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 8 of 18.
“The Canadian government has repeatedly granted sanction waivers that have assisted the Russian government and the Russian army. In particular, the titanium sanction waivers the Liberals gave to Russia must be removed right away. From time to time, I hear questions or feedback from people about the amount of money the Ukraine war is costing. It is my view that strong support for Ukraine and tough sanctioning of the aggressor right from the outset, indeed immediately after the initial invasion began in 2014, would have prevented this war or led to a faster Ukrainian victory. It is particularly true in this case that early decisive support pays critical dividends, and it remains true that principled, strong, supportive engagement early on strengthens our strategic position and spares us costs down the line.”
“Whether Ukraine is defending itself on the battlefield or at the negotiating table, a stronger Ukraine will lead to a more just outcome. A stronger Ukraine will force Russia to stop making absurd maximalist demands and to actually get serious about ending the war. Russia chose this war. It can choose to end it. Ukrainian strength will ultimately force that change of position. As part of supporting Ukraine, Canada must do more to close sanction loopholes and prevent the Russian government from using international exchange to fuel its aggressive war. I therefore repeat my long-standing call on the government to close the sanction waivers on Russian titanium that it created and to put more pressure on Russia's strategic partners around the world, China and India, among others.”
“While welcoming a new child into my family, I thought about the many parents who would never see their children again because of that evil decision. I also think about the many Ukrainian parents whose children have been abducted from occupied territories by the Russian government. The reality of systematic child abduction by the occupiers underlines that this war of aggression is not just about stealing territory; it is about stealing people. It is about ripping children from their parents and severing their filial connection to their people and their heritage. In response to these events, we must do everything we can to strengthen Ukraine's position for fighting and its position for negotiating. These objectives are one and the same.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are discussing this important piece of human rights legislation on the fourth anniversary of the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Four years ago at this time, in my household, we were celebrating the arrival of my now four-year-old son, Augustine. Three days after his birth, we began to see the terrible images and hear stories of carnage, death and widespread destruction. The joy we felt at the birth of a new child contrasted sharply with the agony of fathers and mothers in Ukraine who had children taken away from them in the prime of life. This brutal war was the choice of one man, Vladimir Putin, a choice that he made with wilful disregard for the lives of the Ukrainian people and the Russian people alike.”
“Mr. Speaker, actually, at that committee, Liberals are opposing our efforts to study food inflation, which is more than double what it is in other jurisdictions, and their budget is weakening training by defunding career colleges. We have put constructive proposals on the table to unleash the economy, to fix immigration, to fix training and to build homes where the jobs are. Liberals could simply take our good ideas instead of doubling down on failure, defunding students at career colleges and continuing to block development that creates jobs and opportunity. Why are they unwilling to take the solutions we have offered? Why instead are they standing in the way of progress for young people?”
“Mr. Speaker, young people in Canada today are worse off than their parents' generation. They cannot find jobs, and they cannot afford homes. The pain that young people face is leading to delayed family formation and to increasing hopelessness. An RBC poll out today shows that two-thirds of millennials are anxious about their financial future, and more than half are concerned about current cash flow. It is not like it was 10 years ago. Will the Liberals now listen to young people and reverse course on policies that have blocked opportunity for the next generation?”
“I wonder if the member could share a bit about the conversations he is having with young people, but also offer them a sense that something is possible if we change direction in terms of public policy.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent work on this important issue. I will go to the people affected by these policies. I speak often to young people, and I know the member does as well. Comparing their concerns today with where we were 10 years ago, many young people fear they will be worse off than their parents, and their top concerns are access to jobs and access to homes. Those are pretty fundamental things in life for starting a family, having kids and pursuing a positive future. Can they afford a place to live and find a job, and is that job going to allow them to pay for basics, including, most essentially, a home? Many young people, after 10 years of the Liberal government, have started to lose hope that that is even possible.”
“It is proposing to continually expand bureaucracy, when actually we need a plan to reduce bureaucracy. I wonder if the member can explain why, under 10 years of Liberal government, there has been such dramatic growth in the price of housing and why, rather than address the problem of out-of-control bureaucracy preventing housing construction, the Liberals are proposing to add to housing bureaucracy rather than reduce it.”
“Madam Speaker, I can confirm that housing affordability is a major concern for young people. I have spent a lot of time over the last eight months speaking to young people on university campuses, many of whom fear that their life will be worse than that of their parents, owing largely to concerns about accessing homes and jobs. One of the big issues, we know, in housing construction over the last 10 years under the Liberals, when housing prices have more than doubled, has been the proliferation of bureaucracy. The high cost of government is getting in the way of the construction that needs to happen in order to keep up with the needs of Canadians. The approach of the government is to create more bureaucracy: to add another arm to the federal government, yet another Crown corporation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I truly have no idea what that member is focused on, but my question was about the results of their policies. Now, let us talk about the results: 52,000 private sector job losses, 28,000 in manufacturing alone. That is just in the last month. He talked about the price of food. We have food inflation in this country that is more than double the food inflation in the United States. If this member cannot answer a question about the results, when will he look at those Statistics Canada reports? If he sees the problems that every other Canadian can see, when will the Liberals reverse course?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been disappointed to see that the Prime Minister is not delivering on his promises. He promised the strongest economy in the G7, but we lost 52,000 private sector jobs last month. He promised to build at speeds unseen in generations. We are actually losing jobs at speeds unseen in generations. Conservatives have offered solutions like the Canadian sovereignty act and the Conservative youth jobs plan, which Liberals continue to oppose. When will they reverse course and start creating jobs, instead of more job losses?”
“Christians will see these events through the lens of the cross and redemptive suffering. Lai's fight for Hong Kong does not end today. It only grows through his sacrifice. I call on the Prime Minister to speak out in support of Jimmy Lai's release.”
“Mr. Speaker, St. Thomas More was the Lord Chancellor of England, and he was imprisoned and executed because he refused to violate his conscience. Today, watching the sentencing of Jimmy Lai, it is impossible not to see the parallels between More and this modern champion of truth and justice. Jimmy Lai fled mainland China and arrived in Hong Kong as a penniless refugee at the age of 12. He went on to become an incredibly successful entrepreneur and media mogul. After the Tiananmen Square massacre, he fully oriented his resources toward freedom, democracy and justice. Lai was baptized by another Hong Kong democracy hero, Cardinal Joseph Zen, right after the infamous handover. As a man of faith, Lai fearlessly redoubled his efforts to defend his home from tyranny. For his fight, Jimmy Lai has now been handed a 20-year prison sentence.”
“Having said that, I think it is important for the people who are elected as members of Parliament to spend a substantial amount of time in Ottawa and not just think they can be entirely absent and therefore always voting by app. I think a balance is required.”
“Madam Speaker, personally I would say that there is a major difference between the use of the voting app and the use of some of the other applications of virtual Parliament. I think a great deal is lost when members try to give speeches remotely or participate in questions and comments from somewhere else. I think that is generally done less now, but I would like us to do away with virtual Parliament completely as it relates to the activities of the chamber, certainly. When it comes to virtual voting, I do think that having use of the voting app is a reasonable accommodation. I do not think members' flying across the country just to stand in their place and vote is that different from voting on an app. I think we can learn from that experience.”
“I would support broader reforms that would have committee membership elected in general. There does not seem to be any substantial reason why party whips should be able to appoint committee members in general, but if we are looking for incremental steps, by changing the chair process so we actually have chairs who know and apply the rules, we would be a lot better off. I do not think it is fair to the chairs, either, to have them thrust into a situation in which they are trying to coordinate a meeting and simply do not know what the rules are that they are supposed to be applying. Hopefully, these reforms around guardrails for unanimous consent, eliminating onside questions, addressing PMBs in the Senate and having qualified committee chairs would help this institution continue to grow and move forward in a constructive way.”
“It should be that they are actually committed to applying the rules of that committee well. If we had a system whereby committee chairs, in particular, were elected, we would be a lot better off. In a different system from the current election process, I would suggest we consider a system in which any member of Parliament, whether or not they have been assigned to a committee, can run to be chair of that committee, and members of the committee vote by secret ballot on who that chair is. That would facilitate potentially more competitive chair elections and a situation in which someone was chosen as chair, not because the government was trying to shore up their re-election chances in a marginal riding but because they were actually well qualified and trusted by their peers to exercise the role of chair.”
“This is because the government chooses who its members are, and if a chair must be a member of the government, then usually only one member steps forward to be nominated. In practice, and members of all parties would probably agree to this, if not in public then certainly in private, we have had far too many instances of committee chairs being put in for political reasons, even though those chairs do not understand the rules, do not understand the logic of how committees are supposed to work and are not very good at chairing meetings. We all have different abilities, and we all have different charisms that we can use in different ways. The purpose of putting someone in as committee chair should not be for them to have an extra point on their résumé to tell their constituents about.”
“If the Senate considers the bill, has concerns about it, proposes amendments and sends it back to the House, and it can still be dealt with in a timely way, that is very reasonable and in keeping with the function that the Senate is supposed to have. However, it does not make any sense that an unelected chamber would simply refuse to consider a bill at all and stop it from moving forward. There should be a time limit around that, a point at which automatic steps are taken on bills that come from the House. I also want to address the issue of chair occupants and expertise, specifically as it relates to committees. Right now, we have a system whereby, although a committee chair is formally elected from the committee, they are, in the vast majority of committees, appointed by the government.”
“The Senate should be considering and providing its considered judgment on bills that come from the House, not simply refusing to consider them for years on end until they die at the time of the next election. I was very frustrated by how the government handled Bill C-281 , the international human rights bill. This was a bill that the government did not like very much but supported for political reasons. It was a good bill and had unanimous consent in the House, but then the bill was halted in the Senate and not moved forward. I actually think that was deliberate and that the government relied on its appointees in the Senate to stop the bill from moving forward in a way that was undemocratic.”
“Given that many of the same-party questions tend to be of a more sycophantic, unsubstantial nature, maybe we could try, by mutual agreement, to do away with that and maximize the time for actual exchanges featuring different points of view. I want to strongly agree with what a member said earlier. It would not be a change to our Standing Orders, but we need changes that would prevent the Senate from indefinitely sitting on private members' bills without even considering them. I believe the Senate has an important function in our democracy as a place of sober second thought, but it is frustrating when we have good bills passed in the House, with unanimous support even, that then are not considered in the Senate.”
“Normally, the way it happens in questions and comments is that, after a speech, there is a rotation that goes around this chamber where there is one question from one's own party. Sometimes those questions have the character of, “Tell us why you are so awesome.” Some of us may enjoy this type of exchange, but it would be a better use of House time if we did away with it. For instance, after every Conservative speech, there could be two questions from the Liberals and one question from the Bloc, and after every Liberal speech, there could be two questions from the Conservatives and one from the Bloc instead of one from each party, including onside questions. Other members have said this about committee of the whole and question period, as well as the questioning of ministers at committee.”
“People do not know what is going on, so they say no. Perhaps it is a very reasonable thing that they object to because they have not had time to look at the question, and perhaps it is something they would support if it were actually debated and considered properly, but instead they are not able to. We see many abuses of unanimous consent. It requires clear guardrails to be fair to members but more fundamentally to be fair to Canadians, because we do not want to have this mob mentality sweep up decision-making and sweep away safeguards on important issues. (1355) Next, it is time that we did away with all instances of sycophantic onside questions from one party to the same party.”
“It is pretty ironic that if a vote is requested on something, bells will ring and there is a set time that allows members to return to the chamber to have their vote recorded or to vote by app, but there is no such provision for unanimous consent. I think we need clear guardrails. There are cases in which the use of this tool is legitimate, but it still has to draw on the considered judgment of members over time. The best way to do this would be for substantive proposals to have a delay of 12 or 24 hours during which members would be notified by email and could simply reply to the Speaker and say no if they wanted to register their objection. The other way we see this kind of abuse is when members stand up to request unanimous consent for things that have not been advertised to the House previously.”
“I would suggest one logical reform, if a request for unanimous consent has been made, would at least be that the bells be rung, that members be recalled to the chamber and that perhaps they be given a period of time, such as 24 hours, during which they can notify the Speaker of their objection. This can be grossly abused, because, as members here know, not every member is in the chamber at any given time. Most members spend most of the day outside the chamber, meeting with stakeholders and people from their riding, in committees and doing other kinds of parliamentary work that do not take place in this chamber. Therefore, members can try to advance unanimous consent motions when they know particular other members are not present and able to object, and that deprives those members of having their views heard.”
“We need to be very conscious as parliamentarians about how we can sometimes be seized by the psychology of the mob and think that a decision must be made right now, to think that a decision is necessarily good, even without having studied the decision as well as its full implications. Unanimous consent is the process by which the considered judgment of members is replaced with the psychology of the mob. Therefore, I think it requires safeguards that prevent this from happening, that prevent legislation from skipping stages without some level of proper consideration.”
“The considered judgment over time is how we harness the collective wisdom of members from different regions of the country in order to get a good outcome. However, the rules also allow, without safeguard, the complete abridgement of that process of considered judgment over time if there is, in one instant in time, of the members who are within this chamber, unanimous consent to do something. This is a very serious problem, because it replaces the logic of considered judgment over time with the psychology of a mob. There is great work by Gustave Le Bon that I would encourage members to review on the issue of the psychology of the mob. He observes that a mob, even if made up of a large group of people, has less wisdom if captured by passions in an instant in time than even one individual within that group would have acting on their own.”
“Madam Speaker, I have some family members in town who were planning on skating on the Rideau Canal this afternoon, but when they heard we were debating the Standing Orders, they decided to cancel and come here instead. I want to welcome them. I want to start by talking about the use of unanimous consent in this chamber. This is an important aspect of our rules, but I think it is of profound importance to the well-being of Canadians. We have made, at various times in my tenure as a member of Parliament, some critical decisions through unanimous consent that have had a big effect on the lives of Canadians. Parliament is designed to facilitate the considered judgment of elected members over time, and there are multiple steps that facilitate that considered judgment. There is consideration at various stages, detailed study in committee, etc.”
“I disagree with the consistent effort to delegitimize concurrence debates as if they are not important. I think they are very important. They are reflective of the good work done at committees, and they are worthy of consideration in the House.”
“Madam Speaker, I have debated the merits of concurrence motions often with my friend and colleague. Concurrence motions are an opportunity to debate a matter that the majority of a parliamentary committee has brought to the attention of the House. I think the member misses the fact, in his discussion, that debate on concurrence motions can always be adjourned or superseded by a majority of the House. A majority of the House has the power and sets its own agenda in a case where a majority of the House wishes to see the conclusion of a concurrence debate. I think those debates are very important and of immense value. If they were not considered important, either the committees would not have brought them to our attention or a majority of the House would be interested in adjourning or superseding them.”
“Madam Speaker, we will work to advance solutions that work, and we will oppose what is not working. I am looking at the employment numbers. Private sector employment fell by over 50,000 in the last month. Young people overwhelmingly report that they are worse off than their parents' generation because they cannot find jobs and they cannot afford homes. Canadians are looking for hope. They are looking for real solutions. That starts with the government recognizing that what it is doing is not working. When will the government come to that recognition?”
“Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7. He promised to build this country, but today we are seeing that those policies are just not working. January saw a major drop in private sector employment of over 50,000 workers, a drop of 28,000 in the manufacturing sector alone. The government is presiding over a deepening employment crisis as more people are dropping out of the workforce. When will Liberals listen to the constructive solutions we have put forward and recognize that what they are doing is not working?”
“Madam Speaker, it is indeed a serious problem for our democracy when private members' bills that are sometimes passed unanimously by this House have been held up indefinitely in the Senate. The Senate is supposed to provide that sober second thought, not sit on bills without providing any thought to them just to prevent them from passing. In the last Parliament, we had the international human rights act, Bill C-281 , brought forward by my colleague from what was then Northumberland—Peterborough South. That bill was indefinitely delayed, probably because the government did not want it to pass, even though its members were afraid to vote against it. It was passed unanimously in the House and blocked in the Senate. These were important human rights measures that many people were behind.”
“Fundamentally, all the parliamentary secretary has to offer are inaccurate talking points, and he did not really answer the question I asked, which was why there were cuts for students attending career colleges. Why is he attacking students attending career colleges?”
“Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is completely wrong about the figures. He says that the youth unemployment rate is moving in a good direction, but actually in the previous month it was 12.8%. In the latest numbers we have up until today, it was 13.3%. There is an increase in the youth unemployment rate, which we have seen in the month-over-month numbers, and it is quite a significant increase. There are also the absolute levels. Overall, these are recession levels of youth unemployment. Young people are experiencing unemployment in larger numbers than we have generally seen in the past. Under the Prime Minister , we hit the worst youth employment rate in over 25 years.”
“I asked her if this was still the government's policy, if it still intended to defund students who were trying to get an education at a career college, and she could not answer. She spent about three minutes refusing to answer the question. I had to go to the deputy minister, who confirmed that it is, in fact, still the government's policy, sadly, even though it is not in the budget implementation act. Why is the government attacking youth who want to study these vocational programs and why does it not fix the problem?”
“It is also interesting that in the context of training, Liberals are moving in the wrong direction. In fact, they announced in the budget that it is their intention to no longer fund student grants for students who are going to private institutions. This means that those who go to a private career college will no longer be eligible for these student grants, but if they take any program at any university, they will be. That is unfair. Penalizing career colleges that are providing practical vocational skills at a time when we have serious skills mismatches in our economy is clearly a big mistake. Today, the Minister of Jobs and Families was before the human resources committee.”
“Various experts have identified the government's failure to support economic growth and economic development, its failure to effectively manage an immigration system in line with Canada's economic interests and its failure to support good training policies, as well as challenges in terms of geography and regions where there is lower versus higher unemployment. Because of this, we have seen high youth unemployment. Conservatives have been constructive on this. We have put forward the Conservative youth jobs plan. We put this forward in the fall as well, and the Liberals have yet to act on it. Our plan proposes specific initiatives to unleash the economy, to fix immigration, to fix training and to build homes where the jobs are. It is interesting that they have not implemented any of these constructive ideas we have put forward.”
“When we talk about why, the areas that they focus on are job opportunities and the inaccessibility of home ownership, as well as the price of rent. This week at Carleton as well, I heard a bit about food prices as a contributing factor to the challenges they are facing: the cost of food, the cost of homes and how difficult it is to find a job. In this context, combined with the anecdotal evidence I am hearing from students, we see in the job numbers how youth unemployment continues to be very high. It continues to be at recession levels. In the fall, the youth employment rate dropped to its lowest level in over 25 years, and the reasons for this are clear. This issue has been studied at the human resources committee.”
“Madam Speaker, over the last few months, I have been visiting university campuses and talking to young people across this country. I was at Carleton earlier this week. I spent some time there talking to students and debating against the member for Winnipeg North . We had a great time. I certainly did, anyway. The question I have been asking students is whether they are better or worse off than their parents' generation. I have had lots of great conversations with young people about how they perceive their present reality, present challenges and the opportunities they are going to face in the future. Overwhelmingly, young people tell me that they feel they are worse off than their parents' generation.”
“It would not apply to doctors and nurses, nor in any case where the patient or client has sought the information. However, Canadians with disabilities, veterans, the elderly and people living in poverty do not want government bureaucrats telling them, when they are trying to access unrelated government services, that they should die. Canadian law envisioned that these sensitive conversations would happen between a medical expert and a willing patient, not between a bureaucrat and a citizen who is not interested, yet bureaucrats have pushed medically facilitated death on unwilling citizens again and again. This bill would have absolutely no effect on individuals who are seeking a medically facilitated death; it is for those who are not. This is a common-sense reform that would fill a gap in the law.”
“Bill C-260. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-260, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying — protection against coercion) . He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling an act to prevent coercion of persons who are not seeking medical assistance in dying: to stand with people with disabilities, veterans, the elderly and all people who have faced or are at risk of facing pressure and coercion with respect to a medically facilitated death. As I do so, I want to honour the memory of Clemens von Galen. His heroic defence of the most vulnerable people, especially in fighting involuntary euthanasia, is my example. The new bill would prevent government bureaucrats from pushing a medically facilitated death on people who are not asking for it.”
“Madam Speaker, obviously, the price of groceries is very high because of Liberal policies. It is higher than in other countries. In our opinion, the industrial carbon tax has contributed significantly to the increase in grocery prices. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this tax. Does the Bloc Québécois support our position that this tax should be eliminated?”
“Mr. Speaker, last night I was out with the member for Winnipeg North at Carleton University. We were debating in front of some students at a great event. I know that many members probably watched it on livestream while it was happening. During that debate, my colleague across the way was so eager to tell the students about how many programs the government has put in place, yet what the students reported to us in conversations before, after and during the debate is that they are struggling with the affordability of food, as well as with rent and with concerns about job opportunities. It is striking that what Liberals are offering is, “We've got all these new programs,” but the reality on the ground is that in the midst of that, food prices, the real pain students are experiencing, continue to go up.”
“Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the world faces a situation akin to a kind of second cold war, an intensifying conflict between the democratic world and the authoritarian revisionist world. In that context, our engagement with democracies in the global south and with other states that are sort of the swing states in this new cold war, which have legitimate strategic concerns with the actions of the CCP, is very important for our security and for the advancement of our values.”
“Mr. Speaker, I generally agree with the proposals of my Bloc Québécois colleague. As we said, we will support this bill so that it can be studied in committee. I hope the committee will be able to look at the important issues of human rights and forced labour. In general, the current government has not brought these issues to the forefront. We continue to have a huge problem with products coming into Canada that are made with forced labour. We must take action on this matter.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government and the Prime Minister would like to create a false choice between our values and our interests. I would say this. When the Prime Minister ignores our fundamental values and fails to address critical issues of human rights, and when he allows strategic domination of key sectors by a strategic adversary, then we leave ourselves vulnerable in the long term. We undermine our interests in the long term. I would like to know when the government actually plans on implementing the foreign interference legislation that it previously brought forward after much pressure from the Conservatives. When does it plan to seriously deal with the issues of foreign interference, the ongoing detention of Canadians and the effort to strategically dominate key sectors? These things are not in line with our values or our interests.”
“The junta must face more severe sanctions, the people must be supported and institutions that represent the Burmese people must be recognized so that democracy can prevail. In the days ahead, shared purpose and principled engagement among democratic nations could reasonably help deliver democracy in Burma, Venezuela and even Iran, and preserve security and advance the efforts of our democratic ally, Ukraine. This might be cause for a return to some kind of optimism, though an optimism more considered and more constrained by a recognition that struggle and sacrifice are always necessary for the maintenance and advancement of the international common good. (1745) For Canada, the defence and advancement of democracy, freedom, justice and the rule of law must remain our North Star.”
“It is a country with a history of strong diversity and pluralism. It contends with a series of challenges, including challenges that threaten its pluralism, but it has strong civil society organizations that work hard to advance and defend its pluralistic identity. It is a good example of a nation where constructive engagement at multiple levels of society can pay economic and strategic dividends, so I look forward to seeing the further study that is going to happen on this trade deal as it goes forward. Regarding our engagement with southeast Asia, I also want to underline that the fight for democracy requires urgent consideration of the situation in Burma. The people of Burma are successfully fighting for their freedom while facing brutal air strikes by the military junta. Burma now has the world's longest-running, ongoing civil war.”