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.”