MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Colin Reynolds

Follow by RSS

Reynolds pushes for lower costs at the grocery store and the pump, support for Red Seal trades and apprentices, and against the Canada Labour Code changes in Bill C-39, where he objects that major decisions rest “at the hands of a minister”. He argues mostly through stories from his 20 years as a construction electrician, telling the House, “One of my friends from out in the field, Mike, asked me to share his story”.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
88 / 100 over 10 statements
Signal 79 / 100
Relevance 97 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 96 / 100
Averaged over the 10 of 16 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Does well more than most

Answered ×1.7

Statements 16

Oral Questions ·

Fisheries and Oceans

“Canadians are struggling to find work. Despite this, the government gave public money to a company that fired Canadian workers to hire illegal foreign workers. Why did the fisheries minister approve this subsidy?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canada faces a 29-year low in workforce participation. The job-finding rate has dropped again, now down to 30.6% under the Liberal government. Canadians are losing jobs and they are losing hope. While Canada has a job crisis, the government has chosen to give public subsidies to a company that fired Canadian workers to hire foreign workers. Why did the fisheries minister approve a public subsidy to Ichiboshi L.P.C. after the company had already been caught firing Canadians to hire illegal workers?

Statements by Members ·

Food Security

“More Canadians are using food banks because food and gas cost too much. Conservatives want to lower these costs. We warned the Liberals this would happen, and it is time for a new government.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the high cost of living has forced more families to depend on food banks. According to Food Banks Canada, there’s been a 9% increase in people turning to food banks in the past year, with a record of over two million visits in one month, because of food inflation and rising fuel. In Manitoba alone, food bank usage has increased by 9.5% since 2025. With over 60,000 people relying on food banks each month, this number has more than doubled. In the past five years, more Canadians are facing food insecurity and struggling to keep up with the rising costs of housing and groceries. On this side of the House, we will continue to fight to save Canadians more money by cutting costs at the grocery store and at the pump. Canadians are working hard, but their paycheques cannot keep up with the rising cost of living. Canadians deserve food security. We warned the Liberals this would happen. Now Canadians are suffering under the high cost of living. It is time for change.

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

“I am asking everyone in the House to agree to split our party's speaking time.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to seek unanimous consent to split the time in the first Conservative slot.

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“I do not want this bill. It combines major environmental and labour changes into one big bill, which means we cannot debate it properly.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is very concerning that this is all being brought forward, major environmental changes and labour changes, in the form of an omnibus bill that cannot be debated properly and considered properly.

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“I oppose this bill. It gives one minister too much power to approve big projects on their own. These are major changes, and the government should not rush them through in one giant bill.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I think the biggest issue we are discussing is the fact that the major changes in approving national interest projects are all going to be made at the hands of a minister and at one person’s discretion. I think having all of these major changes coming forward in an omnibus bill is not the right approach to making such critical changes to our country’s legislation.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government uses a special power too often to force people back to work. Past governments did not use it for 40 years, but this government has used it seven or eight times in two years. One person should not make this choice alone. Parliament should decide instead.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is more of a threat. It is about the Liberals’ use of section 107, which has been in place for 40 years. It was not used by previous governments, but over the last two years, it has been used seven or eight times. The issue is not about being more accountable. The issue is that one person gets to decide, and it is not an act of Parliament that would put workers back to work. I think most Canadians respect that process, but that process has not been used by the government in the last several years.

“I do not want this bill to pass. It gives the government too much power to stop legal strikes and take away workers' rights to bargain. It also rushes environmental reviews, which could harm nature.”
  • A repeated line

    “The Canada Energy Regulator or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since October 6.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is with great honour that I rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the hard-working people of Elmwood—Transcona. Before I was elected as a member of Parliament, I was a construction electrician for 20 years. I hung up my tools a few days before the election, but I have not left that world behind. To this day, I am proud to serve as the sitting vice-president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2085 in Manitoba. As I speak in the House today, I bring the perspective of someone who has spent my life putting on my boots and picking up my tools every day to earn a living and support my family. Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, is a large, omnibus-style bill. The Liberal government says the goal is to speed up projects in major infrastructure, natural resources and transportation, but buried inside this large bill are proposed major changes to the Canada Labour Code. The Liberal government has brought together many policy updates and put them all into one bill that would affect the relationship among workers, employers and the federal government. Canada needs to build. We need more infrastructure, more investments and more well-paying jobs, but how we treat the people who are actually behind building this country matters a lot and should be a priority. Bill C-39 would make many changes to the federal labour law. The Liberal government says these changes are meant to modernize the Canada Labour Code, strengthen collective bargaining and help employers and employees find solutions to disagreements before they become major labour conflicts. The changes that are part of the bill include proposing a new position for a special mediator who would step in during hard negotiations and report directly to the minister, which would create more opportunities for the government to become involved earlier in difficult bargaining relationships instead of letting employees and employers work out their disagreements together. This would open up another opportunity for the government to become involved in the bargaining process. The bill would add more access to federal involvement when workers and employers are trying to negotiate their first agreement. There would also be changes dealing with multi-employer bargaining and expedited grievances. This would add more processes and responsibility to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The bill also proposes a modification to paid medical leave, adding 100 health and safety officers and increasing the CIRB capacity by adding 26 staff members. These would be significant changes. However, proposed alterations in the bill to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, and what effect these would have on employee and employer relationships, deserve special attention. Section 107 is not new. It has been part of the Canada Labour Code for decades, since 1984. Right now, section 107 gives the minister very broad authority in decision-making. It lets the minister, when they consider it necessary, take steps to maintain or secure industrial peace and promote conditions to help solve disagreements. The minister can also direct the CIRB to take the measures the minister considers necessary. The new proposed changes continue to make vague statements about the situations and power the minister holds. With the proposed implementation of Bill C-39, these are the steps that would have to take place when a disagreement happens between employees and employers. A special mediator would have to be appointed and complete their work within 21 days. The mediator would write a report to the minister. The minister would then have to give an opinion on whether a strike or a work stoppage would be a significant worry to the national interest. The minister could then direct the CIRB to order workers back to work, extend an existing collective agreement or establish a binding dispute resolution. However, the minister would still be the one deciding what the national interest is. The minister should not be given any more power to intervene in a lawful dispute. This is because the power would affect and change collective bargaining directly. The right to strike is one of the main forms of leverage that workers have during negotiations and it is a constitutional right. If this is taken away, the balance of bargaining changes. The “What We Heard—Building Canada Strong for All” report explains that collective bargaining works in most cases, saying that 95% of the time, “collective agreements are reached without a work stoppage.” The Conservative Party supports workers’ rights to organize democratically by bargaining collectively and peacefully withdrawing their services if necessary. Section 107, with and without the changes proposed by Bill C-39, allows the government to step in and stop lawful strikes. This directly affects workers’ right to strike and to negotiate a fair agreement. The Liberal government claims that section 107 would only be used in exceptional circumstances. While section 107 of the Canada Labour Code has been implemented for over 40 years, it was not normally used as a mechanism for ending lawful strikes. Since 2024, the Liberal government has used section 107 routinely to end major strikes and impose arbitration. The Liberals have involved themselves with WestJet, the Canadian National Railway, CPKC, the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, west coast ports, the Port of Montreal, the Port of Quebec, Canada Post, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and most recently Air Canada. Many of these interventions were challenged by unions in court. The Canadian Labour Congress and other organizations have argued that the recent use of section 107 undermines the workers’ right to strike and weakens collective bargaining in good faith. Many unions and organizations have spoken about the restrictions on the right to strike and wanting these restrictions removed. The Canadian Union of Public Employees recently made a claim against the Liberal government’s Bill C-39, highlighting that the right to strike is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill would attack Canadian workers’ ability to negotiate by taking away the right to fair collective bargaining. Section 107 causes issues in the bargaining and negotiation process. Without a proper collective bargaining process, employers do not take bargaining seriously because they know the government will step in during a work stoppage. Government intervention can remove the leverage workers have at the bargaining table and encourage employers to wait for the government to intervene instead of reaching an agreement fairly. These are serious consequences that are possible with implementing this bill. Continuing to make significant Labour Code changes in a large bill without properly considering the negative impacts would have a negative effect on Canadian workers and their rights. The government should create conditions for workers to negotiate, not become the negotiator. Bill C-39 is not just about labour. It would also make substantial changes to Canada’s project approval and environmental framework. Bill C-39 would change how environmental decisions are made under federal law. The bill proposes one single federal project decision where there are currently separate federal decisions. It would create a one-year federal review timeline. It would give certain agencies, like the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, a larger role in leading reviews for projects in their field. It would also give the environment minister new authority to allow prep work to begin before a final decision if the minister considers it in the public interest and follows certain conditions. The Liberal government does not have the best track record of picking winners and losers. Additionally, there would be changes to the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. The Liberal government argues that environmental assessment requirements would remain in place and would respect indigenous rights. However, environmental organizations have raised concerns. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Canada’s largest international conservation organization, explains that faster approvals must still be able to provide safeguards for species and ecosystems, and that the proposed changes could weaken environmental protections. Bill C-39 contains many objectives that Canadians understand. We do need a labour relations system that lets employers and employees reach sustainable agreements. The government should create a system that encourages bargaining instead of encouraging the parties to depend on the government when negotiations become difficult. The government should propose a national interest test that is objective and should listen to workers and employers who are actually living under these rules. Collective bargaining is not the enemy of economic growth. It is part of a working labour market. Workers have a right to bargain and employers have a right to negotiate. The government’s role should be to establish fair rules. I leave members with this question: Is an omnibus bill really the right tool we want to use to make so many significant changes without proper consideration and consultation?

Government Orders ·

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

In response to a question from Michael Chong

“In a recession, businesses stop building and investing. That hurts construction and trades jobs, which is a big concern.”
  • 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, in construction, the first thing businesses do when we enter a recession is stop building. They stop reinvesting, and when business investment declines, so does construction and, in turn, trades jobs, so this is definitely a big concern.

In response to a question from Yves Perron

“I am an electrician. I do not know anything about pesticides.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 49 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be honest. I am a Red Seal electrician. I really do not know anything about pesticides.

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I think supporting tradespeople and building homes is always a good thing.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 49 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think supporting trades in any way that we can, and also supporting building homes, is always a good thing.

In response to a question from Jim Bélanger

“Apprentices need jobs to finish their trades training. Most of their hours must be done on the job, so without work, they cannot get certified.”
  • 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, it is a crucial part of trades training. As an apprentice, one gets about 300 hours in school and 1,800 hours per level in the field. Without jobs, people are not going to have the 1,800 hours, and they will never complete a Red Seal.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“These promises might happen far in the future. Tradespeople do not have jobs today.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 18 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, these are all things that are going to be coming, maybe, one day in the future. The spring economic statement, we are debating today. We are talking about tradespeople today, and those tradespeople do not have jobs.

“The government's plan for skilled trades will not work. Rushing training and moving it online is unsafe because trades require hands-on practice. Trade colleges do not have enough funding to train more people. Apprentices also need real work hours to finish their certifications, but thousands of trade workers cannot find jobs right now. The government must fund colleges properly and get building projects moving so apprentices can actually work.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to start off by saying I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. It is with great honour that I rise in the House to speak on behalf of the hard-working folks of Elmwood—Transcona. My speech today will centre on the spring economic statement, with a specific focus on the updates regarding trades and labour. Before becoming a member of Parliament, I worked as a construction electrician. My last day on a ladder was actually March 21, 2025, just two days before the election was called, and I am still the sitting vice-president of my local, IBEW Local 2085 in Winnipeg. When I reviewed the spring economic update, I was thankful to see some efforts that would benefit Red Seal tradespeople through a plan to recruit and train 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled trade workers by 2030, with a 50% reduction in time. To do this, the Liberal government wants to give Red Seal tradespeople a national registered apprenticeship number. However, the major problem that would arise is that different jurisdictions have different rules in place that would need to be addressed before any interprovincial harmonization could take place. Furthermore, following the implementation of this plan, the Liberal government wants to have more training and exams be online, but as we learned during COVID, online training is not really effective for the trades. Trades training requires real-life scenarios and hands-on instruction. These critical classes must continue to be taught in person so apprentices can receive training in real-world environments and so they can become comfortable with the powerful equipment they will be operating. Right off the bat, the online testing plan and secure credentials would have adverse effects on trade workers who are trained under the current system. As I said, different jurisdictions have different certification processes and training requirements. According to the Liberal government, its goal is to build one Canadian economy instead of 13. The unintended consequence of this is that a national registered apprenticeship number would force a top-down standardized system that would not have automatic buy-in from the provinces. Extensive consultation would be required with all the provinces to get their buy-in on a national apprenticeship system. It is a bit of a “cart before the horse” thing. Furthermore, several active federal apprenticeship grants were shut down by the current Liberal government without justification. Just one year ago, in 2025, the apprenticeship incentive grant, the apprenticeship incentive grant for women, and the apprenticeship completion grant were all shut down. In addition, in 2024, the apprenticeship service program was shut down. All these programs, which were designed to support apprentices through their education, were very important to young Canadians looking to break into the trades. They were supports I relied on when I was an apprentice, yet they were all closed by the Liberal government. Now the Liberal government has decided to enact the build Canada apprenticeship service, with a new announcement of the same apprenticeship grant it cancelled just one year ago. The government is essentially trying to take credit for creating a program exactly the same as the one it shut down. While the Liberals are patting themselves on the back, many apprentices who relied on that funding left their journey in the Canadian trades because the government turned its back on them. The cuts undoubtedly had significant impacts on apprentices who were already in the training program. In a 2025 article, the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada pleaded for the government not to abandon apprenticeship supports, explaining that 70% of apprentices used the original apprenticeship incentive grant to cover the cost of training expenses such as tools, and 32% of apprentices used part of the grant for general living costs. We need to support Canadians who are eager to build. The last thing the Liberal government should be doing is turning its back on them. In 2024, I read a Global News article titled, “Manitoba stakeholders concerned as federal government tosses apprenticeship grants”. This article predicted the very concerns that trade workers had with the government’s decision to cut the apprenticeship grants. Darryl Harrison, director of stakeholder engagement with the Winnipeg Construction Association, was interviewed in the same article and said, “the removal of this grant seems like a backward step to us.” Many apprentices counted on receiving the grant from the government and not needing to get a loan. Curtis Haines, an electrical apprentice at the time, stated that losing the apprenticeship incentive grant may have been a deal breaker for many of his peers and colleagues who had other financial responsibilities such as bills and young families. When I started in the electrical trade, I was a late bloomer in the trade, with small children. I needed every dollar of support I could get. Those grants helped me make ends meet, and many of my classmates at the time relied on those same supports. Another piece of worker policy in the spring economic update that I want to address is the Liberal government’s promise to quicken the process of training new Red Seal skilled trade workers by 50%. Rushing the training of Red Seal trade workers can have negative impacts on their education, especially when it comes to their safety training. It is clear to me that the Liberals want to treat workers as inputs on a spreadsheet, to get workers certified as quickly as possible so they can get each unit under way, regardless of the risk. In reality, it is important for apprentices to have the quality education and training that prepares them for the job site. Job sites can often be a dangerous workplace. Another major issue that the spring economic update fails to mention is that there has not been any additional funding for seats in post-secondary institutions that provide training. For example, in Manitoba, Red River College Polytechnic, a post-secondary institution offering many skilled trades programs, has been forced to temporarily shut down certain programs because of inconsistent messaging around support from the federal government On top of program cancellations, post-secondary institutions have had to reduce seat capacity and cut the number of students accepted into the programs. Many instructors have been laid off due to course cancellations. Many programs have waiting lists but cannot expand capacity because the spring economic statement expanded funding to only a portion of the training journey of an apprentice. Red River College Polytechnic is hardly the only one. Many trades colleges across Canada have faced similar issues. The reality is that there seems to be a disconnect between what the Liberal government plans on doing and the situation we are currently facing on the ground. The Liberals are claiming that they want to add a significant number of new Red Seal trained trade workers, yet educational institutions no longer have the resources nor the capacity to welcome new students. The Liberals have no plan to address these shortages, and the longer they continue to ignore what is happening on the ground, the more unrealistic their targets will become. This sounds familiar. Their plan also fails to explain how they will make sure that skilled trade workers will continue having good-paying and reliable jobs available to them in Canada. In the spring economic update, the Liberal Party claims that, with the team Canada strong plan, they would be creating clear pathways for young Canadians to get into good jobs. They are quite sure that these job opportunities will arise, yet they are simply ignoring the fact that, according to StatsCan, there are 207,000 unemployed Canadians in the trades right now. How can Canadian workers have faith in the system when the system is not interested in looking out for them? The unfortunate reality is that after we worked with the Liberals to pass Bill C-5 nearly one year ago, giving them sweeping infrastructure powers with the development of the Major Projects Office, nothing has come of it. It is a shame that we are not building in this country. After 11 years of inaction, we have simply fallen behind globally. For people who are not familiar with the trades, I will explain that apprenticeship training can be broken down into two main sections: technical training in the classroom and field hours on the job site. Field hours are the most important part of any apprenticeship training in the trades, and without adequate field hours, an apprentice will not secure their Red Seal certification. Simply put, apprentices need jobs in order to continue building infrastructure in Canada. With the lack of jobs, apprentices are having greater difficulty completing their training. The Liberals can throw all the money at training and programs that they want to. However, if we want to truly support the workers of tomorrow, we need to get trades jobs flowing in Canada. The Liberals should be focusing on finding solutions to the problems they have ignored over the last decade. It is not enough to just encourage young Canadians who are looking to get into the trades as a possible future to get certified, only to find out that they will not be able to find job opportunities. The road back from this mess starts with support for trades colleges, certainty that apprentice funding remains constant, a clear promise to never cut trades funding again, and a push to get major projects going and to get jobs flowing back into Canada.

Statements by Members ·

Community Work in Elmwood—Transcona

“I want to honour Leilani Esteban-Villarba. She and her team help my community by working on affordable food, housing, and safer, cleaner streets.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is with great privilege that I rise in the House to honour an exceptional member of the Elmwood—Transcona community, Leilani Esteban-Villarba. Leilani is the hard-working executive director of the Chalmers Neighbourhood Renewal Corporation. Through their efforts, she and her team lead practical and ground-level neighbourhood work to help support and uplift our community. Leilani and the CNRC have created vital non-profit programs and started key neighbourhood initiatives. Leilani’s work is not abstract. She and her team are a direct solution to growing problems facing Canadian society. Her work is squarely focused on addressing the needs of our community, whether they are affordable groceries, access to housing, safer streets, or cleaner neighbourhoods. Because of the CNRC, Elmwood is stronger, safer and a better place to live. I thank Leilani for everything she and the CNRC do for our community.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Canada is the only G20 country in a recession under this Prime Minister. Working people cannot afford groceries. I want him to explain the difference between a recession and a technical recession.”
  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. There has been a lot of media attention on creative definitions to describe the Liberals’ track record. One of my friends from out in the field, Mike, asked me to share his story with the House. He is a hard-working family man who, after working overtime, still did not have enough money to make ends meet. Can the Prime Minister please tell Mike the difference between a recession and a technical recession? Mike’s grocery bill cannot tell the difference.

Statements by Members ·

Fuel Taxes

“I want the government to remove all taxes on fuel for the rest of the year. Gas prices are high, and this will save Canadians money.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, while fuel prices are soaring, hard-working Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. We know we cannot opt out of global factors, but we can take measures domestically to help Canadians who are hurting. After weeks of pressure, the Liberals finally caved to our demands to remove taxes at the pump during these uncertain times. The half-measure will not deliver the results Canadians need. Canadians need practical and tangible solutions, not more recycled speeches and empty promises. We need to take action and Canadians need results. We need to build up our natural gas infrastructure and strengthen our leverage abroad while looking out for folks at home. Therefore, I call on the Liberals to remove all taxes at the pump for the rest of the year so Canadian families can keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets.