Debates of April 21st, 2026

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

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, but, more importantly, to speak for the students in my community of Oshawa who are being left behind by the Liberal government's decision.

Let us be clear about what this policy does. It draws a line between students. It is not a line based on effort, talent or ambition, but one based solely on where they choose to study. Drawing this line creates two classes of Canadians. This is not fairness. In fact, it is discrimination.

Oshawa is a community built on hard work. It is a community of tradespeople, health care workers, technicians and skilled professionals who keep our economy moving and our country strong. We are proud of our educational institutions, including Durham College and Ontario Tech University. These institutions play a vital role in shaping the future of our community and preparing students for success.

Not every program is offered at a public college or university. Many students choose career colleges because they offer practical, hands-on training that leads directly to employment. In some cases, they are the only option for certain specialized programs. They are not second-rate institutions. They are regulated and recognized, and they serve an important role in our education system, yet under the government's changes in budget 2025, students who attend these particular institutions were told something very simple: They do not deserve the same support as everyone else.

Imagine being a young person in Oshawa. Maybe they are just out of high school or about to graduate. Maybe they are looking to retrain after losing a job, which we have seen frequently in our auto sector in Oshawa because of Liberal failures. Maybe they are trying to build a better future for their family. They do their research and find a program that fits their goals. It is practical and focused and it leads to employment, but it is offered at a career college, and because of that one factor, the federal government says, “No grant for them.” The student sitting next to them, who is studying a different program at a different type of institution, is going to get support, but they will not.

How is that fair? How is that equal treatment? How can anyone in this House defend that kind of discrimination? This policy does not exist in a vacuum. It has real consequences, and we know that, or at least any member listening to their constituents knows that.

In Oshawa, families are already under pressure. The cost of living is high, rent is high, groceries are high and every dollar matters. Student grants are not a luxury. They are often the deciding factor in whether someone can afford to pursue an education at all. When the government removes those supports, it is not just cutting a line in a budget, but closing doors and telling people their path is less worthy.

Who does that affect the most? It affects lower- and middle-income Canadians. We see time and time again that the government wants to leave them behind.

These are people who are trying to upgrade their skills. They are new Canadians working to establish themselves. They are single parents looking for a stable career. They are workers transitioning from industries that are changing or declining, including many auto workers, as I mentioned, at the GM Oshawa assembly plant who have lost their jobs due to the unjustified tariffs caused by the U.S. and by the Prime Minister's failure to get a trade deal. These are the people we should be lifting up. Instead, once again, the government is pushing them down.

There is another consequence that cannot be ignored. At a time when Canada is facing serious labour shortages, this policy makes absolutely no sense. In Oshawa and across Durham region, employers are looking for skilled workers. We need people in the trades, personal support workers, technicians and people who can step into jobs and contribute right away.

Career colleges play a critical role in meeting those needs. They provide fast, targeted, job-ready training and help people move quickly from education to employment, yet the government has decided to make it harder for students to choose these paths. Why is that? Why would we discourage enrolment in exactly the kinds of programs that our economy desperately needs and depends on? Why would we reduce the number of graduates entering high-demand fields? Why would we worsen workforce shortages at a time when Canadians are already feeling the strain?

The answer is not rooted in logic. It is rooted in a flawed approach that undervalues hands-on education. It sends a message that some forms of learning are somehow more legitimate than others, that working with one's hands is somehow less worthy than sitting in a lecture hall and that practical careers are somehow second-class. That is a wrong message. It is wrong for Oshawa, it is wrong for Canada and it is deeply unfair to students simply trying to build a better life.

I would like to share a personal story that brings the issue into focus. My son is about to graduate from Western University, and I could not be more proud. He is coming out with an economics degree and is excited about his plans for his future. My daughter is in grade 10 and beginning to think seriously about her future. Lately we have been having many conversations about her next steps and what she may want to pursue after high school. What concerns me is the message the policy may be sending to young young people like her. Does it suggest that an education at a career college is somehow less valuable than one at a public university?

When I told my daughter that she does not have to follow a university path and that she might find more suitable, hands-on training through a career college, her immediate response was to ask, “Is that good enough?” That question speaks volumes. My daughter asked if career college is good enough. Policies like this Liberal one risk reinforcing the idea that trades and career-focused education are somehow less than, when in reality they are essential, respected and rewarding paths.

I have yet to see a member from the Liberal benches stand up to acknowledge that. I have yet to hear them say that they are not creating two tiers in our education system, yet that is exactly what they are doing. Instead they are trying to play games about the day instead of focusing on what the motion would bring forward.

Provinces and territories already regulate career colleges. They determine which institutions meet standards, they approve programs and they ensure accountability, so why is the federal government stepping in to override these decisions? Why is it imposing a blanket policy that ignores the realities on the ground? The committee's recommendation is straightforward: Align federal student grant eligibility with provincial and territorial decisions, respect the systems that are already in place and, most important, treat students equally. It is not a radical proposal. Quite frankly, it is a very reasonable one: Treat students equally.

I want to bring the discussion back to the people I represent. In Oshawa, I have spoken with students who are trying to make responsible choices about their future. They are asking for a system that recognizes their goals and supports their efforts, and they are right to ask that, because fairness should not depend on where someone studies. Opportunity should not depend on a bureaucratic distinction. Support should not be denied based on a category that has nothing to do with a student's potential or their contribution to society.

The House has a responsibility to ensure that policies are fair, that opportunities are accessible and that no Canadian is treated as less than. At the end of the day, this is about more than grants. It is about dignity and opportunity, and I anticipate Liberal members' questions about this opportunity and dignity. No matter their path, every Canadian deserves a fair chance to succeed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the word “game”. The government and the Prime Minister do not take the issue of the youth of our country and play it as a game, unlike the Conservative Party does. We are supposed to be debating and having an actual vote on the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is what was going to be happening as part of the agenda for today, followed by Bill C-10. When we get into Bill C-10, we know that the Conservatives have yet another motion, to delete the short title. For the first time ever in the last 10 years, the Conservatives says that their party is concerned about this specific issue, because the Conservatives are playing a game with important legislation.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts regarding Bill C-10 or the auditor.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, we are bringing this forth, because for the first time ever, the Liberals placed this terrible policy in budget 2025. It is our job to look at that, ask questions about why it is there and suggest that it needs to be removed immediately.

It is Parliament's job. Concurrence motions are part of procedure. How dare the member get up and act as though we are somehow messing around with procedure? It is in the book for a reason. It is an important topic. It deserves his attention. I really wish the Liberals would start asking questions about students and the rights of students in their ridings.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech really got to the heart of the problem with the policy.

In my riding of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, a mainly rural riding, a career college is one of the only choices for many fields. For some reason, the Liberals have decided to attack rural Canada. There are many people who will not be able to get an education if they cannot afford their college education at a career college. What does my colleague think is the reason the Liberals are so determined to limit what people in small-town Canada are able to do to further their education?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the current Liberal government does seem to create class tiers in our country. I mentioned somewhat jokingly once before in a speech that sometimes this feels, when I look across at the other side, like “the house of elites”, but it is proving itself to be true.

Day after day as I sit in the House, and it has been almost a year now, it seems to me that the Liberals are not focused on middle- to lower-income families and students, or on folks who live in rural communities who have access only to certain types of career paths. Maybe that is what folks want as well and what they are capable of doing. For our government, the Liberals, to constantly be pushing its thumb down and lowering Canadians' goals and ambitions is actually shameful, and the Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise because a recently released statistic shows London as having a high unemployment rate of 9.1%, the highest in Canada. Because of this, Londoners and some of my constituents would obviously think of a career change. What does my colleague think about the Liberal government's implying with these cuts that education at a career college is less valuable than education at other institutions?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fear that the government does not just imply it. It says outright that education at a career college is not as important as education at a publicly funded university. Shame on the Liberals.

My heart goes out to the constituents of London—Fanshawe. Unemployment is very high in Oshawa as well. We have a very similar unemployment rate. It is a real problem. Our students just want access to the same grants that the student next to them may get because they chose a so-called more elite place to go to school.

Again, it is a shameful thing that the Liberals are doing. They should be ashamed of themselves that they are not speaking about it today and that they are completely ignoring our concurrence motion, which we have made because we care deeply about students' choices and the people in our communities.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a small passage buried deep in budget 2025. It sits quietly on page 217. There is no headline, no press conference and no public debate, but for many young Canadians and for communities like mine, it matters a great deal, because in that short passage, the government signals its intent to eliminate student grants for students attending private educational institutions.

At first glance it might sound technical, even reasonable, to people who believe that everyone should strive for a university degree, but when we take a closer look, it reveals something much bigger. It reveals how the Liberal government values different kinds of work and whom it chooses to support. Frankly, it reveals a blind spot. I know something about that blind spot. I am proud to be both a goldsmith and a lawyer, a tradesperson and a professional. I have made my living doing each of them at different stages of my career. Some people would be surprised to learn which was a better way to support my family.

The stigma is real. When I introduce myself as a lawyer, people react one way. Yes, there are lawyer jokes, but there is also a measure of respect and deference. When I introduce myself as a goldsmith, as a tradesperson, the reaction changes. I do not need to explain it to the tradespeople watching from home. There is less credibility, as if one path were more serious, more worthy and more important.

I have lived in both these worlds. Doors closed to me when I crossed from the class of people who shower in the morning to those who shower when they get home from work. That is why this issue matters to me, because what is buried in the budget is not just a funding change. It is a signal. It says that some forms of education are more worthy of public support than others. It says that the path through a university lecture hall is valued more than the path through a workshop, a training lab or a hands-on program. That is a mistake.

There is an old fable many of us learned as children, the story of the lion and the mouse. The lion, powerful and confident, laughs at the mouse for being small and insignificant. What possible value could something so small have? However, later the lion is caught in a net, and it is the mouse, the one dismissed as unimportant, who gnaws through the ropes and sets the lion free. The lesson is simple: Strength takes many forms, and what some dismiss can turn out to be essential.

When we need to build at speeds not seen in a century, we need not just lawyers. We need carpenters, scaffolders, welders and Cat operators, including those who got their certificate at private college. If we are facing a rupture, we need all hands on deck.

In ridings like Nanaimo—Ladysmith, this is not an abstract debate. It is real life. We are a community built by people who work with their hands as well as their minds: tradespeople, technicians, care workers and small business owners. These are people who fix things, build things and keep our local economy moving.

I was lucky to participate last weekend in a repair café, where people came together, with no problem, to help fix things together. Many of us got there not through traditional university degrees. Many of us went to private career colleges. We took focused, practical programs. We learned specific skills that led directly to jobs, in programs in fields like health care support, early childhood education, welding, construction trades, information technology and personal services.

These are not backup plans. They are essential pathways to work, and for many young people they are the most direct routes into the workforce. That matters right now more than ever. We are living through a time of high youth unemployment. Young Canadians are struggling to find their footing. They are looking for a way in. They are looking for a way to build a life. They are motivated by money, and they want to find the fastest pathway to earning an income that will allow them to have at least some of the things their parents have.

At the same time, employers across this country are struggling to find skilled workers. We hear it from construction companies. We hear it from health care providers. We hear it from small businesses trying to grow. There is a gap, a real one. One would think that the role of the government would be to help close that gap, to support the pathways that connect young people to real jobs as quickly and as effectively as possible. Instead, what does the government do? It narrows those pathways.

Under this change, a student attending a public university remains eligible for means-tested grants, but a student attending a private career college, even if they are in a program that leads directly to a job, loses access to the same support. There is the same financial need, the same ambition and the same desire to contribute, but there is different treatment. Why? It is because of the type of institution they chose. That is not fairness. That is picking winners and losers, and it ignores the reality of how our education system has evolved.

Public universities play an important role. Of course they do. We need strong universities. We need research. We need professional training in fields like medicine, law and engineering. However, universities are not designed to meet everything we need. They are not built for rapid job-specific training. They are not always flexible enough to respond quickly to local labour shortages. They do not offer the full range of hands-on programs that many industries depend on.

That is where private career colleges come in. They are smaller, more focused, more nimble and more mouse-like. They can launch programs quickly. They can tailor training to local employers. They can provide targeted, shorter pathways. They get people into the workforce in months, not years. For many students, especially those who cannot afford to spend four years out of the workforce, that matters.

Let us imagine a young person in Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Maybe they cannot leave their community to attend a university. Maybe they need to work while they study. Maybe they are looking for a program that gets them into a job as quickly as possible. They find a program at a local private college. It fits their life. It fits their goals. It leads directly to employment, and they might even be able to work part-time while they are in school. However, under this budget, they lose access to grants. What happens then? They take on more debt, they work more part-time hours, they delay their training, or they abandon the path altogether. That is not helping young people. That is closing doors, and it is happening at the same time the government claims to be focused on youth employment.

That is the contradiction at the heart of this policy. On one hand, we hear about investments in job programs and skills training. There is press conference after press conference. On the other hand, we see a quiet decision buried deep in a budget that makes it harder for young people to access some of the most direct routes into those very jobs. It does not line up, and it reflects something deeper. It reflects a mindset that assigns more value to one type of work than to another. It reinforces class differences that I thought we were trying to dismantle.

Canadians know that dignity does not come from the type of institution printed on one's diploma. It comes from the work itself. It comes from building a home, from caring for a patient, from fixing a piece of equipment, from running a small business, from mastering a craft. I have seen that in my own life. There is a precision in goldsmithing that rivals any profession. There is discipline, creativity and skill. There is pride in producing something tangible and lasting, and yet too often these paths are treated as second-tier.

This policy risks reinforcing that divide. It is not the message we should be sending. If we are serious about addressing youth unemployment, we should be supporting all credible pathways to work, whether they run through a university campus or a small vocational college. We should be asking a simple question: Does this program help a young person get a job? If the answer is yes, then we should be finding ways to support it, not pulling support away.

The lion in the fable did not think it needed the mouse, but when the moment came, it turned out that what seemed small was in fact essential. We should not make the same mistake in public policy. Unless and until the government is willing to fund these programs through public universities, private programs like these are essential to our economy. They are essential to giving young Canadians a real chance to succeed.

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

Mr. Speaker, a reality check is that the federal government continues to support students. It supports postgraduate facilities, both colleges and universities. It continues to support workforce enhancements through industries. It continues to support entrepreneur youth. It continues to support, in many different ways, the young people of Canada. This is something that is not a one-day flash for the government. We do this year-round. Yesterday, Canada summer jobs kicked off, which has the potential for 100,000 youth to get started with an opportunity in Canada for the summer that leads to more permanent jobs, opens doors and so forth.

Why has the Conservative Party chosen one day to highlight the issue when, in fact, playing a game is all this is to the Conservatives? If they wanted to, they could—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the member says that we are only spending one day on this, he devalues everything I have done in my life and my career. This is not a one-day thing for me. I have a trade and a profession, and I value both.

If the member would look at page 217 of the budget and see what the government is doing to restigmatize and continue to stigmatize the trades, perhaps he would speak to the people on his side of the House and get it changed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is evident in this discussion, in listening to the questions Liberals are asking and the comments they are making, that they really have no idea about their own policy and no will to justify it.

We had the Minister of Jobs and Families before the human resources committee, and I asked her multiple times to affirm whether this was still the policy of the government after it was not mentioned in the budget implementation act. After about three minutes of this, I asked the deputy minister, who confirmed that this was still the policy.

Liberals are attacking people in the trades and people trying to get skills that are acquired outside of a university setting. As we hear from the absurd interventions of Liberals today, there is no awareness of this and no willingness to defend it or look squarely upon the policy that they put in their own budget.

I wonder if the member can make sense of what Liberals are doing today and whether they are planning on voting for this motion.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to my colleague is no, I cannot make sense of why the Liberals are attacking us on question after question today as we try to focus on jobs for young people.

I want to highlight the work that my colleague has done on this file. This is something that he has been focused on day after day. I have seen him talk about it to people in my riding when he has come to visit to help support me and my community as we strive to find jobs for young people.

I can assure members that neither my colleagues nor I think this is a temporary thing. It is something we are focused on day in and day out.

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

Mr. Speaker, this policy creates two classes of students based solely on where they study. In rural ridings like Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, we do not have many choices for education.

Why does my colleague think the Liberals are trying to limit education, especially in small communities?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Liberals are opposing us on this matter.

What I can say to those who are watching at home is that we value what they do and thank them for doing it, and to keep contributing to our economy, because there is a bright future ahead.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.

I am very proud to get up on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley to speak to the motion, which is on the federal Canada student grant for full-time students. This brings me back to 20 years ago when my small first nation, the Haisla Nation, was trying to integrate our people into the economy, specifically into the workforce. Basically, what we are debating here is a motion about the federal government restricting student grants for public institutions and not-for-profit private institutions.

While we are talking about this, I have to talk about the Kitimat Valley Institute, a private post-secondary institute in my riding, in the town of Kitimat, that was bankrupt. We could see the value in saving the Kitimat Valley Institute. As a small first nation band under the Indian Act, we had no money, but we could see its value because coming down the pike were forestry, LNG and mining jobs, so we did what we could to scratch together the dollars to purchase this private post-secondary institute and save it. Did we get any government help? No, we did not. It was the private sector that came to our rescue, the corporations. Those first few years were a struggle without government support, provincial or federal.

Our people back then were facing the same situation that young people in Canada are facing right now. There is no opportunity or future for young people in Canada, so they are trying to leave. They are trying to go to the United States for a better opportunity to build a life. What was proposed at the Liberal convention just recently for these young people who want to leave is a $500,000 exit tax. If anybody wants to leave Canada for employment or to build a business outside of Canada, there could be an exit tax, which the Liberals debated at their convention. Not only are they stifling the economy so that young people cannot build a life, but they want to punish them with this proposed exit tax.

This is not the way to build Canada into the best performing country in the G7, let alone an energy superpower. To do either of those things we need a workforce, preferably a Canadian workforce that is trained and created in Canada, within our borders. Without that, we are basically supporting the economies of other countries, especially when we are talking about labour shortages in skilled and technical fields.

Now, many students rely on those grants to afford their career programs, including first nations students. First nations have no real opportunity to engage with respect to what we are talking about here today. If the average aboriginal person who has never left and does not want to leave the reserve has to leave for training or employment, they will want to return to their community or their territory at some point. This is a real struggle. Not only are we telling that person to go out there and find their way in the outside world, but we are basically telling them that they are going to have to struggle with affordability issues under the Indian Act because they will not get 100% of the funding. For a first nation that does not have own-source revenue, it becomes a budgetary exercise and puts limits on what it can do with its younger generation. That is why we bought the Kitimat Valley Institute. We scratched together the dollars to accomplish that.

This proposal excludes the Kitimat Valley Institute, which my band operates on private land, by the way. We bought the land from the provincial government, kept it in fee-simple status and keep paying the taxes on it because we understand that the economy is a lot bigger than what we are thinking about.

I do not think the government is truly thinking about all the aspects that go into a private post-secondary institution, which includes taxes and employment of instructors and custodians. Everybody who works at a facility contributes to the economy, locally, provincially and federally. However, it is the next generation of workers who are going to feel this crunch, because they cannot get the training in public institutions alone.

For first nations trying to be creative, trying to chart out their own futures for their young people based on the circumstances they have been given under the Indian Act, it is a tough slog. We cannot think about the idea of the chicken and egg when we are talking about economy versus education. I learned pretty quickly that everything we did for training, for education, actually returned to me in anger, because there was no economy in our region. There was a job expected after this training. At that point I understood that training and education go hand in hand with economic development. They have to, otherwise we have people leaving our community. We have a brain drain, and that is what is happening right now in Canada with our best and brightest, whether they go to a public institution or not, going to the United States.

This motion does not help. It punishes young people, it punishes Canadians, and why? Is it a budgetary question? If it is, just say it. However, if we want Canada to be running on all cylinders, we have to consider all the components that go into training, especially when we are talking about what we do as small first nations communities all across B.C. and Canada that want to contribute to the economy and want to get our people into the workforce.

If not for the Kitimat Valley Institute, KVI, we would not have the number of people entering the workforce to build LNG Canada. When we think about LNG Canada, there are 50,000 construction workers. I am sad to say that not all of those construction workers came from Canada. They came from all over the place. They came from the United States. They came from all across Canada, from different provinces. I see it as a specialized industry. I get it, but we do not build the Canadian workforce by limiting our options.

Canada is in a really tough spot with the trade war from the United States and the trade talks coming up. I agree, we have to be independent as a country. We have to diversify our trade, and we have to rebuild our economy after 10 years of stifled policies, regulations and legislation. However, to omit a certain educational entity is wrong. It is not building our workforce. It is not building the future.

If we are going to be the energy superpower in the same vein as LNG Canada, or maybe Chevron, which left Canada, a $30-billion investment, and if we want to rebuild this, we have to rebuild the people. We have to show them hope. This motion does not do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada does a wide variety of things to support young people. Earlier this morning, just a few hours ago, I was on the floor of the House of Commons with Darion and Brett Ducharme, two outstanding individuals, constituents of mine, who have benefited through the Futurpreneur Canada program. This program is there to provide mentorship and support with finances. These two wonderful young men are successful today because of a government initiative, at least in part, but more importantly, because of who they are and their determination to acquire the skill sets that are necessary. The point is that, in every way, the government understands the need to support young people, and we continue to do just that, just like yesterday with the 100,000 youth summer jobs.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what is the point of this motion then, if not to restrict federal student grants and exclude for-profit institutions like my band has? Why should we have that? This member got up earlier. I heard him say that somehow we are playing a game. This is not gamesmanship. This is about rebuilding Canada. This is about rebuilding a future for young people.

Why have this restriction, especially for a lot of first nations communities all across Canada, which are doing exactly the same thing as my community? This would actually discount all those first nations' efforts to not employ just their own people, like an institution like ours, and employ native and non-native alike. It has benefited everybody. It has made Canada stronger. I do not see the point of this motion.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that the Liberal members of this House are refusing to really ask questions about the motion that we put forward based on policy in their budget 2025, a policy that is exclusionary and discriminatory and creates classes of Canadians.

I wonder if the member would comment on that, how harmful that would be to Canada if we were to create classes of Canadians to say one is “less than” and their career path is somehow less than someone else's career path.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a living example of that in my community, Haisla first nation. We could not get government support for our for-profit institution, Kitimat Valley Institute. We fixed it, not through government support, but through the corporations.

I believe that this motion we are talking about is going to be discriminatory. Do colleagues know who it is going to affect the most? It will be those people with a low income. Who are the most low-income people in Canada? It is those people from first nations.

I cannot accept this motion the way it is worded.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made excellent points while sharing his own experience.

It seems to me, given that we need skilled workers to work on critical nation-building projects, the options are that we train the people who already live in those communities, we train other Canadians and encourage them to move to those communities, or we have workers come here from abroad. I think our priority should be on training Canadians to fill the jobs that exist here in Canada, and particularly in supporting those who live in areas where those jobs already are.

The Liberal approach is to cut off training offered through vocational institutions that are more nimble and innovative, where people may be placed in communities closer to where the work is done. That is precisely why the Liberal approach is going to undermine the kind of major project construction that they talk about. We need to have the workers and we want those workers to be Canadian workers.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt that is exactly what we learned pretty quickly when we purchased KVI. We opened that up to everybody, native and non-native alike, including first nations from other communities because we knew we could not fulfill the workforce for LNG Canada for 50,000 workers. With Chevron coming down, that was going to be another 40,000 workers.

We get the grand announcements. We get the rhetoric of building Canada strong, of being an energy superpower and all that. I do not believe any of it, but if we are going to try to get there, one of the key components is to build the workforce and make sure that the workforce, the majority of it, is Canadian.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was a time in this country when a path was clear. If people worked hard, made good choices and invested in their future, they could get ahead. That was the Canadian dream. However, for a lot of Canadians today, that dream feels further and further out of reach. Costs are up, opportunities feel tighter and more and more people are doing everything right, but still falling behind. At a moment like this, the role of the government should be simple: to make it easier for people to build a life, not harder. That is why this policy is so frustrating. Instead of opening doors, it is closing them.

The government proposed restricting the Canada student grant for full-time students. It might sound like a small change, but in real life, it boils down to this. Two students can be working just as hard, striving to build their careers and trying to build a future in this country, but one of them gets the help while the other gets nothing just because of where they go to school. That is not fair. That is not common sense. That is not how we rebuild the Canadian dream.

Those in Waterloo region are incredibly proud of their post-secondary institutions. There are institutions like Conestoga College, Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Waterloo, but there are also great institutions like triOS College, which reached out to me personally, concerned about this change. These are colleges that serve our community that the traditional system does not work for, such as single moms working two jobs and still wanting to go to school or anyone who can attend classes outside of their nine to five regular work. These people are now questioning whether they can afford to stay in their programs. Students who are trying to become medical professional assistants, PSWs or IT professionals are now being told that the support they were counting on may not be there.

These schools are helping shape our next generation. They give students options, different paths, timelines and ways to succeed, but the reality is that not every student follows the same path. Some students want a university education. Others want something more hands-on, something that gets them into the workforce faster. That is where career colleges come in. They train people for real jobs in real industries, often in less time. They prepare people to become personal support workers, medical assistants, IT professionals and skilled trade workers. These are not backup plans. These are essential jobs. These are the people we rely on every single day, and yet, under this policy, many of those students will lose access to federal grants, not because their work is less important or their career is not needed but because of the type of school they attend as the traditional path did not work for them.

Let us think about that. We are telling people who want to work in health care, in the trades or tech that they picked the wrong path, so they are on their own now. At the same time, we have a labour shortage. We see all across our communities that there are just not enough workers. Therefore, why would we make it harder for people to get those skills? Why would we put up those financial barriers? That is what this does. It makes it harder for people to take that next step and for many, it will mean they simply cannot afford to go. It is worth asking who is most likely to be affected by this. It is not the students with the most resources. It is the ones trying to change their lives. People are going back to school later: new Canadians, people looking for a second chance or a fresh start. This policy does not hit everyone equally. It hits those who are climbing an uphill battle.

Now let us talk about affordability, because this is where it hits the most. Most students do not have extra money sitting around. They rely on grants to make school possible. Rent is high, groceries are high and everything costs more. For some people trying to decide whether they can go back to school, change careers or learn a new skill, that support can make the difference between moving forward or staying back. The government removing that support for one group of students is a closed door that will hit those with lower and middle incomes. Canadians who are in these classes are hit the hardest, the very people who are trying to get ahead and break cycles in their own lives.

There is another piece to this that matters, especially in a place like Kitchener. That is the extra pressure put on our post-secondary institutions. They contribute to our communities and support our local economies, but we have also seen the pressure on housing, infrastructure and services. Those challenges need to be addressed properly.

The policy that the government is suggesting does not solve these problems. It does not fix housing or improve oversight. It does not strengthen the system. All it does is make life harder for Canadian students choosing career training. If anything, we should be expanding flexible, targeted training options to meet demand, not shrinking them. Career colleges are often the fastest way to respond to workforce needs. They adapt quickly and focus on specific skills. In moments like this, when the economy is shifting, that kind of flexibility is not a weakness but a strength.

Provinces regulate these schools. They decide which institutions are legitimate and which programs meet standards. The committee made a simple recommendation. If a province says a school is valid, the federal government should respect that. That is the response that puts students first. Right now, the government has not explained why it is suggesting this change or what problem it is solving. From where Canadians are standing, it does not solve anything. It just creates new problems. It creates unfairness and barriers, and it sends the wrong message about the value of work.

At the end of the day, it comes down to something simple: respect for students, respect for a different path and respect for the idea that there is more than one way to build a good life in this country. University is a great path. College is a great path. I went to college. Career training is also a great path. We need all of them. We should be supporting all of them, not telling one group they matter more than another. When we do that, we hurt our workforce and our economy, and we push the Canadian dream out of reach.

The ask here is simple: reverse this, restore fairness and support students, no matter which path they choose, because if we are serious about helping Canadians get ahead, then we need to stop putting obstacles in the way.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been very committed to youth employment. We have Build Canada Homes, which has an initial capitalization of $13 billion, and that will create jobs in the trades. More recently, there is the $51 billion to build infrastructure across this country, which will build upon the work we are doing at the Major Projects Office, including in my home of Durham, where the Darlington small modular reactors will employ many youth.

Could the member speak to Canada summer jobs? Just this week, we launched it. The portals are open and applications can come in. This is a very good opportunity for youth, to get them working in communities. In my home community of Ajax, we have 368 jobs across 74 organizations, as part of creating these different opportunities across many different sectors. I am hoping the member can speak to that in her riding.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the announcement about the Canada summer jobs was, of course, a good thing. It affected my community as well.

However, there can be both things at once. Because we are supporting students in the workforce over the summer, we should also be supporting those students who are looking at getting an education in a different way because the traditional system does not work for them.

While I agree that it is a great program, I disagree with the government's decision here. They are cutting funding for the people who need it the most.