Editor’s note: This the fourth op-ed in  Research Money's ongoing “Youth Voices" series, where our weekly Voices op-eds will regularly present the perspectives of young professionals and youth. Please send your op-ed submissions to Mark Lowey, managing editor, at: mark@researchmoneyinc.com

Alexander Zelenski is innovation analyst and researcher for the Institute for Collaborative Innovation Canada, based in Ottawa.

Over the past few months, the Mark Carney government’s first federal budget has begun moving from announcement to implementation.

Some $280 billion in funding has started to flow towards expanding trade and transportation corridors, ports, rail networks and critical infrastructure.

Ottawa’s spending includes strengthening defence through new procurement, military readiness and Arctic security investments; accelerating homebuilding through Build Canada Homes and related housing initiatives; and improving Canada’s long-term economic competitiveness through productivity, innovation and workforce development measures.

This represents a level of fiscal ambition Canada has not seen in decades. But every one of these investments still raises a basic question: Who will do the work? If you thought young people coming into the workforce, think again! 

Too many young Canadians are struggling to find meaningful entry points into the economy.

In May 2026, the unemployment rate among Canadians aged 20 to 24 stood at 11.3 percent.

While an improvement from earlier in the year, it remained well above the pre-pandemic average of 10.8 percent.

Often treated as a separate social challenge and addressed through temporary placements or siloed training programs, available opportunities for youth often don’t lead to tangible long-term opportunities.

Canada’s capacity challenge and youth opportunity gap are not separate problems, but rather two sides of the same national challenge. The issue is not simply whether Canada has enough youth programs. It is whether those programs are aligned with the sectors, projects and skills Canada says are now essential to its future. 

As current and new projects move forward, they would strongly benefit from more integrated pathways for young people to contribute. While these opportunities will take different forms, they should share three characteristics: they must be visible and youth-centric, anchored in major national missions, and structured as clear pathways into long-term careers. 

Canada has programs – integrated pathways are needed

The good news is, Canada is not starting from scratch. Governments, universities, colleges, employers and community organizations already offer a wide range of youth employment, training and work-integrated learning opportunities.

Budget 2025 committed support for approximately 175,000 opportunities in 2026-27 through programs including Canada Summer Jobs, the Youth Employment and Skills Strategy, and the Student Work Placement Program.

So why does youth unemployment remain stubbornly high? The answer is not as simple as Canada lacking pathways. It is that too many pathways are disconnected from where demand is emerging.

A placement may provide experience without linking to a growing sector. A training program may build skills without connecting to an employer or project. A co-op or internship may help a young person get started without showing them what comes next. 

This is where the newly announced Youth Climate Corps moves the needle in the right direction.

With $40 million over two years, it will provide paid skills training for young Canadians to help respond to climate emergencies, support recovery and strengthen community resilience. Its value is not only the number of opportunities it creates, but the model it suggests: youth participation attached to a real national mission.

The question is, how can we scale this model?

Three lessons from abroad

International models, such as those discussed below, offer three practical lessons for Canada: make opportunities easier to find, connect them to real public needs, and create clearer pathways into lasting roles. 

• EU – European Solidarity Corps: Rather than scattering opportunities across isolated silos, this model centralizes various initiatives, from environmental sustainability to digital transformation, into a unified platform. It transforms what could be a maze of separate entry points into a single, navigable front door.

The lesson for Canada: our challenge is not a shortage of opportunities, but the lack of a cohesive system to navigate them. 

• USA – AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps: Illustrates the value of mission-linked service. Its team=based model places young adults on projects that respond to national and community priorities, including disaster preparedness, recovery, resilience and housing. The work is practical, locally delivered, and connected to clearly defined needs.

Canada would benefit by applying the same principle by linking youth pathways to the national projects it is already pursuing. 

• New Zealand – Mana in Mahi Program: This model addresses the common “placement-to-nowhere” problem by formalizing the transition from training to permanent employment. By partnering directly with employers to co-design training that leads to industry-recognized certifications and provides ongoing mentorship, it ensures that an initial opportunity serves as a gateway to stable career advancement rather than a temporary stopgap. 

Designing pathways that lead somewhere
The lesson from international models is that youth opportunities work best when they are designed as pathways, not one-off experiences.

A Youth Nation-Building Compact could therefore act less like a new program and more like a coordinating framework: one that weaves existing youth employment, training, research, service and community initiatives together and with the larger projects Canada is pursuing. 

That framework should begin with a small number of national missions where the need for new capacity is clear. In housing and infrastructure, young people can be connected to apprenticeships, retrofits, construction innovation and community planning.

In climate resilience, they can support emergency preparedness, wildfire mitigation, environmental monitoring and local adaptation.

In digital and economic security, they can contribute to applied research, public-interest technology projects, cybersecurity initiatives and efforts to strengthen community access to reliable information.

The design questions matters as much as the mission. A pathway is only meaningful if young people can understand how to enter it, what they gain from participating, and where it can take them next. Canada should therefore assess each pathway against a few practical questions: 

• Can young people easily find and navigate the opportunities available to them?
• Are opportunities connected to real projects and clearly defined public needs?
• What skills, credentials and experience do participants gain?
• How many participants progress into employment, apprenticeships, further education, or larger projects?
• Which communities, institutions, and sectors benefit from their contributions?

These questions help shift the focus from counting placements as ends in themselves to measuring progression along career trajectories. Success should not be defined only by how many young people participate, but by whether those opportunities build capacity for both the participant and the country.

Canada already has many of the programs and delivery partners it needs. What is missing is a common framework and culture that turns disconnected opportunities into visible pathways and treats youth capacity-building as an essential input into nation-building. 

 Conclusion 

Canada is making generational investments. The question is whether it will generate a generation capable of carrying them forward. If youth remain disconnected from the projects shaping the country, Canada will have mistaken spending for strategy.

Nation-building is not only about what gets built. It is also about who gets built into the process. 

R$