Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here and to see my colleagues whom I missed over the summer. However, I almost feel as though we are on a diplomatic mission to a foreign country. The topic that we are debating today is a reminder of something that happens all too often in Ottawa, and that is centralization and interference.
I do not want to impute motives to the member who introduced Bill C-266 since I am sure his intentions were good. This comes from a noble desire, that of creating better fluidity and mobility for the labour force in a context where there are challenges related to labour shortages, an issue we are aware of because our constituents come to us about it regularly. The problem is not the intention behind the bill, but the approach that it takes. Members in Ottawa have an unfortunate tendency of forgetting that they are not at Queen's Park, the Quebec National Assembly or a provincial legislature. They forget that they are federal members of Parliament.
Indeed, Bill C-266 aims to create a national framework to harmonize credentials, establish equivalencies, and facilitate the mobility of workers and skilled trades based on standards to be established and announced by the federal government. Once again, the objective is not a bad one in itself. The issue is that, with legislation like Bill C-266, Ottawa is taking on a coordinating role and also, quite simply, the role of an arbitrator in an area that is otherwise largely administered by the provinces.
This is not the first time we have seen something like this. This was often the case with the national health strategies and frameworks, for example. The federal government wanted to introduce regulations. Once again, this may stem from good intentions. However, the federal government does not train health care staff or employ them. It does not run hospitals, and yet it still wanted to set standards. The same is true of Bill C-266. The federal government wants to claim an area of jurisdiction that does not belong to it, perhaps with good intentions, but chances are the end result will be problematic.
Just because the preamble of the bill states that provincial jurisdiction must be respected does not mean that we can expect the bill to respect provincial jurisdiction. Generally, when there is such a statement in the preamble, we see the exact opposite in the text that follows.
Matters of labour mobility and workforce training fall exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. In fact, Quebec already has its own model, and it works. Quebec is responsible for training. Quebec is responsible for credential recognition. There are several organizations that do this including Québec Emploi, Services Québec, the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, and the Commission de la construction du Québec, which are responsible for administering certification for various skilled trades.
The federal government has recognized the fact that Quebec is responsible for managing workforce training since 1997. The Canada-Quebec Labour Market Agreement, signed by Lucien Bouchard and Jean Chrétien, officially established that Quebec was responsible for its workforce and for training. Under this agreement, the federal government transfers funds directly to Quebec to make this possible.
Mechanisms are already in place for recognizing credentials for skilled trades, as well as for mobility. For example, there is the Red Seal designation, which is the result of genuine collaboration between the provinces, territories, and the federal government. There are mechanisms that work.
We are leery of the idea of trying to replace all of this with a regulatory framework created exclusively by the federal government. There is no need to recreate in Ottawa what can already be achieved on the ground through agreements and genuine mutual recognition.
One of the problems we foresee with the creation of a federal regulatory framework is that harmonization would not necessarily mean improvement. A difference between two provinces should not be systematically interpreted as an unnecessary barrier.
Part of the reason Quebec has its own training is that it has its own safety standards and professional regulations, as well as its linguistic reality, which people tend to forget when they want to go all out with pan-Canadian standards. One of the issues that may crop up when people seek to standardize current practices is that they may end up looking for a common standard that will tend toward the lowest common denominator. In some cases, that could weaken the requirements that are more stringent, and for good reason, in Quebec or other provinces. Those requirements were put in place by provinces that know the reality on the ground and that are responsible for administration, training and the awarding of certifications.
In that kind of context, two large segments of the population could lose out. First, the public could lose trust in the recognized value of certain certifications, which have historically been awarded by bodies that can administer them properly, rather than bodies that make things up as they go, such as the federal government in matters of labour. Second, workers may find that their initial training diminishes in value because it would be considered equivalent to that of other workers in Canada, when it is not, in fact. Both workers and the public stand to lose out.
As I was saying, what we are seeing with Bill C-266 is part of an obviously broader federal drive towards standardization. We have seen this before, to some extent, and can draw a parallel with Bill C-5, which aimed to reduce interprovincial barriers to trade. It used a similar approach in that it showed a tendency to set aside crucial aspects of the economic fabric of Quebec and the provinces, particularly in cultural and linguistic matters. These barriers were not implemented on a whim, simply to throw up roadblocks or just for their own sake. There are reasons they exist, and it should be up to the provinces and the provinces alone to decide when to lift certain barriers. The bill provides for consultations, but we have often seen in the past that consulting does not imply agreement. Often, consulting means talking endlessly without ultimately taking into account what has been said, despite, as I said a little earlier, a preamble that provides for areas of jurisdiction to be respected.
By creating federal frameworks, the government is ultimately making a unilateral decision on what constitutes a legitimate standard or a barrier. This could force us into situations involving a kind of reverse onus when it comes to removing barriers to mobility. The provinces and Quebec would have to justify and explain themselves even in cases where they rightfully decide to maintain different requirements. The solution is not a national framework but an improved version of something already available: increased federal labour mobility transfers for Quebec and the provinces. Funds are not an issue: Ottawa has already set aside large amounts for training in the skilled trades. Even during the recent spring 2026 economic update, there was talk of $2 billion over five years. Once again, even though a statutory framework was not involved, the federal government's willingness to impose standards on Quebec was unmistakable. Funds were given exclusively to the provinces willing to align their procedures with federal expectations. For some provinces, it was a carrot; for those that refused to surrender their jurisdiction to the federal government, it was a stick.
The solution that Quebec wants is perfectly simple: an unconditional transfer of funds with the right to veto federal initiatives that fail to respect Quebec's jurisdiction. Labour mobility is a positive thing. It is something that Quebec is already working on improving. However, there is no room for mobility when it comes to Quebec giving up its areas of jurisdiction or handing them over to Ottawa.