Concurrence in Committee Reports

The debate focused on the state of youth employment and the scope of federal involvement in training and labour markets. Members of the governing party asserted that youth unemployment has decreased since 2012 through government initiatives, such as trades grants and summer job programs, while cautioning against unfairly blaming immigrants. Opponents argued that the federal government should not interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction, specifically concerning job training standards and labour authority. Furthermore, some members stressed that federal policies must account for regional economic differences and incorporate feedback from local businesses and communities.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

10 statements

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“The federal government is trying to tell Quebec what to do about jobs, training, and education. These areas belong to Quebec, not Ottawa. The government needs to work with Quebec instead of trying to control everything.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am getting ready to make my speech, but before I do, I will try to summarize my frame of mind. Right now, at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the issue of training, employment and labour is another area where the Liberals are really trying to be paternalistic, telling Quebec what to do on a matter that falls squarely within Quebec’s jurisdiction. It is not just me saying so. The former minister of employment and labour said so last spring when he saw the Liberal government’s intentions, particularly through Bill C‑5. It is working to accelerate the economy so aggressively that it is even trying to impose its way of thinking on the education and training of our young people. What I am saying is more of a comment than a question, but I feel as though I am starting to repeat myself in this House. It is somewhat discouraging to see the government continue trying to centralize things instead of working collaboratively on these issues when they concern Quebec.

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Lac-Saint-Jean

Bloc Québécois
“I want a clear answer to one simple question. Is worker mobility a federal responsibility, or does it belong to Quebec?”
  • Speech in the House

    Signal 28 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my question is not complicated. I want my colleague opposite to give me a clear answer. Is labour mobility a federal jurisdiction or a Quebec jurisdiction? That is the only question I have for him.

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Lac-Saint-Jean

Bloc Québécois
“The Constitution clearly divides power, and we already have agreements between Quebec, the provinces, and the federal government. I want the member to answer my question directly. Is worker mobility under federal control or Quebec control?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I asked my colleague a question. The Constitution exists; it clearly sets out areas of jurisdiction, and there are agreements between the provinces, Quebec and the federal government. My question is simple, and I want him to give me the right answer. Is labour mobility a federal jurisdiction or a Quebec jurisdiction? That is all I want to know. Is he able to answer that question? If he cannot do so, what is he doing in the House?

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“Youth unemployment is at 14%, which is way too high. The federal government is using this crisis to step into job training and trades standards, but those belong to Quebec. Ottawa must respect Quebec's authority over its own workers, fix employment insurance, and send more money so regions can create good jobs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to an issue that is of concern to many: youth employment. This evening, I will try to use facts to properly present our position on the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, of which I have been a member since February. The report illustrates the gravity of the situation that young people are facing. From January to August 2025, the youth unemployment rate reached an average of 14%, the highest level since 2012, excluding the COVID-19 acute phase from 2020 to 2021 and the global financial crisis in 2009. Meanwhile, the overall unemployment rate was 7.1% in July 2025. The youth unemployment rate is normally always a few points higher than the overall average, but the difference is off the charts right now. However, I am going to have to take a position straightaway in my speech on the matter of interference. Despite the topic’s importance, the government keeps carrying on as though the provinces and Quebec do not exist. The committee’s recommendations form the basis for a simple plan allowing the federal government to interfere in the area of labour while completely disregarding the existence of the agreements already signed between Quebec and Ottawa on labour training and revealing the Liberal Party of Canada’s contempt for all of Quebec’s labour market partners. A quick glance at the table of contents shows that the vast majority of the headings concern matters under Quebec’s jurisdiction. For example, there are headings such as “Skills Mismatch, Education and Training” and “Vocational, Technical and Skilled Trades Pathways”. I could go on reading from the table of contents. Outside Quebec, the federal government may play a major role in employment and workforce training, but not in Quebec. Clearly, the committee members knew how to play the game. They added “in collaboration with provinces and territories”, but this is a clear indication that the federal government wants to interfere in their jurisdictions. This wording is not a magic bullet that will protect Quebec from federal interference every time it could happen. It is imperative that the government introduce asymmetry for Quebec in order to comply with the Canada-Quebec agreement on workforce development and Quebec’s legislative authority. Let us not forget that Quebec has jurisdiction over workforce development and carries out this role in close collaboration with labour market partners within the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. Quebec tailors its approach, as it does in many other areas, by collaborating with the community. The most striking example in this report can be found in this paragraph on page 42: On youth welfare, the committee heard that provincial responsibility for group homes and youth in care intersects with federal interests in long-term social outcomes. That is obvious, hence the idea of truly collaborating, government to government, each within its respective areas of jurisdiction. I will now address the consequences of immigration. In the House, the Conservative leader once claimed that foreign workers were coming to take jobs away from young people. This only shows that he is mixing everything up and that the issue is much more complex than that. It is true that temporary immigration has an effect on the unemployment rate, but in light of the data, this statement must be qualified. For example, according to the Desjardins study, international students are more likely to be competing with young people for jobs. The study also notes that the restrictions on international students that were lifted at the end of the pandemic—as members may recall, the government had eliminated the hourly work limits for international students—may have contributed to the rise in youth unemployment. This interpretation is supported by studies done by CIBC and the Institut du Québec. It is the influx of foreign workers with degrees that is believed to have contributed to the increase in available labour. Temporary foreign workers have less of an impact because these hires are subject to labour market impact assessments. Once again, I urge members to be cautious. After consulting with post-secondary institutions, I can say that these international students are not all here to steal jobs. They are also students who are important, particularly for the vitality of CEGEPs and universities in the regions. Once again, we need to qualify our statements. Of course immigration is far from being the only cause. It is a complex, multi-faceted issue, and it has more than a single cause. These same studies also state that the use of AI might be another factor that is contributing to rising youth unemployment in particular. In fact, this is mentioned in the report, in recommendation 6. Studies have also found that policies aimed at addressing demographic decline should help reduce youth unemployment, while noting that youth unemployment is particularly sensitive to overall economic conditions. That explains why the youth unemployment rate is still high right now despite the policies currently in place. The tariff war with the United States has exacerbated Canada’s economic situation and increased unemployment. This is also identified as one of the causes in the report. Take the forestry sector, for example. Quebec needs support measures other than loans. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario announced a new action plan to protect workers from tariffs and strengthen Ontario industries. They announced billions of dollars for Ontario, but there was nothing for the forestry sector. Then again, that comes as no surprise. It has always been that way. What we actually need to do is address low wages and inflation, because socio-economic factors also contribute to youth unemployment. More specifically, with respect to education, in the 2026 spring budget update, the government promised funding for team Canada strong, but Quebec has yet to receive that money, which would help create more training opportunities in the skilled trades. I will digress for a moment because this echoes Bill C‑266, a bill that aligns with Ottawa’s traditional centralizing approach and conflicts with Quebec’s desire to maintain control over its own vocational training and labour market. The bill creates a federal framework in an area that falls under provincial jurisdiction, namely training, certification and labour market regulation. This opens the door to more permanent encroachment, despite the preamble’s dubious claim about respecting jurisdiction. By requiring the minister to compile a complete list of skilled trades across Canada and map equivalencies, Ottawa is essentially assuming the role of the national authority on trades. This is no mere voluntary coordination role. It positions the federal government as the arbiter of provincial standards. Under the guise of harmonization and reducing regulatory duplication, the federal government is giving itself a tool to put pressure on provinces that maintain higher requirements. This will jeopardize the standards of quality, safety and working conditions that have been established by Quebec institutions such as the Commission de la construction du Québec, or CCQ, Emploi-Québec and sector-specific organizations. The bill offers no explicit guarantee that provincial standards will take precedence in the event of a conflict between a national framework and Quebec’s professional qualification regime. This leaves the door wide open for a standards downgrade that lowers Quebec’s requirements to the level of a potential minimum Canadian standard. Along with Bill C‑5 and the rhetoric about one Canadian economy, Bill C‑266 is part of a strong trend of Ottawa exploiting the argument of internal free trade and labour shortages to centralize power over standards, qualifications and mobility, at the expense of the autonomy of Quebec and the provinces. The Liberal government subscribes to this vision. In the 2026 spring economic update, it stated that it wanted to launch an initiative called “Team Canada Strong” to recruit, train and hire 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled trades workers by 2030-31, with the goal of providing young Canadians with paid pathways to jobs in housing construction, major infrastructure and defence projects at speed and scale. The 2026 spring economic update proposed providing $2 billion over five years, starting in 2026-27, and $262 million a year ongoing. In committee, during the study of these bills, we were told that the funding has yet to be distributed. The Government of Quebec, notably through its former minister of employment and labour, denounced these intrusions at the time and reminded the federal government that workforce training falls under provincial jurisdiction and that Quebec already had its own programs. It should be noted that, in Canada, credential recognition is primarily the responsibility of the provinces and territories, which have jurisdiction over regulating professions and trades and issuing licences to practise. Approximately 20% of jobs are in regulated professions or trades, where the use of a professional title and the performance of certain activities are restricted to individuals who hold a licence or certificate of qualification. In practical terms, more than 400 regulatory bodies, professional orders, colleges and apprenticeship authorities, as well as more than 200 post-secondary institutions, apply these rules and assess credentials and skills. I could draw a lot of parallels between the bill and the report that we are examining in the House this evening. However, I will now wrap up this long tangent on Bill C-266, which I have heard a lot about lately, by saying that we just heard from witnesses and that we will discuss it further and submit a report. I will now talk about work-life-study balance. That is also an important issue when it comes to youth employment. We need to give this some serious thought. Debt has an impact on youth employment, as do discrimination against minorities, indigenous peoples and women and the lack of protection and recognition for non-standard jobs. Inflation and low wages also have an impact. Finally, economic uncertainty can negatively affect hiring or result in layoffs for low-income workers. In fact, the government addresses that last point in its response: The Government of Canada understands that weak productivity growth, high operating costs, and taxation can reduce firms’ ability to invest, expand, and create jobs. As a result, businesses may be less likely to hire and create new opportunities, particularly in sectors such as manufacturing and natural resources. Before concluding my remarks, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the report and the study in general. While they are obviously relevant, the lack of political will to acknowledge Quebec’s asymmetry prevents us from finding lasting solutions to many aspects of the problem. The federal government bears its share of responsibility and acknowledges this: economic uncertainty, inflation, a housing shortage, and reduced transfers, among other issues. However, unless and until the Government of Canada sits down in good faith with its counterparts in Quebec and the provinces to discuss joint solutions within each of their jurisdictions, the situation is likely to remain at a standstill. I would like to make one final point. We will at least try to identify some solutions. Let us remember that, tonight, we are talking about a generation that works hard, studies hard and wants to contribute to society, yet is increasingly struggling to carve out a place in today’s economy. Let us also bear in mind that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities’ report on youth employment is troubling. The report notes that the youth unemployment rate reached an average of 14% in 2025, its highest level in more than a decade, excluding the pandemic. The committee also heard that full-time students are facing particularly difficult circumstances and that summer jobs are becoming increasingly scarce. I would like to take this opportunity to remind employers that the application period for the Canada summer jobs program opens today and runs until December 3. I encourage employers to take advantage of this program, which could help young people get some work experience for the first time. This program could help them. Every year, we are told that the amounts could be increased because this program is popular with both young people and employers. This is a concrete example of an area where the federal government could take action. It could also enhance the program a little. It has already done so, but it could do more to recognize the difficult employment situation young people are facing. Once again, I will leave that aside for now and encourage employers to apply for this program. Meanwhile, as we know, the cost of living is skyrocketing. Young people are facing unaffordable rent, unstable jobs, underpaid internships, difficulty accessing EI, and financial pressures that are delaying their life plans. The Bloc Québécois believes that this situation must be taken seriously. First of all, we believe that the realities of Quebec and the regions must be recognized. The report clearly shows that realities vary greatly from province to province and even from region to region. In Quebec, some regions are near full employment while others, such as the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands, have much higher youth unemployment rates. That is why Ottawa’s one-size-fits-all solutions do not work. Instead, the Bloc Québécois is calling for increased transfers and greater flexibility for Quebec, measures tailored to regional realities, more support for Quebec’s small and medium-sized businesses, and targeted investments in sectors that create high-quality jobs. We also believe that young workers in non-standard and seasonal employment must be protected. The report points out that many young people fall into the EI spring gap and that the current criteria no longer reflect the reality of modern jobs. That is yet another reason why the Bloc Québécois is reintroducing a bill to overhaul EI and modernize it so it aligns with the current labour market. That is coming soon. That is why the Bloc Québécois is pushing for comprehensive EI reform to incorporate a more accessible universal eligibility threshold and better protection for part-time, seasonal workers and workers with multiple jobs. The real problem is that the federal government has failed to properly plan for housing, infrastructure, economic integration and regional labour needs. Lastly, the Bloc Québécois believes that young people deserve the opportunity to study, find suitable housing, work and build a decent future. These days, too many young people feel like they are working hard without really getting ahead. We have a collective responsibility to restore their faith in the future.

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“Job training belongs to Quebec, not the federal government. Quebec built its own programs to meet its own needs. Federal interference causes duplicate work and wastes effort. The federal government should send money to Quebec instead of running its own programs.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain. When it comes to areas of jurisdiction, they are the ones with the resources. They created their own systems to be able to give young people training that reflects the needs of Quebec and its regions. It is all in the name: “area of jurisdiction”. When the federal government tries to meddle in an area that does not belong to it, like workforce training, employment or labour, we run the risk of ending up with redundancies, and once again, we run the risk of being much more inefficient. That is why we often demand transfer payments. In this case, witnesses told the committee that the transfer that Quebec should have received would have improved the offering of unique programs in Quebec. In terms of skills training, we also heard that Quebec has something unique to offer when it comes to skilled trades. I could go on about this, but I think I will move on to the next question.

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“Witnesses from Quebec told our committee that a single national plan for jobs and training disrespects Quebec's own system. The federal government is interfering in an area that belongs to Quebec, and my colleague is ignoring what these witnesses said.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 41 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is from Quebec, but I am wondering whether he is hearing the same testimony as me in committee. For example, during the study on Bill C-266, witnesses from Quebec had to explain, even to the Liberal members, how the system works and why trying to use a one-size-fits-all approach to employment and labour to speed up so-called national projects shows a lack of respect for Quebec’s unique vocational training system, for example. I am not making this up. Witnesses from Quebec told us that in committee. It is always like this. We are talking about this subject this evening, but I am wondering where he is when witnesses from Quebec appear in committee.

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Lac-Saint-Jean

Bloc Québécois
“Liberal members say the federal government does not interfere in provincial areas. But when I asked a Liberal member if worker mobility belongs to Ottawa or the provinces, he could not answer. Liberals do not seem to know what is in their own Constitution.”
  • Speech in the House

    Respect 79 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “For a man who is intelligent, who understands and knows the Canadian Constitution and the agreements between Quebec and…”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are learning all kinds of things on this wonderful evening. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert says that he has never seen the federal government interfere in Quebec’s jurisdictions. That is actually quite amazing. We will be sending him loads of documentation. He can dive in and get an understanding of what this is all about. Earlier, I asked my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, a question. He is a pretty regular participant in debates in the House. He has quite a few hours under his belt, I think. He has been participating in these debates for years, and he apparently knows the Constitution off by heart. I asked him twice whether labour mobility was a federal or a provincial responsibility. Both times, he could not give me an answer. For a man who is intelligent, who understands and knows the Canadian Constitution and the agreements between Quebec and the federal government, it is rather surprising that he could not answer such a question. This raises some questions. I would like to ask my colleague what planet the Liberals are living on, considering that they do not know the various jurisdictions set out in their own Constitution.

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“The Constitution is clear that job training and labour belong to Quebec and the provinces. The Liberals are acting like these constitutional boundaries do not exist.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Halloween is coming up, and I think I just figured out what to go as. I am going to dress up as a unicorn, because I am getting the impression this evening that the Liberals are inhabiting a fantasy land. The Constitution appears to pose no problem whatsoever. Everything is fuzzy; boundaries melt away. Nevertheless, it is clear that workforce training, employment and labour fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. That is the answer. I have worked in both Parliament and the National Assembly. I was not a member of the National Assembly, just an assistant, but it was enough for me to be clear on who does what. All I have to do is read the Constitution to know that. When the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert told me that he has never seen any attempt to interfere, I knew exactly what my Halloween costume would be: I am going to dress up as a unicorn.

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“The federal government should not interfere with job training in Quebec. Quebec already manages these programs and helps young workers find jobs and housing. If the federal government wants to help young people find work, it should fix the tariff crisis instead.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I always enjoy speaking. We worked together again today in committee. I congratulate her on her French. In any case, trying to impose a one-size-fits-all approach and interfere with the training already provided in Quebec—with something that is already being done—is certainly not the way to help young people find jobs. At the federal level, there may be programs to help them gain their first work experience. One example is the Canada summer jobs program. However, I have also discussed many other work-related measures to help young people cope with the cost of living and find housing. These are areas of jurisdiction for Quebec that could help them relocate to where jobs are available within their province. The government has allowed the economic situation to deteriorate. Maybe one way to help young people would be working to resolve this tariff crisis, because it creates uncertainty for businesses, which ultimately may have to let people go. In this climate of uncertainty, young people are often the first to be laid off. We have a Prime Minister who has adopted an “elbows up” attitude and who promised to resolve the situation. Clearly, if there were an agreement in place and less economic uncertainty, there would likely be far more jobs for young people.

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“The federal government should stick to its own job. It should fix employment insurance so young people who lose their jobs can qualify faster. It should also help small businesses stay open, instead of interfering in provincial labour rules.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is great to help businesses, but in my speech, I mentioned something the federal government could do. I also discussed other solutions in my response to my colleague. I was talking about assistance for small and medium-sized businesses during these troubled times. That could help them stay in business, which would automatically help young people. Also, instead of interfering in employment and labour, which is not its jurisdiction, the federal government could deal with employment insurance. It was mentioned as part of the solution. We also discussed it in committee during the debate on employment and youth. We need to reform and modernize EI with criteria that will allow young people to qualify more quickly if they lose their jobs, so they can then return to work. That is something that falls under federal jurisdiction. Let us focus on what we can do.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 156

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 105 statements
  2. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  3. Oral Questions Housing 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions Oil and Gas Industry 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  6. Oral Questions Labour 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 5 statements
  8. Oral Questions Veterans Affairs 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Housing 8 statements
  10. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 6 statements
  11. Oral Questions Government Appointments 4 statements
  12. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 8 statements
  13. Oral Questions Youth 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Small Business 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Natural Resources 6 statements
  16. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Rail Transportation 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Marine Transportation 2 statements
  19. Government Orders Business of Supply 41 statements
  20. Oral Questions Natural Resources 2 statements
  21. Government Orders Business of Supply 17 statements
  22. Private Members' Business Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law) 2 statements
  23. Government Orders Committees of the House 2 statements
  24. Private Members' Business Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law) 4 statements
  25. Orders of the Day Concurrence in Committee Reports 71 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  27. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements