Human Resources Committee on Sept. 24th, 2026

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Right now, if this bill.... Before this bill passes, the minister can create a framework. After this bill passes, the minister must create a framework, but if the minister does not comply with the timelines, there are no consequences. Is that correct?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

The consequences have not been outlined in this.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

If the consequences are not in the bill, then there are no consequences.

Do you think the minister should implement this framework now, instead of waiting for the bill to pass first? Do you think it would be better if the minister just started this work tomorrow, instead of waiting for it to go all the way through the process?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Repeat that, please. Do I think the minister should start the work right now?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Do you think the minister should do this framework now, instead of waiting for the bill to pass?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

I think this work is extremely important. We haven't done this for over 30 years, so if we look at.... If all of the provinces have come online to talk about removing internal trade barriers and the federal government trade barriers have been removed—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It's a simple question. Would you like the minister to do this work now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you. You're well over your time. A member can follow up on that.

Mr. Villeneuve, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Bains.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Good morning.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Welcome. Thank you for being here this morning and for bringing this bill forward.

In your opening remarks, you said that our development depends on our ability to build. Your bill appears designed to help achieve that objective.

You talked a lot about meeting with tradespeople and professional peers. What can you tell Canadians about their thoughts on what the government is doing about labour mobility right now?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

At this point, they understand that some work is being done and they're working.... As you know, many of the institutions are under the jurisdiction of each province. They understand that the work is being done. However, they're hopeful that the work is being done in a way whereby there are actual deadlines so that it can be done quicker.

They're encouraged by the fact that there are other measures being taken to support skilled trades across the country. For example, I spoke about the British Columbia Institute of Technology. They talked about how it may appear on paper that certain harmonization and standards are being done, but then there's certain governance of those trades that are not being harmonized. There's more work that needs to be done.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

You may have somewhat answered my next question.

More broadly, what is currently preventing labour mobility in Canada?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

What prevents workers from having mobility at this time is, again, if you look at each province, they may have some standards, even minor ones, that they view differently when they govern a Red Seal profession or another skilled trade. However, certain standards may be lower in certain provinces. I heard from a union member specifically that we can't have a race to the bottom when it comes to certain standards.

It would be a lot of technical work to go through rules and regulations for whichever trade we're talking about, whether it's avionics or.... Some specific trades fall under Transport Canada regulations, while others fall under other areas. The work that needs to be done is to make sure that in every single province we find the gold standard, and every province then streamlines it to that level.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Bains.

Mr. Chair, can I give the rest of my time to Mr. Joseph? He has a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes.

Mr. Joseph, you have the floor for two minutes.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Bains. Congratulations on your bill. I was the first to rise in the House yesterday to support it. It was quite an honour.

Mr. Bains, as you know, French is at the heart of our identity in Quebec. It's also the language of work on our construction sites. How can Bill C‑266 promote labour mobility across Canada while ensuring that French remains fully respected and valued as a language of work in Quebec's construction industry?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

That's exactly why a bill of this nature should be implemented, because we have two official languages in the country. If we're looking at major projects that we've introduced as a country and we need to ensure that we can actually build those, this would allow that work to happen. Again, it's a harmonizing and streamlining not only of governance standards, industry standards and health and safety standards, but also of the language. That is an important part of why we should have something like this.

We may look at a province like British Columbia, where a national transmission line has been introduced to electrify not only homes but also the large industries that are in northern British Columbia. Do we have enough people in the skilled trades to meet the demands of building those things? We may not. We would have to look to Quebec and other regions across the country where maybe more French-speaking skilled trades workers are coming from. They would need to help us build in British Columbia, which is primarily an English-speaking province. That is a key piece. If they're looking at their log books and looking at the other things they're going to be working on, and the health and safety of the actual occupational—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you. We're a little over time.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr. Bains on introducing his bill. Having tabled a private member's bill myself, I know it's quite a process. He's here to advocate for his bill today knowing that some people are for it and others are against it, and I want to commend him for doing so. In a democracy, we have to be able to defend a point of view on an issue that matters to us, but we also have to be receptive to feedback, whether favourable or not. If everyone's approach is constructive, I think we can have some good discussions.

Mr. Bains, when you were coming up with your bill, did you start by holding consultations? Workforce training falls exclusively within Quebec's jurisdiction under the Canada-Quebec Labour Market Agreement in Principle, which was signed in 1997 by Lucien Bouchard, then Premier of Quebec, and Jean Chrétien, who was Prime Minister of Canada.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

I didn't hear the question. Did I miss something there? It ended at Jean Chrétien.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

In your bill, did you take into account the Canada-Quebec Labour Market Agreement in Principle, which was signed in 1997 by Lucien Bouchard, then Premier of Quebec, and Jean Chrétien, then Prime Minister of Canada?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

I did not reflect back on the 1997 consultation. However, if we look at Quebec, at this time it is in agreement with removing internal trade barriers. We are working across the country. The government is working across the country with all provinces.

On the consultation, I myself spoke to institutions and Polytechnics Canada and talked about the language pieces that you may be concerned about. As I mentioned to my colleague on this side, if there are projects that are taking place in other jurisdictions, one of the key pieces of doing this work is to respect the language and ensure that if any workers are moving across different work sites across the country, the French language is available to them. It also ensures that all the information in terms of health occupation regulations and standards is available to them in both languages.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

In fact, when the bill was introduced, Quebec's labour minister, Jean Boulet, stood firm on protecting Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over labour law, training and the regulation of trades. In his view, the bill raises concerns about jurisdiction and Quebec's authority, so he wants to protect the Quebec model. He wants Quebec to have its own regulatory bodies, such as the Commission de la construction du Québec, the CCQ, and the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, the CNESST.

The Government of Quebec also opposes any attempt by the federal government to interfere and impose a single national framework. For Jean Boulet, the issue is regulatory autonomy. He says that workforce management and skills assessment criteria fall exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. The creation of a national framework is perceived as an encroachment on Quebec's jurisdiction. Conditional mobility is another issue. Quebec is certainly open to attracting talent, but it insists that it be done in accordance with Quebec's professional qualification and French-language standards.

I know you've said there's no issue here and that both official languages will be respected. However, these concerns were raised.

How did you respond to them?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

I think that's a misrepresentation. There's no encroachment. If you look at Quebec, currently they're a partner in the internal trade process of removing barriers. The purpose of the bill, as it clearly outlines, is to consult. Each province and academic institution from each province and each jurisdiction would be involved in this process.

It's not an encroachment in any way. It's a consultation. It's work that will be done to ensure that the harmonization and the standards are being met. As I mentioned in my previous answers, it's ultimately to reach a stronger standard. If certain provinces may have potentially lower standards and Quebec is not happy with the fact that they're not meeting a higher standard, then those consultations and that harmonization work would need to take place.