Vincent Ho
Richmond Hill South, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, when I speak to my constituents, a lot of the concerns they talk about have to do with the affordability crisis and the housing hell the Liberal government has created after 11 years in power.”
“The PBO also warned that repeated spending increases beyond previous projections will “erode the credibility of fiscal plans and weaken confidence in the fiscal framework and raise concerns about long-term [debt] sustainability.” That is the exact credibility crisis that this Liberal Prime Minister finds himself in, because a fiscal ancho…”
“The only thing we know is that this brand new bureaucracy is staffed with Liberal insiders and executives who are collecting salaries as high as $700,000 a year. This reflects a classic principal-agent problem. Taxpayers are the principals, while Liberal government institutions and their corporate insiders are the agents.”
“That should alarm every member of the House. It is not only the PBO. The International Monetary Fund, the IMF, a global agency that the Liberals love to cite, has now called on Canada to adopt international accounting standards to improve transparency, ensure comparability over time and maintain a clear connection between borrowing and de…”
“Mr. Speaker, when historians study the fiscal decline of nations, they often note that collapse rarely begins with a dramatic event. It begins with habits: habits of indiscipline, habits of euphemism, habits of pretending that borrowing is prosperity, that inflationary spending is strategy and that accounting definitions can be stretched…”
“The Liberals already have the Infrastructure Bank, the growth fund and the defence bank. They have agency after agency, fund after fund and office after office, and the result is that Canada still has the worst investment performance in the G7. This is textbook government failure.”
The complete record
Every one of 333 lines we hold for Vincent Ho, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“Mr. Speaker, after a decade of costly Liberal credit card budgeting, young Canadians are facing more costs, more taxes, more debt, more on the national credit card, and more of the same. The Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal who has surged youth unemployment beyond recessionary levels. Since 2022, youth unemployment has surged from 12.3% to 18.9%, and young Canadians are remaining unemployed longer than at any point since records began in 1976. Liberal labour and immigration policies are driving up the cost of rent, groceries and homes for young Canadians. When will the Liberal Prime Minister end his costly credit card budgeting, so young Canadians can afford to eat, work and live?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member has a lengthy history of supporting Bernie Sanders. A quick Google search revealed that he has many photos of press releases from events where she is seen sitting next to Bernie Sanders or supporting and applauding him down in the United States. What U.S.-style politics and policy from Bernie Sanders is she going to import into Canada?”
“How does the Liberal Prime Minister expect to negotiate lower tariffs or a better trade deal with the Americans when he refuses to build the very infrastructure that would give Canada unbreakable leverage abroad in the first place?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing Liberal rhetoric all day long about building major projects, but the Liberal Prime Minister likes to talk about Canada as an “energy superpower.” The reality is that the Liberals' own anti-development laws have been blocking our ability to build a pipeline to move our own resources to market. Meanwhile, the United States is approving energy infrastructure at record speeds on its terms, not ours. Behind the Liberal illusions, the Enbridge CEO said, “the conditions don't yet exist for that pipeline to be built.” The CEO of TC Energy said, “capital goes where it is welcome. And for too long, it hasn't felt welcome here” with the Liberals. After a full year of their being in office, not a single major project has been approved by the Liberals' $246-million Major Projects Office.”
“Why do you think the Liberal Prime Minister has allowed Canada to be sidelined and allowed Canadians to fall further behind while other countries move ahead?”
“Mr. Speaker, while Mexico is already at the negotiating table with the United States, Canada has not held serious negotiations for months now. The Liberal Prime Minister likes to tout himself as a serious person, but Canadians are starting to see that there is nothing serious about his approach on trade with the U.S. First, he says our relationship with the U.S. is ruptured and then it is a mutual success. He twists into a pretzel and says our historical ties with the U.S. have been a vulnerability, but now we are “stronger together” with the U.S. Behind all of the illusions and Liberal rhetoric, the reality is that 2.6 million Canadian jobs depend on resolving these tariffs. That means millions of paycheques, mortgages and rent payments and millions of families putting food on the table.”
“At what point will the Liberals stop blaming tariffs for Canada's economic decline and start admitting that it is their failure to get a deal done and to reduce even a single tariff that is sending Canadians to food banks by the millions?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister touts himself as the master negotiator, yet he flip-flops on his position on U.S. trade like a magician distracting with illusions while nothing actually happens. Last year, the Prime Minister said “elbows up” to Washington. Months later, he put his elbows down and said, “Who cares?” about the talks. Fast-forward to this year, and the Liberal Prime Minister said that U.S. integration is subordination. A quick few months later he changed course and said that we are stronger together with the U.S. Here is the reality: Steel tariffs have doubled, lumber tariffs have tripled and manufacturing tariffs are hitting our workers here at home, yet after all the Liberal rhetoric and illusions, there is still no trade deal after more than a year. There is still no timeline and no plan.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister calls himself a master negotiator, but he has only managed to flip-flop his position on the U.S. like a magician, distracting with illusions while nothing actually happens. Last year he said “elbows up” to Washington. Then, months later, he put his elbows down and said “who cares?” about talks with the U.S. We can fast-forward to this year. The Liberal Prime Minister said U.S. integration is subordination. A quick few months later he changed course and said that we are “stronger together” with the U.S. Canadians are confused. Here is the reality. Steel tariffs have doubled. Lumber tariffs have tripled. The manufacturing tariffs are hitting our workers here at home. After all the Liberal rhetoric and illusions, there is still no trade deal after more than a year.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister calls himself the master negotiator, yet he changes his tone on the U.S. faster than the weather changes in April. One day he is talking about a rupture, the next day about a mutual success, then a weakness, and now, being stronger together. Steel tariffs have doubled, lumber tariffs have tripled, and manufacturing tariffs are hitting our workers here at home. However, after all the Liberal rhetoric and illusions, there is still no trade deal after more than a year. At what point are the Liberals going to stop excusing their own failures and admit that the Prime Minister does not have a coherent negotiation strategy at all, that it is just illusions dressed up as diplomacy?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal immigration minister says she is “accountable” but not responsible for dropping the ball when letting terrorists into Canada. Letting in a known terrorist should have set off every alarm bell in the Liberal government, yet just last week, the visitor permit of an Iranian regime-linked individual was specifically exempted and his entry into Canada rubber-stamped under the Liberal minister's watch. A simple Google search could have stopped this. Worse, the Liberal Prime Minister is letting the minister keep her job. Does that mean the Prime Minister is responsible but not accountable for the failures of his Liberal immigration minister?”
“Mr. Speaker, that was a Google search of a list of things the Liberals have put on the national credit card. This costly credit card budget means more debt, more cost, more spending and more taxes. It is all more of the same. Nothing has changed. The Liberal Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal, except that he has managed to double Trudeau's debt deficit. Food bank visits have doubled. One in three Canadians is borrowing just to eat, and families are feeling the pain at the grocery store. Deficits mean inflation today and taxes tomorrow, which the Liberals keep doubling down on. Why are the Liberals fanning the flames of the fire on costs and higher deficits instead of putting out the fire for Canadians struggling to afford groceries, gas and housing?”
“Mr. Speaker, this week's costly Liberal budget update confirms what Canadians already feel at the checkout. This costly credit card budget means more debt, more costs, more spending, more taxes and more of the same. Nothing has changed, because the Liberal Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal, and he has doubled Trudeau's deficit. According to the latest “Canadian Food Sentiment Index” report, Canadians are now choosing food based on price, not nutrition, and they are cutting back just to survive. Nearly 10 million Canadians face food insecurity. How many more warning lights have to flash before the Liberals stop swiping the national credit card and finally make food more affordable for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is exactly where the Liberal government gets it wrong. It would start a new bureaucracy and a new fund to be staffed and overseen by Liberal insiders. The Liberal government, in the past year alone, has already formed 13 new bureaucracies, all of which are overseen or managed by Liberal insiders. The government says it would be professionally managed, but it would actually be professionally managed to fail and to benefit only corporate insiders. That is one of the biggest differences we see compared to other models that are succeeding. We could unleash our resources and attract investment. We do not need to draw on more government debt that is going to be paid off by taxpayers and the next generation. The sovereign wealth fund should be built on one thing: wealth.”
“Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is that the Liberal slush fund has nothing similar to any of the sovereign wealth funds that have been successfully created in the past by other countries. First of all, other sovereign wealth funds are allowed to invest globally in an investment opportunity set that would maximize risk-adjusted returns. This Liberal slush fund would be restricted to a few selected investment decisions that would benefit projects tied to Liberal insiders. Second, this Liberal slush fund was pitched by Brookfield, which is none other than the financial firm the Liberal Prime Minister was the chair of in 2024. Guess when it was pitched. It was pitched in 2024. There are many striking similarities between this so-called sovereign debt fund and the Liberal corruption we have seen in the past.”
“Mr. Speaker, other countries do not leave their resource wealth in the ground. They do not block their local domestic talent from being able to succeed. Other countries, like Norway, do not have the highest household debt in the G7, the most unaffordable housing in the G7, the lowest investment per worker in the G7, the worst food price inflation in the G7, the second-lowest productivity in the G7 or the second-highest unemployment in the G7. Maybe the member should put his economics 101 textbook down and read a jobs report for once. He should go and knock on some doors, talk to his constituents and see what Canadians are really facing on the ground.”
“That is how we will unlock investment and the power of free enterprise. That is how we will create jobs and drive prosperity. That is how we will generate real, sustainable wealth for the next generation. Canada does not need a sovereign debt fund disguising a Liberal slush fund for insiders. Canada needs a government that will get out of the way, unleash our economy and let Canadians build the wealth this country was always meant to have, from generation to generation.”
“Growth does not come from Liberal branding exercises or decisions that are dictated by the government in Ottawa. Growth comes from investor and consumer confidence. It comes from trade and regulatory uncertainty. It comes from having a competitive economy and efficient capital markets. The Liberal government has managed to undermine all of these conditions. If the Liberal Prime Minister truly wanted to make Canada strong and truly wanted to make Canada wealthy, he would not be creating a sovereign debt fund on the backs of hard-working Canadians. He would be removing the barriers that are holding this country back. He would repeal the anti-resource law, Bill C-69 , repeal the tanker ban, scrap the industrial carbon tax, end capital gains taxes on reinvestment in Canada and approve a pipeline or two by this summer.”
“That money would not build anything the Liberal Prime Minister claims he wants to build. It would not make investments in anything this Liberal Prime Minister says he wants to invest in. It would the money of hard-working Canadians going to pay just interest to bankers and bondholders. This is why the so-called Canada Strong fund is not the solution. It is a symptom of a Liberal government that has run out of ideas and believes that if it simply creates another Liberal institution, another Liberal acronym or another complex corporate structure wrapped in another Liberal announcement, with taxpayer money managed by highly paid Liberal government insiders, growth will somehow follow. The problem is not the problem itself. The problem is that the Liberal government does not know how to diagnose the problem at all.”
“The Liberal government's own economic update got one thing right. It predicts that growth will fall and inflation will rise this year. Layered on top of all that, there is a newly minted sovereign wealth fund with no wealth. It is just a sovereign debt fund disguising a Liberal slush fund for corporate insiders. Canadians are not confused. They understand what is happening. They are being asked to pay more for less once again. The consequences are already being felt. Canadians are now paying $59 billion annually in debt interest, which is up 10% in just one year. That is more than we spend on health care transfers. That is more than we collect in the GST. It means that every Canadian family would now be on the hook for $3,400 in Liberal interest just to service the interest payments on all that Liberal debt.”
“The list goes on. I know the Liberals love slogans, but this is not a record of building Canada strong. It is a record of decline overseen by Liberal mismanagement. Now, after all of this, the Liberals are asking Canadians to trust them with another $25 billion for the sovereign debt slush fund for Liberal insiders, and Canadians are not buying it. This week's fiscal update can only be described as a Liberal credit card budget update. It is a budget that would double the deficit left behind and mean more costs, more taxes, more debt and more inflation. Let us look at the details a little more. It has $37 billion in net new spending announced alone, $3 billion more for international climate finance slush funds, $11 million for another investor meeting photo op and $2.3 billion to subsidize foreign-made electric vehicles.”
“Instead of spending taxpayer money, we could bring back $1 trillion in pension fund money that the Liberals have pushed out of Canada by fast-tracking permits, lowering taxes and unleashing free enterprise. Why should a single mother or a small business owner in Richmond Hill South be on the hook for speculative investments that are politically decided by these Liberals and that benefit only corporate insiders? They should not. Let us take a step back and look at the broader economic picture under the Liberal Prime Minister . Today, after his one year in office, Canada has the highest household debt in the G7, the most unaffordable housing in the G7, the lowest investment per worker in the G7, the worst food price inflation in the G7, the second-lowest productivity in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7.”
“How many more funds will it take before the Liberals admit that the problem is not a lack of government vehicles? The problem is Liberal government policy and Liberal corruption. Let us take a step back. If a project has a real business case and it is viable, competitive and productive, it will naturally attract private capital and investors will fund it, not because the government says it will succeed but because the project will generate risk-adjusted returns that will exceed the cost of borrowing. That is how free markets work. That is how growth actually happens. However, if a project cannot attract private investment on its own merits, why should Canadian taxpayers be forced to take on that downside risk? Perhaps it is because the project's beneficiaries would be Liberal friends and corporate insiders.”
“They deserve to know whether decisions are being made in the public interest or in the interest of the Liberal Prime Minister and his corporate insiders. The pattern is very familiar. We have seen this movie before. We saw it when the last Liberal prime minister was in office. (1145) Let us not forget that the Liberals have already created the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Canada growth fund and the defence bank. Each time, they promised to attract investment, productivity growth and wealth creation. Each time, they created new bureaucracies for highly paid consultants and bureaucrats and corporate positions for their Liberal friends, and all the while, they funnelled money into projects tied to Liberal insiders. Despite all of this, Canada still has the worst investment record in the G7.”
“Is it for families that are shouldering $3,400 a year in just federal debt interest payments? Is it for well-connected financial firms, corporate insiders and Liberal buddies of the Liberal Prime Minister who are looking to manage and siphon off billions in public capital? This is the same corruption we saw from the last Liberal prime minister, but with more steps and buried in more bureaucracy, agencies and complex corporate legal structures under a new Liberal brand. This raises serious questions about conflicts of interest. When the Liberal Prime Minister brings forward a policy that closely resembles a proposal that was advanced by a firm while he was its chair, which he has been financially tied to, Canadians deserve answers. They deserve transparency.”
“In other words, Brookfield would take taxpayer dollars, funnel them into a politically corporate insider slush fund and allow private financial actors to participate, with the same corporate insiders managing the funds, charging a fee and then hand-picking insider projects that are politically charged. This means that the Liberal Prime Minister and his insider friends would be profiting off the scheme and siphoning funds in multiple ways, while Canadians absorb the downside risk. Fast-forward to this week. The Liberal Prime Minister , who has had extensive ties to Brookfield and has had stock options and equity interests connected to that firm, now unveils a fund using a strikingly similar model. Canadians are right to ask who this fund is really for. Is it for workers struggling to afford a home?”
“Create a large public investment vehicle and have Brookfield help manage it by sticking its fingers into it, hand-picking investments in insider-owned projects that would get preferential regulatory treatment and gain access to fast-tracked approvals over its competitors. It would then double-dip. Brookfield would propose to co-invest alongside the so-called sovereign wealth fund and participate in any upside value. On top of that, it would be triple-dipping, because Brookfield would profit again through charging hefty investment management fees, regardless of the performance of the fund.”
“They are not contrived, investing in a few hand-picked domestic projects tied to Liberal insiders. That is not the sound fiscal policy the Liberal Prime Minister likes to tout. That is a gamble with other people's money. It is Canadians' money. Speaking of Liberal insiders, let us talk about who stands to benefit, because this idea of a Liberal sovereign slush fund did not emerge in a vacuum. Back in 2024, this very concept of a multi-billion-dollar investment fund was pitched by none other than the one and only Brookfield Asset Management. Let us not forget that the Liberal Prime Minister was the chair of Brookfield for all of 2024. The insider proposal was simple.”
“This is no sovereign wealth fund. This is a sovereign debt fund. Let us call this so-called Canada Strong fund what it is: a Liberal slush fund dressed up as a sovereign debt fund. The Liberal government will borrow money, the interest payments for which will be serviced on the backs of Canadian taxpayers and future generations, at a time when Canadians are already drowning in debt. The Liberal government will then place all of that borrowed money into a politically managed investment vehicle. It will take risks with it and hope that the returns will exceed the cost of borrowing. If they do not, Canadians will lose. If they do, Liberal insiders will enjoy the profit leveraged on the backs of Canadians. This is not to mention that real sovereign wealth funds have investment mandates that enable them to invest globally.”
“They are built on governments that live within their means and invest excess national prosperity for future generations. This is a simple concept that the Liberals seem to have never understood. What did Canadians hear this week? They heard about a Liberal government that is running the largest deficit outside of the pandemic. It is a deficit double the size of the one was left behind by the last Liberal prime minister. They heard about a Liberal Prime Minister whose policies have driven $1.3 trillion in federal debt. They heard about a Liberal government whose direct program spending is up 12.5%, even as Canadians struggle to pay for groceries and rent. On top of all of that, they are now being told that another $25 billion will be borrowed on the backs of taxpayers. The national credit card will fund this new Liberal scheme.”
“Mr. Speaker, this week, Canadians got a fiscal update on the state of the Liberal-managed decline wrapped up in a Liberal rebranding exercise. The Liberal Prime Minister stood and announced what he calls a Canada Strong fund. It is a so-called sovereign wealth fund. Let us be precise, because words actually matter in the chamber. A sovereign wealth fund requires one thing above all else: wealth. After 11 years of Liberal mismanagement, spiralling deficits, out-of-control inflation, skyrocketing unemployment and leaving our resources in the ground, Canada does not have sovereign wealth. What we have a lot of is sovereign debt. Real sovereign wealth funds, whether they are in Norway, Singapore or elsewhere, are built on persistent budget surpluses. They are built on discipline.”
“Mr. Speaker, the two-tier justice system exists not in spite of the Liberals. It exists because of the Liberals. In one case, a non-citizen criminal who was twice found guilty of groping a young woman's genitals avoided real prison time and instead received house arrest in order to help him avoid deportation. This loophole tells victims that the Liberal system cares more about protecting convicted foreign nationals from deportation than protecting Canadians. Justice should be blind. How much longer is the Liberal government going to defend an ideological two-tier justice system and finally start standing with Canadians instead of siding with convicted foreign criminals?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when confronted with cases of non-citizens convicted of serious crimes getting sentence discounts to dodge deportation, the former Liberal immigration minister claimed there was no rule requiring judges to do this. However, now a Quebec judge has exposed the truth, warning that judges and prosecutors across Canada are doing exactly that. If a person does the crime, they should do the time, but Canadians are paying the price as convicted foreign nationals are receiving discounted sentences due to their immigration status. If the former Liberal immigration minister knew this loophole was being abused, why did he vote against our Conservative bill to stop the abuse so that there is one law for all?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the Liberals oversimplifying a problem and pointing the finger at a different level of government because, for not just the profession, but the entire industry, from imports and exports to Health Canada, there is a whole list of federal jurisdictions. What we are talking about today in this concurrence motion is the federal grant money that is now being denied by the Liberal government. Yes, I have spoken with constituents, practitioners, teachers, students, folks in the industry, folks in the community and patients who are going to be affected by this. They have told me that it is the Liberal government that has attacked this industry time and again over the last decade. This is just another example of that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for identifying the problem. What we have seen in the February jobs report is that unemployment is at 6.7%. There are 1.5 million unemployed Canadians, 23% of whom have been searching for work for half a year or more. For youth aged 15 to 24, unemployment is at 14%. Instead of choosing to invest in students here at home, in Canadian students, in our domestic workforce, the Liberal government has decided to give money to foreign students to study here in Canada. The Liberals have their priorities completely upside down and that is not right.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with members in my community and in my riding since the Liberals announced this cut. I have talked to schools. I have talked to patients. I have talked to teachers. I have talked to practitioners of all communities and backgrounds. They have told me that these cuts hurt because they will reduce enrolment. They will reduce the number of graduates who would be trained for in-demand skills and who would be job ready. There are jobs ready to go, but sometimes it is the difference between getting a bit of support and not getting support that could be the deciding factor for a number of students who are choosing to pursue these careers.”
“It is about whether access to opportunity in this country depends on merit and hard work or a Liberal bureaucrat approving of an institution. Conservatives know where we stand. We stand with Canadian students who want to work and study in institutions that provide job-ready training, communities that want their traditions respected and patients who want better access to care. We stand for restoring fairness for every Canadian who believes that if they are willing to study, train, work and contribute to our country, then their government should get out of the way and let them thrive, not shut them out.”
“I ask the Liberal government again: Will it reverse this decision, stop treating one group of students as second class, admit that regulated career college students deserve equal respect and recognize that fields such as acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine actually matter to patients, communities, employers and Canada's workforce? The Liberals need to review this policy, consult effective sectors honestly and reverse course before more damage is done because this is bigger than one budget line. It is about whether we value practical education for Canadians, respect students who choose hands-on careers, address labour shortages seriously, and preserve space in Canada for professions deeply rooted in culture and the communities connected to them here at home.”
“It undermines enrolment in specialized programs that often sit outside conventional public university streams. It is bad for the economy because it weakens labour force development. It is bad for health care access because it risks reducing the supply of trained practitioners. Conservatives believe something simple: Skills training should align with the needs of the economy, not the ideology of the Liberal government. If a program is legitimate, credentialed, employment-focused and serving real Canadian needs, students should not be punished because the government does not like where that training is delivered.”
“Expanding the supply of qualified acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine practitioners can improve access to complementary care and give more Canadians additional avenues of support. The Liberals are choosing to make training our domestic workforce for Canadians harder, while funding scholarships for international students to study here in Canada. That is the absurdity of the Liberal government. When Canada needs more options, it creates fewer options for domestic talent here at home. When Canada needs more skilled practitioners, it sets up new barriers for Canadians while giving millions to foreign nationals. When students need more affordability, it takes away supports and send taxpayer money overseas. This Liberal policy is bad for students because it raises the cost of career-focused education.”
“In effect, this Liberal policy undermines culturally significant professions and cuts off opportunities for students entering fields connected to long-standing traditions of care here at home. In the meantime, the Liberal government spends millions of dollars of taxpayer money on scholarships for foreign students, while the Liberal Prime Minister asks everyday Canadians to make more sacrifices. Let us talk about health care access. Canadians know that our health care system is under strain. Wait times are too long and six million Canadians are without a family doctor. Many people are searching for legitimate and professional services that can help them manage pain, mobility, stress, recovery and chronic conditions.”
“In a country with 1.5 million unemployed and elevated long-term unemployment, why would any serious government make targeted training less accessible? There is also a cultural dimension here that the Liberal government seems blind to. Traditional Chinese medicine is part of a rich heritage carried across generations and across continents. For many Canadians of all backgrounds and communities, including those of Chinese heritage and other communities familiar with these practices, this is not only a profession, but part of a living tradition of knowledge, healing, discipline and care. A government that talks endlessly about inclusivity should not create barriers that in practice make it harder for students to enter professions rooted in cultural traditions valued by many communities in Canada.”
“The student who wants a practical, culturally rooted and patient-facing profession gets hurt. (1135) Jobs are also affected. If fewer students can afford to enrol, fewer students will graduate. If fewer students graduate, fewer clinics can hire. If fewer clinics can hire, fewer Canadians can access care. That means this Liberal policy does not only affect individual students here at home, but the broader Canadian workforce and the public that depends on the services it provides. That is especially reckless in a weak labour market. Canada should be expanding fast, skills-based pathways into employment, not closing them off. Career colleges have long played a role in training people quickly for specific occupations.”
“However, in practice, many students here at home pursuing acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine have historically relied on specialized institutions outside the traditional university model. These are often exactly the kinds of settings that this Liberal policy seeks to undermine. I want to talk about who actually gets hurt when the Liberals pick and choose winners in educational institutions and cut support to training in traditional Chinese medicine. Students here at home get hurt first. The son or daughter of a Canadian family who wants to build a stable career in a respected health profession gets hurt. The mid-career worker seeking retraining into a field of growing demand gets hurt. The modest-income student who cannot simply absorb thousands of dollars in additional costs gets hurt.”
“These practitioners often work alongside broader health and wellness networks and serve patients who are looking for additional options to manage chronic conditions and improve quality of life. Training in the field of acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine is hands-on by nature. It depends on supervised practice, clinical skill building, safety protocols, diagnosis, patient interaction, ethics, technique and repetition. Even public programs in acupuncture emphasize direct clinical training, patient treatment, professional competencies, informed consent and safe needling practices. That tells us something important: that this is not casual learning. It is serious health training with real demand.”
“This is the Liberal pattern: broad announcements and picking winners and losers in an industry, and hard-working Canadians end up paying the price. Nowhere is this more short-sighted than in the field of acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine, which has been under attack time and time again by the Liberal government over the past decade. Acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine are not fringe occupations. They are real professions serving real patients in real communities every single day. Canadians of all backgrounds, including indigenous communities, seek out these services for pain management, rehabilitation support, stress reduction, wellness care and complementary treatment.”
“Why is the Liberal government cutting student grants for Canadians pursuing practical, employment-focused careers? Why should a student lose access to support simply because their program is delivered through a career college instead of a public institution defined by the Liberal government? How does this improve affordability for Canadians? How does this help a country facing skilled labour shortage in certain sectors? The Liberal government says, on the one hand, that it is investing in post-secondary education to keep it accessible, but what we have seen is an announcement that will give millions of dollars in scholarships to international students. On the other hand, the government is preparing to exclude a whole class of domestic Canadian students here at home from the very affordability measures it boasts about.”
“Those numbers means stalled lives, delayed plans, parents worried about their children and young Canadians wondering whether they will ever get a fair start. Canadians are not working, because Liberal policies are not working. One year into the Liberal Prime Minister 's term in office, we continue to see job chaos, especially for young people desperate to get a start in life. Conservatives put forward a serious plan to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix job training and build homes where the jobs are. The Liberals obstructed and turned down these ideas, and now instead of widening the path to employment, they are narrowing it. At the precise moment when Canada needs more practical, job-ready training, the Liberal government is telling thousands of students that their chosen path is somehow less worthy of support.”
“It is the same country, the same taxes and the same need, but different treatment. All the while, the Liberal government chooses to fund millions of dollars in scholarships for international students while cutting back on domestic talent here at home. That is not fairness. That is prejudice by institution type while ignoring free market forces. The timing could not be worse. StatsCan reported that in February 2026, unemployment rose to 6.7%. There were 1.5 million unemployed Canadians, and 23% of them had been searching for work for more than half a year, well above the prepandemic average of 17%. For youth aged 15 to 24, unemployment rose to 14%, and the private sector lost 73,000 jobs in February alone. Those are not abstract numbers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will split my time with the member for Cloverdale—Langley City . Canada is in the middle of a jobs crisis, and the Liberal government's answer is to make skills training harder to afford here at home. That is exactly what the costly Liberal budget 2025 does when it moves to restrict the Canada student grant for full-time students to students attending public educational institutions and not-for-profit private institutions. Let us be clear what this really means. A student from a modest-income family can choose a public institution and keep access to a non-repayable federal grant. Another student, equally hard-working, equally deserving and equally serious about building a career, can choose a regulated career college, because that is where the practical program they need is offered, and that student gets punished.”