Human Resources Committee on Feb. 12th, 2026

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

You spoke about the lack of schools and the challenges in the regions.

I would now like you to talk about the impact on the next generation in terms of access to chiropractic care, in the regions or more generally, and the measures that could be taken to encourage the next generation.

[Ayla Azad]

I would say that allowing students to go overseas to get the training and come back is one. As I said, 30% of our members do that and are here.

Then it would be improving access. I really feel that we need more team-based care, integrated care, in the health care system—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Doctor. We're going over our time. It's my fault. I was not watching the clock, but everybody goes over.

Mr. Genuis, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all our witnesses.

There's been some discussion today about work-integrated learning. I don't think I'll get a chance to ask the witnesses questions, but I do want to underline that Conservatives believe very strongly in the importance of work-integrated learning. We believe these programs should have sustained and predictable funding.

We also believe that work-integrated learning should be normalized. It should be the norm rather than the exception. The more students across disciplines can be working in jobs relevant to their field as part of their learning, the more easily they will be able, I think, in many cases, to transition to the workforce.

We've had a lot of discussion today about concerns people have regarding changes in the Liberal budget that impact students studying at private institutions. In many cases, they're studying at those institutions because programs that accord with the demand for those skills in the marketplace are simply not available at public institutions.

With that in mind, I'm going to provide notice of a motion. I'm not moving it. I'm not asking for support on it today, so people will have lots of time to consider it.

The motion I'm putting on notice is as follows:

That the committee report to the House that it opposes discrimination against students in the distribution of student grants based on the type of regulated institution where students are studying.

I hope we'll have an opportunity, in response to the feedback we receive, to debate that motion and adopt it at some point to underline concerns that the committee has with the direction from the government on this.

I think, frankly, that it's consistent with some of the things that some of the members across the way have said today about the value of a link between labour market demand and the student grants that are available.

Having said that, I have a couple of questions for you, Dr. Azad.

You mentioned two programs here in Canada, and you talked about the reliance on training outside of the country. What you didn't speak to, from my understanding, is that the institutions that are in Canada are also private institutions. They're private, not-for-profit institutions, if I'm correct, so they would not be impacted by the budget policy.

That underlines for me that these programs are not being offered at public institutions, which means that while we might hope that there would be an expansion in the availability of these programs in Canada, this expansion would likely not be on the public institution side but on the private side. If a private, for-profit institution saw the demand, saw the opportunity and wanted to get into this, they would be affected by the policy.

With an eye to how we can grow the availability of this training here in Canada, how would the budget policy, which proposes to cut off grants for students studying in Canada at private, for-profit institutions, affect trying to address the gaps in training?

[Ayla Azad]

Becoming a chiropractor is a significant financial burden. If a student is not able to get financial assistance through these national student loans, it becomes very cost-prohibitive to attend CMCC, even for a student here in Canada—in Toronto, for example. Our students are graduating with approximately $150,000 to $200,000 of debt, and that's significant. It's difficult. I would say it would be detrimental for the programs here as well.

With regard to not being in the public system, I'd love to to see a chiropractic program in some of the public universities. I'd like to be on record for that. I think it would be an excellent way to help with this resource problem that we're having. That's because—and I will say it again—the next issue that this country is going to face is disability. We have an unmet need for rehabilitation services in this country, and we need to work together to solve that.

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

Thank you.

What we've put forward as Conservatives, as part of our youth jobs plan, is that grants should be linked to labour market demand. There's an opportunity that the grant value could magnify those market signals to students so that they have that information. You can study whatever you want, but if you're getting a grant, maybe it should be tied to the needs of the labour market.

What are your thoughts on linking back to where the demand is, instead of discriminating based on institutions?

[Ayla Azad]

Well, it would be good for chiropractic, because the demand is huge.

As I said, when you look at the issues that we're facing in this country when it comes to musculoskeletal conditions, you see that we do not have enough providers, and I would even say that about my colleagues in physiotherapy as well. We work together all the time. We need more chiropractors and we need more rehabilitation experts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Joseph, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us and for their work in their respective communities.

Our current discussions directly concern the key priorities of budget 2025. These priorities are to strengthen our workforce and improve access to essential services for the people of Quebec and Canada, particularly in underserved areas. From supporting innovation and the bioeconomy, to expanding opportunities for young people and ensuring better coverage for health care services, these investments have a clear objective. They seek to build a more resilient and inclusive economy.

Mr. Henderson, I would like to ask you a quick question. What are the risks to innovation if this funding isn't renewed over the long term?

[Robert Henderson]

If I understand the question, it was about what the effects would be if the funding for the student work placement program was not renewed.

There's not a clear talent pipeline between academia and small and medium-sized enterprises. One of the challenges in Canada is that there seems to be a gulf between those two things.

The student work placement program, from a sustainable funding viewpoint, has now been funded for eight years. Eight years ago, BioTalent Canada was one of the initial providers in the program. At the beginning, we had to convince employers of the value of hiring students with no work experience who were coming to them through a federally funded program like the student work placement program. Right now, thanks to organizations like Riipen, BioTalent Canada and the other providers, employers depend on the program for that talent pipeline. Upwards of 200,000 students a year are employed in all industries through this program.

The issue and the problem that we have now with scientific organizations is that they may have a wonderful molecule that could cure a myriad of diseases or a wonderful medical device that could be incredible intellectual property in Canada, but it's sitting on a shelf because there isn't the support within the organization to commercialize it.

This program allows companies to get the only talent that's available to them, fresh talent, because there is a shortage right now in Canada's bioeconomy. We're expecting to be 65,000 workers short by the year 2029. This program fast-tracks students into those innovative positions so that companies can commercialize. Without it, you're going to have many companies and many Canadian innovations and international intellectual property stalled if there isn't sustainable funding for this program.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

We'll be taking a closer look at this. We'll be talking about the concrete impact of these measures on the ground.

I have another question for you, and perhaps a third question. Do you see a direct link between these investments and the retention of young talent in the country? When I say “in the country”, I'm talking about Quebec and Canada.

[Robert Henderson]

If I understand the question correctly, do I see a direct link between talent retention and these investments? I do, absolutely. There is no question.

In terms of the two greatest challenges that face small and medium-sized enterprises in Canada's bioeconomy, access to capital is number one, and access to talent is always very close behind as number two. Those actually flipped during COVID. In fact, access to talent was then the biggest issue.

This program is one of the few that address both needs of a small and medium-sized enterprise. There is no question that the two are completely linked. You will find that a lot of the innovations that are coming through Canada's bioeconomy are coming from these small and medium-sized enterprises, and it's directly linked to access to that talent pipeline.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 40 seconds left.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Okay. I may have time for my third question.

Mr. Henderson, I see that you welcomed the multi‑year funding for the student work placement program. What have been the main measurable results to date?

[Robert Henderson]

The sustainable result is that the program has overachieved on its diversity and inclusion goals in terms of employing under-represented students. There's no question that it's been a resounding success in that.

It's not only that: Employers have stated that in the majority of cases, students would not have been employed without the program. Second, on both the student side and on the employer side, there is an over 85% success rate for this program in terms of satisfaction. It has been an exceptionally successful program in almost every metric that's possible, which is why it is deserving of sustained funding.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Henderson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Joseph.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the second round of questions, I'll start with you, Mr. Henderson. When you responded to a question from my colleague, you talked about a gulf. You used this word, and it's quite a strong word. You were talking about the gap between the number of graduates and the market needs. I would like to fully understand the figure that you provided. You spoke of 65,000 students.

Can you clarify these remarks?

[Robert Henderson]

Yes. The labour market intelligence study that we did shortly after COVID stated that there are going to be 65,000 unfilled positions in Canada's biotech industry by the year 2029. Those are among three different areas: research and development; industry-agnostic positions, such as HR, marketing and sales; and bioprocessing and biomanufacturing.

This directly affects Canada's defence policy and Canada's health emergency readiness, because, as we saw on COVID, it is the biotech industry that's going to be responsible for the domestic manufacture of vaccines in the face of another pandemic. This is obviously of great concern, not only to the bioeconomy but also for Canadians' health and safety.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

We know the importance of science and research. However, what type of message are we sending when we make cuts in agricultural research centres, for example, and when we fail to find solutions to labour shortages? The impact could be quite serious and alarming.

[Robert Henderson]

Consequences could be very serious indeed, which is why any program to specifically fast-track students into paid positions and into the bioeconomy should be supported through sustained and expanded funding.

That is one of the reasons we applaud the decision to expand and extend the student work placement program, and we think there is even room for improvement in order to combat the very issue that you addressed, Madame Larouche.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

This will conclude the round of questioning to the witnesses. They can leave, but I need a few moments to clarify an item with the committee.

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing. Just before you leave, I'll say to Robert Henderson that my local MLA is Robert Henderson, so I was a little confused.

Dr. Azad, the summer student who worked for me for the last three years is in his final year at the Toronto chiropractic school. He will be a doctor shortly. I'm sure he will serve Canadians well.

Thank you also, Mr. Stevenson, for coming in.

I'm going to go back to Madame Larouche. I just want to clarify something, as I indicated.

Madame Larouche, Mr. Genuis simply gave notice of his intent to move a motion, which he could do. I'm still not clear if you were simply giving notice to move your motion. It is already on record that you have given notice that you will be moving the motion. To debate that motion now would need the unanimous consent of this committee. I don't think that's where we're going.

Could you clarify, Madame Larouche?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This motion simply follows up on the most recent appearance by the Minister of Jobs and Families, who spoke about 85,000 seniors. It doesn't really require debate. I just want us to shed some light on this topic before she comes back to the committee to talk about this issue specifically. Since she herself provided these figures in committee, it shouldn't be a problem for her to give them to us. That way, we can be ready to meet with her next time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Larouche. Now we're getting into debate. I can't go there, because the motion did not have the 48 hours' notice. You were within your prerogative to give notice that you would move it. If it were to actually move to debate, I would need unanimous consent from the committee at this moment.

Is there unanimous consent from the committee to debate the motion of Madame Larouche?