MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Don Davies

Follow by RSS

Davies pushes workers’ rights and affordability: banning replacement workers in strikes and lockouts, paying flight attendants for all hours worked, a windfall profits tax on oil companies he says will make $90 billion this year, and federal funding for a Filipino cultural centre in Vancouver. He treats one figure as proof of a whole conclusion: prices rose after the fuel tax cut, so “It did not work.” He also presses ministers for specifics on pharmacare, fraud and defence spending.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
89 / 100 over 33 statements
Signal 88 / 100
Relevance 73 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 97 / 100
Averaged over the 33 of 46 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Does well more than most

Answered ×1.6

Statements 46

Oral Questions ·

Finance

“The Bank of Canada just raised interest rates, making loans, mortgages, and credit cards more expensive. Prices are predicted to stay high through 2027. Why is the government failing to make life more affordable for Canadians?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being hammered by the rising cost of living, and yesterday brought another blow with the Bank of Canada hiking interest rates for the first time since 2023. This means higher credit card bills, bigger mortgage payments and more expensive loans for working families. It will put added strain on small businesses and things will get worse. The Bank of Canada forecasts inflation to soar through 2027. Why is the Liberal government failing to bring down the cost of living and make life more affordable for Canadians?

Oral Questions ·

Government Priorities

“This bill makes drastic changes to Canada and puts foreign profits ahead of workers, the environment, and Indigenous peoples. Scientists warn it will cause irreversible harm unless it is changed. I want the minister to extend the committee hearings so experts and Canadians can properly review it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 would make drastic changes to our country. It puts the profits of foreign investors over Canadians’ labour rights, environmental protections and indigenous peoples, yet Liberals, aided by Conservatives, are shutting out critical voices who want to be heard. This includes eminent scientists from the Royal Society of Canada who today warned that without major amendments, the bill will inflict irreversible harm. Will the minister extend the special committee hearings to ensure full scrutiny of this sweeping legislation by experts, stakeholders and ordinary Canadians?

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“This bill will hurt Indigenous rights, environmental laws, and workers' rights. The government and the Conservatives are rushing it through without giving Canadians enough time to speak on it. I want to know why.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister calls Bill C-39 the most consequential legislation of this Parliament. New Democrats agree it will indeed have profound consequences for all Canadians. It will trample indigenous rights, override environmental laws and violate workers’ rights, yet the government has allocated only eight hours to hear from witnesses not chosen by Liberals. This bill will deeply impact our country for decades to come. Why are Liberals, aided by Conservatives, ramming it through without properly consulting Canadians?

Oral Questions ·

Steel and Aluminum Industry

“An American company broke its promises and is firing 500 Canadian steelworkers at Stelco. Steel is vital to our economy and security. I want the government to protect Canadian steel jobs.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, 500 Canadian steelworkers at Stelco are being thrown out of work by a U.S. corporation and its Trump-supporting CEO. Cleveland-Cliffs violated the commitments it made as a condition of this foreign takeover. This is a MAGA-driven attempt to deindustrialize Canada by stripping away our manufacturing capacity and jobs. Steel is a strategic industry. It underpins our economy, our sovereignty and our national security. The future of Canadian steel must be decided in Canada. Will the Liberal government stand up for Canadian workers and secure this vital—

Statements by Members ·

Filipino Cultural Centre

“British Columbia gave $15 million for a Filipino cultural centre. The federal government promised to help too. I want the federal government to send its money now so building can begin.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Filipino Canadian community in British Columbia has worked for decades to make a permanent Filipino cultural centre a reality. Today, that goal is closer than ever. This week, New Democrat Premier David Eby pledged $15 million to help make this dream come true. The community has led, and British Columbia has stepped up. For 18 years, I have championed this worthy project in Parliament. As NDP finance critic, I recently secured a budget commitment to provide federal support. It is now time for the federal government to follow through and provide the funding needed to finally break ground. Filipino Canadians enrich our country every day through their hard work, talents and generosity. Their contributions build Canada economically, socially and culturally, and they deeply strengthen the fabric of our nation. They deserve a public place to gather, celebrate their heritage and pass it on to future generations, and they deserve it now. Mabuhay, Filipino cultural centre.

Government Orders ·

Privilege

“Members of Parliament must see the details of new bills before the media does. The government leaked details of this defence bill to reporters first. I want you to rule that this violates our rights and tell the government to stop doing it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add my voice in support of the question of privilege raised by the hon. House leader from the official opposition on Tuesday evening. As members know, it is a well-established principle of this place that while government has the right, the ability and, in many cases, the obligation to speak to the public and to consult on potential legislation before it is introduced, once a bill is placed on the Order Paper it becomes a matter for Parliament. That is why Speakers have consistently ruled that premature disclosure of a bill on notice can constitute a breach of the collective rights and privileges of the House and its members, specifically our fundamental right to be informed first about government legislation. Various Speakers have ruled on this matter, finding that disclosure of even partial elements of legislation can constitute a violation and ultimately is a prima facie breach of privilege. We heard on Tuesday evening a very compelling argument from the member for Regina—Qu’Appelle that there were details about Bill C-40 published in media reports, based on unnamed sources, that were neither known prior to the bill being placed on notice nor related to the title of the bill, as found on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, we are seeing a concerning pattern from the Liberal government. Over the last year, there have been repeated leaks from so-called unauthorized sources to journalists in a clear attempt to shape public discourse. This is sharp practice, somewhat devious but, arguably, not prohibited. However, when this happens after a bill has been placed on the Order Paper but before parliamentarians have had the opportunity to look at it, this becomes an objectionable attempt to breach the privileges of members and avoid the proper oversight Canadians expect from this House. This is a concerning pattern that, we respectfully submit, must be stopped. It demonstrates a disrespect for our democratic institution, and we believe a clear message must be sent to the government that end-running Parliament in this manner is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. We submit that it is vitally important that members of Parliament assert our fundamental rights to receive details about legislation prior to members of the media. Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, we ask that you uphold this fundamental parliamentary privilege.

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

In response to a question from Natilien Joseph

“The Liberal government has violated workers' rights to strike ten times in three years. They force workers back to work right away, which helps management and hurts fair bargaining.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of thinking; it is a matter of observing. I have watched workers in this country in the last 36 months have their rights violated 10 times by the Liberals, including by the member across from me. Of course, they have violated strike rights, and every time they take away a worker’s right to strike hours after they began. They did not even wait until there was any impact on the public or on the employer. In fact, that is why Air Canada said it was not bargaining seriously at the table: It knew that the government was going to order the workers back to work before the strike even started, and that is what the Liberals did. They are doing the bidding of management. They are tipping the scales in favour of management. They are interfering with collective bargaining and violating workers’ constitutional rights. Workers know it and unions know it; that member should also know it.

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“I oppose this bill. The government is trying to protect itself from lawsuits after forcing striking workers back on the job. Workers have a constitutional right to strike, and this government does not respect them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the answer is clearly no. In fact, I believe the real reason the legislation has been brought forth here in the House is that 12 hours after the flight attendants of Air Canada walked off the job, the Liberal government ordered them back to work. It was 12 hours after the rail workers went on strike that the government ordered them back to work. Do members know what happened? The Teamsters and CUPE filed court challenges saying that the government violated their charter rights. This case is before the courts right now, and in the government, the Liberals know they are going to lose, because the right to strike and the right to collectively bargain are respected charter rights recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Liberals have attempted to charter-proof themselves by bringing in the legislation, but it will not work. By the way, this gives me a chance to point out that this is the first Liberal government in over 100 years not to have a minister of labour. If we want a signal of what the government thinks about workers, it is that it does not even think they deserve their own minister of labour. The Liberals have a Minister of Jobs and Families. Now, that is a big slap in the face to organized labour in this country, and I can tell members that it is noticed.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“This bill has no safeguards to protect workers. It lets a minister end a strike on their own without any evidence. That violates the constitutional right to strike.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 69 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “this member and the current government want to deflect attention from their own actions”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that whenever this member and the current government want to deflect attention from their own actions, they point to someone else. It reminds me of my mother when I was in grade 3, when she asked me, “If Johnny jumped off the bridge, would you?” It is a ridiculous argument, but I want to address the misinformation embedded in the member’s question. There is not a single guardrail in the legislation, not one. We can read it. It says that it is through the sole opinion of the minister, taking into account any relevant consideration they want, that they may order the end of a strike. There is not a guardrail in the legislation. One person can end a strike based on no evidence whatsoever after a special mediator issues a report. The only misinformation is spread by the government in trying to tell Canadians that they put guardrails in this. There are no guardrails at all. This is a road map to violate Canadian workers’ constitutional right to strike, and that member knows it or he has not read the legislation.

“I oppose this bill. It gives a single minister the power to end legal strikes, which takes away workers' rights under the Charter. The current system already works, and the government can already pass laws to end strikes after a debate in Parliament.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-39. To begin, I want to point out to Canadians that the Liberal government has once again introduced an omnibus bill of some 246 pages that inappropriately combines measures that do not belong in the same legislation. This ploy is an attempt to blur issues and blunt criticism. It disrespects Parliament and the voters who send us here to properly scrutinize bills and hold government accountable. It directly contradicts previous promises by Liberals not to use this odious practice inappropriately. Unfortunately, this is not surprising. Liberals are infamous for saying one thing at election time and doing the opposite once elected. As labour critic for the New Democratic Party, I will focus on the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code contained in part 3 of this bill. Let there be no doubt that this bill contains one of the most serious attacks on workers’ rights in a generation: the entrenchment of the harmful misuse of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. These changes would expand the federal government’s unilateral authority to terminate a legal strike in a manner more broadly than exists in any G7 country, including Donald Trump’s United States. At its core, this bill would prevent Canadian workers from meaningfully exercising their constitutionally protected freedoms of association and expression. It would restrict their charter right to withdraw their services. It would fundamentally alter the balance of power in collective bargaining in Canada, and the way it would do so is deeply troubling to anyone who supports transparency and accountability. Once again, it reveals a disturbing trend by the Liberal government of concentrating power in the hands of cabinet ministers to avoid being responsible to Parliament. That is the approach of authoritarian rulers, not democratic ones. Let me start by pointing out that ending lawful strikes was never the purpose of section 107. Since its inclusion in the code in 1984, this provision was always understood as an exceptional administrative power, not a weapon to violate workers’ rights. In fact, there have been previous attempts to stretch that authority in the past, including by the Harper government in 2011. Former Conservative labour minister Lisa Raitt has publicly stated that Conservatives contemplated the use of section 107 to end strikes, but decided against it based on legal advice that this was not a proper use of that provision. However, the Liberal government has ignored that history and taken the use of section 107 to an unprecedented extreme. In the last three years alone, Liberals have used section 107 10 times to intervene in labour disputes, most recently involving rail workers, port workers, postal workers and airline workers. In many cases, Liberals used this section to break strikes just hours after they began. Why is this objectionable? It is because the freedoms of association and expression have been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada to include the rights of workers to bargain collectively and withdraw their services in concert to advance their interests, so using the law in this way violates workers’ constitutional rights. Because corporate management has disproportionate power in the workplace with unilateral rights to manage and vastly superior financial resources, workers’ only way to counterbalance these is through withdrawing their services. Interfering with this strips workers of the only real power they have because this legislation undermines the collective bargaining process. If employers know that government will intervene on their behalf to end a strike, they have reduced incentive to bargain seriously and come to an agreement themselves. Members should not take my word for it. Employers like Air Canada have publicly admitted this. It is unnecessary. The federal government and employers already have the tools they need to protect the health and safety of the public or intervene if the Canadian economy is truly imperilled by a protracted labour dispute. Governments always have the power to bring in back-to-work legislation where the issues can be fully debated in public in this chamber and elected representatives are held accountable to their voters by voting in their seats. This has been done numerous times when the national interest requires it. Every labour code in the country, including the Canada Labour Code, has essential services provisions that allow any employer to make a case before an impartial adjudicator that a strike ought to be limited to preserve the health and safety of Canadians. These are routinely used in the cases of bargaining units like those of nurses, police officers and longshore workers. Now, in this legislation, the Liberals want the ability to violate workers’ rights even more easily. Far from containing any guardrails or government right to break strikes, this is a road map for how to do it. Bill C-39 would codify the minister’s unilateral power to end a legal strike and would make the minister’s own opinion the sole test for exercising that power. It would require the minister only to consider the report of a special mediator. This is someone, by the way, whom they appoint and whose recommendations they are entirely free to disregard. It states that the minister may consider any relevant issue they wish, with no benchmarks or limits expressed in the legislation. It would require the minister only to consider the impact of their decision on freedom of association, merely making them think about workers’ rights before violating them. In other words, federal workers can have their rights to take job action taken away by the sole opinion of a single cabinet minister for any reason they find convenient. The legislation is also counterproductive, and I believe it would harm the public’s interest. Undermining the right to strike is more likely to fuel conflict than prevent it. When workers are denied a legal means to withdraw their labour, disputes do not disappear; they risk becoming more confrontational and difficult to resolve. The history of labour relations and market economies makes this clear. When workers’ rights were suppressed, strikes did not disappear: They were frequent, protracted and often violent, and they tore communities apart. The facts prove that the legislation is not even necessary. The truth is that the current system of counterbalanced collective bargaining in this country works. About 95% of all collective agreements in Canada are successfully negotiated at the bargaining table by the parties themselves, with no job action. Canada is on track this year to have the fewest days lost to strikes in the federal sector since 1954. This is why unions across the country have warned against these provisions: They understand that Bill C-39 would fundamentally change the balance of power in labour relations and harm the Canadian economy by fuelling uncertainty and instability. Bea Bruske, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, has been clear: Unions across this country are united. From coast to coast, across every sector, they are delivering the same message that unconstitutional restrictions on the right to strike are unacceptable and will be fought. The right to strike is not a privilege. It is protected by the charter and recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not a right to be respected only when it is ineffective. Strikes can disrupt. They can cause discomfort. They can cause economic consequences to employers and sometimes sections of the public. However, that is the very point of a strike. It is the most impactful, and frankly the only, way workers can demonstrate the value of their labour in the marketplace. By showing the effect the withdrawal of their labour has on society and on their employer, they make the case that they should be compensated accordingly. Let us all acknowledge in this place that labour rights have had and do have a very positive impact on Canadian society. Through the struggle and sacrifice of working people for the last 160 years, as well as the many men and women who took job action for fair wages, safer working conditions and a better life for their families, all Canadians have benefited. We all enjoy a standard of living that economies with no labour rights look on with envy. This debate is ultimately about more than labour law. It is about what kind of country we want to build and whose interests we seek to defend. New Democrats believe that strong countries are built by empowered workers. Strong economies are built through free and fair bargaining. Strong democracies respect constitutional rights. The legislation is built on the view that workers’ rights are an obstacle to nation building. That is wrong. Workers are the people who literally build this nation. New Democrats believe that if we want to build a stronger Canada, we must respect workers’ rights, value their voices and raise their standard of living, yet—

Oral Questions ·

Labour

“Bank of Canada security officers have been on strike for over three months. The bank broke the law twice by bringing in replacement workers. The Prime Minister says he supports workers, but he is staying silent. I want him to stand up for these workers and condemn the bank.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, two blocks from this chamber, the Bank of Canada’s security officers have been on strike for over three months. Shockingly, the bank has twice been caught breaking federal anti-scab laws. It even brought in Pinkerton, a contractor with a notorious history of violent strikebreaking. The Prime Minister built his reputation as the governor of the Bank of Canada. He is now silent while it repeatedly violates workers’ rights. The Prime Minister claims to defend Canadian workers. Why will he not stand up for these workers and condemn this corporate law-breaking?

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“Cutting the gas tax did not help drivers. Gas costs 14 cents more per litre now, and oil companies kept the savings as profit. We should tax their extra profits instead and give that money to Canadians who need it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. The intentions of this policy may have been good, but the execution has failed miserably. People are paying 14¢ per litre more today for gas than they were before the government decided to give $5 billion in a cut to the fuel excise tax. That is because oil companies pocketed the difference. Here is another piece of math, and it is a matter of public record. Oil and gas companies are on course to making $90 billion in profit this year. Where did the $5 billion go? It did not go into the pockets of people who were filling their tanks. They are paying more today. Oil companies are making more. It is clear where the money went, and that is why the NDP is pushing for a windfall profits tax to take a piece of those profits from the oil and gas industry and then direct that money to the Canadians who really need it.

In response to a question from William Stevenson

“Cutting the fuel tax failed to help Canadians. Oil companies just raised their prices, and gas costs more now than it did before the tax cut.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is very easy math. In fact, it is not just math. It is what has actually happened in the last five months. When the tax was cut at the pump, nothing stopped oil companies from bumping up prices, so the consumer ended up paying more anyway. That is what we are talking about, and there is no price control on the oil companies whatsoever. Here are the statistics taken from the Statistics Canada website. This is what the government says. On the day the tax suspension took effect, the national average price of gasoline was $1.69 per litre. Today, it stands at $1.83 per litre. I think it is pretty obvious that if we are paying $1.83 a litre today and were paying $1.69 a litre before this policy came in, we are paying more for gas today. The policy has failed.

In response to a question from Corey Hogan

“I want this bill changed before we pass it. Cutting the gas tax did not lower gas prices because oil companies just raised their prices. This bill needs a rule that forces oil companies to pass the tax savings on to drivers.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think what my hon. colleague and I agree on is that Canadians need immediate relief and need help with the affordability crisis. I pointed out, and quoted statistics on this, that the policy of the Liberal government to cut the excise tax on oil and gas has not resulted in that. That is not just my opinion. It is the numbers; it is the math. I quoted that the price of gas the day before the Liberals dropped the excise tax back in April was lower than it is today. The prices are much higher today at the pump, and there was no mechanism whatsoever to ensure that oil companies did not just raise prices when the excise tax came down. That was a criticism we raised at the time, and it is probably a mechanism that should be put in this legislation as well to make sure that every penny of this tax relief goes to consumers. That might actually help Canadians, but this legislation does not require it.

“I do not want this bill to pass. Pausing the fuel tax did not lower gas prices for drivers. Gas costs more now than when the pause started, and oil companies kept the savings. Instead of helping big oil companies, we should tax their huge profits and give that money back to Canadians. We should also invest in clean energy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act, which would temporarily extend the government’s fuel tax suspension at a further cost of $2.9 billion. No party in the House has raised greater concern about the affordability crisis facing working Canadians and their families than the New Democrat Party. We know how expensive life has become with the sky-high costs of groceries, fuel and housing, and we know that Canadians need effective relief now. Unfortunately, the policy contained in this bill, which would ultimately cost over $5 billion, has failed to deliver the lower fuel prices Canadians were promised. When this tax suspension was first implemented last April, New Democrats warned that its impact on prices at the pump would be limited because nothing in the legislation guaranteed that savings would actually reach consumers. We argued then that there was nothing to stop oil companies from absorbing some or all of the tax cuts themselves. We were right. Canadians are now paying more for gasoline today than they did in April, and substantially more than they were paying before the latest global energy crisis began. On the day the tax suspension took effect, the national average price of gasoline was $1.69 per litre. Today it stands at $1.83 per litre. It is also more than 60¢ per litre higher than it was last Christmas, before the U.S.-Israeli invasion of Iran sent oil markets into turmoil. The government has essentially given billions of taxpayer dollars directly to the oil companies, some of the most profitable corporations on the planet. While Canadians struggle with the cost of living, oil and gas giants are poised to collect $90 billion in profits this year alone, not because of innovation or increased productivity, but because they are gouging consumers. That is why New Democrats have opposed this policy from the outset, and why we continue to advocate for the future a better, more effective way to help struggling consumers, which is a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies with the proceeds returned to Canadians who need relief. This is not a radical idea. We have done it before in times of crisis. Canada imposed excess profits taxes during both world wars. The Liberals themselves imposed an excess profits tax on banks during the pandemic. It is an approach that makes sense. A windfall profits tax avoids the pitfalls we have just seen from the flawed policy contained in this legislation. It cannot be captured as corporate profits. It allows support to be targeted to those who need it the most. It does not encourage greater fossil fuel consumption at a time when the world is facing a climate emergency. The irony of this fuel tax suspension is hard to ignore. Canadians who have chosen to reduce their emissions by purchasing electric vehicles, taking public transit, cycling or making other environmentally responsible choices are being forced to pay for another fossil fuel subsidy while receiving none of the benefits. We cannot ignore the opportunity cost of delaying our transition to the sustainable energy sources of the future. Every dollar spent propping up an industry that is already enormously profitable is a dollar not invested in the technologies that could lower energy costs, strengthen our economy and free Canadians from the endless roller coaster of oil and gas prices. The world is changing far faster than many people realize. In the early 2020s, we crossed an important threshold. For the first time, solar power became cheaper than fossil fuels and cheaper than coal, making it the lowest cost source of electricity available. Wind power followed closely behind as the second cheapest source. By 2024, over 92% of all new electricity generation added globally came from renewable sources. Solar power is now being installed at a staggering pace around the world, with more than a gigawatt of capacity being added every single day. That is equivalent to the output of a large, coal-fired power plant or a nuclear reactor. The world now possesses the manufacturing capacity to produce as many solar panels as climate scientists say we need. The old arguments that clean energy is too expensive, too unreliable or incapable of meeting our energy needs simply do not withstand scrutiny. The global energy transition is no longer a question of possibility. It is already under way. While the Liberal government spends billions subsidizing fossil fuels, other countries, from Europe to China, are investing in the industries that will create the jobs, exports, productivity gains and economic opportunities of the future. This transformation is not limited to only wealthy countries. According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, renewable energy capacity is growing twice as fast in countries of the global south as it is in developed countries. Communities that have historically lacked reliable access to energy are increasingly leapfrogging directly to clean electricity. These examples matter because they show that the transition is about far more than reducing emissions. It is about freedom, freedom from volatile energy prices, freedom from domination by oil and gas monopolies and freedom from the dangerous geopolitics that have always accompanied fossil fuels, where access to energy can be manipulated, restricted and weaponized. We can see the consequences of that reality unfolding right now in Cuba. For more than 60 years, Cuba has lived under an illegal U.S. economic blockade that has been repeatedly condemned by the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations. Today, that pressure is intensified into an American effort to choke off Cuba’s energy supply altogether. When fuel is cut off, hospitals struggle to operate, water systems fail, food spoils and ordinary people suffer. Let us be clear, this is not an unintended consequence. Humanitarian catastrophe is the objective. Canada has a long tradition of pursuing an independent relationship with Cuba. We have maintained diplomatic relations since 1945, consistently opposed the U.S. economic blockade and built deep cultural and commercial ties between our peoples, yet, as humanitarian conditions worsen and the Trump administration cruelly and illegally blockades Cuba’s fuel supplies, the Liberal government has refused to speak out. That silence is difficult to reconcile with the principles articulated by the Prime Minister in his speech in Davos. There, he argued that middle powers like Canada have a responsibility to defend sovereignty, human rights and solidarity rather than bowing to the exercise of power by stronger states. He cautioned against the temptation to “go along to get along” in the face of coercion and intimidation from superpowers. Those are admirable principles, but if they mean anything, they must apply to Canada and Cuba as well. Canada should speak out strongly and demand that Donald Trump rescind his illegal blockade. We should stand with the Cuban people by providing immediate energy support to keep essential services running while helping the country rapidly build the renewable energy capacity needed to free itself from imported fossil fuels and the threat of future energy blockades. This is ultimately the lesson before us today. Investments in clean energy are not simply climate policy. They are affordable policy. They are industrial policy. They are security policy. They are investments in a future where communities are less vulnerable to geopolitical conflict, less dependent on scarce resources and more capable of determining their own destiny. The technology exists. The costs have fallen. The solutions are available, so let us stop the destructive and senseless expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure and consumption on a planet crying out for relief. Let us stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry, which does not need the money. Canadians do. Let us start investing in the energy supplies of the future that will lower costs, create jobs, build our economy and protect our planet. Canadians can count on New Democrats to support positive and constructive policies in this place that will actually help them with the affordability crisis they are facing. We will continue to oppose corporate giveaways by the Liberal government, which are supported by the Conservative Party, that simply enrich corporations while Canadians struggle every day.

Oral Questions ·

Labour

“The government is bringing in a bill that takes away workers' right to strike. I want the Liberals to stand with workers instead of wealthy investors.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the real nature of the current government is starting to appear: Shovel money at corporations and attack the rights of workers. Today, the Liberals will introduce legislation that would undermine collective bargaining in Canada. They want to eliminate workers’ constitutional right to strike. The New Democrats know that to truly build Canada strong, we need a healthy and respected working class. It is workers who build this country and keep it moving. Why are Liberals intervening for wealthy investors, instead of standing with workers, who want fair and safe workplaces?

Oral Questions ·

Grocery Industry

“Stores use technology to track people and charge them higher prices. Manitoba banned this, and the federal government should too. I want to know why the government's new bill does nothing to stop it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats have raised the alarm on surveillance pricing, an invasive and unfair scheme that gouges Canadians. We called on the Liberals to follow the Manitoba NDP government, which moved swiftly to ban this insidious practice. Instead, the government tabled legislation that not only fails to address this issue, but does not even mention it. I guess AI for everyone really means everyone is a target. Why are the Liberals refusing to protect Canadians from abusive technology that invades their privacy and enables discriminatory pricing?

Oral Questions ·

Infrastructure

“The government promised money for a Filipino cultural centre in Vancouver. I want to know when it will actually deliver those funds.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats have been advocating for a Filipino cultural centre in metro Vancouver for many years. Our persistence resulted in the federal budget committing to fund this much-needed community resource. After the Lapu-Lapu tragedy, this centre is needed now more than ever. The Filipino Canadian community contributes so much to our country. It deserves a place to call home. When will the government honour its promise and deliver the funds necessary to make the Filipino cultural centre a reality?

Statements by Members ·

Filipino Heritage Month

“It is Filipino Heritage Month and Philippine Independence Day. I am thanking Filipino Canadians for all they do to help build our country.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark Philippine Independence Day and to celebrate Filipino Heritage Month across Canada. I was honoured to join many friends in the Filipino Canadian community for the annual flag raising ceremony at Filipino Plaza in the heart of Vancouver Kingsway. It was a proud celebration of bayanihan, representing unity, co-operation and selfless aid. I give many thanks to the United Filipino Canadian Associations in British Columbia for organizing this fabulous event. More than one million Filipino Canadians call Canada home, and their contributions strengthen our nation economically, culturally, politically and socially. In every vocation and profession from health care to education, skilled trades, business and public service, Filipino Canadians play an essential role in building our country. Their generosity, resilience, faith and love of life enrich our society and inspire us all. I thank the Filipino Canadian community for everything they contribute to our world. Maligayang Araw ng Kalayaan. Mabuhay.

Government Orders ·

Main Estimates, 2026-27

In response to a question from Yves Perron

“Small businesses and their workers matter to Canada. Quebec is doing a good job holding banks responsible for fraud. The federal government should follow Quebec's example.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first of all, my heart goes out to those employees, and I agree with my hon. colleague that the SME sector is critical to Canada’s growth. What I would say is that Quebec is leading the country in advocating changes to the way banks are held responsible for these fraud situations, so I think we should study the Quebec example and apply those very valid mechanisms at the federal level as well.