Bill C-266

National Framework on Skilled Trades and Labour Mobility Act

An Act to establish a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility

This enactment provides for the development of a national framework for the recognition of skilled trades, harmonization of credential recognition and mobility of skilled trades workers in Canada.

National Framework on Skilled Trades and Labour Mobility Act

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

moved that Bill C-266, An Act to establish a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Milton East—Halton Hills South for supporting this bill.

It is always a huge honour to stand in the House and speak on vital issues for Canadians. Today, I have an opportunity to speak at length on respecting skilled trades and labour.

As a former aircraft maintenance engineer, I spent countless hours turning wrenches at a hangar in my hometown of Richmond, British Columbia. When I was campaigning for re-election as MP for Richmond East—Steveston, I did not do it alone. I was supported by electricians, carpenters, construction workers and unions. Builders and everyday Canadian workers share my vision of a community and a Canada that works for them. It is for these Canadians that I tabled Bill C-266, a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility.

At its core, this bill recognizes a simple truth: Canada cannot reach its full potential if the people who build it, our skilled trades workers, are prevented from working where they are needed the most. Movement of skilled trades and labour across Canada is essential to the country's economic development, productivity, infrastructure and competitiveness. However, our economy continues to be weighed down by a system of disjointed licensing requirements, certifications and other restrictions. This has evolved into significant non-tariff internal trade barriers.

The IMF estimates that Canada's economy could gain nearly 7%, or $210 billion, in real GDP over a gradual period by fully removing internal trade barriers between the country's 13 provinces and territories. This is not just inefficient; it is unacceptable. Across this country, from the shipyards of Vancouver to the construction sites of Halifax, from energy projects in Alberta to housing developments in Toronto, employers are facing unpredictability. On one hand, there are acute labour shortages delaying critical projects, and on the other, there are skilled, qualified workers in other parts of the country who are ready and willing to step in, but they are held back by regulatory barriers that make mobility difficult, costly and slow.

A welder trained in Saskatchewan may encounter different certification requirements when attempting to work on major infrastructure projects in British Columbia. These inconsistencies do not improve safety or enhance quality. They create duplication, inefficiency and unnecessary costs.

The same holds true for major infrastructure projects. Whether it is expanding transit systems, upgrading ports or building clean energy infrastructure, delays in mobilizing skilled labour translate directly into higher costs and missed opportunities. Every week that a project is delayed because workers cannot be certified quickly enough is a week that Canadians are left waiting for essential services and economic benefits.

Of course, there were efforts to correct this growing problem. If we go back to the Agreement on Internal Trade in 1995, it would, “enable any worker certified for an occupation by a regulatory authority of one Party to be recognized as qualified for that occupation by all other Parties.” Regrettably, the AIT did not achieve this crucial goal, which is why in December 2014, the federal, provincial and territorial governments began negotiations to strengthen and modernize into the Canada Free Trade Agreement.

The Red Seal program has been an important step forward toward standardization, allowing certified workers in certain trades to move more easily between provinces. However, not all trades are covered, and even within the program, variations and administrative barriers can persist.

Efforts to harmonize certifications and labour regulations across Canada's economy made limited progress, not because electricians who reside in Manitoba have unique insight into the functions of an electrical circuit compared to electricians who reside in Nova Scotia or the risk to a trucker's safety changes radically when driving from B.C. to Saskatchewan, requiring different regulations and insurance, but because incentives favoured the status quo. Regulators looking to retain their authority and protect regional labour economies had little incentive to loosen their grip and provide easy access to competition from other provinces.

Skilled workers, understandably unenthusiastic about acquiring and maintaining credentials across provinces, could always find ready work down south in the United States. However, this status quo is over. Since President Trump's unacceptable comments about Canada's sovereignty and turning his back on the deal that he signed, applying tariffs to Canadian lumber, steel and cars, Canadians have started to see our relationship with the U.S. in a new light, but more importantly, how we view ourselves and our future in a new light.

The comfortable norms Canadians took for granted with our American partners, like trust and predictability, no longer exist. While time will tell if this relationship can be repaired, it is clear that Canada must forge a new path. As our Prime Minister has said, we can give ourselves far more than the Americans can ever take away.

Bill C-266 is an essential step in charting a new path forward for Canada. I have heard from the Canadian Construction Association, and it said, “The CCA welcomes the introduction of Bill C-266 and the development of a national framework to modernize, streamline and harmonize skilled trade certification processes. Canada's construction industry is held back by a fragmented internal market where labour mobility restrictions create costly barriers for workers and employers alike.”

From my alma mater, the British Columbia Institute of Technology, Dr. Jeff Zabudsky, who is the president of the BCIT, agreed and said, “Canada’s future prosperity is being shaped by large-scale priorities that rely heavily on a strong trades workforce. Whether it be building affordable and climate-resilient housing or infrastructure to strengthen national security, these national priorities all require a job-ready and adaptable trades workforce.”

Let me be clear: This legislation does not seek to override provincial jurisdiction, and I look at my friends from Quebec. Provinces and territories would continue to regulate training, certification and labour markets within their borders. That is both appropriate and necessary.

Through extensive consultations spanning at least nine months, the minister would engage with provincial governments, regulatory bodies, industry associations, labour unions, indigenous organizations, polytechnics and educational institutions. This would ensure the framework is not imposed from above, but built from the ground up, reflecting the realities of those who work within the system every day.

The framework itself wishes to deliver several key outcomes.

First, it would establish a comprehensive inventory of skilled trades across Canada. This may sound straightforward, but it is a critical step. Today, even defining what constitutes a skilled trade can vary among jurisdictions. A clear shared understanding is essential for any meaningful harmonization.

Second, it would map equivalencies among provincial standards and credentials. This is where the real work begins. By systematically comparing requirements, we can identify where trades are already aligned, where minor adjustments are needed and where more significant differences exist.

Third, and most importantly, it would introduce measures to harmonize standards, reduce duplication and streamline regulatory processes. This would mean fewer redundant exams, faster recognition of credentials and clearer pathways for workers moving between provinces. Consider the impact of this on a carpenter relocating from New Brunswick to Alberta. Instead of navigating a confusing and time-consuming certification process, that worker could benefit from a system that recognizes their qualifications quickly and fairly, allowing them to get to work sooner.

Fourth, the framework would support modernization. As industries evolve, so too must the standards that govern them. By coordinating updates across jurisdictions, we can ensure that Canadian tradespeople remain at the forefront of global best practices.

Fifth, it would promote ongoing collaboration. This is not a one-time exercise, but a continuous process of improvement. The inclusion of indigenous governing bodies and organizations would be particularly important in ensuring that the framework reflects diverse perspectives and supports inclusive economic growth.

Accountability is also built into the legislation. The minister would be required to table the national framework in Parliament within one year, ensuring timely action. Annual progress reports would track implementation, measure improvements in labour mobility and assess the effectiveness of the framework, and within five years a comprehensive parliamentary review would provide an opportunity to refine and strengthen the approach.

The bill would create a structured, collaborative process to bring those systems into alignment where possible and to make them more transparent and interoperable where full alignment is not feasible.

The bill is also about national unity. Canada is one country with one economy. While regional diversity is a strength, unnecessary barriers that divide our labour market weaken us all.

The legislation represents a pragmatic, collaborative and forward-looking approach to a long-standing challenge. It would respect jurisdiction, engage stakeholders and focus on outcomes. I look forward to collaborating with everyone if the bill advances to committee. I urge all members of the House to support the national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility act and to take this important step toward a stronger and more unified Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish we saw more respect for trades workers from the government. Sadly, in the last budget, the government chose to cut trades workers off from access to student grants. It is on page 217 of the budget that people who go to private institutions, which generally includes trades workers, as trades programs are not offered at universities, are cut off from student grants as a result of a decision made by the government.

The Conservatives put forward a motion earlier this week, on Tuesday, asking the government to reconsider this policy, and the member who put forward the bill that is before us and who just spoke about respecting trades workers, voted against our motion that sought to give these grants back to students. I want to ask the member why he joined the rest of the Liberals in opposing our effort to get grants back to people in the trades.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been part of the opposition for many years and was previously in government. This has been a problem for decades, including under the Conservative Harper government and in numerous provincial Conservative governments.

The truth is that federal and provincial governments have allowed the problem to fester for decades, and it is time to end the status quo. The member opposite knows the government did act immediately in July 2025 to address barriers that the federal government could address alone. Weeks after the election, the Government of Canada removed all 53 federal exemptions from the CFTA.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, what movie is this?

I was there, back in 1997, in the era of the labour market agreement, occupational training and the creation of the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. It is no mystery what is going on here in Ottawa. Businesses are struggling to survive because of the relentlessly rising tariffs. We were told to expect a big surprise after a year. Why is the government is still trying to interfere in areas that are functioning well in the provinces? Why is it proposing this bill? Does the government not have enough work or what?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear that the member believes that things are working well between provinces, as they all are working hard to find ways to remove internal barriers.

With the bill I talked about today, and I said in my speech, the framework that would be developed would be in conjunction with provinces and provincial labour associations so it would not exclude any province. In the unprecedented climate we find ourselves in now, regulators and trade associations alike have new imperatives to come to the table and find an agreement. Too much is at stake to allow minor differences to hold our country back at this time.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, l thank my colleague for presenting the bill, and I am proud to be the seconder.

My youngest son is completing his apprenticeship to become an electrician. Given our government's very ambitious plans to engage in nation-building projects, whether in housing or other large projects, we know that we are going to have to encourage more young people to get involved in the skilled trades.

Could my colleague please comment on how he sees the legislation's encouraging young people to take up skilled trades?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for seconding the motion and for talking about young people.

This is exactly what the bill would do. It would bring respect back to skilled trades and allow young people to think about the possibility of getting involved in something they may wish to do. They may want to be part of the national shipbuilding strategy and to work in Vancouver, but they are located somewhere else and doing their training in Ontario, for example. The bill would allow them to have the vision to be part of our defence programs that we are bringing forward in this country.

I think this is exactly what young people are looking forward to doing: uniting this country and working towards something that matters.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill that the Liberal member has brought to us is an interesting one, because in many respects it feels like an admission of failure on the part of the government. The Liberals have been in power for more than 10 years. They have repeatedly ignored the needs of trades workers and treated trades workers, as well as the work they do, with utter disdain, and now a member of the Liberal government is saying that maybe it should have a framework to try to fix some of the problems confronting trades workers, including problems around labour mobility.

I will give the member credit insofar as his speech identified very real problems that are making things more difficult for trades workers trying to get certification, trying to move, trying to find jobs, etc. However, I think it is important to observe that the government did not need a private member's bill compelling it to introduce a framework in order to solve these problems.

The government could simply have acted to solve these problems that are, in many respects, of their own making. The government also could have proposed the framework without having one of its members propose a bill to require it to present a framework. Fixing these problems is within the power of the government, and the problems are ones that have emerged from the actions and failures of a Liberal government that has been in many respects negative and disdainful about the people who build this country.

Instead of fixing the problems, the government got one of its members to propose a bill that calls for the development of a framework that is kind of directed toward pushing the government to solve problems that, at the end of the day, the government should solve itself.

I appreciate the identification of the problems, finally, but what we would really like is for the government to change policies in order to reverse bad decisions it has made that are bad for trades workers. If we look at the history of the government, we see that there are repeated instances of criticism and disdain for our hard-working trades workers. Most notable was when the former prime minister said that major projects in this country require a gender analysis because male construction workers' coming to towns to build things might have gendered impacts.

The former prime minister never spoke about the gendered impacts of people in suits' showing up. Instead he was purveying negative stereotypes about hard-working men and women who travel from home to build the projects this country needs. He talked about how we should not be known for our resources but should instead be known for our resourcefulness. This was constant negative discourse from the former prime minister about hard-working trades workers.

Maybe we could have hoped that the negative discourse would change with the new Prime Minister, but things have gotten even worse under him. In particular, in the last budget, a policy was announced that effectively singles out people in certain vocations, including trades workers, to no longer be able to access student grants. Page 217 of the last federal budget explains the dynamic. It says that students at private for-profit institutions, which includes vocational schools where many trades workers learn their trade, would no longer be eligible for grants under the federal student loan program.

This means that if someone studies any program at a university, no matter how labour-market relevant it is or is not, they can get those grants. However, if they study at a vocational institution to learn a trade, regardless of how urgently our economy needs those workers, they cannot get those grants. University students get the grants. If students are studying in the trades or for other critical skills at vocational institutions, they do not get the grants. This was the policy of the Prime Minister in the last federal budget, effectively singling out these occupations, including trades workers, to be denied student grants.

This policy is going to exacerbate existing shortages in these critical areas, because it sends a message to young people that the government is going to support them more if they go through the one door than if they go through the other door. In fact what we should be doing is trying to magnify the signals of the labour market to young people. We should be offering, as Conservatives proposed, more generous student grants to students who are pursuing studies in in-demand fields.

Instead, the Liberals are discriminating based on the institutions that students apply for. Just today, the government announced some further details of this planned policy. It announced some exceptions for certain kinds of vocations that people might study for at private institutions. The exemptions are better than nothing. We have done a lot of advocacy around this work and it feels like we are pushing the needle a bit. The exemptions were for nursing, dental hygiene, early childhood education and paramedics. It should not be a policy of exemptions. We should just eliminate in general this discriminatory policy that the government has proposed.

What I notice about these exceptions is that none of them apply to trades workers. Therefore, the government's policy continues to be that if someone is studying to become a tradesperson, and in many cases that training is offered at private institutions, then they cannot get a student grant. It is mind-boggling to me, in this time when finally even the Liberals are paying lip service to the fact that we need more trades workers, that they are still pursuing a policy that attacks trades workers by denying grants specifically to those who are pursuing careers in the trades.

The Conservatives have been doggedly pursuing this issue. We are defending trades workers, defending those who are trying to pursue critical skills at vocational institutions. In many cases, these are skills that are simply not offered at public or not-for-profit institutions. We have pushed this issue at the human resources committee and we were able to get the human resources committee to adopt a unanimous report encouraging the government to reconsider this policy. Even Liberals on the human resources committee at the time voted in favour of asking the government to reconsider this policy.

Then, this week, we put the motion before the House of Commons on Tuesday, and every single Liberal member voted against our motion to reconsider this policy. Every Liberal member present voted in favour of this Liberal policy to discriminate against trades workers and others pursuing vocational training at private institutions. The member who sponsored this bill and just spoke about the importance of trades workers voted in favour of the Liberal policy and against our motion to reconsider it. The Liberal member who put forward this bill earlier this week voted in favour of denying funding to students specifically and uniquely in the trades at private institutions.

The member for Markham—Unionville, who previously as a Conservative worked with me on this issue, called out the Liberal policy change for being systemically discriminatory because of its attack on those studying traditional Chinese medicine. He called this Liberal policy discriminatory and then, after he crossed the floor, he voted in favour of the policy that he said systemically discriminates against his own community and others. It is pretty baffling, to say, “This is systematically discriminatory against the community that I represent, and now I am going to vote for it.” Every Liberal member of the human resources committee who initially voted in favour of this motion to reconsider the discriminatory Liberal policy reversed their position when the motion came to the House. It is unbelievable. We have this situation of “say one thing and do the exact opposite”.

There are members in today's debate, I am sure, eager to pay lip service to the value of trades while attacking trades workers by targeting them with the removal of funding through these student grants. They cannot deny it because every one of them voted for it. Not only did they vote for the budget, but we had a stand-alone vote on this discrimination against trades workers. Every Liberal who was present, including the sponsor of this bill, voted in favour of that discrimination. They cannot get away with saying, “We are going to attack trades workers. We are going to insult them. We are going to deny funding that is available to every other stream, but then we are going to have a framework to study trying to fix these problems in the future.”

It is time for the Liberals to put their money where their mouth is on this issue, to put actions behind words. The Conservatives will always stand with, and stand up for, the hard-working trades workers who built this country. It is a pity that the Liberals are attacking them while hypocritically pretending to care.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle indicated where we stand on Bill C-266, an act to establish a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility. This bill is presented as a practical measure aimed at facilitating the mobility of skilled workers. Who could possibly oppose credential recognition? Who could oppose streamlining administrative procedures? Who could oppose faster access to the labour market?

Behind these good intentions lies a well-known strategy. Ottawa is using a real problem to grant itself new powers in an area that falls under Quebec jurisdiction. Skills training, trade certification, workforce planning and labour market organization are all Quebec's responsibility. Quebec already has its own institutions, mechanisms, partners and economic priorities. The Bloc Québécois has been clear: This bill is an attempt at centralization disguised as a technical solution.

When it comes to employment and labour, Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to take action. Quebec already has a comprehensive system and it already manages its labour policies with the Commission de la construction du Québec, the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, Services Québec, vocational training centres, the CEGEPs that offer technical programs and employer and labour organizations. We already have a lot of labour policies.

It is important to take a moment here to review the history. In 1997, Ottawa recognized Quebec's responsibility for active employment measures through the Canada–Québec Labour Market Development Agreement in Principle. Since then, Quebec has been designing, administering and adapting its own training and job entry programs. Ottawa has already acknowledged that Quebec is in a better position to manage its workforce, so why are we taking this step backwards?

What is more, what we can say is that the amounts that have already been transferred prove that the Quebec model exists. I will share a few numbers. In 2019, Ottawa announced nearly $5.4 billion in funding for Quebec until 2022‑23 through workforce and labour market agreements. That represents roughly 240,000 more Quebeckers who can benefit from employment and training measures. Ottawa already recognizes that Quebec is better at administering these programs, that needs differ from province to province and that Quebec has its own model. This raises the following question: If Quebec is already managing the billions of dollars invested in training, why would Ottawa now want to control the rules?

We can see that there is a real risk of downgrading standards. The problem with the national framework is that the bill provides for a national list of trades, a comparison of provincial standards and equivalencies, harmonization and regulatory streamlining. That means that Ottawa is establishing itself as a national benchmark. When we see all that, it is clear that it is a danger for Quebec. Such a situation could undermine Quebec's safety standards, its training requirements, its apprenticeship mechanisms, its ability to protect French in the workplace and its unique characteristics in the construction industry.

I come from a family of masons and carpenters. I often have conversations on Sunday evenings with my brothers, brothers-in-law and other family members. They regularly talk to me about reskilling, training and the very strict rules governing their trades, especially in the construction industry. I can confirm that Quebec is truly at the forefront. There is a risk in allowing Ottawa to take a more centralized approach to managing this.

I would like to share a statistic that might be useful at this stage. The construction sector in Quebec employs more than 300,000 workers. We are talking about a critical sector here, not some administrative detail. Quebec has unique characteristics that are non-negotiable. These include the use of French on construction sites, the province's specific construction regulations, Quebec's distinct regional realities, the province's unique industrial needs, and the culture of labour-management co-operation, which must also be taken into account. We need to recognize that labour market needs in Sept-Îles, Rouyn-Noranda, Drummondville or Montreal are not the same as those in Calgary or Halifax. The Canadian labour market is far from uniform. Trying to standardize it is a mistake. We certainly agree on mobility in some form, but the main problem is interference.

The Bloc Québécois has a fairly balanced position. We generally support voluntary mutual recognition, the free movement of workers, intergovernmental agreements, the reduction of red tape, and more pragmatic solutions. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois opposes any frameworks imposed by Ottawa, centralization, Canada-wide standards that bypass Quebec, and the gradual erosion of jurisdictions.

Lastly, we do want to talk about the labour shortage, but the problem is a lack of workers, not a lack of structures. The real solution we want is to promote skilled trades to young people. We also want to speed up the recognition of prior learning. We want to invest in skills training. We need to support reskilling, help SMEs train the next generation of employees and allow Quebec to recruit workers based on its needs. All of this is crucial because Canada has had over 700,000 job vacancies on several occasions recently, according to Statistics Canada. A shortage of welders is not going to be solved with a federal committee. That is not how it works.

What we are seeing once again is that anytime there is a crisis, the federal government sees it as an opportunity to introduce bills that interfere in the provinces' areas of jurisdiction. I get the impression that, with the situation with our American neighbours, the federal government is definitely trying to find “Ottawa knows best” solutions. However, that is not how things work.

The Bloc Québécois criticized Bill C-5 and its many encroachments thanks to its Canadian projects led by Ottawa. However, Bill C-266 follows exactly the same path that we criticized. These attempts at interference have been happening repeatedly since the current Liberal government and Prime Minister were elected. It has not even been a year, but the number of attempts at bills that encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction is extremely worrying. Little by little, they are trying to chip away at the powers that are rightfully ours.

As I said, Quebec is a pioneer in many areas. We have a proven track record when it comes to labour. Quebec knows how to train its workforce. Quebec knows how to recognize the skills of its workers. Quebec knows how to meet its regional needs, and Quebec knows how to collaborate when it is useful, but Quebec does not need a federal arbiter, a national framework, a new bureaucracy or a new structure. This bill does not address the labour shortage. If anything, it addresses Ottawa's need to always be involved.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-266 in recognition of Quebec's jurisdiction over its workers and its labour market.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to private member's bill, Bill C-266, brought forward by the member for Richmond East—Steveston.

It is quite encouraging to see a member of Parliament recognize an issue that has been around for many years. I am not too sure which individuals he consulted in regard to bringing this bill forward. I have been looking at this particular issue for a number of years. The whole idea of labour mobility, recognizing skills and so forth, is the right thing to do, especially at this time.

I thank the member for bringing forward such wonderful legislation. I am not sure what the Conservatives are going to do. I think they will be somewhat grudgingly supportive of it. I am a little disappointed in the Bloc. Quebec does a lot of wonderful things. Some provinces do a better job of recognizing skills than other provinces. In many ways, Quebec leads the way. I do not question that. However, what is being proposed here does not take away from Quebec at all.

This is something we should be looking at in a very serious way. In fact, if we go back to the last federal election, we will find that Canadians were genuinely concerned with the three Ts: Trump, tariffs and trade. They were very concerned. The Prime Minister and candidates talked about how we could build one economy. Before us today, we have an actual piece of legislation that adds to the value of building one Canadian economy. Obviously the member is listening his constituents, because this is a reflection of what we heard in virtually every region of our nation, recognizing that Canada can do so much more if we invest in Canadians.

The advice of some is that this is provincial jurisdiction and the federal government does not have a role to play. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. I was a representative in the Manitoba legislature for almost 20 years, back in the late eighties, the nineties and at the turn of the century, and credentials and recognizing skill sets were of the utmost importance. That was back then. That is taken out of the context of where we find ourselves today.

Individuals acquire skill sets in one jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions or provinces, especially when we factor in indigenous communities as this legislation does, recognize the value of enabling some sort of a national framework. We are probably talking about 300‑plus positions, employing millions of Canadians. Affording an opportunity through the establishment of a national framework would not have to take anything away from provinces. This is not about federal overreach.

I would classify this as an opportunity to show that, as a national government, we can work collaboratively with provinces. A minister responsible for labour can look at the legislation, and if there is a need for some changes, then let us make the changes. However, the principle of the legislation is good. Let us see the list. Let us work with the different jurisdictions, whether it is the territories, provinces or indigenous communities, and see where we could actually help real people who have acquired skill sets that provide them the type of income they require to meet their personal needs or their family's needs.

What I liked in the member's comments is that he made reference to having a national framework, and there is a time set for it. If we give this thing royal assent and the clock starts ticking, we will get something tangible back, and there is an obligation to collaborate and work with provinces. Obviously, the provinces have to play a critical role.

Years ago, I was the education critic in the province of Manitoba. There are post-secondary facilities, secondary facilities, the private sector for people who are working already, unions and apprenticeship programs. I can tell members that the amount of effort, energy and investment put into the system in one way or another is significant. However, I like the idea of some form of national framework being established to reinforce just how important it is that we look at the issue of mobility.

We can look at the discussion we are already having. In good part, some premiers are advancing it more than others, recognizing, as we talk about building the one Canada economy, that our constituents do not say, “Well, this is provincial and this is federal.” They want politicians of different political stripes and different levels of government to act where we can, and that is what this legislation would do. It would provide direct action. It does not just say, “Okay, we want the framework a year from now, and then everything sets and that is it.” There would be reporting back to Parliament to ensure that we are making some progress on the issue. There would be an opportunity for review. These are the types of built-in measures from within, and based on the comments from the member for Richmond East—Steveston, they are there so that we can feel assured over the coming years that in fact we are moving forward and that it is tracked in a very serious way.

The member provided me with some quotes, and I was impressed. I know BCIT is a very important institution to my colleague. Here is what Dr. Jeff Zabudsky, the president of BCIT, had to say:

Canada’s future prosperity is being shaped by large-scale priorities that rely heavily on a strong trades workforce. Whether it be building affordable and climate-resilient housing or infrastructure to strengthen national security, these national priorities all require a job-ready and adaptable trades workforce.

For decades, [BCIT along with other colleges and polytechnics across Canada] have powered this progress—producing job-ready graduates and bridging academia, industry and government. When we work together, we don’t just respond to change, we drive it.

This is coming from one of Canada's premier institutions, and that is why I say it is more than just one level of government. We have stakeholders who have a lot to contribute to the potential of having a national framework.

I disagree with the member opposite when he talks about how the government has diminished it. We have invested. In Red River College alone, there are a number of projects with millions of dollars to enhance skill opportunities and work directly with apprenticeship programs and unions.

Collectively, we can make a difference. We can build a stronger, healthier economy if we are prepared to work more collaboratively with provinces and other stakeholders and recognize the lead role that provinces in particular have to play, along with indigenous communities.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this private member's bill debate around the national framework on skilled trades and labour mobility act coming from the member for Richmond East—Steveston. He made some interesting comments in his speech that I would like to address. He talked about there not being so many people leaving our country and going to the United States, which is blatantly untrue.

I wondered what the numbers actually were for emigration from Canada to the United States over the last couple of years. I went to StatsCan, and it said that 120,000 people left Canada in 2025, with 2026 data suggesting this trend is persistent and largely driven by economic factors and high-skilled professionals moving south. On the key trends in rising migration, the number of Canadians leaving for the U.S.A. in 2025 grew by roughly 3% over 2024, marking four consecutive years of growth, according to StatsCan.

This is where it gets scary and this is why we need to do more for our young people in Canada. Over half of these emigrants are prime-aged workers between 25 to 49, with professionals like engineers and scientists leaving at twice the rate of others. The U.S.A. remains the primary destination for Canadians relocating abroad.

I think this hits at the heart of the problem when we talk about frameworks and ideas around what we can do to grow the Canadian economy. The Liberals talked about the one Canadian economy and made promises that we would have fewer interprovincial trade barriers by July 2025. Not much has happened on that front. My concern is they are not realizing there is a problem. There is a big problem with Canada losing its young, skilled workers. It is something we have to take very seriously.

My fear, and this came out of the Liberal National Convention, is that to make sure young people do not leave Canada, the Liberals want to charge them $500,000 to leave Canada. How asinine is that? It is not about trying to make sure the economy is strong enough that young people want to stay, but trying to charge them a huge fee so they will not leave.

A couple of the Liberals across the way are shaking their head. This was on the convention floor. They had a speaker come in who said that they should charge young people $500,000 so they do not leave this country.

I would suggest maybe taking a bigger look at what has happened over the last 11 years in our country with these Liberals in charge. They put forward legislation and policies that basically killed our natural resource sector. There was the “no more pipelines" bill and the shipping ban on B.C. Then they were looking at other things like steel tariffs.

Last year, the Liberals campaigned and won the election on having the guy who could get a deal done with Donald Trump. He has been an abject failure on that front. Canadians can see now that the Prime Minister is just an illusionist. It is all smoke and mirrors; he never gets the job done. The Liberals have not really managed to get one trade deal done in the year that he has been Prime Minister, and he has failed when it comes to dealing with Donald Trump.

I met with steel workers of USW 5890 from Regina today. One of their biggest concerns is making sure they have enough money through the labour market development agreement to ensure they can get additional training. They are scared those jobs are not going to be in Canada anymore. When we look at a steel plant like Everest Steel, it is a natural resource company. If there are not natural resources being developed, pipelines are not needed.

The Liberal government has failed on every front when it comes to getting something built in this country. Basically, we have not had a large project in a long time. They talk about the Darlington nuclear plant. That has been going on for 10 years. Their Major Projects Office has not announced one new project. There have only been reannoucements.

When we look at why young people are leaving our country in droves, it is because they do not see a future. They do not believe they are ever going to be able to afford a house, because housing prices have skyrocketed. They do not believe there will be a job waiting for them after they get their education. That is why we have the big brain drain, as Statistics Canada has said.

Can members believe that we are losing 120,000 people a year to the United States? Our country has all of the riches and all of the resources, and we cannot create an economy, because of the Liberals, that is an economic reason for people to stay in our country. That is something that lies completely at the feet of the Liberal government.

We talk about having to do frameworks. I am lucky the member for Winnipeg North talked about being in the provincial government. I was in the provincial government with former premier Brad Wall. We brought forward the New West Partnership, an agreement that allows people more mobility when it comes to trade, so they can go between Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

When the member said it was largely a provincial issue, he was right, but there should be leadership from the federal government when it comes to that. The Liberals always make these grandiose announcements, but they never follow through. That would be my one concern about this. There are timelines in here, but will the Liberals make the timelines? The timelines do not seem to matter to the Prime Minister. He is just another Liberal.

The Prime Minister promised to have a deal done with Donald Trump. He promised to have a deal done by July 21, 2025. He made it a specific date. These are not my words that I am trying to hold him accountable to. He should be held accountable to his own words and his own standards.

I think this was coined by the member for Winnipeg North, but the three Ts are tariffs, Trump and trade. On those files, there are three Fs. The Prime Minister has failed, failed and failed when it comes to trying to make deals and getting the tariffs removed.

The steel tariffs are a very big deal in Saskatchewan. There is a lot of concern from the people who work at Interpro, which used to be Evraz. It was bought, so it is a new company. There is concern because there is uncertainty about how it is going to be able to do trade. There is a plant in Portland, so some stuff is going back and forth, but there is a fear right now about whether there will be more projects that use steel. For example, what projects are going to move forward that use Canadian steel? That is the other fear. In some of the projects that have gone forward, imported steel is being used, not good, made-in-Canada steel. That is another thing that was brought up to me in our meeting today.

Lots of our skilled workers and tradespeople are younger people, and they need to have a vision of Canada in which they can see themselves living in this country. They want to have affordable housing. They want to have streets with less crime. They want to be able to buy a house and start a family. In another statistics report, we read that people are delaying having kids longer because they think that they cannot afford to have children in this current climate.

We have the slowest growing economy in the G7. We have the highest food inflation in the G7. That is a made-in-Canada problem. The Liberals have tried to blame everything on others. My colleague from northern Saskatchewan, for some reason, asked if the Conservatives could stop a war in Libya. I think he got his countries wrong, and the guy gets a lot of things wrong, but what he can do is try to be someone who actually supports Saskatchewan and tries to get things done for Saskatchewan.

When we are talking on the floor of the House of Commons, the Liberals need to look at the root causes of why young people are leaving our country, and we need to make Canada a place where people see themselves being able to have a good job and raise a family in a home on safe streets. That is why people are choosing to leave this country. It is all because of the policies being driven by this long-serving, 11-year-old Liberal government.

There is nothing new about the Liberals from the last election a year ago. It is all the same policies. It is many of the same faces in the same places. They changed the guy at the top, who is very similar to Justin Trudeau in many ways. It is funny that no one mentions Justin Trudeau anymore. They seem to have amnesia when it comes to Justin Trudeau. The Prime Minister is just another Liberal like Trudeau, and his policies are causing young people to leave our country.

As the Conservative Party, we have put forward ideas and policies to grow the economy so that young people stay and see a future in Canada. We will continue to put forward ideas that grow our economy and make Canada the best place in the world to live, raise a family and get ahead.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I worked for decades for labour market partners, including the youth employment centres that we have in Quebec, and I learned one thing: Employment insurance benefits were the only benefits that had not yet been transferred for Quebec to manage. Unfortunately, it did not happen. Right up until 2017, there were prior learning recognition agreements in place to allow educational institutions and businesses, among others, to work together on round tables to ensure that specific skilled trade qualifications were aligned with the labour market. It started in 1997, and by 2017, progress was still being made on issuing credentials in each province, and it was up to them to make improvements if they had difficulty in managing things, but what we are seeing today is a step backward.

Earlier, I asked if the government was looking for more work, but I will go even further than that. The government wants to interfere. It wants to be the overseer even though the provinces have what it takes. Do not tell me that a cross-jurisdictional approach is what will help specialized workers in their respective fields. I would really like Quebec and the other provinces to have their own lists, and I know it is working very well in Quebec. They are even asking for more. They want the money for EI benefits to be managed properly by experts in the field, like professional development and, of course, education are. If not, I will go work at Quebec's National Assembly managing specialized trades.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.