“I want the House to pass this bill to make it easier for skilled tradespeople to work across Canada. Right now, different rules and licences in each province keep qualified workers from taking jobs where they are needed most.”

“moved 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. He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Milton East—Halton Hills South for supporting this bill. It is always a huge honour to stand in the House and speak on vital issues for Canadians. Today, I have an opportunity to speak at length on respecting skilled trades and labour. As a former aircraft maintenance engineer, I spent countless hours turning wrenches at a hangar in my hometown of Richmond, British Columbia. When I was campaigning for re-election as MP for Richmond East—Steveston, I did not do it alone. I was supported by electricians, carpenters, construction workers and unions. Builders and everyday Canadian workers share my vision of a community and a Canada that works for them. It is for these Canadians that I tabled Bill C-266, a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility. At its core, this bill recognizes a simple truth: Canada cannot reach its full potential if the people who build it, our skilled trades workers, are prevented from working where they are needed the most. Movement of skilled trades and labour across Canada is essential to the country’s economic development, productivity, infrastructure and competitiveness. However, our economy continues to be weighed down by a system of disjointed licensing requirements, certifications and other restrictions. This has evolved into significant non-tariff internal trade barriers. The IMF estimates that Canada’s economy could gain nearly 7%, or $210 billion, in real GDP over a gradual period by fully removing internal trade barriers between the country’s 13 provinces and territories. This is not just inefficient; it is unacceptable. Across this country, from the shipyards of Vancouver to the construction sites of Halifax, from energy projects in Alberta to housing developments in Toronto, employers are facing unpredictability. On one hand, there are acute labour shortages delaying critical projects, and on the other, there are skilled, qualified workers in other parts of the country who are ready and willing to step in, but they are held back by regulatory barriers that make mobility difficult, costly and slow. A welder trained in Saskatchewan may encounter different certification requirements when attempting to work on major infrastructure projects in British Columbia. These inconsistencies do not improve safety or enhance quality. They create duplication, inefficiency and unnecessary costs. The same holds true for major infrastructure projects. Whether it is expanding transit systems, upgrading ports or building clean energy infrastructure, delays in mobilizing skilled labour translate directly into higher costs and missed opportunities. Every week that a project is delayed because workers cannot be certified quickly enough is a week that Canadians are left waiting for essential services and economic benefits. Of course, there were efforts to correct this growing problem. If we go back to the Agreement on Internal Trade in 1995, it would, “enable any worker certified for an occupation by a regulatory authority of one Party to be recognized as qualified for that occupation by all other Parties.” Regrettably, the AIT did not achieve this crucial goal, which is why in December 2014, the federal, provincial and territorial governments began negotiations to strengthen and modernize into the Canada Free Trade Agreement. The Red Seal program has been an important step forward toward standardization, allowing certified workers in certain trades to move more easily between provinces. However, not all trades are covered, and even within the program, variations and administrative barriers can persist. Efforts to harmonize certifications and labour regulations across Canada’s economy made limited progress, not because electricians who reside in Manitoba have unique insight into the functions of an electrical circuit compared to electricians who reside in Nova Scotia or the risk to a trucker’s safety changes radically when driving from B.C. to Saskatchewan, requiring different regulations and insurance, but because incentives favoured the status quo. Regulators looking to retain their authority and protect regional labour economies had little incentive to loosen their grip and provide easy access to competition from other provinces. Skilled workers, understandably unenthusiastic about acquiring and maintaining credentials across provinces, could always find ready work down south in the United States. However, this status quo is over. Since President Trump’s unacceptable comments about Canada’s sovereignty and turning his back on the deal that he signed, applying tariffs to Canadian lumber, steel and cars, Canadians have started to see our relationship with the U.S. in a new light, but more importantly, how we view ourselves and our future in a new light. The comfortable norms Canadians took for granted with our American partners, like trust and predictability, no longer exist. While time will tell if this relationship can be repaired, it is clear that Canada must forge a new path. As our Prime Minister has said, we can give ourselves far more than the Americans can ever take away. Bill C-266 is an essential step in charting a new path forward for Canada. I have heard from the Canadian Construction Association, and it said, “The CCA welcomes the introduction of 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.” From my alma mater, the British Columbia Institute of Technology, Dr. Jeff Zabudsky, who is the president of the BCIT, agreed and said, “Canada’s future prosperity is being shaped by large-scale priorities that rely heavily on a strong trades workforce. Whether it be building affordable and climate-resilient housing or infrastructure to strengthen national security, these national priorities all require a job-ready and adaptable trades workforce.” Let me be clear: This legislation does not seek to override provincial jurisdiction, and I look at my friends from Quebec. Provinces and territories would continue to regulate training, certification and labour markets within their borders. That is both appropriate and necessary. Through extensive consultations spanning at least nine months, the minister would engage with provincial governments, regulatory bodies, industry associations, labour unions, indigenous organizations, polytechnics and educational institutions. This would ensure the framework is not imposed from above, but built from the ground up, reflecting the realities of those who work within the system every day. The framework itself wishes to deliver several key outcomes. First, it would establish a comprehensive inventory of skilled trades across Canada. This may sound straightforward, but it is a critical step. Today, even defining what constitutes a skilled trade can vary among jurisdictions. A clear shared understanding is essential for any meaningful harmonization. Second, it would map equivalencies among provincial standards and credentials. This is where the real work begins. By systematically comparing requirements, we can identify where trades are already aligned, where minor adjustments are needed and where more significant differences exist. Third, and most importantly, it would introduce measures to harmonize standards, reduce duplication and streamline regulatory processes. This would mean fewer redundant exams, faster recognition of credentials and clearer pathways for workers moving between provinces. Consider the impact of this on a carpenter relocating from New Brunswick to Alberta. Instead of navigating a confusing and time-consuming certification process, that worker could benefit from a system that recognizes their qualifications quickly and fairly, allowing them to get to work sooner. Fourth, the framework would support modernization. As industries evolve, so too must the standards that govern them. By coordinating updates across jurisdictions, we can ensure that Canadian tradespeople remain at the forefront of global best practices. Fifth, it would promote ongoing collaboration. This is not a one-time exercise, but a continuous process of improvement. The inclusion of indigenous governing bodies and organizations would be particularly important in ensuring that the framework reflects diverse perspectives and supports inclusive economic growth. Accountability is also built into the legislation. The minister would be required to table the national framework in Parliament within one year, ensuring timely action. Annual progress reports would track implementation, measure improvements in labour mobility and assess the effectiveness of the framework, and within five years a comprehensive parliamentary review would provide an opportunity to refine and strengthen the approach. The bill would create a structured, collaborative process to bring those systems into alignment where possible and to make them more transparent and interoperable where full alignment is not feasible. The bill is also about national unity. Canada is one country with one economy. While regional diversity is a strength, unnecessary barriers that divide our labour market weaken us all. The legislation represents a pragmatic, collaborative and forward-looking approach to a long-standing challenge. It would respect jurisdiction, engage stakeholders and focus on outcomes. I look forward to collaborating with everyone if the bill advances to committee. I urge all members of the House to support the national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility act and to take this important step toward a stronger and more unified Canada.”

“Governments, including the Conservatives, ignored this problem for decades. We acted right away in July 2025 by removing all federal trade barriers that we could on our own.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member has been part of the opposition for many years and was previously in government. This has been a problem for decades, including under the Conservative Harper government and in numerous provincial Conservative governments. The truth is that federal and provincial governments have allowed the problem to fester for decades, and it is time to end the status quo. The member opposite knows the government did act immediately in July 2025 to address barriers that the federal government could address alone. Weeks after the election, the Government of Canada removed all 53 federal exemptions from the CFTA.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill will help provinces work together to let skilled workers move and work across Canada. Provinces and labour groups will help make this plan, so no province will be left out. We need this agreement now.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear that the member believes that things are working well between provinces, as they all are working hard to find ways to remove internal barriers. With the bill I talked about today, and I said in my speech, the framework that would be developed would be in conjunction with provinces and provincial labour associations so it would not exclude any province. In the unprecedented climate we find ourselves in now, regulators and trade associations alike have new imperatives to come to the table and find an agreement. Too much is at stake to allow minor differences to hold our country back at this time.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Canada needs more young people in the skilled trades to build housing and other big projects. How will this bill encourage young people to join the trades?”

“Mr. Speaker, l thank my colleague for presenting the bill, and I am proud to be the seconder. My youngest son is completing his apprenticeship to become an electrician. Given our government’s very ambitious plans to engage in nation-building projects, whether in housing or other large projects, we know that we are going to have to encourage more young people to get involved in the skilled trades. Could my colleague please comment on how he sees the legislation’s encouraging young people to take up skilled trades?”

• Vague
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Clarity 33 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill. It will encourage young people to work in skilled trades and make it easier for them to move across Canada for jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for seconding the motion and for talking about young people. This is exactly what the bill would do. It would bring respect back to skilled trades and allow young people to think about the possibility of getting involved in something they may wish to do. They may want to be part of the national shipbuilding strategy and to work in Vancouver, but they are located somewhere else and doing their training in Ontario, for example. The bill would allow them to have the vision to be part of our defence programs that we are bringing forward in this country. I think this is exactly what young people are looking forward to doing: uniting this country and working towards something that matters.”

“I support this bill. It sets up a plan with the provinces to recognize skilled trades across Canada, so workers can easily move and find jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to private member’s bill, Bill C-266, brought forward by the member for Richmond East—Steveston. It is quite encouraging to see a member of Parliament recognize an issue that has been around for many years. I am not too sure which individuals he consulted in regard to bringing this bill forward. I have been looking at this particular issue for a number of years. The whole idea of labour mobility, recognizing skills and so forth, is the right thing to do, especially at this time. I thank the member for bringing forward such wonderful legislation. I am not sure what the Conservatives are going to do. I think they will be somewhat grudgingly supportive of it. I am a little disappointed in the Bloc. Quebec does a lot of wonderful things. Some provinces do a better job of recognizing skills than other provinces. In many ways, Quebec leads the way. I do not question that. However, what is being proposed here does not take away from Quebec at all. This is something we should be looking at in a very serious way. In fact, if we go back to the last federal election, we will find that Canadians were genuinely concerned with the three Ts: Trump, tariffs and trade. They were very concerned. The Prime Minister and candidates talked about how we could build one economy. Before us today, we have an actual piece of legislation that adds to the value of building one Canadian economy. Obviously the member is listening his constituents, because this is a reflection of what we heard in virtually every region of our nation, recognizing that Canada can do so much more if we invest in Canadians. The advice of some is that this is provincial jurisdiction and the federal government does not have a role to play. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. I was a representative in the Manitoba legislature for almost 20 years, back in the late eighties, the nineties and at the turn of the century, and credentials and recognizing skill sets were of the utmost importance. That was back then. That is taken out of the context of where we find ourselves today. Individuals acquire skill sets in one jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions or provinces, especially when we factor in indigenous communities as this legislation does, recognize the value of enabling some sort of a national framework. We are probably talking about 300‑plus positions, employing millions of Canadians. Affording an opportunity through the establishment of a national framework would not have to take anything away from provinces. This is not about federal overreach. I would classify this as an opportunity to show that, as a national government, we can work collaboratively with provinces. A minister responsible for labour can look at the legislation, and if there is a need for some changes, then let us make the changes. However, the principle of the legislation is good. Let us see the list. Let us work with the different jurisdictions, whether it is the territories, provinces or indigenous communities, and see where we could actually help real people who have acquired skill sets that provide them the type of income they require to meet their personal needs or their family’s needs. What I liked in the member’s comments is that he made reference to having a national framework, and there is a time set for it. If we give this thing royal assent and the clock starts ticking, we will get something tangible back, and there is an obligation to collaborate and work with provinces. Obviously, the provinces have to play a critical role. Years ago, I was the education critic in the province of Manitoba. There are post-secondary facilities, secondary facilities, the private sector for people who are working already, unions and apprenticeship programs. I can tell members that the amount of effort, energy and investment put into the system in one way or another is significant. However, I like the idea of some form of national framework being established to reinforce just how important it is that we look at the issue of mobility. We can look at the discussion we are already having. In good part, some premiers are advancing it more than others, recognizing, as we talk about building the one Canada economy, that our constituents do not say, “Well, this is provincial and this is federal.” They want politicians of different political stripes and different levels of government to act where we can, and that is what this legislation would do. It would provide direct action. It does not just say, “Okay, we want the framework a year from now, and then everything sets and that is it.” There would be reporting back to Parliament to ensure that we are making some progress on the issue. There would be an opportunity for review. These are the types of built-in measures from within, and based on the comments from the member for Richmond East—Steveston, they are there so that we can feel assured over the coming years that in fact we are moving forward and that it is tracked in a very serious way. The member provided me with some quotes, and I was impressed. I know BCIT is a very important institution to my colleague. Here is what Dr. Jeff Zabudsky, the president of BCIT, had to say: Canada’s future prosperity is being shaped by large-scale priorities that rely heavily on a strong trades workforce. Whether it be building affordable and climate-resilient housing or infrastructure to strengthen national security, these national priorities all require a job-ready and adaptable trades workforce. For decades, [BCIT along with other colleges and polytechnics across Canada] have powered this progress—producing job-ready graduates and bridging academia, industry and government. When we work together, we don’t just respond to change, we drive it. This is coming from one of Canada’s premier institutions, and that is why I say it is more than just one level of government. We have stakeholders who have a lot to contribute to the potential of having a national framework. I disagree with the member opposite when he talks about how the government has diminished it. We have invested. In Red River College alone, there are a number of projects with millions of dollars to enhance skill opportunities and work directly with apprenticeship programs and unions. Collectively, we can make a difference. We can build a stronger, healthier economy if we are prepared to work more collaboratively with provinces and other stakeholders and recognize the lead role that provinces in particular have to play, along with indigenous communities.”