Human Resources Committee on Sept. 24th, 2024

[Scott Archer]

Yes. I don't really want to get drawn into a discussion about whose sign is going to be in my front yard come election time, but—

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

You don't have to. We just want good advice from you. That's all. We'll deal with the politics on our side.

[Scott Archer]

There's been a lot of work done countrywide that has employed union folks, but the Stellantis one sticks with us the most. It's most recent, and it stings a little bit.

As far as other projects go, with the battery plant coming up in St. Thomas, now is the time to get ahead of it and make sure that things are correctly in place to ensure that Canadian unionized labour is used on something like that. That project, if I recall correctly, is physically covering about five times the real estate of that in Windsor, and the Windsor one is absolutely massive.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you again. I appreciate the answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Coteau.

Ms. Chabot for two and a half minutes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to take advantage of these two and a half minutes to propose a motion, which I duly tabled over 48 hours ago. It too concerns workers, albeit from a different angle. The motion reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study of the situation of workers in the seasonal industry with regard to the inadequacy of the employment insurance program to meet the needs of these workers, who often face job insecurity and financial difficulties for themselves and their families; that the Committee devote 3 meetings, including 2 to hear witnesses—

In short, seasonal workers in the regions or rural regions often have to deal with having no income or employment. This study seeks, then, to examine the situation with regard to employment insurance.

I'm seeking your support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

The motion is in order, and it has been given proper notice.

Is there any discussion on the motion of Madame Chabot?

We have Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to keep listening to witness testimony. I don't doubt the sincerity of our colleague. I know that's an important issue for her, but it's a matter that could be taken up in committee business, as well.

With that, Mr. Chair, I move to adjourn debate on the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We have a motion to adjourn debate on the motion of Madame Chabot.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)

The motion to adjourn debate has been upheld. We'll return to testimony from witnesses.

Your time is up, Madame Chabot.

Next, we have Ms. Zarrillo, for two and a half minutes.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's disappointing to see the Liberals and the Conservatives continuing to team up to shut down really important conversations around workers in this country.

I want to thank all of the witnesses today. I appreciate all the outstanding work that all of you do.

I, too, wanted to follow up on a motion that I brought at the last committee meeting, when we heard about the detrimental impact of contract flipping on workers. As I said last time, we as parliamentarians must do what we can to protect workers from contract flipping. We heard about it again today.

Notice has been given, so I move:

That in the opinion of the committee the Canadian Labour Code be amended to close a loophole that annuls existing labour contracts or collective agreements when there is a change of employer for subcontractors working at Canadian airports by implementing amendments outlined in NDP PMB C-330 titled An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (successor rights and obligations—airports), and that the committee report this to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

You are correct. The motion has received the proper notice for it to be moved.

Now we'll move to discussion on the motion of Ms. Zarrillo.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I still have the floor.

I just want to thank Madame Chabot. For two meetings in a row, Madame Chabot has put forward and made excellent comments about airport workers. I thank the Bloc for the work they've been doing there.

I also want to thank my Conservative colleague for talking about the fact that there are opportunities to have action.

I brought with me today section 47.2. It's not enough. We need to have this in legislation. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this motion and that we will really start looking out for workers in this country where there are loopholes in the code that are not protecting them.

Thanks so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Mr. Fragiskatos, you had your hand up.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

This could be taken up in committee business. I want to keep listening to witnesses. I think the majority of colleagues feel the same way.

With that, I move to adjourn debate on the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We have a motion to adjourn debate on the motion of Ms. Zarrillo.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)

The motion is carried. That means debate is adjourned and your time is up, Ms. Zarrillo.

We'll move to Ms. Gladu for five minutes, please.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I think my colleague Mr. Coteau is caught in the past. I want to bring him up to date. Ten days ago, the Conservative leader said, “A Common Sense Conservative Government will not introduce or pass bills C-377, C-525 or right to work laws. Period. This commitment will be written in my election platform.” That's good news.

I want to start with questioning Scott Archer.

Let me brag a little bit about the trades in Sarnia—Lambton. There are 5,000 skilled trades jobs that are the envy of North America and perhaps the world in terms of their quality, their productivity and their safety performance.

Mr. Archer, you outlined a few of the concerns that you have about threats to receiving ongoing powerful paycheques, like temporary foreign workers and some of the difficulty getting funding for apprenticeships. Are there other things that you think are threatening the health of union jobs in your area?

[Scott Archer]

One thing I mentioned was the lack of a government initiative to help with existing plants and their emissions decreases. That's something that could definitely keep a lot of plants open in our area, keep a lot of jobs in our area and keep food on the table for folks. It's not just about expanding; it's about maintaining what you have. Some of these plants work together and serve specific functions to support other refineries. It's a tough loss when one link in the chain goes. It can have an exponential impact instead of linear. It can really have a ripple effect that's quite devastating.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

You may be referring to the actions of Minister Steven Guilbeault to shut down the INEOS facility instead of addressing emissions reduction, which is a technology that was available and could be put in place.

Let's move on to the next question.

Part of compensation for good union jobs is benefits. The government is considering introducing what it calls a universal single-payer pharmacare system. That would mean that everyone would lose the payment system they have now. Most union payment plans—I used to be on the Local 663 one—cover 15,000 medications and other services, whereas the public plans tend to cover only 4,500. Would you be in favour of giving up those hard-fought-for union benefits if the government goes ahead with its plan?

[Scott Archer]

I would definitely not be in favour of touching our benefits. We've worked hard for them.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I would expect to hear similar answers from the Canadian Labour Congress. Would you be in favour of giving up your hard-won benefits for the federal government to manage your critical medications?

[Bea Bruske]

I've sat at many bargaining tables, and benefits are hard fought for. Nobody is prepared to give up benefits.

However, it's critically important that we actually gain a national pharmacare plan because, unfortunately, the reality is that while 80% of unionized workers have supplemental health benefits, 56% of non-unionized workers have zero benefits. In order for us to take care of all workers in Canada, we need to make sure we have some universal plans. Those plans can also augment the existing union-negotiated plans, leaving some of the additional money that would be saved by those employers—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

The government is intending to replace your union plans. I just wanted to get on the record that that wasn't a good idea.

Let me talk again about the Stellantis facility and the other battery plants. There's been $55 billion of taxpayer money put in to create what turns out to be about 3,000 jobs for Canadians. If you do the math on that, you should have just given people the money and they'd never have to work again.

What do you think should be done to ensure that, going forward, all government contracts protect Canadian jobs? We've heard comments from the Stelco workers about not including Chinese steel in Canadian contracts like they do. Would you have any advice, Mr. Archer, for future contracts?

[Scott Archer]

Yes, there definitely needs to be verbiage in future contracts that the work needs to be done by Canadian workers. The way it has gone, as we've discussed on the Stellantis job, has been definitely less than optimal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have five minutes.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

First of all, let's be crystal clear about what pharmacare is from the government's perspective.

In what I have read in the legislation, and in what the government has also said on the matter publicly or privately in discussions that have happened within our caucus, there's been nothing about taking away benefits from anybody. That is not the view of the government. I could go back and talk about how Conservative friends across the aisle wanted to move retirement or OAS eligibility from 65 to 67. That's on record. We know that was a fact.

However, Mr. Chair, I do want to begin my questions with Ms. Bruske.

Ms. Bruske, how critical are union dues for the functioning of unions and members?