Garnett Genuis
Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“It is getting increasingly harder for young people to find their first job, and for young families to afford their first home and be able to afford to take those critical steps forward in life.”
“I look forward to talking to people and listening to them over the summer. I would encourage colleagues from all parts of the country to also listen to, respect and try to understand the concerns Albertans have.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his kind words. Indeed, I would welcome him, and all members of this House from all parties, to come to Alberta this summer. Let me know. I would be happy to host. Members could spend some time talking to people in our province to understand some of their concerns.”
“This plan includes vital reforms to parental leave to make it easier for parents who are trying to start a family, maintain a connection to work and earn an income at the same time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my best wishes for the summer to all colleagues from all sides. We have fought hard for our constituents, for our convictions and to advance the common good of this country.”
“We have always sought to be productive and constructive by putting forward these good ideas and asking the government to adopt them. Therefore, as we face these ongoing challenges, an affordability crisis and a youth unemployment crisis, will the government take a serious look at what we have put forward, including the Conservative youth…”
The complete record
Every one of 885 lines we hold for Garnett Genuis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 18.
“The petitioners want to see the House support Bill C-257 , as it previously existed, and defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.”
“Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling is in support of Bill C-257 . This is what the petition says, although I will note that it is from the last Parliament. It is a bill I had tabled to add political belief or activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination to the Human Rights Act. The petition notes that Canadians have a right to be protected against discrimination and that it is a fundamental right to be politically active and vocal. Furthermore, it is in the best interests of Canadian democracy that we protect the free exchange of ideas and do not allow a situation in which people are punished by their employers for presenting political opinions or engaging in political activity their employer does not agree with.”
“They note that many disability advocates in Canada have expressed opposition to the expansions contained in the government's previous bill, Bill C-7 . The petitioners therefore call on the government to protect all Canadians whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable by prohibiting medical assistance in dying for those whose prognosis for natural death is more than six months.”
“Madam Speaker, the next petition deals with the issue of euthanasia and, in particular, highlights concerns that have been raised by those living with disabilities. The petitioners are very concerned that in the context of a lack of available services and treatments for people in various situations, euthanasia does not present itself as a real choice but is offered in the absence of alternative kinds of supports. The petitioners argue that allowing medical assistance in dying for those with disabilities or chronic illness devalues their lives, tacitly endorsing the idea that life with disability is optional and by extension dispensable. The petitioners are concerned about us having an ableist health care system where the lives of those with disabilities are seen as not worth living.”
“The measures can include monitoring and reporting on human rights in North Korea, supporting North Korean defectors in other regions, developing strategies for Canada to assist in protecting North Korean citizens from crimes against humanity and supporting international efforts to safeguard the people of North Korea from crimes against humanity and promote political freedom, including through dialogue with relevant organizations and governments. I thank members of the Canadian Korean community, who worked hard on bringing this petition to the attention of the House.”
“They call on the government to provide updates on the status and challenges faced by North Korean defectors in China and elsewhere and ask that Canadian policies toward North Korean defectors provide support to those defectors and refugee claimants. They want to see Canada engage actively with international organizations and foreign governments to press the PRC to allow safe passage for North Korean refugees to South Korea, where they are recognized as citizens, and to establish initiatives to support the promotion of human rights in North Korea and aid defectors without specifying a particular legislative structure.”
“Further, the petitioners raise concern about how the People's Republic of China has disregarded or ignored recommendations from the UN Commission of Inquiry regarding North Korean defectors and other issues, including not sending people back to North Korea, as well as allowing the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian organizations full access to North Korean defectors and other supports that are important for those who have fled North Korea. The petitioners, therefore, call on the Government of Canada to take action in regard to these human rights abuses and to table regular reports in Parliament on the situation of human rights in North Korea, including the state of political prison camps and correctional labour camps.”
“Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling is related to the worsening human rights situation in North Korea. The petitioners note many grave violations of human rights in this petition, including prioritization of food distribution to those considered useful to the survival of the current political systems, with those deemed expendable facing deprivation, and a vast security apparatus associated with all kinds of oppression, public execution, forced imprisonment of citizens in political prison camps, terrorizing the population into submission, the state-sponsored abduction of citizens of other nations, etc.”
“The petitioners contend that the decision to remove these supports is discriminatory to those students who have benefited from Jordan's principle and is out of line with the intent of the principle itself. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to review and approve provincial education supports through Jordan's principle to students living off-reserve.”
“They note that first nations children living off-reserve are no longer eligible to receive funding through Jordan's principle at the federal level, per the most recent operational bulletin, which states, “Supports to school boards off-reserve and private schools will be redirected to provincial school boards, or other existing provincial and federally-funded programs.” Students who accessed funding in previous years to support psycho-educational assessment, educational assistants and program support are no longer eligible to receive these supports, and this means a significant loss of support for Elk Island Catholic off-reserve first nation students.”
“Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today. The first petition comes from people in my riding, particularly those connected with Elk Island Catholic Schools, who are raising concern about changes in federal funding around Jordan's principle.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to put something to my hon. friend and get his feedback on it. I think all of us agree in the House that human rights are important. We also agree that ideas about human rights are contestable. They are a matter of public debate, so things the member sees as being the implications of a belief in human rights might be different from what I or other members see as the implications of human rights. The reason our Constitution has section 33 is to affirm that the ultimate arbiter of questions that are contestable in the domain of human rights should be the elected legislature. This is what preserves the essential nature of a parliamentary democracy. Parliament, not courts, has the ultimate say on where we should go in defending human rights. The problem with—”
“Mr. Speaker, the factum that we are discussing today from the federal government is notable in that it explicitly says that it is not about Bill 21 but rather about section 33. The government chose to intervene solely on the issue of its arguments with respect to section 33. I wonder if the member could explain why the federal government made that choice.”
“It seems unsurprising that policies that put jobs and homes out of reach are forcing delayed family formation and leading to fewer kids. One of the many consequences of lower fertility rates is greater loneliness for seniors who do not have the same human contact with the shrinking next generation. A shifting population age distribution also makes social programs for the elderly harder to sustain. All of us need to work together to rebuild an economy where it is easier for people to have kids.”
“Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, an Angus Reid survey for Cardus asked families about the number of children they wanted. The Canadian women surveyed wanted, on average, 2.2 children, coincidentally right around the replacement level. After that survey, the actual fertility rate in Canada hit an all-time low of 1.26 children, which means there is a gap between the desire and the outcome of almost one child per woman. For the first 15 years of this century, fertility rates in Canada held steady between about 1.5 and 1.6 births per woman but have dropped precipitously since 2015. The Angus Reid data confirms that people did not just become less interested in children after 2015. Financial concerns played a major role in their decision to have fewer children than desired.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Trudeau Liberals, who were very much the same as these Liberals, passed Bill C-48 , which was explicitly designed to block pipelines from going to northern B.C. Would the member have supported Bill C-48 had he been in the House at that time?”
“Is this not just more of the same Liberal approach to energy, which is to feign interest but pile on things, such as a production cap, that make it nearly impossible to move forward?”
“Mr. Speaker, the approach of the Prime Minister on energy issues is much the same as the approach of Justin Trudeau, which was to feign interest in energy development and, at the same time, pile on barriers to make it effectively very difficult, if not impossible, for projects to move forward. The member asked what our plan would be. When Conservatives were in government, we had major pipelines move forward, and we had a fifth, the northern gateway project, approved. The government passed Bill C-48 , which was designed to kill that project. It piled additional regulations never seen before on any project on the energy east pipeline, which were designed to prevent that project from going forward. Then it acted surprised when the private sector pulled back in response to the additional burden it imposed.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister is so busy congratulating herself for I do not know what that she has not actually listened to the numbers we heard from Statistics Canada today. The situation is truly dire when it comes to unemployment: a 12% increase for women aged 25 to 54 in one month alone and a 23% increase year over year. Unemployment has been going up steadily for three years. Youth unemployment is at recession levels. We have the worst youth employment numbers in over 25 years. This is not the time for self-congratulation. This is the time to change the policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was truly a striking answer from the minister. My colleague pointed out that EI claims have gone up by 12% among women in that age group in just one month, and the minister's response was, "At least we have jobs. At least the Liberals are still here." They should think less about themselves and their own jobs, and more about women and people of all ages who have been negatively affected by their policies. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said the labour market sucks and wages are not going up. The Liberals are presiding over an employment disaster. When will they reverse course?”
“During his time as a temporary foreign worker in the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister was famously called the “unreliable boyfriend”. Six months into this relationship, Canadians are starting to see why. Canada, it turns out that “he is just not that into you”.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister promised change. Like Liberals before him, he is breaking his promises. He promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7. He has actually delivered the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. He promised to “build, baby, build”, but he continues to support Bill C-69 , the block, baby, block act. He promised to double the pace of construction, but homebuilding is actually declining. He promised jobs and opportunity and then delivered an unemployment crisis. He promised less spending, but he is spending more. He promised elbows up and then he put his elbows down. The Prime Minister said the things he thought Canadians wanted to hear during the election, and then he did the opposite.”
“Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary presented government subsidy through the Canada summer jobs program as the solution to this youth unemployment crisis, but let us talk about some numbers. Canada has over two million post-secondary students. The jobs numbers from Statistics Canada show that about one in five returning students was unemployed this summer, so we are talking about probably more than 400,000 students. The government's response is to say that it proposes to subsidize 6,000 new positions. Many of those positions are actually for eight weeks, so we are talking about a problem, for returning students alone, of over 400,000 positions, and its response is a public subsidy for 6,000 positions. I think these numbers underline that we cannot subsidize our way out of a bad economy.”
“We have seen immigration failures, and that is why Conservatives have proposed essential reforms, so that young people can get back to work. We see policy failures contributing to the cost of living crisis, as well as poor alignment with respect to training policy. Many different policy failures have led to the situation. We need to see a plan from the government, a plan that involves reversing some of these failures. Where is the plan?”
“The fact that people are struggling because of the cost of living crisis is contributing to more pressure on the labour market, so we have these interconnected, compounding problems. This really is the outworking of a number of different policy failures. For 10 years we have had a Liberal government that has not been able to support the moving forward of major infrastructure projects that our economy needs. It has put in place Bill C-48 , Bill C-69 , a production cap and an industrial carbon tax; these policies are blocking development that would help young people get to work. We have seen increasing red tape and other barriers put in front of small businesses that make it harder for them to do business in Canada and to create jobs for young people.”
“When companies are pessimistic about the future, their first step is not to let go of senior staff but to not give as many opportunities to those who are just entering the workforce. I think that is a reality, so the youth unemployment rate is a concern in its own right and also for what it indicates about the health of the economy. We see also how the cost of living crisis is contributing to the unemployment situation. The latest report from Statistics Canada outlines how more people are working multiple jobs because they need the extra money to get by. More people are asking for additional hours from their employer, again because they need the income to pay for basic expenses.”
“We have to go back to before the year 2000, which I think is three Liberal prime ministers ago, to find a situation where the youth employment rate was lower than it is now outside of the acute phase of the COVID pandemic. We are clearly in a situation where, for young people, we are already at recession levels of employment. This is a concern for many reasons. It is a concern because of the pain that young people are experiencing. The combination of housing being so difficult to access, out of reach for most, and a situation where employment is increasingly out of reach is leading to a lot of frustration and even despondency in the next generation. Adding to that, youth unemployment, I think, is an indicator of broader problems in the economy.”
“Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate having the opportunity this evening to speak about the metastasizing unemployment crisis that is facing this country. We have seen over the course of the summer that new reports demonstrate a continuously worsening situation, although I think it is important to say as well that this is the continuation of a three-year trend. It is not as if things were rosy and then all of a sudden unemployment got bad; this is the continuation of a running trend of worsening employment numbers. The unemployment rate overall is at 7.1%. Things are getting worse for people of all ages. I want to be clear that it is not only young people who are facing this challenge, but it is particularly acute for them. The employment rate for young people in Canada is now at a more-than-25-year low.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague is the shadow minister for our party on this issue and is doing excellent work advocating for public safety. There are some weird things, unrelated to the objective, woven into the bill, but also many of the things we have been asking for that are needed are missing. The government should take its cue from what we have put forward, like bail reform legislation and other proposals that would actually confront the problems in an effective way.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I think it is important to discuss the issues plaguing the asylum seeker system. We need to recognize that the overall immigration system been broken by the Liberals. Asylum seekers now have to wait a long time for their applications to be assessed. The solution is to implement an efficient system where asylum claims are assessed very quickly and fairly. It would be good for both Canada and asylum seekers to have clarity on each case and to put an end to the wait for a decision.”
“Madam Speaker, I am happy to repeat what I just said. We have concerns about the provisions in the bill around use of cash and the limiting of that. We have concerns about the restrictions on civil liberties. We have actually been asking for changes to sentencing, to parole and to bail. Those changes are not in the bill. The changes we have said are critically needed when it comes to criminal justice are not in the bill. The Liberals have instead put forward a bill that has some supportable provisions but that weaves in some areas, some concepts, that are clearly of concern. I am sorry if it was necessary to repeat that, but hopefully it is clear to the member now the provisions we are talking about that are issues, like use of cash, as well as restrictions on civil liberties.”
“However, a government that has done so badly in these areas is asking for more powers in the area of opening mail without oversight and compelling the transfer of private information, and also in the area of warrantless searches. These and the issues around cash that I raised address other concerns about what the government is really driving at with the bill. What we really need to see is fundamental reforms to our criminal justice system that get us back to a time when crime was going down. Crime was going down before the Liberals took office; it has gone up since they took office. We need to ask why that has happened, and we need a reversal of approach.”
“More fundamentally, the Liberals are obstructing and stepping on their own agenda by weaving into the bill provisions that make a lot of Canadians wonder why they are there. There are some additional concerns the bill raises around civil liberties. The Liberals have woven in provisions that involve, for instance, the abilities to open mail without oversight and to compel Internet companies to hand over private information. There are additional provisions around warrantless searches. The Liberal government does not have a great track record when it comes to protecting Canadians' data. It does not have a great track record when it comes to understanding and respecting the privacy, the rights or the civil liberties of Canadians.”
“Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, I even went to the Red River Ex a few times and had a lot of fun there. The point is, if someone is running a small business, say a carnival game, they are going to have a lot of people paying individually in cash, and that is going to add up to a lot of cash by the end of the day. With the government putting constraints around the use of cash, we can note the impact it may have on small businesses, on different kinds of retail businesses, the challenges it may create and its impact on seniors, on rural communities and these sorts of things. Therefore we have concerns about the changes the government would be making with regard to the use of cash.”
“A lot of us probably use cash a lot less than our grandparents did, because of changes in technology, but on the other hand, cash use does remain a legitimate and vital part of our economy. I think it is something that tends to be relied on more by seniors and by people in rural areas. There are situations where the use of cash is more practical. We have talked a bit, in the context of the unemployment problems, about what our first jobs were and about the importance of a first job. One of my first jobs was working at, believe it or not, the travelling fair. I worked at the Calgary Stampede and the Edmonton Fair. Sukhman Gill: You were a roadie. Garnett Genuis: I was not a roadie; I was a carny. I think that is the technical term, to correct the member for Abbotsford—South Langley . Kevin Lamoureux: That explains a lot.”
“There is a bill before us today, Bill C-2 , that purports to be about these kinds of issues. Unfortunately, the Liberals are sort of stepping on their own agenda in lots of ways, because they are weaving in, into some provisions that are supportable, some provisions that we are concerned about and I think that many Canadians are concerned about as well. The Liberals do this a lot; they want to have a nice-sounding announcement about a bill, but they do not actually do the things they say they are going to do, and they weave in other aspects of a different agenda. Let me highlight some of the things that are in the bill that I think make a lot of Canadians wonder, “Why is that there, and what is the government trying to do with this here?” The bill includes a provision that would limit the use of cash.”
“A new government, a Liberal government, came in in 2015. We are now in the fourth term of that government. It had a different approach with respect to criminal justice. Violent crime rates were going down, and then violent crime rates started going up. Crime rates started going up in particular in response to policy changes that the government made around bail, sentencing and, I think, some changes in the way it approached the issue of crime more broadly. (1030) There was a downward trend and then an upward trend. What we need to see is the reversal of those bad Liberal policies and the return to an approach that we took when crime was actually going down. I know we have put forward various constructive announcements and proposals around reversing the Liberal crime trajectory.”
“It is hard to blame events outside the country for the fact that we are building fewer homes in Canada than we did in the past. It is hard to blame events outside the country for the fact that unemployment has actually been steadily going up for the last three years. We are reaching catastrophic levels, especially for youth unemployment, but this is a trend that has been escalating ever since we came out of the COVID period. It is hard for the government, even on economic issues, to perpetuate the continuing charade of blaming external events, but in particular as it relates to crime. I would encourage people to look at the data, in particular for violent crime. We can see, if plotting on a graph the years and rates of violent crime in this country, that violent crime was going down, and then something happened in 2015.”
“There is the immigration crisis, the failure of the government to align our immigration system with the economic interests of this country. This has led to all kinds of problems. I think there is a lot of concern from Canadians on that issue as well. Fourth, speaking to the particulars of the bill before us, there are particulars I do not think are addressed fully by the bill, and it incorporates some other problems and distractions. However, the fourth issue we are tackling in the current Parliament in particular is the crime crisis. On the crime issue, it is more difficult for the Liberals to muddy the waters by blaming other factors. When it comes to economic issues, they often say that there are all these other things going on around the world that are causing them. In many cases, we can demonstrate how that is not true in fact.”
“In particular, the four priorities we articulated were addressing, first, the Liberal job loss crisis, the catastrophic levels of unemployment, particularly affecting young people, which result from Liberal policy failures. Confronting that will be a critical priority for us in the current Parliament. Second is addressing the cost of living crisis. There are so many Canadians who are struggling to afford homes and to afford basic essentials. The Prime Minister has said that he would be judged by the price of groceries, yet we continue to see escalation in costs at the grocery store, for those people buying homes, in transportation and in so many other areas. There is the job loss crisis and the cost of living crisis.”
“We are calling for action on the critical challenges that are confronting Canadians, which is why before Parliament even came back, our leader sent a letter to the Prime Minister , articulating four critical priorities for the current Parliament, things that we need to tackle. These are crises that were in many ways caused by policies of the Liberal government and that we hope to see change and reversal on. We will certainly be doing everything we can to push for results in these areas. We will oppose the things that are wrong about the government's agenda. We will support legislation and policy change that reverse the failures of the last 10 years that have brought us to this point.”
“Madam Speaker, I know members were disappointed that I had to wrap up during the previous rubric, so they can hear another 10 minutes. It is great to be back in the new Parliament. Parliament has not been the most active this year. We had prorogation then an election, and the government briefly came back for a spring session. Our position as Conservatives was that we should be prepared to work at least at the committee level over the summer, but Liberals loved not working and wanted to further extend that through the summer. Hopefully we will actually be able to get down to the nation's business in an effective way in the current Parliament. Conservatives are eager to get to work.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in this petition, but I will wrap up in the time that is available. The petitioners note that we need a rule where one dollar of savings is found for every new dollar of government spending. This is how parents, seniors and small businesses balance their budgets, and they would expect the same common sense from their leaders.”
“The petitioners say that it is time to bring home powerful paycheques and that, for this to happen, people need a roof over their heads. Currently, Canada has fewer homes per capita than any other country in the G7. The petitioners say we need to incentivize municipalities to speed up building permits, cut building taxes, free up land for building—”
“Next, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition, and I am not sure who prepared it, in which petitioners say that Canada made us all a promise: that anyone from anywhere could do anything. They say that after 10 years of the Liberal government, the promise of Canada has been broken. There have been a lot of broken promises: to balance the budget, to reduce taxes, to make more affordable housing, etc. The petitioners say that hard-working young, 35-year-old Canadians are now living in their parents' basements. This never happened before. It is the response to a situation where housing costs have doubled. Petitioners note, further, that gun violence is up 120%, and that the government has gone after hunters instead of criminals and gun smugglers.”
“The petitioners call on the House to protect all Canadians whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable by prohibiting medical assistance in dying for those whose prognosis for natural death is more than six months away.”
“Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling deals with the issue of euthanasia or medical assistance in dying. Petitioners are concerned, in particular, about what has come to be known as track 2 euthanasia and how this has led to significant problems for Canadians living with disabilities. In fact, these expansions have been vocally opposed by every single major organization representing Canadians with disabilities. The petitioners note that allowing medical assistance in dying for those with disabilities or chronic illnesses who are not dying devalues their lives, tacitly endorsing the notion that life with disability is optional and, by extension, disposable. They warn about the risks of having an ableist health care system, where the lives of those with disabilities are not seen as worth living.”
“The petitioners, therefore, want to see reasonable age verification requirements that protect privacy so that young children are no longer able to access sexual material online. That is why they are calling on the House to support what is, in this Parliament, Bill S-209 , which was Bill S-210 in the previous Parliament.”
“Next, I would like to table a petition in support of Bill S-210 . The petitioners say that was the number of the bill in the last Parliament, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act. It is now Bill S-209 in this Parliament. The petitioners note that sexually explicit material, including demeaning and violent material, can be easily accessed on the Internet by young persons. A significant portion of that material is made available on the Internet for commercial purposes and is not protected by age verification. Parliament recognizes the harmful effects of the increasing accessibility of sexually explicit materials online for young persons. Further, the petitioners note that online age verification technology is increasingly sophisticated and can now effectively ascertain the age of users without any breach of privacy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to propose a petition brought to me by constituents that deals with Senate reform. Petitioners are concerned about unequal representation in the Senate. In particular, they are concerned about the fact that there are some provinces in this country with lower populations that have more representation in the Senate relative to provinces such as mine, which have a much lower number of senators than their population would suggest they should. This is obviously an artifact of a certain history, but we should move forward and affirm a concept of Canada where regions are treated equally and not facing discrimination on the basis of historical circumstances. Petitioners in this case are proposing the establishment of equal representation for each province in the Senate.”