Debates of April 21st, 2026

Canadian Space Launch Act

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Procedure and House Affairs

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of committees of the House.

If the House gives its consent, I move that the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on Wednesday, March 11, be concurred in.

I will be sharing my time.

We in the opposition have been persistently fighting for the government and for Parliament to confront the metastasizing youth unemployment crisis. Youth unemployment has continued to grow in this country, and many young people are losing hope that they will be able to get a job that allows them to afford a home and to provide for themselves and their family. We have been working hard to present constructive proposals that would give young people jobs, homes and hope.

How do we address the youth unemployment crisis? Conservatives put forward a plan in the fall that has a number of key points in it: unleashing the economy; addressing the regulatory and taxation barriers that make it harder to start and grow a business in this country; fixing immigration, addressing the significant problems in the immigration system that have grown up under this government; fixing training; and building homes where the jobs are.

Today we are putting forward a motion that focuses specifically on the issue of training, because at a time when there is very high youth unemployment, there are also critical shortages in certain occupations. We have not attended enough in the last 10 years to the need to train Canadian young people for the jobs that exist in this country. Businesses struggle to find people who can fill certain skill gaps. Meanwhile, many young people remain unemployed, so we need policies that zero in on this need to fix training, to train young people for the jobs that exist.

One of the problems in this regard has been what we have been calling profession prejudice, the idea that there are certain good jobs in this country, jobs that are in demand and that pay well and provide good opportunities, that are nonetheless scorned by certain elites for kind of prejudicial reasons. There are certain careers that, sadly, for too long, people in elite positions of power have for whatever reason considered less important or less valuable. Paradoxically, some of these are careers where a person can earn much more than in the kinds of careers that are more highly esteemed by elites.

Conservatives have been challenging this idea of profession prejudice, highlighting the fact that all work has dignity, that the dignity of the work comes from the human dignity of the person who is doing that work, and encouraging young people to look past the elite-driven profession prejudice that sometimes gets in the way of people choosing careers that they would actually like and that actually fit with the needs of the place they are in and of the country as a whole.

As we have been making this case, we have been deeply disappointed to see in the last Liberal budget a policy that actually makes matters worse, a policy that I think reflects profession prejudice on the part of the government and that will widen the gap between the jobs that require Canadian young people and the training people are actually receiving. This policy was on page 217 of the last federal budget. The policy says that students studying at private, for-profit institutions would no longer be eligible for student grants.

The policy going forward is to completely cut these students off from student grants, to say that if they do any studies at a university, no matter how job-relevant they are or are not, they can get a student grant, but if someone studies at a vocational institution, they will not have access to student grants. Vocational institutions in this country are generally organized as private, for-profit institutions. It is a distinction that is not based on the labour market relevance of the qualifications. It is a distinction that is based solely on the ideological filter that the government brings, which I think is rooted in professional prejudice.

I think the important thing to understand is that this debate is not about whether people like the model of private, for-profit; private, not-for-profit; or public institutions at the post-secondary level. It just happens that within our system, there are certain kinds of careers for which the training is available at a certain kind of institution. If someone wants to study philosophy, as I did, they are are not going to find that at a private, for-profit institution. Likely they are going to find it at a university. However, if someone is going to study traditional Chinese medicine or study massage, they are likely not going to find those qualifications available at a university. They are going to have to choose to study at a vocational institution.

That is how our system is structured. The government might not like that, but the way the system works is that private vocational institutions are offering all kinds of skills training that is simply not available in the public system. In some cases, there are programs available in both public institutions and private institutions, but there is not sufficient capacity in the public institutions to address the need, so the difference is made up in private institutions.

An example we heard about at committee is dental hygienists. There is a real demand for dental hygienists in this country. It is a good career, an in-demand career and a career that we need to be training Canadian young people for. Some students study at public institutions, but most who take the exam and who go on to pursue this career are coming out of the path of private institutions.

For the government to say to these students, who are trying to get the qualifications to fill in-demand careers, that they are no longer eligible for student grants is completely unfair to them. It is unfair to discriminate in this way. It also has the effect of steering young people toward career paths that do not actually align with the needs of the labour market.

The message to young people is that if they study very practical vocational skills, no grants will be available to them, but that if they study a general undergraduate degree, grants are available to them. This message creates an incentive structure that pushes young people who are making these decisions at the margin to consider a career that leads them to access student grants, yes, but may not or does not actually align with the needs of the labour market.

We have really tried to understand why the government is doing this. Why is it cutting off students at vocational institutions from getting student grants? We have not received any clear or credible explanation, except that the minister said at one time that they think public dollars should follow public institutions. I am sorry, but the government is not planning to offer these kinds of programs at public institutions. If there is not going to be a worsening of existing shortages in the skilled trades for certain health care professions and in various other areas, then those grants need to remain in place, and we need to further valorize and affirm the value of these careers.

The only explanation I can think of for the actions of the government is that it comes out of an elitist ivory tower preferencing of certain kinds of professions over others: profession prejudice.

As we have tried to challenge this issue, we put forward a motion that actually received unanimous support at the human resources committee to ask the government to reconsider this policy. This was a big step, and I congratulate the Liberal members of the human resources committee for joining with Conservatives and the Bloc to unanimously pass the motion asking the government to reconsider this bad policy. I hope they will stand by the votes they made at committee and vote for the concurrence motion.

I also want to recognize that before he crossed the floor, the member for Markham—Unionville was a big part of the effort to challenge this policy. He helped organize events within the Chinese community with me, calling the policy discriminatory. He pointed out that the Chinese community is particularly disadvantaged by it because the traditional Chinese medicine programs that many rely on are not offered at public institutions. I hope the member for Markham—Unionville will stand by the activism he did. I want to thank him for working with me at that time, and I want to encourage him to stand by what he did and what he said at the time, and to vote for the motion.

Finally, I want to highlight the fact that Conservatives proposed policy to actually go in the opposite direction. That is, we proposed policy that student grants should magnify the needs of the labour market, that we should offer relatively more generous grants to students studying for in-demand careers. 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.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could speak to the ecosystem that is currently created between public and private institutions that collaboratively work together to address the labour market shortages. Is this something that he would like to expand on, with respect to this recommendation?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

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.

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unfortunate, and I will get the opportunity to expand on it, that the member opposite in the Conservative Party is playing mischief politics. We were supposed to be looking at our Parliamentary Budget Officer today and having that debate. The Conservatives talk about the importance of having the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and then we see the hypocrisy on the floor today.

It is not to take away from the importance of young people in Canada. This government is focused on giving attention to the young people of Canada.

What is the Conservative Party's position on the Parliamentary Budget Officer? Do Conservatives support the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or are they opposed to her being appointed?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

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. 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.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would talk about this idea of “Don't worry about it. Students can still access loans. They just don't qualify for grants.”

Could he give me a bit of a thought on that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

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. 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have time for a short question.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Oshawa.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is very interesting. My daughter is in grade 10, and she is talking about what she wants to do. The policies that have been put forth by the Liberals are quite discriminatory.

What is it telling our young people about what they choose to do with their lives? She is very confused. She thinks universities—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I did say “a short question.”

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has 20 seconds or less to answer.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

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.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the request that the government reconsider its policy on the distribution of student grants based on the type of regulated institution where students are studying and instead align with decisions about eligible institutions made by the provinces and territories. Student financial assistance for students from rural, remote and coastal communities, where access is limited and the cost of post-secondary education is often higher, is extremely important.

For many Canadians, access to grants is what makes post-secondary education possible. It allows students to pursue training, build skills and contribute meaningfully to our economy. In addition, and most importantly, in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is an important component in helping us train and therefore retain our youth. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that public funds are used effectively and that student aid programs deliver strong outcomes. Any changes to student aid must consider how students are actually accessing education and training across the country, with an understanding of students from rural, remote and coastal communities like Long Range Mountains. This is where the current policy raises some important concerns.

While we have much in common, regions across the country have unique profiles of challenges and strengths. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there are current, pervasive and ongoing workforce shortages across industry sectors based in part on the retirement of the baby boomer generation. There are more people retiring from the workforce than there are people joining the workforce. Newfoundland and Labrador has a much higher percentage of its population that is older and a much lower percentage of its population that is younger relative to Canada overall and to the rest of Atlantic Canada. Not only must we train more people for ongoing operations and business succession plans, but we must also become more productive and more diversified in order to grow our economy.

More broadly, there is the question of access and affordability. Many students who attend career colleges rely on these grants to finance their education. These programs are often more targeted and designed to lead directly to employment. They are particularly important for individuals looking to re-skill, enter the workforce quickly or pursue practical, in-demand careers. Removing grant eligibility for these career colleges will discourage enrolment, increase financial barriers and limit opportunities for lower- and middle-income Canadians who are seeking to improve their circumstances through education.

In fact, I can speak personally to this. After completing a university undergraduate degree, I was not employable with that skill set in the community I lived in and grew up in. Accordingly, I went on to complete a paralegal certificate program at a private career college, Academy Canada in Corner Brook, that was not available through a traditional university pathway. It was a practical, career-focused program that allowed me to enter the workforce with the skills I needed to support my family. After completion, I was actually employed by my instructor in a small firm in the community I grew up in. It was a career I was interested in, and I knew there was a need. Therefore, I was able to transition out of the food and beverage industry into a career that I loved. Thereafter, it also created the strong legal knowledge that I needed for my longer career in real estate.

These opportunities will become constrained, as many would not be able to attend career colleges with these programs without financial assistance. Again, this program was not offered in the public colleges or universities.

Opportunities in more rural areas of the country can be limited, and it is important that we do not negatively impact those seeking to live, work and thrive at home. Limiting access to student grants for these institutions will disproportionately impact those communities where opportunities are already more difficult to access. These institutions are part of a broader, collaborative post-secondary system. They are regulated at the provincial level, are operated under established frameworks and work alongside public institutions to meet local labour market needs.

I have heard directly from hard-working Canadians, students and stakeholders who are very concerned about the impact of this policy, including institutions like Academy Canada and Keyin College in Newfoundland and Labrador, which play an important role in training students for in-demand careers in the province. These institutions have indicated that hundreds of students in Newfoundland and Labrador alone could be affected, particularly in programs that are longer than one year. I would like to point out that they have strong institutional integrity, as they are regulated career colleges that support strong oversight, clear accountability and effective enforcement of existing legislation and policy directives.

There is the broader question of workforce development. Canada is currently facing significant labour shortages in a number of sectors, including skilled trades, health care and applied professions. Career colleges play a vital and important role in addressing these shortages by providing targeted job-ready training aligned with local labour market needs. We should be encouraging participation in these programs. This policy risks the opposite. It will reduce enrolment in areas where demand for workers is already high. Over time, that will contribute to widening workforce gaps rather than closing them.

Education is primarily a provincial responsibility. Provinces and territories determine which institutions are recognized and regulated within their jurisdictions. They oversee quality, accountability and outcomes. The recommendation in the report, that the federal government align with provincial and territorial decisions on eligible institutions, is appropriate. It reflects the reality that provinces and territories are best positioned to understand their own education systems and workforce needs.

If the government's objective is to achieve cost savings, that objective should be pursued in a way that is equitable and proportionate right across the country. To simply shift the impact onto a specific group of students raises legitimate concerns about fairness and effectiveness.

I want to acknowledge that the government has indicated there may be flexibility to consider exemptions on a case-by-case basis. While that may provide some relief, it would also introduce additional uncertainty and administrative complexity. Students and institutions benefit from clarity and predictability, particularly when making decisions about education and investment. A system based on exemptions does not provide a clear and equitable framework.

The report before us calls for a reconsideration of how these changes are being applied and for an approach that aligns with provincial decisions and treats students equitably. These are reasonable recommendations that reflect the concerns raised by stakeholders across the country. Students pursuing practical job-ready careers are an essential part of Canada's future. They contribute to our economy, support our communities and help address some of the most pressing labour challenges we face. They should not be placed at a disadvantage because of the institution they choose to attend.

Educational pathways are not one-size-fits-all. Whether a student chooses a university or a career-focused institution, they deserve to be treated fairly and supported equally. That is especially true for students in rural, coastal and remote regions, where access to education already comes with additional challenges.

I want to conclude on this thought. One of the reasons I left the private sector to pursue a political career is that I wanted to influence policy that impacts the next generation and their ability to live, work and thrive in the communities they grew up in. Far too often, our young people leave their homes, their families and their neighbours to go to the mainland to pursue their education. The harsh reality is that in a lot of cases, they never come back. It is exactly these types of decisions from Ottawa that are contributing to our inability to educate and retain our youth in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Finally, I will end with a quote from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Career Colleges, which sums it up best: “Newfoundland and Labrador has a strong, collaborative post-secondary ecosystem where regulated career colleges complement public colleges. We work with our regulators and student aid officials to ensure accountability in student financial assistance.

“We communicate regularly with provincial government...and community groups to find and implement proactive workforce development solutions in partnerships with one another. To be clear, regulated career colleges provide an important service for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

“We understand and support the government's desire, but we believe eliminating the Canada student grant for learners in programs longer than one year at career colleges moves Canada and workforce development efforts in the wrong direction.”

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to ask the member's colleague a question. It is disappointing that the Conservatives do not recognize the importance of Canada's independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. It would appear that they do not support her appointment, and that is why they have chosen to move a concurrence report today. It is a form of filibustering in order to prevent that discussion.

Can the member express to Canadians through the House why the Conservative Party does not support the appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this question was posed by the member previously and my colleague provided a procedural answer, which I thought satisfied the question.

In addition to that, comments and statements like that are divisive to the Canadian people on prioritizing certain priorities. Essentially, he is saying that the concerns from coastal and rural communities about this very important issue are not as important as something that he might have on his agenda. I reject that. I think that is completely dismissing the concerns that I brought up in my speech for the last 10 minutes.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her really interesting speech that hit home. She mentioned this being an attack on rural Canada. Public universities and colleges are not located in small towns, but the private schools, private colleges and career colleges are filling that gap. We want our young people and older people to be able to work and go to school in their communities. For example, there is a lack of dental hygienists. I cannot see a dental hygienist for six to eight months in the interior of B.C. where I live because of a lack of hygienists.

Can my colleague explain how this affects rural Canada more than any other place?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I can speak to a specific example as well. In my riding specifically, students applying to be heavy-duty mechanics often try to enter programs and they are completely filled. The private institutions then look at the entire educational path ecosystem and decide which communities they would like to have their operations in. That complements the communities that have the needs and the workforce shortages.

This is exactly the type of flexibility that places in rural Canada need in order to educate, train and put people to work so they can thrive in the communities that they love.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the justification given by the government is that there are bad apples among the private colleges. However, denying students who attend good private colleges for programs that could help them build their career in the future is denying them opportunities.

Does my dear colleague agree that this policy would harm our young people?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree. I think it is divisive in nature. I hear all the time from people in my riding that they do not like the divisiveness that Canadians are experiencing right now. They do not like how one group is pitted against another, and this is the exact type of policy that creates this division in our communities and among Canadians.

Again, we are trying to correct bad actors instead of dealing head-on with the situation that has been created. We are trying to fix a specific problem and we are inadvertently punishing a bunch of rural communities and rural Canadians in the process. This is not good policy, which is exactly why we put forward recommendations that the government reconsider.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I have to rise today to speak to a motion brought forward by the Conservative Party, which is not to take away from the importance of young people in Canada. However, before I get into this, I think it is important to recognize the issues that young people face in Canada today. This Prime Minister, this government and all members of the Liberal caucus are keen to take necessary action to support our young people.

I want to amplify that. Just yesterday, we had the summer youth program and job bank kickoff. This program is critically important to our nation. It has provided all forms of training in many different applications for future employment for young people. It has been there for generations. We have seen, at the very least, Liberal members of Parliament talk about the value of the program because of the different levels of skill sets that can be developed through those summer jobs.

When the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table along with Stephen Harper, they cut that program. That is why it is somewhat interesting that we have the Conservatives pretending that this is the issue they are so concerned about and want to have that debate on today. Why did they not come up with the thought for an opposition day? Why did they not think about young people and provide a specific motion with respect to reinforcing programs like the summer youth program as opposed to playing a game with the young people of Canada by trying to say that they care about them and that this is the reason they are bringing forward this motion?

I think that there are bad actors, as the previous speaker from the Conservative Party just said, and we will find a number of them within the Conservative caucus, led by the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is unfortunate, because there are some issues here that are real and tangible, which the government is focused on trying to elevate and give attention to, whether with respect to financial resources or other forms of resources.

Prior to coming to the House today, I met some wonderful young entrepreneurs who told me about the entrepreneurship program for small businesses that the minister responsible for small business brought forward and how this government renewed the program for young entrepreneurs. Two outstanding indigenous individuals were taking advantage of a national program that is providing skill sets with respect to becoming entrepreneurs, providing mentorship and so forth. Less than an hour ago, I was standing in this very spot with those outstanding entrepreneurs. These are the types of programs that the government not only initiated but continues to support that were not there when the Conservative Party was in power.

We understand the need for increasing skill sets. If we look at some of the numbers, there was just under $600 million designated for Employment and Social Development Canada. I will go a bit more in depth on these issues, but first I want to deal with the motivation of what we are seeing here today.

Yesterday afternoon I gave the opposition a compliment, and it was a little too premature, obviously. I said I was encouraged that they were actually allowing a piece of legislation go to committee, Bill C-22, on lawful access. We have been debating lawful access since June of last year, shortly after Canadians elected a new Prime Minister. They finally allowed it to go to committee. First it came forward in the form of Bill C-2. The Conservatives made it known that there was no way they would allow Bill C-2 to pass, so we had to break it into a couple of bills. Bill C-22 was one of those bills. After hours of debate, they finally allowed it go to committee, and I gave them a compliment. What a mistake; I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I said it was nice to see that they were finally allowing something to go through, because the Conservatives were being a little sensitive when I was accusing them of filibustering yesterday morning.

Fast-forward to less than 24 hours later, and we are actually supposed to be having a vote on the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would think that the Conservatives would want that to take place. It was disappointing after we heard the Conservatives yelping from their seats last fall that we needed to appoint a permanent Parliamentary Budget Officer. Then when it came time to actually do something and to take some action, what did they do? We can talk about an irresponsible opposition. Once again, we have witnessed it first-hand.

I started my comments off by talking about young people, to make it very clear that, whether it is the Prime Minister or any Liberal member of Parliament, we are focused on young people and enhancing their skill sets where we can. However, at the end of the day, we are also very concerned about the tactics that the Conservative Party is using. Yesterday, we made it very clear, and the opposition knew, that the government wanted to have Motion No. 359 debated and voted on. We wanted to deal with the issue of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Annette Ryan. What is causing the Conservatives to have this violent reaction to the appointment of an incredible woman, someone who has the experience and is going to be able to make a difference serving Canadians?

Annette Ryan has demonstrated her abilities exceptionally well. She has incredible credentials and a good background. The Conservatives were yelping about wanting to have a budget officer last fall. We now have one ready for a formal appointment, and they bring in this particular motion. Technically, because we said we were going to do it yesterday, the leadership group within the Conservative Party, which is actually the leader of the Conservative Party, made the decision that they did not want her appointed. They did not want to have that vote, so they brought in a concurrence motion.

The Conservatives looked at the numbers, knowing that Motion No. 359 was on the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and decided to introduce one lower than that. They thought that in that way they could prevent the Liberals from bringing in this particular motion.

Then they look, and they come up with Motion No. 321 to single out the issue of young people and say, “Well, young people are really important to us today, so that is what we are going to debate. This way, we can say the Liberals are bad because they do not want to debate that particular issue,” which is a bunch of hogwash.

At the end of the day, I will match the initiatives that have been taken by Liberal administrations, in particular our new Prime Minister and this new government, which was elected less than a year ago, and the commitment that the 170-plus Liberal members of Parliament bring to Parliament every day to deal with a wide spectrum of issues, including the young people of Canada, and recognize that we want the strongest economy in the G7, a strong economy that works for all Canadians. That is, in fact, our priority.

That is why it is so disappointing to see the games that continue to be played by the official opposition members. It is what we are going to continue to see, unfortunately. It is unfortunate and destructive. There are opportunities for opposition parties to actually critique the government. They do not have to agree with everything that the government is saying. At the very least, as opposed to reflecting on what is in the Conservative Party's and, more specifically, the leader of the Conservative Party's best interest, they could start focusing more on what is in Canadians' best interest. If they started to do that, I believe that we would actually see a higher sense of co-operation within the House of Commons and more tangible results being delivered to Canadians.

I can say that over the last nine or 10 months, the games that have been played by the official opposition have been at a significant cost. The Conservative Party of Canada, under its current leadership and with the games that the Conservatives play inside the House, have cost our society in very significant ways.

[An hon. member]

Name one.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, they say, “Name one.” I can name a lot more than one.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

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?