the back of our workers and their families. With respect to the importance of the skilled trades and apprenticeships, I have to note that I would encourage the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to support our new plan for the trades, and I ask him why he voted against it in our spring economic update.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Garnett Genuis

Conservative 6:55 p.m.

“That's strange. We Conservatives created grants for trades workers years ago. The current government cancelled those grants, then brought them back and claimed credit. I dislike the government's fiscal plan. Labour agreements and summer jobs programs are old news. The Liberals just rename our old programs. The Liberals have no plan.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, there are many things that are very strange about this response. Let us be clear. In 2006, in the first Conservative budget of Stephen Harper, Conservatives brought in grants for trades workers. We brought in completion grants in 2009. The current government cancelled them under the Prime Minister, and then, with much fanfare, announced they were bringing them back. Of course, we support bringing in these grants. We wish they had not been cancelled before being reinstated. We voted against the government's fiscal plan in general because, in general, it is going in the wrong direction. The member highlighted labour market development agreements, which are, of course, an important and valuable part of our national architecture. Most of those agreements were signed in the 1990s and early 2000s. The last one was signed with Yukon in 2009. The government also trumpets things like the Canada summer jobs program. Again, these are programs that date back to the nineties and have existed for a long time. The government has nothing new. The best the Liberals can do is rename past Conservative programs. The Liberals clearly do not have a plan. They need to get a plan, and fast.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Leslie Church

Liberal 6:55 p.m.

“The government spends money on programs for workers. I think that's good and helps everyone. The other party voted against spending more money on trades programs.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, Canada's labour market development agreements and workforce development agreements demonstrate what is possible when governments collaborate with a common goal in mind. The economic impact is equally significant. As more Canadians enter and remain in the workforce, consumer spending rises, communities prosper and public revenues grow. This is why workforce development is more than a social policy. It is a cornerstone of economic strength. These agreements invest in people, respond to real labour market needs and deliver measurable benefits for workers and employers alike. They are not just supporting jobs. They are helping to develop a more prosperous and inclusive future for all Canadians. I thank my colleague opposite for answering my question and confirming the fact that he voted against the spring economic update and the $6-billion program we have to reinvigorate skilled trades in Canada and recruit 100,000 new tradespeople and apprentices.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates