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
Loses points more than most for Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.1.5 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.5 Averaged over the 33 of 46 statements graded so far.

Statements 46

Government Orders ·

Main Estimates, 2026-27

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“The federal government regulates banks. Right now, banks ask me lots of questions just to put money into my child's savings account, but they barely question seniors wiring huge amounts of money out of the country. Banks must do much more to spot these problems and protect seniors from scams.”
Official Hansard

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is going to take a multi-jurisdictional approach. The member is quite right that the provinces have a role to play, but the federal government regulates banks and the banking sector. One of my children has a disability, and every January or February I make a contribution to her RDSP. When I do that, because I have made only one contribution a year, I have to answer about 20 minutes of questions to assess my level of investor knowledge, and yet I just read out examples of a senior walking into a bank who just opened an account and is wiring hundreds of thousands of dollars to Vietnam, and they get one question asked of them. I think that banks can and should be doing much more to flag these problems, and perhaps we can at least help some of these seniors who are being defrauded out of their life savings.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Canadians lose billions of dollars to fraud each year. The government should pass our changes to make banks watch for warning signs and protect vulnerable people.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right. The problem is staggering. If the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre said that Canadians lost $638 million to fraud in 2024, and only 5% to 10% is being reported, we are talking about $6 billion to $12 billion a year being lost to fraud in this country. I know we cannot stop it entirely, but what we can and should be doing is taking measures. The government should really look at the amendments the NDP put forward, because we can place more responsibility on banks, which are financial experts, to watch for the red flags and maybe ask questions so that when vulnerable people are going to banks and being defrauded, at least that is addressed in some meaningful manner.

“Fraud is a huge problem in Canada, and banks often blame the victims instead of helping them. The NDP tried to change the law to make banks pay victims back, share fraud data, and face surprise audits, but the Liberals and Conservatives voted against it. The government needs to do more to hold banks accountable and protect people from scams.”
  • Speech on a motion

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member from Milton East—Halton Hills South. I think we all know that fraud in Canada is a growing problem. Stories are now appearing in the media virtually every week. Data from the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre shows that Canadians lost $638 million to fraud in 2024. Reported losses to the CAFC since 2021 have now surpassed $2 billion. The rate of frauds being reported remains low, with an estimated only 5% to 10% being reported, so the problem is understated and in the billions of dollars. We know that fraudsters generally target the most vulnerable people among us, such as seniors, new Canadians and young people. Bank fraud in particular is a significant concern in Canada, yet investigations by financial institutions often end with banks’ blaming the very customers who trusted them with protecting their money. This raises the issue of the proper responsibility of banks to their depositors and the role of the federal government in regulating or not regulating them properly. I would like to share with the House some real examples that have been brought to my attention recently by constituents in Vancouver Kingsway. For case number one, I will read from the letter I received: “In early September, my dad, a 67 year old retiree called me in a panic. He had just realized he had been scammed out of his entire life savings and more. He was involved in what we believe was a ‘pig butchering’ scam. He was told he was investing in cryptocurrency—he had a wallet which showed incredibly high returns. When he went to withdrawal, he was hit with yet another fee of $90,000 USD to do so. His ‘partner’ who was to be paying the fees to share in the investment suddenly said she didn’t have anymore money. This is when he realized. “...Going through the details of the scam ended up showing that my dad didn’t purchase crypto in a typical way. He was directed to the bank to wire money to several different locations. Locally here in Vancouver, then to New York and then finally to Vietnam. “My dad opened a new account at BMO in April 2025 and thus the transactions begun. Every 10-14 days my dad went to the same branch on Mainland Street in Yaletown and sent anywhere from $100,000-$300,000 USD to accounts based in Vietnam under the guise of ‘purchasing auto parts.’ Every single time he wire transferred the money, the same branch manager signed off on it. No questions asked. By the end of August he had drained most of his RRSPs, remortgaged his home, took out personal loans, and borrowed from family and friends. l’m dumbfounded by the fact that the branch manager at this location never noticed the red flags: a brand new customer, a senior retiree, purchasing nearly $2 million dollars in auto parts from a personal bank account. “I filed a complaint against BMO.... They refuse to answer if my dad was ever reported to FINTRAC. They replied that he signed off on the wire transfers that stated if he was being coached into cryptocurrency he shouldn’t go through with it—none of the wire transfers use that type of language. Further, BMO states that they have a policy in place for prevention of fraud with seniors—obviously this policy wasn’t followed in this instance. There has been zero accountability for what happened from BMO. They have said they will not return or refund any of the money and that this was completely my dad’s own doing. “My dad died of a sudden fatal collapse on January 5th, 2026. Months of stress and uncertainty, embarrassment and emotional toll had taken place. He had nothing. Forced to sell his condo to pay off some of his debt but seemingly about to be homeless. “Fraud is abundant. We read about it all the time. I simply don’t understand how the bank could see such large sums of money to be transferred with no regard. And at this point, they simply do not care.... “But I do want something good to come out of his death—more people need to hear stories like this for real change to happen.... “The lack of responsibility by BMO has changed the course of my life. My dad will not get to watch [my or my sisters’] families grow up. He will never financially contribute towards us. We are now left with the bill of his death and bankrupting his estate. lt’s a devastating end.” Example number two is Mrs. L, a 79-year-old senior who was the victim of a devastating financial fraud that resulted in the loss of a significant portion of her retirement life savings. Fraudsters impersonated law enforcement and coerced her into selling her retirement investments in her registered retirement accounts and wiring the money abroad to them from local RBC and TD branches. She lost some $400,000 in her life savings. To add insult to injury, she now faces a significant tax liability from the CRA due to this, despite already having suffered a complete financial loss of much of her retirement savings. Because she withdrew RSP savings, which were then stolen, she now has to pay taxes on these monies, even though they have been lost to her. The NDP recently moved seven amendments to Bill C-15, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 1, aimed at strengthening protections for Canadians targeted by bank-related fraud. Unfortunately, Liberals and Conservatives combined to defeat them, and we see nothing addressing this in these estimates. Our amendments would have required banks to reimburse customers who fall victim to consumer-targeted fraud, unless they have been grossly negligent in relation to that fraud. Banks would have also been required to report anonymized consumer-targeted fraud data, so we could get a better understanding of the scope of this problem. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada would have been required to conduct regular unannounced audits of banks’ anti-fraud practices and policies, publish detailed fraud statistics and make its annual fraud report public, so that we could make sure that banks are actually following through on the policies they claim to have. The amendments also sought to make decisions of the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments binding. These measures were recommended by advocacy organizations, including Option consommateurs and Democracy Watch, which argued that without mandatory audits, transparency, and accountability mechanisms, existing anti-fraud rules would remain ineffective. The United Kingdom recently brought in new rules requiring that a consumer who is a victim of a fraud known as an APP scam, which is a scam wherein the scammer convinces the victim to make a payment, must be reimbursed, unless there is gross negligence on their part. In Quebec, the Consumer Protection Act was recently amended to impose reimbursement obligations on financial institutions in cases of fraud involving a consumer’s bank account. I want to quote Democracy Watch, which noted this: It is not enough to just require the banks to have policies and procedures in place. The Bank Act was changed in 2018 to add...two provisions requiring banks to have policies, procedures and training to ensure the financial interests of their customers are protected...but the FCAC was not required in those provisions to audit the banks to ensure they comply with those provisions and, as a result, the FCAC has done nothing to ensure they actually comply.... The new anti-bank account fraud measures will also have little effect unless the FCAC is required to conduct regular, unannounced audits and to prosecute and penalize violations... Option consommateurs noted this: We believe that an approach that holds banks more accountable will not only allow thousands of Canadians who are victims of fraud to be able to recover their money, but it will also decrease the occurrence of such fraud. By placing greater responsibility on banks, the legislative framework will incentivize these businesses to deploy the appropriate measures to prevent their losses. The example of the United Kingdom is a clear illustration of this. According to the Payment Systems Regulator, following the entry into force of the new consumer protection framework, the number of claims for...fraud decreased by approximately 15% between October 2024 and June 2025, compared to the same period [the year before]. With the advent of AI and growing technology, the prospects of fraud growing in this country are chilling. Imagine a senior answering the phone and hearing the computer-generated voice of their bank manager or their grandchild, who is asking them to wire money somewhere. This is the kind of technology that exists now, yet we are operating on outdated legislation. Although the government did put a financial crimes agency in the budget, which is a good step forward, it can and should do much more to help protect Canadians from fraud in this country. New Democrats will certainly work together to help make that happen.

Oral Questions ·

Artificial Intelligence

“Canada needs stronger rules for artificial intelligence. It harms jobs, privacy, and the environment, and it targets children. Why is the government rushing its plan without protecting Canadians?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the government’s AI strategy is leaving Canadians dangerously exposed. While this technology can produce benefits, it urgently needs effective regulation and strong guardrails. We know AI is driving mass surveillance, facilitating fraud and threatening jobs. It uses huge amounts of water and energy, and children are being targeted. These are real threats, yet the Liberals sprinted through a shallow consultation and are mouthing the lines of tech billionaires. Why is the government rushing a reckless AI strategy without ensuring real protections for Canadians—

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“I want to thank the member for North Vancouver—Capilano for his service and wish him well as Canada's next ambassador to the European Union. He did great work for the country and for British Columbia, especially on protecting salmon and fighting plastic pollution.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a genuine privilege to pay tribute to the hon. member for North Vancouver—Capilano on behalf of Canada’s New Democrats and to wish him well in his upcoming post as Canada’s ambassador to the European Union. I was told I had a minute and a half to say what needed to be said. I find myself with a little bit more time, so I am going to use that time because there is much that can be said about this member. He has always brought intelligence, collegiality and dedication to service to this place. As a cabinet minister with several critical portfolios, he has made significant contributions to our nation. His voracious reading, attention to detail and commitment to hard work are now the stuff of legend. He centred much of his efforts on preparing Canada for a sustainable future. We know that through his efforts, we have made profound progress on salmon conservation and plastic pollution. In fact, the largest investment in Canadian history in salmon preservation was done because of his efforts. The House, in its wisdom, has already anticipated my next line, which is that I applaud him for his vision and passion in this regard. As B.C. members of Parliament, I can say for us that we deeply appreciate the positive impact he has had, in particular, on our province and our coasts. I think the very best that can be said about any elected representative is that they made a difference. Well, the hon. member has certainly done that here in spades. We wish him all the best in his new duties, filling a critical role that will benefit greatly from his skills and talents. I know that he will make a difference in Brussels and do Canada proud. As he does so, I urge him to hearken back to his early days as a Saskatchewan Young New Democrat, an excellent pedigree, and in times of doubt or difficulty, never hesitate to ask, what would Tommy Douglas have done? I thank the member for his service, and we wish him all the best.

Private Members' Business ·

Canada Labour Code

“I support this bill. Workers have a constitutional right to strike, and it is their only real power in bargaining. The government has repeatedly violated that right by shutting down strikes with an email instead of letting workers negotiate.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, there is not a whole lot I can get in at this point with three minutes, but I will say that I am proud to rise as the labour critic for the NDP and to speak to the bill. Prior to being elected, I spent 16 years working as the director of legal resources for the Teamsters Local No. 31. In that time period, I did not just walk picket lines, as my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, said, but I negotiated collective agreements, I made applications to the labour board, I defended the right to strike, I prosecuted unfair labour practices and I did essential services designations. There was probably not a section of the Canada Labour Code that I did not deal with in those 16 years. This is not a theoretical exercise to me or to the millions of workers in this country. It affects their lives. Here is what I know from that experience: One, collective bargaining is the foundation of union rights in this country. Two, the right of a worker to withdraw their services is a charter-protected strike. I am surprised to see the Liberals so easily violate charter rights, because they themselves claim proudly that they are the party of the charter. As the party of the charter, eight times in the past two years, they have violated the charter rights as described by the Supreme Court of Canada. That is not an NDP position, but the highest court in the land that said that workers have the right to withdraw their services as a core expression of their right to free assembly and association. Eight times this government has ended that right by sending an email. Now, my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, is saying that NDP governments, in the past, have brought in back-to-work legislation. That is the democratic way to do it, after many days of labour action, and then back-to-work legislation is debated in the House. However, that is not what this government has done. The Liberals ended eight strikes by an email. When did they do it? It was 12 hours after the flight attendants at Air Canada went off the job, and 10 hours after the rail workers at CN and CP rail went off the job. They did not even wait a day for these workers to express their charter rights before they were violated. The only power labour has is the power to withdraw their services. That is it. If we interfere with that right, we interfere with the very foundation of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a success in Canada, and 99% of collective agreements are resolved without a strike or lockout. They are resolved at the bargaining table. I have heard repeatedly from the government, and all members of the House, that the best agreements are agreements reached at the bargaining table. Do members know why they are reached at the bargaining table? It is because unions and employers have a tool—

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Why is the government letting companies use people's personal data to charge them higher prices instead of banning it?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, why are the Liberals allowing companies to use surveillance pricing to harvest Canadians’ personal data in order to charge them higher prices, instead of banning this new form of price gouging in an affordability crisis?

“The government is cutting 60 billion dollars across federal programs, including two billion from Indigenous programs. I want to know how these cuts will affect Indigenous communities that already need better services and infrastructure.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the government is slashing $60 billion across federal departments and programs. With over $2 billion in cuts to indigenous programs alone, what impact will these reductions have on communities already facing significant infrastructure and service gaps?

“The government plans to spend five percent of our economy on the military by 2035. That will cost 159 billion dollars a year. How does the government plan to pay for this?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the government plans to spend 5% of Canada’s GDP on defence by 2035. That is a greater share of our economy than the U.S. currently spends on its military. The PBO estimates that meeting this target will require $159 billion a year in core defence spending. How does the government intend to pay for this dramatic increase?

“The Liberals promised to build 500,000 homes a year, but the budget officer says their main program will only build 26,000 homes by 2030. I want the minister to explain this gap.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, in the last election the Liberals pledged to double Canada’s rate of residential construction to 500,000 homes per year over the next decade, but according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government will produce only 26,000 homes by 2030 through its flagship Build Canada Homes. Can the Minister explain this massive gap between what was promised and what is being delivered with respect to affordable housing?

“Will the Liberals completely end the pharmacare program after the current deals expire in 2029?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, can the minister confirm if the Liberals are planning to eliminate pharmacare entirely when the current agreements expire in 2029?

“The Prime Minister promised to sign deals with all provinces to cover prescription drugs, but the government has not done it. I want the minister to explain why this promise was broken to people who cannot afford their medicine.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister made a campaign promise to protect pharmacare and sign agreements with all outstanding provinces and territories, yet the government has refused to sign any new agreements or allocate funding to cover all Canadians. Can the minister explain to the millions of people who cannot afford their medication why this promise has been broken?

“Does the minister think that letting airports make a profit will lower airport fees?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, does the minister expect that introducing a profit element will lead to lower airport fees in Canada?

“Does the minister think selling Canada's airports to private companies will make service better?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, does the minister expect that service quality will be improved by privatizing Canada’s airports?

“The Liberals want to sell off our ports and airports. When Britain did this, costs went up, service got worse, and foreign governments bought major shares. Has the government checked the national security risks of foreign powers owning our key infrastructure?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, Liberals are planning to sell off Canada’s ports and airports. When the U.K. privatized Heathrow, costs skyrocketed and service declined. Today, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and China control major stakes in that airport. Has the government conducted a full national security review of the risks posed by foreign and state-linked entities acquiring ownership of Canada’s strategic infrastructure?

“Oil companies will make about $90 billion in profit this year because of the attack on Iran. I want to know why the government will not tax those extra profits.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, oil companies are set to make some $90 billion in profits this year as a result of the attack on Iran. Why will the government not tax those excess profits?

“The government said pausing the gas tax would save people 10 cents a litre, but gas prices have gone up instead. Does the minister think oil companies are keeping the tax cut for themselves?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the government claimed that suspending the gas tax would save Canadians 10¢ a litre. When the suspension came into effect, the national average gas price was $1.69 a litre. Today, it is $1.83 a litre, and $2 a litre in Vancouver. Does the minister believe that oil companies are pocketing at least some portion of the tax cut?

“Federal public servants are being forced back into the office full-time, even when there is no room for them. This will hurt their quality of life, lower productivity, and cost the government more. Why are the Liberals doing this?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, federal civil servants working partly from home are being forced to return full-time to an office, even where there is no place to put them. There is no compelling reason to work from an office. It will negatively affect their quality of life and productivity, and it will cost the government more money. Why are Liberals pursuing a policy that is so irrational?

“I am sharing my speaking time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Government workers who work from home part-time are being affected.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Federal civil servants working partly from home are being—

In response to a question from Ted Falk

“We should put an extra tax on big oil and gas profits. These companies made sixty billion dollars unexpectedly because of world events, not their own work. We must use this to give regular people financial relief.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that there will be corporate taxes generated on the additional corporate profits that are made. However, when we are talking about a windfall like this, an extra $60 billion of unanticipated revenue, a case can be made that an excess profits tax is appropriate, especially when that profit was not made because of extra investment by the oil and gas industry but because of geopolitical instability that has caused a spike in world prices. What we do agree on is that we need to give consumers relief in this country.