Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2018

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Motion No. 190 today, introduced by the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville. I stand here also as the deputy shadow minister for employment, workforce development and labour. I am so thrilled to work with the previous speaker, the shadow minister for employment workforce development and labour, the member for Foothills, Alberta. This file is very important to us and to all Canadians.

There are many challenges in the construction industry and I want to give a few statistics before I delve into what I want to talk about. The Canadian Construction Association says that its sector employs almost 1.4 million Canadians. That is seven per cent of Canada's total workforce. That is significant. Annual construction is responsible for about $120 billion in economic activity, or seven per cent of overall GDP in Canada.

Construction work in Canada will continue to be a large economic contributor for years to come and it is essential that all governments support the efforts of the industry and efforts to attract skilled workers and provide workers with the training and support they need.

As we heard earlier, the Liberal government announced $180 billion in spending on infrastructure several years ago. Unfortunately, I hear from many contractors in my constituency and province that they are not seeing the money. The statistic we heard earlier was that only six per cent of that $180 billion has been let and is actually working on real projects. That is very concerning.

I want to talk about my own experience in the construction industry. I am involved in the heavy construction aggregate industry, so I have a firsthand knowledge. I am a member of the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association and I spent time working on the aggregates committee, as my company is involved in that type of work.

It is very difficult to attract skilled workers such as apprentice heavy duty mechanics or welders, and there are lots of different reasons for that. It is difficult to attract drivers. The transportation industry in Canada is robust. Some of the largest transporters internationally and across Canada are located in my riding, so there is a heavy draw on class 1 vehicle motor operators. They also contribute to the construction industry by driving gravel trucks and heavy equipment haulers.

There is also a serious lack of heavy equipment operators in the construction industry that contributes to the overall shortage of workers. One of the aspects that is missing is training for heavy equipment operators. Training is not very accessible. We do not have a program for it in any of our colleges or universities, and oftentimes it is the job creator who does on-the-job training for heavy equipment operators. This is a direct cost to contractors and employers and something that governments need to look at.

The scope of the motion has been narrowed by definition in the motion to the GTA and Hamilton areas. Several speakers, including speakers from within the Liberal Party, have indicated that it is a very narrow scope and that there would be good reason and merit to expand the scope of the study to include the construction industry right across Canada. The member who presented the motion should entertain expanding the scope of the study, because the issue is not just problematic in the GTA and Hamilton areas.

In fact, the Business Development Bank of Canada says that 40% of Canadian entrepreneurs are already having difficulty finding the workers they need. I have some statistics from the BDC. In Ontario it is 40%. The member obviously is very aware of that. The scarcity of workers in British Columbia is also at 45%, and in the Atlantic region it is 50%. Quebec is at 37% and in the Prairies we do a little better at 32%, but there is a significant need for workers in the construction industry. I would encourage the member who presented the motion to be open to expanding the scope of this study to include all sectors right across Canada.

How do labour shortages affect construction? Contractors are sometimes faced with the problem of not knowing if they will have adequate labour resources to complete a project, so they have to bid on projects accordingly. When they do that, the price of a project goes up and we see construction prices rise as entrepreneurs and contractors have to anticipate that they may not be able to complete a project on time because of construction labour shortages. That is something we need to look at as well.

Another thing that was mentioned earlier is that our trade sectors and Red Seal programs need to be given proper attention. That is why, when the previous Conservative government rolled out programs that supported the Red Seal training program, it was very well received. It encouraged people to consider enrolling in colleges, even universities, that would train them in the trades, with the ability to get licensed and their Red Seal certification. The Conservative government supported that financially for employers and employees to pursue that avenue.

If schools, high schools and parents would encourage children that there are very viable, honourable careers in the construction industry, I think more young people would explore the idea of participating in the trades. A lot of folks absolutely love working in the trades and if they received that encouragement in schools and at home, I think we would see a significant increase in young kids enrolling in trades programs. That is something that I hope this study will also conclude: that we need to get youth interested in the trades.

Working in trades is a very good occupational option for a lot of people. I know a lot of people in the mechanical side of the heavy construction industry, whether it is automotive or heavy industrial mechanics, making well into six figures, and there is nothing shabby about a six-figure job these days. That is something most people do not realize is available and attainable in the trade and construction industries.

There are a lot of challenges in the construction industry, but one challenge I want to allude to is seasonal work. As we know, we live north of the 49th parallel and we have winter. Winter has hit Calgary with record snowfalls already this year. My wife sent me a text this morning showing that there is snow in southern Manitoba today. The construction industry is seasonal. We need to recognize that. That creates specific challenges not only for getting the work done but also employing people in the construction industry. We have to have programs and backstops that accommodate the fluctuation in the construction industry so that people do not only have work for six months of the year and then have to look for other types of employment to support their families.

We have to make sure there are backstops in place that support workers in the seasonal construction industry. There are some trades, of course, and some construction that carries on year-round, but not all construction. We need to be sensitive to that and I am hoping that the study will recognize that and offer up some solutions.

Another sector I would like to talk about, which is not directly related to the construction industry, is the aviation industry. I happen to be a pilot, so I have some interest in that. The aviation industry employs 154,000 people and right now Canada is facing a shortage of 3,000 pilots. We heard recently in the House that our military is short 450 pilots. Therefore, we are experiencing labour shortages not only in the construction industry but in many different sectors.

I know this study focuses specifically on the Canadian construction industry in the GTA and Hamilton areas. I hope that study will be expanded. I am looking forward to the outcome of the study and supporting the motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I resume debate, I will inform the next speaker that I will, unfortunately, have to interrupt him.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has two minutes for now.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for bringing forward this extremely important motion. I also want to congratulate him for bringing it to the House rather than straight to committee, as has been suggested by one of the NDP members.

The reason I say that is because when a motion comes before the House and gets the authority and sanctioning of the House to then proceed to committee, it has the full weight of the House behind it and it signifies to the committee that this is an important subject matter for the committee to undertake, given that the House has endorsed it.

Getting to the member's motion specifically, this is the exact kind of motion we need at this time when it comes to the trades. We have heard the statistics about shortage in trades, obviously in the GTA but throughout Canada. In fact, throughout North America and parts of the G7 countries are experiencing these shortages.

Mike Rowe is an American TV personality who used to have a show called Dirty Jobs. It was about visiting various job sites and trying to highlight what it was like to have a job in the trades.

Unfortunately, a lot of the stereotypes that come about as a result of having a job in the trades, as not being quite on par with other jobs, have developed over time and have brought us to where we are. I think back to my grandparents who came here from both Italy and Holland.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have eight minutes the next time this matter is before the House.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been advocating for the government to put in place a plan to deal with the influx of people making asylum claims in Canada since January 2017.

For a plan to be effective, we must recognize the global context. We must ensure that our border communities are supported and are safe. We must ensure that the integrity of our asylum system is upheld and that our policies and actions respect the international obligations and the rights and human dignity of asylum claimants.

Nearly two years and later there still is no plan. Instead, the government continues an ad hoc approach. We now have four ministers on the file and we cannot even get an accurate answer on the public record on the state of things. All too often, the Liberal government will say one thing and then turn around and contradict those words with its actions.

Last week was Gender Equality Week. The so-called feminist Prime Minister loves that label, but how can he claim it while remaining silent as the Trump administration engages in a policy that blocks asylum claims based on gender-based violence?

Just to be clear, there are 65.8 million people who are forcefully displaced globally, 25 million of them are recognized by the UN as refugees and 75% of those refugees are women and children.

We all recall how the Trump administration and immigration policy ripped children away from their parents and threw them into baby jails. That resulted in 860 children in the U.S. border patrol holding cells for longer than the 72-hours court-mandated limit. One of those children was held in confinement for 25 days.

Shockingly, three months after the court ordered the children to be reunited with their parents, 100 of those children are still in federal custody. Oh my God, the number of children whose parents have been deported, who the U.S. government has no way of finding, is 26. I cannot even imagine what that is like.

This information should be so upsetting for all of us. It should send shockwaves down the spine of a civilized nation. This should be a wake-up call for those who still want to insist that the U.S. is a safe third country.

The truth is that the Prime Minister's lack of courage in challenging Trump on this gross and blatant violation of international laws and covenants makes us complicit.

A week ago, the Minister of Border Security would not rule out the option of applying the safe third country agreement to the entire Canadian border, as proposed by the Conservatives, effectively suggesting that our borders should be shut down to asylum seekers. Never mind that it would be a violation of international laws, but as if taking a page out of Trump's approach would somehow be good for Canada. This kind of approach by the government has only provided space for divisive anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rhetoric to gain a foothold in Canada.

The lack of leadership has allowed space for the Conservatives to mislead and misinform the public on a near-daily basis. It has provided space for anti-immigration measures to find their way into the election platforms of the provinces. Let us look what happened in Ontario, and now the most recent election in Quebec. Surely the government realizes that its approach is not working.

The government should honour Canada's well-earned reputation by showing real leadership and courage. It should exercise Canada's authority by invoking section 10 of the safe third country agreement and suspend it now.

[Matt DeCourcey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure my colleague across the way that as the Minister of Border Security works with his colleagues in the U.S. to modernize the safe third country agreement and as our government works to properly triage and provide refuge to irregular migrants in accordance with Canadian law in our international obligations, I am happy to stand and remind the member opposite of the humanitarian leadership, the action taken and the results delivered by this government over the last number of years.

To begin, I would remind her of the national effort that led to the welcoming and resettlement of over 50,000 Syrians in less than two years.

Thanks to the generosity of Canadians across the country, we were able to give these refugees hope and a fresh start. The quick and efficient resettlement of Syrian refugees by Canada was praised around the world.

As well, I would remind the House and Canadians that our government has provided assistance to survivors of Daesh and their family members, including vulnerable Yazidi women and children.

Since December 31, 2017, Canada has issued just over 1,200 visas to survivors of Daesh sponsored by the government. We worked closely with several international organizations to ensure their safe travel and to help them resettle in Canada.

Canada has earned a reputation as a recognized international leader as well in settlement and integration. Newcomers to Canada receive the information that they need about life in Canada as well as the communities in which they intend to settle. They receive language training. They receive help finding a job. They connect with established immigrants and Canadians to help survey the community, get around and become comfortable.

Once they are here, immigrants and refugees have access to a full suite of settlement supports and services provided by over 500 specialized service provider organizations from coast to coast to coast in all regions of Canada.

Our government is also making significant new investments in our settlement programming, and we have enhanced coordination with our provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure stronger outcomes, particularly for refugees.

When it comes to planning resettlement, under our multi-year immigration levels plan, government-assisted refugees landing in Canada will increase from 7,500 in 2018 to 10,000 government-assisted refugees in 2020. That is an increase of over 33%. Our plan to resettle 18,000 privately-sponsored refugees in 2018 is more than triple what was in place when we took power in 2018. Also, under this government, Canada's 2018 target to resettle refugees has doubled to 20,000 refugees across all streams.

Finally, in budget 2018, our government announced a new commitment to welcome and resettle an additional 1,000 vulnerable women and girls, who we know will be welcomed with open arms in Canada. This additional 1,000 refugees are in addition to the government-assisted refugee targets in our multi-year immigration levels plan, and are accompanied by the appropriate budget allocations to ensure its success.

I conclude by saying we continue to show leadership on the international stage in our humanitarian efforts.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have heard from many experts that the situation before us is not a crisis, yet the Liberal government has managed to turn it into a leadership crisis.

We heard yesterday at committee, and the parliamentary secretary was sitting right there, that it is the safe third country agreement and no other factor causing these irregular crossings. If people had access to a safe, orderly means of entering into Canada to make an asylum claim, they would do so.

The government should stop putting asylum seekers at risk, stop forcing them to cross over irregularly, and put order back at the border crossings by suspending the safe third country agreement. It should adequately resource the Immigration and Refugee Board, so it can do its job and expeditiously process asylum claims.

Finally, it should learn from the Syrian refugee initiative and acknowledge that refugees left in limbo for four months in a hotel is not a plan.

[Matt DeCourcey]

Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague mentioned the testimony delivered yesterday at committee, because every single witness at that committee stressed that it was in fact not a crisis that we are seeing in Canada right now. We are undertaking a significant study on migration trends in the 21st century, and our colleague across the way knows there are many contributing factors that lead to asylum seekers showing up irregularly in Canada.

I want to reiterate that the record of humanitarian leadership under this government, is a record that I know Canadians are proud of and that the world has lauded Canada for.

There have been 56,000 Syrian refugees welcomed to Canada, and 1,400 survivors of the brutality of Daesh, many of whom are Yazidi women and girls. We have an additional commitment to resettle 1,000 vulnerable women and girls. There has been a doubling of our refugee levels to 27,000 in 2018. There has been a tripling of the privately sponsored refugee stream to match the generosity of Canadians.

We are proud of that record, and I believe Canadians are as well.

Veterans

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister a question about the services provided to francophone women. I appreciate that he recognized that it is an especially troubling situation that needs to be addressed. However, even though he said he would try to take action, he did not say anything about what he would do. This situation requires immediate action. These women veterans served their country with honour. Not only is it more difficult for them than their male counterparts to access services, which is completely unacceptable in an egalitarian society, but it is even more difficult for francophone women to access these services. They are discriminated against on two grounds: gender and language.

Since the Liberals did not specify how they would go about addressing this situation quickly and effectively, I rise today to ask them what they are going to do. Women veterans are used to the military method, which has a specific objective and very detailed plans. They know exactly what they will be doing. They deserve a much more comprehensive answer than being told that the government will do what it can to solve the problem.

The services in question may be related to problems that are very difficult to explain. There is a danger in telling women veterans, especially francophone ones, that they can have faster access to services if they agree to be served in English. Some women may agree because the situation is urgent, but they are not able to express themselves as clearly in a second language, or else they do not understand all of the nuances of what they are being asked. This means that they could miss out on services or benefits to which they are entitled.

A number of cases of sexual assault and harassment have come to light in recent years. Many women veterans have been victims, and this often has huge consequences on their careers, their mental health and their personal lives. We absolutely cannot ask them to wait longer than men to talk about it and to access services related to events in their military career. It is very worrisome if the military is unable to provide these women with services in their first language or is telling them to agree to receiving services in another language so they will not wait so long.

Considering the seriousness of the health problems that may affect these veterans, particularly in terms of mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, the government must do more than simply say it will look into the issue. It must give a detailed explanation of what it will do right now to fix the situation as quickly as possible.

How will this be done and how much time will it take? These women veterans deserve a clear, detailed answer.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for drawing the attention of the House to this question as well as that of the Prime Minister, who first provided her with a response. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for her service in the Canadian Armed Forces.

We know that some female members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are released for medical reasons encounter delays in receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. There are men who also have to wait, as well. We agree with the ombudsman and the hon. member that the time it takes for veterans to receive their benefits is a problem that needs to be resolved. That is why we have hired nearly 470 new frontline officers to address this problem.

Is that perfect? No, we must continue to do more. We have to do better with our frontline officers, but we must also improve the delivery of services in French in the department. As a francophone, I will be a great advocate for this file to ensure that francophone men and women are properly served in French. The Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada are making significant progress in this regard, but there is still a lot of work to do.

Over the last three years, there has been a 32% increase in applications for disability benefits. This is a good thing. It means that more people are aware of the benefits available to them and are coming forward for the help they need.

We have invested more than $10 billion in new benefits, programs and services, including the new caregiver recognition benefit, the education and training benefit and the veterans emergency fund. These benefits will ensure that female veterans, and all veterans, receive the services they need to support their overall well-being and that of their families.

This is not just about processing a backlog of applications. To meet the increased demand, we have improved the services provided by our officers and reduced each officer's caseload. What I can say is that we want to further improve our services.

We have invested an additional $42.8 million as of this fiscal year to enhance capacity at Veterans Affairs Canada.

I think that answers the member's question about how we are going to address this problem.

Veterans Affairs and the Canadian Armed Forces have made significant progress in streamlining the process. They are working hard to modify the system and processes to gain efficiencies and to ensure that individuals coming forward receive the benefits and services they need.

The two departments have also developed a seamless transition plan that enables staff at Veterans Affairs Canada to tackle potential obstacles before military personnel are released from the Canadian Armed Forces.

Veterans Affairs has been triaging disability benefit claims so that veterans who are applying for mental health support get their applications adjudicated on a priority basis to make sure that they get access to treatment as quickly as possible. Applications are also expedited for those veterans and family members at medical risk, in financial distress or with unmet health needs.

No veteran should have to wait for the support and benefits they are entitled to. A two-tier program would be unacceptable. Our government—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the member's time is up.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague that I agree that veterans should not have to wait to have access to services.

However, the specific questions that I have for him are these. What has been found to account for the fact that some veterans do not get services at the same time as others because of their gender? What has been found to account for the fact that francophones do not get services as quickly as others?

I want to know what specific measures the government is going to take to ensure that gender- and language-based discrimination are completely eliminated from our veteran support system.

[Stéphane Lauzon]

Madam Speaker, as we said earlier, it is simple. The answer was clear. We have work to do.

We inherited a system that was lacking. We are in the process of improving the system that was in place and we are providing proper services. We hired an additional 470 people. We invested $10 billion in various programs. We are taking back control. As I said in my first answer, we must improve the delivery of all services to veterans in French.

International Trade

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on a question I had earlier this year on May 7. The question was about NAFTA and where we were at at that time. Of course there was a lot of information coming out of the United States at that time and Canadians were very worried about what type of deal we would reach. Now we know that Canada has signed on to the USMCA, a new name for the agreement, and many concessions were made by Canadians.

I will start with a positive. The auto provisions are good, and this is indicative of having people in the room who understood auto. The stakeholders who were in that room understood the impact of what was being negotiated there.

In very stark contrast, none of that happened in the CPTPP, which the Liberals are trying to ram through right now with the help of the Conservatives.

On the one hand, we had stakeholders in a room and we were able to achieve something. On the other hand, with another deal, there were no stakeholders, there was no consultation, no communication and we have given it up. While there is a positive in the USMCA, it is merely being cancelled out by what is happening to auto in the CPTPP. We cannot on one hand champion a sector and then on the exact same day turn around and sell that sector out in another trade agreement. It is bizarre what we have experienced in the House this week.

I want to talk about chapter 11 being removed. I want to thank New Democrats who have stood in the House. I want to thank labour and civil society that have fought to have this provision removed across the country. I congratulate all of them on this success. For years and years they mounted campaigns to have chapter 11 removed. It is a huge victory for them.

Again, in this confusing Liberal trade policy, we listened today to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs talking about how ISDS has been bad for Canada. I am pleased they have woken up to that fact, something they used to talk about when they were in opposition but forgot about when they became government. Under them, in CETA, we have created a brand new investor court system that they said was the gold standard of trade agreements. Now, in the CPTPP we are signing on to ISDS provisions again, on the very same day in the House. This is the conundrum of Liberal trade policy. On the one hand it is bad in one trade deal, but on the other, it is good in this trade deal. Canadians are baffled in trying to make sense of what the Liberal government is doing in terms of trade and on that file.

We also know that dairy has been sacrificed again. This is death by a thousand cuts. What we are talking about are losses that happened in CETA and CPTPP where the Liberals and Conservatives have joined to push through with dairy concessions. Under the Conservatives, at least there was some type of compensation that existed. That has completely evaporated under the Liberal government.

I want to read a tweet from the Dairy Farmers of Canada yesterday about compensation. This was directed to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It said, “Compensations: Stop suggesting our livelihood can be bought”.

There is no amount of money that will bring a family farm back when it has been lost, and there is no amount of safety that is more important than our food safety in our country, and we are giving that up in this agreement.

We also know about the IP provisions. There is an increase to the cost of pharmaceuticals for Canadians, so my question is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Sorry, the time is up.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Matt DeCourcey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, when the member rose in the House in May, she raised the issue of uncertainty among Canadian businesses and individuals due to the NAFTA negotiations that were ongoing at that time. She need not worry anymore, and I hope she will join me in celebrating the announcement that took place at the beginning of this week that we have a new United States-Mexico-Canada agreement.

The conclusion of this deal will bring certainty and stability that contribute to the continued prosperity of our economy. Not only that, this deal is going to make Canadians' lives better, and it will be profoundly beneficial for our economy, for Canadian families and for the middle class.

The rules of origins for autos are revised to require higher levels of North American content, which will incentivize production and sourcing in North America, plus, we have a new labour value content provision that requires a certain amount of the making of cars to be done by high-paid workers. This is a tangible and real boon to our auto workers and will ensure that Canadian auto production is secure for years to come.

I am glad to hear my colleague across the way laud the provisions that secure good labour standards and good economic opportunities in the auto sector in Canada.

We have also secured an exemption from any future use of Section 232 measures. First, if Section 232 measures are to be implemented against any sector, we will now have 60 days to negotiate a better outcome for Canadians. Second, if there are Section 232 tariffs on autos, we have an exemption for up to 2.6 million vehicles, not including light trucks. For auto parts, that exemption is worth $32.4 billion U.S. These are levels that far exceed current Canadian exports, and they mean security and stability for our auto workers.

It has been especially gratifying to hear from auto workers about this deal and what it means to them. For example, a CBC article from yesterday quoted Lino LoMedico, a team leader at the Chrysler assembly plant in Windsor, saying that Monday “was a new day” for workers.

As we know, the steel and aluminum tariffs from the U.S. remain in place, but our response on that issue is as firm as ever. Our strong dollar-for-dollar retaliation measures against the U.S. remain in force. We put them in place because we have to stand up for our workers and we have to defend our economy. Actions that threaten our prosperity cannot, and under this government will not, go unmet.

We are providing help and support to businesses and workers affected by tariffs, including by making up to $2 billion available to defend and protect their interests.

As our negotiation of the USMCA shows, our government is there for Canadians. We know that their jobs, their retirement savings, their investments and their well-being depend on their government fighting for their interests, and that is exactly what we have done.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the middle class in Canada is steel and aluminum workers, and steel and aluminum workers have called this deal a sellout because of the complete and utter failure of the government, in signing this deal, to remove the steel and aluminum tariffs.

I want to read a quote from Ken Neumann, who is the Canadian director of United Steelworkers here in Canada. We are talking about the livelihood of tens of thousands of people, so I want to read one line.

The Liberals made concession after concession, until the Trump administration got the deal it wanted.... So much for the “win-win-win” deal promised by the government.

These workers have been betrayed by the Liberal government.

[Matt DeCourcey]

Madam Speaker, we can be most proud of the work done by our negotiators to secure this United States-Mexico-Canada agreement. It is a deal that is good for Canada's economy. It is good for Canadian workers and Canadian families, and it is good for Canada's middle class.

Many Canadians agree with that sentiment. For example, Jerry Dias, from Unifor, said that he is “pleased...with what we were able to accomplish at the bargaining table”, adding that “the auto industry in Canada is alive and well and will be thriving for generations to come” because of this new agreement. As we have said all along to our workers, this government has their backs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:01 p.m.)