Debates of Dec. 14th, 2023

Canada Labour Code

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear, for those who are following the parliamentary calendar, that the government is making last-minute changes to the projected order of business, but I am nonetheless very happy to speak today to Bill C-58 and address the government's profound failures when it comes to workers, and talk about the excellent work that the Conservative Party has been doing and will continue to do to support workers here in Canada.

Our priority is creating powerful paycheques for Canadian workers, supporting jobs and opportunity for Canadian workers. In that process, our leader, the member for Carleton, has been travelling across the country meeting with workers, and hearing about their priorities and their concerns. I can tell members that the number one priority for the workers he meets with, and all of us on this side of the House are meeting with, is around jobs and opportunity. It is to have an economy that works for working people, an economy that puts the interests of working people ahead of those of the well-connected insiders the government has so persistently tried to prioritize.

We see this profound disconnect in so many different ways. We see the way that the Liberal government is focused on the interests of well-connected insiders and how it loves shovelling money out to consultants who specialize in encouraging companies to fire more people. These are the kinds of relationships the government is cultivating. These are the kinds of people the government is trying to serve, whereas Conservatives are focused on jobs and opportunity for workers, and creating the kind of economy where more people can work, prosper and succeed.

There are many different aspects in the government's agenda in this regard. We see the context, for instance, of its unjust transition plan. The government, in fact, is now admitting that its so-called just transition rhetoric is unpopular with workers. I was very struck by the fact that the labour minister got up in the House fairly recently and said they do not use the terminology of just transition anymore because workers do not like it. It is true that workers do not like it, but it was not the name that they had a problem with. It was the substance of the government's agenda.

The government talks about so-called transitioning workers as if what workers wanted was to be able to not work. A big part of the reason people work, yes, is for the paycheque, as that is a critical piece of it, but it also comes from the satisfaction they get from being able to accomplish something significant. This is what is so important about work for workers. They appreciate the ability to both earn a paycheque for their family and be able to participate in the creation of value. Both of those things together are important.

The government says to workers that it wants to transition them out of their jobs, but it will have social programs for them on the other end of it. First of all, I think members are rightly skeptical about whether those promises will be delivered on. Second, the people in my riding who work in the energy sector and other sectors are not looking for easy money. They are looking for the opportunity to be able to work hard and build themselves up, along with their families and their communities in the process.

This is the dignity inherent in work. The paycheque is critically important, but it is not just about the paycheque. It is about the satisfaction that comes from work, and this is something that the government just does not understand. This is an essential piece of why the government's unjust transition agenda is so unpopular with workers and calling it something else is not going to change the picture.

In the midst of this larger discussion about workers and the failure of the government to support or respond to the needs and concerns of working people, we have it bringing forward this legislation on replacement workers. I would say what is quite curious about the government's approach to this is that at the same time as it is championing its legislation allegedly dealing with the issue of replacement workers, the government is signing massive corporate subsidies to companies that are, in fact, bringing in foreign replacement workers. That is another example of the duplicity that we see from the other side.

We have been working on this issue at the government operations committee and wearing down a Liberal filibuster.

Conservatives came to the committee saying that we had evidence that over $40 billion in corporate subsidies was being used, not to hire Canadian workers, not to create jobs and opportunities for workers in Canada, but to subsidize companies that are bringing in foreign replacement workers. By the way, over $40 billion is a massive amount of money. It is a big number overall, but if we break it down it is $3,000 per family. That means that all the Canadians who as we speak are at home glued to CPAC, and I salute them for their dedication, and watching this are on the hook for $3,000 because of these subsidies.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the member is taking into consideration his calculation, does that include Premier Doug Ford's contribution also?

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

That is not a point of order, but a point of debate. As we get to questions and comments, I am sure the hon. member can ask it at that time.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, that obviously was not a point of order, but, in a way, it was revealing the way the member spoke about it. He thinks when different levels of government spend money it comes from the individual, that when the Government of Ontario spends money that it is Doug Ford's money or when the current government spends money that it is its money somehow. There is only one taxpayer: the people of Canada. Whether it is through provincial, local or national governments, the people of Canada are paying for this. We are talking about very large sums of money individually, so Canadians have a right to ask what value they are getting for this spending. If they were to find that a very large portion of those subsidies was going to subsidize foreign replacement workers, I think they would have a right to be concerned.

Conservatives have taken a very moderate and reasonable approach on this. We just want to get the information, so we asked the government to show us its work. We think Canadians should be able to see the contracts. It is interesting that every time we bring this up, that Canadians should be able to see the contracts, members of the government say that these are great deals, the best that members have ever seen for workers. I would not say that these are the best deals we have ever seen because we have not seen them. We do not know if they are the best deals we have ever seen because we cannot see them, so let us see them.

If the government is so proud of what it is doing it should show us its work. Maybe we will be surprised, but I doubt it. Maybe we will be pleased and say that these contracts are fantastic. Maybe once they are submitted to the committees we will look at them and say that the government has done a great job. We probably will not, but maybe we will be shocked and they will be good. Maybe we will find that the government did not include any protections for Canadian workers. Either way, we want it to show us its work, not to say that it was the best essay it ever wrote but the dog ate it before it could hand it in to the teacher, or that it cleaned it up so well, but somehow the dog got in and no one can see it. What absurdity from the government. If it did the work well, if the workers are protected, then it should show us the contracts. If the government is proud of its approach, if it thinks it has done good work for workers, then it should show us the work.

I believe that in questions and comments we are going to hear members stand up and say that these are the best deals we have ever seen. Enough of the best deals we have never seen. Let us see the deals. Let us see what $40 billion got Canadian workers. Did it get workers anything?

[Irek Kusmierczyk]

Come to Windsor and see the battery plant getting built.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way said that I should come to Windsor. I would love to come to Windsor. I will come and door-knock vigorously in Windsor in the next election. We will be there. When we door-knock in Windsor we will tell workers that they have the right to a member of Parliament who wants to show them the work. We will tell them to vote for a member of Parliament who is not going to hide that work, that they deserve a member who is not going to go to committee to filibuster and fight to cover up the work the government is doing. They deserve a member of Parliament who is going to show them what it accomplished, not someone who does not want to show them the work.

Therefore, I challenge the members across the way, if they care about Canadian workers, to let them see the work and release the contracts.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my hon. colleague should come to Windsor and see the hundreds and thousands of workers who are building the battery plant right now. I would love to introduce him to every single one of them. There is a sense of tremendous optimism in my community, because we know we are going to have 2,500 great-paying jobs in Windsor. They will be for local, Canadian, unionized workers to build batteries, and not just for years but for generations.

Eight years ago, I remember, in Windsor, under the Conservative government, we had 11.2% unemployment. The Conservatives lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Windsor was ground zero for that. The Leader of the Opposition would remember that as well, because he was the minister of employment, or as I would like to call it, the minister of unemployment. A big part of that optimism is what the unions bargained for at the bargaining table: huge pay increases for workers.

When will Conservatives support unions? When will they support workers? When will they support Windsor? When will they support the bargaining table and Bill C-58?

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

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that I correctly foresaw exactly what the member's question and comment would be.

He got up and said that this is the best deal we have never seen. He said that it is unbelievable how good a deal this is for workers. However, he did not address the fact that he is going to the government operations committee and filibustering to cover up the release of these contracts. Actually, it is worse than that, because the NDP flip-flopped. There was a little filibustering from the Liberals, and the NDP said, “Okay, we will fold to the pressure from our colleagues in the costly, corrupt, cover-up coalition, and we will agree to hide the contracts.”

I agree with the member on one point. He said there was an incredible sense of optimism in Windsor. I have seen the rallies and the number of people who have come out to hear the member for Carleton speak in Windsor. It is incredible. People in Windsor know that, after eight years of NDP-Liberal rule and of this corrupt government, hope is on the horizon with the member for Carleton.

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

I just want to remind hon. members that, if we keep our questions and our answers concise, everybody can participate in this debate.

The hon. member for Thérèse‑De Blainville.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was wonderful to hear all the arguments that were in no way connected to Bill C-58. It was a thing of beauty.

I am going to ask the member a clear question. Bill C-58 is intended to prevent the use of scabs in the workplace so that proper negotiations can take place in the event of strikes and lockouts.

We must prevent the use of scabs. This still happens. At the Port of Québec, longshore workers have been locked out for over a year, and there are scabs coming in to do their work. That is unacceptable. We have failed to correct that situation here for over 50 years. I would like my colleague to tell me whether the Conservative Party is for or against Bill C-58.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think what I was talking about in my speech was very clear. That is the reality of how the government, in the midst of talking about the issue of replacement workers, is actually bringing in foreign replacement workers.

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh said I should visit and meet with the people who are going to be working on these projects. Actually, I would love to be able to go to Korea and do that.

The Liberal government is bringing in foreign replacement workers. It is trying to bury and hide the contracts. The NDP is now complicit. To their credit, the Bloc has been working with the Conservatives to try to expose these contracts. It is the costly cover-up coalition that wants to hide the contracts from workers.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan mentioned the fact that there is a single taxpayer, and the Conservatives often like to bring that up. I just wonder whether the member and his party will be supporting the NDP's pharmacare proposal. If we made it a federal program, it would save the single taxpayer across this country billions of dollars a year. It would save money for provinces, corporations and individuals. Will he support us?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a good opportunity to talk about how we are getting to the end of the year, and we are well over the NDP's red line. Do members remember the NDP convention, where the New Democrats said that they would ensure their plan is supported by the government? Then they said, “Oh, it is actually flexible.” The New Democrats continually cave to their coalition partners, the Liberals. I would say that the member should first focus on trying to get his coalition partners onside for whatever the New Democrats are proposing. There is a long history of the NDP putting forward things that would allegedly save us money; to be charitable, I will say that it does not always—

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

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased and proud to be able to rise in this debate on Bill C-58.

It should go without saying in this country that workers deserve respect, fair wages and safe working conditions. However, success in achieving those things has depended largely on the free collective bargaining process. The success of every business, every enterprise and every government program depends on all the workers involved: Those who clean, those who provide security, those who drive and those who provide child care. None of our economy functions without all of us working together. In fact, I would speculate that if the top CEOs and directors stayed home for a day, their businesses would continue to function, because workers would carry on providing those services to the economy and to the public.

However, we should also recognize today that increasing inequality will eventually undermine social stability in this country. We have had the spectacle of Galen Weston, a CEO, appearing before a House of Commons committee and saying it is “reasonable” that he earns, in one year, 431 times his average worker's salary. I would say to Mr. Weston that it is reasonable only in some other universe than the one the rest of us live in. In fact, it is actually even out of scale for the top 100 CEOs, who only, on average, earn 243 times what their average worker does.

A study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives demonstrated to us that, in a typical year, and we have a new year coming up, before the end of the second day, the top 100 CEOs will earn more than their average worker in the entire year. By my own calculations, by the end of that year, the CEOs will have earned more than their average worker will earn in a lifetime. Therefore, we have a serious problem with growing inequality in this country, and one of the only ways that we can, on a practical basis, see progress is through free collective bargaining.

We face huge challenges in our society, and I could spend time talking about the challenge of climate change. We face huge challenges, as I said, in inequality. We face all kinds of challenges in our workforce, with labour shortages. How do we address them? We certainly are a wealthy and well-educated country. We have a dedicated workforce, and if we all work together, and everyone pays their fair share, we can meet those challenges. We know what we need to do.

I would cite the NDP dental care plan as an example of how we can meet the challenges we face. This is a health challenge, in particular, for many seniors I hear from in my riding. They worked very hard all their lives but did not necessarily have a job in which their health benefits continued into retirement, if they had them at all. I have had many people approach my office to say that the quality of their life is really impaired by their inability to afford dental care. How is this relevant? If everybody pays their fair share, we can afford dental care for all Canadians.

Some of my Conservative friends have said, “Well, you always support spending. Why is that? You will just support deficits.” I try to correct them by saying that, as a New Democrat, I do not support deficits; I support fair taxation. If we apply the principles of fair taxation, including a wealth tax in this country, we can afford to take care of each other, which is an important principle.

However, where did that principle of taking care of each other come from? It came from trade unions and collective bargaining, where workers joined together and said, “Let us not have some of us succeed at the cost of the rest of us in the workplace.” They negotiated contracts that provided fair benefits, fair wages and better working conditions for everybody in the bargaining unit, and the employers could not just reward those they favoured in the workplace.

I will tell members a door knocking story from an election campaign. I went out one Saturday morning, too early for me and obviously too early for some of my constituents. A gentleman came to the door and said, “Oh, you're the New Democrat. I can't support you.” I said, “Why can't you?” He said, “You're way too close to the unions.” I said, “What day is it?” He said, “What do you mean, what day is it?” I asked again, “What day is it?” He said, “It's Saturday”, and then he looked at me and said, “I see where you're going with this.” I said, “Yes, you're home on the weekend because collective bargaining got people weekends off, which made it a standard in our society.” He said, “Oh, next you're going to talk to me about health care and all kinds of other things unions got.” I said, “That's absolutely what I'm going to talk to you about.” He said, “I still can't vote for you”, and shut the door. I did not succeed in convincing him that day, but even he understood that a lot of the benefits he enjoyed as a non-union worker came from the work of trade unions.

Why am I giving all these examples when we are talking about anti-scab legislation? We know the importance of collective bargaining. We also know, if we stop to think for a minute, that most collective bargaining processes do not lead to strikes or lockouts; the vast majority of them do not. I have seen various statistics. In some sectors, up to 90% of contracts are completed successfully without any work stoppage at all.

What happens when replacement workers get involved? Again, the studies will tell us quite clearly that if replacement workers are hired by an employer, two things happen. One is that the strike, on average, will last six times longer than if replacement workers were not involved. The second thing the use of replacement workers does is to introduce an element of hostility and division in the community, because workers who are on strike see replacement workers as a threat to their livelihood. Quite often, replacement workers are hired through employment agencies or other ways in which they have no idea that they are being sent into such a position of conflict as a replacement worker.

What I think is really good about the legislation is that it would bank this practice. British Columbia and Quebec have already had this kind of legislation for years. Of course, the NDP has been trying to get it introduced at the federal level. We have introduced a bill eight times in the last 15 years. The last time we introduced it, in 2016, both the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against anti-scab legislation.

The Conservative Party leader likes to talk about working people and how he is a friend of working people. I would say that the bill gives him a chance to demonstrate that concretely. His previous record does not show that. His party voted against minimum wages. His party, I guess I would say, has never seen back-to-work legislation it did not like. The record is clear on one side. If the Conservatives want to change that record, the legislation before us gives them an opportunity to demonstrate that they really are friends of workers and friends of progress, in terms of our economy.

Who are the workers most affected by the use of replacement workers? I am going to make a strange argument here, but quite often it is actually the non-union workers, because it is unionized companies and unionized sectors that set the standard that employers have to meet, even if those standards are not legislated. When we talk about the people who work in the lowest-paid, non-union jobs, they would actually be protected by the legislation as well, because it would allow unions to have shorter work stoppages and to negotiate better conditions, which would eventually spread through our economy.

Once again, I am back to the point I want to make. We hear a lot about how society and Parliament in Canada are suddenly dysfunctional. I do not believe that is true. I believe what we have are the choices that we are making. We make choices in the economy. It is not inevitable that we have great inequality. It is not inevitable that we have homelessness in our society. We make policy choices that have real outcomes that disadvantage many Canadians. We can make better choices and we can make different choices.

When we are talking about whether the House of Commons can do that, if the House of Commons appears dysfunctional to people, I believe that it is currently the result of choices being made by one party in the House to make the House of Commons appear dysfunctional and to make sure, as the party's leader declared, that we cannot get anything done anything in the House. He said he is going to grind the House to a halt, and we have seen him trying to do that. What is the impact of that on workers? It means we cannot get to legislation like the bill before us. It means we cannot get to a fair bargaining process for workers in the federal sector across the country. I represent a riding where there are lots of workers in the federally regulated sector. I know that this is important to them because they know it would shorten labour disputes and result in less hostility around the picket lines.

One last thing I want to talk about is that the improvement this legislation would make over what exists in B.C. and Quebec is that it considers the issue of remote work. One of the challenges we have now is that, in many industries, if there is a picket line, there is no need for employers to get someone to actually cross a physical line; they can hire people to work remotely. The federal legislation would actually be an improvement over what exists in British Columbia and Quebec, and I look forward to being able to vote in favour of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's intervention, particularly when he was talking about how a lot of the established practices in the workplace have come through negotiations with unions over the years. I would agree with him completely.

Toward the end of his speech, he was talking about the obstructionary practices of Conservatives in the House. We did some calculations this morning, and, in fact, in the fall session alone that is wrapping up, in one out of every three days in the House, there was some obstructionary practice by the Conservatives. Conservatives will say that is their job, and I would say that it is not; their job is to hold the government to account, but not to grind the place to a halt, which is what they are trying to do. One can hold the government accountable without having to turn this place into a road show.

Would the member not agree with me that the Conservatives have failed in their responsibility?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do think that all of us come here with the idea that we are going to do what is right for Canadians. It is unfortunate when we head to the ditch of obstructionism. An example is that right now, the justice committee is working on a bill called the miscarriage of justice act, which attempts to deal with the fact that many indigenous and Black Canadians have been wrongfully convicted and have spent long times in jail unnecessarily. Because of the carbon tax, the Conservatives are filibustering the miscarriage of justice act. This just makes no sense to me.

In the four terms I have been here, I have seen some bitter disputes over something that was actually before the House, but it is the first time I have seen disputes flowing into all the committees about something that is absolutely irrelevant to the work those committees are trying to do for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the NDP a question specifically on the issue of replacement workers.

Originally, the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc were working together to try to bring to light contracts signed by the government that seemed to allow foreign replacement workers to be brought in on publicly subsidized projects. In fact, the NDP leader asked a question in the House in which he expressed the view that these contracts should be made public. However, since then, the NDP has flip-flopped, voted with the Liberals to bury the contracts and suggested that we just do an ATIP request instead. We all know the problems associated with the ATIP system. Parliamentary committees have a right to request unfettered access to documents.

Why did the NDP flip-flop, abandon workers, give in to the Liberal filibuster and agree to support the government's efforts to bury the contracts?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has just given a perfect example of what I am talking about: the Conservatives' attempting to make the House dysfunctional. The question he is asking has nothing to do with the topic of the bill before us; it has nothing to do with the work we are trying to do in the House today, so it is a perfect example of the Conservatives' trying to make the House look dysfunctional.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his work.

I know that the NDP has wanted this bill for a long time, and the same goes for the Bloc Québécois. We introduced anti-scab legislation at least 11 times over the years. We have been waiting for this for a long time. We think it is essential that this legislation come into force quickly. In my opinion, the government has had a lot of time to work on this and come up with a very good version of the bill.

One of the things that bothers me is the 18-month delay for the coming into force after royal assent. If, much like us, the New Democrats think that enough time has been spent on developing a near-perfect version of the bill, I wonder how they can agree to this 18-month delay. I am wondering whether they will work with us in committee to ensure that the bill comes into force immediately after receiving royal assent.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy working with the member, and her questions are always as they are today: to the point.

One of the concerns I have about the bill is the 18-month delay before its implementation. New Democrats are supporting the bill at second reading so it can go to committee, where there would be a fulsome debate. I too am hoping we can convince the government that the 18-month delay is too long.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to this morning to speak of workers, the labour context, industrial relations and replacement workers. One of the main factors to consider in today's debates is the Liberals' mismanagement over the past eight years. Liberal mismanagement has raised the cost of living for all Canadian workers.

The Liberals' disastrous mismanagement and astronomical deficits sent inflation and interest rates soaring to levels not seen in 40 years. All these factors combine to put pressure on Canadian workers. People have their working conditions and their wages to count on, but when everything is going up, when the price of rent and housing doubles, when people go to the supermarket to feed their family and are forced to spend $150 more each week for the same groceries but their pay stays the same, they can no longer make ends meet. The math is simple.

The Liberals constantly preach at us. My colleagues will no doubt remember how, just after it was elected, this government said it was there for the middle class and those working hard to join it. We even had the joy, the pleasure, of witnessing the creation of a new minister of middle-class prosperity. What a joke. That position no longer exists. As we can see, the government's actions yielded the opposite effect, making the middle class poorer. This is what is happening today.

Furthermore, during the past eight years of Liberal mismanagement, labour disputes in Canada have surged. In recent years, Canada has experienced over 300 labour disputes. This is unprecedented. All this was caused by current conditions. People are struggling to stay afloat. They are at their wits' end. Food banks are overwhelmed with record demand. Two million people are visiting food banks every month. I even see it in my region near Quebec City, where everything usually hums along and people have a good standard of living. Now, queues of people line up for food boxes every Thursday. This is unheard of.

There is so much pressure on workers, and that is causing tension and unrest. That is what we are seeing in Quebec nowadays, but that is a different debate. That is for the Government of Quebec to deal with. Public sector workers are striking, people like nurses and teachers. The same thing is happening at the federal level. The federal government created negative economic conditions in Canada that have led to unrest. Workers are struggling. They are anxious and worried, and for good reason.

I have no choice but to blame the government, because those are the facts. The facts are the facts. Certain actions were taken. The insane spending that has been going on in recent years has doubled the country's debt. As we know, we are going to have to pay $50 billion a year in interest on the debt, the equivalent of 10% of all federal funds. Ten percent of all federal revenues will go toward paying interest to banks in New York and London. This creates a situation where workers can no longer make ends meet. That is untenable, so workers ask for more. Employers are also experiencing inflation. They, too, have to cope with rising costs. The entire market, every industry, is affected by the decisions made in recent years by the Liberal government, decisions that have had a negative impact on everyone.

Other decisions that are entirely inconsistent with the current intention are those relating to Stellantis, Northvolt and Volkswagen. We have learned that Stellantis, which will receive $15 billion in public funds, will be using foreign replacement workers, most of them from South Korea. At first, there were supposed to be 1,600 of them. We now know that about 900 foreign workers are coming to work in Canada.

They are bringing in replacement workers from abroad to take Canadians' jobs. Some will say that these are specialized jobs. I understand that new technologies sometimes require workers with special knowledge to come explain how they work, but not 900 of them. The proof is that, when we first started asking questions, the Prime Minister said there would be no foreign workers. Then one of the Liberal ministers said that there would be a few, and then the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry said that there would only be one. At some point, they changed their minds. They realized that 900 Koreans would indeed be coming to Canada to take jobs away from Canadian workers.

Let us not forget that this is an investment of $15 billion in public funds. If a private company sets up shop in Canada and pays for staff from outside the country with its own money, that is its prerogative. However, this is taxpayer money that the Government of Canada is investing in a business with an unproven track record. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it was going to cost far more than anticipated. They are not even sure that it will be profitable and that they will get their money's worth. Regardless, foreign workers are being brought in to work in Canada.

It is the same thing with Northvolt, the company that is setting up in Quebec, halfway to the leader of the Bloc Québécois's riding. This company is also going to bring in foreign workers. The situation is not clear and we are trying to find out more. We asked to see the contracts. We understand that contracts for services with governments contain business-related clauses and they have to be careful, but we are entitled to find out some basic information about the number of foreign workers and their conditions.

Let us not forget that it is taxpayers who are paying for this. We are investing tens of billions of dollars in these projects. These are not small investments. We should have access to this information. The government must find a way to give this information to the opposition parties so they can determine whether it is a good agreement or not. The government does not want to be transparent. This once again creates conditions that make Canadian workers turn around and ask for protection.

What is going on? On the one hand, the government says it wants to protect its workers. On the other hand, it brings in foreign workers, even paying companies to do so. It is being inconsistent. This creates conditions that make people suspicious about what is going on and the way the federal government operates in Canada. They are right to be suspicious.

That has repercussions on the Canadian economy. The COVID-19 pandemic caused severe supply chain disruptions, and the recovery has been difficult. Canada lacks synergy and efficiency in terms of rail, marine and air transportation. We need more consistency, efficiency and predictability. That is what is lacking now in Canada. Other countries are worried. Companies and marine carriers are wondering whether they should be going through Canada to reach the United States because they never know how the trip will unfold.

These worries were created by the government. We saw it during the strike at the Port of Vancouver. The government knew months in advance that there were issues to address. The minister was not able to foresee the situation and find solutions to avoid a conflict. The conflict caused half a billion dollars in losses. It could have been settled ahead of time, and all that could have been avoided.

There are several factors that must be taken into account when it comes to workers. Right now, the main problem is inflation and interest rates, which put pressure on workers, who are worried. Another problem is that the government does not appear to understand that it must ensure effective management and orchestrate public investments. In the case of companies like Stellantis and Northvolt, the government should avoid bringing in foreign replacement workers and give preference to Canadians who are willing to take on the work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the pattern I talked about the other day. We are seeing the MAGA Conservatives, led by the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, taking this approach. What they want to talk about is Stellantis and the Volkswagen deal. I get it. MAGA Conservatives do not like it when the government invests in industrial expansion in areas that mean a great deal, with literally thousands of direct jobs, not to mention the indirect jobs.

Why have the Conservatives fallen so dogmatically to the idea of MAGA conservatism that they are bringing it almost on a daily basis into the chamber? What is wrong with the Government of Canada recognizing the potential of an industry? Batteries and the electrification of vehicles are things of the future and they are happening today. We have an opportunity to see that industry grow in Canada. Why does the Conservative Party today not support the growth of that industry?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am sick and tired up of hearing my colleague ask questions based on the premise that we work the same way as in the U.S.

We do not work the same way as in the U.S. As I mentioned in my speech, our concern is clear. We want a coherent policy and to take coherent measures to ensure that Canada is more effective when it comes to transport and energy. As for development, the future in the environmental sector is obviously batteries and the electrification of transportation. We agree on that.

The fact remains that the federal government is making investments and spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. We have legitimate questions about the foreign workers coming in, but the government does not want to talk about that. I do not see how that is akin to American politics. We are talking about Canadian workers. I am in Canada. I am not in the U.S. I ask questions on behalf of Canadian citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for his speech, but I do not understand what his actual position will be when we vote on Bill C‑58, which aims to protect striking and locked-out workers by preventing employers from using scabs during labour disputes. We have had anti-scab legislation in Quebec since 1977. Federal governments of all stripes have dragged their feet when it comes to adopting such legislation.

Bill C‑58 will protect workers' strike and lockout rights and, during labour disputes, prevent employers from hiring scabs. Is my colleague's party for or against Bill C-58? That is what I want to know.