Kyle Seeback · TranslatePolitics.ca

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-12

“I don't believe the Liberals will make food cheaper. They talk and talk but nothing happens. They spend money but it doesn't help. I want the government to spend and regulate less so food will be cheaper.”

“Luxury meals on one government flight cost $95,000. The government spent $1 million on luxury meals in a year. Many Canadians are food-insecure. I want the government to spend less on itself and help people instead.”

Statements by Members

Tarun Bali

2026-06-12

“A police officer in my area died serving the community. I'm saddened and I want his family to know we won't forget his work for the community.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to the family of Constable Tarun Bali, who passed away tragically in the line of duty in northern Ontario. Constable Bali was a member of the Dufferin OPP in my home riding of Dufferin—Caledon. I know the men and women who serve in the Dufferin OPP. They are incredibly dedicated, community-oriented officers. Constable Bali was described by his colleagues as a man of bravery, dedication and incredible community service. Police officers come under incredible scrutiny and criticism these days, yet they put on the uniform every day, knowing that they might not come home to their loved ones. I want Constable Bali's family to know that the community of Dufferin—Caledon will never forget his service and his sacrifice for our community.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-10

“You burned down the house and now you want credit for putting out the fire. Our plan is better.”

“You caused Canadians' money problems. You should stop your current policies and try something different.”

Private Members' Business

Fair Representation Act

2026-06-04

“I want to say nice things about unions and workers. The Canada Labour Code should be changed. No union should be dominated by the employer. I'm not sure about some parts of this bill though. A small local could cause an investigation into the entire union. That threshold is too low. I'm concerned about the impact of this section. I hope we can make amendments to the legislation. Unions do great things for workers and help people a lot.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP member for this particular piece of legislation. Two years ago, I was asked to be the Conservative shadow minister for labour, and it has been one of the best experiences I have had in my life. I have had the opportunity to travel to almost every province in this country and meet with union locals and union representatives. I have done it especially in the construction and building trade unions, in which there is an entire system that most Canadians do not know about, which are union training centres. Most people do not know the extent to which the people who build this country are trained in union training centres. The unions themselves have put money aside to build these facilities. Yes, in certain provinces, they are now getting provincial money to help with that, and at the federal level there have been programs to do that. In fact, in the last election, the Conservative platform included a massive increase in funding for UTIP, including elements like a bricks and mortar thing to help expand union training centres. I know how hard our unionized construction workers work in this country, and they deserve the best representation. I agree with that unequivocally. When I look at this member's piece of legislation, I break it down into three categories. The first category is the definition in the Canada Labour Code, which currently says “so dominated”. I have always thought that was a bit of an odd term. Someone is either dominated or not. What does “so dominated” mean? Is it okay if someone is a little dominated? I think the member is right: The Canada Labour Code should be changed. We should remove “so dominated”. That modifier, I think, adds a level of domination when no domination should be acceptable. The test should be whether a union is dominated by the employer. I give the member kudos for identifying that and seeking to make that change. I agree with what everyone has said here so far tonight, both from the NDP and from the Liberals. No union should be dominated by the employer. The whole purpose of a union is to represent the rights of workers, and they do a fantastic job of that, especially in the construction and building trade unions. I agree 100% with that. Where I have a little less agreement and a little more uncertainty, and I am open to having conversations about this, is with the other two key aspects of the legislation. One part is, and the member has said it tonight, that her definition of dominated is the fact that a local union representative is not elected. That is how CLAC functions. CLAC elects its national representatives, the members get to elect them, and the national representatives choose the local union rep. Its argument is that it does that because national representatives can select people with expertise in labour relations, construction projects, etc. I do not know which of these two things is where the problem lies. I think there is an interesting question that we should be looking further into with respect to that. The Canada Industrial Relations Board has looked into CLAC, and it determined that it was not employer-dominated in previous iterations. Is that because the test was “so dominated”? Maybe the CIRB said that CLAC is a little dominated, but not “so dominated”; therefore, it is okay. I do not know. I have looked at some of the decisions, and it is very unclear. When the CIRB looked into CLAC, it would have, of course, looked at governance structure. I do not know if the governance structure is part of the problem, but that is something we absolutely could look a little more deeply into. Where I do have a challenge, and I have told the member this as we have discussed this piece of legislation many times, is in this: The change to the legislation is that if 25% of any bargaining unit decides that it thinks it is employer-dominated, then an investigation into the entire union could happen. This country is covered in a lattice of union locals, and some unions in this country are gigantic. Unifor has over 200,000 members. A small local could have someone go around and convince them that the employer was not representing them properly and that the union must be employer-dominated. If the bargaining unit is 10 people, and there are bargaining units that are that small, and three people sign that, then the entire union would be indicted. That, to me, would lead to a bit of a challenge, because it seems to me that the threshold is too low. The other thing that someone would know, if they have spent any time working with the construction and building trade unions, is that they do not always get along with each other as well as we might like to think. There are often jurisdictional disputes. There is what is called a raiding period, where different unions seek to take over individual locals, which is exactly what happened with the operating engineers in Alberta. The operating engineers in Alberta were able to take an entire CLAC local of some 800 people, and move it out of CLAC and into the operating engineers, so the unions do have a bit of a tussle with each other every so often. I can see that at times there could be an inclination to perhaps weaponize this section. I also know that the Canada Industrial Relations Board does incredible work in this country. Its members have to deal with very difficult situations all the time, but when the head of the Canada Industrial Relations Board was at committee recently, the testimony was very clear. The Canada Industrial Relations Board has far too much work, and it does not have enough funding to deal with the work that it has. If we were to add to that a whole bunch of investigations into a whole bunch of unions, because in any bargaining unit, no matter how small it is, 25% can meet that litmus test to have that union investigated by the CARB, I could see this becoming incredibly challenging for the CARB. In fact, there are many circumstances where the CARB does not meet deadlines, and its members have to ask for extensions. Those extensions, in the context of all kinds of serious disputes that they deal with, can have real consequences. I have very great concerns about the impact and effect of that particular section. When I have had conversations with construction and building trades unions about this particular section, many have said to me that they had not thought about this, and that I might be right and there could be a challenge with that particular section. Initially, they are very supportive of the bill. Virtually every person in the construction and building trades unions whom I talked to thinks this is a great bill to deal with a union that they think is not a real union or is an employer-dominated union. However, when I pointed out some of the things inside the bill that I think are concerning, many of those very same people shared those concerns. I do not know if the member is open to making amendments to this piece of legislation. We have talked a little. I hope she is open to making amendments to this piece of legislation, because I believe that there is a way to get this legislation to a point where it could be supported by the Conservatives. I do not know where the Liberal Party members are on this. The member's speech did not touch too much on the substance of the legislation. It talked about a whole bunch of other things, so I do not know 100% where they are, but from my perspective, I think that the legislation needs a bit of tweaking. I want to conclude my remarks by saying, because I do not get the opportunity too often to speak about unions and the great things that they do, that my son went from the private sector into a unionized environment in the construction industry, and his life got 10 times better, so no one is more convinced than me of the good work that unions do to represent people.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like the number in the bill. Do you really want two workers to make the whole union look bad? That's too small. I'm worried this rule goes too far.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I have had this conversation with the member previously. One of the issues I see with this particular piece of legislation is the threshold that is being set for a review of an entire union, which is 25% of any bargaining unit. The concern I have is that there are many small bargaining units across the country. We could go to a small bargaining unit that has five or 10 people and get one, two or three people to sign saying that they believe the union is employer-dominated, and then the entire union is under investigation. Does the member agree with me that there are some concerns about that kind of a threshold? We could have a union with tens of thousands of members, but if two or three people in one small bargaining unit sign a document, the entire union is under investigation. That is how I interpret the legislation, and I have real concerns about it.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-01

“I want to blame the Liberals for Canada's recession. I want to say they caused lost jobs and food insecurity. I don't want to discuss external causes.”

“I want to blame the Liberals for the economy shrinking. I don't like how you keep saying it's the fastest growing. But it's not. Many people lost jobs this year. If it's because of the world, why is only Canada in trouble?”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-28

“I'm filling my time by telling a story about how some temporary foreign workers were brought in while locals were available. This makes me sad.”

“You didn't answer my first question. I'll ask a different one. Does the program only bring in foreign workers if no Canadians are available for those jobs?”

“You didn't answer the question. People will be upset. The government gave money to a project. Some workers might have been treated very badly. Can you tell me one thing you did to check or stop this?”

“You didn't answer the question about undocumented workers. Four were found at the Calgary event centre project. Are you aware of this, and what are you doing to stop it?”

“Mr. Chair, the government admits many people are undocumented. Can the minister promise none work illegal jobs at construction sites the government pays for?”

“You've lost control of our borders. There are a lot of undocumented people.”

“The chair asked me to speak. I want to say that the minister is very very bad. She should feel bad about her choices. A union leader named Doug Parton said that temporary foreign workers are just used to lower everyone's wages. Is the minister saying Doug is wrong?”

“You haven't answered my point. I said your program hurts Canadian workers. Admit you were wrong.”

“You won't admit you messed up. I want you to look bad. The union said guest workers are bad for jobs and pay. I want you to apologize and admit you're wrong.”

“You should apologize for giving out 126,000 foreign worker permits and hurting 127,000 unemployed Canadians.”

“You can't answer my first question, so I'm asking you a harder one.”