MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Garnett Genuis

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

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“I want an answer. Does the minister think the government's immigration rules have caused more young people to be out of work?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, again, there were no answers. Does the minister believe that the immigration policies of the government have contributed to youth unemployment?

“The minister does not care about young people who cannot find work, and he has not answered any of my questions tonight. A committee of all parties recommended cutting taxes and rules to help youth employment. Does he agree with that recommendation, and will he follow it?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I am happy to be focused on the youth unemployment issue, but he is not focused on the youth unemployment issue. He did not even know the rate of youth unemployment in this country. He has not answered a single question for me. He has not answered a single question all night. Again, I want to ask if he agrees or disagrees with the recommendation, from the all-party report from the human resources committee, that the government 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. Does he agree with that recommendation, and will he act on it?

“Youth unemployment is at 14.3%, which is very high. A committee report agreed to by all parties recommends cutting taxes and red tape to help young people find jobs. I want the minister to say if he agrees with this idea and if he will act on it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, clearly the minister was not aware. The number is 14.3%, according to the latest StatsCan numbers. That is a very high youth unemployment rate, including against international peers. I am sorry that the minister is not willing to acknowledge tonight that we are facing a youth unemployment crisis. He should acknowledge that, and he should support the necessary actions to address it. In particular, in today’s human resources committee report, there is a recommendation endorsed by all parties 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 unemployment. Does he agree with that all-party recommendation, and will he act on it?

In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne

“I want the minister to tell us the current youth unemployment rate and say whether he thinks it is a crisis.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, of course, we are always concerned about this issue, but these are not normal times. I wonder if the minister can confirm that he knows what the rate of youth unemployment is right now in the country and whether he thinks we are in a youth unemployment crisis.

In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne

“I want to ask the minister about young people who cannot find work. Does the minister agree that this is a crisis in our country?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 35 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, that obviously had nothing to do with the question, unfortunately. I now want to ask about youth unemployment. It is a deep concern of mine and for many Canadians. I wonder if the minister agrees that we are facing a youth unemployment crisis in the country.

“The board that manages the Canada Pension Plan spends over $1.7 billion on costs and pays each employee an average of over half a million dollars. Will the new Canadian fund spend that much money on its costs and staff too?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has operating expenses of over $1.7 billion. It has an average of over half a million dollars in compensation per employee. I wonder if the minister expects the so-called Canadian sovereign wealth fund to have similar operating costs and expenses.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS ·

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

“I am presenting a petition from young people in Newmarket—Aurora. They want the government to spend money on education and jobs for Canadian students first, before funding large international scholarship programs. Young Canadians are struggling to afford school and find work, so our policies should focus on them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, finally, before we recessed, there was a very large group of young people from Newmarket—Aurora. My colleague from Newmarket—Aurora has convened a very large and active youth council that has been organizing its own petitions, responding to concerns that exist in that community. I want to commend my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora for her incredible work with young people in her community and also the young people who worked hard to organize this petition, relating specifically to some issues of employment that I think are very important, relating to the desire of young people to have access to jobs, homes and hope. Petitioners highlight that young Canadians are struggling to find jobs, afford housing and pay for education, yet the current Liberal government continues to prioritize international programs and foreign partnerships over the needs of young Canadians. Petitioners argue that the federal government has committed large amounts of money to foreign scholarships. While the federal government needs to continue to increase applicants’ acceptance to current projected gaps in the labour market, it should be prioritizing the needs of domestic students first. The petitioners note that the federal government continues to expand these international initiatives. Meanwhile, Canadian students continue to struggle in various ways to afford education and access employment opportunities that they need. Therefore, petitioners call on the Government of Canada to prioritize public policy and funding that protect and expand access to education and work for Canadian youth, especially low- and middle-income students, before committing equivalent public resources to large international scholarship initiatives; to tie accepted applications to current and projected gaps within the workforce; and to create pathways for those who have completed their education within Canada to help fill current gaps within the Canadian labour market, and require that these international scholarships include a clear funding breakdown and a public assessment of likely effects on domestic students and labour markets, and measures to ensure that Canadian students benefit. These wise young people from Newmarket—Aurora are proposing Canadian jobs and Canadian training for Canadian students. We want Canadian young people to be able to fill the gaps that exist in our labour market, so that we have opportunities for the next generation. Again, I want to commend these young people from Newmarket—Aurora for their hard work on this excellent petition.

“I am presenting a petition supporting my bill. It stops government workers from suggesting medically assisted dying to people who did not ask about it, like veterans, seniors, and people with disabilities who are just trying to get other public services.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, next I would like to present a petition in support of my private member’s bill, Bill C-260, the care not coercion act. Incidentally, more information about that is available at our custom website, carenotcoercion.ca. Canadians are concerned about the many reports, including those laid out on our website, indicating a series of problems of veterans, people with disabilities, seniors and those living in poverty being offered MAID or euthanasia by bureaucrats when they are trying to access unrelated public services. These repeated, unprompted offers from those who are not even supposed to be involved in providing facilitated death can be coercive in nature and make it more difficult for people to access public services they are entitled to. Petitioners call attention to the testimony of the CEO of Inclusion Canada, Krista Carr, before the finance committee, that she hears weekly complaints from people with disabilities who have had facilitated death proposed to them when they are trying to access other public services. They highlight the story of Christine Gauthier, a veteran living with disability who was fighting simply to get a wheelchair stairlift from Veterans Affairs Canada. A caseworker suggested she pursue facilitated death instead. These are not isolated cases. There are many examples of this on our website, carenotcoercion.ca. Bill C-260 would provide a response to this by prohibiting bureaucrats from proposing facilitated death to those who have not asked for information about it. Petitioners hope that all members will get behind Bill C-260 and protect the ability of veterans, people with disabilities, the elderly, those living in poverty and all Canadians to be able to access public services without fear of this kind of coercion. They also want to see the government take additional steps to combat the problem of this coercion.

“I am presenting a petition against the government's plan to cut student grants for people at private career colleges. This rule treats students unfairly based on where they go to school, not what they study. It will make training harder to afford and worsen worker shortages in health care and the skilled trades. The petitioners want the government to cancel this plan.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am presenting highlights the concerns of Canadians about the government’s attack on vocational institutions. Budget 2025 proposed restricting eligibility for the Canada student grant for full-time students to those attending public or not-for-profit institutions, excluding many students at regulated career colleges. These are reputable institutions that provide important vocational training, providing skills to young people that align with the needs of the labour market, and yet the government is changing the situation such that any program at a university entitles one to make an application for student grants if they meet the financial need criteria, whereas no students would be eligible if they are at vocational institutions, outside of narrowly prescribed exceptions. This creates unequal treatment among students based on the type of institution they attend rather than the value or demand of their chosen field of study. For many in-demand careers, including in the skilled trades and in health care fields including, for instance, traditional Chinese medicine, the training is offered through regulated career colleges. Removing grant eligibility risks reducing access to affordable training for students, particularly those from low and middle-income backgrounds, and limiting support for these programs may worsen existing labour shortages in critical sectors of the Canadian economy. Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to reverse the proposed changes, to ensure equal and fair access to student financial assistance for all students regardless of institution type and to support training pathways that align with labour market needs, including skilled trades and other high-demand professions.

“I am sharing a petition to make parental leave more flexible. The people who signed it want parents to be able to pause and restart their leave. They also want parents to take job training or earn some money babysitting without losing their benefits.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to be able to present a petition in support of the parental leave reforms announced by the Conservative Party. These are very popular reforms with petitioners and others. People want to see more flexible parental leave that allows people to make their own choices when it comes to integrating their work with time spent with family and children. Petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that Canada’s existing parental leave system is far too rigid. It should support families, instead of forcing them into rigid choices that do not reflect the realities of modern parenting. Petitioners want to see more flexibility to allow a balance between work, caregiving and skills development during the early years of a child’s life. The current parental leave system, outside of Quebec, does not generally allow parents to pause and later resume parental leave, even where a temporary return to work would better suit the needs of the family and the employer. Petitioners also point out that parents should be able to pursue education or skills training while on parental leave without loss of benefits, and that parents who provide occasional paid caregiving services to other families while caring for their own children should not face benefit clawbacks that discourage flexible work and the expansion of child care options. Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to implement the Conservative proposals for a better parental leave system, to establish more flexible parental leave policies, allowing parental leave benefits to be paused and resumed within the existing maximum parental leave time frame of 18 months by mutual agreement between employer and employee, to ensure that parents can pursue education or skills training while on parental leave without losing access to benefits and to create a caregiving exception to EI parental leave benefit clawbacks so that parents may provide limited paid caregiving without penalty. These changes are good for families, and they are good for the economy. They reflect the reality of the modern workforce, allowing people to continue to grow and develop their skills while being plugged into work at the same time as taking more time to be present and engaged with the lives of their children. I commend that petition to the consideration of the House, and I certainly look forward to hearing what the government has to say in response to it.

Oral Questions ·

Employment

“Canada is losing thousands of jobs in construction, natural resources, and manufacturing. We need skilled trades workers, but they need jobs. Why is the government hurting our economy and killing these jobs?”
  • A repeated line

    “Clearly, the plan is not working.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since May 8.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been putting forward very specific, constructive solutions from the very beginning. The Liberal plan is not working. The member spoke about skilled trades. The reality is that, in the last month, we lost 15,700 jobs in construction alone and thousands of jobs in natural resources, utilities and manufacturing. We need skilled trades workers, and we need jobs for those skilled trades workers to work in. Why is the government killing opportunity for skilled trades workers and others with its continuing failures on the economy?

“Canada has lost 112,000 jobs this year, and student unemployment is at 16%. Conservatives have solutions, but the government ignores them. I want the Prime Minister to act on these job numbers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today’s unemployment numbers bring more troubling news. It is more job losses, more pain and more of the same, with 112,000 job losses so far this year. Unemployment is up. Youth unemployment is surging. Student unemployment is at a whopping 16%. Conservatives are putting forward constructive solutions. Liberals are ignoring them. Are these job numbers finally enough to wake up the Prime Minister?

Adjournment Proceedings ·

Adjournment Proceedings

“Too many young people cannot find jobs, and government policies are making it worse. We have shared good ideas to help, but the government is not listening. The government cut student grants for people learning skilled trades, while university students still get them. The government needs to give those grants back to trade school students.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that was not really an answer to what I asked. Here are the facts. We have a metastasizing youth unemployment crisis in this country. There are various factors and many factors of government policy that are contributing to it. We have put forward constructive solutions in the area of supporting families that I talked about today, reforming parental leave, and also in the area of addressing youth unemployment. We have been very constructive and clear with the government. The Liberals say they are willing to listen, but they do not really listen or respond to these constructive proposals we put forward. The member spoke about changes that the government has made in training. Here is what the government did in the last budget. It rendered ineligible vocational institutions to receive student grants. If someone studies at a university, they can get a student grant, but if they study at a vocational institution, preparing them for a specific vocational career where there are shortages, the government has cut that out. What we suggest is that the government not discriminate against students at vocational institutions. Would the Liberals at least listen to that constructive idea?

“Young people cannot find jobs or afford homes, so they are having fewer children than they want. The government's plan is not working. Conservatives have proposed ways to fix youth jobs and make parental leave more flexible. I want the government to use our ideas.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am following up on a question that I asked about the crisis in youth unemployment. Life is very challenging right now in this country, especially for youth and for young families. People who are struggling to get their start in life struggle to access employment. They struggle with housing affordability. This makes it difficult and leads to delays in family formation. We know, statistically, that if we ask women how many children they want to have and compare that to our current fertility rate, there is a gap of almost one child per woman. Many Canadian families are not having as many children as they would like to have. I think that has a lot to do with challenges in employment and challenges in housing affordability, these basic challenges in getting started in life here in Canada because of how difficult those start-up costs are. The youth unemployment crisis is a big part of it. It is very clear that what the government is doing or says it is doing in this regard is just not working. Listening to question period today, I heard that the government wants to celebrate, allegedly, this initiative or that initiative, but the overall numbers paint a clear picture, which is a metastasizing, unprecedented youth unemployment crisis that is connected to and contributes to challenges that families are facing as well. Conservatives have taken a very constructive approach to the employment file. We have developed and offered the government concrete solutions to these problems. Obviously, the government is the government. It has the power to implement these things and we do not, but we have put constructive solutions on the table and asked the government to implement all or part of what we put forward. This fall, we put forward the Conservative youth jobs plan, a clear plan addressing the youth unemployment crisis, with proposals to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. Just today, we announced another suite of policy initiatives, this time targeting the challenges that young families are facing. We are proposing substantial parental leave reform that would make life easier for those who are trying to start a family. These policy proposals involve flexible parental leave, allowing a person on parental leave to pause and resume that leave. We proposed learning on leave, allowing anyone to take courses of study while they are on parental leave so that they can upgrade their skills and strengthen their ability to meet the labour market again once their leave is over. We also proposed a caregiving exception to EI parental leave benefit clawbacks. This would allow somebody who is caring for their own children to also do paid caregiving work on the side. Perhaps while they are watching their own child, their neighbour pays them to watch their child as well. Removing the clawbacks associated with earning in this situation would increase the availability of child care, which, in many cases, notwithstanding the exaggerated promises of the government, simply is not available to many parents. We are working hard to propose constructive solutions to the very real and practical challenges facing youth and young families today. I would like to know why the government has not taken the opportunity to embrace these solutions. I think it would be a political win for them and it would be a win for youth and families. Will the government take on these good ideas that we have proposed?

Oral Questions ·

Youth

“The government has too much debt, and young families are struggling. We shared plans for youth jobs and better parental leave. Will the government support our ideas to help young people?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the government has $1 trillion dollars in credit card debt, and the Liberals keep telling us that everything is fine. Everything is not fine. In the midst of this environment, Conservatives are offering constructive proposals to support youth and young families that are struggling. In the fall, we announced the Conservative youth jobs plan. Just today, we announced big, new ideas to reform parental leave to make it easier to start and grow a family. Instead of doubling down on more of the same failure, will the Liberals must listen to and support the big ideas that we are putting forward to help young people and families finally succeed?

“The Liberal government's debt, high taxes, and bad immigration policies are hurting young people and young families. I want the government to change these policies so young people can find jobs.”
  • A repeated line

    “The Prime Minister is just another Liberal.”

    Said 22 times by 14 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, objectively, the Liberals’ so-called plan is simply not working. Conditions are extremely difficult in this country for youth and for young families. The Liberals’ trillion dollars of debt means less growth and fewer jobs, especially for people just starting out. Credit card budgeting, high taxes and poor immigration policy have all contributed. We see more costs, more taxes, more debt and more on the national credit card, more of the same. The Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal with no results to show for this waste. When will Liberals reverse policies that are objectively not working, so young people can get back to work?

Government Orders ·

Report Stage

In response to a question from Carol Anstey

“All parties should work together on this issue, especially in a minority government. It is wrong for the government to play party politics when we are trying to help victims.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this certainly is the sort of issue where we would hope for cross-party collaboration and hope to not have a spirit of partisanship. From what I understand, that spirit of collaboration was what prevailed at committee. It prevailed in a context where co-operation was required, because of the minority conditions that Canadians voted for. If a party win a majority at the polls, fair enough. It has a mandate from Canadians to proceed as a majority. However, if Canadians vote for a minority that necessitates co-operation, and then a party tries to throw that out the window, and then acts in this ultra partisan fashion while we are trying to advance solutions for victims, that is inappropriate.

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. The Liberals talk about working together, but then they changed this bill completely without us. They are being hypocrites.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 11 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
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. I also thank him for the work that was done by the opposition parties. He mentioned the Liberal Party’s hypocrisy. The Liberals talk a lot about co-operation, yet they tried to eliminate the need for it. Right after that, they decided to change this bill completely. This truly is an example of Liberal hypocrisy.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“This bill is about protecting victims of sexual violence. Our committee listened to victims and experts, and we voted to make the bill stronger. Now the Liberals are trying to undo all that work.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that was a question that went madly off in all directions. This is a bill about protecting victims of sexual violence. We can have a conversation about military spending, capabilities and all of these other issues, but, fundamentally, here is the point. The committee heard directly during its deliberations from victims and from experts. For those who know this process best, a majority of that committee, representative of the House of Commons that Canadians elected, chose amendments to strengthen the bill and respond to the testimony they heard. Then Liberals used an undemocratic, stolen majority to try to undo all that work.

“All parties worked together in committee to improve this military justice bill and protect victims of sexual violence. Now the Liberals are using their new majority to undo those changes. I want the government to keep the committee's work and protect survivors.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my speech today by sharing with members that before coming to the House a few minutes ago, I was at a screening on the Hill of the documentary film Traces, which is about the issue of conflict-related sexual violence in Ukraine. It is a great honour to have with us, on the Hill, the director of that film, who shared directly with us about her own experience of being a victim of conflict-related sexual violence and the work she has done on this film. It is important for the House to know and to reflect on the fact that, as part of the ongoing illegal, genocidal invasion of Ukraine, we are seeing the systematic use of sexual violence as a tool by the invaders for terror. It should underline our knowledge of the horrific nature of this invasion and the need for ongoing Canadian support for the Ukrainian people. We have before us today Bill C-11, which would make changes to the military justice system in this country. Fundamentally, what we are seeing in debate at this stage of the bill is the tragic implications of the Liberals seizing an undemocratic majority, and what they are doing with that majority to undermine the important collaborative cross-party work that was done on legislation in this chamber prior to the seizure of that undemocratic majority. This is a bill about a sombre, serious subject: protecting victims, or trying to protect victims, of sexual violence. It is an issue on which parties should be able to work together. From what I understand, and I am not a member of that committee, work happened at committee on the bill, bringing together people from different party backgrounds to try to incorporate all the feedback that was received from survivors to make this legislation effective. It is not, and should not be, a partisan issue, which is why Conservatives, New Democrats and members of the Bloc listened to the testimony, came together and put forward amendments to the bill that reflected that testimony, strengthened that framework and established, through those amendments, a framework that would have really worked and gone as far as possible to protect these victims and survivors. From what I understand, even government members on the committee supported some of those amendments that the opposition worked on together. At the time, the member for Nunavut was with the NDP caucus and was her party’s defence critic, working with other parties on this legislation. That was the cross-party work that happened, and really that has to happen in a minority Parliament. In a minority Parliament, one party cannot dictate the outcome of legislation, which requires negotiation, listening to witnesses and listening to each other. In the context of a minority Parliament, this legislation was an example of that collaboration at its best, of members of Parliament rising to the occasion, working through the difficult issues, listening and coming to conclusions. However, what do we have now? The government has systematically, regardless of world view, lured and then neutered members of the opposition to join and give the Liberals a majority government, which Canadians did not vote for. Now, they are using that undemocratic majority to undo the work that was done at committee. They have moved motions in the House to undo the work that was done painstakingly at committee: listening to survivors, strengthening the legislation. That work has all been ignored and undone through a motion proposed by the government. The Liberals now believe that they can rely on all the members of their newly formed, undemocratic majority to undermine the collaborative work that was done on this issue at committee. Ryan Turnbull: Majority prevails. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite from, I believe, Ajax is heckling me to say, “Majority prevails.” Ryan Turnbull: Whitby. Garnett Genuis: Whitby. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I do want to make sure that he is held accountable for heckling during a speech about protecting victims of sexual violence. The member for Whitby says the majority rules. Well, this is a majority that Canadians did not vote for and that, in the first instance, the Liberals are using to undo collaborative committee work on protecting victims of sexual violence. They want a majority, they say, to move at speeds unseen in generations. They are moving at speeds unseen in generations to dismantle collaborative committee work to protect victims of sexual violence. At the first opportunity they have, that is what they are using their majority to do. I have to wonder what the member for Nunavut is thinking in all this. Individual members, whatever caucus they sit in, are still personally accountable before their voters, and before whatever other institutions they see themselves as accountable in front of, for the decisions they make in the House and the votes they cast here. When a member sits as part of the NDP and works collaboratively on amendments to strengthen legislation to protect victims of sexual violence, and then that member joins a caucus that is systematically undoing and ignoring the work that was done, it is hard for me to understand the dissonance. Whether a person just changes all of their opinions at once, or whether some members of the government intend on standing up against the efforts of the minister and the front bench to dismantle this legislation, at the end of the day, every member controls how they vote when the time comes. They will have a chance to vote specifically on the decisions of the minister and the government to undo the work that was done. This is the real, concrete outworking of the Liberals’ seizure of an undemocratic majority. It now gives them, in practice, the ability to ignore what witnesses say, to ignore collaboration and to ignore the work that can be done across parties to analyze an issue from different angles and get to a result, and the Prime Minister can act as a kind of executive and direct all of the affairs that happen in this place. That is not how it should happen. That is not what Canadians voted for in the last election, but it seems that it is what they want, and their first test case for this is undermining protections for victims of sexual violence. It is shameful, what is happening. It is undemocratic and wrong, and it will have serious negative implications for survivors who are seeking justice in the future. I want to commend the members of the committee who worked hard on this. I want to commend our shadow minister for defence as well as members of other parties who worked collaboratively on this process but who, sadly, saw all of that work undone when the government decided to move these motions, rejecting these amendments. In this context, with this undemocratic majority, we will continue to use all of the tools we have to hold the government accountable and fight for what is right. Government members and ministers need to hear demands from their constituents that the government reverse course and stand with victims of sexual violence. I think the member for Nunavut needs to hear from her constituents on this, asking her to stand with the work that she previously did on committee. I think we need to see a response from the public that holds the government accountable for what it is doing, right away, with this undemocratic majority.