Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Garnett Genuis

Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan 139 statements translated

Follow by RSS

Genuis, the Conservative shadow minister for jobs, presses the government on a 29-year low in workforce participation and 13% youth unemployment while pushing the Conservative jobs plan, more flexible parental leave, repeal of the tanker ban, and separate offences for stealing religious property and for raising medical assistance in dying unasked. He tests legislation by what its text would actually change, asking whether Canadians would be “better off or worse off” under it.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
82 / 100 over 128 statements
Signal 74 / 100
Relevance 73 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 95 / 100
Loses points more than most for Wording that hides who did something, or who will.1.9 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.9 Greetings and pleasantries.1.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.7 Averaged over the 128 of 139 statements graded so far.

Statements 139

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and youth unemployment is high. I want the government to explain why this is happening and whether they think this is normal.”

  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the so-called “recession crowd” is literally the analysts at Statistics Canada. Here is the fact: Canada is in a recession under this Liberal Prime Minister. Let us talk about youth unemployment. The pre-pandemic average for youth unemployment was 10.8%. We are 2.5 points above the pre-pandemic average. The question for the government is this: Is this the new normal? It should not be the new normal; we should be back to where we were. A recession is not success. Canada is the only G20 economy in a recession, objectively. Why?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis
“Canada's job numbers are worse than the government claims. There are 24,500 fewer people working today than at the start of the year, youth unemployment is way up, and Canada has the second-highest unemployment in the G7.”

  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear that it is good news that more Canadians are working this month than last month, but we have to be honest about these numbers, because the government House leader is eager to cherry-pick. We have 24,500 fewer Canadians working today than were at the beginning of the year. Compared to pre-pandemic averages, unemployment is up by 0.6% overall and over 2.5 points for youth. Under this Liberal Prime Minister, we have the second-highest unemployment in the G7. Having the best job numbers in Canada should not be like having the best bobsledding team in Jamaica. Canada is the only G20 economy in a recession.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis
“Canada has lost over 20,000 jobs this year, and our economy is shrinking. Why is Canada the only country in the G20 in a recession?”

  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. We are glad to see that more Canadians are working this month than last month, but we are down over 20,000 jobs since the beginning of this year. We are still expecting negative growth, and we have the second-highest unemployment in the G7. Simply put, we are comparing to a worse baseline. This should not be the new normal for this great country. Why is Canada the only G20 country in a recession?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Adjournment Proceedings ·

Adjournment Proceedings

“Conservatives created grants for trades workers years ago. The Liberals cancelled them and are now bringing them back as if they are new. Most of the programs the government brags about are old ones. The Liberals have no new ideas and no real 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 Grade A View analysis
“Canada has a serious youth unemployment crisis. Conservatives and small business groups want the government to lower payroll taxes so companies can afford to hire young people. Instead, the government is raising them. I want to know when the government will present a real plan to help young people find jobs.”

  • A repeated line

    “One in four Canadians is food-insecure.”

    Said 6 times by 5 members since April 30.

    Every time it was said
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 Grade A+ View analysis

Statements by Members ·

Religious Persecution

“Women and girls in religious minority groups around the world face violence, kidnapping, and forced marriage because of their faith and their gender. The Canadian government must push other countries to fix their laws and train our own officials to help stop this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, persecution based on religious belief is a significant and growing problem around the world. Women and girls from religious minority communities are increasingly at risk of a kind of double persecution known as gender-specific religious persecution, where they are targeted for both their faith and their gender. Gender-specific religious persecution can include abduction, sexual assault, forced marriage and forced conversion, along with other abuses. Maria Shahbaz, a 13-year-old Pakistani Christian girl, was abducted, forcibly converted and subjected to so-called forced marriage. The Pakistani court ruled that the marriage was legal. Amany, an 18-year-old Coptic Christian woman living in upper Egypt, was kidnapped on her way to school as part of a coordinated effort to have her forcibly converted and married outside her community. The often hidden plight of women and girls who face this double persecution must not be ignored. Canada’s government should push legal and practical reforms in partner countries to address this issue and ensure that our public service has the knowledge and capacity to address gender-specific religious persecution. There is a need and an opportunity for our government and our Parliament to champion a response to this issue.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Statements by Members ·

The Economy

“Liberal policies are hurting our economy. Canada is in a recession, youth unemployment is nearly 15 percent, and food bank use has doubled since 2020. The government needs to admit things are not fine and focus on real results.”

  • Member's statement

    Signal 25 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

  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the tragic effects of Liberal policies on the economy. Liberals want to be judged by their intentions, announcements, illusions and gimmicks, but Canadians will see the effects of Liberal policies in the grocery store aisle, at the gas pump, in the pink slips that are piling up and in the real numbers reported by Statistics Canada. The reports are in: Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. We have had recession levels of unemployment for months, with youth unemployment approaching 15%. One in four Canadians is food-insecure, and food bank use has doubled since 2020. The Prime Minister is not working, and he certainly is not working for Canadians. Canadians want jobs, homes and hope. There is hope for this great country, but Liberals need to stop pretending that everything is fine. It is not. Canadians want a government that leaves behind the illusions and instead focuses on delivering results.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C– View analysis

Government Orders ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The member is wrong to say Conservatives did nothing for skilled trades. Conservatives created grants for trades workers in 2006 and 2009. The Liberals cancelled those grants, and now they are just bringing them back.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary does not know what he is talking about, which is often true, but it is especially true in this case. Just to pick one example, the member says that Conservatives did nothing on the trades program and to look at the Liberals because they brought in these completion grants. However, the Conservatives brought in completion grants for the trades in 2009. We introduced, in our first budget in 2006, grants for trades workers. The Liberals cancelled those grants, but then reannounced that they were going to bring them back. It is pretty rich for them to say that the Conservatives did nothing when all the Liberals have done is announce the return of a program they—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“The government is using its majority to shut down debate and ignore other parties. When they did not have a majority, we worked together to get things done. Now they are forcing this big budget bill through and undoing good work from committees.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would have been happy to speak for three and a half hours on the bill myself, there is so much in it. I am sure members across the way would have enjoyed that opportunity. The government is using its majority in pernicious ways right now, and we have seen it. The previous reality of a minority Parliament was forced negotiation among parties, and we got a lot done under minority conditions. There were many cases in which Conservatives agreed to expedite certain ideas. We saw a lot of productive action at committees as well as in the House, but it required some back-and-forth. Then the government took its majority through admittedly unscrupulous means, twisting the arms of various people to get them to completely abandon all of their previous convictions. Now the Liberals are using this majority to shut down debate. They are using this majority to gut the good work done at committee. For instance, the Liberals’ first action as a majority was to undo good work done at committee on protecting victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military. Great work was done across parties at committee, and then the government immediately undid all of that work to make things less safe for those victims. It failed to respond to what they asked for. Now we have this massive budget implementation act where, again, the government is bringing down its fist of a majority to undermine the good, collaborative work that could have happened, which used to happen in this place.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

In response to a question from Linda Lapointe

“Canada is in a recession, and young people are struggling. The government should stop praising itself, control its spending, and build a stronger military.”

  • A repeated line

    “We are the only G7 country in a recession.”

    Said 8 times by 8 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, that question did not relate to the specific budgetary policies that I discussed in my speech at all. I will just say in response that government members are eager to congratulate themselves at every turn. Canada is in a recession right now. We are the only G7 country in a recession. I would like to see a little more humility from government members and their taking stock of the fact that their policies have led us here and of the challenges young people are experiencing. I think we need a stronger national defence. I think we need control in our budget policy. I will believe the results when we see the results. Right now, what we are seeing is recession and continuing challenges, especially for those who are just starting out, young people and young families, who are trying to get ahead.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis
“Too many young people cannot find jobs, and this budget does nothing to help them. I want the government to adopt the Conservative plan. We want to help businesses grow, fix immigration to lower competition for entry-level jobs, fund job training for the trades, and build homes where jobs are. We also want more flexible parental leave so young workers can afford to start families.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House on the budget bill today. It is also a pleasure for me that my second daughter, Lilly, is on the Hill today. It is great to have her here with us, and having my kids with me always reminds me how blessed I am. My kids really are the perfect combination. They have my wife’s beauty, my wife’s intelligence and my wife’s personality. That is the ideal combination, and I am sure members would agree. However, it is also when thinking about my children that I think about the future of this country and the kind of future we are building for them as they grow up, as they think about the jobs and opportunities they have and as they think about what they will be able to pass on materially, as well as the kind of quality of life they will be able to have more broadly. I think for many members, providing a better life for our children is a powerful motivator of the work that we do. Taking that perspective, it is very troubling to regularly hear about the challenges young people are facing in this country, such as the fact that we continue to have this youth unemployment crisis. Youth unemployment is at 14.3%. Young people are frustrated by their inability to find jobs, their struggles to find jobs in their fields and the lack of action by the government. The government has no plan to address the youth unemployment crisis. We hear its members re-announcing existing programs that have already existed for a long time, but there is no plan to meet the new challenges, which in so many ways are the results of their policies. Last fall, Conservatives put forward a constructive plan to address the youth unemployment crisis with very simple, specific interventions that aligned very much with what young people are asking for, what the business community is asking for and with what our country needs. Our plan is to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. Unleashing the economy means addressing the fact that so much unemployment for young people is a result of businesses struggling to start, to grow and to expand. When businesses are optimistic about the future, they hire more young people because they are planning for growth. When businesses are more pessimistic about the future, young people are more likely to be let go, because it tends to be last in and first out when it comes to young people on the work site. If someone is worried about the future of their company, they are not going to fire the long-tenured employees first; it is going to be those newer hires who are going to be let go. Also, when small businesses are under pressure, it is harder for them to invest in training and supports. Of course, when giving someone their first job, a lot of businesses want to be able to help young people adjust to the workforce, but training, investment and costs are associated with that. When a business is so close to the margin, it is very hard to do that. As such, we need to create a climate in this country where small businesses in particular can start and grow and, therefore, be able to hire young people. That is what unleashing the economy is about. Number two is fixing immigration. A poorly designed immigration system under the Liberal government has led to intensified competition for entry-level positions. Newcomers who have not had their credentials recognized are competing against young people who are just starting out. We should have an immigration system that is aligned with the needs and interests of Canada and that identifies specific skill gaps while we, at the same time, try to train Canadian workers to fill those skill gaps to where the numbers are proportionate to what our country can actually handle. That is unleashing the economy and fixing immigration. Number three is fixing training. There has been a significant problem in this country with a misalignment between the training young people receive and what the labour market is actually looking for. A big part of that is our push to recognize the value of vocational training and the value of trade skills. University is a great path for some people, but it is not the path for everyone. There are many folks in this country who have pursued a vocational or trade path, have been extremely successful with that and are actually earning more and enjoying a higher standard of living than those who have pursued university degrees. We proposed this pillar of fixing training as part of our youth jobs plan, where we said that we should offer relatively more generous grants to those pursuing in-demand skills. The Liberals went in the opposite direction. In their last budget, they removed funding for students at private vocational institutions. For them, I think it was sort of an ideological thing about wanting to go after students who are seeking grants at private institutions, but really, it is not about private versus public; it is just about the fact that this is where these skills are offered. There are certain kinds of skills that, if people want to acquire that specific vocational skill, they cannot do it at a university or are much less likely to find a program of study at a university. There are many kinds of skills, with the way our post-secondary system is structured, that are learned at a private institution, yet, the government is going after and defunding the students who are studying at those kinds of institutions. Our proposal is to unleash the economy, fix immigration and training, and build homes where the jobs are. We need to do more to support those young people, people of all ages, who are looking to relocate to find employment, because we have regions in this country of very high unemployment and regions of very low unemployment. One thing we proposed to help young people and others relocate to find those opportunities is to offer an accelerated capital cost writeoff for employers who are investing in workforce housing to try to remove a barrier that exists that maybe makes it more difficult for young people and others to relocate for those job opportunities. It is a very simple plan that we put forward last fall to unleash the economy, fix immigration and training, and build homes where the jobs are. We put this forward wanting the government to implement it, yet in some areas that I have identified, the government is moving in the opposite direction. We continue to see no plan to address the youth unemployment crisis as part of this budget. What are the effects of high youth unemployment? We have pressure on young people to get more credentials that may or may not align with the needs of the labour market. We have high youth unemployment. We have high housing costs. All of these things make it so much more difficult for young people to launch themselves into the world. When it becomes harder for young people to launch themselves into adulthood, to find a job and to afford a home to finish their schooling, then they will potentially start hitting those key personal milestones later and later. This is a big contributing factor to the fact that, statistically, we now know that young people are having far fewer children than they tell pollsters they want to be having. In polls, on average, people say they want about 2.2 or 2.3 children, yet the real fertility rate is about 1.25, which means there is a major gap between the number of children people want to have and the number of children they are having. I think a big part of this is just the challenges in getting started in life, in being able to hit those key personal milestones as early as they might want to, because it is so hard to afford a home and get a job. This has long-term effects on people’s desires for a family not being realized. It also impacts the fact that we have an aging population with not as many workers contributing to the system to provide for the benefits our seniors, who have worked so hard and would like to see available to them. There are consequences down the line with respect to these problems impacting the challenges young people have launching themselves into adulthood. We have also put forward constructive plans to not only make it easier for young people to get into the workforce earlier, but also make it easier for young families to achieve their goals with respect to the number of children they want to have. We have proposed significant reforms to parental leave to make it easier for people who are working to balance work and family life. We have proposed, for instance, more flexible parental leave to allow people to pause and then resume parental leave. We have proposed allowing more learning on leave, so that a person who is on parental leave could always study and take university, trades or other kinds of courses while they are on parental leave. We have also proposed an exception to clawbacks to allow parents to earn income for caregiving while they are off watching their own children. These changes would make it easier for young families to achieve the goals they want and find a good balance between work and family life. As I have demonstrated, Conservatives are laser-focused on trying to make life better, especially for those who are starting out, for young people and those who are trying to start families and are struggling to hit those initial milestones that would allow them to launch themselves well into their dreams, both with respect to work and family life. We are proposing constructive proposals to try to address these challenges and would really like to see the government adopt some of those constructive proposals that we have put on the table. We would like to see it take ideas from our Conservative youth jobs plan. We would like to see it take some of the ideas from our proposal on parental leave reform, making it easier to balance work and family life. We have asked the government to implement these proposals. On Friday, in question period, I asked the government whether it would consider implementing some of our proposals for parental leave reform. We did not get an answer. The government simply came back with partisan insults. I would encourage its members to have a look at the constructive proposals we are putting forward and include them in our budget. Maybe if it did not shut down debate after three and a half hours, we would have more time to get through these constructive suggestions and put forward more of these ideas to make our country better.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Private Members' Business

“I support this bill. It lets parents keep their parental leave and benefits if their child dies. I wanted to change the bill to also protect benefits if a parent dies, but we agreed to study that idea separately so this bill could pass quickly.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging it is great to see you in the chair today. I know this is an issue that you have spoken out on, in terms of your own experience, with great courage and significance. I know the parameters of being Deputy Speaker limit your ability to give speeches on bills now, but I thank you for giving aid and confidence to other families who are confronting similar situations. It is good to see you presiding over this debate today. Bill C-222 is an important piece of legislation that has been the subject of significant cross-party co-operation. As the Conservative shadow minister for employment, it has been an honour for me to do this work with colleagues, collaboratively across the aisle, on behalf of our caucus as we work to deliver on our clear commitment from the beginning, to do all we can to maximize support for families who are dealing with loss. I want to start by highlighting that the journey to this legislation did not start in this Parliament, and it did not start with just this bill. Over 10 years ago, our colleague from Airdrie—Cochrane put forward Motion No. 110, which began driving the necessary national conversation on offering more support to parents dealing with loss. It recognized that parents who have paid into a parental leave system and then faced the loss of a child should obviously not be forced immediately back to work and should have a system that allows them to continue to receive benefits that they have paid for, with clarity, with simplicity, without disruption and without red tape. That national conversation on this issue was started and driven in this place by my colleague from Airdrie—Cochrane, a member with so much compassion and empathy. I want to salute his work on this, continuing throughout this process. As members of Parliament speaking on these issues in this place, we are in many ways the tiny tip of the iceberg. There is a vast array of people underneath us and behind us, pushing us forward and magnifying this issue. Without the courage of families speaking out about their own experience, I do not think this would have happened today. I know it is very difficult for people who have faced personal tragedy and personal grief to speak publicly about it, to come to Parliament and share from their own experiences, but we know in history that so often justice and compassion move forward because people who have had terrible situations themselves are willing to speak up and share their pain, share their experience and motivate others to understand that experience and to walk with them. I want to thank the families who have spoken out about their own experiences and salute them for making that happen. In this Parliament, the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, a member of the government, is putting forward Bill C-222 with our complete and strong support. I want to thank him for taking this step and continuing this important work in putting this bill forward. I do not in any way mean to diminish his work by noting the history. The first bill I put forward in Parliament had in fact previously been a Liberal bill that I took up and tabled in this House. I want to highlight the collaboration, the continuation and the important work that the member has done. As we signalled during the second reading debate on the bill, it was our desire to put forward an amendment to the bill that would include more grieving families, following conversations that I had with the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North. He had highlighted a situation in his riding where a parent, not a child in this case, who was an EI parental leave recipient, had passed away. Following the death of that person who was the parent recipient of the parental leave benefit, those benefits were immediately cut off, compounding the grief for the family with financial hardship. Our position has been that, if a parent receiving leave benefits passes away, and they were entitled to those benefits as they had paid into those benefits, then those benefits, which they had paid into and had been entitled to prior to their death, should be able to continue. We should not be immediately cutting off those benefits at the point at which a parents dies. That was not the purpose of this bill in how it was initially written and constrained. This bill was designed to deal with the situation of the loss of a child. We proposed amending it to extend that support to more families, in cases where there is the loss of a parent. Following that proposal, which we put forward at second reading, we had many constructive conversations across the aisle about the best way to move forward with that idea, whether it was including it in the bill or working on that issue of supporting families dealing with the loss of a parent through a separate track. In the end, we were able to come to what I think was a constructive and effective agreement on the best way to move forward, which was an agreement at committee to have the committee undertake, separately from this bill, a study of the issue of extending parental leave in cases where there is the loss of a parent. Further, our committee adopted a motion asking the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide us with costing on that particular proposal. I do not think it would cost very much. We are talking about extending benefits out of a sense of justice and compassion to a very small number of families who have paid into the system. I do not think it would cost very much because we are not talking about very many families, of course. In any event, the compromise we arrived at was that we would not include it in this bill, although I would have liked to. Instead, we requested information on costing from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We agreed to do that study at the human resources committee. I hope that, coming out of that process, we will see a report to the House and see legislation on this. Perhaps the government will even consider including in the next budget a further extension of leave to protect benefits in cases where there is the loss of a parent. In the process of making that agreement with the government, we were clear-eyed about the reality that private members’ bills that spend new money cannot pass unless they have a royal recommendation. That is, they cannot pass without the support of the government. Even if the revised, beefed-up and strengthened version of the bill that Conservatives had initially proposed had the support of a majority of members of Parliament, it would not have been able to become law because, I suspect, it would not have received a royal recommendation from the government. Out of what were at times difficult and challenging, but sincere, discussions across parties, we were able to come up with a very good path forward under the circumstances, recognizing that the government was not prepared to do the version in the fullness of what we had hoped for all at once. We now have a royal recommendation to proceed with offering this essential support to families dealing with the loss of a child. Meanwhile, the human resources committee is committed to a path where we will get more information and do further study, and we will continue to push the issue of extending benefits in the case of a loss of a parent as well. I think we can do both. We do not have to do both things as part of the same legislation, but we can do both, and I think we should get there. I want to say as well that in the process of those negotiations, working with my colleague and friend the member for Vimy, the parliamentary secretary responsible, has been a pleasure. It is good for Canadians to know, because they see the cut and thrust and the conflict of this place. I definitely think that has a place. It is right and important for the opposition to fulfill its responsibilities, to hold the government accountable, to challenge the government when it is on the wrong path and to push for better outcomes for everyday Canadians. However, when it comes to the work of legislation, we do and we must work collaboratively across the aisle to propose constructive reforms and changes. Those relationships exist, and those behind-the-scenes conversations are important. We in the official opposition are committed to playing a constructive role, to opposing the government where we think it wrong, working with it where we see opportunities for collaboration and supporting good ideas it puts forward and asking it to support good ideas we put forward. As the official opposition, we have stood up, and will continue to stand up, for families dealing with loss, to support this legislation and to build on it with further measures to include more families dealing with loss as well.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Government Orders ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Young people cannot find jobs, and homes cost too much. This makes it hard for them to start families. The government is also cutting funding for students in job training programs. I want the government to bring that money back.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the situation of the economy, one thing I often hear from young people is about how difficult it is right now for young people to start out in life. Youth unemployment is extremely high, at 14.3%, and we have very low workforce participation as well. Homes are extremely expensive. All these challenges make it more difficult for young people to start out, to start a family and to start to have children. We see this showing up in the numbers. People are having far fewer kids than they tell pollsters they want to have, because of these pressures. Meanwhile, the Liberal government is cutting funding for students attending vocational programs. Will the government reverse its removal of grants to students studying in vocational programs?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“I do not support the government creating a wealth fund right now. We are running large deficits, so this fund would just be investing borrowed money.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member has well understood the debate about the sovereign wealth fund. I will explain it simply by analogy. If I open a savings account to save my money, that is a good idea. If I have no money, so I open a savings account then take money off the credit card and put it in the savings account, that does not make a lot of sense. The issue is not the existence of the account but whether or not we have something to put into it. The principle of having a sovereign wealth fund is great, but when the government is running massive deficits, its proposal is not for a sovereign wealth fund. It is for a sovereign debt fund. It would be taking out even more money we do not have and then requiring the additional costs and capacity around a fund that would invest borrowed money. There is also a lack of the protections from political interference, and all kinds of other problems. Will the parliamentary secretary recognize the real problem and understand that the Liberals should not have a sovereign debt fund that would land on future generations?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Oral Questions ·

Families, Children and Social Development

“I want the government to answer my question about parental leave. Our current rules do not give modern parents enough flexibility. The government should put our ideas for better parental leave into the upcoming budget.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, I will just state the obvious. My question was about parental leave reform. That response did not even attempt to mention the issue of parental leave reform. Canadian parents have been waiting long enough with a parental leave system that is inflexible and poorly aligned with the realities of modern parenting. Modern parents want the flexibility to work in different ways that integrate work and family life. Why does the government not simply implement the constructive proposed suggestions that we have put forward as part of its upcoming fall budget?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“It is getting harder for young people to afford a home and raise a family. Conservatives want to make parental leave more flexible, let parents study while on leave, and let them earn caregiving money without penalties. Will the government use these ideas?”

  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canada is now the only G7 country in a recession, and it is getting harder and harder for young people to start and grow a family. Parents are struggling to afford homes and balance the pressures of competing careers. Conservatives are proposing to make life easier through significant reforms to parental leave: more flexible leave, freedom to learn while on leave and the ability to earn caregiving income without clawbacks. These policies would mean more flexibility, more opportunity and more available child care. Will the government adopt these constructive suggestions?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Statements by Members ·

Exposure to Pornography

“Too many young children are seeing violent pornography online, which harms them and leads to violence. I want Parliament to pass this bill to make adult websites verify users' ages.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, stats show that a very large number of 9-, 10-, 11- and 12-year-old boys are accessing violent, sexually explicit material on the Internet. Exposing children to sexually explicit images is a form of child abuse. The proportions of this abuse make early exposure to pornography the most underdiscussed crisis in our nation. It is at the root of so much sexual violence, family breakdown and personal crisis. There is an urgent need to protect young children from the abuse they so regularly experience through being shown violent sexual images online. Bill S-209 proposes a simple solution: Pornography websites should be required to verify or credibly estimate the age of those who access them. This bill has passed the Senate unanimously three times. This bill is now one of the most repeatedly and thoroughly studied bills ever, but we have still not acted. We are past due for action, and I hope this Parliament is the one that finally acts to protect kids from abuse, women from violence and families from crisis by completing the work on Bill S-209.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Oral Questions ·

Labour

“The minister said she forced flight attendants back to work to protect essential supplies, but her department has no record of anyone telling her that. I want her to admit she did not tell the truth.”

  • Opposition question in Question Period

    Respect 64 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “unburden herself of this guilt and admit that she did not tell the truth”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the minister of labour has repeatedly claimed that she forced flight attendants back to work to prevent a health crisis in which essential supplies would be disrupted. She claims she was briefed of this risk, but her department has no record of this briefing, and the senior officials responsible for briefing her were not aware of it. Confession is good for the soul, and we in the opposition are in a forgiving mood today, so why does the minister not use this golden opportunity to unburden herself of this guilt and admit that she did not tell the truth?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Adjournment Proceedings ·

Adjournment Proceedings

“Too many young people cannot find work, and the problem is getting worse. The government talks about how much money it spends, but its plans are not working. I want the member to admit this.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is really incredible listening to the way the government talks about the youth unemployment crisis, because fundamentally it seems that it does not understand the task. The task is to address the youth unemployment rate. It is to address the fact that we have a high and climbing youth unemployment rate. It is to address the fact that youth employment is at one of its lowest points in decades. It is to address the real facts on the ground. In response to these questions, the government never actually talks about the youth unemployment rate. It never points to success in terms of, in aggregate, getting more young people into work. It always wants us to be impressed by the amount of money it is spending, by the fact that it is continuing existing programs and by the fact that it has hopes and ambitions for things that it might do later on. Can the member acknowledge that it is not working and that the youth unemployment rate is high and increasing, that their plans are not achieving the—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“Too many young people cannot find jobs. The youth unemployment rate is 14.3 percent. A committee with members from all parties just agreed on a plan to fix this, based on Conservative ideas. It recommends cutting taxes, fixing immigration rules, punishing companies that hire illegal workers, and supporting the trades. I want the government to adopt these recommendations.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to address the continuing, worsening youth unemployment crisis. The youth unemployment rate now is at 14.3%. We recently asked the finance minister about the youth unemployment crisis in this country. He would not agree in the House that we face a youth unemployment crisis, and he was not even able to state the youth unemployment rate. That is from the finance minister of this country, which shows how asleep at the switch the government is. It has no plan to address a crisis that it will not acknowledge and does not even understand the magnitude of. However, there is good news as well. This week the human resources committee tabled its detailed report on a youth unemployment crisis study, which contains many recommendations that, actually, specifically reflect the Conservative youth jobs plan. As we have called on the government to confront this youth unemployment crisis, we have put forward a Conservative youth jobs plan to unleash the economy, to fix immigration, to fix training and to build homes where the jobs are, and now we have a unanimous report from the human resources committee that reflects these key Conservative priorities. I want to congratulate the members of the human resources committee from all parties who got behind these Conservative priorities. Now it is time for a government that has been asleep at the switch for too long to recognize this crisis, to talk to young people, to read the statistical reports, to know the information and to implement a real plan that reflects what Conservatives have put forward and what is contained in this all-party report. I want to highlight a number of the recommendations. First, this all-party report recommends that “the Government of Canada seek to reduce taxes and red tape in order to address concerns about how the taxation and regulatory environment has limited productivity growth and held back youth employment.” It is incredible, an all-party recommendation calling on the government to respond to this Conservative priority to reduce taxes and red tape. Recommendation two states, “That the Government of Canada recognize the positive role that natural resource development, manufacturing, and all other sectors play in contributing to employment, and seek to valorize work in all sectors.” Recommendation three deals with recognizing the role that immigration policy failures have had in contributing to youth unemployment, and addressing them. Recommendation five calls on the government to “apply strict penalties to companies hiring illegal workers.” We have actually had cases where companies that have been punished for hiring illegal workers went on to get government subsidies. When we have this culture of permissiveness toward companies hiring illegal workers, it contributes to youth unemployment. Recommendation seven calls on the government to “celebrate the value and dignity of trades work [and] ensure that institutions providing trade skills are treated equally and fairly”. That responds to the fact that the government has actually removed funding for grants from students attending vocational institutions. That is, if someone is trying to pursue in-demand skills at a vocational institution, the government has cut them off from getting a student grant. We would reverse that, and that is what is alluded to by recommendation seven in this all-party report. There are many great recommendations in this report. It provides a clear blueprint for the government to follow, building on the Conservative youth jobs plan released in the fall. The government is doing nothing. Young people are getting desperate. The government needs a plan. We now have an all-party report that follows the lead of the Conservatives with specific concrete recommendations. Is the government prepared to implement these constructive recommendations in the 10th report of the human resources committee?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis