Debates of April 23rd, 2026

National Framework on Skilled Trades and Labour Mobility Act

[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.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Economy

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Speaker, it is a privilege to be here today and to represent the members of Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

I asked a question in the House about affordability. It seems that I come into the House and ask a lot of questions about affordability, oil and gas, and a lot of other issues, and the Minister for Fisheries seems to be the one to answer, so I was surprised she is not answering the questions I have tonight. I guess I will pose them to the parliamentary secretary.

My question was about affordability. I was very disappointed that the Liberal government, including the four Liberals from Newfoundland and Labrador, turned down my private member's bill to allow Newfoundlanders to fish seven days a week. It was very surprising and disappointing, because the proposed policy was not blue or red, Conservative or Liberal, but a policy for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The situation in Newfoundland and Labrador is that our recreational food fishery is not just for recreation. We do not all go out just for the sport of it, although many do. It actually feeds a lot of our families. It feeds a lot of our struggling seniors and a lot of our young people. People with big families go out to participate in it.

Right now, a lot of the time, because of safety issues due to wind, people with small boats such as 17-foot ones struggle to go out. It is hard to find nice days to go out to get fish when the wind is blowing, because our season is open only three days a week: Saturday, Sunday and Monday. It is very challenging to find good weather to get out to get the fish.

What is frustrating to Newfoundlanders is that people in other parts of Atlantic Canada are allowed to fish cod seven days a week. We have the same limit of five fish a day, but they are allowed to get fish seven days a week. What Newfoundlanders want is fairness. In achieving that fairness, we would actually to be able to achieve affordability for the Newfoundland and Labrador folks who want to lower their grocery bills.

What is interesting is that the Liberals voted against my bill because they said it would introduce new fees. I do not understand why they said the monitoring system would require tags, so I want to read part of my bill into the record. It states:

Within one year after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must, in consultation with key stakeholders, develop a monitoring system to record, by species, the number of fish that are caught, as well as the time at which and place where they are caught.

The minister had the choice to make a monitoring system, and she could have made it the way she wanted. The bill did not say “tags”. It never implied tags. What I had in mind, if the Liberals had listened to my speeches or brought this to committee, was to have it be very similar to a moose hunting licence. A person would fill out an application, voluntarily showing where and when they caught the fish.

The Liberals also said that the new bill would impose new fees. I just want to read this:

In developing the monitoring system, the Minister must

(a) take into consideration existing models and best practices across Canada;

(b) examine the possibility of covering the administrative costs of the monitoring system by fees and penalties that are required to be paid under the Fisheries Act;

It would not introduce new fees but actually use the fees and penalties under the Fisheries Act that are currently there.

It was very frustrating to hear these excuses. I am not sure why the Liberals were telling constituents and other people in Newfoundland and Labrador this. I do not know if it was because they were intentionally trying to deceive or if they just used AI in an attempt to find some excuses to convince the public that the bill was a bad one.

I wonder why we cannot at least work together. Why did the bill not get sent to committee? Why could we not work together on the bill with respect to affordability?

My final question is this: This summer, will the government open up the fisheries seven days a week so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can have fish in their freezer?

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can clarify something for my colleague across the floor. The private member's bill referenced by the member was reckless and would have threatened the livelihoods of harvesters, plant workers and their families, and communities right across Atlantic Canada. Do not just take it from me. Both the FFAW and ASP shared their concern with the member's scheme. For those listening at home in the member's own province, the inshore fleet, the offshore fleet, processors and ENGOs were all against his proposal and have all stated it was a bill to change science and not to fish seven days a week. He ignored science, consultation and the thousands of people, including those in his own province, who depend on the fishery.

To hear from the people, the Minister of Fisheries launched the food fisheries survey, to which more than 9,500 people responded. It was the highest level of participation ever for a DFO survey. That is real consultation. Tomorrow, the minister will be meeting with recreational fishers, the province, the FFAW and ASP to hear their thoughts on the future of the food fishery. We want to get this right. Our government recently published the food fishery “What We Heard Report”, and I recommend the member read it to see what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to see in the food fishery.

The member opposite proposed an entirely new monitoring system just for recreational fishers and would have forced Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to record their catch. How did the member want to offset those new administrative and red-tape costs? It was fees on the fishers themselves. That is not true representation. He proposed to have the government cover “the administrative costs of the monitoring system by fees and penalties that are required to be paid under the Fisheries Act”. That would have meant licence fees and nobody wants those.

The member proposed a new system that would have told Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that they cannot catch cod like they have for their entire lives and it would have only made the fishery worse. Our government understands that the food fishery is culturally important. The member opposite talks about affordability, but he would have put a Conservative tax on those who fish to feed themselves and their families, as they have done for generations. This past year, the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador had no licence requirement, no licence fee and no reporting requirement. The idea was was just to follow the rules, be safe and fish for food.

Under the member's Conservative tax on food system, food fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador would have been forced to have a mandatory licence, pay a fee to cover additional new red tape and report every fish they caught through a new system that would also cost them money to use.

While our new government is providing tax relief to millions of Canadians and working to build a stronger economy, the member has been playing short-sighted political games that threaten the economy for everyone in Atlantic Canada and would have made Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay for the food fishery.

Our government is working on behalf of all Canadians to truly make life more affordable for everyone.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I know why the parliamentary secretary was the one reading the answer, because I do not think any Newfoundlander would be brave enough to read that and then go home and face their constituents. It almost seems like the member completely ignored what I just said about my bill not introducing new fees. It is right here. It says the minister must “examine the possibility”. It was even in the minister's hands. I put that in there. It is so frustrating.

We talk about consultation. Poor old Uncle Joe and his little fish hooks are going to ruin the whole fishery. There are 2,500 tonnes that come out of the recreational food fishery and over 40,000 tonnes from the fishery. More fish are dying due to natural causes. One seal eats three tonnes. Way more fish are being eaten by seals, and that problem is something that the Liberal Party refuses to even talk about, let alone handle. It is so frustrating.

I would like to know if the parliamentary secretary even went to Newfoundland and asked someone involved in the recreational food fishery on a wharf outside of St. John's what they wanted to do.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the member is forgetting what his bill actually called for. It is a tax on food for people in his province. It did not say anything about fishing seven days a week, but it did call for new red tape and licence fees on food fishers. That is not what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want. He did not consult or listen to fishers. He put forward a proposal that threatened the entire commercial fishing industry in Atlantic Canada. That is tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars.

The Minister of Fisheries did a full survey to hear from the people in the province on what they want to see in the food fishery. Over 9,500 people completed the survey. Our government knows how much people in his province care about the food fishery. The member should read the “What We Heard Report” we recently published to see what real consultation looks like. He will find that his proposals for more red tape and licence fees are not popular with food fishers.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber, and this evening I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow up on a question to the Minister of Agriculture from March 13, when I probed why the government is closing ag research stations. Over 20 ag organizations have written in to the AGRI committee in response to our study examining these closures. “Why?” is the question.

We are coming up on one year since the last general election. As part of the preparation for our policy platforms for that election, meetings were held with all ag organizations, and there are an awful lot of ag organizations. We were after the priorities that were on the minds of those in the sector. Those ag organizations do not always agree, but they did agree on five priorities. The primary focus was to maintain, enhance and support funding for research and innovation. Time will not allow me this evening to expand into the other priorities, but I just want to list them: the harmonization of regulations and elimination of red tape; the elimination of the carbon tax; realigning the mandates of the CFIA and PMRA to include an economic lens to decision-making; and finally, ensuring continued access to labour.

However, the primary ask was to keep a focus on research and innovation, on science. What did the government do? It just announced three agricultural research station closures and four site-specific field station closures. When I asked the minister why the government would do this when the sector has identified research as foundational to the food sector, I, surprisingly, did not get a defence. I got a confession.

When those in the sector told us about their five priorities, we assumed they had also told the Liberal Party those same five priorities. The minister acknowledged the following in his response to me. He said public investment in ag R and D is down 15%. He acknowledged that private sector research at universities has plummeted 77% and that the number of enterprises doing research has shrunk by 30%.

He is right about one thing. He concluded by saying we cannot keep going down this path, and he is absolutely right, but what he forgot to say is that it has been Liberal governments driving the ship for the last 11 years. He also acknowledged that academia and the private sector are not in the position, as is sometimes misstated at committee, to take over the shortfall on research.

We need to put these cuts to agriculture research in some context. Over the past decade, the size of the federal bureaucracy has grown by 40%, but Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada by only 11%. The Prime Minister has charged many departments to cut their spending by 15% over the next three years, and we absolutely agree that the size of the federal government needs to shrink, but 15% cuts across all departments cut differently when a department has only grown by 11%. The reality is that with the previous cuts to ag, that sector is going to shrink by 27% while all other departments have gone up 40% and will then go down 15%.

The minister was right that we should not go down the path that the government is contemplating with these closures. Science should be supported. There are certainly other areas in the ag portfolio where we could help them identify savings. We would be only too happy to help with that. We are talking about the renewal of the five-year ag policy framework right now.

I will go back to those ag station closures. The witnesses at committee were critical of both the process and the outcome of the decisions. This needs to be reversed.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my colleague.

The agricultural sector is an incredibly important sector in Canada. I think the minister had explained in that answer why that decision was made. I am pleased to hear, in terms of the five priorities he outlined, that the consumer carbon tax was eliminated as one of the very first acts of this government.

As we know, the global economy is more than a year into a profound rupture, with economic security, industrial policy and geopolitical competition increasingly shaping economic, financial and supply chain decisions. In addition, heightened geopolitical tensions, including recent events in the Middle East that disrupted global energy markets and shipping routes, have further underscored the fragility of global supply chains and are now contributing to elevated uncertainty.

We, as a government, have been relentlessly focused on bringing down costs for Canadians, because when Canadians keep more of the money they earn, they can better support their families, invest in their communities and build the future they want. Of course, that includes Canadians in all industries, including the agricultural one.

Since July 1, 2025, Canadians have been paying less tax, after the government announced lowering the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. We, as a House and Senate, adopted that as our very first law. The rate reduction applies to taxable incomes of up to $58,523 in 2026. This change ensures that nearly 22 million Canadians benefit from tax relief of up to $420 per person, saving two-income families up to $840 this year. Notably, most of the tax relief will go to Canadians with incomes in the two lowest tax brackets.

Canada's new government is also using the improvement in the fiscal outlook associated with higher oil prices to provide targeted relief to households and businesses. Specifically, we are reducing pressure on fuel prices at the pump by suspending the application of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, effective April 20, until August 31, 2026, delivering over $2.2 billion in relief. The temporary suspension of the excise tax for gasoline and diesel is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a typical 50-litre tank of fuel.

To make everyday essentials like groceries more affordable, we introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which builds on the GST credit and will provide additional support for more than 12 million Canadians.

We are providing a one-time payment equivalent to a 50% increase in the 2025-26 value of the GST credit, which will be delivered on June 5, and we are increasing the benefit by 25% for five years, beginning in July 2026. We are also setting aside $500 million from the strategic response fund to help businesses address the cost of supply chain disruptions without passing those costs on to Canadians at the checkout line. We are creating a $150-million food security fund under the existing regional tariff response initiative for small and medium-sized enterprises and the organizations that support them.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at least the minister addressed my question. The response we just heard, actually, is typical and it exemplifies the government's approach to agriculture.

I recently participated in a poll from a national polling firm, answering the question of how I felt the government values agriculture and the agri-food sector. Here is how I responded. The sector provides $150 billion in GDP. It is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada, larger than auto and mining combined, and it provides for one in nine jobs in Canada.

Let us look at the federal budget, $498 billion. Call it $500 billion. Strip away those nine zeros and just think about the number 500. The federal budget investment in AAFC is $3.6 billion. If we get rid of the nine zeros, that's 3.6. That is less than 2%. That is how much the government values agriculture, less than 2% investment in the largest manufacturing sector in this country.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully disagree with my colleague. Not only does this government value agriculture and the incredible role that farmers play and that other people involved in the agricultural sector play across the country, but we have continued to engage with the industry to ensure that we best respond to the needs that it faces, given the very challenging circumstances that we face right now in the world. We will continue to do that, and I will undertake to work with that member and to work with my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary, to make sure that the member's views are considered in the larger lens of our agricultural policy.

Employment

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada is losing jobs at rates not seen in a generation, and it is the next generation that is bearing the brunt of these job losses. The Conservatives have been sharply and pointedly highlighting this problem, and we have been offering constructive solutions to the government that would make a difference. Sadly, the government has chosen to ignore these constructive solutions. In many respects, it has actually moved in the opposite direction in ways that have made, and will continue to make, the problem worse.

We follow these monthly updates from Statistics Canada that show us how the job market is doing. The February results of the labour force survey were particularly dire, showing that over 100,000 full-time jobs were lost in one month alone, with close to 50,000 youth jobs lost in that month. In the next round of data that came out after March, we saw a continuation of that situation with the persistence of this youth unemployment crisis.

The unemployment numbers are bad, but so are the workforce participation numbers. Unemployment measures the percentage of youth in the workforce who are not employed. Labour force participation identifies the number of youth who are in the workforce. What we are seeing, in addition to high unemployment, is that many young people are giving up, with lower workforce participation rates in general among youth. This is driven by this frustration about how challenging it is for young people to get jobs that will allow them to get ahead. This is a grave and serious problem that can not be explained away by external events, as the government tries to do. When we highlighted the February workforce numbers, the government tried to blame the war in Iran, even though the war in Iran had not started at the time that data was collected.

Moreover, what we normally see in youth unemployment figures is that there is a certain natural relationship between youth unemployment and overall unemployment. It is usually a bit higher. However, we are seeing a widening of that gap. Youth unemployment relative to overall unemployment is very high, which suggests that there are particular factors unique to our own circumstances that are contributing to a widening of that gap.

The constructive solutions we have proposed are in four areas. First is unleashing the economy, removing barriers that have limited economic growth. Young people are often last in and first out. If a company's owners are optimistic about its future, they will be able to hire more young people and they will take on summer students and this sort of thing. However, for company owners who are more pessimistic about their future and are in the process of downsizing, it is likely not going to be their long-tenured, experienced employees who are let go first; it is going to be those young people who have just started.

The second area is fixing immigration. We have seen how a failure of immigration policy has exacerbated the competition for entry-level positions, and we need to change that.

Third, we have talked about fixing the training. That means supporting young people to acquire skills that are required for the Canadian economy. We must train Canadian workers for Canadian jobs. Sadly, the Liberals are moving in the opposite direction by attacking students, particularly those who attend vocational institutions and particularly students in the trades.

Finally, we have proposed policies to support labour mobility, to help young people move to places where the jobs are.

These are constructive solutions that we have put forward. Unfortunately, the government has chosen not to adopt them and so we see the continuing worsening of this youth unemployment crisis.

What is it going to take for the government to listen to what we have proposed, for it to take good ideas in the spirit that they have been presented and actually propose a plan to fix this problem?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, I do not share the pessimistic outlook of my colleague on this issue or others. I do believe that we want to make sure every young person in this country has the chance to find gainful employment, because young people are the drivers of Canada's future economic growth, and everybody has a right to live in this country with opportunities.

I want to talk about some of the opportunities that we are providing right now. For example, a career often starts with a summer job. Since 2019, the Canada summer jobs program has helped more than 600,000 young people find a summer job. Over 75,000 of those jobs were created last year, and up to 100,000 opportunities will be available for young people this summer. All told, we are supporting over 175,000 opportunities for youth and students this year under the student work placement program and the youth employment and skills strategy, which includes Canada summer jobs.

We need to make sure we support young people getting into our skilled trades. I was the parliamentary secretary for labour a few years ago, and one of the most important things we all know is that we need to build more homes and build more transmission lines to power AI. We will be building ports, rail and pipelines to move critical minerals. We cannot do that if we do not have electricians, carpenters, plumbers and bricklayers. We also need millwrights and many more tradespeople, and we need them right now. This is where an enormous opportunity lies for many young Canadians.

We are investing nearly $1 billion annually in apprenticeship support through loans, tax credits, employment insurance benefits during in-school training, project funding and support for the Red Seal Program. In November, when we presented budget 2025, we updated the government's plan to make a generational investment in young Canadians, prepare them for good jobs and renew Canada's workforce.

To train the newest generation of Canadian builders, budget 2025 expanded the union training and innovation program with $75 million over three years. This will boost union-based apprenticeship training in the Red Seal trades and make sure there are Canadian workers to help build major infrastructure and millions more homes across the country. Since 2017, the union training and innovation program has invested $278 million to modernize training equipment, strengthen union training centres across the country and support skilled trades training opportunities for more than 173,800 individuals.

This is a critical time, but Canadians are meeting this moment with strength and conviction, and the Government of Canada is looking right now to help Canadians unlock Canada's economic potential. Through 2033, over eight million jobs will become available in Canada, and we are taking action to make sure that people get these jobs and that young people are prepared to meet the demand.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary wrongly described my outlook as “pessimistic”. I want to say that I am incredibly optimistic about the potential of young people, about what is possible in this country if policy changes are made, and about our potential to shape our own reality if we make different choices as leaders. I am also capable of reading Statistics Canada reports about unemployment. It is not a question of opinion; it is a question of fact, from objective reports, that labour force participation is way down among young people and unemployment is way up.

The good news is that we can change this reality if we change policies that have targeted tradespeople for defunding, through changes to the student loan program, and change policies around immigration and in other areas.

Why will the government not change policies so young people can get back to work?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the new government has changed many policies, starting with eliminating the consumer carbon tax, which is one of the things the member asked for; building projects across this country; unleashing our potential; and removing economic barriers between provinces. The government is actually constantly listening, looking, and seeking new information and ideas, including ones that come from the other side of the House.

Therefore, we are in agreement. We want young people to have opportunity. We think the plan that we started with in budget 2025 is working and is going to continue to work. Let us try to work together to make sure our young people have those opportunities.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:59 p.m.)