Debates of June 4th, 2026

Protecting Victims Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to wind the clock back to 2022 when, in this place, the Liberal government of the day passed Bill C-5, which actually removed mandatory minimum penalties for a number of serious gun crimes, including extortion with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. There were no mitigating court cases or rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada that actually mandated that Parliament do that. That was an ideologically imposed piece of legislation that removed them.

Now the Liberals want to bring back mandatory minimums, with what they call a relief valve, which makes them voluntary mandatory minimums. I have also heard voluntary mandatory when it comes to their gun buyback program. Is there anything that is anymore oxymoronic from the Liberal government than this?

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the gun buyback or confiscation plan is actually going after law-abiding citizens who have PALS and get training. For those who have restricted firearms, the bar is even higher. They are not going to get safety valves. They are going to get a mandatory sentencing.

Anything under this is going to get reduced sentences, and that is including firearms offences. The Conservatives have been saying that we have to start tightening the controls and the laws around firearms, especially connected to crimes, but not law-abiding citizens.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, in speaking with our shadow justice minister, something he brought to my attention was that there are many mandatory minimums that are no longer protected, and we tried to give that protection back through our amendments, that have actually already been tested by the Supreme Court and found to be constitutional.

What does that mean, when they can now simply decide to change the ruling?

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a political decision. That is what it is.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that there be a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Monday, June 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6 p.m. at this time, so we could begin Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Fair Representation Act

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

moved that Bill C-259, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (fair representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to stand today to debate this piece of legislation I have brought forward.

I want to start by thanking my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, for seconding this bill. As a new Democrat, I can say I am so proud of our caucus and the work we have done in this Parliament to support and strengthen workers' rights. I think about the repealing of clause 107. I think about the work we have done to close loopholes in the anti-scab legislation to ensure workers are paid for the work that they do. I am so proud to be a New Democrat and to stand with members like the member for Courtenay—Alberni as the party representing workers in the House.

I am also proud to speak to this legislation, Bill C-259, the fair representation bill, or as I like to call it, the wolf in sheep's clothing bill. Today, Parliament will debate a simple idea that workers deserve real representation. The fact is that real unions represent workers and fake unions do not.

I want to thank the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Steelworkers, the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, LiUNA Local 1611, the Building Trades, the International Union of Operating Engineers, IBEW, UA and other workers who stood with me today to talk about why this legislation is so important.

I also want to thank the many unions and workers across this country who have pushed for this legislation and who have supported me along the way. I think about Scott Crichton, a member of IBEW Local 424 in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona, or Tyler Bedford from the Operating Engineers who have worked so closely to make sure this legislation comes to fruition.

Unions support this legislation because unions in this country, the vast majority of them, do what unions are supposed to do. They fight for workers, raise wages, improve safety and strengthen communities. This bill is not about them. They are unions that do the work they are supposed to do. This bill is about fake unions. It is about unions that represent companies, not the workers. It is about unions that do not fight for their workers. It is a danger, because those are the unions that drive down wages, make workplaces less safe and undermine workers' rights. That happens within those unions, but it also happens across sectors, because what impacts one worker impacts us all.

I want to be very clear that workers have asked for this legislation. This came from workers. It came from the concerns that have been raised by labour over many years. When we wanted to bring this legislation forward, we worked with workers, labour leaders, members of the building trades and others across the labour movement.

I want to acknowledge the incredible work that Terry Parker and my friends at the Building Trades of Alberta did to help move this legislation forward. We have strong support from organized labour because real unions have nothing to fear from worker accountability. Real unions support this bill because it protects the rights they have fought for generations to win.

Right now, there is a gap in the legislation. Federal law does recognize that employer-dominated unions are a problem. Subsection 25(1) of the Canada Labour Code says that employer-dominated unions cannot be certified. However, here is where my legislation is so necessary and so important: There is no way for workers to remedy that after certification. There is no worker-driven review process. There is no dedicated mechanism. There are no specific remedies.

There are provinces in this country that have much stronger regulations against company unions, and federal workers deserve that same protection.

What would this bill do? This bill would give workers a practical way to fight back. It would create a process for workers to raise concerns. It would allow workers to seek a review where there are allegations of employer domination or influence. It would require organizations to demonstrate their independence when concerns are raised. It would provide remedies where employer domination is found. It would reinforce a very simple principle that unions must answer to workers, not employers.

This matters. It matters because when employer-dominated unions put employers first, we know that wages suffer. We know that working conditions suffer. We know that safety on the job for Canadian workers suffers. We know that bargaining power, a fundamental right of every worker in this country, the ability to bargain effectively, is taken away, and that right suffers. Workers deserve the confidence that the organization speaking for them is actually on their side.

I want to tell the House a story as to why this matters. Today I had some folks from British Columbia join me. They told a story about Sam Fitzpatrick. This story illustrates for me why this issue is not theoretical. This is not just about what happens on paper. It impacts workers in our country.

Sam Fitzpatrick was a 24‑year‑old who was working in Squamish, B.C. He was killed on the job in 2009. There were serious safety failures that were documented. Previous incidents were documented. His employer had promised it would do better, that it would not endanger the workers' safety. Concerns were raised. Risks remained. There was a WCAT review. In fact, the employer was described as “heedless”, “wanton”, “extreme”, “gross” and “highly irresponsible”. This is the employer.

The union representing Sam Fitzpatrick was the CLAC, the Christian Labour Association of Canada. It wrote in and said, “a presidential penalty was not appropriate given the employer's prior demonstrated commitment to safety.” The CLAC literally argued that the corporation should be fined less for its incompetence and its failure to protect the life of a worker. It is unbelievable. A worker was killed, the family was seeking accountability, and the union representing that worker argued against the harshest penalty. That is not what a real union does. That is the opposite of what a real union does. Workers expect more from a union. Workers deserve more from a union.

That is not the only example. Today I stood in the foyer with a photo of Sam Fitzpatrick, a 24‑year‑old worker. My children are that age. That man had parents. He had friends. He had people who loved him.

There are other examples. In 2025, at the Executive Hotel Le Soleil, the B.C. Labour Relations Board found unlawful employer interference in the employees' choice of union. Management steered workers toward the CLAC and away from Unite Here Local 40. The board later voted that the employer's voluntary recognition agreement with the CLAC needed to be voided. It happened again with the EXchange Hotel in 2026, where there were findings of employer interference. There was pressure. There were inducements. There was employer support.

Decisions were issued in 2025 and 2026. This is still happening in this country. This is not history. This is happening right now.

I want to talk a bit about the international context. Union independence is recognized internationally as a core principle. In 2011, the ITUC suspended CLAC and said that workers deserve representation independent from employer influence. This is all happening right now.

Millions of dollars in federal funding flowed to CLAC last year. The same year that the B.C. Labour Relations Board brought a finding against it for not properly representing its members, the federal government was spending millions of dollars and diverting that money there.

In my home province of Alberta, the UCP government just announced a new $4-million training initiative being delivered in partnership with the CLAC. Workers are raising concerns, yet governments are continuing to write cheques. Workers deserve confidence, before public money is spent and before public money is handed over, that it is going to unions that represent workers.

I will tell members some good news. Just months ago, more than 800 workers at an Edmonton manufacturing facility voted to leave CLAC and join the operating engineers, because they were dissatisfied with the representation they were receiving. It was one of the largest departures from CLAC in Canadian history, and it happened not decades ago, but last year.

When I talk about federally regulated workplaces, I am talking about everyone who is working in those workspaces, which is roughly one million workers. These are workers in transportation, telecommunications, broadcasting, banking, grain handling, longshoring and federally regulated construction. These workers deserve protection. They deserve to be represented by a union that will represent them and only them. That is what this legislation would do.

In this country, workers are worried. They are worried about affordability. They are worried about wages. They are worried about job security. The economic war we are having with the United States, the tariffs and the economic impacts are causing uncertainty. The moves that the Liberal government is making to strip workers of their rights, such as the use of section 107, a backdoor method to force workers back to work, continue to undermine the rights of workers in this country.

This legislation would give workers their rights back, because workers need stronger protections, not weaker protections. The Liberals and the Conservatives say they support workers. This is their opportunity to prove it.

Real unions answer to workers. Employer-dominated unions do not. Fake unions do not. Let us put power back where it belongs. Let us put power back with workers.

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

Madam Speaker, I will have the opportunity shortly to provide more details, but I do have one question.

I think it is important, as we look over the private member's bill, that we try to provide a clear definition, and I guess this is what I would look to my colleague for. If the member could provide a clear definition of “employer influence” and how she sees that within the legislation, it would be appreciated.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear. A good union that represents workers' rights is elected democratically by the members, and it answers only to the members. That is the definition of a good, democratic union.

I stood today with Siobhán Vipond, the vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, and she spoke about the democracy within the labour movement. I think it is important for us to recognize that democratically elected leadership that is responsible to the members, and only to the members, is a key component of good union leadership, of good union representation.

That is what this bill would do. It would actually protect the right of workers to trust and know, without any doubt, that who is representing them is only representing their interests.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

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.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the 25% threshold is a screening threshold. It is not a decision threshold. I think that is important to clarify. It ensures that a meaningful number of workers support a review before the board is asked to investigate allegations of employer domination. At the same time, it is significantly lower than the threshold required to remove a bargaining agent or trigger a representation vote. The threshold balances accessibility for workers with the stability in labour relations.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and her bill.

I will have an opportunity to speak about it later, but I have a question for her. Around the world, we are seeing democracy losing ground in an uncertain economic context. Unions exist. We know that, in times of economic uncertainty, it is essential to stand up for workers independently of management. In a context where democratic rights are being rolled back, that is important.

How important are these two principles and her bill for democracy and for standing up for workers in an uncertain economic context?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is an excellent question. These principles of democracy that protect workers' rights are fundamental. She is absolutely correct in that the attacks on worker rights are not just happening by our federal government in Canada. They are happening around the world. Corporations are undermining workers' rights. Governments in Canada and around the world are undermining workers' rights. People are trying to take away the rights of workers to use their right to collective bargaining, to demand safe workspaces, to demand pay for the work that they do.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to speak to Bill C‑259. I have had the opportunity in the past to do this, but I would like to use this time not only to reinforce my personal beliefs and thoughts in regard to unions but also to talk about the manner in which the government of today, and under Justin Trudeau, has been there to have people's back and support unions. I think there are a number of examples of that.

I can still remember MaryAnn Mihychuk, who was our labour minister at one time, bringing in legislation in order to repeal a private member's bill that was brought in by the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper. More recently, there was the anti-scab legislation, which was a significant achievement. I have always argued that the national government can play a leadership role in dealing with workers' rights and advocating for the benefits of unions.

I like to think that the whole idea behind the anti-scab legislation is that it is something that not only regulates federal employees but also demonstrates strong leadership for other jurisdictions. Even though the bulk of the unionized workforce is under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, we can actually set an example, because not every province has anti-scab legislation. In fact, I believe that B.C. and Quebec are the two provinces that have anti-scab legislation.

I know that in my home province of Manitoba, in the late 1980s, I advocated for anti-scab legislation or, failing that, to support final offer selection as an alternative to anti-scab legislation. We could not get support beyond our caucus at the time. I think that within each political entity we will often find that there are some very strong advocates for unions. I represent the north end of Winnipeg. A lot of people reflect on the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg, which was a historic moment not only for the union movement in the city of Winnipeg but also from a national perspective. We will still find people, including me, who will advocate that it had an impact around the world.

I think we all have a responsibility to promote and encourage the union movement here in Canada. Some programs and other things we have today have been spearheaded by unions. I can think of many different social programs, as well as ways in which budgets and laws have been influenced by the union movement here in Canada. I think that when we talk about unions, we need to highlight how we as a society have benefited by them.

However, we also have a job to do. That is something that has been pointed out today, and we will take a look at it. That is why I posed the question I did for the member opposite. I was genuinely wanting to get a better understanding of what is within the legislation.

Protecting workers' rights has always been a priority for me personally, and it will continue to be. I recognize that, at times, what we have witnessed is the domination of a union that does not have the support of the workers. It is the workers who make the decision to have a union and who put it into place, and the union is there to represent the workers. I think, if we take a look at it from a historical point of view, that has been the case, but unfortunately there are examples where that has not been the case. If we can deal with this issue in a tangible way, I suspect we will find an openness of the government to do so.

If we take a look within the Labour Code itself, the issue of protecting the integrity of collective bargaining is there. The issue of protecting the integrity of the worker, through not having employer interference in union membership, is also there. I think these are the types of things we should be reinforcing in their importance.

I like the manner in which the member had put it, that unions are there to answer to the workers. I appreciate that particular comment because I truly believe that is the case. I think that we can collectively continue to demonstrate leadership in the manner in which we approach those issues.

I also believe it is important that we try to depoliticize, where we can. I had the opportunity recently to talk with the union membership of the Winnipeg transit union to hear some of the concerns they have in areas where Ottawa has some influence. I would indicate to James and company at the Winnipeg transit union that I understood what they had to say, and I will be sharing those concerns with the government in an attempt to deal with them.

I appreciate the phenomenal work that our firefighter associations and unions have done across the country. In particular, in my home province of Manitoba, we had Alex Forrest, a champion for our firefighters in how the membership, the workers, can actually benefit from strong advocacy.

I am really encouraged with Canada Post's recent decision to ratify an agreement. I believe the vote was over 85% in favour. That agreement has been a long time coming. It is very gratifying to see that there is, at least, an agreement ratified by the employees, but I understand that the employees still have many concerns. Some of those are concerns that I plan to continue to advocate for, because I genuinely want Canada Post to be there for future generations.

These are the types of issues, whether it is advocating for union membership or supporting good union jobs through programs such as the Red Seal program, where we are promoting a significant amount of allocated money that is going to assist, literally, 80,000 to 100,000 new highly skilled workers. That anti-scab legislation is something that I take great pride in. Hopefully, other provincial jurisdictions will take it up and move on that particular file as well.

I believe in the importance of ensuring that workers have confidence in their union executives. A big part of that is to ensure that it is not being influenced by employers. That is really an important aspect of the role unions have to play. The manipulation of unions is something that I believe, in principle, we have to look out for and protect them from. That is why I am very much interested in how the Canada Labour Code could potentially be improved or if there are other things we can do to protect our unions.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

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.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑259, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding fair representation. I thank my colleague for tabling it.

We are debating a fundamental principle of our democracy: the freedom of workers to organize freely. This right is not a privilege. It is a right that has been recognized by the courts, by international conventions and by our own laws. When employees choose to join a union, they must be able to do so without intimidation, pressure or interference from their employer. Bill C‑259 would ensure just that. The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill.

I will start by talking about the importance of unions and why we are talking about them here tonight. I will then talk about the changes set out in Bill C‑259. Lastly, I will talk about Quebec's progressiveness in this area.

First, why are unions important? All too often, we forget everything that unions have helped us achieve. Think of paid leave, annual holidays, pension plans, health and safety protections, parental leave, anti-harassment measures and decent wages. None of that appeared out of thin air. Those gains were achieved thanks to generations of workers who organized collectively.

Even today, unions play a vital role. They help reduce inequality. They promote better working conditions. They help to reduce the gender pay gap. They ensure better protection for the most vulnerable workers. According to Statistics Canada, unionized employees, on average, earn more than non-unionized workers in comparable jobs. Unionized workplaces also have fewer workplace accidents and more prevention measures in place. That is not insignificant.

Some might believe that this is not a major issue in federally regulated sectors, but that is not the case. Federally regulated sectors include banking, telecommunications, airlines, railways, ports and interprovincial transport. More than 900,000 workers are covered by the Canada Labour Code. Approximately 34% of those workers are covered by a collective agreement. In certain strategic sectors such as rail transportation or postal services, the unionization rate actually exceeds 70%. Union independence in these sectors is therefore a major issue.

At its core, the bill we are debating this evening is all about company unions. What is a company union? It is a union dominated, controlled or influenced by the employer, a union that no longer truly represents the workers' interests, a union that essentially becomes an extension of the employer. Historically, this practice has been used to prevent the emergence of bona fide labour organizations. The company would create a fake union, negotiate with that fake union, and then claim that the right to organize was being respected. However, in reality, the workers were losing their genuine bargaining power.

Second, what does Bill C‑259 accomplish? The Canada Labour Code already prohibits employer interference, but the current provisions are relatively general. The bill clarifies the rules. It clearly defines employer domination and influence as the employer contributing financially to the union, controlling union leaders, interfering in union elections, or making promises or threats intended to influence members. In other words, we are moving from a general principle to concrete criteria.

The bill also provides for the revocation of certification of an employer-dominated union, the possible nullification of a collective agreement entered into under such conditions, strengthened remedies before the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and fines of up to $100,000. It really sets clear guidelines.

Third, I want to talk about Quebec as a model. Quebec has often been a pioneer in this area. For decades, the Quebec Labour Code has protected union autonomy. Sections 12 and 13 of our labour code explicitly prohibit any form of employer interference in union activities.

Quebec also pioneered several major reforms. For example, it banned replacement workers. For years, Quebec led the way while Ottawa was slow to act and the Bloc Québécois was calling for action. Even now, the federal government often follows suit on protections already recognized in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois sees Bill C‑259 as yet another example of that.

Vigilance remains necessary. That is why we need Bill C‑259. Some might say that company unions are rare today. That may be, but when it comes to basic freedoms, we must never wait for a problem to become widespread before taking action. As lawmakers, our role is also preventive. We pass laws to prevent abuses. That is exactly what they are for. We pass laws to protect workers before their rights are violated. This bill sends a clear message. Employers must negotiate with legitimate worker representatives. They cannot create or control the organizations meant to represent workers.

The Bloc Québécois fought for this improvement. However, we believe there is still a blind spot. The problem is the lack of data. The Canada Industrial Relations Board does not produce detailed statistics on specific cases of employer interference or on employer-controlled unions. If we want to improve the laws in future, we must be able to assess the reality of the situation and properly document cases. We therefore hope that more data will be collected and made public. This could certainly be a worthwhile goal to aim for in future.

In conclusion, at its core, this debate is simple. A union must belong to the workers, not the employer. Workers must be able to freely choose their representatives. They must be able to freely negotiate their working conditions. They must be able to defend their interests without fear of reprisal. The Bloc Québécois has always defended workers' rights. We have done the same with regard to EI and seasonal workers. I keep saying that the Bloc Québécois will return to the fray with a bill for a comprehensive reform of EI to better protect seasonal workers, amongst others, but it is much broader in scope than that. We have also done the same for workers affected by the use of replacement workers, and we continue to monitor that situation.

We will continue to do so because a fairer society means fairer workplaces. A healthy democracy requires free and independent labour organizations. In addition, respect for workers should never be negotiable. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑259.

I would like to close with additional statistics on unionization in Quebec. Quebec has one of the highest unionization rates in North America. In 2024, 39.2% of Quebec workers were unionized, compared to about 28% in Canada. More than 1.6 million Quebec workers are covered by a collective agreement. We can see that these numbers and the impact of unions have an effect on wages.

According to Statistics Canada, unionized workers earn on average 10% to 15% more than comparable non-unionized workers. The gap is even wider among women, young people, and workers with less education. With regard to inequality, according to the OECD and several academic studies, declining unionization accounts for between 20% and 30% of the increase in wage inequality observed since the 1980s. Highly unionized sectors generally exhibit smaller income gaps, less wage discrimination, and greater access to pension plans.

When it comes to health and safety, unionized workplaces report more workplace accidents. Workers in these settings are more likely to have access to joint health and safety committees, training, and grievance procedures.

Here are a few more statistics to wrap up: Between 1981 and today, the proportion of unionized workers in the Canadian private sector has fallen by about 40%. Despite this, unions still represent more than four million workers in Canada. That is still a significant number, and that is why we are debating this bill today.

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona for bringing Bill C-259 forward and for her advocacy on behalf of workers.

The Government of Canada recognizes the spirit and intent of Bill C-259, because fairness for all Canadian workers is our top priority. Given the economic headwinds we are facing, worker fairness is needed now more than ever.

Canada's economy is at a turning point. The global labour landscape has shifted dramatically, causing economic shockwaves felt at home and abroad. Tariffs have dealt a significant blow to workers and employers. This has caused real stress for families and communities across Canada. During uncertain economic times like these, Canadians expect the government to have their backs, and we do. We are working closely with employers and unions to shore up Canada's workplaces and ensure they remain fair and productive.

Our marching orders are clear. We must protect Canadian workers while strengthening our country's economic resilience. We cannot build a strong economy without respecting the workers who keep it running every day. That is why we are fully committed to ensuring that workers and their employers have the tools they need to weather this current labour storm.

At the heart of Canada's labour framework is the Canada Labour Code. It is more than a law that governs federally regulated workplaces in Canada. It is a promise to protect and support more than one million workers in 22,000 federally regulated industries. It is a promise we will continue to keep, because fair workplaces and a strong economy go hand in hand.

Our federal labour framework already works well, but we are always on the lookout for ways to build greater trust, strengthen our labour relations approach and make our policies more flexible and proactive. Today, I would like to highlight our ongoing approach to supporting federally regulated workplaces and the collective bargaining process that is protected by law.

The structural integrity of the collective bargaining process is held together by trust and independence. Without those two key ingredients, the process would fail. For agreements to work, workers must trust their union, and employers must trust the system. Any perception of outside influence weakens the system. Workers should also be able to choose their representatives freely and trust that those representatives act in their best interest. They deserve unions that answer to them without being influenced by external pressures. That is why Canada's labour relations system is built on a structured process that balances workers' rights and employers' responsibilities.

I can assure members that the Government of Canada firmly believes in the right to strike. It is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is a key element of free, balanced and respectful labour relations. We believe in open and unfettered dialogue between the parties and that workers must have real bargaining power to reach those agreements.

We know that the best agreements are those negotiated at the bargaining table. We also know that collective bargaining is not easy, but it produces the strongest deals that represent the needs of the parties involved and that help stabilize the economy. That is why we have taken concrete measures to strengthen that right while maintaining balance across the system.

I am referring to Bill C-58, a historic act to ban replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces during strikes or lockouts. It also improved the maintenance of activities process so that parties determine early in the process what work needs to continue to ensure public safety during a work stoppage. It received unanimous support in Parliament and was written into law one year ago this month, on June 20, 2025. Banning the use of replacement workers protects workers' right to strike, removes distractions from collective bargaining and brings greater stability to our economy.

We cannot have a strong economy without stable labour relations. Reforms like Bill C-58 help establish a better balance in negotiations and protect the integrity of the collective bargaining process.

Collective bargaining can lead to tension at the table, but it remains the ideal mechanism for finding lasting, balanced solutions. That is why the federal labour regime relies on established rules and fair, transparent, independent decision-makers to help parties come to solid agreements. I am referring to the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the federal mediation and conciliation service. They both play an invaluable role in Canada's labour relations system.

While news headlines may paint a different picture, the truth is most labour disputes are resolved without a work stoppage. In fact, in the last fiscal year, the vast majority of disputes in federally regulated workplaces were resolved without a work stoppage when the parties worked with the federal mediation and conciliation service. This tells us the system works well, when parties bargain in good faith and when they have access to the right support.

Labour relations affect wages, productivity and economic stability. Success at the bargaining table contributes to a stronger economy, but we also know the opposite is true. When labour disputes collapse, this can have rapid and significant repercussions for millions of Canadians, businesses, exporters and the economy writ large. When an economy slows down significantly, it is often workers who bear the brunt of the impact. The collective bargaining space must remain uncluttered by external distractions, so parties can focus on solutions that can stand the test of time.

It is here that I would like to turn back to the task at hand and talk about Bill C-259. Bill C-259 proposes a handful of specific amendments. It proposes to further define and codify employer influence and to bar certification of employer-dominated unions. It also adds procedural and governance requirements for certification and creates new penalties, such as summary conviction, up to $100,000.

These preventative and clarifying measures are consistent with the code's foundational values. In fact, part I of the code already prohibits employer interference, and CIRB has previously applied these rules broadly through past decisions. We have also found limited evidence of widespread employer-dominated unions in federally regulated sectors.

We are aware that the absence of widespread problems is not an argument against clear rules. We know that clear rules set clear expectations, often preventing problems before they arise. I am sure we can all agree that a proactive approach is always the best approach, especially when it comes to labour relations.

The Government of Canada will always protect the rights of Canadian workers, including the right to strike. We are always looking for ways to help strengthen labour stability and bolster Canada's competitiveness while supporting workers' rights. One way to ensure workers are supported and policies reflect the distinct challenges of today's workplaces is through consultations. That is why this government held consultations in the spring with unions, employers and indigenous partners to discuss potential ways to improve worker support and the federal labour relations framework.

These talks provided invaluable perspectives on the collective bargaining process in federally regulated industries, for example. We have explored various important topics in these consultations, and we are all ears for new and innovative improvements. Discussions like these are essential to help inform practical and long-lasting ways to support workers and workplaces, and ensure they have the tools they trust and that help them succeed.

I would like to close by once again thanking the member for Edmonton Strathcona for bringing this bill forward and for her advocacy on behalf of workers. I would like to reaffirm the Government of Canada's unwavering commitment to the integrity of collective bargaining and fair worker representation. We will continue working closely with all stakeholders to ensure that our federally regulated institutions can rely on fairness at the bargaining table, now and in the future.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my job to bring a profound conclusion to the debate before us tonight, and I am happy to add my 30 seconds of wisdom.

Let me begin by stating something quite clearly, Conservatives believe workers have the right to organize. We believe workers have the right to choose their representation freely and democratically. We believe employer domination of unions has no place in Canada. Those principles are not in dispute.

The question before us is whether Bill C-259 strengthens workers' rights or whether it creates instability, uncertainty and unintended consequences in federally regulated workplaces. The sponsor argues that workers must be represented by organizations independent from employer influence. On that point, there is broad agreement. However, the reality is that the Canada Labour Code already contains strong protections against employer interference. Today a union cannot be certified if it is so dominated or influenced by an employer that its ability to represent workers is impaired.

I will wrap up with that profound statement of five or six sentences tonight. I appreciate the patience of the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member will have eight and a half minutes to conclude his remarks when we return to the subject.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.