Debates of Nov. 27th, 2023

Canada Labour Code

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia said earlier, the Bloc Québécois introduced a similar bill in 1990 and reintroduced it 10 times. What is rather odd is that, every time the Liberals were in power they voted against the bill, and every time they were in opposition they voted in favour of it. This leaves the impression that they are anti-union.

There is a provision in the bill that once again gives the impression that they are anti-union, specifically, the one that says the bill will only come into force a year and a half after it receives royal assent. This means that, after the work of Parliament here and the study by the Senate, there will still be a waiting period of a year and half. As a result, an election will very likely be called before workers are given these basic rights.

Does my colleague not think that a year and a half is unreasonable? Why do we need so much time for a legislative measure that is simple to implement and that is easily implemented in most developed countries?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important question.

I would like to say that I have supported unions my entire life.

I have always been pro-labour. Before I entered university, I worked at a pulp and paper mill in British Columbia. They were on strike. I walked a picket line. I walked a picket line for the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union at a cannery, where I grew up in Prince Rupert. Private sector unions and their training facilities are located in my riding, along with their headquarters.

I will always be in support of the rights of workers from coast to coast to coast. This is just another example of that. Again, the best deals are done at the negotiating table. We know that. Whether they are carpenters, labourers, electricians or workers in federally regulated sectors of our economy, we know the best deals are done at the negotiating table.

We always need to make sure that the balance is there. We know that 97% or 98% of deals are done even before a strike happens. We understand there are methods of mediation and arbitration. Mediators come in. We all understand it.

This is just another step in the maturity of our Canadian labour market. It is the right thing to do. It is a good thing for Canadian workers. We, on this side of the aisle, will always stand up for Canadian workers, unlike the official opposition.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will remind members to keep their questions and answers as short as possible so everyone can participate in the debate this evening.

We will resume debate with the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this bill today. It is legislation that I have supported for a very long time. I have advocated for it since my days sitting in the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We know that the Government of Canada believes in collective bargaining. We always have. We have always been very supportive of the union movement, and we are one of the governments that has made significant amendments and has had several pieces of legislation to support workers in Canada since we began our time in office.

We really believe that Canadian workers have the right to fair, honest and balanced negotiations where replacement workers are not waiting in the wings to take their jobs. We have all seen it. We have seen how this story plays out across Canada when workers have earned the right to strike and have earned the right to collective bargaining, yet when they are out on the picket line, someone else is called in to do their jobs.

Canadian workers need to be able to trust that union jobs are good jobs and that union leaders are able to represent their best interests in fair, honest and balanced negotiations at that bargaining table. That is a fair process. It is why we are introducing this legislation today, which bans the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces. I hope this is the beginning of a process of fairness that we will see legislated in provinces and territories across the country.

The union movement has been making this case for generations. For generations, it has been saying that the threat of replacement workers tips the bargaining table balance in the employer's favour. We have seen that many times over and over again. We think its members are right, and we agree with the statements they are making. It is unfair and contrary to the spirit of the true collective bargaining process, which has been legally binding in Canada for many decades.

We are trying to level the playing field, and level it in a way that supports unions and the rights that they have fought for and have won over many decades in Canada. This legislation is so important for Canadian workers because, when contract negotiations drag on and consistently reach a stalemate, workers are ultimately faced with a decision between two choices. They can either take the less-than-satisfactory employer offer, or they can go on strike. Those are the only options they have. They certainly feel that it is not always a fair process.

Making a decision to go on strike is not an easy one. No unionized workers vote to walk the picket line without weighing the decision and its implications carefully. It is invariably a money-losing proposition, at least in the short term, for all of them. It hurts their families financially, and hurts them and their families psychologically. Sometimes withdrawing labour is the workers' only way, the last case scenario, to exert the pressure they need to get the deal they deserve and have worked for.

I have walked the picket line with unionized workers many times in my political career simply because I believed in what they were doing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but we are having some interpretation problems.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia raised this issue.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is correct. There is no interpretation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are hearing that the audio is not as good as it should be.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a House of Commons-issued headset, so it should be working. Maybe I could continue, and if there is a problem, you can let me know.

During the time I have been serving people across Labrador, in particular, and across the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I have continuously—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are still not getting the interpretation. I will confer with the Table for a second. I do apologize.

The problem we are running into is the headset. Unfortunately, for interpretation, it does not sound as good.

We will have to go to the next speaker. I will confer with the Table to see if we can allow the hon. member to complete her speech. The hon. member only got about halfway through before there was a problem with interpretation. Hopefully, we will have the opportunity to rectify the problem so the hon. member will be able to finish.

I apologize. I guess that is the fun part of being virtual.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your reserving the time for me.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

It is always a privilege to stand in the House to speak on behalf of the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country. Today, I rise to speak to the government's legislation, Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations. The bill has two main elements. First, it would affect the use of replacement workers only in those workplaces that fall under federal regulation. To be clear, this is not for federal public sector workers. Second, the bill would amend the maintenance of activities process. Again, to be clear, this is not for federal public sector workers. This is only for companies that fall within federal regulation.

If this legislation is so fantastic for workers, as the labour minister and other Liberal members say, it is extremely curious that the Liberals did not implement it into the contracts it negotiated just recently in the federal public sector. The Liberals plan to enforce legislation for the private sector that they themselves will not be held to. The golden rule of doing unto others as one would have them do unto oneself does not exist for the NDP-Liberal government.

One of the most interesting parts of this legislation is that, if it were to pass through the House of Commons and the Senate, and receive royal assent, it would not come into effect until after the next election. Here we have another example of the Liberal government promising sunny ways now and pushing off the effects its policies would have until after an election.

One of the great privileges of serving as the shadow minister for employment and workforce development is the number of meetings and conversations I have with workers, including unionized workers. I have talked with many workers from many different industries across many provinces in the country, in Yukon, and in my community.

Most workers whom I have talked to have top priorities in their concerns with tax increases, inflation and interest rates eating away at their paycheques. These are the top issues they bring up with me. I have had workers talk to me about concerns with stable EI programs, access to training, temporary foreign workers, better access to professional testing, and the ability for people working in the trades to expense items such as tools.

I was recently speaking to a young man who is a construction worker who told me that he has a place to sleep, but it is not a home. Even though he has a good job, he does not feel like he will ever own a home. We know it now takes 25 years to save for a home in Canada. There are so many good jobs that either have left the country or have evaporated, but the NDP-Liberal government does not want to talk about that.

Let us look at the forestry sector. Thousands of good-paying jobs have been lost in my home province of British Columbia alone. These were good-paying jobs supporting families. It is not like there was less of a need for softwood lumber or pulp, but due to the Liberal government's not negotiating a softwood lumber agreement with the U.S., a lack of business confidence and an unfriendly business regime created by the government, the jobs have gone south of the border. The Prime Minister promised a new softwood lumber agreement within 100 days of his first election in 2015. We are now thousands of days past this, three U.S. presidents later and no closer to that agreement.

Mills have shut and thousands of jobs have been lost in B.C. alone. This is another broken promise. Two hundred workers whose livelihoods supported their families in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country lost their jobs when the mill closed. The Liberals were not successful in negotiating a softwood lumber section into CUSMA either. They left it up to negotiating a separate agreement, and this has not happened.

In the energy sector, over $100 billion in investments evaporated with project cancellations under the NDP-Liberal government, and tens of thousands of jobs have either been lost, or there were lost opportunities. Many cited Canada's red-tape regulatory regime as a major barrier. There used to be direct flights to Fort Mac from Kelowna International Airport, with families living in Kelowna or Lake Country. When there were massive layoffs in the energy sector early in the Liberal government's time, the flights stopped.

Around this time, I recall speaking to a family where the husband had a good job working for an oil and gas company, and his company laid off a lot of its workforce. The only work he could find at the time was cutting lawns, and he and his wife had to make the tough family decision for the wife to go back to work, even though, with two young children, she did not want to. Even with them both working, they were making less than his one previous job in the energy sector. She was also no longer able to volunteer at the kids' school, and it created a lot of coordinating challenges with activities in the family. These are the tough decisions parents make every day. If the government were truly concerned about workers, as it says it is, it should focus on making sure there is investment in Canada and removing red tape and bureaucracy. It should stop stifling business and focus on creating well-paying jobs.

The anti-energy Prime Minister and radical activist environment minister have shrunk Canada’s energy workforce while promising a “just transition” that cannot guarantee workers the same pay or benefits. The government’s own document on the just transition refers to affecting 2.7 million workers' jobs within the energy, manufacturing, construction, transportation and agriculture sectors. Let us not forget the anti-energy industry bill, Bill C-69, parts of which have now been deemed unconstitutional.

The Prime Minister said there is no business case for LNG, yet the U.S. has become a major exporter in the world in just a few years. This is another lost opportunity for Canadian workers. If the NDP-Liberal government is so concerned about replacement workers, why did it seemingly negotiate an agreement in Windsor, Ontario, which will include foreign replacement workers? The Liberals originally called this disinformation, but we now know and have confirmation from the very company hiring the workers that at least 900 taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers from South Korea would be brought in to work on that plant, which would be subsidized by 15 billion taxpayer dollars.

The executive director of Canada’s Building Trades Unions has called the decision to allow foreign replacement workers to replace Canadian jobs at the EV battery manufacturing facility in Windsor “a slap in the face” and an “insult to Canadian taxpayers.” We now know that the Northvolt project in Quebec will bring in taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers as well.

The government needs to make public copies of all contracts, memorandums of understanding or any other agreement between any minister, department, agency or Crown corporation of the Government of Canada, as well as all companies it has announced tax breaks and subsidies to in relation to battery production. When the Liberals put taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars, the jobs those subsidies pay for should go to Canadian workers, not foreign replacement workers. Common-sense Conservatives are calling on the Prime Minister to release the documents for all these taxpayer-funded battery plants, so Canadians can see if the Liberal government did anything to secure guarantees for Canadian workers.

Let us talk about another recent broken promise of the Liberal government, with the announcement that it will now be raising EI premiums on every paycheque of workers in Canada in 2024. Just seven months ago, in budget 2023, it said that premiums would not be increased. The government’s inflationary deficits have crushed the purchasing power of workers' paycheques. Inflation increases the costs of basic necessities, and food inflation has been even higher. Despite the finance minister’s victory statement in September, inflation is still high; the Prime Minister's promise of bringing down food costs by Thanksgiving has come and gone. We know there is a record number of two million Canadians using a food bank each month. Rents have doubled, and taxes such as the carbon tax keep increasing. Families of all generations are being squeezed; they are on the edge of not being able to fulfill their financial commitments and pay their bills.

After eight years, inflation and interest rates at generational highs are impacting workers and their families everywhere they turn. Only a Conservative government will focus on making life more affordable and removing red tape and bureaucracy so Canadians can bring home powerful paycheques once again.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to ask my colleague a question. I listened very attentively as she spoke on Bill C-58. We all know that good deals happen at the bargaining table. That is where workers have the opportunity to get the powerful leverage they need to ensure they get fair wages, fair benefits and job security. These are all the things they and their families need and depend upon. The fact that companies can bring in replacement workers while they are on strike has always been a disadvantage for workers.

Is my hon. colleague prepared to support Bill C-58 and support workers in Canada?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, do we know what is not a good deal? It is 200 people in my community losing their jobs when a mill closed or the worker I talked about who worked in the energy sector and lost his job because of the policies of the Liberal government. His wife had to go back to work. As I mentioned in my intervention, both of their wages together did not even come close to what he was making himself working in the energy sector.

Those are the types of tough decisions that are affecting families every day. Those are the tough situations that have played out in households across this country because of policies that the government has implemented.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the ban on replacement workers to ensure balanced collective agreement negotiations has been part of Quebeckers' DNA for decades.

I know that the Conservatives think they are in the middle of an election campaign, but I feel uneasy. I listened to my colleague's speech and it was interesting. We talked about the carbon tax and battery plants. The Liberal member asked her a clear question about whether the member will support the principle that replacement workers should be banned to ensure balanced collective agreement negotiations. We received a non-answer. The Conservatives are uncomfortable. They do not want to answer to avoid implying that they are not on the workers' side.

I would like a clear answer from the Conservatives. Do they support the principle of the bill to ban replacement workers, yes or no?

It is either yes or no. I would like a real answer.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting that the member is from Quebec. We know that the Northvolt project in Quebec will be bringing in hundreds of taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers to fill jobs, taking jobs away from workers in Quebec. There needs to be more clarity on taxpayer-funded foreign workers who will be funded through the hard-working people of Canada. We are asking for the government to disclose what those contracts are. We need to see what is in them, so we can see how this is affecting workers. Is it written into the contracts that foreign replacement workers are acceptable for those companies that are accepting all this taxpayer money?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully the third time is the charm, because the hon. member did not actually answer the questions of my last two colleagues. I too listened to the hon. member's speech. She did not really speak a lot about the bill in question. Yes, the cost of living is rising but, again, this bill will help ensure that workers have the ability and the power to negotiate as equals with their employers.

Again, will this member and will the Conservative members of the House support this bill and support workers' rights when dealing with potential replacement workers?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the NDP-Liberal government always wants to talk about anything other than the fact that people cannot afford to pay for basic necessities. We have nurses and construction workers who are living in their cars in British Columbia. We know that this is across the country. We know that there are tent cities across this country, because people cannot afford the basic necessities they need to live. Reports came out just this morning about how close seniors are to being homeless.

The government has created this problem with high inflation, which has also created high interest rates. This is creating higher mortgage payments for people, putting them on the edge and out of their homes. The government should be focusing on policies and legislation that can actually stop what is creating this situation, where people cannot even afford basic necessities in this country.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we know that improving labour relations should be the ultimate goal of any government. It is better for workers, employers, the economy and all Canadians. However, the current labour climate suggests that we are moving in another direction. Across the country, we are seeing more labour strife than we have at any other time in recent history.

The strife is undoubtedly being fuelled by the spiralling cost of living crisis in this country, which is a direct result of the NDP-Liberal government's inflationary deficits and taxes. The costly coalition has made life more difficult for hard-working Canadians, and paycheques are not going nearly as far as they once were.

We know the carbon tax is increasing the cost of everything. Food prices have gone up year after year, housing costs have doubled and mortgages have gone up by 150% since the Liberals took office. There are reports indicating that over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke, which is simply outrageous. Working Canadians across this country are struggling to put food on their tables and to keep a roof over their heads. That is unacceptable, but it is the devastating reality after eight years of the Liberal government, which continues to be propped up by its NDP friends. They have failed Canadian workers and broken the unspoken promise that if one gets a job and works hard, one will be able to pay one's bills and build a better life.

That is the climate in which the Liberals have tabled this bill. As we consider Bill C-58, it is critical that we do so with a view to finding balance. Governments should never encourage labour disruption or give either side in a dispute an uneven advantage, because there are very serious implications for all Canadians when labour is disrupted. This is particularly true when we consider the industries and the sectors that are federally regulated.

Whether it is our rail system, our ports, our telecommunication networks or air travel, labour disruptions in these critical industries have a serious cost for businesses. Beyond that, they can also have a potentially devastating impact on everyday Canadians. That downstream impact should not be cast aside in this debate, and it cannot be ignored. It raises questions about what happens when medicine cannot get to the end destination on store shelves and, ultimately, is not there when Canadians need it.

What happens if telecommunication services are down? How does a family member check in on loved ones? What impact would this have on payment processing? Would there be Canadians unable to access basic necessities? If fresh food in transportation spoils, what is the cost to consumers? These questions raise just a few examples of what impact a strike could have on Canadians. Ultimately, a strike that impacts our supply chains, such as those in our ports or railways, will always have a ripple effect beyond the employer and worker.

It will also impact small businesses that depend on the efficient flow of our supply chains. The longer a strike lasts, the greater the harm it will cause. For small businesses, it is a situation that is generally well beyond their control. This is certainly true for farmers, who need to get their commodities to market. In my province of Saskatchewan, which is a landlocked province, a disruption in any part of the supply chain network is seriously detrimental.

It is critical that, in considering this legislation, we understand the potential impact on farmers and their operations. Farmers certainly cannot afford to take any more hits. They are already some of the hardest hit by the NDP-Liberal coalition's failed policies. Farmers I have spoken to certainly feel that it is intentional and that the government has no regard for their industry or their contributions to our country. Failed policies such as the Liberal carbon tax are putting the viability of farm businesses in jeopardy. There is also, of course, the Senate; so-called independent senators are now doing the government's bidding by dragging their feet on Bill C-234. Ensuring the viability of farm operations is critical to the industry, as well as to an affordable and dependable food supply.

I recently had a farmer in my office who shared with me that a single day of rail disruption delayed his shipment by a matter of weeks, which, of course, directly impacted the cash flow of his operations. That is because a single day of disruption never equates to a single day of backlog. This brings to mind this past summer's port strike in Vancouver, which created a massive bottleneck in our supply chain infrastructure. The job action in Vancouver lasted weeks, and now all these months later, the port is still working to clear the backlog.

Let me be clear that Canadian workers, without question, have the right to collective bargaining and striking. Striking should be the last resort, and it should not be incentivized. The best outcome for all parties is coming to an agreement at the bargaining table. That is why it is critical that government foster a level playing field for unions and businesses so that ultimately government is helping only to foster better labour relations. Government should not intervene to tip the scales.

Other jurisdictions that have implemented similar bans have seen an increase in job actions, which should be cause for warning. It is not clear what lessons from those jurisdictions are being applied in this legislation, and it is not clear that this legislation strikes the appropriate balance between labour and employers. In fact, the bill contains a lot of ambiguity that requires clarification. This is, of course, a pattern with the Liberal government, which has a tendency to introduce what it has coined as “framework legislation”.

There is another matter of great curiosity. The bill would impose a ban on replacement workers for federally regulated industries, but it would not apply to the public service. This policy decision certainly raises questions. If the Liberals have determined through their consultations and analysis that what they are proposing is positive for labour relations, then it would make sense to apply it to themselves, but they deliberately chose to exclude the federal government and the public service from the scope of this legislation. I think industry deserves clarity from the labour minister on this particular policy decision.

In another example of “do as I say and not as I do”, the Liberal government seems to villainize replacement workers through this legislation while at the same time funding foreign replacement workers. Last week, we learned that the Stellantis battery plant is reportedly hiring 1,600 foreign workers despite receiving $15 billion in subsidies from the NDP-Liberal coalition. This is not in the interests of our Canadian workers, and it certainly is not fair to them or Canadian taxpayers. Canadian taxpayer subsidies should be going to support Canadian workers, not foreign replacement workers.

We do not even fully understand the extent of the government's budgeted contract negotiations, because not only does the story keep changing on that side of the House, from claiming disinformation to claiming one worker and then a handful, but the Liberals are deliberately choosing to keep the contracts hidden. If it is such great news for Canadian workers, why the secrecy? What are they trying to hide?

Well, we know now that the Northvolt plant will be utilizing taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers, which also calls into question whether Volkswagen will. Canadian taxpayers and tradespeople deserve answers. The Prime Minister must confirm what provisions were negotiated to secure good, long-term jobs for Canadians, because at the end of the day, that is what Canadians workers want. They want to work. They want Canadian businesses and industries to succeed so they have job security. They want businesses to continue to invest and create jobs in Canada that will allow them to keep a roof over their heads and food on their table. They want a guarantee that they can build a life for themselves.

As I said at the outset, improving labour relations should be the government's goal. Having healthy and good labour relations is what is best for workers, employers, the economy and ultimately all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Conservative colleague who spoke prior to the member was asked three times whether or not the Conservatives would vote in favour of the bill. When the member spoke, she debated whether Conservatives would be supporting it. I think they should have learned their lesson after how they treated the Ukraine-Canada free trade deal. They were basically silent on it the entire time, would not make a commitment and then suddenly started voting the way they did last week, to the surprise of the entire country.

I am wondering if the member would like to tell the House and Canadians whether she will be voting in favour of this bill or against it. Will we see a repeat of what we saw on other issues?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the petty, gut-wrenching politics the Liberals partake in. All they do is deflect and divide. That is what they are good at.

If anybody listened to my speech, I posed a lot of questions, because that is what debate is for. Debate is for hearing different views, especially from different representatives across the country, to come to a formulated, educated solution or end goal.

I have asked how this bill is going to affect everyday Canadians. That is my question.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member started her speech by talking about the importance of improving labour relations as a priority of the government. I am curious if the member could please share the ways the leader of the Conservative Party has shown this priority. Was it when he passed laws to make it harder for unions to win better pay for workers? Was it when he voted against establishing a minimum wage, twice? Was it when he made it harder to get a pension, delaying the retirement age to 67? Was it when he made CEOs and rich investors richer by giving away $55 billion in tax cuts to big corporations while cutting services?

Which is it? Is the Conservative Party in support of labour relations or lining the pockets of its rich friends?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we can see the NDP spinning its partisan talking points.

I am here thoughtfully discussing, and asking questions and seeking answers on Bill C-58. I asked questions throughout my remarks today about how this piece of legislation is going to affect everyday Canadians.

It is unfortunate to see the NDP marrying and partnering with the Liberals and being invited to sit next to them.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at least it has become clear that the member will probably not support the bill. I am surprised because the Conservatives normally try to find a carbon tax in bills to avoid supporting them, but there is no such tax in this one. The member is using the fact that some plants will use temporary foreign workers to deny workers fundamental rights and calling that a defeat. These foreign workers in Quebec obviously fall under Quebec jurisdiction.

Does my colleague agree that all temporary foreign workers, including workers who live here in Canada, should have decent working conditions and that, for all these workers, replacement workers should be banned?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if he had listened to my speech, I talked about what is contributing to the cost of living crisis, which is also contributing to why labour is the way it is today. Canadians are literally living paycheque to paycheque. Many Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke.

Canadians want to make sure there are jobs for Canadians and that what the government is doing in the contracts it is negotiating, to look at Stellantis, for example, ensures their jobs are at the forefront and are going to be protected. It looks like the government will not release the details of the contracts, so we do not know if the Liberals care about protecting Canadians' jobs.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that in the member's riding, the government's track record is particularly horrific given the jobs it has killed through its attack on resource industries.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on the NDP tail suddenly wagging the Liberal dog, forcing a bill onto the House that the Liberals twice voted against when raised as opposition private members' bills. Does she have any comment on the credibility the government has when it comes to standing up for workers?