Garnett Genuis

“The government did not answer my question about fisheries. The government admitted it gave public money to a company that fired Canadian workers and hired illegal workers instead. I want the fisheries minister to explain why they are funding this company.”

“Mr. Speaker, that response had absolutely nothing to do with the question that was asked. Canada faces a 29-year low in workforce participation. This question is about fisheries. There was an Order Paper question the government tabled on February 19, question 885, that admitted that the government provided public subsidies through that department to a company that had fired Canadian workers to hire illegal workers. Why can the fisheries minister not stand up and answer that question? Why are you subsidizing a company that fired Canadians to hire illegal workers?”

“Canada is facing a jobs crisis. The government should not raise payroll taxes, and it should not cut grants for students at career colleges. The minister attacked these colleges unfairly. The government needs to apologize for her comments, take them back, and teach her how important these schools are.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am following up on questions I asked earlier about jobs. We face an ongoing jobs crisis in this country, most notably underlined by the latest job numbers, which show a 29-year low in workforce participation. That is, a smaller percentage of Canadians are in the workforce today than at any time in the last 29 years. In the midst of that, we see continuing hints by the government that it intends to increase payroll taxes, to increase the tax on jobs, and my earlier question was about whether the government intends to do that and why it is teasing the possibility of increasing the tax on jobs. Conservatives are opposed to increasing the tax on jobs. We think this is the worst kind of tax, and certainly during a jobs crisis, increasing the tax on jobs is a terrible idea. Meanwhile, my question highlighted the fact that the government is attacking vocational institutions by arbitrarily cutting off student grants to students at vocational institutions. This is notable because last week in the House, the minister responsible for jobs launched an absolutely vicious attack on career colleges on the floor of the House of Commons. It was really a shameful display from a minister of the Crown showing complete ignorance of the important role that vocational career colleges play in this country. It is shameful that the minister who is supposed to be responsible for jobs would say the things she said. Here is what has happened. A few bad actors, in many respects masquerading as career colleges, have been allowed under the government to abuse the system and take advantage of immigration programs. There have been bad actors who have abused the system, and there has been a failure of enforcement in that regard. However, in response to that, the government has tried to tar all career colleges with the same brush, ignoring the fact that many career colleges do excellent work, are well regulated and provide critically important career-relevant training programs to Canadian students to prepare them for Canadian jobs. We recognize on this side of the House that union training halls, not-for-profit colleges, universities and private vocational colleges are all part of an important training ecosystem that is working to prepare Canadian young people for Canadian jobs. The government’s decision to arbitrarily cut off students who are learning career-relevant skills at private vocational institutions is not right and not defensible. It has been hard for us up to now to understand why the government is doing this, but the ignorant and vicious attack on career colleges from the Minister of Jobs and Families that we heard last week in the House underlines exactly why we have this problem. It is because the minister has refused to engage with career colleges, refused to talk to students who are at those institutions and refused to understand the work they are doing. The minister and the government should be ashamed of themselves. At a time when we desperately need trades workers, when we desperately need the right training that aligns with the needs of the labour market, and when vocational institutions are very much engaged with private sector companies to prepare young people for the jobs that exist in this country, we have a government that is arbitrarily cutting off students at career colleges. This is going to have a negative effect on young people, especially from middle- and low-income backgrounds, who are trying to get relevant labour market skills. I want to ask the government if it will apologize for the outrageous display from the minister, ask her to rescind those comments and educate her about the issue.”

In response to a question from Alex Ruff

“I oppose this bill. It concentrates power, removes accountability, and shuffles bureaucracy just to hide the government's poor results on military and foreign policy.”

“Mr. Speaker, yes, I do. I thank my colleague for raising this issue. The fundamental question in the debate on Bill C-40 is what the legislation would actually change. This is an opportunity for us to talk about various issues in military performance, military procurement and foreign policy more broadly, but the question in our vote is, “What would this bill actually change?” The effect of this bill is a concentration of power, a lack of accountability and a bureaucratic restructuring to some extent, but it is designed to mask a lack of results we have seen from the government on this and many other files.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 40 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  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 Sébastien Lemire

“Government ethics matter. I worry this bill gives the government too much power and could lead to abuse. I want a committee to study these concerns.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the kind words. Yes, I think ethics in government is very important, and I am concerned about the concentration of power associated with this bill, as well as the potential abuses that could occur of that power. I look forward to further study on these issues at committee, but I very much share the concerns raised by my colleague and hope this issue will get more airing when it is studied at committee.”

• 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 Natilien Joseph

“I support trading with more countries around the world. The previous Conservative government signed trade deals with many nations. The Liberals failed to build the infrastructure needed to take advantage of those deals.”

“Mr. Speaker, not only do I support diversifying our trade, but I worked as a staffer in the Stephen Harper government that led the way on this diversification. In 2006, when Conservatives took office, we had barely any engagements in terms of free trade outside of North America. After Stephen Harper’s tenure in office, we had signed free trade agreements with nations representing over two-thirds of the world’s GDP, with Asia-Pacific, as well as the European free trade area, the European Union and various individual countries. We made significant progress. The problem was that the Liberal government that followed did not follow those trade agreements with the kinds of infrastructure development and development of opportunities that would have allowed us to seize those opportunities. We needed to build up the infrastructure capacity to really realize the potential of those trade agreements, but it is not correct at all that this idea of diversifying our trading arrangements is something new. It is an old idea championed by Conservatives and left on the shelf by Liberals for 11 years.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Bob Zimmer

“I oppose this bill. It just creates more bureaucracy and gives the government more power instead of giving our military the real strength and equipment it needs. We need real results to protect Canada and stand up to authoritarian countries, not more red tape.”

“Mr. Speaker, it has been a typical day in Ottawa. I started off this morning speaking about the Liberal tanker ban and how the Liberals are piling on red tape instead of solving the problem, and lo and behold, here we are at the end of the day talking about military procurement. It is the same theme. It is more Liberal red tape instead of trying to cut through red tape to get results. We have heard some fine speeches, with some things I even agree with from government members who were talking about the importance of the military and so forth, but what is the substance of the bill they put before the House today? It is a third iteration of a defence agency. It would be more bureaucracy: a new Crown corporation with unprecedented powers to administer. It would reshuffle the bureaucratic structures, giving the Liberals a bit more power with less accountability and not delivering on the results that Canadians expect. We are, of course, debating this bill and this issue at a time of intensifying conflict and challenge around the world. I believe we are in the midst of a new kind of cold war, with escalating conflict and competition between free democratic nations and authoritarian revisionist powers that would like to undermine freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This is the nature of the struggle and competition we face today. In the midst of that challenge, we need a Canada that is strong, that meets its NATO spending commitments, that does not just focus on dollars but on capabilities and results, and that is building partnerships with like-minded democracies to stand up to authoritarian revisionist powers and expand the space of human freedom by defending the freedom of our people here at home and by defending and advancing the space of freedom around the world. This requires a strong and principled Canada acting based on our values and building up our capabilities. In the midst of this, unfortunately, the Prime Minister has emphasized a foreign policy that prioritizes a renewed pivot to engagement with the CCP, which is the only thing consistent about Liberal policy over the last few decades. The one thing the Liberals have not changed is that they will always look for any excuse to deepen relationships with the Government of China, often in ways that are not at all in Canada’s interests. The Prime Minister also speaks about middle-power partnerships. It is important for the House to note that when the Prime Minister speaks of middle powers, it is a description of size, not values. There are many different kinds of middle powers, some with which we have many common interests and values and others with which we do not. We on this side of the House prefer instead to emphasize the importance of seeking strong partnerships with like-minded nations where we share common values and objectives and where we can work together to advance our interests and values in a challenging world. All of these things require strengthened Canadian capacity and capabilities, which is why we have been calling for more investments in our military since the beginning. I recall that in 2015, in the very first thrown speech of the government, it called for a leaner military. It was signalling even then a desire to reduce the capacity of our military. Conservatives pushed back then. We have pushed back consistently, calling for a strong Canada with stronger capabilities in our military capacity and in other areas so that we can defend our interests and values here at home and around the world. The tension that has been caused between Canada and the U.S. because of the decisions of the American administration is unfortunate. In the midst of that dynamic, it is all the more important that we emphasize the strength of Canada and the defence of our values, and that we not allow Liberal politicians to use this as an excuse to pivot toward tightening relationships with authoritarian powers. We need strong relationships with democracies. We need more democratic partners around the world. We need to strengthen our collaboration with democratic partners everywhere and to do so on a foundation of strengthening our own capacity and capabilities. This bill, unfortunately, is not about doing this. This bill is not about moving toward the kinds of real changes and results that we need to see. Rather, it is about a bureaucratic reorganization, with bureaucratic changes that do not deliver the results that our country needs and that are required at this time. As I said at the beginning, we have a government that wants to send signals and talk about its commitment on certain things, but that has involved putting forward legislation that piles on, moves or shifts red tape without delivering results. Bill C-40 is not going to strengthen our ability to equip our military in these challenging times. We have been calling on the government for years to make the commitments that are required. That includes defending our own security, defending our country from foreign interference. It includes addressing the very real threats to this country that come in various forms, combatting foreign interference, not developing strategic partnerships with powers that are hostile to our interests and our values, but instead building up our capacity, defending our interests and defending our security. That is very much what we need to be doing right now. In these times and in all times, we need a strong Canada with those enhanced capabilities. That is what we stand for in the opposition, in believing there is a better way and we need a government that is focused on results. I will say, in conclusion, the government will ultimately be judged by the results. It is not going to be judged by the words, by the number of bills, by the fact that again we have a third iteration of a new defence procurement in barely more than as many months. The government will be judged by whether or not it delivers in defending our security, in protecting our country from hostile actors, in building up our economy and in the various commitments that it has made. We will hold it accountable not for the words, but for the results that are delivered on defence and on every other file.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 29 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“Payroll taxes hurt jobs because they make it more expensive to hire people, especially the young. Raising employment insurance costs will make this worse. I want the government to promise it will not raise payroll taxes.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House on the subject of the unemployment crisis, and in particular to speak about the implications of EI premiums for employment. It is my view and the view of our party in general that payroll taxes are among the worst kinds of taxes. This is because payroll taxes create a greater cost and a disincentive around employment. While all kinds of taxes can have negative effects in terms of economic activity, payroll taxes are among the worst because they are not based on the profits that a company is earning or based on the overall income of an individual. They are targeted at employment specifically. When we have payroll taxes, the cost falls most heavily on those who are employing others. Let us imagine that we have two businesses of equal size and equal profit, but one is employing twice as many people as the other. The company that is employing more people will be on the hook for more payroll taxes. One of the key action items we are hearing from small businesses that will help them be part of the solution to youth unemployment is simply to reduce the cost of hiring. There was a great report done recently by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It looked at how we can address youth unemployment and looked at some of the disconnect that has existed between employers and young people. The report highlighted that many small businesses say that a lot of the programs that are designed to promote, through programmatic or subsidy means, the hiring of youth can be complicated and difficult to use. They would like to see simple measures aimed at reducing the costs of hiring young people. One way the government can act to reduce the costs of hiring young people and reduce the costs of hiring in general is to address the relatively high payroll taxes that businesses and individuals have to pay on top of employment. In that context, therefore, Conservatives have been calling on the government to commit to not increasing EI premiums. Unfortunately, what we saw in the last budget, which goes to the question that I am following up on, were proposals for changes to EI that were associated with increases to premiums going forward. We pointed out and will continue to point out that increasing EI premiums creates the conditions in which it becomes even harder to employ young people and people of all ages. We will continue to highlight the negative impacts of payroll tax increases and encourage the government not to pursue policies that increase payroll taxes. I am here tonight to ask the parliamentary secretary again if the government is prepared to commit to not increasing payroll taxes and to addressing the implications of payroll taxes for unemployment.”

In response to a question from Sukhman Gill

“High fuel prices are hurting businesses and people across Canada, including in my area. We are a big country and need to move goods around. Government policies and failures are making that too expensive.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the effects of these high prices in every part of the country, including in my riding, my region, in Abbotsford and the Lower Mainland more broadly. Diesel prices are very consequential for all kinds of different businesses for the goods that all Canadians use, because we are a vast country. We need to be able to move things around. It is so much more difficult to do almost anything in this country when we have government policy decisions as well as failures to act that are making it more expensive to do that essential work of moving things around in this big country.”

• 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 Vince Gasparro

“We are not blocking this bill. We agreed to a plan that lets us debate it and still pass it quickly. We support the tax cuts in this bill, but we want them to go further.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is no obstruction and, respectfully, I think the member should have a conversation with his own House leader about the process that is happening here. The agreement has already been established in terms of the processes around this legislation. It is designed to give members an opportunity to debate and share their perspectives and also to allow the legislation to move forward in a timely way. I assume the House of Commons offers resources in terms of some of the procedural mechanisms that exist if members want to avail themselves of some of that information, but again, I am sure his House leader would be available to explain that. We are supportive of the changes in this legislation. We wish they would go further, of course, as we have said repeatedly.”

In response to a question from Sukhman Gill

“Young people in my colleague's region face big challenges with expensive homes and travel to work. Conservatives have shared plans to help them. We want to lower government costs to build more homes, create jobs, and train workers for those jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure working with my colleague and friend. Early on, in taking on the role as Conservative shadow minister for jobs, I spent some time in the member’s region, and he was a great host. He brought my kids to their first ever kabaddi game. We also met with various employers and understood the challenges. In particular, in his region, home prices are a significant barrier for young people. It is challenging everywhere, but especially in that region, where young people are trying to establish themselves and get ahead. Also, there are transportation challenges in terms of finding a job and being able to live near or get to where the work is. These are huge challenges that exist in his region, and I want to thank him for helping me and other colleagues understand those challenges. We released positive, constructive proposals around unleashing home construction and getting the cost of government out of home construction so that young people can afford homes, around opportunities for jobs and around improving training to align training with the jobs that exist. There is a lot we can do. There is a lot we have already proposed. I want to thank the member for his advocacy specifically for his riding and his region.”

In response to a question from Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba

“I want the member to read the human resources committee report. It has nearly 20 ideas supported by all parties to fix immigration, train young people, build more homes, and grow the economy. Conservatives also want to cut taxes on money reinvested in Canada. I hope the House will adopt this report.”

“Mr. Speaker, what measures would we propose? There are a lot that I could list, but I think the simplest thing to do would be to reference the report that I highlighted in my speech and that we tried to get the House to adopt this morning. The 10th report of the human resources committee has close to 20 recommendations that provide specific, concrete proposals, many of which came from Conservatives but were endorsed by all parties, for unleashing the economy, for fixing some of the issues in the immigration system, for unleashing training Canadian young people for Canadian jobs so they have the opportunity to get ahead, and for how exactly to promote home construction near where jobs are. These are solutions that we put forward in our Conservative youth jobs plan and our economic action plan. Just to give one example, we proposed in the last election to have no capital gains tax for dollars that were immediately reinvested in Canada. Proposals like that to promote significant reinvestment in Canada are part of the large number of solutions we have put forward at different times. I would encourage the member to read the 10th report of the human resources committee. I hope we will be able to come back to it, because it contains the critical solutions we need for addressing youth unemployment.”

• 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 Kurt Holman

“I support lowering fuel taxes, but this bill does not go far enough. High gas prices, high taxes, and red tape make it too hard for people to start businesses, find good jobs, and afford homes. The government needs to make bigger tax cuts so people can get ahead.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House tonight, as always. I was noting some of the commentary online today as I posted some of my fierce criticisms of the government over its failures on jobs and other things. People were saying, “How come yesterday you were campaigning to keep Alberta in Canada, and today you are criticizing the government?” I said that that is exactly the job, to fight for the country and also to fight for a better country by challenging the government. That is what it means to be the loyal opposition. Out of the mouths of Liberals here, the member was saying, “the greatest opposition of all time.” The bill before the House, Bill C-38, deals with affordability. As I get into talking about this bill, I want to share with members that we recently marked an important milestone for my extended family. We were celebrating 60 years since my father-in-law immigrated to Canada from Pakistan. It has been a pleasure getting to know him since I joined the family 15 years or so ago. He has been a great success here in Canada, starting a business that employs many Canadians of all backgrounds, raising three beautiful daughters and, of course, having three exceptional sons-in-law. I remember him sharing with us those early years as he was getting started out in business. He started a business while he was still working at another job. He had a car phone, which for those who do not know is a corded phone that was attached to the car. It is not a cell phone. I was telling my daughter recently that we did not have Skype when I was growing up. She said, “Did everyone just FaceTime then?” Technological reference points change. He would share with us how he would use every opportunity to make calls to prospective clients from his car phone as he was trying to juggle the responsibilities of starting a business and also continuing with his job. This is sort of part of the “getting ahead” lore. For many families it is the “immigration lore” people heard from parents or grandparents, maybe about how they came to Canada with almost no money, and how they strove and struggled, and were able to get ahead and provide a better life for themselves and their families. These are great stories that are the foundation of what our country has become. It is people coming and being welcomed from every part of the world, often with very little, and being able to build, create and ultimately contribute to the communities they are a part of. I remember hearing some of these stories from my grandparents. My paternal grandfather, for example, would tell us about how he arrived at the train station in Toronto. He got a job working for the rail lines before he left the train station, and he worked that same job until he retired. He told us the story about how he bought his first car. He had come from the little island of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea right after the Second World War. Malta had been heavily bombed by the Germans during the Second World War. When he came to Canada, he was buying a used car from a fellow who happened to be a former member of the German Air Force. He used his experience as a tool to try to negotiate down the price of the car. That was his way of trying to get ahead financially every moment that he could. These are the stories of newcomers, of people from different backgrounds and different places who struggle to get ahead and to build this country. These are great stories that are part of my family and I am sure are part of the family experiences of many members in this House. It occurs to me, thinking about this sort of connection between economic vitality and opportunity, and also about the struggles that people from different backgrounds have had to get ahead, that there is this connection between economic opportunity and also social cohesion and integration. When we are a society in which people can get ahead, in which people even those starting from very limited backgrounds can nonetheless create and build and become very successful, then we are a kind of society of greater hope and optimism where people say, “Yes, regardless of where I come from, I can get ahead. I can prevail and succeed in the face of various challenges.” This is what our country has been and this is what our country could be again. It is a place where economic opportunity being widely available is a source of not only shared prosperity, but also shared goodwill and social cohesion, where we do not feel that we have to, in a negative way, compete with each other and pull each other down to get ahead, but rather where every person, through their own ingenuity, creativity and struggle from whatever point they start, can build, create and deliver opportunity, especially for the next generation. That is very much what this country has been and the hope of what this country can be. However, we are living through a time where, because of government policy, red tape, regulation and burdensome costs that make it so much harder to start and grow a business and get ahead, people feel much more stuck in the context of their present circumstances. Those who already own their home and have certain assets or positions obviously hope to maintain those positions, but those who do not own a home or do not currently have a position involving opportunity are less optimistic about their ability to ever attain that greater position. Whereas at one time the combination of economic vitality and a baseline of social programs made Canada a very dynamic opportunity society in which anyone from anywhere had the hope of being able to do anything, we are now a society in which people feel much more stuck. This is especially evident when talking to young people. Since taking on the role of Conservative shadow minister for employment, I have been meeting with young people across the country. I have been on various university campuses, in six different provinces now, asking young people the simple question of whether they think they are better or worse off than their parents’ generation and to tell me why. Many young people feel they are worse off, feel stuck in their circumstances or situation and in particular struggle with the prospect of ever attaining the career they want that would provide them with the income necessary to afford a home where they live. These basic things of having a good job and a home people can afford, which were the presumed baseline at one point in time, are now things that young people increasingly perceive as being out of reach. This leaves them with a sense of being stuck. For these young people, getting to the critical starting points of having a home and a job is part of the road toward being able to start and establish a family, have children and meet the family goals they have. The statistics show objectively that there is a major gap between the number of children people tell pollsters they want to have and the number of children people are actually having. This is not me making objective claims about what is desirable or not in terms of family size or structure. It is simply looking at what people say they want in terms of their own sought-out family goals and what people are realizing in their own lives. There is a big gap between desire and outcome, and I think part of it is because it is so much more difficult now for people to start out in life. It is so much more difficult to start a family, own a home and get to a secure position in a career where a person perhaps feels ready to take these steps that many people are delaying and delaying these starting points in life and are thus not able to achieve the kinds of family goals they had hoped for. That is a real tragedy, individually, when people have these hoped-for goals for their families that they are not able to realize. It does have broader social implications for the young people that we have, the opportunities they have and what we are seeing in the next generation and their ability to provide for and be part of a shared community with older relatives. These issues of young people and of people of all ages feeling stuck and not being able to achieve their goals, being limited by a lack of economic opportunity and vitality, the issues we are seeing right now, have real implications economically. They also have implications socially. We need to do the work to again establish the kind of society where people do not feel stuck, where they have hope about the opportunities that they can achieve, where they are able to, early on, get a job, afford a home and access a career, where somebody, whether they have been in the country for 50 years or for five minutes, can use their ingenuity, their creativity and whatever limited start-up capital they have to start a business, to make a go of a new idea and to build something new. We need to appreciate again the basic and critical insight of Adam Smith, which is that wealth is expandable, infinite and something that is not simply found and distributed but created. It is created under conditions where individuals can create and see the rewards of that creation. We have limitless potential as a society, not only because of our bountiful resources but also because of the ingenuity of our people, if we were only to have the policies in place that allow for that unleashing of opportunity. Today, Conservatives moved to have debate on the 10th report of the human resources committee. Part of that report is recognizing the link between restrictions on business growth through red tape and high taxation and the implications that this has for youth unemployment. We put forward a number of recommendations in that report that had the unanimous support of the committee and that were oriented toward addressing these taxation and regulatory barriers so that we can unleash opportunity, recognizing the implications that this would have for youth employment. We had many constructive and very specific proposals in that report. It is a shame that we did not have an opportunity to conclude debate on that today, but we will continue to be relentless in highlighting these issues of opportunity for Canadians, of again trying to build up an opportunity society, where people who are younger or older, people who are new Canadians and people who have been here for a very long time, can see that, regardless of where they come from, regardless of what their starting points are, they can have opportunities because of what the country is and what the country offers. The bill before the House deals with what, on the face of it, might seem like a purely mechanical and mercantile issue, the issue of fuel prices. Fuel prices have much wider economic implications in what they can unlock or block for the creation and development of new businesses. So much economic activity in a country this vast obviously requires things to be able to move around. If we are going to make a go of a new idea, if we are going to try to bring something to market, if we are going to try to seize and create new opportunities, there is a very good chance that it is going to involve bringing something from somewhere to somewhere else. The constraints that are imposed by unreasonably high fuel prices make it difficult for new entrepreneurs to start and grow a business. They make it difficult for people who are starting out, especially, to be able to see it as realistic, to put the capital needed into getting something new going. It makes it especially hard for that independent operator who is reliant on reasonable fuel prices in order to be able to move their product as required or to be able to work on their farm. Whatever the case may be, we are all deeply affected by fuel prices. Fuel prices also impact our ability to interact with each other. They impact choices people are able to make in terms of visiting friends and family and maintaining and strengthening communities. Again, there are so many things about social cohesion, as well as economic vitality, that are impacted by our ability to get from place to place and to move things from place to place. This is why we have chosen to really focus, as part of this affordability issue, on the fuel price issue and the ripple effects that go out from it. It was Conservatives who put forward the proposal to pause the fuel taxes that are imposed on all Canadians. The government kind of went partway in response to our proposal, but it has not gone far enough in terms of offering the relief that we have suggested and that Canadians really need right now. We can see the role of this historically effective opposition in winning these debates and getting the government to incrementally take some steps, but we can also recognize the need to do much more. While we hear some piecemeal parroting of the rhetoric from the opposition, we have yet to see the full implementation of the agenda we have put forward, which is really about restoring prosperity and opportunity for this country and recognizing how, in the absence of opportunity, when people feel more constrained, more stuck and less able to get ahead, there is also more social conflict. When people perceive that it is more difficult, or even impossible, to create their own wealth, there is intensifying conflict and competition over scarce resources. We are inserted into a Malthusian world of competition for limited resources, rather than being what we could be: a country of limitless potential and opportunity where there is a greater sense of cohesion and optimism flowing from the reality that a person’s own ideas and own ingenuity can be put to work to build and create beautiful things. This is what we want: a society of hope and opportunity where people can get a job, afford a home, start a family, start a business, move goods around and visit family members, without the kinds of constraints that have grown up over the last 11 years as a result of policy choices made by the current government to intentionally make fuel more expensive and to intentionally block resource development and export. The effect of these policies has been to create more social division because of greater constraints on wealth creation. We can do better. We must do better. Even if there has been some shift in the rhetoric from the government, here is where we are in substance. We are today at a point, according to the latest job numbers, where youth unemployment is at 13% and overall unemployment is up to 6.5%. The job finding rate is around 30%, substantially down from the prepandemic averages. We are at an almost 30-year low in terms of workforce participation. Fewer Canadians are in the labour force as a proportion of the overall population than at almost any time in the last 30 years. This underlines how the results just are not there from the government. There have been some improvements in rhetoric compared to where things were under the Trudeau government. The Liberals are saying some of the same things we are saying, but the results and the action have not been there. That is why it is so important to have more of the changes that are being advocated from this side of the House, so we can become a more cohesive, opportunity-oriented society once again. This is my hope for this country and for Parliament. We will keep putting forward positive, constructive solutions towards that end, towards that goal of a cohesive, opportunity-oriented and free society.”

In response to a question from Kurt Holman

“Youth unemployment is at 13 percent, and the share of people working in Canada is the lowest in 29 years. The Liberals shut down our debate this morning on ideas to fix this. I want the member to talk about youth unemployment in his riding and tell us why he thinks the Liberals stopped that debate.”

“Mr. Speaker, this morning, we tried to move a motion and have a debate in the House on the ongoing youth unemployment crisis. Youth unemployment is at 13%. We actually have the lowest workforce participation in this country in 29 years. As a share of the population, we have the lowest number of people in the workforce. These are concerning numbers that affect people in my region and that I know affect people in Newfoundland and Labrador as well. While we were trying to have that debate, during the first speaking slot the Liberals had, they moved to shut down and end that discussion about what had been an all-party report of the human resources committee, with some really positive constructive proposals on how we could move forward. I wonder if the member could share what he is hearing in terms of the challenge of unemployment and youth unemployment within his riding and in his region and what he thinks motivated the Liberals to shut down a positive debate on some common-sense solutions that came out of the human resources committee.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →