Jamil Jivani

“Having a job gives young people who face hard times stability, growth, and a way to belong. It is harder for young workers to get entry-level jobs now, and that hurts them. All young people deserve that chance.”

“Mr. Speaker, for young people who are facing a whole heap of challenges, as I did growing up, like those who come from a broken home, are dealing with all sorts of economic instability or have trauma that they are processing at a very young age, a job is a life raft of normalcy. It is a pathway to being part of society when they may feel very isolated and pushed away by life circumstances. When we see in report after report that entry-level positions, the kinds of jobs that were the first step for me and a lot of people in my generation, are harder now for young workers to get, it is a denial of that life raft. It is a denial of the normalcy that so many young people crave. It is not just about the economic opportunity, which is tremendously important, and it is not just about building a career, which is tremendously important. It is about the stability and personal growth that a job offers. I think all young people deserve that.”

In response to a question from Carlos Leitão

“Canadians no longer believe the government's excuses. The Prime Minister is blaming other countries for Canada's problems instead of taking responsibility for his own bad policies. Young people deserve better, and the government should use our ideas to help them.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Liberal government to reflect on the fact that the Canadian people are not falling for this anymore. The Liberals are being held accountable for what they have done. Premier Eby just lost an election in British Columbia pulling the same shenanigans that the Prime Minister tries to do, which is to blame all of Canada’s problems on another country and take no responsibility for his own bad policies. Young people deserve better, and that is why we have put forward the ideas we have. It is so that the government might do its best job possible to do right by our young people.”

“Young Canadians are losing jobs and cannot afford rent or food. High costs leave young people with no time or money to start businesses. The government's promises have not helped them. We need to cut taxes, lower immigration, help students train for jobs that actually exist, and build affordable housing.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the great people of Bowmanville—Oshawa North to discuss the urgent and important matter of youth unemployment. There are a lot of statistics that get referred to when we talk about this issue, and those statistics are very important, but I also want to spend some time talking about the people and the lives behind those numbers. To paint a broad picture, as a country, we have lost, in the last two months, 110,000 jobs, and in September, 70% of the jobs lost were lost by young workers. That is 48,000 jobs lost in one month by workers under the age of 25. This number is startling and alarming. It is a reminder that policy makers and legislators here in Ottawa must take this problem seriously and be looking for solutions. I have the privilege and honour of representing a riding and a community home to two post-secondary schools, Durham College and Ontario Tech University. There are wonderful opportunities for me to not only feel old regularly, because when I speak to students I am reminded of just how much time flies by, but also to be reminded of all the incredible, dynamic, wonderful young people we have in this country. To give a perspective on the student population of my home community, we have 13,000 full-time students at Durham College, as well as 30,000 part-time and continuing education students. At Ontario Tech University, we have over 14,000 graduate and undergraduate students. I have the opportunity to go to campus and hear how their lives are going, hear how they are experiencing this economy and see from their point of view how the Prime Minister’s decisions affect their generation and the prospects they have to build a life, build a career, buy a home one day and move forward with their dreams. Recently, I was able, with the help of a fantastic professor, Ms. Keri-Ellen Walcer, who is at the faculty of business at Durham College, to bring together a group of student leaders to share their experiences and give me their feedback on how the economy is affecting them, their peers and their families. We got together with heads of the Durham College students’ union and the Ontario Tech students’ union, as well as the Durham College student business club, the Durham College blogging club and the Durham College makers and shakers club. What really became clear to me from these conversations is that, if we want to tackle the youth unemployment problem, we have to be cognizant of how the economy is affecting the young entrepreneur. The young entrepreneur is the person who is going to build the economy of the future. The young entrepreneur is going to create jobs for not only himself or herself, but also for his or her peers and the broader community. If we are going to make a dent in these alarming numbers that indicate that job losses are acutely affecting young workers, we are going to have to have a plan for the young entrepreneur to be empowered and supported. In the feedback that they shared with me, those students raised a number of issues that I think can paint a clear picture for members of the House to better understand how the future leaders of our economy are stressing and struggling with the current affordability crisis and the impact this has on job creation. I want to start by talking about their concerns over housing. What they made very clear to me was that, because they are just eking by every month to be able to pay rent, and because of how difficult it is for them to make ends meet, it leaves very little time at the end of every day, at the end of every week and at the end of every month to actually work on their businesses, and they have a very broad range of interests, from fashion design to manufacturing and restaurants. They have all sorts of things that they want to be working on, but because of the affordability crisis, they have very little time to access opportunity to work on those things. We know that in order to grow a business and in order to build an economy, young people need mentorship and they need networking. Especially if they want to start a business, they need mentorship and networking in the field that they want to work in, innovate in, create in and build in, but if someone is eking by every month, struggling just to get by day to day, then they have very little time to do the big picture thinking and planning to actually build those relationships to build that business and grow our local economy. This paints a very clear and logical picture, so when the government comes out and says, it has a program, and the government and the Prime Minister are very good at announcements, press releases, press conferences and standing at a podium, often with a manufactured design behind them to indicate that they are doing something constructive, it leads to a lot of questions, like, in the middle of an affordability crisis, how much time young people have to access these supposed announcements and programs. If young people are struggling to get by, where is the time at the end of the day to fill out government paperwork or talk in a government office about a program that is supposed to help their generation build for the future? This is even clearer if someone visits the Durham College campus. There they will see that, like many other campuses across the country, it has started a food bank on campus because of how bad affordability has become for the average student to get by. This not only paints a picture of a precarious situation for young entrepreneurs to be operating in, but paints a picture of the difficulty in having the time and focus to build the businesses of the future, in accessing mentorship and networking, in accessing programming and in doing the planning necessary to build. It also paints a picture of severe mental health crises. What people will hear if they talk to students, not just at Durham College and Ontario Tech University but at campuses across this country, is that they are dealing with an extreme amount of stress to complete their studies, plan for the future and build a career when they graduate to pay their bills and get by. This leads to very serious mental health concerns for many of their peers, and it leads to a lot of concern about whether there are appropriate resources and supports for young people on campuses and beyond. This is not just clinical support, but community support and the opportunity to build relationships, friendships and fellowship. These things are often lacking in the lives of young people today as they struggle with the affordability crisis. All in all, if we are to recognize, as I believe we should, that young entrepreneurs are critical to resolving the youth unemployment problem, then we also must understand the circumstances they are growing up in, the circumstances they are studying in and the circumstances they are working in. My belief is that if we are to take this problem seriously, then every time we see a statistic come out in a StatsCan report or a jobs number get released in the news, we should think about young people like the business leaders I mentioned at Durham College and Ontario Tech and the students all across this country who are bearing the brunt of an economy that simply does not work. I recall that just a couple of years ago, members of an earlier iteration of the Liberal government used to talk a lot about the idea of generational fairness. I remember that buzzword being used very often. However, when we visit students at campuses and hear from them, we hears that the government has not produced generational fairness. In fact, the government has produced a very imbalanced economy where those who already have a home or business and have already made their way do not feel the same consequences as those who dream and strive to have those very same things and who are trying to get those things in an environment where it is much more difficult. With my remaining time, I would like to highlight a plan that some of my Conservative colleagues have spoken about in the House today. It is a plan that Conservatives have put forward that we believe will make a difference for young workers and young entrepreneurs. It is a plan that will address many of the issues and concerns that I hear when I visit the students at Durham College and Ontario Tech. It is a plan that will address four particular pillars. The first pillar is unleashing the economy by cutting taxes and reducing red tape. This is economic growth 101, and it is mind-boggling that we even have to argue these points in the House, but we do. Number two is to fix the immigration system. There are too many people coming into our country. It is skewing the labour market and making the labour market worse for everybody. We have to address that. The only people who benefit from high levels of immigration are the large corporations that would like to see the wages of Canadian workers depressed. Number three, the Conservative plan mentions the Canada student financial assistance program, to make sure that taxpayer dollars are being marshalled toward supporting students to pursue fields where there are actual jobs and opportunities. Lastly, that plan is supporting workforce housing, which is very important, because as I mentioned, as young people struggle with affordability and the housing crisis, it makes it harder for them to get ahead and build their careers.”

In response to a question from Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

“The government is using a temporary crisis to make big, permanent changes to the country, like privatizing airports. We have barely debated this, and it will hurt future generations. We must speak out against these changes every chance we get.”

“Madam Speaker, what a fantastic question that was from my colleague. He precisely pointed out what is going on, which is that we are facing a temporary crisis and the government is using it to bring in permanent measures and changes to our country. The airport privatization issue is a perfect example. We have had very little public discussion about this and very little conversation here in the House of Commons, yet we are seeing massive changes being done to our country under the guise of responding to the current crisis. We will deal with the consequences of these decisions for generations, and that is exactly why we have to be vocal and oppose them every chance we get, even when the Liberals point a finger at us and smear our good reputations.”

• 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 Kevin Lamoureux

“I only speak for the people in my riding, not anyone else. I want the government to answer my concerns about their plans for airports. Instead, they try to scare people about the United States to distract from unpopular policies.”

“Madam Speaker, it is shameful for the member opposite to suggest that I speak for anyone but my constituents. I have fought very hard for a better relationship between us and the United States at a time when I believe the governing party is exploiting bad relationships between the two countries for its own political benefit. The conversation we are having today is a perfect example. I just spoke for 10 minutes about the Liberals’ airport privatization agenda, and instead of responding to any of the legitimate concerns Canadians are noting, they want to draw attention to the United States. This is their political strategy in a nutshell: advance policies that under no other circumstances would have public support, but hope that if they fearmonger enough, they will get their agenda done. I am not falling for it.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 8 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 →

“I do not want this bill to pass. It helps the government sell off our major airports to private companies. It lets the minister stop airport strikes, which takes away power from the workers and makes it easier for investors to take over. Selling our airports will hurt safety, raise costs for travellers, and put profits ahead of the public good.”

“Madam Speaker, as we discuss Bill C-39 in advance of its likely going to committee, I want to raise some concerns about how I think the bill would be used to further the current government’s airport privatization agenda. I believe that is an agenda that deserves some severe scrutiny, and it is one that I oppose wholeheartedly. Sometimes it is difficult to get people to pay attention in this job to what is going on in Ottawa, but I do hope that, with my comments today, I can encourage Canadians to pay attention to just how bad airport privatization would be for our country and why Bill C-39 is a problem because it would further that agenda. When I was doing research on this topic, I learned that when I was five years old, the federal government, in the House of Commons, had a debate about airport privatization. Obviously I was too young to pay attention at the time. I was busy watching Hulk Hogan and Ultimate Warrior on television. I learned that it was a Liberal prime minister, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, who put an end to the airport privatization deal for Pearson airport at that time. There was a lot of back and forth, and in the record, we can see that ultimately, when he was elected prime minister of this country, Chrétien concluded that airport privatization does not serve the public’s interest. I think he was completely correct. It is interesting to see how much things have changed since then. We are now having this debate again with another Liberal government that is coming to a completely different conclusion from what Prime Minister Chrétien came to. In fact, the current Liberal Prime Minister has actually contracted help from big banks, such as CIBC and J.P. Morgan, to sell off four major Canadian airports, in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver. I believe that the policy idea, the goal that the Prime Minister has set out, is bad news, not just for Canada’s national interest but also for workers and for travellers. I am going to use my time to outline why I think that is such a concern and why Bill C-39 is of particular concern for how it would facilitate the selling off of our airports. I will start with the national interest. Prime Minister Chrétien was correct to say that airport privatization does not serve the public’s interest. The federal government is fundamentally altering the way that airports function in our country. Instead of treating airports as critical national infrastructure, which they are; instead of treating airports as necessary for our economy to function, which they are; and instead of treating airports as necessary for connecting people across our country, which they are, the government’s current plan is to make airports a profit-seeking venture, a complete transformation from what airports are currently doing across this country today. The International Air Transport Association has been clear in warning of the dangers of privatization, because of how it shifts the way that airports function. It has outlined in its studies of privatization across the world that it produces bad outcomes for a country’s ability to preserve airports as critical national infrastructure. I would like to quote from some of its research. It states, “The primary focus of airports should be to support local and national prosperity as an economic catalyst.” However, the IATA goes on to say, “in private hands, shareholder returns take top priority.” That is the danger of the current Liberal Prime Minister’s airport privatization agenda. By putting shareholder interests at the centre of how our airports operate, it is fundamentally changing the nature of how these very important economic, cultural and political institutions behave. The IATA goes on to say, “When [airports] are privatised, the public entities...wash their hands about this infrastructure”. That means that the record in studies done around the world is that once privatization occurs, governments tend to stop caring about making investments themselves and preserving the integrity of the infrastructure. They stop taking responsibility for making sure that maintenance is good or that the public interest is being served. In the context of what is happening in Canada right now, multiple organizations have warned of what the government’s agenda is going to do to airports in this country. The Air Line Pilots Association of Canada has echoed warnings of the dangers of airport privatization, warning that the federal government’s privatization agenda opens up the country’s largest airports to foreign private investment that poses significant risks not only to the independence of the country but also to the operation of the facilities, including safety risks. The reason the Air Line Pilots Association raised that point is that it shares what Prime Minister Chrétien said, which is that airports have a duty to serve the good, and they will no longer do that if shareholder interests take primacy. The association also said, “Canada’s airports are important national assets, and the government must ensure they continue to prioritize the public interest, safety, and the needs of Canadians—not the interests of private investors and shareholders.” The reason that all of this is very important to keep in mind when we take a look at Bill C-39 is that it is a violation of the direction that the government set last year. In passing the Building Canada Act, the government set out a definition of what constitutes national interest for infrastructure projects. That definition included a very important line from the government’s legislation, which said that it strengthens Canada’s autonomy, resilience and sovereignty. It is very clear that airports are essential to that. With that context in mind, it makes absolutely zero sense to sell off our airports in this country, because that does not serve the national interest, even taking the government’s own definition of that concept at face value. Where does Bill C-39 come in to facilitate this? To advance the airport privatization agenda, the Liberal Prime Minister is exploiting the concept of national interest to change labour laws in our country. Through this legislation, the Prime Minister seeks to make it easier for airport privatization to move forward. Bill C-39 would hurt the collective bargaining power of airport workers, and the federal government would use this bill to ensure that private interests face lower labour resistance as they seek higher profit margins in their takeover of this industry. The reality is this. We are in a scenario where the Liberals have a majority government. There is only so much that the opposition parties that occupy seats in this House are able to do, but one of the important lines of defence in ensuring that our airports do not become something we are not proud of is ensuring that unions are able to actively negotiate and fight for their own interests. This legislation would completely put them at a disadvantage. This legislation would, in fact, give the government the ability to railroad unions in its effort to hand over our airports to private interests. That should be of concern to all Canadians. Unifor, which represents 17,000 unionized airport workers, has taken issue with some of the changes to labour law in this legislation. Specifically, Unifor has pointed to section 107, which would give the federal government, in particular the minister of labour, new powers to end labour disputes and force binding arbitration. Under section 107, the minister could direct the CIRB to end a strike or lockout, which would put unions at a disadvantaged position for negotiating and would limit their ability to hold private interests accountable. The Air Line Pilots Association of Canada has also pointed out how its members would be affected by this type of privatization, citing potentially negative outcomes for “runway maintenance, de-icing capacity, staffing” and other safety measures. From a national interest standpoint and a worker standpoint, Bill C-39 would facilitate an agenda that threatens to bring harm and risk to our country. Lastly, with the remainder of my time, I want to talk about travellers, the people who are worried about how expensive it is to fly anywhere in Canada right now. Members know how hard it is to travel across this country, especially with the affordability crisis the way it is. The International Air Transport Association, academics across the country and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have all found constantly, over and over again in their studies, that privatization only makes air travel more expensive, not less expensive. In fact, in Australia, they have found that since privatization occurred there, travellers and airlines have paid $1.6 billion more to travel around their country than they would have if privatization had not occurred. For the good of our country and the good of people who are trying to see their families, we should oppose this agenda.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 97 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the Liberal Prime Minister is exploiting the concept of national interest”.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“The government uses conflict with the United States as an excuse to avoid solving everyday problems for Canadians. I want the Liberals to stop using this issue for politics and actually finish a trade deal that helps Canadian workers and businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be perfectly blunt with the member. We have a lot of problems in this country, and I think we have a government here in Ottawa that has used the drama with the United States as an excuse to solve very few problems that affect the day-to-day lives of our fellow citizens. I think it is shameful that it has become a political tool to exploit justifications for making nothing better for the lives of the average Canadian. Instead, the Liberals are able to position themselves as fake nationalists who seemingly have very little pride or long-term vision for the good of this country. I would like to see some humility on the part of the Liberal regime here in Ottawa. I would like to actually get a trade deal done for the good of Canadian workers and Canadian industries, and for the Liberals to stop exploiting this issue for their own political gain.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 41 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 6 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 →

In response to a question from John-Paul Danko

“I disagree with Premier Ford and the federal government. Neither level of government cares that life is getting worse and more expensive for regular Canadians, especially when it comes to housing.”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree with Premier Ford on very little actually, including his opinions of the Liberal regime here in Ottawa and its performance on matters like housing. It is quite unfortunate that it is so difficult to get the people who profit and benefit off the status quo to understand why so many Canadians are frustrated with multiple levels of government, provincial and federal alike. It is also unsurprising that the federal government would find common cause with a provincial government that also seems to be perfectly fine with a situation where no one’s life is getting better and the quality of life for the average middle-class Canadian is declining.”

“I oppose this budget bill. It does not do enough to fix the housing crisis or help young Canadians afford a home.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you, as always. I rise in the House today on behalf of the beautiful, wonderful people of Bowmanville—Oshawa North, to oppose the Liberal budget, specifically Bill C-30. I do so because this is the latest example of the current Liberal regime failing to meet the moment in Canada. The Liberals are simply tinkering at the edges of the status quo, without offering any positive, substantive changes for our communities to become stronger and healthier. Liberals may ask, what is the moment we are in? Certainly, they seem unaware. It is a moment when a generation of Canadians are knocking on the door, asking to be admitted into the Canadian dream, yet they are having that door shut in their face by a government that continues to show very little self-awareness for what is going on in our economy today. For Canadians who, frankly, have been working hard for over a decade now to establish themselves in the economy, to buy their first home or to start a family, they are encountering an uncomfortable and unstable position. They are working hard to do so, despite the challenges they face. If the Liberal regime were truly interested in meeting the moment facing our country right now, they would do more than just tinker at the edges of the status quo. Rather, this would be a government that would respond with real change and real hope for the builders, the dreamers, the strivers and the hustlers who are working hard to get ahead every day. The part of this budget that I would like to focus on in particular is the matter of housing, because it has become emblematic of the challenges we face in our country today. In this budget, in Bill C-30, the government has a provision to extend the grace period for repayments in the homebuyers’ plan. Now, in a vacuum, this might actually be a worthwhile idea. It is good to extend the grace period. However, the problem we face is that when we look at the context of our country right now, it is simply not enough. In fact, it is outrageous to sit in the chamber and see Liberals patting themselves on the back for continuing to fail to fix the housing crisis in this country, while failing to recognize that much more needs to be done. While Liberals sit in the chamber or fly off to Europe to celebrate their half measures and their band-aid solutions, one of their own housing bureaucracies, one of several, has published data today showing that the housing crisis continues to be unaddressed by the Liberal Prime Minister, who promised to fix it, the second Liberal Prime Minister, I may add, who promised to fix it in the last decade. From today’s CMHC housing starts and construction data, we see that in the month of May 2026, “Actual monthly housing starts were down 5.2% year-over-year in centres with a population of 10,000 or more”. We also see in that data that “housing starts for all areas in Canada decreased [month to month by] 6% in May”. CMHC’s deputy chief economist looked at all of this data and offered a comment that I think this House must consider. He said, “Overall, these results suggest that construction activity is uneven and taken together with the decline of approved units not yet started and market intelligence point to weaker momentum for future supply”. If we zoom out for a moment and think about what this means for the young Canadians knocking on the door who want to get in on the Canadian dream but are having the door shut on them by the Liberal regime, we see that there are real consequences for real people behind all of these numbers. For every house that is not getting built or is too expensive for the average middle-class Canadian to afford, we know there is a life being put on hold: people who want to move out of their parents’ house but cannot do so; people who want to make an investment in their future but cannot do so; people who want to start a family but cannot do so. By the way, as an aside, I would like to add that if we fix the housing crisis, we might see the declining birth rate start to tick up and the Liberals would have less of an excuse to continue with their mass immigration plan. However, I will leave that for another day. This is what is happening to young Canadians today. They deserve so much better than what they are getting from the Liberal government, from a regime that continues to put budget after budget forward that fails to solve a single serious problem and is not getting better results. Young Canadians are not getting the response they deserve from their own government, the government they pay taxes to and the government that is intended to serve them. I would like to share a story of a young man I met yesterday, from north Oshawa. He runs his own business, and on the weekends he drives an Uber. He is a very hard-working guy who grinds every week, non-stop. He recently got married, and he does not have any children yet, but he hopes to be able to afford a home one day. He shared his family story with me, and he is a real family man. He told me about his father who recently beat cancer, and I could see how proud he was when he talked about his dad going through that hard time with a smile on his face on the other end of it. This business owner in north Oshawa told me that he had a conversation with his wife last week, and he asked his wife an important question. He asked what she thought of some of the concerns weighing on him at the moment. Specifically, he was wondering whether he should continue to work so hard and continue to work two jobs and be away from his family as much as he is. He wondered if he should stop. He wondered if his effort was ever going to pay off based on what he saw happening in our country. I will be honest; it was tough to hear him talk that way, because he is a talented and very capable young man, but he was considering giving up. He told me that when he had that conversation with his wife and asked her those questions, she thankfully told him that she thought he should keep trying. She expressed belief in him. When he told me about his wife’s confidence in him, I could tell it meant the entire world to him. I bring this up because people need to better understand what is happening to this generation of Canadians knocking on that door and trying to get in on the Canadian dream. They are often thinking about giving up and often questioning the merit of hard work. They are second-guessing themselves and the way they spend their time, and whether doing all of the things they were told a contributing citizen should do is actually going to bear fruit as they continue to get older. This is exactly what is wrong with the Liberal regime’s budget. It fails to offer any sort of understanding of what is going on today. It fails to show any contrition from a government that has, for 11 years now, made bad decision after bad decision, often sentencing young Canadians to a much harder life than generations past, making it harder to get ahead and making it harder for people to feel hopeful and optimistic about their futures. The Liberal regime then has the audacity to question the patriotism of people who say that they deserve better. I would say that the young Canadians knocking on the door hoping to get in on the Canadian dream do deserve better. They deserve a lot better than what they have been getting. My message to all of the strivers, dreamers, builders and hustlers across this country is to just keep going. I know that it is hard and that often it feels like people in positions of power are not listening, but the reality is that we have no choice but to continue fighting for this country and for a better future. Even when the people who are privileged enough to fly first class to Europe lecture us on what kind of country we should want to have here in Canada and even when they show us how tone-deaf they are, I want those who are fighting for a better future to know that someday I hope they will have a government that honours them properly. God bless Canada.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Signal 38 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 →