SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 268 - Dec/14/23

Dec/14/23 4:21:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the unions in Windsor have very clearly told us that this is not the case and that the jobs are going to be offered to Canadians and the citizens of our country. This bill is important, because it ensures that these parties are focused on the negotiating table. That is how we will regain stability and certainty in our supply chains and throughout our economy.

67 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Dec/14/23 4:22:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we remember the brutal 2011 Vale strike in Sudbury. Stephen Harper and Tony Clement allowed Inco and Falconbridge, two world-class mining companies, to be taken over by the corporate raider, Glencore. Then, Vale came in to try to break the back of the working class in Sudbury. Workers were out for over a year. It caused huge damage to the community, but people stood up, resisted and fought for better wages. I want to ask the member, who was in Sudbury at the time, about the damaging impacts of these kinds of strikes and the need to make sure we have rules in place so workers can negotiate fair agreements with their employers.

116 words

Ms. Viviane Lapointe

Dec/14/23 4:23:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly was in Sudbury during that strike, and I will tell members that the legacy of it still haunts Sudburians to this day, as well as people from across northern Ontario. We had colleagues in dispute with one another, and neighbours arguing with each other. We talk about a poisoned work environment; after the strike, when workers returned, the relationship with Vale was not in any way in a healthy state, because of what went on for over a year. We saw families being impoverished. We saw their homes being put in jeopardy. Luckily, there were local bank branches that helped people to be able to still afford the payments they needed to make. It was difficult on the community of Sudbury. It is something that we still feel today. That is why the legislation is so very important: to avoid having that kind of situation ever happen again.

152 words

Mr. Tony Baldinelli (Niagara Falls, CPC)

Dec/14/23 4:24:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was wondering whether my hon. colleague could comment on the rationale of the government for the 18-month implementation date for the legislation, and why the government would preclude the largest employer group, the federal public service, from being part of it.

45 words

Ms. Viviane Lapointe

Dec/14/23 4:24:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, this is probably the largest legislation that we have seen in decades. We need to make sure that we get it right. This would be, indeed, one of the most significant changes to federal collective bargaining that Canada has ever seen. We need to give all parties time to prepare. That is the reason why it would only come into force 18 months after it receives royal assent, to give employers, unions and the Canada Industrial Relations Board time to adapt to their new requirements and their obligations. This is significant. If we are going to be successful in its execution, we need to make sure that we give all those parties the time that they need.

125 words

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC)

Dec/14/23 4:25:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012. I will read the summary of this bill, because I think it is important. The bill has the following objectives: (a) amend the scope of the prohibition relating to replacement workers by removing the requirement of demonstrating a purpose of undermining a trade union’s representational capacity, by adding persons whose services must not be used during legal strikes and lockouts and by providing certain exceptions; (b) prohibit employers from using, during a legal strike or lockout intended to involve the cessation of work by all employees in a bargaining unit, the services of an employee in that unit, subject to certain exceptions; (c) make the contravention by employers of either of those prohibitions an offence punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 per day; (d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations establishing an administrative monetary penalties scheme for the purpose of promoting compliance with those prohibitions; and (e) amend the maintenance of activities process in order to, among other things, encourage employers and trade unions to reach an earlier agreement respecting activities to be maintained in the event of a legal strike or lockout, encourage faster decision making by the Canada Industrial Relations Board when parties are unable to agree and reduce the need for the Minister of Labour to make referrals to the Board. This bill gives me the opportunity to talk about what is unfortunately wrong with Canada right now, about public trust in this government and about how the government is turning its back on Canadian workers. We agree that Canadian workers need to be protected, of course, but unfortunately, this government is incapable of doing so. There is a lot of evidence to prove it. This government says it will be able to implement this bill in 18 months, as set out in the bill. We do not believe that. We are convinced that, unfortunately, the government has no intention of implementing this bill. We have seen proof of this on several occasions in the past. Unfortunately, this government has failed to keep a number of promises. Just look at the first promise made in 2015 to run three small deficits before returning to a balanced budget. Unfortunately, there is now an additional deficit of $600 billion compared to the deficit before this Prime Minister took office. Unfortunately, we do not believe that the government will keep that promise. As many of my colleagues have mentioned, this type of legislation has existed in Quebec for nearly 50 years and it did not take 18 months for it to come into force. From the moment it was passed, it was brought into force. The government always gives itself extensions. It gives itself room to manoeuvre. In any case, an election will be called in 18 to 24 months. Even if the bill is passed tomorrow morning, which it will not, it would not likely come into force before the next government is elected. That is proof that this government is incapable of protecting Canadian jobs. We saw it with Volkswagen. I mentioned it to my colleague earlier when I asked her a question. Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt are going to set up plants in various regions of Canada, particularly in Ontario and Quebec. They are going to bring in temporary foreign workers to set up those plants. However, despite all the motions that we moved at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, we still have not been told how long those people will be working here for. We realize that they are not coming to build the plants. They are coming to set up the technology. What I do not understand and have never understood is why we cannot hire Canadians and send them to South Korea, rather than bringing workers from South Korea to Canada. The South Korean ambassador went to see Windsor's police chief to ask him to find space to house 1,800 employees. They are not coming here to clean. They are coming to work and take jobs away from Canadian workers. That is unfortunate, but that is how it is. We have seen the same thing in other situations. The same thing is going to happen with Northvolt in Quebec. It is a plant that will be partly set up in the riding of the leader of the Bloc Québécois. We really need to think about these projects. These businesses are going to get nearly $50 billion in subsidies, which will serve in part to pay the temporary foreign workers who will spend some time here and then go home. The thing is, we do not know how long they will be here. This bill will probably not change anything. My colleague mentioned that, in fact. This will not change anything, so—

841 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/14/23 4:30:41 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

15 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Dec/14/23 4:30:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the workers who will be brought in to set up the battery plant are not scab labour. They are not replacement workers. The member needs to understand—

30 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/14/23 4:30:55 p.m.
Watch

That is debate and perhaps a point that could be made during questions and comments. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière‑du‑Loup.

33 words

Mr. Bernard Généreux

Dec/14/23 4:31:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to have to tell my colleague from Timmins—James Bay that the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology was told that replacement workers would be brought to Canada. Moreover, on the Government of Canada website, jobs are already being posted for Korean-speaking temporary foreign workers to come here. I do not know how many people in Windsor speak Korean, but one thing is certain: This is going to take jobs away from Canadians. I am a business owner myself. The decision to build a factory is not made overnight. It takes years of planning. That means it is possible to make a plan to hire Canadians and send them to South Korea for training on how to set up a plant. That has not happened. Instead, people are being brought in from Korea, and people from Sweden are going to be brought in to work at Northvolt. This is not the right way to develop employability in Canada. I will leave it at that for now, but one thing is for sure: When Canadian families pay their taxes next year, they will realize that $1,000 of that money is going to fund these foreign workers. That $50 billion or $45 billion-plus is the equivalent of $1,000 or more, adding up to nearly $4,000 per family for the next 10 years. Obviously, we cannot spend money and give subsidies to make batteries that, unfortunately, will be manufactured by temporary foreign workers. It is really not good for Canada. Everyone agrees with that. Here is another example. An electrode quality engineer position is currently being advertised, and applicants who are fluently bilingual in English and Korean are preferred. Once again, I am not sure how many Korean workers would qualify for this position in the Windsor region. I think it would have been much better if Canada had hired Canadian workers and sent them to South Korea for training so that they could learn to set up the battery plants in question. I would also like to briefly mention that members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology asked to see the controversial Stellantis, Northvolt and Volkswagen battery plant contracts. We saw the Volkswagen contract, but in a way—

383 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/14/23 4:33:46 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie on a point of order.

14 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

Dec/14/23 4:33:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague from the Conservative Party that we are talking about an anti-scab or anti-replacement worker bill. He is not at all on topic. I would like him to talk about the bill currently before us. I understand that he does not want to talk about it, that the Conservatives do not feel like talking about it, but that is what we are discussing today.

74 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/14/23 4:34:09 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member knows that members have some leeway on how they deliver their speeches. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière‑du‑Loup has to address the topic of the bill and I will allow him to finish his speech. He has two minutes left.

55 words

Mr. Bernard Généreux

Dec/14/23 4:34:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, some Canadian provinces, including Quebec and British Columbia, have anti-scab legislation. If we had anti-scab legislation in Canada, then we would need to make sure that it applies everywhere and in every sphere of economic activity. The construction and battery sectors where the government is investing $50 billion also have unionized workers, and the unions help ensure the advancement of working conditions. We completely agree. I think it is important to set the stage for all these plans that might come to fruition and that need to be protected in one way or another. The Liberal government that has been in office for eight years has not helped Canadian workers, quite the contrary. During the past eight years under this Liberal government, there have been more than 300 major, unprecedented labour disruptions. Had it not been for the pressure exerted by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, we would not even be here today, because the Liberals do not care about Canadian workers. They have proven it on many occasions. Once again, the government let this bill languish. It is still letting it languish and will continue to do so. Once the bill is passed, the government is giving itself another 18 months to implement it. The government could implement this bill a lot faster than that. After eight years of this Liberal government, work does not pay like it used to in Canada. I see that my time is already up. I could have talked for another 30 minutes, but I am ready to take questions from my colleagues.

272 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/14/23 4:36:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member truly understands anti-scab legislation. This is for companies existing today that have a workforce from a national perspective. When a strike mandate is given and the workers go out on strike, then the anti-scab legislation would be applicable. The legislation is there to ensure that the employers are not able to hire workers to replace the workers who are out on strike. That is the simplicity of the legislation. The legislation seems to have fairly broad support within the House. The only thing we are having a difficult time with is trying to determine whether or not the Conservatives actually support it. Will the member and his caucus colleagues vote in favour of this legislation ultimately going to committee, or do the member and his Conservative caucus plan to vote against the legislation?

144 words

Mr. Bernard Généreux

Dec/14/23 4:37:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is someone who is very influential in the House because he never lets an opportunity to speak pass him by, if I can put it that way. He will see what we decide when the time comes. One thing is for sure: My colleagues and I are here to help advance all the legislation that the government is implementing or trying to implement, because it is taking an incredibly long time to do so. It is no different with this bill. We will see when the time comes how we decide to vote.

97 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Dec/14/23 4:38:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to pick up on what my colleague from the Conservative Party just said, which is that they are here to advance legislation. It seems to me that it would be so much clearer if he could just tell us whether or not his party is going to be in favour of such a bill. It seems to me that would speed things up. If that is what they are here to do, it seems to me they have a great opportunity to do it and send that message loud and clear.

96 words

Mr. Bernard Généreux

Dec/14/23 4:39:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to mention that my colleague has worked extremely hard her entire life to improve conditions for workers, something we Conservatives have also done. Since our party was first created, we have been helping Canadian workers get better wages, better pay and better working conditions. Above all, we have worked to ensure that we do not end up with the kind of conflicts that the Liberals have created over the past eight years.

77 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Dec/14/23 4:39:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the fascinating things, since the member for Carleton took over, is the use of the Trojan horse approach. The Conservatives say they want to deal with all the stuff that is in the budget and keep us here until Christmas, but it was a way for them to be visibly on the record as voting against Ukraine. They managed to do that. What they have been doing with this bill on anti-scab legislation is carrying on their constant attack on investment in EV technology. We see the Conservatives of the 401 corridor making fun of EV batteries, saying they are going to catch fire, that they are inefficient, that we should just give the money out, as though we give it out to everybody. Volkswagen is making a $7-billion investment in Canada. That is enormous. There will be $5 billion from Stellantis, and GM is going to spend $35 billion on EV technology. The Conservatives are claiming that the people who are brought over to help set up the plant are scab labour. The Conservatives do not misunderstand the bill. They are abusing this bill to drive the agenda of the Conservative leader, the member who lives in Stornoway, who has undermined the EV investments that Canadians are dependent upon.

216 words

Labour
Ev

Mr. Bernard Généreux

Dec/14/23 4:40:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what my colleague just said is completely untrue. We are not against new technologies. We are not against battery plants. We never said that we were against that. Quite the contrary. What we are saying is that things have to be done the right way. When we give away $45 billion of our money, money that belongs to all Canadians, to plants from anyplace in the world, we have to make sure that they are going to hire Canadian workers, not foreign workers.

86 words