Kyle Seeback · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-28

“You're avoiding my question. Do you really think removing that protection was fine? How bad was the problem it was meant to solve?”

“You Liberals removed a rule that protected jobs. Now you must decide if it was good or if you regret it.”

Private Members' Business

Canada Labour Code

2026-05-27

“I don't think we should get rid of section 107. The Liberals are abusing it. They're making everything worse. They keep stopping strikes. They're doing pointless studies. Labour relations are a mess because of them. That's the real problem.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this private member's bill, which I believe is exceptionally well intentioned. This is a private member's bill that has been designed due to the malfeasance of the Liberal government. When I say “malfeasance of the Liberal government,” one might be wondering what I mean. What I mean is that up until the last two years, there was nobody in this country who said that we should get rid of section 107. There was not a single union saying that. There were no national unions saying that. In fact, section 107 was used the way it was supposed to be used for decades in this country. It has been the Liberals' weaponization of section 107 that has led us here today. Let me explain what I mean by weaponization. We should take a look at section 107 in and of itself. The section is quite valuable. It says, “where the Minister deems it expedient, may do such things as to the Minister seem likely to maintain or secure industrial peace” and “the Minister may refer any question to the Board or direct the Board to do such things as the Minister deems necessary.” The purpose of section 107 was to refer things to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and the board would then do things to maintain industrial peace. That is how it functioned, until these Liberals, by accident, discovered a secret power within section 107. When I say they discovered this accidentally, I mean they literally discovered it accidentally. Minister Seamus O'Regan, during the WestJet mechanics strike, referred a matter to the CIRB. He asked the CIRB to impose binding arbitration. Fine, that is what the CIRB went on to do, but it also then said that it did not mean the right to strike was taken away, because that was not specifically requested in the referral. The WestJet strike went on and, guess what? The parties reached a settlement. They reached a collective agreement themselves, which is how it should work. Conservatives firmly believe the best deals are made at the bargaining table. That bargaining can be hard. Sometimes there is pain as a result of that bargaining and the disruption, but the parties come to an agreement themselves, and that is how it should work. What the Liberals discovered in their mistake with the referral of the WestJet mechanics strike is that all they needed to do in their next referral was add in “and the parties are not allowed to strike or be locked out.” They stumbled into this new power, and once they had this new power, they became absolutely addicted to it. They then used it seven times over the next year and a bit to take away the right to strike for Canadian workers. They routinely and repeatedly used it and specifically told the Canada Industrial Relations Board that as part of the referral for binding arbitration, it must also order the parties to cease a strike and a lockout, thereby depriving unionized workers of their constitutionally protected right to strike. These section 107 referrals are now before the courts, and the courts will be determining the constitutionality of those referrals. I can understand why the NDP has said we need to get rid of section 107, because these Liberals have created such a toxic environment in labour relations in this country because of their repeated use of section 107. It is like they are hammers and everything, therefore, is a nail. It is the only thing they can do. If there is any labour dispute, get out section 107 and smash it to the end. That is what the Liberals been doing for the past 18 months. It was so terrible, as my colleague pointed out, that the CEO of Air Canada was relying on the use of section 107, which is why they had no fallback position when the flight attendants chose not to follow the CIRB order saying to end the strike. Amazingly, through that defiance, they came to a collective agreement, just like when the strike went on with WestJet and the WestJet mechanics. The parties were able to find an agreement for themselves. What is the problem here? Is the problem that section 107 allows the government to refer certain things to the Canada Industrial Relations Board? Is that the problem? No, it is not the problem, because, for decades, that power existed. For decades, it was used properly. For decades, it was used appropriately. The challenge has now come because the Liberals weaponized the use of section 107. If they had used it once, we would not be having this conversation. This private member's bill would not be on the Order Paper today. If they had used it twice, it probably would not be either, but the Liberals became obsessed with using section 107. Why did they have to routinely use section 107? It is because they have allowed the environment in this country between employers and unionized workers to become so toxic that it was the only way they could end disputes, rather than allowing the collective bargaining process to continue. They used it to stop the work stoppage with CN and CP Rail. They used it with Canada Post. They used it with Air Canada. They used it with WestJet. It is like they had nothing else they thought they could do. In the process, they have created outrage among Canadian unions, outrage at the use of section 107. There is so much outrage that the Liberals have decided they are going to do some sham study into the use of section 107. We know what they do with their investigations. They commenced an investigation into unpaid work for flight attendants. What investigation is necessary? They should go and have a conversation with a flight attendant. The Liberals know that flight attendants are doing unpaid work, but they conducted a study to look into whether or not flight attendants do unpaid work. It is unbelievable, actually. They might as well do a study as to whether or not people get wet when they are standing outside when it rains. Unpaid work was being done. But wait, it gets worse. One would think it could not get worse, but it actually does. The first part of their study came back and said that they need to do more study. It is literally unbelievable. After a decade of these Liberals, the state of labour relations in this country has never been worse. We have seen the most work disruptions in the last couple of years, more than we have seen in the last 30 years. In part, it is because of how they behave. In part, it is the weaponization of section 107. In part, it is because of sham investigations into things like unpaid labour. While I agree with the member's intent in getting rid of section 107, we do not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, if I can use that expression. What we actually need to do is throw out the people who are poisoning labour relations in this country. I want to congratulate the member for putting forward this piece of legislation. I think it is exceptionally well intentioned. Unfortunately, I do not believe that section 107 is the problem. There are lots of ways to use section 107 that are not weaponized and that will not destroy the labour relations in this country. The only way to do that is to get rid of the people who are doing it. Unfortunately, we cannot support this piece of legislation.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The Liberals are the ones abusing section 107 to stop strikes. They're the real problem, not the law itself.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-26

“You didn't answer my one real question. I'll say it again. We only make a tiny number of electric cars. How are you going to make all cars electric in just eight years? Tell me the real plan.”

“Look, that future you're promising sounds great. I just want to know how Canadian car companies are supposed to go from making basically no electric cars today to making only electric cars eight years from now. Can you actually explain how we get there? Because I don't see it.”

“You say you're making everything electric. So how come Honda just shut down their giant electric car plant? What's up with that?”

“You criticized China's unfair practices, but now you're letting in 50,000 Chinese electric cars per year. Which is it? Were you wrong then or are you wrong now?”

“That won't happen. It's impossible. You're letting in too many Chinese cars.”

“Why are you spending so much money to go backwards? You say electric is the future. Then you spend half a billion to switch a factory back to gas engines. That makes no sense.”

“You keep saying that electric cars are the future. But Canada hardly makes any of them. When you say electric is Canada's future, you must really mean electric cars made in China. 50,000 Chinese electric cars are already on their way thanks to you.”

“I want people to think the Liberals are banning almost all vehicles in Canada by 2035.”

“You won't answer my questions. The number is low. I bet you don't even know the percentage.”

“You won't give a real answer, so I'll ask a nitpicky gotcha question instead.”

“That's bad. You didn't answer my question. I want you to look bad. I want to make you look like you do not know what you are doing.”

“You didn't answer me earlier. I think you didn't know the answer. So I'll ask again: these rules mean only electric vehicles are allowed by 2035. Can we agree this is a zero-emission vehicle mandate?”

“I'm going to ask the minister a bunch of questions so I can criticism him later. First question: is it true you're not forcing companies to make electric cars?”

Statements by Members

Liberal Party of Canada

2026-05-26

“The Liberals waste money. They can't explain where $300 million went. They spent $200 million on basically a gravel parking lot. But 2.2 million Canadians still need food banks. I want the Liberals to stop wasting money.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, after 11 years, it is the same Liberal waste and Liberal corruption going on every single day. The Liberals spent nearly $300 million on the PrescribeIT program, yet they could not explain where the money went and why almost nobody used it. Liberal-connected consultants are now getting a gobsmacking $26 billion a year, up 37% from the previous year. This is costing the average family $1,400. They are spending $200 million on a so-called spaceport that is nothing more than a gravel parking lot in Nova Scotia. Meanwhile, after all this spending, 2.2 million Canadians go to food banks every single month. It is really not hard to figure out how these Liberals doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. What is really hard to figure out is why things are still so hard for average Canadians.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-05-08

“The Liberals said they reduced the deficit but they didn't. The deficit is actually higher. The Liberals don't understand that just because they write something doesn't mean it actually happens. Canadians are losing their jobs because of them. The Liberals should apologize.”

“You spent too much money. Debt is high. But unemployment is also high. Jobs are lost. I'm asking you to explain this.”