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 5 of 18.
“This policy is going to exacerbate existing shortages in these critical areas, because it sends a message to young people that the government is going to support them more if they go through the one door than if they go through the other door. In fact what we should be doing is trying to magnify the signals of the labour market to young people. We should be offering, as Conservatives proposed, more generous student grants to students who are pursuing studies in in-demand fields. (1750) Instead, the Liberals are discriminating based on the institutions that students apply for. Just today, the government announced some further details of this planned policy. It announced some exceptions for certain kinds of vocations that people might study for at private institutions. The exemptions are better than nothing.”
“It says that students at private for-profit institutions, which includes vocational schools where many trades workers learn their trade, would no longer be eligible for grants under the federal student loan program. This means that if someone studies any program at a university, no matter how labour-market relevant it is or is not, they can get those grants. However, if they study at a vocational institution to learn a trade, regardless of how urgently our economy needs those workers, they cannot get those grants. University students get the grants. If students are studying in the trades or for other critical skills at vocational institutions, they do not get the grants. This was the policy of the Prime Minister in the last federal budget, effectively singling out these occupations, including trades workers, to be denied student grants.”
“The former prime minister never spoke about the gendered impacts of people in suits' showing up. Instead he was purveying negative stereotypes about hard-working men and women who travel from home to build the projects this country needs. He talked about how we should not be known for our resources but should instead be known for our resourcefulness. This was constant negative discourse from the former prime minister about hard-working trades workers. Maybe we could have hoped that the negative discourse would change with the new Prime Minister , but things have gotten even worse under him. In particular, in the last budget, a policy was announced that effectively singles out people in certain vocations, including trades workers, to no longer be able to access student grants. Page 217 of the last federal budget explains the dynamic.”
“Instead of fixing the problems, the government got one of its members to propose a bill that calls for the development of a framework that is kind of directed toward pushing the government to solve problems that, at the end of the day, the government should solve itself. I appreciate the identification of the problems, finally, but what we would really like is for the government to change policies in order to reverse bad decisions it has made that are bad for trades workers. If we look at the history of the government, we see that there are repeated instances of criticism and disdain for our hard-working trades workers. Most notable was when the former prime minister said that major projects in this country require a gender analysis because male construction workers' coming to towns to build things might have gendered impacts.”
“However, I think it is important to observe that the government did not need a private member's bill compelling it to introduce a framework in order to solve these problems. The government could simply have acted to solve these problems that are, in many respects, of their own making. The government also could have proposed the framework without having one of its members propose a bill to require it to present a framework. Fixing these problems is within the power of the government, and the problems are ones that have emerged from the actions and failures of a Liberal government that has been in many respects negative and disdainful about the people who build this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, the bill that the Liberal member has brought to us is an interesting one, because in many respects it feels like an admission of failure on the part of the government. The Liberals have been in power for more than 10 years. They have repeatedly ignored the needs of trades workers and treated trades workers, as well as the work they do, with utter disdain, and now a member of the Liberal government is saying that maybe it should have a framework to try to fix some of the problems confronting trades workers, including problems around labour mobility. I will give the member credit insofar as his speech identified very real problems that are making things more difficult for trades workers trying to get certification, trying to move, trying to find jobs, etc.”
“I want to ask the member why he joined the rest of the Liberals in opposing our effort to get grants back to people in the trades.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish we saw more respect for trades workers from the government. Sadly, in the last budget, the government chose to cut trades workers off from access to student grants. It is on page 217 of the budget that people who go to private institutions, which generally includes trades workers, as trades programs are not offered at universities, are cut off from student grants as a result of a decision made by the government. The Conservatives put forward a motion earlier this week, on Tuesday, asking the government to reconsider this policy, and the member who put forward the bill that is before us and who just spoke about respecting trades workers, voted against our motion that sought to give these grants back to students.”
“We have co-operated to get things done, in this Parliament and in committee. The government does not want to have to co-operate. The Liberals do not want to have to listen to other parties and to Canadians who voted for those parties. They want to be able to rule absolutely, without consultation and in defiance of the democratic will of Canadians, which is why they are putting forward the motion today to give themselves a supermajority on committees that Canadian voters did not give them. It is wrong and it undermines the work these committees do. Up until now, committees have been working to request information and documents from the government. Multiple committees are now in the midst of Liberal filibusters. The human resources committee, the ethics committee and the health committee are all in the middle of Liberal filibusters.”
“She said the Minister of Housing did not return her phone calls beforehand, and that he called her back the next day once she crossed the floor. This is not about world view. This is not about shifting ideas. This is about a naked, undisguised, backroom power grab that is now being used to subvert our democracy. Liberals are using the bare majority that they have taken in violation of the will of Canadians and they are now using it to try to get a supermajority on committees. They are proposing a supermajority of additional members, seven members in total, which would allow them to do anything they want at committee. They have claimed that this is about co-operation. No, this is about subverting democracy. In a minority, parties have to work together. They have to co-operate to get things done.”
“We have had floor crossing in the country before, individual instances where individuals came to different conclusions based on shifting events or, maybe, changes in their own thinking. That is not what we are talking about in this case, very clearly. What we are seeing in the country is an effort by the government to gain an undemocratic majority government they were not given by Canadians, by recruiting any and every individual, regardless of convictions and regardless of ideology, through backroom deals. In recent weeks they have recruited someone who endorsed Avi Lewis and someone who endorsed the convoy. This clearly has nothing to do with shifting ideas or world views. This is about a naked power grab. In fact, the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong was explicit about this.”
“Mr. Speaker, it grieves me to observe that we are seeing an unprecedented attack on democracy in the country by the Liberal government. Canadians in the last election chose to elect a Liberal minority government, which means that, yes, the Liberals continue in power. At the same time, power is dispersed. Opposition parties have a role in holding the government accountable and in being able to drive outcomes in terms of committees and in terms of legislation. We have clearly played that role responsibly, expediting legislation in certain cases, strongly opposing legislation in others. The Liberals have been pursuing this violation of our democracy, of our democratic institutions, by trying to take a majority that Canadians did not give them. Let me clear on the issue of floor crossing.”
“If the government takes an undemocratic supermajority on committees, that means that collaboration is much less likely to happen, because the power would be centralized in the government and there would be no pressure on it to collaborate. There is more collaboration in the present than there would be if the motion were to go forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of collaboration. “Collaboration” is a word we have heard bandied back and forth. It seems to me a basic truth that the way power works is that when power is dispersed, co-operation and collaboration become necessary, because if power is dispersed, people have to work together in order to achieve some result. The committee I am on, the human resources committee, has adopted eight reports in the last year. It has been an extremely productive committee. I know there are many other committees that have undertaken important studies and gotten a lot of work done, and have done so through collaboration that is forced by parliamentary committees that reflect the reality that Canadians voted for, which is dispersed power through a minority government.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really outdoing himself today by making the claim that giving government members all of the power on committees will somehow lead to more co-operation. The nature of a committee structure in which no single party holds a majority is that parties have to negotiate, work out their differences and figure out how to collaborate in order to get things moving forward. The new reality that the Liberals are trying to impose is one in which the government does not have to co-operate with anyone but can instead impose its will through an undemocratic majority, in fact an undemocratic supermajority, on committees that they were not given. In what world is it even plausible to argue that taking away the need to negotiate and putting all the power in the hands of one party is somehow going to lead to more collaboration?”
“This is not the approach that Canadians expect, especially from government employees who are not even involved in the provision of these things. With this in mind, petitioners ask that the government support Bill C-260 , the care not coercion act, and support additional actions to combat the growing problem of MAID coercion. I understand that the bill is scheduled to have its first hour of debate next Wednesday, April 29.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table a petition in support of Bill C-260 , the care not coercion act. Petitioners highlight many reports of veterans, as well as people with disabilities, seniors and others, who have been seeking unrelated health services or other kinds of services from the government and have, instead of being offered the assistance they are looking for, had those officials, out of the blue, suggest or promote to them that they seek facilitated death instead. The CEO of Inclusion Canada, Krista Carr, has recently testified that she hears weekly complaints, from people with disabilities in particular, highlighting these situations where somebody who is seeking unrelated public services is having death promoted to them as a way out instead.”
“I commend my colleagues, particularly on the veterans affairs committee, who have been studying the issue of veteran suicide, and who have been looking at these instances of pressure and coercion around facilitated death and other things. This is the work being done by committee. Again, I suggest members who want the committee to conduct other studies or work on other issues to go to those committees, talk to the members of those committees, and put forward ideas there for studies, as they are entitled to do.”
“I think there are many ways we can and must do better for our veterans in this country. One clear step we can take is to address the retraumatization, the pain and the frustration that is often associated with this need to continually contact and be in touch with bureaucrats in cases where those interactions have been very negative for the individuals. We can try to put parameters around what is and what is not appropriate in those conversations in order to protect veterans. Bill C-260 , the care not coercion act, is concrete legislation that the Conservatives are putting forward. It builds off work that has been done at committee.”
“It would not apply in cases where a person is asking for information about facilitated death. It would not apply in the case of a conversation with a doctor or a nurse. If Bill C-260 passes, it would mean that if someone is contacting government bureaucrats and asking about public services, they will no longer be told, if the government cannot get someone a stair lift within the time they want it, to consider a facilitated death instead. It is ghoulish and bizarre that this has happened in this country, but it has happened. It has happened many times to many different veterans in different provinces across the country, demonstrating pretty clearly that it was not just a one-off. This is something that has involved multiple caseworkers on the part of the government.”
“People are not receiving the services that they are entitled to and are instead talking to bureaucrats with no direct involvement in medical services or facilitated death. They are being told if they are frustrated by all these things or if they are having such difficulty, why do they not pursue a facilitated death instead? That is wrong. I think in the past, the government has acknowledged that this is wrong when it has been unable to deny that it has happened, but we need to go further and actually ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again. That is why I put forward Bill C-260 , the care not coercion act. Bill C-260 would ensure that a person in this country would not receive a recommendation or pressure for a facilitated death from a bureaucrat when they are seeking unrelated public services.”
“The reality of the life of a veteran often involves a constant need to interface repeatedly with Veterans Affairs Canada to explain things that have been explained before and to advocate for things that a person should be entitled to. This constant need to be in an annoying and, at certain points, painful dialogue with Veterans Affairs Canada to seek the basic things they are entitled to is, unfortunately, a part of the life of many veterans. We should work to do better and to push for a reality in which veterans do not have to be frustrated by or even fear these contacts with bureaucrats. Instead, they should simply, as a matter of course, receive the services that they have been promised and to which they are entitled.”
“What veterans are deeply concerned about is how, in a growing number of cases, represented by multiple caseworkers from multiple provinces, an untold number of veterans are reporting that they have called Veterans Affairs Canada asking for help, asking for assistance with a stair lift, asking for mental health supports or asking for other kinds of supports, and instead of receiving the supports they have asked for, bureaucrats from Veterans Affairs Canada have proposed to them that they pursue facilitated death instead. This is wrong. It is a violation of a sacred trust. It unfortunately really drives people away from seeking the help that they are entitled to.”
“I want to use the balance of my time to talk a bit about some of the work that, as I know, has already happened at various committees dealing with veterans issues and to highlight some of the work being done by the opposition on veterans issues. I have had the pleasure of working with our veterans shadow minister , drawing attention to the critical issue of how veterans have been treated by Veterans Affairs Canada, particularly in the context of seeking access to other services but having facilitated death, MAID, proposed to them. It is based on these conversations and evidence gathered at the veterans affairs committee that I have put forward Bill C-260 , the care not coercion act, which using a private members' bill slot to put forward specific legislation that tries to change law in a way that a motion at committee cannot.”
“The House can do other things, such as create special committees or provide committees with priority access to the resources of the House. There are certain powers that the House uniquely has and can exercise, but nothing in the motion before us proposes the unique use of powers that are only those of the House. This motion would direct a committee to do something that a committee could choose to do itself. Further, a member could use the time to propose legislation on this matter, which the member has chosen not to do. I know that the committee is already doing important work in a number of different areas.”
“The House does not need to instruct a committee to do a study. At times it chooses to do so, but the simplest way to achieve that objective is to simply go to the committee and move a motion for that study. That frees up the private member's bill slot to put forward an additional initiative. The only reason to use a private member's bill slot in the House to do an instruction to committee is that a member cannot think of anything else to do with their private member's bill slot. That seems like a missed opportunity, when, again, they could simply go to the committee to move the study motion. Moreover, I think the committee itself is often in the best position to prioritize the various options in terms of a study. There are certainly important studies that the House may wish to bring to a committee's attention.”
“They cannot say they want to deliver more services for veterans while simultaneously shrinking the budget. Conservatives believe the government must stop wasting time, use empty buildings and help veterans now. (1815) [ English ] We are debating a Liberal motion with respect to veterans. I think my colleague from Edmonton West ably made many of the arguments I was planning to make with respect to the general absurdity of Liberal government MPs' using rare private members' bill slots to put forward motions asking committees to do studies. Briefly, to summarize those arguments, if a member believes that a committee should study an issue, the member can simply go to the committee, make the appropriate arrangements with their colleagues at the committee and move the motion at the committee to do the study.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives want to help veterans with concrete measures, not with another study. The government has known for years that lots of federal buildings are empty. A 2017 report indicated that nearly half of all federal office space was underutilized, but the government has still not taken action. The Office of the Auditor General confirmed that more than $1 billion was allocated to reducing office space with very little progress to show for it. Meanwhile, those empty buildings are still costing taxpayers dearly. Moreover, the basis for this motion is flawed. The Auditor General said that the Canadian Armed Forces fell short of its recruitment target by about 5,000 soldiers and that the recruitment system is too slow and poorly organized. The government also announced more than $4 billion in cuts to Veterans Affairs Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling draws the attention of the House to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, which is a movement that seeks to simply follow principles of truthfulness, compassion and forbearance. In particular, the petitioners draw the attention of the House to recent incidents, including bomb and shooting threats targeting Shen Yun , a classical Chinese dance and music performance presented globally by the Falun Gong community. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to publicly seek the end of the persecution of Falun Gong, impose sanctions against the regime related to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners and undertake stronger measures to protect victims here in Canada.”
“Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to engage Eritrean political and human rights activists and pro-democracy groups, take a leadership role against the joint actions of this dictator and Vladimir Putin against western countries and countries in Africa, investigate foreign interference of the regime in Canada, and enforce Canada's asylum laws against those who explicitly provide material and political support to this regime. They want to see Parliament and the government advocate for the release of Swedish Eritrean journalist Dawit Isaak and 11 imprisoned Eritrean parliamentarians, and strengthen sanctions against human rights abusers in Eritrea.”
“They highlight how those who have managed to flee the country still face intimidation and extortion from representatives and agents of the Eritrean regime in the diaspora, and that families in Eritrea are also harassed and forced to pay tens of thousands of local currencies because their children have fled. They are also concerned about various forms of foreign interference that are driven by the regime in Eritrea, various other human rights abuses, and the malicious conspiracy between Eritrea's dictator and Vladimir Putin that threatens the security of other peoples in Africa and around the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from members of the Eritrean community who have been following efforts by this government to strengthen and deepen diplomatic relationships with Eritrea. The petitioners want to bring the attention of the House to human rights concerns with respect to Eritrea. It has been ruled by an authoritarian, brutal dictator under an authoritarian system for the last 30 years, with no constitution, no election, no parliament, no freedom of the press and no freedom of movement and association. They note that Eritreans continue to flee indefinite military conscription, religious persecution and political repression.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions I would like to present to the House today. The first petition is from citizens who are deeply concerned about the Liberal attack on religious freedom contained in Bill C-9 . They are concerned that Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. They observe that the state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of faith communities, and that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. The petitioners call on the government to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreaches in matters of faith.”
“That is precisely why the Liberal approach is going to undermine the kind of major project construction that they talk about. We need to have the workers and we want those workers to be Canadian workers.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague made excellent points while sharing his own experience. It seems to me, given that we need skilled workers to work on critical nation-building projects, the options are that we train the people who already live in those communities, we train other Canadians and encourage them to move to those communities, or we have workers come here from abroad. I think our priority should be on training Canadians to fill the jobs that exist here in Canada, and particularly in supporting those who live in areas where those jobs already are. The Liberal approach is to cut off training offered through vocational institutions that are more nimble and innovative, where people may be placed in communities closer to where the work is done.”
“As we hear from the absurd interventions of Liberals today, there is no awareness of this and no willingness to defend it or look squarely upon the policy that they put in their own budget. I wonder if the member can make sense of what Liberals are doing today and whether they are planning on voting for this motion.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is evident in this discussion, in listening to the questions Liberals are asking and the comments they are making, that they really have no idea about their own policy and no will to justify it. We had the Minister of Jobs and Families before the human resources committee, and I asked her multiple times to affirm whether this was still the policy of the government after it was not mentioned in the budget implementation act. After about three minutes of this, I asked the deputy minister, who confirmed that this was still the policy. Liberals are attacking people in the trades and people trying to get skills that are acquired outside of a university setting.”
“This now member of the government says this is “systemic discrimination”. I wonder if the member who just spoke would agree with that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to an article from a few months back in NewmarketToday, entitled “Traditional Chinese medicine students raise alarm over federal budget cuts to grants”. This highlights the particular impacts on Chinese medicine. Various leaders in the Chinese medicine community have spoken out about how this Liberal policy really attacks the Chinese community and attacks others who benefit from traditional Chinese medicine. There are many people not of Chinese origin who benefit from this medicine as well. In this article, the member for Markham—Unionville speaks very strongly against the government's policy. In fact, the article highlights a town hall event that the member for Markham—Unionville, I and others did together. He uses the language of “systemic discrimination”.”
“That seems discriminatory, and it seems like a policy aimed at steering or directing students away from those vitally necessary vocational skills, with this mentality that everyone should go to university, without understanding the value of these vocational programs as well. I wonder if the member can reflect on how rare it is to have a unanimous report of a committee asking for this reversal and on why the government still has not explained its position.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not have a chance to respond directly after the Liberals spoke on this. I am quite struck by the fact that the Liberals have yet to articulate a position or provide an explanation for their own policy. We are debating this today because we had a unanimous recommendation from a committee to overturn a policy that was part of the government's budget. That policy was to discriminate against students who are studying at certain kinds of institutions, and in particular to say that if they are at a university, they get the full grant, but if they are at a vocational institution, getting labour market-relevant skills, they do not get any grant.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am always very patient with this member. However, in 13 minutes, he has had nothing to say about the motion we are discussing. He is not on topic. Could you bring him to order?”
“Mr. Speaker, when I speak to young people, I always encourage them to look at the labour market and to look at where that overlapping space is between the thing they are interested in and the needs of the labour market. In the case of these vocational institutions, in many cases, there is a very tight alignment with the needs of the labour market. That is why this debate is so important.”
“Their job is to focus primarily on what their own government is doing in terms of this discrimination, rather than trying to use their federal position to focus on a government at a different level.”
“Mr. Speaker, the real issue we are zeroing in on here is the discrimination. If we say there are grants available at these kinds of institutions but not at these other kinds of institutions, what message does that send to a young person who wants to work in the trades or in certain medical professions where the training is provided at private institutions? If we say they are going to get a grant if they go here but not if they go there, that sends a message about how the government perceives the value and dignity of those professions. I will note that I have seen a number of Liberals make statements denouncing the Government of Ontario for cuts to student loans and grants. I do not live in Ontario, so I am not following that issue. I would encourage the Liberals to hold their own government to account.”
“Is he going to vote with the Liberals on the human resources committee; is he going to stand with the member for Markham—Unionville , who called the current Liberal policy discriminatory; or are the Liberals going to reverse themselves and vote to defend their discriminatory budget policy? We will see how they vote after question period.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government fired the last Parliamentary Budget Officer. It was a Conservative government that created the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in the first place. Further, this motion of mine was put on notice long before the Liberals' motion was put on notice. Procedurally, the motions that are put on notice earlier are the ones that take precedence. The government had very advanced notice of this motion, and the fact that my motion was the one the Speaker called reflects that procedural reality. I look forward to the debate and to how the member is going to vote.”
“Different kinds of institutions offer different kinds of programs, and we should not be discriminating against some students compared to others, especially when they are pursuing skills for in-demand jobs.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has been advocating on behalf of institutions in her riding, and I suspect we will be hearing a little more about the points she made in the speech coming up. A key thing to realize is that there is no antagonism. There does not need to be any antagonism between different kinds of institutions. For some young people, university is the right path. For some young people, vocational institutions are the right path. There is a range of different ways people can gather qualifications. It depends on the path they are pursuing. What I encourage young people to do is to study the options; start early, thinking about what they want to do; ignore the elite-profession prejudice that we sometimes see; pick the career that is right for them; and start gaining those practical skills early.”
“That would have made sense, rather than the profession prejudice, the discriminatory policies, of the government, to quote the member for Markham—Unionville . The motion provides the government with the opportunity to do the right thing: to vote with us and to vote with their members on the human resources committee to reverse the policy. We are going to have a vote on this today. Liberal members seated here and elsewhere have a chance to do the right thing: to vote with us to call on their government to reverse this policy so we can get back to training Canadian young people for the Canadian jobs that exist and so we can address the gaps that exist.”