Debates of April 21st, 2026

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

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?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

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?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

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?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

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

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?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

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 Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

Economic Statement

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to permit the Minister of Finance and National Revenue to make a statement followed by a period of up to 10 minutes for questions and comments; after the statement, a member from each recognized opposition party, a member of the New Democratic Party and the member of the Green Party may reply for a period approximately equivalent to the time taken by the minister's statement, and each statement shall be followed by a period of 10 minutes for questions and comments; and after each member has replied, or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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

There being no dissenting voice, 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)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

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

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has been clear. The committee is calling on the government to reconsider its distribution of student grants based on the type of institution where students are studying. In particular, the committee points out that federal decisions should align with those made by Quebec and the provinces because post-secondary education falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. This is not up for debate.

What we are seeing right now is that Ottawa is moving away from simply helping students financially. It is starting to indirectly determine which institutions provide access to the grants and which do not. The result is that two students who have been recognized by Quebec can still be treated differently by Ottawa. That is not acceptable to us. It is a clear infringement on an area of jurisdiction that does not belong to the government. The federal government's role should be simple. It should help students, not redraw the boundaries of higher education in a way that suits it. If a recognized institution is authorized by Quebec, students studying there must be treated fairly.

As we allow ourselves to be distracted by this debate, an even bigger problem is getting even worse: lack of funding for the next generation of scientists. Graduate scholarships have not gone up in 20 years. Some have not been indexed since 2003. Practically speaking, they have lost nearly half of their real value. Meanwhile, there are now about 240,000 graduate students and barely 6,000 federal scholarships. The situation in the Université du Québec network is even more dire. Only about 1.3% of its graduate students receive federal scholarships.

Young people have been told to go into research, get an education and contribute, but they are not actually being given the means to do that properly, and it shows. Nowadays, most graduate students live on very little. Some have to work during their studies. Some even have to go to food banks. Others are seriously thinking about dropping out. In Quebec, in places like Montreal, some live on less than $20,000 per year. Everyone knows that is not enough.

It is often even harder in the regions. As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, I hear about this constantly. Students are burnt out, their professors cannot keep their teams together, and the system is on the verge of falling apart. My riding, Rimouski—La Matapédia, is home to applied research centres and teams doing innovative work on the ground. They all tell me the same thing. Resources are lacking, and projects are stalling, being postponed or being abandoned. At the end of the day, this has a direct impact on what we as a society can do.

A few weeks ago, SEREX, a college centre for technology transfer located in Amqui, contacted me to warn that further budget cuts to certain programs risk significantly hampering its ability to operate. Then we wonder why people are leaving. A large proportion of postgraduate students are considering leaving Canada, and many already have. Why are they leaving? The answer is simple. Conditions are better elsewhere, pay is higher and there are more resources available.

Again, I ask: Why train people here if we are just going to lose them? At this rate, Canada is becoming a place where we train people for other countries. We are kind of like a way station. We train the students and pay them, but others reap the benefits. A country that does that is not working for its own people; it is working for others.

This is not just a student issue; it is also an economic issue. When we lose our next generation of workers, we lose ideas, we lose expertise and we lose the ability to innovate. We also lose economic benefits for our regions, our businesses and our institutions. In Quebec, this affects us directly. Our universities, CEGEPs, colleges and research centres, especially in the regions, play a key role in development. When funding falls short, the entire ecosystem suffers.

Now the government is telling us that it has taken action, that it has increased and extended the assistance. Yes, announcements were made, but in all honesty, that does not solve the underlying problem. A few announcements do not make up for 20 years of delays. In the meantime, the government keeps making access to grants more complicated. It adds conditions and draws distinctions. It says it wants to help, yet it keeps putting obstacles in the way. None of that makes any sense.

There is also another problem. We still do not have access to all the data we need to clearly see what is working and what is not. Researchers are expected to be rigorous, but the government itself does not always provide the means to analyze its own system properly.

The federal government claims that it wants to become a world leader in innovation, but it is not even giving itself the means to fulfill its ambitions. It is at the back of the pack when it comes to research and development investment among G7 countries. A leader does not underfund the next generation. A leader does not needlessly complicate access to grants. Above all, a leader does not let its talent leave for other countries. The bottom line is simple. If we want to move forward, we need to keep our people around. That is quite logical.

It is clear to the Bloc Québécois. The government needs to rethink the way it distributes grants. It needs to respect the decisions of Quebec and the provinces. It needs to treat students fairly. Above all, it must finally put in place stable, permanent funding.

At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves the real question: Do we want to keep our people here, or are we quietly agreeing to become a stepping stone in our researchers' journey?

Right now, that is what is happening. People are being trained here but are going off to build up other countries. If left unchecked, things will keep heading in the same direction.

Training people here so that they can achieve success elsewhere is not a strategy; it is a failure.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed our colleague's speech a lot.

What I am hearing from people in the field, especially during our discussions with Quebec universities, is that they are relatively satisfied with the programs that the federal government is currently putting in place to fund research and innovation precisely to keep our young talent at home. We have a lot of support from the universities.

I have a question. Perhaps the member could clarify his position a bit. He is suggesting and asking that we increase student grants, but that we not to do so directly. That surprises me a little.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear. To my knowledge, my colleague is pretty good with numbers. Federal student grants at the graduate level have not been adjusted for inflation for 20 years. I would like him to name one thing that has not been adjusted for inflation for 20 years and tell me whether he thinks that makes sense. How can we retain talent and expertise when we lack the necessary incentives or winning measures to retain these people?

The position of the Bloc Québécois is quite clear. Yes, we want to increase federal student grants. However, the government is more interested in attracting and bringing in people from the United States and other countries than in strengthening conditions here for students already in Quebec and Canada. In the last budget, the government allocated $1.2 billion to attract people. I will give the government the benefit of the doubt, but I look forward to seeing the results.

Before we build new gardens, perhaps we should take care of the ones we already have here.