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 7 of 18.
“Mr. Speaker, respectfully, it is quite extraordinary to hear the member say, with respect to the Muslim community, “I have talked to some people at the mosques in my riding, and everybody seems fine with it,” which was effectively what he said. We received a letter from over 350 different Muslim organizations in this country, expressing grave concern in line with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, with Protestant organizations and with the Rabbinical Council of Toronto, all raising concern about the removal of the religious defence. I am not sure what the disconnect here is, but we see a lot of misrepresentation of stakeholder perspectives from the government's perspective. Why are the Liberals removing the religious defence? Why do they choose to do that?”
“Mr. Speaker, in every community, there are people who are practising the faith to a greater or lesser extent, sometimes not at all. Obviously, that is the case with the Jewish community, as well as other communities. The member has noted that the rabbinical council of Toronto, which represents the Orthodox community, has expressed profound alarm about the removal of the religious defence. We all want to see action on anti-Semitism, but why are they mixing that element in with this bill, creating division?”
“Bill C-260, the care not coercion act, is a critical step toward protecting the rights of people to access public services without hearing a bureaucrat suggest that they die instead. Anyone interested can find out more about it and read the stories of where this has happened at carenotcoercion.ca.”
“Mr. Speaker, imagine someone is in a situation where they rely on public services, public services that they are entitled to, yet regularly, when they try to access those services, instead of receiving the help they need, someone suggests that they die. For veterans calling Veterans Affairs Canada, people with disabilities seeking information about benefits, seniors and people living in poverty, accessing public services is now a minefield of bureaucrats suggesting that death might be a better option. These suggestions are traumatizing, and these suggestions are coercive. We must not accept this as normal. It is not normal. That is why I put forward Bill C-260 , the care not coercion act. This bill would prevent bureaucrats from proposing facilitated death to those who are not seeking it.”
“What the Quebec prosecution service said in that case was that, in its view, there was a lack of clarity around the identifiable group, which is why it did not lay a charge, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the religious defence, as the religious defence does not apply to incitement. Why is there so much ignorance from the other parties on the basic provision of the bill when it has not been properly studied at committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the proposal to remove the religious defence was not studied at all at committee. Witnesses made passing reference to it, but that amendment was not proposed until after witness testimony was done. Unfortunately, the lack of study is demonstrated by the complete disinterest of Liberals, in particular, to engage with the substance of the bill and some of the misunderstandings about the legislation. For example, the religious defence applies to hate speech, not to incitement to violence. The Bloc claim that the religious defence had something to do with an issue of incitement to violence not being charged in Quebec is completely legally incorrect because the religious defence does not apply to incitement to violence.”
“Why did she choose not to address these serious, substantive problems with the bill and to instead resort to personal attacks?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have known that member for a long time and, frankly, she is normally a lot better than that. Maybe this illustrates the pitfalls of reading a speech written by political staff, because that speech contained a litany of false personal attacks and no engagement with the substance of the bill. Here is the reality. Faith communities across this country have raised significant concerns about this bill, in particular the religious defence. That religious defence issue was a late amendment that was not studied at all at committee. There were no witnesses called to testify on the issue of religious defence. It was a backroom deal cooked up by the Liberals and the Bloc. There is not a single faith community that had these concerns before that has been placated by the fake compromise of the Liberals.”
“Will the minister tell the truth about what he is hearing from stakeholders, namely that not a single faith organization has changed its position in response to this fake consultation?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister has tried to paint this picture of their listening to faith communities and making adjustments, but the objective reality is that not a single faith community or organization has changed in its opposition to the removal of the religious defence over the last four months. He cannot point to a single organization that has changed its position in response to this fake attempt to adjust this. In fact, over 350 different Muslim organizations have signed a letter underlining their continuing opposition to this. Christian leaders continue to be opposed to this. The Orthodox Jewish community continues to be opposed to what the government is doing in this regard.”
“They would like to see Parliament protect freedom of expression and freedom of religion and recognize that these are fundamental rights. They would like the House to put a stop to this government overreach, which would undermine the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, 354 different Muslim organizations have signed a letter underlining their opposition to Bill C-9 . They note that Bill C-9 , as currently drafted, would present serious harms to the civil liberties of Canadian Muslims and Canadians who are raising their voices about human rights. As I table this petition highlighting the opposition of petitioners to Bill C-9 , it is important for the government to understand and not misstate the strong opposition from many different communities. There are serious concerns from the Christian community, the Muslim community, the Orthodox Jewish community and many other faith communities about the removal of the religious defence. The petitioners would like to see the government not move forward with this amendment.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives respectfully submit a dissenting opinion on this report, highlighting the importance of not increasing EI premiums. At this time of high unemployment, especially high youth unemployment, our view is that we need to ensure that payroll taxes, which make it more difficult for businesses to create jobs, do not go up. The government needs to clarify its position as to whether it stands with us in opposing payroll tax increases or whether it plans to further increase the taxes on job creation.”
“Mr. Chair, it is important to correct the record in terms of what my Bloc colleague said. He can review the Hansard for at least my statements, going back to three parliaments ago. I was very clear about wanting to see and expressing hope for an end to the Iranian regime, expressing hope that the various protest movements that we have seen over the years would succeed in toppling the regime, giving the Iranian people a government that is responsive, democratic, free and pluralistic; indeed, giving them the government that they deserve. What has been clear over the years is that these protest movements have been met with escalating brutality. At that point, the only alternatives were intervention or the complete subjugation of the people in a military dictatorship, persistent—”
“Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He has been here for about a year and he has already made a real mark on this institution in so many different ways. I want to ask him about the issue of foreign interference because I know he has a large Iranian community in his riding. I am sure there are concerns about how the regime seeks to project power beyond its borders, even here in Canada, intimidating people who are trying to speak out. What is he hearing from people in his riding about how foreign interference impacts them here in Canada and what needs to be done in response?”
“Mr. Chair, following up on my question, the member spoke about the sense that this is a final battle. I know I have heard similar language being used by the community in my region of Edmonton. There are members across the way who say that they do not like the regime but that we should still advocate for countries to sit on the sidelines and wait for things to unfold. I know that the communities in Canada have been asking for this intervention because they know that success at this juncture is critical. The member spoke, as well, about this being a final battle in the pursuit of freedom. I wonder if she could share why it is so important to not sit on the sidelines but to engage, act and support the people of Iran right now.”
“Mr. Chair, I know my colleague is very close to the Iranian-Canadian community in her riding. She knows that this is a community with thousands of years of history. It is a history of religious tolerance and of good relations with other faith communities, including the Jewish and Christian communities, as well as a history of intellectual inquiry, creativity, art, beauty and so much more. The hope of this present moment is that space and security can be created for the people of Iran to control their own future, drawing from this rich past. We see that incredible potential in the heroic courage of the Iranian people who are ready to give their lives to restore their country. For the member, I want to ask what her hopes are. What is she hearing from her constituents about what they believe is possible for a future free Iran?”
“Madam Chair, to respond to some of the points being made across the way, it seems bizarre to me to say that the lessons of history are that intervention in defence of people who are suffering and are seeking democracy can never succeed. There is Germany and Japan; there are many instances. Frankly, Afghanistan was stabilized and was democratic until an abrupt pullout. To suggest that somehow defence of the innocent can never lead to the advance of democracy is clearly historically wrong. Removing the regime so that the people can choose their own government is a path forward.”
“However, more fundamentally, does the member not think we have a moral obligation to stand with the innocent, and that when we see before our eyes thousands of people being slaughtered simply for peacefully protesting, do we not have at some point a moral obligation to say that the processes at the United Nations are not working, that we will not allow Vladimir Putin to veto action and that the moral, the just and the right thing is to stand with those people who are being slaughtered rather than to look away on the basis of a legal technicality?”
“Madam Chair, I have a follow-up to my previous question. The member's answer, as I understood it, was that we have to respect the existing recognition of sovereignty for an autocratic regime that is slaughtering its people, because apparently the UN charter says we have to. I disagree with that interpretation. There are plenty of legal bases for believing we can and should respond, including the fact that we have been attacked.”
“Mr. Chair, I respectfully disagree with my colleague on the issue of international law. I would put to her three points. First, the right of sovereignty is properly understood to be invested in the Iranian people, not in their oppressors and occupiers, the Iranian people who have taken to the streets, demanded change, been brutally slaughtered and are asking for action to protect them. Second, we have a responsibility to protect people who are being slaughtered by the regime that occupies them, people who have done everything they can but do not have the means to displace this regime without outside intervention. Third, the member would have us go to the UN Security Council where Russia, in the midst of its slaughter of civilians in Ukraine, could veto interventions against its ally and enabler, Iran.”
“Mr. Chair, I have a very simple question, but the parliamentary secretary does not seem to be able to answer it. I will ask the same question a second time. Does she want to see the regime in Iran removed from power, yes or no?”
“Mr. Chair, it has been my experience in this place that when we hear a member of the government say that their position is clear, it signals a case in which their position is not clear. I have a very simple question for the member. I hope she will answer it. I would like to know if she wants to see the regime in Iran removed from power.”
“Mr. Chair, I think one of the things we are trying to do on this side of the House is make sense of what the Liberals are saying and doing about this issue. To give it the most charitable reading, they are still saying two contradictory things. On the one hand, they do not like this regime. They do not like that it is slaughtering its own people. They would like if it were not there. On the other hand, they do not like the intervention. It seems that most of them do not. It is hard to square them saying that they want the regime to go with them not wanting anyone to take action to remove it. It seems to me that the Iranian community here in Canada and around the world has been clear about the fact that, after everything that has been tried by the people, they would like to see external support in their pursuit of change.”
“Mr. Chair, my colleague's excellent speech highlighted the gross inconsistencies in the government's position. On a debate so important, I would think that more members of the government would actually be willing to show up, listen and participate in this conversation. I ask the member to comment on the use of Shahed drones as part of the invasion of Ukraine and the close relationship between the regime in Tehran and the Putin regime. We are seeing a collaboration among belligerents and among dictators, and I know people in the Ukrainian community, as well as those in the Iranian community, want to see an end to this regime and an end to the support that it has been offering Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine.”
“I know that the Leader of the Opposition has engaged directly with flight PS752 families, so I wonder if he can speak to those conversations and what we can do specifically to deliver justice and solace for these Canadian victims of the regime.”
“Mr. Speaker, I come from the Edmonton region, where so many families continue to grieve the losses that came when the IRGC shot down flight PS752. Over 50 Canadian citizens were murdered that day, many with connections to my region. The regime promptly bulldozed the crash site and even harassed the relatives of victims who spoke out. When so many Canadians are murdered, this is an attack on us, on our people, on our nation, on our home. Some members of the House seem to have forgotten these events, forgotten the attacks on our country and our people and the continuing attacks on our country through foreign interference that underline the justification and need for this response.”
“The petition goes further than the bill and calls on the House to protect all Canadians whose death is not reasonably foreseeable by prohibiting medically facilitated death for those whose prognosis for natural death is more than six months.”
“Mr. Speaker, the final petition I will table today deals with medically facilitated death and the impact of the current regime on Canadians with disabilities. The petitioners are concerned with the frequent offers of facilitated death by those in authority, including in cases where people are not seeking information on it. There have been instances where people with disabilities are seeking access to unrelated public services and, instead, have been confronted with proposals from people in authority that they pursue facilitated death. There is a bill before the House that I put forward, Bill C-260 , the care not coercion act, which seeks to deal with situations where MAID is proposed to those who are not seeking it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the next petition highlights specifically the impact of the carbon tax and the continuing impact of the industrial carbon tax on farmers. They highlight the costs associated with the carbon tax and, importantly, that its impacts are still being felt because the government continues to believe in this tool and apply it through the industrial carbon tax. Therefore, petitioners are calling on the House to exempt farmers from the impacts of this tax. They encourage the House to recognize the broader economic harms associated with the government's continuing this policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights concerns with an amendment to a Liberal bill, Bill C-9 , that would criminalize situations in which an individual might read a passage of a sacred text such as the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, etc. The petitioners are saying that the state has no place regulating the reading of a religious text or the teaching of a faith community. They highlight that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved in this country. They are against the efforts of Bill C-9 to infringe on those fundamental rights. The petitioners are asking the government to protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.”
“Mr. Speaker, the first petition I am presenting to the House today is with respect to the urgent need to implement a foreign influence registry. The petitioners highlight concerns about foreign interference in Canada, which are broadly shared, especially within certain diaspora communities that have been targeted through foreign interference. They highlight the need to defend our country, our sovereignty, and the integrity of our democratic processes. The petitioners want the government to implement a foreign influence registry, rather than see it back off as it tries to warm relations with the powers that are responsible for a lot of the foreign interference.”
“There has not been a lot of discussion on it publicly, but it is a serious concern to those who are affected. Many young people studying to be dental hygienists, to be in acupuncture or to be in other fields have to study at private career colleges. That is their only option, and they would lose their student loans based on page 217 in the budget. I hope the parliamentary secretary will take that back and change the policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government is always keen to blame events beyond their control and say, “Well, bad things keep happening to us. That is why we cannot control these outcomes.” Of course, Canada, like other countries, is subject to events beyond our control, but there are many things we can control. During our study on youth unemployment, we heard many concerns about the business environment, taxation, regulation and failures of immigration policy as well as failures of training that are within the government's control to remedy. I do want to take the parliamentary secretary up on his willingness to engage further and maybe come back to the House regarding the concerns I raised about career colleges. This is at page 217 of the budget.”
“Students pursuing in-demand careers in these areas where we need people are facing the arbitrary cut-off of their student grants, not because their jobs are not required by our economy but simply because the government has made an ideological decision about the institutions they go to. The problem is that if we say anyone who goes to any university program gets the grant, but nobody who goes to a career college gets the grant, that devalues critical skills that our economy needs and will exacerbate the mismatch in our economy between the training people have and what is actually needed. What is the government's response to these problems?”
“The budget says that students studying at private for-profit institutions, in effect, career colleges that provide many critical trade skills and skills for other professions for which they may not be able to train at public institutions, will lose their grants. The intention articulated in the budget is that all students studying outside of the public or the not-for-profit system would not be able to access student grants. Many students in many fields seeking trade skills, traditional Chinese medicine and most dental hygienists are trained at these private institutions.”
“In the midst of this crisis of youth unemployment, Conservatives have sought to be constructive. In the fall, we put forward the Conservative youth jobs plan, which articulates specific measures aimed at helping young people get back to work. These measures are focused on unleashing our economy, fixing immigration, fixing training and building homes where the jobs are. We had proposed measures for the government to consider implementing as part of the budget. Unfortunately, the Liberal budget goes in the opposite direction, particularly as it relates to training. I want to highlight this aspect of the budget because it has gotten very little discussion, and I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary is willing to comment on it.”
“I am following up on a question that I asked about the metastasizing crisis in terms of low youth employment levels. In tracking the month-to-month job numbers, we now see this trend of more people, youth and the middle-aged, dropping out of the labour force, giving up on job searches. While the unemployment rate, which is the percentage of those in the workforce who are not employed, goes down, we see that the employment rate, the number of people working, is going down. That is a really concerning indicator as people give up and drop out of the labour force. Young people are worried about the opportunities they are going to have in the future. They are concerned about their ability to afford food, afford a home and find a job that allows them to meet their basic needs.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I get into my remarks about youth unemployment, the subject of my question, I want to share with members of the House that I am dressed for our victory at Adwa celebrations happening right now on the Hill. I invite all members from all parties, including the Speaker, to come join us for some great Ethiopian food and community spirit after the House adjourns. The Adwa Victory Day is actually celebrated on March 2, but the House will not be sitting at that time, so we are hosting the event today. It is a celebration of Ethiopian victory over colonial forces and, indeed, a time to celebrate the right of self-determination of peoples and the critical defence of Ethiopia's sovereignty. Again, I invite members to come for that important event as we celebrate with each other and the Ethiopian community.”
“I am closely following this case, and I call for the immediate, safe return of Silvana to her family. Human rights advocacy is about thinking of the human person on the other side of the world and who that person is, and recognizing their dignity as the same as ours and our children's. Human rights are about placing real people at the centre of what we do and advocating that the Silvanas of the world never be forgotten.”
“The alternative, highly transactional approach to global affairs promoted by the Prime Minister necessarily leaves us more vulnerable, and this is why human rights are important, not just as ends in themselves, but as means to other ends. In closing, I would like to draw the attention of the House to one particular case of concern related to human rights, that of Silvana Atef Fanous in Egypt. Silvana is a minor with an intellectual disability: She has the cognitive ability of an eight-year-old. She disappeared and was later discovered to be in the custody of an older man, who claimed she had converted and planned to marry him. This is a clear violation of Egyptian law. There are many very troubling aspects of Silvana's case, including the way that authorities continue to treat her family.”
“Our most critical relationships with other peoples and nations are formed when we stand up for our values and when we build community with those who are on the same side. Aristotle wrote that perfect friendship is the friendship of men who are good and alike in virtue, for these wish well alike to each other. What is true of friendship among individuals is also true among nations: Strategically useful, trusting and effective friendships among nations form when nations are good and alike in virtue. By good, I mean not necessarily that their present leaders are good, but that they have good constitutions. It is the real substance of an international rules-based order that nations can ascend in the virtuousness of their constitutions and laws and can be drawn into greater community with other like-minded nations through that ascent.”
“The compromises that the Prime Minister wants to make on human rights are not just at odds with our values; they are contrary to our interests. At a fundamental level, the world is in a period of escalating competition. In this world, Canada must be strong. Canada must form durable alliances with real partners, and Canada must play a role in managing the flow of essential resources so that we and our allies are not strategically dependent on our enemies. The Prime Minister 's recent deal with China increases our strategic dependence on a regime that could cut us off for arbitrary political reasons without any possible avenue of independent appeal, increasingly making us more dependent on the CCP. This is not right, and this is not smart.”
“It abstained on genocide votes in this House and dismissed arms sales to aggressors as no big deal while pushing for the most general, non-binding human rights language and adding the word “progressive” to the front of trade deals already negotiated. This approach placated some and annoyed others, but it did not actually change anything that mattered. The current approach of the Liberals has dropped the pretenses, but they have learned the wrong lessons. A G7 nation does have the power and the capacity to take on specific human rights issues in a real, substantive and prudent way and advance them in a manner that puts substance ahead of signalling. This is the right thing to do in response to a recognition of the universal and immutable dignity of the human person. It is also the strategically smart thing to do.”
“It is unthinkable that forced confessions, extracted through grievous violations of fundamental human rights, would be shown on Canadian television through the awarding of broadcasting licences to those who are perpetrators of human rights violations. I would strongly encourage the CRTC and the heritage minister to take steps on their own to prevent this kind of complicity in human rights violations even before we pass the bill. While we rightly work to pass legislation that advances human rights, the use of sanctioning tools will always be dependent on political will and on whether the government actually uses the tools that legislation provides. The Trudeau government's approach to human rights was symbolic but insincere, preening without pushing.”
“Bill C-219 would strengthen the sanctions that were applied against violators of human rights, including those responsible for transnational repression, it would strengthen accountability by requiring the government to respond to recommendations for sanctions put forward by parliamentary committees, and it would amend the Broadcasting Act to prohibit foreign state-controlled media involved in human rights abuses from having privileged access to Canadian airwaves. Foreign state-controlled media have actually been directly involved in the perpetration of human rights violations through the production of forced confessions.”
“(1820) I do not think the government liked the bill, even though it did not oppose it openly. I believe it directed its allies in the Senate to prevent that bill from moving forward. The Senate is supposed to be the House of sober second thought and not to do the government's dirty work by blocking legislation without studying it, so I hope that we do not see a repeat of that abuse.”
“Small countries with sufficient economic and military support and the superior will to fight can and do win wars and change the course of history. Ukraine can win. Ukraine must win. Ukraine will win. My support and our Conservative support for the Ukrainian people will be unrelenting until victory is achieved, and we call for the policies that will allow that victory to be achieved as quickly as possible. Today we are debating Bill C-219 , an important bill that deals with international human rights. This bill draws pieces from other human rights bills that have been before the House previously. In particular, this bill contains provisions from the international human rights act that I worked on extensively in the last Parliament. That bill was adopted unanimously by the House but was not even examined by the Senate.”
“It is astonishing because when I think back to where we were four years ago, when I would wake up with the baby and anxiously check my phone to see if Kyiv had fallen, and how from those dark early days, when it looked as though Ukraine's government might collapse and immediately be replaced by a puppet regime that would rule the whole country, we have instead come to this present situation where parts of eastern Ukraine remain occupied but with little territorial change and Russia continues to sustain far more casualties than the Ukrainians do. The war is terrible, but what Ukraine has achieved and preserved is also incredible. Imagine what would yet be possible if the west were a bit more serious about giving Ukraine every tool it required to fight and succeed.”
“The cost of investing in security is outweighed by the cost of not investing in security. Although it would clearly have been better if this war had never started, the fact that Russia's basic military and strategic weakness has now been exposed, and the fact that a substantial portion of Russia's fighting capacity has been destroyed underline the strategic benefits to the west of past and ongoing military support for Ukraine. In the midst of these events, it astonishes me that some people still make the absurd claim that victory for Ukraine is impossible.”