Human Resources Committee on Oct. 6th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank both witnesses for being here today for the study of this bill.

The Bloc Québécois is trying to fully understand the urgency and importance of this bill, since the issue of labour mobility and training falls exclusively under Quebec's, and so the provinces', jurisdiction. In fact, in Quebec, we already have our own model in this area, and it works. Quebec is responsible for skills training, and we are trying to promote trades related to that. In addition, credential recognition falls exclusively within Quebec's jurisdiction under the Canada-Quebec Labour Market Agreement in Principle, which was signed in 1997 by Lucien Bouchard and Jean Chrétien. There's also chapter 7 on labour mobility of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, which includes provisions for credential recognition. I can come back to that.

When we heard about this bill, when the 2026 spring economic update and the team Canada strong project to train skilled trades workers were introduced, Quebec called for an unconditional transfer of the amounts announced. The economic update committed $2 billion over five years starting in 2026-27, with $262 million per year afterward.

Mr. Luymes and Mr. Strickland, how important are these transfers and sums to training skilled workers?

Apart from the act and the transfer of money invested in training, what more can the federal government do in that regard?

[Sean Strickland]

In the unionized construction industry, we have 200 training centres across the country. We partner with our contractors to deliver that training. We've been able to access the union training and innovation program. We've spent our own money. Training is critically important to a successful construction industry and Canada's economy, so we encourage governments across the country to spend and invest in training tradespeople.

In terms of your comment about the trade recognition in Quebec, we're starting to see some real improvement there. For example, we have at least 100 tradespeople from Newfoundland working in the Davie shipyard right now, which was easily accomplished compared with how it was a number of years ago in terms of getting tradespeople into Quebec.

I would re-emphasize this notion of safety harmonization. I think that's an area where Quebec and all the other provinces could get together to look at safety harmonization and improve the safety of construction workers, particularly in Quebec, which has one of the worst construction safety records in all of Canada.

With the good work that's happening in trade investment, training, and investing in trades, and with how the system works in Quebec, I agree with you that there are a lot of positives to that system, but safety harmonization is an area where I can see some room for improvement for workers in Quebec.

[Martin Luymes]

May I make a comment?

There's a suggestion that the primary role in this space is with the provinces, and we would agree wholeheartedly. However, I would say the federal government has two important roles that it can play. One, you can identify funding through programs like build Canada strong. Maybe the lion's share should go to the provinces, but perhaps some of the funding that's directed to the provinces could have conditions attached, to find ways to compel the provinces to get to the table and identify ways to harmonize among the trades. The roles I would suggest that the federal government can play, then, are to fund using its tax base, which is richer than the provinces', and, secondly, to actively convene the provinces to exercise the authority they have in this area.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

However, following the signing of the 1997 agreement that I mentioned, side agreements were entered into. These include the labour market development agreements, or LMDAs, for employment insurance claimants, and the workforce development agreements, or WDAs, which were created in 2017 to support a broader cohort, including low-skilled workers, the self-employed and people distant from the labour market. All of this was created in that context.

In Quebec, these transfers are integrated into a partnership model structured around the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, which brings together employers, unions, the education community and community organizations to guide priorities. Therefore, we want federal money to go to the workforce and to be entrusted to Quebec so that Quebec can choose its programs, not Ottawa.

What do you think of this Quebec-created model where everyone talks to each other: the community sector, the union sector and self-employed workers?

[Sean Strickland]

The model in Quebec currently doesn't allow our union training centres to receive transfer payments to train workers. The training is done through the CEGEP system. That is a challenge for us. If you want more mobility and a more trained workforce, I think Quebec and the CCQ need to look at a way in which that funding can be returned to union training centres so we can train our members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Larouche.

Madame Kramp-Neuman, you have five minutes.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll start with you, Mr. Strickland.

I'd like to start with the Red Seal program. As you've indicated, and we're all aware, it requires co-operation between Ottawa and the provinces, the territories, employers, unions and training organizations, but ultimately, it has to work for the people who are actually working in and entering the trades.

From where you sit, is that coordination working? What do you feel is the biggest disconnect between the governments and the people training and employing skilled tradespeople?

[Sean Strickland]

I think our members and our union leadership are generally quite happy with the Red Seal trades system. The Red Seal was really put together to overcome all of the challenges that we're identifying here today in terms of differences in apprenticeship hours, differences in standards and so on so that there's one national standard.

Not all tradespeople become Red Seal journeymen. Getting the Red Seal gives you the mobility to travel across different provinces, but many just get their licence or their voluntary certification and stay within their home communities to practise their trade.

I think there are things that could be improved in the testing and the availability of testing to make the Red Seal exam more worker-friendly. In some jurisdictions—in Ontario, for example—for Red Seal qualification and licensing, the government allows the apprentice to take the test within their own union hall. Not all jurisdictions allow that. In some jurisdictions, you have to go to a central body, a college, and the college is only available on certain dates at certain times.

There are things that can be improved in terms of the availability of testing through the Red Seal program that will improve labour mobility, but generally, notwithstanding the comments I made earlier and the comments that Martin has made, the Red Seal system works pretty well. It needs to be tweaked, not overhauled.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

To go further with that, we're hearing consistently—I know I am—that Canada needs more trained, skilled people, but getting someone interested in a trade and then finally getting them all the way to certification are two different things. Between entering the Red Seal system and actually getting the certification, what's losing people? What's the gap in between A and B that's happening?

You touched on a few things earlier. Is it classroom availability? Is it a shortage of employers to provide hours? Is it the cost of taking on a new apprentice?

Also, if the federal government could do one thing, what could it realistically do to help remove some of the bottlenecks in getting people from A to Z?

[Sean Strickland]

That is a very comprehensive question.

I think the federal government is trying to do that right now through the Canadian apprenticeship service program. They're going to be bringing back a program with $10,000 to incentivize contractors to take on a first-year apprentice. We're hoping to expand that to $10,000 for a second-year apprentice as well.

In the unionized industry, an apprentice is indentured to a joint apprenticeship training trust. That's a multi-employer approach, so if you get laid off from one employer, you go into the pool and you might get hired by another employer. That helps with our completion rate. Our completion rate—getting an apprentice from initiation to completion—is much higher than in the non-union or alternative unions because of our training, but it's also because of the model. If you're an individual contractor, you have to take that apprentice on, and it's a risk to take on an apprentice and put money into training and invest in training, because if you run out of work, you have to lay that apprentice off.

There are differences in the models that lead to better outcomes through the unionized industry, but there are things that can be fixed for the entire industry.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

If I could bring this specifically now to HVAC, Mr. Luymes, the government is currently talking a lot about building significantly more housing. At the same time, we're seeing changing technology when it comes to the growing demand for HVAC work.

Do we currently have enough trained workers coming through the system to meet that demand? If not, what's preventing an HVAC contractor in a community like mine, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, from taking on and training one more apprentice in that particular field?

[Martin Luymes]

This is a very good question.

There's a really significant barrier in our sector. Not all of our members are unionized. Many are not. In fact, disproportionately in the residential sector, the industry is dominated by small family businesses, SMEs. The average number of employees for a typical residential HVAC contractor is nine, and most of them skew smaller than that.

What we have found is that the non-union contractors don't benefit from the union and apprenticeship intake programs that exist there, the structure that exists in that environment. The challenge is that while they might identify an appropriate candidate or a candidate might have an interest in becoming an apprentice, the system isn't particularly friendly to that process, and our contractor members—small business owners—are not very sophisticated in using the apprenticeship system. I would suggest that this is a major barrier.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

It's not successful because of cost.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Kramp-Neuman.

Mr. Saini, you're up next for five minutes.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Strickland and Mr. Luymes.

My question is about the current situation we have with the U.S. The International Monetary Fund says that removing internal trade barriers and improving the mobility of the workforce within the provinces could add up to a 7% boost, or equal to $210 billion, to our economy when we are fighting tariffs, or equal to 9% of the total tariffs. I would like to hear your viewpoint on that issue.

[Sean Strickland]

I don't dispute that figure at all. We've had several reports. Martin's group, I'm sure, has done some analysis. The mechanical contractors have done an analysis, and the cost to contractors on large projects for safety harmonization, trade equivalency and retraining workers is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This does have an economic impact. It costs money, and it also impacts productivity. When you dispatch a worker from the east coast to work on LNG phase two and they have to sit in a classroom for a week to retake courses that they took in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, that costs time, money and productivity.

[Martin Luymes]

I would add that there are costs that are labour-related. I'm assuming that built into that number are also the costs of goods being transferred from one province to another.

In our sector, we've seen significant barriers because of different provincial requirements for the approval and certification of products. It's a different topic, but it's also a contributor to the slowing down of the economy. When products that come in from another country have to be certified individually in each province, it's a redundant process, and there's really no basis, no justification, for it. We are arguing strongly for the removal of many of the barriers that exist today in relation to products, in addition to the ones that concern workers.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

We know that we must rapidly increase housing supply on a national scale. This is a core priority for our government. Can you speak to how a harmonization of skilled trade certification would lessen the timeline for the construction of newly built homes in Canada?

[Martin Luymes]

How is this situation constraining the growth of new homes? Is that the question?

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

That's correct.

[Martin Luymes]

Well, there are insufficient numbers of workers. We know of a report that was done by BuildForce Canada that said in our sector alone, achieving the goals that were set out for housing growth and the electrification of heating systems would require—I forget the number in relation to construction workers, but in our sector alone—a quadrupling of registered licensed refrigeration mechanics within 10 years. That's a pretty significant leap, one that the apprenticeship system today cannot deliver, even under the best scenarios.

We have to find ways to re-skill existing workers coming from other sectors. That alone is a barrier to growth. Especially when growth is also tied to policy goals like electrification, it creates a significant challenge.

[Sean Strickland]

If I may add to that, Mr. Luymes is correct in quoting that report, but that report was based on a scenario that we would build a million homes in less than 10 years, so that's not happening.

The notion that trade shortages are forever thus, or skilled trade shortages, is not the problem. The problem, really, is trade optimization. Trade shortages don't occur with all trades in all regions at all times. Brother Reynolds knows that his own local in Manitoba has high unemployment, but here we are talking about skilled trade shortages across the country when we have a couple of hundred electricians who are looking for work.

The issue is really important in terms of coordinating the requirement for construction workers, predominantly on large-scale industrial projects and large-scale infrastructure projects. We need to put together a labour supply coordinating committee so we can figure out how many tradespeople are needed, in what trades, when and where, for what job, where they are available and how we're going to get them there. We don't have that kind of sophisticated analysis in Canada. BuildForce does a good job at a very macro level based on scenarios and hypotheses, but not in real time. We need labour analysis around labour market requirements in real time—fluid, boots-on-the-ground, real-time analysis. I've been pushing for this since the creation of the Major Projects Office.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Saini.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This consideration, particularly on the construction industry, is worthwhile and important. At the very least, the bill makes us think about the labour issue, which is positive and constructive.

Gentlemen, I would like to hear your reactions to things we heard during the debates at first and second reading of the bill.

First, it says that labour market needs vary from one region to another, which is obvious, and that the harmonization proposed in the bill will not necessarily lead to an improvement for everyone.

What is your response to those who said that about Bill C‑266?