Jessica Fancy, South Shore—St. Margarets
“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes it easier for skilled trades workers to move and work across different provinces without losing their certification. This will help fill job shortages, especially in rural areas, while still respecting provincial rules and safety standards.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I start talking today about Bill C-266, I would like to first take a moment to thank all the wonderful people in South Shore—St. Margarets. It was wonderful to be back home in the riding over the summer, getting out into our communities, meeting with constituents, listening to their concerns and celebrating the incredible work happening across the south shore. It was also a real privilege to help deliver some exciting investments to our communities, including $6.2 million to the Lunenburg Opera House and over $15 million to Hawboldt Industries, which received the Davie contract. Of course, I loved getting out to meet our students in the Canada summer jobs program, where young people are gaining valuable experience, building confidence and contributing to their communities. I want to thank everyone who opened their doors, shared their stories, invited me into their workplaces and to their community events, and reminded me every day why I am here to serve. I am grateful to be back, and I am excited to bring the voices of South Shore—St. Margarets to Ottawa. I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of Bill C-266 and to the importance of making it easier for skilled trades workers to take their skills, experience and hard work with them wherever opportunity exists in this country. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Richmond East—Steveston, for the bill. At its heart, the bill is about something very simple: opportunity. It is about making sure that if a Canadian has the skills and training to do a job in one province, unnecessary administrative and regulatory barriers do not prevent that person from doing the same job in another province. Bill C-266 proposes the development of a national framework on skilled trades and labour mobility. The objective is to reduce barriers, improve credential recognition, identify those equivalencies between jurisdictions and find, as I said before, opportunities to harmonize certification processes. Importantly, this is not about Ottawa telling provinces how to regulate their skilled trades. It is about governments working together. It is about provinces and territories, industries, unions, apprenticeship organizations, indigenous partners, employers and training institutions sitting at that same table and asking one very practical question: “How do we make it easier for Canadians to work?” That question matters enormously in a country as large and diverse as Canada. I come to this conversation with a very different professional background from many of the members of the House. Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was a teacher. I spent many years working in the education system, including as a high school principal. One of the things that experience taught me is that when we talk about workplace development, we cannot start at the point where someone wants to get onto the job site. We have to start much earlier. We have to start with the young people. We have to start with the students sitting in a classroom wondering what kind of future is possible for them. We have to start with the young person who is incredibly capable with their hands and who can build, fix, design, operate, and solve problems but who might not see themselves already reflected in a traditional academic pathway. We have to make sure young people understand that there are many different ways to build a successful life here in Canada. A good education system should not tell every student that success means following the exact same path. It should open doors, and that means universities, colleges, apprenticeships, skilled trades, entrepreneurship and technology. It means creating opportunities. There is a theme here for young Canadians to develop skills that are valued in their communities across this country. I represent South Shore—St. Margarets. It is a beautiful riding, but it is also a riding that knows very well the challenges that come with being rural. Young people have enormous potential. We have people who are working in construction, transportation, marine industries, forestry, fisheries, energy and manufacturing. I could go on. We have small business owners who are looking for workers, and there are communities that need housing. Infrastructure needs to be built, and we have employers who tell us that finding people with the right skills is one of the biggest challenges. At the same time, we have young people who are asking themselves whether they can build a future in the community where they grew up. That is an important question, because if a young person has to leave their community to find opportunity, sometimes they never come back. What does that mean to a rural community? It loses more than just a young worker. It loses volunteers, parents, future business owners, coaches and community leaders, and we lose people who would eventually become the next generation of teachers, tradespeople, nurses, entrepreneurs and public servants. Therefore, when we talk about building Canada’s workforce, we have to talk at the same time about building strong communities. That is why labour mobility matters, but it is also why education and training matter. I am a former member of HUMA, which completed a study on youth employment. One of the lessons that came through very clearly is that young people do not experience the labour market in the same way that many of us did growing up. There are young people who are ready to enter that workforce but cannot find the first opportunity. There are young people who have the education but not the experience that employers might be looking for. There are young people who need access to training, and, most important, there are young people in rural and remote communities who face additional barriers simply because of geography. There are many young people who have the trades, but they also need a pathway to put those to work, and that is what the bill would try to do. The last point is particularly important, because when we talk about the skilled trades, we talk about how we can train people. We encourage through apprenticeships, we invest in education, and we can help young people enter the workforce, but if unnecessary barriers prevent these workers from taking their skills where they are needed, we have not solved that problem. We have simply moved the problem, kicking the can down the road. Canada’s workforce needs to be flexible. A worker in Nova Scotia might have an opportunity in Alberta, a worker in Quebec might have an opportunity in British Columbia, and a worker in Newfoundland and Labrador might have the skills that are desperately needed in other parts of the country. All Canadians should be able to make these choices. That does not mean we eliminate the safety standards. It does not mean that we lower training requirements. It does not mean that we undermine provincial authority. It does not mean that every certification system needs to be identical. What it does mean, though, is that we should be asking whether these differences between jurisdictions are genuinely necessary or whether they come from simply creating duplication and the old red tape that we talk about a lot in the chamber. Bill C-266 takes a framework approach to this problem. It proposes mapping equivalencies across jurisdictions. It proposes identifying opportunities for harmonization. It proposes modernizing certification processes, and it proposes bringing the right people together to have these conversations. That is important because the young people who understand these barriers best are the ones who encounter them. Unions also understand the importance of safety, wages and working conditions. Provincial regulators understand their responsibilities. Indigenous communities and organizations have important perspectives on workforce development and economic participation. Governments have the responsibility to bring these voices together. I also want to emphasize what the bill would not do. It would not override provincial authority, and that matters. Provinces and territories have important responsibilities when it comes to training, certification and labour market regulation. These responsibilities must be protected. The strength of the bill is that it would recognize that reality but would also recognize something else, which is that the labour market does not stop at a provincial border.”
Mr. Speaker, before I start talking today about Bill C-266, I would like to first take a moment to thank all the wonderful people in South Shore—St. Margarets. It was wonderful to be back home in the riding over the summer, getting out into our communities, meeting with constituents, listening to their concerns and celebrating the incredible work happening across the south shore. It was also a real privilege to help deliver some exciting investments to our communities, including $6.2 million to the Lunenburg Opera House and over $15 million to Hawboldt Industries, which received the Davie contract. Of course, I loved getting out to meet our students in the Canada summer jobs program, where young people are gaining valuable experience, building confidence and contributing to their communities. I want to thank everyone who opened their doors, shared their stories, invited me into their workplaces and to their community events, and reminded me every day why I am here to serve. I am grateful to be back, and I am excited to bring the voices of South Shore—St. Margarets to Ottawa. I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of Bill C-266 and to the importance of making it easier for skilled trades workers to take their skills, experience and hard work with them wherever opportunity exists in this country. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Richmond East—Steveston, for the bill. At its heart, the bill is about something very simple: opportunity. It is about making sure that if a Canadian has the skills and training to do a job in one province, unnecessary administrative and regulatory barriers do not prevent that person from doing the same job in another province. Bill C-266 proposes the development of a national framework on skilled trades and labour mobility. The objective is to reduce barriers, improve credential recognition, identify those equivalencies between jurisdictions and find, as I said before, opportunities to harmonize certification processes. Importantly, this is not about Ottawa telling provinces how to regulate their skilled trades. It is about governments working together. It is about provinces and territories, industries, unions, apprenticeship organizations, indigenous partners, employers and training institutions sitting at that same table and asking one very practical question: “How do we make it easier for Canadians to work?” That question matters enormously in a country as large and diverse as Canada. I come to this conversation with a very different professional background from many of the members of the House. Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was a teacher. I spent many years working in the education system, including as a high school principal. One of the things that experience taught me is that when we talk about workplace development, we cannot start at the point where someone wants to get onto the job site. We have to start much earlier. We have to start with the young people. We have to start with the students sitting in a classroom wondering what kind of future is possible for them. We have to start with the young person who is incredibly capable with their hands and who can build, fix, design, operate, and solve problems but who might not see themselves already reflected in a traditional academic pathway. We have to make sure young people understand that there are many different ways to build a successful life here in Canada. A good education system should not tell every student that success means following the exact same path. It should open doors, and that means universities, colleges, apprenticeships, skilled trades, entrepreneurship and technology. It means creating opportunities. There is a theme here for young Canadians to develop skills that are valued in their communities across this country. I represent South Shore—St. Margarets. It is a beautiful riding, but it is also a riding that knows very well the challenges that come with being rural. Young people have enormous potential. We have people who are working in construction, transportation, marine industries, forestry, fisheries, energy and manufacturing. I could go on. We have small business owners who are looking for workers, and there are communities that need housing. Infrastructure needs to be built, and we have employers who tell us that finding people with the right skills is one of the biggest challenges. At the same time, we have young people who are asking themselves whether they can build a future in the community where they grew up. That is an important question, because if a young person has to leave their community to find opportunity, sometimes they never come back. What does that mean to a rural community? It loses more than just a young worker. It loses volunteers, parents, future business owners, coaches and community leaders, and we lose people who would eventually become the next generation of teachers, tradespeople, nurses, entrepreneurs and public servants. Therefore, when we talk about building Canada’s workforce, we have to talk at the same time about building strong communities. That is why labour mobility matters, but it is also why education and training matter. I am a former member of HUMA, which completed a study on youth employment. One of the lessons that came through very clearly is that young people do not experience the labour market in the same way that many of us did growing up. There are young people who are ready to enter that workforce but cannot find the first opportunity. There are young people who have the education but not the experience that employers might be looking for. There are young people who need access to training, and, most important, there are young people in rural and remote communities who face additional barriers simply because of geography. There are many young people who have the trades, but they also need a pathway to put those to work, and that is what the bill would try to do. The last point is particularly important, because when we talk about the skilled trades, we talk about how we can train people. We encourage through apprenticeships, we invest in education, and we can help young people enter the workforce, but if unnecessary barriers prevent these workers from taking their skills where they are needed, we have not solved that problem. We have simply moved the problem, kicking the can down the road. Canada’s workforce needs to be flexible. A worker in Nova Scotia might have an opportunity in Alberta, a worker in Quebec might have an opportunity in British Columbia, and a worker in Newfoundland and Labrador might have the skills that are desperately needed in other parts of the country. All Canadians should be able to make these choices. That does not mean we eliminate the safety standards. It does not mean that we lower training requirements. It does not mean that we undermine provincial authority. It does not mean that every certification system needs to be identical. What it does mean, though, is that we should be asking whether these differences between jurisdictions are genuinely necessary or whether they come from simply creating duplication and the old red tape that we talk about a lot in the chamber. Bill C-266 takes a framework approach to this problem. It proposes mapping equivalencies across jurisdictions. It proposes identifying opportunities for harmonization. It proposes modernizing certification processes, and it proposes bringing the right people together to have these conversations. That is important because the young people who understand these barriers best are the ones who encounter them. Unions also understand the importance of safety, wages and working conditions. Provincial regulators understand their responsibilities. Indigenous communities and organizations have important perspectives on workforce development and economic participation. Governments have the responsibility to bring these voices together. I also want to emphasize what the bill would not do. It would not override provincial authority, and that matters. Provinces and territories have important responsibilities when it comes to training, certification and labour market regulation. These responsibilities must be protected. The strength of the bill is that it would recognize that reality but would also recognize something else, which is that the labour market does not stop at a provincial border.
