Parm Bains

In response to a question from Jamie Schmale

“In 2017, the federal government went to court to make sure residents were notified. The Prime Minister takes responsibility for this country, and our government will not negotiate away private property rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my speech, in 2017, the federal government applied to the court to make sure that they notify the residents. If we look at the question the member has brought forward with respect to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister is taking responsibility for this country, and he wanted to ensure that Canadians understand that the federal government will not negotiate private property rights.”

In response to a question from Wade Grant

“The member for Richmond Centre—Marpole is spreading misinformation. He was a city councillor when this court case happened and did not tell residents about it. He also ran for the provincial government that was responsible for it, but now he is saying the opposite.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his hard work on this issue as well. With respect to the other members who are involved, the concerns are there. What they have shared is about having an opportunity to be involved in the case. I would like to mention that the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole, who has been talking quite a bit about this, sat as a Richmond city councillor when this issue was in court. He did not inform residents but is now bringing this issue forward. He also ran for the NDP provincial government that was responsible for the issue at the time, and now we are hearing contradictory information from the other side. Again, it begs the question about why misinformation is being brought forward into the House.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 12 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Tako Van Popta

“The opposition is scaring people by saying private land will be taken away. The federal government cannot and will not negotiate private lands. This is a provincial issue, and questions should go to the premier of British Columbia.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think that if we listened to colleagues who spoke earlier, the fearmongering we are talking about has to do with what the members opposite are implying: that private property lands will be taken away. I come back to the issue at hand. This is a provincial matter. I have outlined how the federal government cannot and will not negotiate private lands. Most of these questions should be directed to the province and the Premier of British Columbia. A corresponding decision on a similar case happened in New Brunswick. That court of appeal issued a decision in the context of an aboriginal title claim on the issue of whether aboriginal title can coexist with fee simple title. The court found that it could make a finding of aboriginal title leading to compensation for an indigenous nation, but it went the other way. This is a provincial matter.”

“Our government disagrees with the court ruling that gave the Cowichan Nation title to land in Richmond, and we have appealed it. We are also supporting a private landowner's request to present new evidence to the court. Our government will always protect private property rights. No Canadian will lose their private land because of this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on the matter of the Cowichan court decision, as it has understandably raised questions in the House; in my hometown of Richmond, British Columbia; and across Canada. Let me first say that our government disagrees with the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s decision and that we immediately appealed the court decision. As the case is before the courts, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the ongoing aspects of the litigation itself. I will, however, provide background on the history of the case and speak about private property interests. It is helpful at the outset to understand the scope of the litigation and the number of parties involved. Besides the federal Crown, there are five other defendants in the litigation: the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, the Government of British Columbia, the City of Richmond, the Musqueam first nation, and the Tsawwassen First Nation. The litigation began in November 2014. The Cowichans sought a declaration of aboriginal title to 1,846 acres of land located in the city of Richmond, along with a declaration of an aboriginal right to fish for food in the south arm of the Fraser River. The claimed lands include federal lands owned by Transport Canada and managed by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Richmond municipal lands, and some lands held by private landowners. Given the complexity of the issues and the number of parties involved, it is not surprising that the case unfolded over several years. On August 7, 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court delivered its decision, ruling that the Cowichan hold aboriginal title over approximately 40% of the claimed area, as well as an aboriginal right to fish for food in the south arm of the Fraser River. Soon after the release of the decision, all parties took further steps within the court process. The court’s decision is being appealed by all parties to the litigation, including Canada. Some of the court’s findings have potentially significant implications, including with respect to private property rights. Because the decision is not entirely clear on certain points, that clarity is being sought through the proper legal process. I have also been working to seek clarity, and I recognize that the decision has raised questions or concerns. We know that Canada defended the validity of fee simple title granted by the Crown at trial. Canada also defended the principle of transparency in this trial, particularly for parties that are not directly involved in this case but that may be affected by its outcome. In 2017, Canada brought an application seeking an order requiring the plaintiffs to notify private landowners within the claim area in this case. The court declined to exercise its discretion to require the Cowichan to give formal notice to private landowners. I should note that every aboriginal title claim is unique, and the reasoning in this decision will not necessarily apply to other cases. It depends on the facts of the case in question. With that background in mind, I will turn to more recent developments. Three related private real estate companies, which I will refer to as Montrose, operate in Richmond and claim they are the largest landowner in the declared Cowichan title area. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial, be added as a party and file new evidence and argument. Its application would allow the company to present its perspective on how the declaration of aboriginal title impacts its legal and financial interests. Canada has filed a response to support Montrose’s application. It is important for all parties to be heard when they are directly and significantly affected by a court decision. Canada’s position is consistent with the application it brought in 2017 regarding the need to provide notice of the trial to private landowners. If successful, Montrose would become an official party to the litigation, and the record would be reopened so the court could receive Montrose’s evidence and submissions, including submissions related to the impacts of the ruling. The Montrose application is scheduled to be heard before the British Columbia Supreme Court on May 25 and May 26, 2026. The Government of Canada respects the right of all parties to pursue their own legal strategies. Canada’s approach in this litigation reflects the use of appropriate court process to address legal uncertainty, while continuing to advance reconciliation in accordance with the Constitution. I will add that private property rights are fundamental and that our government will always protect them. For the Government of Canada, private property cannot and will not be negotiated. This is not only because our government would never negotiate Canadians’ private property but also because, as members all know, private land ownership and land deeds fall under provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. It is important to note that any agreement on aboriginal title at the federal level protects private property. In fact, no modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has led to Canadians’ losing their privately owned land. As the member of Parliament for Richmond East—Steveston, I have been working and will continue to work with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to address residents’ concerns and share constituents’ perspectives with the government, and to advocate for the people of our city. At the same time, I will work with the Richmond city council and all levels of government to ensure that the residents of our city are engaged and informed on these matters as they proceed in the months and years to come.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Negotiated agreement or federal approach has led to people losing privately owned land.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since April 24.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

“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 →

In response to a question from Garnett Genuis

“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 →

“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.”