Debates of Sept. 21st, 2026

North Vancouver—Capilano, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Beaches—East York, Scarborough North, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, Yorkton—Melville and Brantford—Brant South

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty to inform the House that vacancies have occurred in the representation: namely Jonathan Wilkinson, member for the electoral district of North Vancouver—Capilano, by resignation effective Friday, June 19, 2026;

Simon‑Pierre Savard‑Tremblay, member for the electoral district of Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, by resignation effective Friday, June 19, 2026; Richard Martel, member for the electoral district of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, by resignation effective Tuesday, July 7, 2026;

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, member for the electoral district of Beaches—East York, by resignation effective Tuesday, July 7, 2026; Shaun Chen, member for the Electoral District of Scarborough North, by resignation effective Saturday, August 15, 2026;

Alexandre Boulerice, member for the electoral district of Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie, by resignation effective Tuesday, August 25, 2026; Steven Guilbeault, member for the electoral district of Laurier—Sainte‑Marie, by resignation effective Friday, August 28, 2026;

Cathay Wagantall, member for the electoral district of Yorkton—Melville, by resignation effective Monday, August 31, 2026; Larry Brock, member for the electoral district of Brantford—Brant South, by resignation effective Friday, September 18, 2026.

Pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed warrants to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of writs for the election of members to fill these vacancies.

It is also my duty to inform the House that, based on a medical assessment available to the Chair, and in accordance with subsection 70(2) of the Parliament of Canada Act, the Chair has determined that Mr. Chen is eligible for a severance allowance.

New Member

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Mr. Braeden Caley, member for the electoral district of North Vancouver—Capilano.

Braeden Caley, member for the electoral district of North Vancouver—Capilano, introduced by the Right Hon. Mark Carney and the Hon. Gregor Robertson.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Daniel Gobeil, member for the electoral district of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

Daniel Gobeil, member for the electoral district of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, introduced by the Right Hon. Mark Carney and the Hon. Joël Lightbound.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Mr. Tanveer Shahnawaz, member for the electoral district of Beaches—East York.

Tanveer Shahnawaz, member for the electoral district of Beaches—East York, introduced by the Right Hon. Mark Carney and the Hon. Gary Anandasangaree.

Order Paper

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wish to inform the House that in accordance with the representation made by the government pursuant to Standing Order 55(1), I have caused to be published a special Order Paper giving notice of a government bill.

I therefore lay before the House the document in question.

It being 11:08 a.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 23 consideration of the motion 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.

National Framework on Skilled Trades and Labour Mobility Act

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before I start talking today about Bill C-266, I would like to first take a moment to thank all the wonderful people in South Shore—St. Margarets. It was wonderful to be back home in the riding over the summer, getting out into our communities, meeting with constituents, listening to their concerns and celebrating the incredible work happening across the south shore.

It was also a real privilege to help deliver some exciting investments to our communities, including $6.2 million to the Lunenburg Opera House and over $15 million to Hawboldt Industries, which received the Davie contract. Of course, I loved getting out to meet our students in the Canada summer jobs program, where young people are gaining valuable experience, building confidence and contributing to their communities. I want to thank everyone who opened their doors, shared their stories, invited me into their workplaces and to their community events, and reminded me every day why I am here to serve. I am grateful to be back, and I am excited to bring the voices of South Shore—St. Margarets to Ottawa.

I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of Bill C-266 and to the importance of making it easier for skilled trades workers to take their skills, experience and hard work with them wherever opportunity exists in this country. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Richmond East—Steveston, for the bill.

At its heart, the bill is about something very simple: opportunity. It is about making sure that if a Canadian has the skills and training to do a job in one province, unnecessary administrative and regulatory barriers do not prevent that person from doing the same job in another province. Bill C-266 proposes the development of a national framework on skilled trades and labour mobility. The objective is to reduce barriers, improve credential recognition, identify those equivalencies between jurisdictions and find, as I said before, opportunities to harmonize certification processes.

Importantly, this is not about Ottawa telling provinces how to regulate their skilled trades. It is about governments working together. It is about provinces and territories, industries, unions, apprenticeship organizations, indigenous partners, employers and training institutions sitting at that same table and asking one very practical question: “How do we make it easier for Canadians to work?” That question matters enormously in a country as large and diverse as Canada.

I come to this conversation with a very different professional background from many of the members of the House. Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was a teacher. I spent many years working in the education system, including as a high school principal.

One of the things that experience taught me is that when we talk about workplace development, we cannot start at the point where someone wants to get onto the job site. We have to start much earlier. We have to start with the young people. We have to start with the students sitting in a classroom wondering what kind of future is possible for them. We have to start with the young person who is incredibly capable with their hands and who can build, fix, design, operate, and solve problems but who might not see themselves already reflected in a traditional academic pathway.

We have to make sure young people understand that there are many different ways to build a successful life here in Canada. A good education system should not tell every student that success means following the exact same path. It should open doors, and that means universities, colleges, apprenticeships, skilled trades, entrepreneurship and technology. It means creating opportunities. There is a theme here for young Canadians to develop skills that are valued in their communities across this country.

I represent South Shore—St. Margarets. It is a beautiful riding, but it is also a riding that knows very well the challenges that come with being rural.

Young people have enormous potential. We have people who are working in construction, transportation, marine industries, forestry, fisheries, energy and manufacturing. I could go on. We have small business owners who are looking for workers, and there are communities that need housing. Infrastructure needs to be built, and we have employers who tell us that finding people with the right skills is one of the biggest challenges.

At the same time, we have young people who are asking themselves whether they can build a future in the community where they grew up. That is an important question, because if a young person has to leave their community to find opportunity, sometimes they never come back. What does that mean to a rural community? It loses more than just a young worker. It loses volunteers, parents, future business owners, coaches and community leaders, and we lose people who would eventually become the next generation of teachers, tradespeople, nurses, entrepreneurs and public servants. Therefore, when we talk about building Canada's workforce, we have to talk at the same time about building strong communities. That is why labour mobility matters, but it is also why education and training matter.

I am a former member of HUMA, which completed a study on youth employment. One of the lessons that came through very clearly is that young people do not experience the labour market in the same way that many of us did growing up. There are young people who are ready to enter that workforce but cannot find the first opportunity. There are young people who have the education but not the experience that employers might be looking for. There are young people who need access to training, and, most important, there are young people in rural and remote communities who face additional barriers simply because of geography. There are many young people who have the trades, but they also need a pathway to put those to work, and that is what the bill would try to do.

The last point is particularly important, because when we talk about the skilled trades, we talk about how we can train people. We encourage through apprenticeships, we invest in education, and we can help young people enter the workforce, but if unnecessary barriers prevent these workers from taking their skills where they are needed, we have not solved that problem. We have simply moved the problem, kicking the can down the road. Canada's workforce needs to be flexible. A worker in Nova Scotia might have an opportunity in Alberta, a worker in Quebec might have an opportunity in British Columbia, and a worker in Newfoundland and Labrador might have the skills that are desperately needed in other parts of the country.

All Canadians should be able to make these choices. That does not mean we eliminate the safety standards. It does not mean that we lower training requirements. It does not mean that we undermine provincial authority. It does not mean that every certification system needs to be identical. What it does mean, though, is that we should be asking whether these differences between jurisdictions are genuinely necessary or whether they come from simply creating duplication and the old red tape that we talk about a lot in the chamber.

Bill C-266 takes a framework approach to this problem. It proposes mapping equivalencies across jurisdictions. It proposes identifying opportunities for harmonization. It proposes modernizing certification processes, and it proposes bringing the right people together to have these conversations. That is important because the young people who understand these barriers best are the ones who encounter them.

Unions also understand the importance of safety, wages and working conditions. Provincial regulators understand their responsibilities. Indigenous communities and organizations have important perspectives on workforce development and economic participation. Governments have the responsibility to bring these voices together.

I also want to emphasize what the bill would not do. It would not override provincial authority, and that matters. Provinces and territories have important responsibilities when it comes to training, certification and labour market regulation. These responsibilities must be protected. The strength of the bill is that it would recognize that reality but would also recognize something else, which is that the labour market does not stop at a provincial border.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to be back in Ottawa. These are words I never thought I would hear myself saying, and they are words I do not think anyone has actually ever said in a truthful state.

It is wonderful to be back in Parliament debating my colleague's bill, Bill C-266. The author of the bill, the member for Richmond East—Steveston, and I had the pleasure of working together on the operations committee for several years, and I quite enjoyed working with him. Although there is technically nothing wrong with his private member's bill, I question what the end value would be because it really would not do a lot.

Conservatives are here to represent Canadians and to help Canadians. We are focused on saving Canadians money. I believe the Liberals are out of touch on this issue, and the bill before us shows part of that. The bill would not actually provide any action to help Canadians, and every day without action from the Liberal government is costing Canadians money.

Bill C-266 has a lot of good points on paper, if it were to actually accomplish anything, but what would it accomplish in the end? It would accomplish a call for a national framework. It would not actually assist an electrician in Ontario to work and be recognized in Alberta. It just calls for a framework. In the end, that is what would happen, as the bill states, “The Minister must develop a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility”. That is wonderful, but would it actually do anything? No, it is just paperwork to “develop a national framework”.

The bill also states, “the Minister must hold consultations”. Well, that would be work for bureaucrats and hopefully hotels during the consultations, but in the end, after all these consultations, after all the work, debate and everything, our result would be the tabling of a framework.

The bill continues:

Within one year after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister must prepare a report setting out the national framework and cause it to be tabled

That would be within a year. Maybe we could get through this in a month and then, in 2027, after another year without action, it would be tabled.

The bill also states:

Within one year after the day on which the report is tabled under subsection 4(1), and every year after that, the minister must prepare a progress report

It does not state that he has to do anything. It is just a progress report.

We have seen, with this government, lots of other frameworks and lots of other items that state it has to prepare progress reports. We have seen it in public accounts, where the Auditor General comes to say, “Yeah, for 20 years we have been doing progress reports, but nothing has changed.”

The bill further states, “Within five years after the day on which this Act comes into force, a comprehensive review of the national framework must be undertaken by the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that is designated or established”. We would have one year to study this, another year for a progress report and then, within five years, another review of the framework.

It begs the question, why does the government not just get this done? Why do we need a framework? Why do we need a private member's bill to ask the government to do what its job is, and why the delays?

What should the government be doing instead? Well, it could be acting. One of the things the Liberals could act on would be to delete from their budget 2025 their intent to defund student loans for private colleges. There are 31 of these in B.C. and seven in Alberta that deliver apprenticeship training and such trade training privately, but the government is going to ban students from being able to access funding to attend them.

One of the other things the Liberals could do that would be a lot more important, which I have spoken about repeatedly in the House and in committee, would be to end the scourge of trafficked and illegal workers on government-funded infrastructure projects. We have projects that are funded partly by the feds, partly by the province and partly by the municipalities where we have illegal, trafficked workers on the sites. The contractor will win the bid with a low bid and then immediately subcontract out the entire job to a subcontractor to create a layer, a distance I guess, so they can claim, “We're innocent. It was the subcontractor who broke the law.”

The subcontractor will then recruit from Mexico, Venezuela or Colombia to bring in workers under a visitor's, vacation or other visa, and then they put them to work. I have presented to the Treasury Board evidence of how they are recruiting the workers. Two years ago, in the House, I spoke about it, and the government has done nothing.

They will bring in these workers, abuse them, underpay them with $10 an hour in cash, make them work overtime, and then steal the overtime. Who are these workers bumping out? They are bumping out trades workers, the very skilled trades workers that this bill is supposed to help. The government talks about wanting workers from Ontario to be able to work in B.C., yet it turns a blind eye when workers are trafficked or smuggled into the country, which bumps out trades workers from working on government-funded infrastructure projects.

One of the items we found is that nine of these trafficked workers, and this was in Edmonton, were forced to rent their accommodation from the wife of the subcontractor. There were nine of them in a one-bedroom house, and they were paying $3,000 for this. They were told that, if they complained, they would go back on a plane and go home.

I visited one of the work sites on the Henday, the ring road or ring highway around Edmonton, which is actually in the riding of Edmonton Riverbend. Now, if the member for Edmonton Riverbend were to show up in Edmonton once in a while, he would perhaps see this work being done. We spoke to every single worker on the site during the construction. Funnily enough, every single worker was not a worker but a subcontractor.

Now, if anyone has worked in construction, they know there is a general contractor. Perhaps they would sub out the drywall to a subcontractor who would then hire workers, but every single worker on this site was a subcontractor. Every single worker was from out of country. We spoke to the contractor. He tried to chase us off and run us down with his pickup truck, so I think we know how the contractor felt about that.

Now, workers from Local 222, the cement masons, should have gotten the work on that Henday project, the bridge, but not one of them did. The government talks a lot about wanting to help work with the unions. It is actually in this bill that the government is going to consult with the unions. I am pretty sure, if they consulted with Local 222 of the cement masons, they would be told, “Let us work. Let our legal workers work on Canadian-funded infrastructure projects instead of trafficked workers.”

We heard a story of a gentleman who was one of the illegal trafficked workers. He fell and landed on his head. Luckily, he had a helmet on. He fell 25 feet and woke up in the hospital. No one from the company or worker's comp visited him. The only person who visited was the safety officer from the subcontractor, who told him that, if he told the truth to workers' comp or anyone else, he would be fired on the spot and sent home. Three months later, after he got out of the hospital, on his first day back on the job, he was given his cheque and told he was fired, to get out.

This is happening on the Edmonton LRT project; the Edmonton library, which just got built; sidewalk projects; and the Yellowhead. Again, two years ago, I had documented evidence of this. Two years ago, I placed it in the hands of the Treasury Board. I promised the Treasury Board that I would not make this public and that I would work with the government to get this done.

A year later, I approached them again. I said, “You guys have done nothing. I'm going to start speaking about it. It's now been two years and nothing has been done.” We tabled a motion in the operations committee to look at this, to help the trade workers that Bill C-266 is supposed to help. The Liberals voted the motion down rather than study this.

It has been two years. The government talks about wanting to help trade workers. If it wanted to actually do that, instead of developing a national framework that is going to do nothing, the government should sit down, listen to the unions and crack down to end the scourge of trafficked and illegal workers being used on government-funded infrastructure sites.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to be back in this place with my colleagues after an important summer of conversations in our communities. One of the conversations that came up quite often was from young people from different parts of the country who were in my riding of Vancouver Granville and from some of my constituents who had been travelling across the country over the summer. The theme that kept coming up, particularly from some of the folks in the skilled trades, was that they would love to be able to work in other parts of the country.

In fact, I was speaking to a young man from Montreal who said that he would love to be able to work in British Columbia for four or five years, but his credentials are not recognized. This is something that a lot of us hear in our communities from Canadians from coast to coast to coast who want to work in different parts of the country and be able to use the skills they have obtained and the education they have.

This is what my friend from Richmond East—Steveston aims to solve through his private member's bill. This bill is really about three things. It is about modernizing, harmonizing and streamlining credential recognition across this country.

We spend incredible amounts of time training people in this country across the provinces in the skills and trades we need from coast to coast to coast, yet barriers created through regulations sometimes make it difficult for folks to take advantage of that and truly celebrate being able to work anywhere in this country. We know there is a need for qualified professionals to work where their skills are needed, and this bill would help to deliver on our commitment to break down internal trade barriers and recognize that Canada can give itself, as the Prime Minister said, “far more than anyone else can take away.”

When we think about this moment for Canada, we recognize that we are being challenged by our neighbours to the south. We have opportunities presented to us through global partnerships, through increasing trade and through looking at how we develop our sectors here at home. One of the most important elements of that is ensuring that Canadian workers have the ability to work in whatever part of this country they desire, using the skills and knowledge they have and ensuring that their credentials are recognized across this country.

It seems very simple, and indeed it is. It is a concept about which any of us who are proudly Canadian would ask, “How we can make sure that skills obtained in British Columbia are transferable to Quebec, Ontario or Atlantic Canada, and vice versa?” If we are serious about economic development in this country, increasing productivity, building the infrastructure we need and competitiveness, it is private members' bills like this one and decisions like this that will help propel our economy forward.

We all know that improved labour mobility ensures that skilled labour shortages, particularly in the housing and infrastructure sectors, can be addressed. For those who have concerns, this bill is not about overreach, but rather about coordination and collaboration.

As the member for Richmond East—Steveston has said, this bill would help allow a young person trained in Ontario to be part of the national shipbuilding strategy in Vancouver, or vice versa. When we think about what we are doing, we are spending time, effort, energy and resources to ensure that we are training workers from coast to coast to coast.

We announced that we would be modernizing and boosting apprenticeship training in this country to expedite Red Seal certification, with over $330 million in funding over five years. We are digitizing the Red Seal program, introducing online exams and digital logbooks and securing credentials to reduce certification timelines, including by creating a single national registered apprenticeship number. We are also expanding union training and innovation programs to enable union-run training centres to upgrade facilities, expand capacity and invest in modern equipment.

These are all steps that require us to work together across the federation. These are all steps that work toward building a Canada strong.

When we look at the future of this country, we know there is an imperative right now to build our east-west economy. We know there is an imperative to be able to trade across this country, to have workers move from any part of this country to another to work, and to ensure that what is getting built in one part of the country benefits the country regardless of whether it is in one province or another.

That happens by ensuring that when we are building a one Canadian economy, the workers who reside at the heart of that one Canadian economy have the mobility they need, and the time and effort that have been put in and the investments that have been made through tax dollars so these workers are well-trained are put to good use in the parts of the country that need those workers the most. That mobility must be as seamless as possible, and the flexibility of movement must be there for Canadians.

It should not be easier for a Canadian from British Columbia or Quebec to move to a different country. It should be easy for them to move across this country to do the work they want to do in helping to build this country and build our economy strong.

The realities workers face right now are real. Workers across this country, whether they are working in the softwood lumber industry, in manufacturing in Ontario or in smelters, are challenged. They are looking for ways for government to step up and make their lives easier. One of those ways, I believe, is for them to find and get work anywhere in this country and use the credentials they have without the onerous process of being certified again.

People have put in the time, effort and energy to train up. It is not their fault if through tariffs an industry or a sector is hit hard in a particular part of the country. It should not be their fault that they cannot move to another part of this country where a job is available, only to know that their credentials will not be recognized because of a system that prevents that.

This bill would enable those barriers to come down. It would enable those workers to take on more, to serve this country through their work, to be taxpaying citizens, to help boost the economy and to build the things we need in this country. This is on us. We have powers in this legislature, in this place, to make these changes and make the lives of Canadians better.

The changes that are being proposed are real. They are meaningful, and they are a process of collaboration. They are about collaboration and working together. They are not about overreach. They are not about taking power away from provinces. They are not about diminishing regions. They are not about minimizing anybody's ability to feel like their province or region matters. It is quite the opposite. They are about ensuring that the regions, provinces and territories that need workers can attract those workers, that those workers can thrive, that those workers have mobility and that they have the freedom in this country to truly participate in the economy.

That is not a lot to ask. It is not a lot for workers to ask. It is not a lot for Canadians to ask of us, and it requires us to come together. It requires us to work with labour unions. It requires us to work across jurisdictions. It requires us to hear one another through that process. What it boils down to is doing the thing that Canadians have asked of us, not just of this government, but of all parliamentarians. It's about doing the things that are required to build a strong economy, to reduce the barriers that currently prevent workers from doing the things they need to be able to do, to promote businesses' ability to hire, to enable businesses to contribute to the economy, to reduce the barriers and friction that businesses are currently feeling and, most importantly, to ensure that we are building a truly east-west economy in this country and that workers are at the heart of it.

We know that the north-south economy right now, with our partners to the south, is hard. It is difficult. Relations are strained. We all know that, but it is an opportunity for us to make sure that moving across this country east to west or west to east is easy, that we give Canadians the tools they need and that we give Canadians the types of decisions from this government and in this Parliament that allow them to move freely and work freely across this country.

That is incumbent on all of us. This is the moment to put aside the “yes but” way of thinking about things and look at the world by saying “yes and”. Yes, we can do this, and we can protect workers. Yes, we can do this, and we can protect regional economies. “Yes and” is how big things are going to get built in this country, acknowledging that not everything we have in our path forward is perfect. We will build by working together, by reducing barriers across provinces and territories and by ensuring that workers from coast to coast to coast have the ability to be mobile and use the skills and credentials they have, whether it is in British Columbia, Quebec, Atlantic Canada, the Prairies or the north, and can move freely and work freely to build the country they want to build, to build here and to have jobs that pay well to put food on the tables for their families.

This is something we can and must do, and I encourage all members of the House to support this bill.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak on behalf of the good people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

I want to remind Canadians that this session, Conservatives will be working to restore Canada's promise of an affordable, safe and independent Canada. We will work to save Canadians money, unlike the Liberals, who are costing Canadians money. We will save Canadian jobs, keep Canadians safe, fix the immigration system and put Canada first.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-266, regarding a national framework on skilled trades and labour mobility, something that we should all give serious consideration to. It is not lost on anyone in this House that Canada faces a crossroads in our relationship with our neighbours, as well as old and emerging trade partners. What cannot be forgotten, however, is the strength that lies within our own borders to meet these challenges head-on. My colleagues on both sides of this chamber must ask themselves the following. In the face of external pressures, will we leverage our immense geography, resources and skills to build a Canada that produces what it needs and controls its own destiny? Bill C-266 is central to that conversation.

Skilled trade certification and labour mobility in Canada are largely governed by the provinces and territories. It is a fragmented system that creates differences in credential recognition, standards, licensing and regulatory requirements, and it can make it difficult for trade workers to move between provinces. This legislation would require the federal government to develop a national framework to identify these barriers and explore ways to harmonize and streamline credential recognition, improve labour mobility and promote careers in the skilled trades. The framework would be developed through consultation and reported to Parliament, while respecting provincial and territorial responsibility for certification.

Importantly, Bill C-266 would not itself replace provincial certification systems or impose a single national licensing regime. Instead, the act would be designed to require the federal government to bring the provinces, regulatory bodies, industry, employers, unions, apprenticeship organizations, indigenous organizations and educational institutions to the table for months of consultation. The resulting framework would then have to include a complete list of skilled trades across Canada; compare and map equivalencies between provincial standards and credentials; and then identify measures to harmonize standards, reduce duplication and streamline the process of having credentials recognized from one province to another. It would also have to address emerging trades and new technologies and promote greater awareness of the importance of skilled trades. This is about making sure that a Canadian who has earned the skills to do a job can have those skills recognized when opportunity takes them somewhere else in their own country.

It is appropriate that this bill is the first order of business after our return to Ottawa. The events of this summer have put an even greater onus on the Prime Minister to make good on his vow to build at speeds not seen in generations, for the housing construction sector and the major infrastructure projects and the economic investments we need to put Canada first. Regrettably, however, the Liberal government has not yet made good on that vow. There has been a lot of talk and not a whole lot of action, and it is completely out of touch.

Let us examine housing, for instance. It is the central issue facing an entire generation that has effectively been locked out of the market. Housing is a skilled labour issue. We cannot build the homes Canadians need without the electricians, plumbers, carpenters, equipment operators and other skilled tradespersons needed to build them. Despite 62,000 vacant trades jobs in late 2025, over 127,000 certified tradespeople in Canada were unemployed, according to StatsCan. At the same time, the Canadian Home Builders' Association reports that 47% of builders say they or their subcontractors have had to lay off workers, rising to 65% in Ontario. That tells us something important. The challenge is not simply a shortage of skilled workers. It is also a failure to connect workers with opportunities where they are needed and where these opportunities exist.

The same problem exists when it comes to major projects. The Prime Minister promised to build at speeds not seen in generations, but we need projects to actually get built if skilled workers are going to put their skills to work. There are 500 shovel-ready projects still awaiting approval at the Major Projects Office. Canada cannot afford to train more tradespeople while qualified workers face barriers in moving between provinces and major projects are struggling to get off the ground. Bill C-266 may help address one part of that equation, that is, making it easier for qualified workers to move to where the work is.

While the Liberals deserve much of the blame for siphoning the full potential of our workforce, successive governments at both the federal and provincial levels have erected barriers to prevent Canadians from working and doing business freely across their own country. In the words of the Business Council of Canada, “13 different provincial credential recognition regimes” complicate our labour mobility. Not only do these roadblocks increase costs and ultimately leave Canadians paying more for essentials, but they also hold back growth when we should be firing on all cylinders.

Shockingly, the International Monetary Fund estimates that impediments to internal trade in Canada are equivalent to a 9% tariff on ourselves and that removing them could increase the size of our economy by a further 7%. There should be no further hesitation by the government in finally and fully realizing the promise of one Canadian economy. Conservatives have always believed in the free trade of goods and labour, and there is no better time than now to trade with ourselves. We need to and would embrace the broad mutual recognition of goods, services and labour across Canada, making restrictions the exception rather than the rule.

Bill C-266 is not, by itself, the end of that work, but it could provide a mechanism to identify exactly where the barriers exist and bring every jurisdiction to the table to address them. By mapping provincial credentials and identifying equivalencies, the framework could give provincial regulators the information they need to recognize qualifications more consistently, reduce duplication and make it easier for workers to move.

On this side of the House, we are optimistic but have every reason to reserve doubt. While the bill's sponsor has promoted it as one that would focus on tangible outcomes, it is fair to ask why these problems remain unresolved by the Liberal Party after more than a decade in government. That is why Conservatives will continue to examine the bill carefully. We need to determine whether its framework actually produces the results that Canadian workers and employers need.

The stakes are high. These restrictions impact businesses and the people they employ and serve. It is no wonder that Canada's business community has been sounding the alarm for years. Both the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of Canada have called for unified recognition of skilled trade credentials across Canada, warning that barriers between provinces prevent skilled workers from moving to where they are needed. The numbers are sobering. The chamber has warned that roughly 700,000 skilled trade workers are projected to retire in the next two years, while Canada faces enormous housing and infrastructure demands.

Therefore, the chamber has called for a unified framework developed with provincial and territorial governments, industry and regulatory bodies to recognize skilled trade training and credentials across Canada. This is remarkably close to what Bill C-266 asks the federal government to begin doing, which is to bring those same stakeholders together, map out the differences between jurisdictions, identify equivalencies, reduce duplication and report publicly on the progress.

The Business Council of Canada has also pointed to Canada's patchwork of provincial credential recognition regimes as a barrier to labour mobility, while its research has found that shortages of skilled workers can have a significant impact on major projects and investments. Bill C-266 could not only address these challenges; it could create a national process for identifying and addressing some of the barriers the business community has repeatedly identified.

It is for these reasons that the Conservatives will continue to carefully examine Bill C-266, not as the solution but as an important stepping stone to a more mobile and productive Canadian workforce. We have Canadians with skills, we have employers with available jobs, and we have communities that desperately need these workers. Bill C-266 may be a good step in identifying the barriers, bringing the people responsible for removing them to the table and requiring Parliament to measure whether progress is actually being made.

Canada's skilled workers should never be held back by borders within their own country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Richmond East—Steveston has five minutes for his right of reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends from Vancouver Granville and South Shore—St. Margarets and my colleagues across the way for their passionate support for the skilled trades and workers.

It is a great honour to rise in the House after a productive recess spent working closely with constituents and stakeholders. I am particularly pleased that my bill is being debated on the first day of this new session. During the recess, I took the time to visit educational institutions and trade associations to talk with them about Bill C-266, an act to establish a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility.

Kwantlen Polytechnic University, in my hometown of Richmond, said this bill is a step toward national harmonization and would make it easier for qualified tradespeople to move fluidly between jurisdictions without administrative friction. By modernizing how qualifications are recognized across provincial borders, the legislation would support secondary institutions like KPU to deliver training that meets the dynamic needs of Canada's economy. Polytechnics Canada supports this bill as well, telling me, “At a time of ongoing labour shortages, improving the harmonization and recognition of skilled trades qualifications across provinces and territories will make it easier for workers to take their skills where they are most needed.”

However, it does not end with educational institutions. The Canadian Construction Association welcomes 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. These inefficiencies limit economies of scale, slow innovation and suppress productivity growth at a time when the country urgently needs to build more critical infrastructure. Unlocking internal trade requires harmonizing credentials and meaningful engagement with the construction industry to develop solutions that work on the ground.

The Mechanical Contractors Association of Canada also supports Bill C-266 and its vision for a national framework on mutual recognition and labour mobility. For plumbers and electricians working across provinces, inconsistent certification and training requirements continue to create inefficiencies, unnecessary administrative burdens, cost overruns and project delays. Improving alignment and mutual recognition across jurisdictions through a coordinated national framework would support a more efficient and productive construction environment. They are encouraged by the bill's focus on collaboration across industry, labour and provincial governments and look forward to the opportunity to contribute their expertise to this framework.

Abigail Fulton, executive director of the Construction Foundation, sees first-hand the value of reducing barriers to certification and creating clearer pathways for skilled workers. Canada needs a skilled trades workforce that can move where the work is, but mobility works best when workers are supported to successfully complete their apprenticeships and achieve certification. Bill C-266 would provide an important opportunity for a national conversation about how we strengthen skilled trades mobility while building the certified workforce Canada needs to deliver housing, infrastructure and major projects.

As a former aircraft maintenance engineer, I am grateful that the executive director of the British Columbia Aviation Council is fully supportive of Bill C-266, saying that it is a positive step toward labour mobility in Canada, and is reaching out to its two dozen counterpart associations across the country to solicit additional support.

The time has come to complete the work that started 30 years ago on the Agreement on Internal Trade, now the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. We can no longer afford to restrict skilled trade workers to guard regional interests. Governments and regulators must come together and respect the training and experience of Canadian workers. This is about unlocking the potential of the next generation of young Canadians, empowering them to pursue rewarding careers, strengthening our workforce, growing our economy and building a stronger Canada.

I look forward to seeing this bill at committee and hearing from experts on the need to harmonize credential recognition from coast to coast to coast.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

moved that Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

We are now at third reading of Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act, and that is no small achievement. I want to extend my deepest thanks to the modern treaty partners whose experience, persistence and leadership shaped this bill at every step. I also want to thank the members of this House who have helped advance the bill.

At its core, this legislation is about more than establishing the commissioner for modern treaties. It is about something much bigger. Fundamentally, it is about our commitment to advancing reconciliation through partnership and making sure that the commitments we make today lead to tangible, measurable results. It is about moving from intention to implementation so that modern treaties deliver real outcomes for indigenous communities, including strong governance, greater economic opportunity and improved quality of life.

As we look at the work that brought us to this moment and everything we have accomplished together, one lesson stands out: Real progress happens through partnership. This bill was co-developed with indigenous modern treaty partners every step of the way. Before we began drafting this bill, we worked together to develop Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy in 2023. That policy, the first of its kind, set shared expectations for federal departments and created a more consistent approach to implementation across government. It set standards for shifting the culture of the federal system towards stronger relationships and accountability. Building on that foundation, we co-developed this bill with modern treaty partners. Their lived experience guided every component. They shared where current approaches were not always delivering consistent results and they shaped the commissioner's mandate, authorities and reporting structures.

By its very design, this bill is stronger and more credible. It reflects the shared ownership of a common objective to improve the modern treaty relationship and derive the full benefits of these agreements for partners, their neighbours and all Canadians. Bill C-10 reflects a recognition that collaboration with indigenous partners must be the norm. Modern treaty partners are governments and our strategic partners shaping the future of this country, and this bill reflects that truth. This is both principled and practical. All indigenous modern treaty partners spoke strongly in support of the legislation. Our government supports it and it is my hope that the opposition will support it so that it can move on to the Senate. After all, it is rare to see legislation with this level of shared support.

The commissioner for modern treaty implementation act would create an independent commissioner whose sole focus would be supporting effective, consistent and transparent implementation of Canada's modern treaty commitments. Modern treaty partners have been united in their call for stronger oversight. They have emphasized the need for a mechanism that helps everyone understand where progress is being made, where challenges remain, and what steps are needed to honour the full spirit and intent of modern treaties.

With this legislation in place, the commissioner would, one, conduct independent and expert oversight of any activity carried out by the Government of Canada that relates to the implementation of modern treaties; two, report to Parliament to hold the Government of Canada accountable for its modern treaty obligations; three, be independent, objective and impartial in the discharge of their mandate and have expert knowledge of modern treaties; four, have the authority to require departments to provide the information necessary to carry out its mandate.

Modern treaties partners have long called for this mechanism that can look across governments and help make treaty implementation consistent, effective and timely. This kind of independent oversight would bring clarity to the work. It would highlight where progress is happening and where more attention is needed. It would also create the space for honest dialogue, the kind of early, constructive conversation that would prevent problems from growing.

Across government, we see how independent oversight improves outcomes. Modern treaty partners deserve the same consistent oversight, given the depth, complexity and importance of their constitutionally protected agreements. The implementation of modern treaties is a matter that concerns every government, now and into the future. Current and future governments will need visibility into federal performance and a system that is equipped and compelled to follow through consistently on commitments. Bill C-10 would help deliver that.

With this commissioner in place, issues that have been difficult to surface would gain visibility, patterns that were previously hidden would be easier to identify, and both Parliament and partners would have access to clear, independent reporting. This transparency is essential to building stronger treaty relationships and a stronger Canada.

I also want to take this opportunity today to talk a little more about modern treaties and why they are so critical to reconciliation and to building a stronger future. Modern treaties are a distinct expression of reconciliation and a constitutionally entrenched commitment between the Crown and indigenous partners. They promote strong and sustainable indigenous communities and affirm indigenous rights over lands and resources, but as I said, modern treaties are not only instruments of reconciliation. They are engines of economic growth that create certainty for investors, the government and indigenous governments; enable major projects; and support long-term prosperity for indigenous communities and all Canadians.

We have seen this clearly across the country. The Nisga'a nation, British Columbia's first modern treaty partner, is seeing significant economic development and is taking on an increasingly active role in major projects. The Nisga'a nation is a proponent of the Ksi Lisims LNG project, a major project that has the potential to create jobs, generate economic opportunities and deliver long-term benefits for Nisga'a citizens and the entire country. By taking an active role in projects like this, including by pursuing equity ownership, the Nisga'a are helping ensure that major developments create lasting prosperity and economic opportunities that can benefit generations to come.

At the same time, the Nisga'a are continuing to strengthen their self-government, including by holding their own elections in accordance with the Nisga'a nation's own constitution. This is a powerful example of what self-determination can look like in practice, building economic opportunity while exercising the rights and responsibilities of self-government.

In the Northwest Territories, the Tłı̨chǫ government has invested in an all-season highway project that would connect remote communities and open up new opportunities in mining. This infrastructure development is helping community members access health service and education and supporting local businesses.

Another example of this is the Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board. This board promotes sustainable use of land and resources while preserving traditional practices. It plays a leadership role so that the fish, forests and wildlife of the Gwich'in area remain healthy and sustainable. Its mandate is to work in the public interest and represent all the parties to the modern treaty: the Gwich'in, the people of the Northwest Territories and all Canadians.

These examples remind us of what can be when modern treaties are implemented effectively. They show that treaties support well-being, stability and prosperity. They drive growth, create jobs, build up our economy and ultimately build Canada strong. Bill C-10 offers a concrete way forward. By making implementation more visible and consistent, the commissioner would oversee the system from a whole-of-government perspective and make sure we are working consistently toward effective implementation.

Progress must be visible, it must be measurable and it must make a difference in people's lives. Trust is central to every treaty relationship. It takes time to build and ongoing effort to maintain. Trust is built through action: consistently meeting commitments and demonstrating results over time. The commissioner would be an investment in these relationships; in trust, accountability, efficiency and a more just and prosperous future for all Canadians.

Strong accountability measures promote responsible governments. They support credibility and, importantly, results. Modern treaty partners would continue to play an important role in the establishment and operation of the office of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The appointed commissioner must have the confidence of both Parliament and modern treaty partners. That is why the appointment process includes direct consultation with modern treaty partners.

When executing their mandates, the commissioner would determine the procedures, terms and methodology to be followed for each review or performance audit after engaging with the relevant modern treaty partners. The commissioner would also provide relevant modern treaty partners with the opportunity to review and comment on any preliminary findings and recommendations of the commissioner, with any comments published in the final report. These processes have been specifically designed to provide credibility, transparency and independence for the commissioner and their office. These requirements would also ensure that modern treaty partners remain active participants in the commissioner's work.

Modern treaties represent a concrete step on the path of reconciliation. For modern treaties to truly move us forward, we must strive to find better ways of implementing their spirit and objectives. The commissioner would help us do that in a way that reflects the importance of these relationships to all of us.

As we reach third reading, I want to reflect on what this bill means in the broader context of reconciliation. Since the signing of the first modern treaty in 1975, successive governments have recognized the importance of these agreements because they know that Canada's future lies with strong, respectful relationships. They have understood that when we honour our commitments and build stronger partnerships with indigenous peoples, we create a stronger, fairer and more successful country.

In these uncertain times, we need partners we can count on. Indigenous modern treaty partners are exactly those partners. Modern treaties cover more than 40% of Canada's land mass, including 80% of the north. It is clear that the only way we can move forward and build Canada strong is in partnership with indigenous modern treaty partners and in accordance with our obligations. This creates unique opportunities for collaboration between modern treaty partners, Canada and other stakeholders on shared, crosscutting priorities in sectors including energy, natural resources, defence, finance and real estate. Modern treaty partners are already leading in this space in innovation, investment and development across Canada. They are doing it within federal implementation approaches that can continue to be strengthened.

This is the time to act. It is the time to strengthen how we carry out our commitments and advance reconciliation in concrete ways. That begins with passing Bill C-10. Reconciliation must be practical, must be measurable and must deliver results that people can see and feel in their daily lives. This bill is a practical step forward, one that supports partnership and helps modern treaties deliver the results they were meant to achieve.

Once again, I want to thank modern treaty partners for their leadership, advocacy and unwavering commitment to this work. The journey we took together to co-develop this legislation shows what is possible when trust, creativity and collaboration are at the heart of the process.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her speech. I hope she had a very productive summer.

As said many times in this debate, we agree with the diagnosis that governments of all stripes over 155-plus years have fallen short on their commitments with indigenous people. What we disagree with is the prescription that the government is coming out with now. We agree with modern treaties. In fact, the Harper government signed six throughout its term from 2006 to 2015.

What we have an issue with is that during committee we heard that there would be no guarantee, other than naming and shaming departments that are falling short on their commitments, that there would be fewer court cases. Also, through multiple Auditor General reports showing failures within both departments, ISC and Crown-indigenous relations, we have found years of failure but no correction. In fact, on May 4, 2006, we see, “Overall, Indigenous Services Canada did not effectively implement, monitor, or assess the New Fiscal Relationship initiatives it committed to with First Nation.” That was signed in 2016. This is a recent example.

To the minister's word, let us go from intention to implementation. Why have we not started already?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is important work. Having a commissioner for modern treaty implementation has been a call from modern treaty partners.

As to the importance of the commissioner, they would be an agent of Parliament who would submit reviews and performance audits directly to Parliament. It is really important to note that the whole-of-government approach the commissioner would be taking is an opportunity for them to make findings and recommendations regarding implementation and to really be able to work with modern treaty partners and government to improve our relationships.

It is an opportunity to have findings and recommendations, to make sure they are public and to make sure we are reporting on the progress that is made. That is a really important part. A lot of the audits may show the areas where we need to do work, but it is equally important to show the areas where we have done a lot of work. The commissioner would have that opportunity, and I encourage all members of the House to continue to support this work.

Again, this bill was co-drafted with modern treaty partners. It is a call they have been asking Parliament to take up. It is also related to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act action plan that the government has, specifically chapter 5, section 9, which states that the co-development of indigenous modern treaties is really important.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see you again, as well as all my colleagues, for this new session of Parliament.

I am very happy to see everyone again and to begin the debate on Bill C‑10, which I think is important and I find interesting. My colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan worked very hard on this bill. I think everyone already knows that the Bloc Québécois agrees with the spirit of the bill.

I find it interesting that the government wants to establish the position of commissioner for modern treaties, because whenever it takes too long for commitments to be implemented, it is usually because the government is dragging its feet. Government members always give very eloquent speeches and make lofty promises. They always seem impressive, but it is clear that concrete action on the ground is slow to really happen in the various communities.

I hope the government and my colleague opposite will be telling us that this also means that the government is ready to commit to finally putting into action what has already been agreed upon. First nations and their governments have been waiting for this, and I think the time has come to take action.

Does establishing this position mean that the government is finally ready to deliver on what it has promised?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question, and I would also like to thank the Bloc Québécois for its support. It is important that the whole House have the commissioner's reports, so that everyone is aware of the importance of modern treaties and so that people can see the recommendations. I encourage my colleagues, when they examine the budget, to bear these considerations in mind. They will see that the funds are there to support modern treaties.

I would like to raise another point. The commissioner deals solely with the work of the federal government, and not with that of provincial or territorial governments.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back representing the good constituents of the riding of Waterloo and to be having this really important debate.

Similar legislation was introduced in a previous Parliament but unfortunately did not come to fruition. We know there are many communities looking to advance legislation such as this. It is good to hear the goodwill on the opposition side in wanting to see this legislation advance, and I hope to see that done quickly, because if we want to see implementation and action, passing this legislation is definitely an important step.

I would ask if the minister could please tell us who was part of the co-development of this act. Were others engaged in this process? That is something that constituents in the riding of Waterloo are asking. They are also asking how the commissioner would be chosen. Any insight from the minister would be greatly appreciated.