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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

We have time for a short question.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Oshawa.

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—

I did say “a short question.”

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

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.

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.”

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

I understand the point of order to be about the germaneness to the debate. As the member knows, members have a lot of latitude in making the points they need to make, and I think the member was getting to his point when the point of order was raised.

I invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to continue.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I suspect I used the words “skill sets” and “youth” more than the member opposite did when he introduced the concurrence motion. If he was listening to what is being said, as opposed to being the mouthpiece for the leader of the Conservative Party in this game they choose to play, the House of Commons would be better served, quite frankly.

The member opposite, my colleague from Manitoba, asked me to give a tangible example of Canadians paying the cost for an irresponsible opposition.

An hon. member: I'd love you to.

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would love to give that example. Hopefully, there will not be another point of order to prevent it.

There is a suite of legislative initiatives to deal with an important issue in the member opposite's riding, my riding and ridings across the country. The Government of Canada has been pushing hard for this since day one following the election, and that was to deal with the issue of crime. We brought forward Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14, Bill C-16 and Bill C-22. This is all legislation to make our communities safer, and the Conservatives, through their filibustering tactics, have denied important reforms such as bail reform, which has been supported across the country by stakeholders, law enforcement, mayors, premiers and others.

They have also prevented lawful access from being put into place, with Canada being the one and only Five Eyes nation that does not have it. That, I suggest, would deal with issues such as child sexual exploitation, extortion and repeat violent offenders. These are the types of actions that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have been pushing for since the last federal election, and the Conservatives have played political games, putting the Conservative Party's interests ahead of Canadians' best interests. As a direct result, we have lost out greatly.

Talking strictly about funds to help young people acquire skill sets, $594.7 million over two years went to Employment and Social Development Canada for the Canada summer jobs program to support 100,000 summer jobs in 2026. Members can think about that. I referred to it earlier in my comments. It is for youth to acquire skill sets. Members opposite might want to minimize that program, but there is not a Liberal member of Parliament who does not recognize the true value of what that program is. It is such a valuable asset to not only the communities we serve but also the communities that Conservatives serve. Every region of the nation benefits from that program, and the Conservatives mock it today, which does not surprise me because it was Stephen Harper who cut a lot of the funding to the program. He did not cut the program, but he did cut the funding.

It has taken the Prime Minister and the government to recognize the value, understand the need for it and support it. That is why we will have close to 100,000 young people, and the types of jobs they will get will allow them to enhance their skill sets in many different ways, possibly opening doors to them for future jobs.

I think of the types of jobs that come to Winnipeg North, such as child care. I amplify the importance of child care. Many summer students who have gone through this program are working in child care today. I think of places such as Stanley Knowles School using the lunch program. There is another $307 million over two years for the horizontal evaluation of the youth employment and skills strategy to provide employment, training and wraparound supports. There is mentorship, transportation and mental health counselling. It is estimated that there are literally thousands of youth who will benefit from it, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000.

There is $40 million over two years going to Employment and Social Development Canada to create the youth climate corps and to provide paid skills training for young Canadians. They will be trained to quickly respond to climate emergencies, support recovery and strengthen resilience in communities across the nation. We are thinking of training the next generation of Canadian builders by providing $75 million over three years, starting in 2026-27, to Employment and Social Development Canada to expand the union training and innovation program, which supports union-based apprenticeship training in the Red Seal trades.

That gives us a sense of what it is and how the government is dealing with young people today. We recognize the importance of the issue, but the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that we recognize it year-round. We are focused on building a strong economy that works for all Canadians. That is our goal, and we will achieve that. We will get the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7. I believe that is an admirable goal.

The Conservative Party continues to want to play games on the floor of the House of Commons, not deal with the issues that are a priority for Canadians. They only want to deal with what is a priority for the Conservatives. That is fine. We will be focused on delivering tangible results for Canadians because that is the right thing to do. A part of that means encouraging my opposition friends to stop playing games and be more creative. They can be a critic of the government and be more cooperative. That is what Canadians want—

Questions and comments, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal parliamentary secretary brought up games. Let us have a reality check. We have an affordability crisis right now. We have a cost of living crisis right now that is affecting all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including young people. With regard to this motion, these are cuts to student grants for career college students, and I have had stakeholders of career colleges approach me in London—Fanshawe about this.

Does the government believe that education at career colleges is less valuable than education at other institutions?

Mr. Speaker, I believe fundamentally that any opportunity a young person has to enhance a skill set, in whatever format or venue it might be, is something that is worthy of us to pursue and encourage. We should be doing that because it is about giving young people a chance. Where we can enhance it, we should look seriously at doing so.

What I would say to members opposite, in particular the Conservatives, is that, when they stand up to ask a question, they need to understand that the reason they brought this motion forward today is not young people. They brought it because they did not want to have a discussion or a vote in regard to the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. They need to be very clear.

What is it about Annette Ryan that the Conservatives do not support? Why do they not want that appointment? Why do they continue to play these games for their own personal, political, Conservative agenda as opposed to the interests of Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just made a great speech. We care about young people and young people getting jobs, which is why he talked about it. The minister of jobs announced that there will be some jobs for young people in many ridings across the country. Obviously, this morning we were to talk about the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was supposed to be accepted by and voted on in this House, as the government House leader announced yesterday.

Can the member talk about young people's jobs in his riding and the importance of having the budget officer's appointment adopted by the House?

Mr. Speaker, the mistake was made when the government House leader made it clear that we were going to be bringing in the motion and that we wanted to have that vote on the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. By making it known to the opposition, because we were trying to be co-operative, the opposition then said, “We can prevent them from doing that by coming up with another motion.” The official opposition does not recognize the value of that permanent appointment being made, and that is unfortunate.

With regard to the latter part of the question, my colleague and good friend understands how important young people are to our economy and how important it is that the government be there to support young people. That is the reason why this Prime Minister and this government fully support the summer youth program. Potentially, 100,000 youth will benefit from this program.

Mr. Speaker, here is my question for my colleague. Why is he going to such lengths to attack the Conservative Party?

Where I come from, when someone is down, the right thing to do is to stop kicking them. Things are not going well for the Conservatives right now. Some of their members crossed the floor, and now the Liberal Party has a majority. It is true that the newly elected MPs have not yet been sworn in, but the Liberals won a simple majority in the most recent elections.

If their agenda is so important and they do not want to debate the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, then why not call for a vote in the House to get back to the government's agenda?

The Liberals have enough members for a majority, but perhaps they did not have them here this morning. Is that it?

Mr. Speaker, in the past, with majority and minority governments, we were very familiar with concurrence votes on reports. This is a stalling game being played.

On the whole idea of a majority versus a minority, quite frankly, we want to see co-operation. We want to encourage co-operation. That is what the Prime Minister has talked about since the last federal election, less than a year ago. We want to see Parliament work for Canadians.

At the end of the day, it is important to recognize that in order for Parliament to work, we need to get not only private members' bills processed through the system, but also government bills.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

Perhaps he misspoke. It was unfair to suggest that the Conservative Party is against the nominee proposed by the government benches to be the new Parliamentary Budget Officer. It is certainly not uncommon for the opposition to bring forward debate on concurrence in a committee report. It may be annoying. It may mean that I do not get to present a petition for another couple of hours. However, it is hardly an attack on the person who is being put forward. I just wanted to make that point.

Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North would like to correct the accusation that the Conservatives are against this particular person.

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the leader of the Green Party in the sense that I posed the question and the Conservatives had an opportunity to answer and defend, or anything of that nature, Annette Ryan. They chose not to do so.

The leader of the Green Party is wrong to try to consistently give the false impression to Canadians that there is absolutely nothing wrong with debating concurrence reports. She knows full well that there is a limited amount of time for government legislation in any given session. If we were to have a concurrence debate for every report, we would be talking about hundreds of debates.

Yes, they can try to take the high road. Yes, sometimes it is necessary have concurrence in a report, but do not give the false impression that we should have a debate on every report.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the member opposite has taken up a tremendous amount of time and not once has he spoken directly to this concurrence motion. The reality is that there are people in my riding who are really interested to know how the government is going to respond to this.

He talked about being disappointed. Do you know who is disappointed? It is the young people in this country. You decided to play partisan politics instead.

I have a very simple question. Is it because you do not care about this? Is that the answer?

Before I go to the parliamentary secretary, I will remind members to speak through the Chair. The member was using “you”. Members cannot address each other directly. It has happened a few times and I have let it slide. As a reminder, the Standing Orders require that all members speak through the Speaker and not directly to the other members.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Mr. Speaker, the member will find that there were actually Liberal members of Parliament on the committee who expressed their support in great detail.

What I can tell the member opposite is that all of the evidence before us today, and previously, clearly demonstrates that there is only one political party that has consistently been there for young people and represented their interests. While the Conservative Party, time after time, continues to want to politicize, play games, filibuster and so forth, we continue to be focused on delivering results. In my comments, I gave specific examples of that.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the members on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and also as a former educator before coming into this wonderful chamber, I can attest to the importance of reports such as this one that we undertook. It is unfortunate, though, that the reasoning for concurrence in the report is that, basically, the Conservatives did not get the information they wanted. That is why we are here today.

I received employment through the federal student work experience program as a student. I can testify that some of these government programs really benefit kids, especially little rural kids like me.

Could the hon. member also talk about some of these wonderful youth employment strategy options that we have—

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are all sorts of opportunities for us to have a good, healthy discussion and debate about the issues facing young people today. I would implore the Bloc or the Conservatives to designate one of their opposition days on just that topic. As opposed to three hours, we could spend a full day talking about young people in Canada.

If they care about young people, let us see their actions follow the words.

I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present three petitions on behalf of my constituents in Perth—Wellington.

The first petition is from constituents who are concerned about the export of live horses and are calling on the government to take action on the matter.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on amendments to Bill C-9, which constituents are concerned will impact the freedom of religion in Canada.

Third and finally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition over the concern about the thousands of acres of prime farmland that could be taken out of production in Clearview Township due to the Arctic over-the-horizon radar.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I would like to present, as my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix has done, a petition concerning fisheries and the abundance of striped bass in the St. Lawrence River.

When I was young, there used to be striped bass fishing competitions and we would see monster-sized fish. That fishing has disappeared over time and striped bass have been reintroduced. Now, the overabundance of striped bass is harming the entire ecosystem in the St. Lawrence River near Côte-du-Sud, in my region.

I call on the government to take action following the tabling of this petition.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of over 42,000 Canadians, representing every part of this country, east, west, north and south. It is calling on all leaders of federal parties to seek and maintain top security clearance for the protection of our country.

This petition was initiated by a retired high-ranking RCMP officer who spent much of his career doing national security investigations. I am honoured to present this petition on behalf of him and 42,000 Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Winnipeg South Centre. Of course, a primary function of our responsibilities is to bring their voices here to the floor.

With that, I am presenting a petition today in the same vein as my colleague from Perth—Wellington, who rose a few moments ago. My constituents have asked me to raise the issue of banning the export of live horses for slaughter overseas. In undertaking my parliamentary responsibilities, I am proud to rise today to deliver that petition.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to rise and table a petition initiated by a constituent of my riding in the Yukon. It calls on the House of Commons and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to take measures to address prolonged screening delays faced by permanent residency applicants. This petition reflects the lived experiences and concerns of many individuals navigating these processes.

I would like to thank Zahra and Seyedsaber Kazemi who initiated this petition, as well as signatories for the hard work and advocacy put into this cause.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from my constituents on international debt relief. This petition is part of a national campaign from 60,000 Canadians. It is called Turn Debt Into Hope, where petitioners, as part of the Jubilee 2025, have called on public, private and multilateral creditors, along with political leaders, to stop the debt crisis by cancelling and remedying unjust and unsustainable debts without economic policy conditions; to prevent debt crises from happening again by addressing their root causes and reforming the global financial system to prioritize people and planet; and to establish a permanent, transparent, binding and comprehensive debt framework within the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a couple of petitions.

The first one is signed by Canadians who oppose the Liberal government's firearms buyback and confiscation program. The petitioners note that the program targets law-abiding, licensed firearms owners and does nothing at all to address gun smuggling or gang violence, which is responsible for the sharp rise in crime. This program diverts resources from measures that would actually reduce violent crime. The public safety minister has also admitted that this is costly and ineffective.

Therefore, petitioners call upon the government to end the buyback program and prioritize public safety through real reforms, including stricter bail for dangerous and repeat offenders.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting today is signed by Canadians who are deeply concerned about the Liberal government's planned expansion of medical assistance in dying to persons whose sole underlying condition is mental illness.

The petitioners call on the government to support the right to recover act, Bill C-218, and halt this dangerous expansion. Hope is always possible and that is why we are urging Parliament to prioritize suicide prevention and improve access to mental health supports for vulnerable Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Today, I rise on behalf of the numerous members of the Kurdish community in my riding who are deeply concerned about the ongoing crisis in Syria. They are concerned for the safety, the political rights and the future of the Kurdish people in Syria. They are alarmed about the armed conflict going on there and the intense internal persecution of their people. The petitioners are calling on the government to recognize this fact.

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions I would like to present to the House today.

The first petition is from citizens who are deeply concerned about the Liberal attack on religious freedom contained in Bill C-9. They are concerned that Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. They observe that the state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of faith communities, and that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.

The petitioners call on the government to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreaches in matters of faith.

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from members of the Eritrean community who have been following efforts by this government to strengthen and deepen diplomatic relationships with Eritrea.

The petitioners want to bring the attention of the House to human rights concerns with respect to Eritrea. It has been ruled by an authoritarian, brutal dictator under an authoritarian system for the last 30 years, with no constitution, no election, no parliament, no freedom of the press and no freedom of movement and association. They note that Eritreans continue to flee indefinite military conscription, religious persecution and political repression. They highlight how those who have managed to flee the country still face intimidation and extortion from representatives and agents of the Eritrean regime in the diaspora, and that families in Eritrea are also harassed and forced to pay tens of thousands of local currencies because their children have fled. They are also concerned about various forms of foreign interference that are driven by the regime in Eritrea, various other human rights abuses, and the malicious conspiracy between Eritrea's dictator and Vladimir Putin that threatens the security of other peoples in Africa and around the world.

Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to engage Eritrean political and human rights activists and pro-democracy groups, take a leadership role against the joint actions of this dictator and Vladimir Putin against western countries and countries in Africa, investigate foreign interference of the regime in Canada, and enforce Canada's asylum laws against those who explicitly provide material and political support to this regime. They want to see Parliament and the government advocate for the release of Swedish Eritrean journalist Dawit Isaak and 11 imprisoned Eritrean parliamentarians, and strengthen sanctions against human rights abusers in Eritrea.

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling draws the attention of the House to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, which is a movement that seeks to simply follow principles of truthfulness, compassion and forbearance.

In particular, the petitioners draw the attention of the House to recent incidents, including bomb and shooting threats targeting Shen Yun, a classical Chinese dance and music performance presented globally by the Falun Gong community.

Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to publicly seek the end of the persecution of Falun Gong, impose sanctions against the regime related to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners and undertake stronger measures to protect victims here in Canada.

Unfortunately, we have to stop here. We will pick up where we left off after question period.